Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1098

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

As outlined in the rollback usage policy, WP:ROLLBACKUSE, rollback with the default edit summary can only be used in a small number of predefined scenarios, the one applying most frequently being

To revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear. Despite inappropriate usage of rollback being long established in policy WayKurat has for years been using their rollback rights to inappropriately revert good faith and constructive edits with no rationale or explanation. Their misuse of rollback has been repeatedly brought to their attention on their talk page (e.g. [1], the first message of this which they never addressed [2]), but they have simply ignored concerns raised and continued on with the same behaviour as before. A few examples:

• [3] Fixing a red link to point at an article the editor just wrote is a productive edit, this should not have been reverted at all, use of rollback was inappropriate.
• [4] [5] Adding links to a potentially notable TV shows is a useful edit, these should not have been reverted at all.
• [6] This was a good faith attempt to expand the article, use of rollback was inappropriate.
• [7] Changing "Newscast" to "News broadcasting" in the infobox is not vandalism or an edit where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear, use of rollback here was inappropriate.
• [8] Adding a list of "Fill-In Anchors" is not vandalism or an edit where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear, use of rollback here was inappropriate.
• [9] Piping a link so it matches the name of the TV station is not vandalism, use of rollback was inappropriate.
• [10] Adding a wikilink to an article is not vandalism, rollback was inappropriate.
• [11] Moving Armenia and Azerbaijan from "Asia" to "Europe" is not an edit where reverting with default rollback would be appropriate.
• [12] This edit by an IP was a good faith, though unsourced, attempt to update an article. Use of default rollback for reversion was innappropriate.
• [13] Splitting a paragraph to form a standalone section is not an edit where reversion by default rollback would be appropriate.
• [14] Adding genres to an infobox is not vandalism, use of rollback was innapropriate.

The diffs above only go back to the 27th April (i.e. the last 3 days) but show the problem. This kind of misuse of rollback appears to have been going on for years. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Did you mind checking the edit history of those editors I rolledback? Most of the given examples here are added by either longterm vandals or their socks. Also, most of them are IPs that are doing these edits are not reading the warnings I post in their talk pages and they pop out the next day using a different IP. -WayKurat (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

First, to follow on to WayKurat, in which case, per WP:BANREVERT it is acceptable to even revert constructive edits, in order to discourage the editors from staying around. The rationale is a bit more complex than that, but that's the basics. It is generally recommended to reference WP:BANREVERT or make some other comment in the edit summary to make it clear why you are reverting, but it isn't mandatory to do so, however, editors must be prepared to explain such use of the tool. (Paraphrased from WP:ROLLBACK.)

Second, mistakes happen. People aren't actually perfect. If a rollbacker makes a mistake, the expectation is that they fix it (unless it has already been fixed), acknowledge the error and so long as they do that, no issue.

Third, this seems the wrong venue for this, WP:AARV is probably more appropriate. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

WayKurat is a very experienced editor, but they are not an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thanks, I was aware of that, however, isn't AARV also for review of actions using administrative tools, such as rollback? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

You're right - I never paid much attention to AARV as I thought it was a joke from the get-go. The IP is right. It's dead.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't do anything these days, it's been completely dead for over a month. There was an push to turn WP:AARV into a place which would review usage of any advanced rights (including rollback) not just administrative actions, despite the massive number of RFC's held about it I don't think anyone managed to agree whether it was in scope or not before the place died. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I am aware of WP:BANREVERT, however none of the IP's or users they have been reverting have ever been blocked for block/ban evasion. e.g. Elly Mar Banay Cuenca is not blocked as a sock puppet and is not suspected of sock puppetry at WP:SPI, why was it appropriate to use rollback on their link additions?

Mistakes do happen, but the shear number of problematic reverts here is enormous.

WP:AARV is both completely dead and a complete waste of time so going there is pointless. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

IMO, unless WayKurat comes up with a way better explanation of their apparent rollback abuse they probably should lose it. Given the number and length of time they've been misusing it, combined with their initial response, I'm not convinced this is a situation where we should give them another chance even if they demonstrate a clear understanding that they've been wrong and need to change what they're doing. IMO might be better to remove the permission and let them convince an admin they will do better sometime in the future. Nil Einne (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the rollback rights was given to me by an admin after seeing me reverting a lot of vandal edits done by User:Bertrand101 since this vandal is an IP hopper. The rollback rights have been a helpful tool in restoring pages vandalized by these kind of users. Examples are Bertrand101, User:Joshua Saldaña, User:Philippinesfan, User:Shame on PJ Santos, all of them have a history of creating new accounts when blocked or using different IP addresses when editing. Right after 192.76.8.70 posted this ANI, a vandal by the name of User:Joshua Saldaña started an editing spree and restored every single edit he made while using a previous IP address. The old IP 180.194.49.27 was blocked for three months, while the new one 49.146.27.228 is currently blocked for 48 hours. If my rollback rights will be removed, chances are if the same list of vandals will go on an editing spree once again, it will be difficult to restore the pre-vandalized versions. -WayKurat (talk) 06:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• My 2 Eurocent: WayKurat is sysop on the Tagalog WP and knows more about cross-Wiki (Tagalog WP -> English WP) vandals from the Phillippines than any sysop on en-WP, and has been regularly removing such vandalism here for several years now, so he should definitely not have his rollback rights removed. And based on my multi-year experience of WayKurat and Phillippine vandals I'd say there's a 99.999% probability that the OP is one of the vandals/sockmasters that WayKurat has been regularly cleaning up after here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Thomas.W Are you going to provide any kind of evidence for your utterly ridiculous claim that there is a99.999% probability that the OP is one of the vandals/sockmasters that WayKurat has been regularly cleaning up after here or shall we treat your comment for what it is, a personal attack based on completely evidence free aspersions?

  Use of rollback for reverting vandalism and LTA's is fine, that is what rollback is for as laid out in policy. What is not OK is WayKurat's misuse of the tool to also revert edits by IP's and newbies that are not vandalism and are often correct and constructive. I Provided plenty of examples of this in the OP, but if you want more here you go.

  • SuperZ003 is not blocked, has not been vandalising and does not appear to be a sock puppet. They made some typical newbie edits adding unsourced information to articles. What is the justification, then, for WayKurat to mass revert all their edits using rollback? [15]
  • Ryle Eddily Tugade is another typical newbie making changes to articles that occasionally break things. They do not appear to have been vandalising and do not appear to be a sock. what justification is there for doing a mass rollback of all their edits? [16]
  • Moving a news special from a section called "specials" to a subsection of "news" is not vandalism - this should not have been rolled-back [17]

  etc. etc. etc. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  • The edits of both SuperZ003 and Ryle Eddily Tugade are typical for the type of cross-Wiki vandals WayKurat regularly reverts: making totally unsourced edits to articles about actors, TV-series etc from the Phillippines, changing "antagonist" to "protagonist", changing years, replacing the name of a TV-channel with the name of another channel, etc etc. Doing such edits once or twice could be honest mistakes, making lots and lots of such edits is not good faith editing. So stay away from areas you obviously know nothing about, such as vandalism. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 06:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

    @Thomas.W: IP192 (whom I think of as "the Oxford IP", as their IP is assigned to the University of Oxford) is a quite experienced editor and has been active in projectspace things for years. They've started a number of very helpful threads on this board in the past. If you don't have evidence for your claim that they are a sockpuppet, please retract it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

    why these long term IP editors don't create accounts is entirely beyond me casualdejekyll 19:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

    @Thomas.W Are you going to provide any evidence for your aspersion that I am a sockpuppet? This is the second comment you've left here full of Ad hominem attacks, first I was a sock, now I know nothing about vandalism?

    Did you actually look at the history of what had happened with those two editors? SuperZ003 added a statement to Magandang Gabi... Bayan that the tv show would be returning on various channels in 2022 [18]. Something that can be verified as mostly correct per reliable sources (the host has started a new show with a similar format on the TV channels listed in the edit, though with a different name) [19]. WayKurat decided that this was a blatant hoax [20] then proceeded to do a mass rollback of all their edits. This edit is not "changing" years" but adding an end date to the airing dates [21]. This edit was adding the second half of a name to a TV show [22]; a look at the official Twitter account of the show [23] shows that yes, they do use a second clause and that the full name of the show is "The Healing Eucharist TV Mass". This edit adding an international broadcast section [24] is correct and the dates can be verified in a variety of sources, e.g. the network's own website [25]. This edit is just copying information that is already in the infobox into the article text [26]. etc. etc. etc. None of these edits were vandalism. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• Special:Contributions/87.196.72.0/23 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone in Portugal persistently makes up their own criteria for race percentages in populations. Using the IP range Special:Contributions/87.196.72.0/23, they change numbers without references, or they change the way mixed races are counted. Despite many warnings, this person has never communicated by talk page or even edit summary. Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I saw someone (and I think they were using an IP address in Portugal, fwiw) reported here a few months ago for doing the same. Could this be the same editor? Maybe someone with a better memory can tell me what I'm talking about. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days, but I wonder if the communication issues are partly WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

When the official statistics are published by ine.pt... [insert joke here]. Cabayi (talk) 08:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• Amigao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:Amigao has been warned and blocked before for problematic mass edits without consensus, and a similar problem is happening again. The user is mass-changing "Communist Party of China" to "Chinese Communist Party", even though both forms of the name are common in reliable sources and it is perfectly fine for different forms to be used in different Wikipedia articles.

I've asked Amigao to get consensus before continuing the mass edits[47][48], but to no avail; they have stopped responding on their user talk page but are still[49][50] making the edits. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger:, the WP:COMMONNAME is Chinese Communist Party, per Talk: Chinese Communist Party/Archive_4#Requested move 16 July 2020 and Talk:Chinese Communist Party/Archive_5#"Chinese Communist Party" nonsense. That the user appears to be inserting the common name in a bunch of places where the official name was previously used. There are certain contexts in which alt names are better suited to describe an entity than the common name, but those seem to be the exception rather than the norm. Is there a particular topic area where you think that this is the case for this entity? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd say Wikipedia should reflect reliable sources, in which both forms of the name are commonly used. If you or Amigao disagree and think all Wikipedia articles should use the same form of the name, we can discuss that content issue (maybe at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China?). I brought this to ANI because of the behavioral issue: Amigao is persisting with the mass edits without getting consensus. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 11:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think I have said thatall Wikipedia articles should use the same form of the name. If there is a particular topic area where the official name dominates over the common name, I would say that this would not be the case. What I am asking is whether or not such a topic area exists. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 11:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, the proper venue for naming convention on China-related stuff is probably the talk page of MOS:CHINESE. The page already has guidelines on how to refer to China/PRC/Mainland China, so it seems like a natural place to have guidance on how to refer to its ruling party. I can open up a discussion there if you think discussion might be fruitful. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Good point – I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles to address the content issue. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Amigao hasn't joined the discussion, but it looks like they've stopped the mass edits. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Reem898 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Rabia Balkhi - Changed 'Persian' to 'Arab', no edit summary nor added source [51] [52] - Removed sourced 'Persian' [53]

Vaballathus - Added 'Arab', no edit summary nor added source [54]

Ibn Duraid - Added 'Arab', no edit summary nor added source [55]

Abdelaziz al-Malzuzi - Added 'Arab', no edit summary nor added source [56]

Refuses to engage in the talk page [57]. This seems like WP:TENDENTIOUS to me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

resolved secondary issue --Jayron32 15:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Possibly, but your May warning that told them they were vandalizing is incorrect. HistoryofIran, please change your tactics and never, ever, ever again calls something vandalism which is not. A difference of opinion is not vandalism. The user in question may be editing disruptively in many ways, but they are clearly not vandalizing here. When you use the term inappropriately, it distracts from the actual issues at play, and also dilutes the meaning of what vandalism really is. Please read WP:NOTVAND. --Jayron32 14:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC) You could've just left user:HistoryofIran a note on his talk page. What you are doing right here is literally a copy of what you are accusing user:HistoryofIran of: "distracting from the actual issues at play". - LouisAragon (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC) No, OP user issues are open for discussion. We don't unnecessarily split discussions between venues. WP:BOOMERANG applies here, and filing parties need to be aware that their own behavior in a dispute is subject to scrutiny as well. We don't bury such discussions elsewhere, and its part of what we need to assess. --Jayron32 14:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC) I apologize. It was an innocent mistake - I accidentally used the wrong template and didn't pay attention to it. I am very well aware of what a vandal is. Is there anything else that needs to adressed regarding that? If not, I would appreciate it if you would take a look at the report. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC) All good. Mistakes happen. Carry on. --Jayron32 15:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Another example. Here[58] user:Reem898 added "Arab" to the lede of the Ibn Quzman article without edit summary nor explanation, even though the body clearly explains (with sources) that their origin is uncertain. So far, every single one of user:Reem898's edits, since registering on Wiki, have been of a deliberate WP:TENDENTIOUS nature. Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that they are WP:NOTHERE to build this encyclopedia.- LouisAragon (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• I agree these edits are problematic, but have we tried less strident methods of dealing with the situation than indeffing the user? At this point, no one has actually explained what is wrong, and no one has tried to discuss the matter with them. This looks like terribly misguided, but still good faith editing, and I'd like to at least try having a civil discussion with them before reaching for the banhammer. --Jayron32 15:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we should indeff him either, but he keeps doing the same type of edits and is still not using the talk page. I have already told him what is wrong several times, and also asked him to use the talk page. The only time he has ever posted in a talk page was a WP:OR reply in Arabic to a well written comment supported by sources [59]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I can’t find where you reached out or communicated directly to them, and if you haven’t, that’s the next move. If you have, please provide the diffs so we can not waste any more time and block them indefinitely. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I have asked him to use the talk page thrice [60] [61] [62] --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, "Reem" is a feminine Arabic name, so chances are this user is not male. Better to use non-gendered pronouns unless you know, for sure, in the future. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• I don't believe any blocks or sanctions are appropriate at this time. I think these edits are in good faith, and just a bit misguided. Not on the level of vandalism for sure. I say and admin should give them a firm warning and some direction. If they refuse to cooperate and the behavior continues maybe a topic ban could be a good idea. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. I think a better solution is to impose an extremely narrow restriction on making this very particular kind of edit in the future (ascribing ethnicity to historical personages), rather than a slap on the wrist that most are unlikely to even remember. It isn't overly restrictive, and would allow them to expand their editing repertoire without it being focused on this likely good-faith POV-push. This isn't a topic ban (it's essentially a warning), and it's not punitive, but preventative. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

After finally sitting down and discussing with this user, I can confidently say that it's pointless [63]. They seem to have WP:TENDENTIOUS and perhaps WP:COMPETENCE issues as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, the very title of the talk thread Reem898 opened (Talk:Rabia Balkhi#Rabia is an Arab) points to a tendentious attitude. However, part of the concerns they raise over the article seem valid: Rābiʿa bint Kaʿb al-Quzdārī is an Arabic name, yet it says Persian: رابعه بنت کعب; her epithet Zayn al-ʿArab means "Ornament of the Arabs", but for some reason this is not explained in the article; the source quoted at the talk highlights thatshe is reported to have descended from an Arab family, yet the lead only says thatit is reported that she was a native of Balkh in Khorāsān (present-day Afghanistan).

In fact, Rabi'a's epithet Zayn al-ʿArab seems to indicate that already in her own time her Arab ancestry was somehow considered important (perhaps not wholly unlike some African Americans today tend to highlight their African ancestry, or self-identify as "African"), which if true –of course the sources should be consulted here– would mean that her Arab ancestry at least to a certain extent would provide context for the activities that made the person notable (MOS:ETHNICITY).

In view of all that, HistoryofIran's confirmationThe source calls her Persian, thus that is the correct information, and thus that is what write. You not liking it (WP:JDLI) is not gonna change that. [64] seems somewhat lopsided. Surely we're not going to simply replace the word "Persian" with "Arab" (as it may be important to note Reem898 in fact repeatedly tried to do [65] [66] [67] [68]), but that doesn't negate the fact that there is a more subtle imbalance in the article which needs to be addressed. Perhaps working with that in the talk thread would have alleviated some concern on Reem898's part.

That said, it's clear that Reem898 has engaged in tendentious edit warring over this issue, which is just not acceptable. Their addition of the word "Arab" to various articles without proper sourcing [69] [70] [71] is also highly problematic. I support a warning for Reem898 to stay away from edits involving ethnicity, broadly construed. They should be advised that further tendentious behavior in this area will lead to a block. Please focus on something else. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure there is more that needs to be adressed in the article, it's a mess. But that was not what the subject of the discussion was about. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Good evening.

I'm here to report an article disruption issue. I'll be brief since the details have already been laid out on the history page, and it's a straighforward situation that administrators will have seen a zillion times already: A) An article about a battle B) A user very obviously deletes or adds information that helps him portray his side in the best possible light and the other side in the worst possible light; C) Arbitrarily claims that all sources and authors that dispute him are invalid D) Avoids addressing criticism; E) Insists that other users validate his edits made in poor-faith through discussion.

I'm hopeful to see a speedy resolution to this problem. Wareno (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

There is only one source in question that was deleted and it was tagged for months requiring a better source as support. It is a Portuguese text published by the Academia de Marinha, the cultural agency of the Portuguese navy. The article is about a naval battle between a Portuguese and Chinese force. The partisanship issue should be obvious but I also could not find an English text that verified the claim of the cited material. My own additions were taken from sources already existing in the article with direct quotations that were deleted by Wareno with the reasoning that they were "Very pro-Chinese." Qiushufang (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

And I will point out that the author of the source, Prof. Vítor Gaspar Rodrigues is one of the most reputed researchers on the field of the Portuguese navy. A source being "tagget for months requiring a better source as support" and you not finding a text does not necessarily mean you should or can remove it. You say the Academia de Marinha, one of Portugals most esteemed institutions is "the cultural agency of the Portuguese Navy" and arbitrarily claim that it is biased, based on no arguments to be seen. All the edits of user:Qiushufang are very pro-Chinese partisan for the reasons already stated before, and all seem to ultimately contribute towards painting an unbalanced picture that heavily favours the Chinese side, which seems to suggest to me a case of WP:NOTHERE, which is a bannable offense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wareno (talk • contribs) in <diff:1086891593> on 00:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

That does not seem to be the case below. You deleted mentions of kidnapping and only kept the part related to purchase of slaves in the first place : [72]. I added both views of kidnapping and purchase which have again, been reverted by you: [73], [74]. You reverted me with no explanation to begin with: [75], and refused to engage in the talk page created for further discussion: [76]. You violated the 3RR: [77] and then accused me of trying to get out of being reported by you when you refused to engage in talk discussion and proceeded to immediately report me. You accused me of falsely deleting content which I had not and in fact offered more balances views of from both Portuguese and Chinese sides. Qiushufang (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

To expand on the matter, the intentions of the user:Qiushufang became clear after his first set of edits to be reverted: He sought to remove references of the Chinese willingly selling their countrymen; he refers to the Portuguese as "pirates"; he removed references to the Portuguese offering terms via diplomacy; he removed sourced information that explained that the Portuguese were poorly armed and why. The edits of the user were very clearly made in bad faith, yet he now wants users to engage with him, and tries to get out of repercussions by whatever means of damage control possible. Wareno (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

In my "first set of edits" where apparently I "sought to remove references of the Chinese willingly selling their countrymen," I added that both kidnapping and purchase of slaves occurred [78], prior to your unexplained reversion right aftewards: [79]. "Pirates" was what they were called prior to your changes two years ago: [80], when you deleted any mention of the kidnapping made by the source. There were no changes to the sources either or an edit summary so I can only assume that either the sources were wrong or they were arbitrary. Clearly the source provided contained both mentions of kidnapping and purchase, which was why I added it in direct quotations: [81], which you reverted. What is your reason for that? Pro-China bias? There is no material in the article outside the lead about any pre-battle diplomacy by Mello, so why would it be in the lead? Qiushufang (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Wareno's accusation of referring to the Portuguese as pirates also doesn't hold water given his extensive history and experience editing the article. Ex. both of the versions in which he made extensive changes to the article in 2016 [82], [83] already contained a citation to piratical activities practiced by the Portuguese expedition: [84]. The same source and note on piracy by Simao (the party in question) has existed since 2011 [85] and still exists in the current version [86], yet he takes issue with the usage of the term "pirates." His logic is that they should not be referred to as pirates. The article just says they practice piracy. The lead had said the Portuguese party in question were pirates, given that they practiced piracy, since at least July 2017 when Wareno edited the article [87]. And he was ok with this all the way until April 2020 when he suddenly changed the wording [88] with no additional sources to say otherwise or contradict the currently existing source or content, which explicitly states the Portuguese engaged in piracy. Doesn't this seem ridiculous? Qiushufang (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Relevant passage: They also ordered the mandarins in Canton to expel the Portuguese in Tunmen. The second reason is that the Portuguese piracy in the coastal areas greatly infuriated both the Ming Court and the common people, which largely explains the initial Portuguese failure to set foot in China.

Version history:

2011: [89] - source, [90] - another one mentioning piracy by the Portuguese

2017: [91] - Wareno edit by which time the Portuguese were described as pirates in the lead

2020: [92] - Wareno changes the lead omitting mention of pirates and kidnappings

2022: [93] - my reversion of that Qiushufang (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Wareno accused me of "removing all references of Chinese selling other Chinese to the Portuguese" here: [94]. This is blatantly false since part of the deleted material outlined in red that he reverted blatantly states in the lead that "Portuguese pirates had been conducting slave raids on the Chinese coast, kidnapping and buying children to sell in Portuguese Malacca." You can even see it in the first link he showed. He was also the one who originally removed content saying the opposite in April 2020 with no additional change to sources: [95]. Qiushufang (talk)

I also later added from the source which Wareno took issue with that the Portuguese historian considered the slaves "purchased" while the Chinese considered it an act of seizing: [96]. Wareno has once again deleted this [97] with the same reasons despite being warned of the 3RR [98], making this his fourth revert. Qiushufang (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Karma1998 is a problematic user who has been banned several times and then permanently[99] in september 2021 on the Italian Wikipedia, which was caught to use 2 sockpuppets[100] (this is the English SPI[101]): user:Climacus2506 and user:Rampart5555. These are his last messages from him, while he was confronted with the Italian community that asked him for explanations of his behavior (I didn't participate once in these discussions, I didn't know him):[102] "I officially withdrew from the Italian Wikipedia. Do whatever you want with my profile, I don't care in the least. I wish you could become a decent encyclopedia someday, even if I doubt it! :-D Farewell! [...] I'm afraid you have not understood that I am indifferent to your decisions. Since I have already retired and have better things to do, I don't think I will even reply to your messages anymore. Do what you want, goodbye! :-D". (Italian: "mi sono ufficialmente ritirato dalla Wikipedia italiana. Fate pure quello che volete col mio profilo, non mi interessa minimamente. Vi auguro di riuscire a diventare un'enciclopedia decente, un giorno, anche se ne dubito! :-D Addio! [...] Temo che tu non abbia capito che sono indifferente alle vostre decisioni. Siccome mi sono già ritirato e ho di meglio da fare, credo che non risponderò nemmeno più ai vostri messaggi. Fate ciò che volete, addio! :-D")
Instead, these are the first comments I exchange with this user here on the English wikipedia:[103]: "wait a sec, I know you. You're that Russia-supporting guy on the Italian Wikipedia that was obsessed with changing the page about the Odessa Trade Unions House Fire. I see that now you're active here as well hahahah."
--Mhorg (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of personal attacks on enwiki. Keep in mind absolutely everything is a personal attack these days but on here we differentiate on things, even if other sites do not. Oz\^InterAct 09:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Inter: this is of one of the first comments a get from this user, ever.[104] If this is the beginning, I don't know what they will do in a few days. Mhorg (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I fail to see how that is a personal attack. Anyhow, per their assurance below, would you say to give this a chance? Oz\^InterAct 09:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Inter: I don't find it welcoming to call a colleague just met as "Russia-supporting guy" "obsessed" with laughter around. I took a look on the Italian Wikipedia about his behavior, and it seemed right to report what I found here as well. Honestly, I would prefer to avoid collaborating with people who are on the encyclopedia with this behavior, I will try to keep contact to a minimum. Thank you for your answer. Mhorg (talk) 10:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mhorg That is fine and completely up to you. @Karma1998 If you can live with this, we may not need to take any further action. Please let me know. Oz\^InterAct 10:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Good morning. I deny being a problematic user: in fact I have been working on Wikipedia for 5 years and I have been praised by several users for my cooperation in improving Wikipedia; I have received two barnstars for my efforts. My sockpuppetry problem was quickly resolved when, talking with the administrators, I told them the name of my other accounts. As for the Italian Wikipedia, I only wrote those words you mentioned after months of personal attacks by other users and even administrators of that wiki, who even went so far to attack me for my religion. Luckily, the English Wikipedia has proved to be much better. As for the comment to you, I probably went too far. Unfortunately, I have a friend in Ukraine under Russian bombs and I am very susceptible on the argument; I will control myself.-Karma1998 (talk) 06:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

There has been an ongoing edit war in Greeks for the Fatherland [1] by the indefinitely blocked user Αθλητικά who has returned under multiple sockpuppets: Opinion Poll, Derzki, Παραγάδι to name a few. Furthermore, there are lots of IP addresses that appear to be linked to the blocked user (check the edit history for more) - same interests and editing patterns have been observed. Can someone please lock the article? It has been weeks since this edit war started. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Page has been protected by Wugapodes yesterday. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Multiple Accounts have been constantly changing it from a recent version. It might be a case of vandalism and stockpuppeting as some of the accounts are new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiGrande (talk • contribs) 16:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Someone should open a WP:SPI. casualdejekyll 18:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Fully Protected by Black Kite. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

There has been a persistent effort primarily by True story off, but also Police Patroul and a few IP addresses (all of which I suspect are the same editor) to replace very well cited population figures with ludicrously inaccurate numbers of their own with no source. They have reintroduced these changes at least 20 times in the past week. Both of the user accounts have received numerous warnings about sources and edit warring, and I've attempted to give them an opening on the article talk page, but nothing has gotten through. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, oops, looks like True story off was given a very short block yesterday, which further explains the IP edits today. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This is the most recent edit connected to this sockpuppeteer. The edit includes shouting directed at Fyrael and misrepresentation of a source. They also changed a decade in the reference. In this edit they also attribute the figure to non-RS, including the Russian Wikipedia — there is no equivalent ruwiki article for Uyghur Americans, and the article ru:Уйгуры quotes a statistic of at least 1,800. Obvious serial hoaxster is obvious. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked the sock accounts. Oz\^InterAct 09:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: it's possible they were referring to this article on the Azerbaijani wiki, which shows the same numbers (including that "1960s" bit they keep changing to), and was created right in the middle of when they were changing things here. Not sure what to do about that other article. Propose for deletion? I don't know if anyone feels brave enough to PROD an article in another language. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I've now attempted to let a couple editors there know it should be deleted, but for all I know I've pinged a couple of bots. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

188.164.221.8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been blocked twice before, in October and November 2021. They never stopped their disruptive editing since then. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello Robby.is.on, When you start a discussion about someone you have to leave a talkpage notice so I've done that for you, in the future please try to comply with this requirement on your own, thanks. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. This is not my first time, I just forgot. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

It happens, not a major issue, and easily remedied. Since 188 has not made a single edit outside of article space, attempts at communication may well be fruitless anyway. It's likely that they are either insufficiently conversant in English to engage, or some kind of THEYCANTHEARYOU applies. Still never hurts to try. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Jeep singh16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At Battle of Amritsar (1757), this new user has attempted to alter the result of the battle 4 times, even though it is sourced in the body of the article [111] [112] [113] [114]

He also attempted to do the same at Battle of Jamrud [115] [116] [117]

Clearly WP:NOTHERE.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @HistoryofIran: As the red text near the top of the page states, you must notify the user in question on their talk page. I have done so for you this time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

There have been one editor Arulanantham and some IPs trying to add unsourced content to Suresh Joachim, all of it really promotional like this and this. You then have 45.72.129.73 try to put it back, 199.7.157.67 try to add it back and then 142.116.50.224 who is the original IP that appears to have added all the unsourced information. 142.116.50.224 ended up continuing to edit war with TheFeds before the page then got auto-confirmed protected. That is when I came across the article and had to keep reverting 142.116.50.224 and once 199.119.233.158 who popped up. I assume these are all the same person, linked to maybe Arulanantham and all either Suresh Joachim himself or someone close to him. I'm not sure what else I can do here, I asked for the page protection to be upgraded but I don't see them quitting as Arulanantham then went and just posted it all to the talk page here. So they don't seem to be learning at all, that the information doesn't have to be on the page as much as they want it and don't seem to be finding sources for it even if it was to be added, some advice or help please.— NZFC^(talk)(cont) 06:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I was wondering if the users would engage on a talk page, add some sourcing (given ample warning and some time to think about it), or if they would persist in reverting without discussion. In the interim, other users (whom I thank for their assistance) also attempted to deal with the issue. I see WP:BLPRS, WP:COI and WP:SOCK issues, among others.

Also, there are a couple more potentially involved users, all of whom behaviourally resemble each other: Arulanantham (talk · contribs), 45.72.129.73 (talk · contribs), 199.7.157.67 (talk · contribs), 142.116.50.224 (talk · contribs) & 199.119.233.158 (talk · contribs) mentioned above; but also 76.68.126.135 (talk · contribs), 67.71.39.89 (talk · contribs), 64.229.113.9 (talk · contribs), 64.231.41.78 (talk · contribs), Suresh Arulanantham (talk · contribs), 69.196.151.57 (talk · contribs), 167.88.23.9 (talk · contribs) and 199.7.157.79 (talk · contribs), each of whom I noted at the article talk page. I have procedurally notified all of them of this discussion on their talk pages. TheFeds 03:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

User Geeky1127 (Geeky1127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has been adding sections to various politicians and election pages in an attempt to denigrate candidates they do not support. The sections added are poorly written, poorly sourced, and not written from a neutral point of view.

Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4

Some of these edits have since been corrected by other users. I removed a section they posted to Donald G. Davis but the Geeky1127 has added it back. I do not want to engage in an edit war, but the posts by this user deteriorate the quality of the articles.

Attempted to fix issue by posting to article talk page (Talk:Donald G. Davis, user responded but added the section back.

Assistance would be appreciated. I do not have the knowledge or availability to correct every edit this user makes.

Thank you, Wiki9814 (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks like they've been blocked once before by Drmies for this exact same behavior. This seems like a clear-cut case of WP:NOTHERE from an SPA. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 22:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to pull the trigger on a total block, but I threw in Donald G. Davis. User:Geeky1127, do you realize how close you are to an indefinite block? And will you show your dedication to the project by, for starters, rigorously proofreading every single edit you make, including your response here? Because if you don't, and you don't respond, that NOTHERE block gets closer and closer. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I just mostlu use the language in the suorce itself and if it is denigrate the politican should not do those bad things in the first instead of deleting information from credible media. As to grammar problem it is okay to discuss it but the full content should not be deleted simply because of grammar. Geeky1127 (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I think there are 2 roblems:1 as to denigrating I do not think my edits are anything other than stating facts. In fact of the 3 examples that he listed other than Don K Davids page 2 satisfies the rule of wikipedia thus are kept till today. And in This case my source is from medias with high credibility and the official website of NC legislature. As to neutrality I do not think quoting the source itself without adding any opinion from myself can make it not neutral.

2 as to quality I think we can work together to improve it including writing quality or linking quality, But all those should be based on keeping the content unless it is from non credible source. Geeky1127 (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

It really isn't the job of of editors to clean up your bad grammar. A stray typo, sure. Subject-verb agreement, tense issues, maybe, if they aren't too bad. But dude, "Davis claim to pro choice but his vote record shows he is pro life..." would make every English teacher you've ever had weep in despair. Zaathras (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @ThadeusOfNazereth and @Drmies regarding WP:NOTHERE and being an SPA. It seems as though your intent is to promote certain candidates and to hurt other candidates. Wikipedia is not meant to be a campaign tool. There is a line between citing negative aspects of candidates and campaigning against them, but I believe that line has been crossed repeatedly. In addition, some of the content was large sections lifted directly from news articles without in-text attribution (see Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Copyrighted sources only). The content that was not plagiarized from sources is not of high quality due to major grammatical and spelling issues. While I can understand English not being someone's first language, contributions to Wikipedia should be proofread and corrected before publishing. If you are not capable of following these guidelines, perhaps you should reconsider contributing to Wikipedia. Wiki9814 (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Geeky1127, please see WP:CIR--a guideline that is frequently cited in the block log of indeffed editors. I asked you to proofread: you did not do that, and if you did, you did not do it in a way that renders your prose understandable or palatable. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

You seems do not even follow the instruction on WP:CIR and also I do not think listing credible media report is biased, if the candidate feels hurt or promoted they should do things that will give them positive media report instead of negative report. Geeky1127 (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Geeky1127 as not here to build an encyclopedia, since they are here only to push their own POV that certain politicians are bad, and otherwise lack competence. The comment that politicians need to do things that earn them coverage that Geeky1127 deems positive is deeply troubling. And then there is their utter lack of ability to write clear and comprehensible English language prose. Drmies asked the editor to proofread before replying, and either they did not do so or are not competent to to so. What we get from this editor is borderline gobbledygook that bears only a passing resemblance to actual English language prose. Cullen328 (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I will continue to monitor the pages in question to check for block evasion. Wiki9814 (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki9814, that is a good idea. Please do not hesitate to inform me if you observe disruptive behavior on any of those articles. Cullen328 (talk) 03:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I have experienced a pattern of consistent violently disrespectful and pointedly anti-information conduct from /u/Peaceray during my interactions with her on the Harry Styles Wikipedia page. I would ask for some assistance as she prevents constructive discussion of content with her tone and genuine bad faith approach to editing that particular page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.115.195.52 (talk) 00:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Would you care to point to a specific example? All I see on the talk page is you being told to use better sources to support your opinion about a celebrity relationship, and there is nothing that looks to be "violently disrespectful". Zaathras (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

IP editor: Your complaint is wholly unjustified and nonsensical, and you appear to be simply being over-sensitive. I note you have complained about this at two other places, too. Peaceray (whom you should have informed you are complaining about here at ANI) has made just this one response to your post at Talk:Harry Styles. Their response was reasonable, as was the way you put forward your initial opinions. This is just a content dispute over sources and inferences, so please continue to discuss respectfully at that talk page and gain a consensus there, and please don't go taking your complaints to other fora when things don't quite go your way. It simply wastes everyone's time and is quite unhelpful. Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the editor was offended by my comment:Please come back when you have a reliable source that definitively indicates that they are not in a relationship. I sincerely mean that this editor is welcome with any reliable source that contravenes the existing three citations in the current version of the Harry Styles article that support the attestation that he & Olivia Wilde are in a relationship.

BTW, I use he/him/his. Peaceray (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to note, this is likely the same individual as 173.227.72.99 who made identical claims about Styles and Wilde not being in a relationship with the same "categorical denial" language. IP editor also claimed to be Styles at one point. Geolocates to the same area. Pretty spurious AN/I complaint Cannolis (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Peaceray, Typo, I presume: "Your complaint is wholly justified and nonsensical".... 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Not mine, but Nick Moyes's post. Yes, I also presume it was a typo. Peaceray (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Mea culpa. My typo now fix to read "unjustified". Apols for the confusion. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

User @Andriyrussu: has repeatedly moved the pages Malaya Rohan and Torture of Russian soldiers in Malaya Rohan to Mala Rohan and Torture of Russian soldiers in Malaya Rohan respectively. Even though I moved each pages back to their original titles, citing WP:COMMONNAME, Andriyrussu moved both pages to add the words "Mala Rohan", without ever giving an explanation or edit summary. I told Andriyrussu he could use the talk page to request a move, but he hasn't responded. I don't think this issue will be resolved if it doesn't get outside intervention.Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 12:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

New IP user is adding redundant links to many bird species pages by linking the scientific binomial, when the accompanying common name is already linked to the same target. User continues to do so despite warnings to IP talk page and mass reversions of their edits by several editors. Loopy30 (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I tried to have good faith consensus for the purpose of collaboration by adhering to policies on respective talk page, Please have a close look here. When the rules explained to User:Aman.kumar.goel, acted like WP:ICANTHEARYOU, continued Edit Warring and reverting my edits without being reasonable with Wikipedia's Policies and Guidelines, continued Ownership behavioural tone, accused me of "sidelining people blaming of bullying and ownership", personal attacking throughout the discussion by not assuming Good Faith and blaming me with WP:WIKILAWYERING

Explanation of Incidence below:

1. All it was started, User:Aman.kumar.goel added a red wiki-link to a list at Space industry of India#List of notable companies, See the diff here

2. It was reverted by me following WP:NLIST, WP:N, WP:STANDALONE, primarily WP:LISTCRITERIA, See here [118]

3. But it was again reverted by User:Aman.kumar.goel, see here, with a reason given "Article doesn't establish notability, mainstream media coverage does. See WP:N"

4. It was reverted by me, see here [119] to seek consensus on talk page following Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (somewhat dependable method for dispute resolution not recommended though, I accept)

5. The talk was initiated by User:Aman.kumar.goel at here

Here User:Aman.kumar.goel started judging my experience rather than talk about article issues on article talk page, told me to revert myself, accused me of being incompetent. Quoting "Since you look new enough" ('enough' is somewhat in exaggerating sense, I believe), "I'm going to revert you again if you don't yourself". Moreover, There were several links with inflexible reasons unwilling to compromise.

Here WP:LISTCRITERIA, what it states :

Quoting guidelines

I. "As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion"

II. "Avoid red-linking list entries that are not likely to have their own article soon or ever."

6. User:Aman.kumar.goel reverted my edits again, See here, when there was an ongoing effort for building good faith consensus for the issue, I urged that it was clearly not adhering to WP:QUO . Quoting guidelines, "During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away"

and User:Aman.kumar.goel came up with random irrelevant reply of using WP:BRD which was used by me actually on first place and User:Aman.kumar.goel completely ignored WP:BRD-NOT which states, "Editors should not revert simply because of disagreement. Instead, explore alternative methods, such as raising objections on a talk page or following the processes in dispute resolution."

Later, User:Aman.kumar.goel with some sort of irrelevant replies which were way different from the concerned topic.

First, User:Aman.kumar.goel asked me for justification of my past edits "You made this edit and it was reverted. Now per WP:BRD you are supposed to discuss it before you would be restoring it." which was another such case of red-wikilink addition by another user and I removed following WP:LISTCRITERIA.

Again, User:Aman.kumar.goel asked me for justification of removal of red-link with some sort of unreasonable logic, "You anyway removed entire entry and not redlink quoting WP:NLIST." which doesn't make sense, if any editor removes the red wiki-links from the list, it follows the removal of the rest related to it.

Quoting : "I can't make sense of your aggression", "You just can't misinterpret WP policies and just sideline people blaming of bullying and ownership whoever explain it you", "WP:WIKILAWYERING won't work."

Now, I was trying to legitimately make a point, without disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it, following WP:NOTPOINTy. But User:Aman.kumar.goel continued Edit Warring, personal attacks by not having good faith as mentioned above and refused to accept or seek for consensus.

Again, Quoting : "I anyway have spent enough time in grooming ISRO, created pages of Indian aerospace company and written most of this article too.", "Indeed I'm just citing my contribution on these articles which were entirely or mostly written by me, nominated for GA and DYK"

Statements with Ownership behavioural tone for example statements like "I created/wrote the majority of this article." clearly given at WP:OWNBEHAVIOR were not reasonable for seeking good faith consensus.

Again, User:Aman.kumar.goel replied with " I have explained my reason, now it is your choice to provide a better explanation or use WP:DR, I think this matter is too trivial for that.", with a complete ignorance in certain tone and discouraging me to bring the discussion to notice board. Sneha04 ^💬 12:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, you should sign your messages with ~~~~ as it doesn't happen automatically once you have reached a certain number of edits. Secondly, I would note that WP:LISTCRITERIA is for Stand-alone lists (also referred to as list articles) are articles composed of one or more embedded lists, or series of items formatted into a list. rather than an Embedded list as part of a page of content which is on the Space Industry of India page. Gusfriend (talk) 08:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Gusfriend This is correct. An article section on companies, people, etc should include only those with their own articles. Doug Weller talk 11:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Uh I forgot signing, I apologize for that. Sneha04 ^💬 12:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

So for some reason, nfitz (talk · contribs) has been really hounding me about my recent AFDs and PRODs.

• " that kind of blatantly false claim, I'm not even going to waste my time checking any more references. It's a well known show that everyone in the country has heard of. This nomination is a disgrace, and making blatant false claims is surely a bannable offence."
  • If you read what I said above, I said that the second source provided by Cunard (talk · contribs) in the discussion. The only "blatantly false claim" is Nfitz thinking that I said anything about the Globe and Mail source, when I was clearly talking about the National Post source.
• "These nominations remain absurd. Can an Admin please move to topic-ban this clearly incompetent editor."
  • Yes, so absurd that I actually went to great lengths to add sources, like this, this, and this.

I especially find this funny when Nfitz has said to other editors things like "users who make baseless personal attacks should be banned!" when it's clear that's exactly what they're doing to me.

Has my AFD and PROD track record been perfect? No. That's why I created User:TenPoundHammer/TV cleanup so I can systematically approach troubled articles and edit them as I see fit. As I pointed out above, I've gone out of my way today alone to -- gasp! -- add sources to articles. And many of my other AFDs, such as this one, seem to be clear-cut delete cases. For Nfitz to throw around words like "incompetent" and call for my banning over what is clearly not anywhere remotely close to a bannable offense is beyond absurd. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• ETA: In the process of warning Nfitz of this discusison, I found that I am not the only editor being targeted. Pinging @RandomCanadian: for their input. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah and a couple weeks ago Nfitz followed me from an AfD to a talk-page of an article they'd never edited, importing the battleground approach there. They should seriously tone it down. JBL (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  That's a bit of a stretch. As I don't remember ever encountering you before, and you made an unacceptable profane personal attack on User:Joseph2302 (which was also discussed at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive342#Football-related AFDs), I looked at your recent history, and noticed an odd page List of Starbucks union petitions in the United States whose notability concerned me. There was a discussion there - hardly battleground behaviour other than yours. There was no consensus that the subject was notable; however I didn't look at deletion options as that would clearly have been WP:POINTy. I have no history of stalking, and I think that it's unfortunate that you've tried to imply that, ignoring your use of extreme language. Nfitz (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• I would also note this discussion, where Nfitz calls for a topic ban against Ficaia and dlthewave. This is part of a broader pattern of behaviour at AFD's, where editors, rather than addressing the nomination, have started accusing the nominator of failing WP:BEFORE - usually without presenting any evidence that they failed before - and calling for a topic ban. BilledMammal (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  I admit to being I should be a bit more diplomatic - but it wasn't me who proposed that topic ban for Ficaia. It was User:GiantSnowman who proposed it; User:No Great Shaker and I then supported it. Ficaia had a series of AFDs over 3 days that seemed to have no proper BEFORE, and were all but snow keeps. Examples are WP:Articles for deletion/Islam Tarek, WP:Articles for deletion/Ayman Mansour, WP:Articles for deletion/Leroy Paul, WP:Articles for deletion/Mátyás Balogh, WP:Articles for deletion/Stacia Joseph, and WP:Articles for deletion/Raymundo Torres (footballer). User:dlthewave then voted delete without a proper before on couple - but I realised later, that he wasn't the worst offender in that category, and I conflated him with a more egregious example, who I'll leave unnamed. Still I do think we have a problem with drive-by voting in AFDs without enough (or in some cases any ... and I'm thinking of yet another person on that) BEFORE. Nfitz (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  Err not quite - I said "If you continue to nominate clearly notable articles without even attempting WP:BEFORE I will seek a topic ban for you", see this. I have not seen any issues since and so did not pursue or formalise any proposals. GiantSnowman 09:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for the ping, Nfitz. I stand by my comments about lack of adequate BEFORE in many AfD cases. This has become a real problem needing some serious attention by sysops. The examples given above by Nfitz were all cases that should never have come to AfD and they are by no means an exhaustive list. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 10:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED admin comment - Back on May 1, Nfitz requested undeletion of a significant number of articles that TPH had PROD'd. This in and of itself is of course fine. What is not fine is the language used. You can see it at WP:RFUD as the entries haven't been archived yet, such as writingUser:TenPoundHammer seems to be out of control, prodding hundreds of articles a day, and creating dozens of AFDs a day - few of which seem to be actual deletes. I asked them to focus on the process and not contributors in WP:RFUD#Glutton for Punishment and more - poor prods at the time. Nfitz failed to heed that today. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• User:TenPoundHammer has literally prodded hundreds of articles - mostly television related, in the last couple of weeks - mostly with poor before; those that didn't have significant coverage are surely redirects. There's been dozens of AFDs in the television arena, which are mostly heading to not being deleted. They've been asked by multiple people on his talk page to slow down, and do better before. Here's a link to the recent discussions, which it looks like were removed without archiving. They've been asked to do better before, but the lack of before continues. I'm concerned that there are WP:CIR issues, at least in the DRV arena. On the other hand, they do seem to be starting all these deletions with good faith, and show a willingness to learn. Perhaps I was a harsh, and I apologize for that - but it's frustrating to look at what's going on in the project, and find there isn't much sign of improvement. I don't think however my comments were completely baseless.. Nfitz (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  I've already been warned about the prods. The main issue was "don't do 300 in a day ever again because not a lot of people monitor the prod queue", and many of my prods have been more methodical and done in good faith. If someone wants to WP:REFUND them because they think the content is salvageable, that's on them. I did slow down as complied, which is again why I made the cleanup list. And if you've been following it, I've been taking quite a few names off that cleanup list because I improved the article. I removed the posts without archiving because the discussions were getting very long and the archive bot seems to hate my talk page for some reason. I still do not take lightly to being attacked and having you state, multiple times, that I should be banned for something that isn't even close to a bannable offense. And again, I'm clearly not the only editor you've made such overstated accusations about. I want to see proof that you're not going to go off on such histronics again. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  Others main message may have been don't do 300 prods again in a day. My bigger concern is the lack of quality. Four AFDs on April 24 - all keep (but one redirect). Two on the 27th - both keeps. Four on the 28th - two were keeps. What's interesting looking through, is there's so many on the 27th and 29th (they day I expressed concern to you), that I'm having problems counting them - but all the Television ones appear to be keep, while the record is far better on other subjects. Two keeps on the 30th. Most of these keeps were unanimous - with some speedies. Nfitz (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• Since Nfitz admits that they "should be a bit more diplomatic", perhaps they will do just that going forward. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
• Nfitz's comments were inappropriate. That being said, I am concerned by the rate of TenPoundHammer's PRODs and AfDs, and their track record of nominations that end in "keep". Had I not intervened and spent my night deprodding well over a hundred articles, many notable subjects would have been deleted. Yes, they have now set up the list of problem articles, but it still seems like many of the deletion nominations made by TenPoundHammer end in "keep". I wish TenPoundHammer would be a bit more careful in nominating articles in the future. NemesisAT (talk) 11:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Nfitz has agreed to be a "bit more diplomatic", but there is a general issue here that needs to be discussed; editors casting aspersions at AFD. Typically, this involves claiming that nominator has not conducted a WP:BEFORE, but it has involved alleging !voters to be engaged in various misbehaviour, including "drive-by deletion" and not conducting their own WP:BEFORE.

If this issue can be resolved, then the issues that are currently emerging at AFD can be resolved before we need a fourth thread at this noticeboard (one, two); editors need to be reminded that casting aspersions is unacceptable, and if they believe an editor is making inappropriate nominations or !votes they should first discuss that on the editors talk page, and if that doesn't address the issue then they should open a discussion here - the issue should not be discussed in the AFD. BilledMammal (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Quite frankly, bringing stuff here is often ineffective. I've seen more than one thread about TenPoundHammer here - and yet they continue to repeat their mistakes. I thought we were making more progress with them by not dragging it here ... though I admit I was too harsh when I popped in for a first time in a while, and found them regressing. In my experience ANI is not a particularly balanced process. Nfitz (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• I think that several editors need a stern warning at the very least. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mervat Rashwan would be a prime example:
  • GiantSnowman:"Keep - another poor nomination with no evidence of BEFORE being carried out; international player"
  • No_Great_Shaker:"Keep per GS and MF. Obviously notable. Yet another bad nom."
  • Nfitz:"Keep - international player, lots of coverage. Another poor nomination. Given how poorly female African players are covered in Wikipedia, and that this player easily meets long-standing consensus, we should avoid WP:BIAS."

  Note that this was closed as Delete because sufficient SIGCOV sourcing was not found, and no credible evidence was presented to support the WP:BEFORE accusations. This really takes the wind out of this discussion where GS accuses Ficaia of nominating "clearly notable" articles for AfD (with no evidence) and NGS cites the aforementioned Mervat Rashwan AfD as a prime example.

  Several of Ficaia's recent AfDs have been closed as Keep after sourcing was found by others, but this is a very common outcome at AfD and isn't proof of a BEFORE failure. If editors do see a pattern of bad noms after a warning, they should discuss their concerns at ANI, not in AfD comments. Considering the multiple noticeboard discussions leading up to this, it's certainly time to start handing out warnings. –dlthewave ☎ 02:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  And yet the 6 AfDs of theirs I listed above were highly questionable; I'm not sure so much if this is aspersions, or a case of 'crying wolf' or a 'stopped clock'. I hadn't seen that this one closed - I'm a bit surprised about the flurry of deletes at the end, and do wonder if they (or at least 2 out of 3) looked beyond the source assessment table, rather than the better sources that had been used to improve the article - two are still arguing there are no significant sources - though surely this one was. We do have problems with drive-by voting; though none of the 2 or 3 really egregious offenders are here, and I'm loathe to expand this further. Back to the source of this thread, the quality of the prods and AFDs of TenPoundHammer in the area of Television have been very poor. Most of the recent prods (and that's hundreds of them) have been overturned - some by me, but most by others. For an experienced editor far too many of the 70+ recent AFDs (in the television project alone) they did are snow keeps, or almost snow keeps. Looking at the deletes, participation is low on many of them; it's just overwhelming, and leads to low-quality debates. Not to mention hours spent by many trying to keep up. I think if there's going to be an extraordinary effort within a project to delete hundreds of articles, there needs to an extraordinary level of before. And I don't even see a standard level with many of them. Nfitz (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  Looking at those AFD's, most of them appear to be reasonable nominations, although the comments by some editors within them are problematic. Most problematic is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayman Mansour where GiantSnowman and No Great Shaker claimed that the nom had failed to do a before despite being unable to find sources themselves, and despite no sources being presented by others at that time.

  The issue is that editors are discussing these concerns at the AFD, and they are discussing them without evidence. This is casting WP:ASPERSIONS, and it needs to stop. BilledMammal (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  You are casting aspersions on User:GiantSnowman and User:No Great Shaker by saying that they were unable to find sources. It was a snow keep. Neither indicated they didn't find sources, and these are words you are putting in their mouths. Please be more careful User:BilledMammal, and follow WP:NPA; I really don't see what this has to do with the debate in hand. Nfitz (talk) 06:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  They accused an editor of failing to complete a WP:BEFORE without presenting evidence. Stating this at WP:ANI does not violate WP:NPA. Further, given that they did not include sources in their reply, or add sources to the article, it is reasonable to assume that they made this accusation without having found sources.

  And what this has to do with the debate at hand is the pattern of accusations of failing WP:BEFORE or similar; these accusations need to stop, and while a warning might not be necessary at this time, a reminder certainly is. BilledMammal (talk) 06:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  If you look at the two examples that the complainant used. The first, WP:Articles for deletion/Bumper Stumpers, was a snow keep, that they withdrew - and BEFORE wasn't mentioned. The second was a prod for The Bronx Is Burning, that they apologized for after someone else previously noted there was no BEFORE. There were no aspersions in either example - unlike your comments about GS and NGS (there's no requirement to provide evidence or sources, and the comments were accurate). You only get to Aspersions by making assumptions about what they did; instead of assuming what they did, you'd be better to assume good faith. Nfitz (talk) 07:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  If you look at the Bumper Stumpers AFD, while I didn't use the term "WP:BEFORE", I did highlight the attempts I made to find better sources. I was initially unconvinced of the strength of the sources that Cunard found, and it seemed like everyone else was just saying WP:ITSNOTABLE or WP:SOURCESEXIST. But a second look at Cunard's sources showed them to be suitable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Basically, this is a clash between people having trouble accepting the changed consensus about WP:NSPORTS / WP:GNG and the fact that basically no sportspeople have automatically assumed notability any more, and people being somewhat overzealous in nominating articles for deletion where no evidence is present that the subject meets the GNG, but with too often inadequate BEFORE searches (happened to me as well). For every AfD where the faults of the nominator or delete voters can be shown, there probably is an AfD where the faults of the "keeps" including Nfitz can be shown, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randolph Lablache (or non-Nfitz examples like [[120]]). Hopefully this will improve in the future (from both sides) and we'll find some new equilibrium: but I don't think bringing this repeatedly to ANI (again, from either side) is necessary at the moment, or helpful. Things are tense, but not at the topic ban or other sanction level yet. Fram (talk) 09:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Fram The case was raised by TenPoundHammer who hasn't participated much, if at all, in the area of sports articles. It was Television articles where the issue arose. The sports issue is really a different issue - and I'm not sure why some are raising it here, as it only muddles the process. Nfitz (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Because the issue is casting WP:ASPERSIONS at AFD, and this issue is not limited to the AFD's that TenPoundHammer has participated in. This also goes beyond alleging that WP:BEFORE has been failed without providing evidence; for example, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cashion London you suggested that editors were engaging in WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:TAGTEAMING.

I agree with Fram that this isn't at the sanction level yet, but I do think we are at the level where you should commit to focusing on content not conduct at AFD's. BilledMammal (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Which is really a separate topic. I've already committed to being more diplomatic - so why try to expand the discussion, rather than bringing to closure? We all need to be better in these discussions. Nfitz (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

And yet here you are, still picking fights left and right. JBL (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think committing to being more diplomatic will address the issue, as the issue is the discussion of conduct at AFD, rather than how you discuss conduct. This doesn't apply only to you, but I think what is needed is a commitment to not discuss conduct at AFD, and instead focus on content. BilledMammal (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

At first it seemed like an attack on short stub articles, but there are two straight up facts as far as I can see, the first being against stub bio's or articles severely lacking in citation depth. There is nothing wrong with a stub article, yet for some reason at times these older articles that are stubs which have been on wikipedia for a long time or not, they don't get noticed so easily so don't get improved until they reach AfD. Take Harold Fitzpatrick now, and nominated for AfD at the stub for failing GNG, then. And there are probably more offline sources for him. Move that against another article about a cricketer named George Buckley, (I found one source posted at AfD stating there was little information to be found on that person) two different stories, two different outcomes. At first I thought the whole process an attack on sports projects, but in the end, it doesn't bother me that much.

The second, there are too many ego's, stubborn people that don't like change that seem at odds with each other. Over what, wikipedia's GNG! Wikipedia is just an open program digital workspace for people to add encyclopaedia articles, people just need to comply with what this project is, or go do a different hobby all-together! Govvy (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

This you? JBL (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• We (including me) definitely need to be careful accusing editors of thoughtlessness, incompetence, not following BEFORE, etc., but sometimes it's appropriate to ask. There are many nominations where clicking find sources, find books, etc. clearly has not been done. When it's an inexperienced editor, they often need to be given some direction, and asking about BEFORE is helpful. When it's an experienced editor who has been doing this for years, and yet still nominates articles with shabby excuses of rationale, we need something more. We have at least one of those who has shown an inability or unwillingness to do due diligence and has been featured at ANI countless times. Whether it's incompetence or just a form of incivility, it's a horrible waste of our time and resources. Jacona (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

These IPs are clearly the socks of the indeffed user Əzərbəyəniləri, as they keep restoring/mimicking his edits. Can we please make a range block this time?

Just an example, there are loads; Əzərbəyəniləri [121] - IP [122]

Not only that, but they also use grim language;

"Is youre brain busted?.. ...Digga is you patriotic?"

"Its funny that an stupid azeri like gilden reverted it since its actually sourced content that i call vandalism shame you azeri propaganda boy i maje sourced infirmation and you brainwashed kid destriy everytging"

"Its funny how this edit gets reverted by a brainwashed 14 year old azeri dig whi spreads propaganda!he ke persian its even on his wiki page you dumbass azeri"

"I WANTED TO REMIND YOU THAT IM RIGHT JUST RESEARCHE AND YOU WILL UNDERSTAND YOU DUMBASSES"

EDIT: Looks like I found another IP range he also uses;

"Rv vandalism from hobby historian"History of Iran"whos mind is to short to get the truth", making more or less the same edit as the previous socks [123] [124] [125]

EDIT PART 2: He is using another IP now, restoring Əzərbəyəniləri and co's edits and making more grim remarks;

"You moron!They were turks it gave qajar afshar bayat north and south azerbaijani rulers, saying mostly azerbaijani is a falsification, but cause yo dont know history yo will nev3r understand!dumbass"

"Idk why you delete this fact just cause you think that im a sock of an azeri!If you think its useless its hypocracy cause you are the most useless moron ive ever saw"

"Youre an walking L man!Hiw can a human being be this disresoectful with my research and dumb at the same time?"

"Youre so dumb!I invested in this reserch so much time and you try to delete it without any statement?Shame you you brainded hobby historian!"

"...of course it was spoken there you moron"

--HistoryofIran (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Consider taking this report to WP:SPI. 0xDeadbeef (T C) 13:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

SPI will not connect IP addresses to named accounts. Black Kite (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

As noted above, you should learn about SPI before incorrectly directing people there. When you aren't sure where the roads go, don't appoint yourself map maker. 73.6.77.46 (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

... and another admin has blocked 5.146.248.0/23 for a month anyway. Black Kite (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

That's not quite right, while the checkuser tool cannot be used to publicly link IPs to named accounts, behavioral investigations can still occur at SPI (just don't request a checkuser in these cases), though in fact obvious block-evasion is actually best handled at AIAV, when a duck is quacking into a megaphone close behavioral analysis is not needed, and ANI is sometimes best for cases of obvious BE that are just a bit too lengthy for AIAV to handle. In short, this was fine but an SPI would not have been inappropriate either. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Definitely need a range block. I keep having to report a new alt account/IP of this user every 2 days and it's exhausting. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 13:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Another alt account of Əzərbəyəniləri got banned today (User:Şahanşah of History). This, not even a day after he used alternate IP addresses to edit. They need to be range-blocked and all of the articles they keep on vandalising require an extensive semi-protection (perhaps even extended-confirmed protection). — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 14:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

May be worth semi-protecting those articles for a bit as well. Canterbury Tail talk 14:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Avish773 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuously making unconstructive edits on Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Anupamaa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by going against consensus of talk page discussions. He never replies and keeps doing same thing with interval of few days. I have issued several warnings to him. Even several other editors have issued warnings to him but he never replies and keeps doing the same thing. This is to be noted that the the consensus in Anupamaa about which I mentioned is at Talk:Anupamaa/Archive 1. Administrators please look into this matter. Pri2000 (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Their first edit contains some rather egregious personal attacks against not only one editor but the community as a whole in the edit summary (per Google, in Turkish); their latest edits seem to be some form of POV pushing; and those on Charles V's page again seem to be more some form of POV crusade/"right great wrongs of the [biased] Wikipedia community"-type of stuff... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any "must be stopped now" problems with their (very limited thus far) editing. This edit seems perfectly reasonable, though their edit summaries leave a LOT to be desired. Other edits look to be in good faith (if not in good results), but the changes are not unreasonable. I think a stern (NOT TEMPLATED) warning against editorializing and a reminder to WP:AGF are in order, but I don't think this user cannot be encouraged to speak more courteously. --Jayron32 14:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Their summaries do more than "leave a lot to be desired"; they're directly attacking other editors and the community (I added some information that was not written or not wanted to be written; the first one [translated per Google}Look at me, the disease called LouisAragon. Who are you man? You say it's unsourced, but look at your own maps, you have so many garbage maps (I'm calling out to all general wiki workers.)). Digging through their edit history, they're clearly the same person behind this IP range; and the edits there show more evidence of editing Wikipedia with a clear aim of some form of pro-turkish POV pushing (and well, this edit, which clearly picks the most pro-Turk outcome - despite two options being clearly described in the #Aftermath section; and this, which clearly describes things from a Turkish POV; seem to confirm this).

Also, courtesy ping @LouisAragon: - this rings any bell? Beyond the edits on the Treaty of Zuhab page, you encountered anything similar before? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

If there's a history with an editor under a prior identity, you should have said so initially. If I am being asked to only assess the one account you linked above, I wouldn't say it needs anything more than a stern, written note (not a template) explaining them to tone it down a bit. However, if this is another prior editor returning under a new identity, that completely changes things, and you probably should have done a better job explaining the history. --Jayron32 17:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

This edit summary seems egregiously offensive. Calling another editor an illet - meaning malady or disease. AusLondonder (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

[126][127][128][129][130][131] Anything that can be done about new accounts and random, likely compromised/botnet IPs flooding the edit request queues? First time I've seen something on this scale, from such a wide variety of IPs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Have you requested semi-protection? Drive-by edit requests that have no chance of being implemented are grounds enough for a semi-protection of a talk page. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

It's been on different pages, so semi-prot wouldn't help at this point. My concern is it's the same request on many pages from different IPs and accounts, so it may be some sort of vandalism attack ramping up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a good candidate for an edit filter. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I have noticed this on a couple of pages as well. Something odd is up. Does the edit request wizard automatically insert the word 'please' to start the request? Tony Fox (arf!) 18:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe so, no. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish The template was updated today so that a blank edit request now contains "please ..." by default [132] 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

And Special:AbuseFilter/987 which is supposed to warn newbies when they try to save a blank edit request wasn't updated to match, so now it's broken. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@MSGJ you may want to revert this until the filter can be updated as well. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

MSGJ, could you revert that edit, please? Also, I don't think prefacing with Please ... is an improvement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Filter has now been fixed by zzuuzz. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Let's put it this way. I've started adjusting the filter, and it should currently work either way (although be warned: temporarily disabling warnings is part of the filter update process). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

[133] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

About a week ago I and an admin (I don't remember who) went through about 6 random ranges that had tons of edit reqs like this. RfPP would be useless since it's targeting any talk page, not specific articles or categories. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• I've undone the change and since this is now a discussion of their actions I've informed MSGJ of this thread. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. In general I don't think automated politeness really means much, and the vast majority of requests are irredeemably malformed, so throwing aplease ... in front of a malformed request isn't going to help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  Since it's been reverted, I've restored the filter as was. If the wording changes again, poke an EFM. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Zzuuzz: Perhaps this may be a better question for WP:EFN, but I think it's relevant to this discussion so I'll post it here. Is there a reason why filter 987 isn't set to disallow? It seems like it'd solve the issues raised here; looking at the recent filter hits, there seems to be a few edits posting empty edit requests, despite the warning. FozzieHey (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  The most recent EFN discussion was probably this one. A well directed RfC somewhere, presenting a suitable disallow message, would probably get the change made. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 04:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for reverting, and apologies for the disrption! I had no idea it would affect a filter. Just a gentle hint to encourage folk to be more polite, but I accept that wasn't really going to work — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  It was a good thought, but after handling thousands of requests I don't think it would help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

DarthKalEl91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There are obvious WP:NOTHERE, WP:CIR, and WP:BLP issues here. [134] [135] These two edits are pretty damning as NOTHERE and are just outright vandalism; the rest of their contribs are basically all CIR issues (ex: [136] [137]). They also display extraordinary WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior when notified of their non-constructive editing ([138] [139]). All-in-all, this user is completely unproductive. Curbon7 (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked DarthKalEl91 for severe BLP violations. I am not a member of the Matt Gaetz fan club. Far from it. But this editor's additions to that article were beyond the pale. It gives me a bit of pleasure to enforce BLP policy on articles about people I do not like personally. The bottom line is that every single living person is covered by this policy. (Even Putin). Cullen328 (talk) 05:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Bruno Rene Vargas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic-banned from moving pages, broadly construed, as a result of this ANI thread from last September. This sanction was imposed because he would repeatedly move others' articles out of mainspace in order to create articles of his own in their place, thereby getting "credit" for creating them. He was blocked for a week in February per this ANI thread for violating the topic ban. Today, he moved Mr. Morale & the Big Steppers to draftspace (see this log entry) and replaced it with an article of his own. I certainly understand that it's frustrating when someone else beats you to creating an article, but moving pages simply to get your name first in the page history is disruptive and, more to the point, a clear violation of the topic ban. The one-week block doesn't seem to have done the trick, so a longer block is needed, in my view. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Not only is it a violation of the topic-ban, but precisely the behavior he was blocked and topic-banned for. —El Millo (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked x 2 weeks by Cullen328. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  I have blocked Bruno Rene Vargas for two weeks for this clear violation of his topic ban. Cullen328 (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  He seriously needs to explain that he understands this, otherwise we're in indef territory as he seems to wait just long enough that he thinks no one is watching. Star Mississippi 00:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry if this is a dumb question, but is there a way in the software for someone to be blocked from moving pages at all. I wonder if that is a potential solution to this problem. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 00:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  No, it is not a dumb question, JCW555. If it was possible and I knew how to do it, I would. I am not a particularly tech savvy administrator, but when I read Wikipedia:Partial blocks, I do not see any technical way to prevent this editor from violating their topic ban, other than escalating blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  The idea was brought up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1078#Proposal: move ban, but it was decided that an edit filter wasn't worth it, and there were additional concerns of cut-and-paste moves that a technical restriction wouldn't be able to stop. DanCherek (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Cullen328: This feature is live on testwiki (see testwiki:Special:Redirect/logid/282949). I'm not sure if its lack of implementation on enwiki is for want of consensus or due to oustanding technical issues, though. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  This is cold comfort for this situation (since we aren't sysadmins, so we can't change the permissions system), but sysadmins can add a special, say, "banned from moving" user group and add the right to $wgRevokePermissions, which revokes the right regardless of any rights given. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

B.Velikov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -

Editor has been leaving personal attacks in more than a few edit summaries. Listed a few here with one noted complaint [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] and a NPA Warning Thanks FOX 52 ^talk! 05:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah these summaries are no good. I have warned the user, let's see if they respond. Oz\^InterAct 09:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm requesting a 48-hour block of new user Portugaltheo20 (talk · contribs) for disruptively adding unsourced material to articles relating to France, and to French history, economy, culture, or language. As an alternative to a block, a TBAN from everything related to France broadly construed might be an alternative.

Virtually all of Portugaltheo20's edits involve adding content relating to France which demonstrates a francophile bias, either exaggerating their military or economic contributions, claiming French citizenship for binational athletes, claims of French language as official in countries where it is not, exaggerated GDP or other economic indicators, and so on. These edits are rarely accompanied by sources, and when they are, they are defective in some way. In a handful of cases, he got the sourcing right.

I've been patiently trying to communicate with Portugaltheo20 at his Talk page, to no avail, indicating what the problems are, trying to get him to up his sourcing game, and pointing out the (rare) good edits. There has been only one response on the page, but not to me, rather pushing back on 4 May (diff) at Sir Sputnik's warning about an unreliable source.

There are dozens of possible diffs I could add here, but as they are all listed already at User talk:Portugaltheo20 (see discussion links below); is that enough, or should I paste them here (or maybe just selectively transclude the relevant discussions)?

By the time I find another problematic edit and finish adding a message to his talk page with appropriate diffs, he has made several more edits, so in fact, what you see on the talk page represents only the tip of the iceberg. I suspect that all of his edits may need to be mass-reverted to protect the encyclopedia. I'm way behind looking at his edits, and I'm sure there are now dozens of cases of original research all over French articles, and even spending 100% of my time monitoring his contributions I can't keep up. Plus, I want to get back to what I was doing before. He's not a vandal, just someone (possibly a patriotic lyceen?) who wants to spread the good news about the glory of France, and thinks this is the way to do it. Maybe Wikipedia is not the right place for him, I dunno, but I don't seem to be getting through to him at all.

One small item on the plus side of the balance: I wrote him this message about using currency conversion templates in his economic article edits, and he started to use them; although he then seems to have self-reverted in some cases. So, at least I know he's reading his page, even if he hasn't responded since 4 May. Please lmk if I need to paste or transclude diffs to this report, but there are plenty of them in these discussions:

• User talk:Portugaltheo20#Verifiability, sourcing, and citations
• User talk:Portugaltheo20#WARNING: Transfermarkt redux, and a pattern of unreliable sourcing, and
• User talk:Portugaltheo20#Maintaining a neutral point of view, and francophile bias

I've tried my best, but it isn't working. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Here's one diff I missed before: this edit of 23:43, 10 May, where he fakes data about the number of millionaires in France in order to make France move to #5 atop the UK on a List of countries by number of millionaires. Mathglot (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, that last edit you added seems pretty egregious - I checked too and there's no way to get that from the source. I'm pretty impressed with your patience trying to explain these things on the talk page - I probably would have reported after one message didn't work, let alone three. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 02:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I blocked indefinitely. All that holds Wikipedia together is trusting that editors don't falsify information, and that edit regarding millionaires in France is very bad, and not the only time they add information not supported by the source cited. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Their edits probably should all be reverted as you mentioned, I don't think we can trust any of them to be correct or neutral. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I've gone through a great many of them and reverted, but it's exhausting, and is too much too spend on one user; if there's some tool an admin can use next time, I could save myself the trouble. Also, they've been active on other Wikipedias: ja-wiki and it-wiki one each, I think, and es-wiki around three dozen now; I left a message at Spanish ANI about him. Mathglot (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I was going to raise this editor here too. Given the number of times they have deliberately used sources that do not support the content being added, they are being clearly disruptive. I first noticed then adding a line about French nationality to articles about footballers with no clear link to France, using a source that did not even mention the player concerned. I have gone on to revert a number of other edits, which seem to promote France / Paris. Spike 'em (talk) 06:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Note that this user was also a sockpuppet of AlanCity20, so I’d keep an eye out for another name showing up to evade the block. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Metal Asylum 94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has replaced either full article contents, or existing redirects, with redirects to different pages.

Diffs:

• Before first talk page warning: 1 2 3
• After first talk page warning: 1 2 3 4 5 6

The edits since the first warning was posted appear to have been made on mobile web, but the edits up until the warning appear to have been made on desktop. It is possible that they may not have seen the warnings due to WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. FozzieHey (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

This might be a minor WP:CIR issue. I've left a more explicit note on their user talk page explaining the problem, and giving them a stern final warning. If they start up again, ping me or leave me a note on my user talk page, and I'll handle it. --Jayron32 16:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Apologies if this report isn't valid, but WP:NLT gave me the impression that I should err on the side of caution... A user whose only 3 edits this year is to LaShonda Katrice Barnett gave an edit summary that reads like a legal threat. The edit itself looks totally fine, as it was reverting a WP:BLP violation, but as far as I could work out, that doesn't matter as we allow no legal threats at all? I'm not ruling out that this is a possible COI editor, and if anyone knows how to nudge them into a better way of handling vandalism to this article, feel free to talk to them... EditorInTheRye (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@EditorInTheRye: Blocked. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Vineyard Gazette: Charges Follow Dine-and-Dash Spree This sheds light on recent disruptive edits. Cullen328 (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• Whilst they have withdrawn the legal threat, I'm disinclined to unblock. The NPA and harassment are not dealt with. @Drmies: --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

AG20044018 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has never edited with an edit summary and has never edited a talk page. They consistently mark edits as minor when they don't seem to meet WP:MINOR, despite them being warned about this numerous times on their talk page. They repeatedly add unsourced content to articles, and they've been warned for this numerous times on their talk page as well.

Some diffs: 1 2 3 4 5. Maybe this is a case of WP:RADAR? At the very least we still need editors to communicate with others, so can we get a partial block to article space here to give them an oppourtunity to respond and explain their edits, here at ANI, or on their talk page? FozzieHey (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

They appear to be editing on mobile, so perhaps the issue here is WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Many mobile users do not receive pings, and some don't even know that talk pages exist. Endwise (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out! They do seem to be editing from mobile web (although they did seem to edit sometimes from desktop before 2021 (indicated by no edit tags), most of the warnings came after that). In which case a partial block could help get their attention, as custom block messages should display to mobile web, according to WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. FozzieHey (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

It never ceases to annoy me that the WMF hasn't fixed these issues, it would be good to know if this person is just ignoring all this or is genuinely unaware of it. I've partial blocked them from article space as they were just editing a few hours ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hear, hear! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Basrasaab (using IP socks) is adding/readding honorifics contravening WP:NCIN and MOS:HON

• In Agra article - [160] [161] [162].
• In Jaimal Singh. - [163], Honorifics and unsourced content [164] after their edits [165] got reverted [166].
• Edit warred and restored back the unsourced content, honorifics as well as non-notables in the infobox here, here also notice the edit summary here, despite clear instructions given in the edit summaries and their talk page while warning them here. Possible WP:OWN and WP:CIR issues. Would request protection of Agra, Jaimal Singh articles. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive/edit warring continues [167], as well as in Jaimal Singh using IP-Sockpuppet [168]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour and addition of unsourced content continues [169] [170] [171]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Deepfriedokra: as well as @Lightbluerain: who are aware of the situation. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Discospinster: as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing continues with POV edit summaries like "He is a Spiritual Leader. Please respect him", disregarding WP:NCIN, MOS:HON → [172] [173]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• Not really that familiar due to memory loss from Slow Covid, but after seeing what I saw, I partial blocked Basrasaab from article space, requesting they come here in my block notice. SP'd a couple of pages. Some already protected. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  As always, any admin can modify or reverse my actions if they feel it is warranted. ( A ping would be nice.) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks Deepfriedokra. They are everywhere it seems (IP including). Just did cleanup in these articles. Wishing you good health. I can't see well thanks to Covid (2020). - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  SP"d those two. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  I fully agree with Deepfriedokra's Admin action in the case, and I greatly appreciate Fylindfotberserk's sending proper warnings to the user —this gave them enough opportunity to know and correct their mistakes. I am not very aware of the ANI proceedings, (this is the first time I came here) but that, I think, having an ANI thread for just a few days/edits old account is a bit too much. Maybe the user didn't realize that Wikipedia actually had some policies that governed it. Deepfriedokra's block and your warning messages can definitely help them in it. Regards. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk💬 Contribs✏️) 18:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Lightbluerain: Appreciate your comments (just saw now). It seems that the person has been IP-hoping and making these kind of changes well before creating this newbie account. SPIs don't work on IPs well, so I wasn't left with many choices, other than to come to ANI to have a 'centralized' discussion. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  Alright, great then. Lightbluerain (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Same disruptive editing immediately after the release of block [174] [175] [176]. I reverted them and issued a level 4 warning here, but they wouldn't stop [177] [178] [179] [180], even removing the protection templates from the articles. Pinging @Lightbluerain: as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

This one as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Basrasaab site blocked one week for not citing sources. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Disappointed they did not heed my request to discuss the problems here. Should not need a sledgehammer to get someone's attention. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks like an SPA. Lightbluerain (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

They were on mobile, so it's likely a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 16:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

User XxDIxX is posting false information on the Dimitri Minakakis Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitrisminakakis (talk • contribs) 19:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hold on, are not going to address the fact that a brand new account, with an account name the same as the article subject, came here to complain about the article as their very first ever edit? Canterbury Tail talk 20:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) User:The Blade of the Northern Lights OP should be blocked too for using a username that represents a famous person. 106.214.120.46 (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I get where this is coming from, but let's try to have some sympathy for our BLP subjects who almost certainly have no knowledge of our internal policies or procedures, and who may suffer real-world harm from actions taken here by malicious actors. Beside which per REALNAME editing with your real name is allowed (if discouraged), and while the account may be soft-blocked there is no requirement to do so, keeping in mind that the purpose of such blocks isas a precaution against damaging impersonation. Probably best in these cases just to provide an OTRS pointer. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

NO, Not going to happen either. Chip3004 (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

No, we should not block them. WP:AGF. This may legitimately be that person, and people are allowed to use their real name as their username (though we do advise against it.) Lots of Wikipedia editors also are notable enough for articles, and use their real names. It's a non-issue, unless you have evidence this person is impersonating Dimitri Minakakis. --Jayron32 17:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I’m not sure. We do sometimes politely block with a request that they authenticate themselves. Doug Weller talk 18:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Šitādālu keeps removing information based on reliable references about the modern Kurdish mastiff dog and enters OR territory when they can't prove the link between the modern dog called "Kurdish mastiff" and the ancient "Assyrian mastiff". This edit summary is also a plain lie,[181] just look at the version prior and its referencing. I've warned them on their talkpage, explained to them on the talkpage of the article that they shouldn't remove RS-based info and linked the OR site to them so they could understand the issue. Moreover, I explained that they should refrain from changing the name of the article without consensus/support. None of this has been effective. --Semsûrî (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Semsûrî: Your diff link is incorrect — it leads to the edit window for creating a new ANI section. They recently overwrote the article contents to be about only the Assyrian Mastiff and not the Kurdish Mastiff, and also moved the page to Assyrian mastiff. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes I meant[182]. The main problem here is the lack of reliable references pointing out that the ancient Assyrian dog and the modern Kurdish dog is the same. They can create an article called "Assyrian Mastiff" pertaining to the ancient one instead of doing what they are doing now. --Semsûrî (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Why would a new article for an Assyrian mastiff need to be created when the dog is native to the homeland of the Assyrians? How can the dog be Kurdish when Kurds are originally from Iran and the dog is native to Iraq? There are also little to no books even referring to a "Kurdish mastiff". Šitādālu (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

User:EEng, isn't it time you added dog breeds to User:EEng#EEng's half-serious list of topics on which WP should just drop all coverage as not worth the drama? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Why? Has there been any WP:HOUNDING or WP:BITEY behavior? EEng 06:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Semsûrî is playing a nationalist agenda game. This dog is clearly older than the kurdish identity and is referenced in many books including works by Charles Darwin. The stable version had the name Assyrian mastiff used before another kurdish nationalist changed it here: [183]. This is the version prior to the other nationalist user changing it which even calls it Assyrian mastiff: [184]. What makes it so obvious that the dog is clearly Assyrian in origins is the fact that there are endless books and works referring it to an Assyrian mastiff but little to none calling referring to a Kurdish mastiff. Also, the dog is native to northern Iraq which is the homeland of the Assyrians that they still inhabit today. Šitādālu (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This appears to be part of a long-runnig content dispute on the history and name of this dog breed, which is linked to the broader Kurdistan controversy, but it is clear that Šitādālu should not have overwritten the content without discussion. For timekeeping, this July 2021 version is likely the last stable revision, under the title Pshdar dog and about the modern breed, before users started adding content that attempted to link the modern Kurdish mastiff to an ancient dog breed of Assyria and changing the breed name to "Assyrian Mastiff". The IP editors are likely different users, as they geolocate to different countries and have different ISPs, and it is likely that the non-OP. The nominator restored a March 2022 edit by HistoryofIran (talk · contribs) which attempted to reestablish NPOV. This edit by Semsûrî is the last before Šitādālu, where they correctly removed unsourced content and non-inline refs that did not mention this breed. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Kurdistan is an autonomous region created recently. Clearly the dog predates that. Also this user uses rudaw which is a biased kurdish nationalist news source. The Assyrians still exist today and I see no books stating that the mastiff disappeared. Also, the dog is native to northern Iraq, which was majority Assyrian until the mongols arrived. This "Kurdish mastiff" is even described exactly like the Assyrian mastiff. I have no issue with him removing the unsourced content. He completely removed the Assyrian mastiff part. The word kurd is only a few hundred years old. How can anyone think that this dog just appeared in the homeland of the Assyrians just a few hundred years ago? Šitādālu (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I must have had more to drink today than I thought I did, because I am clearly hallucinating. Are people really getting into a nationalist conflict over the name of a breed of dog? I thought I had seen some pretty lame disputes since Wikipedia started but this must be the lamest. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

To the Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars page! casualdejekyll 22:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

---

At this point its not content but behavior. An admin should either protect that page or block the editor per this edit[185]. --Semsûrî (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

You are adding sources that are unreliable and riddled with grammatical errors. Anyways I already found a source that confirms it is an Assyrian dog and it isn't only found in the kurdish region. The fact that you're begging an admin to block me just shows you don't want anyone correcting your nationalist vandalism. This user should be blocked for vandalizing and erasing the facts on Wikipedia. Šitādālu (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Stop with the rants and go and read about how Wikipedia works. You have called me a nationalist and a racist, doomed an academic article unreliable because it is written by Kurdish academics, removed information that was referenced and still don't know what OR means. Now that it is mentioned that the dog is also called "Assyrian dog", what is your issue now? Semsûrî (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

No I never called you a racist. Your "academic article" is full of grammatical errors and lies because the dog isn't only found in the kurdish region. So that alone should raise red flags. Your entire edit history is removing information that either makes kurds look bad, or tries to kurdify everything. You even removed the previous source that states that it is called Assyrian Shepherd here: [186] which clearly shows you only care about furthering your agenda. The source I added states the dog is 5000 years old which further proves that it's an Assyrian dog. The article name should be either Assyrian mastiff or Assyrian Shepherd, not Kurdish mastiff. Šitādālu (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

The Rûdaw source says "Assyrian Shephard" not "Assyrian Mastiff". For the tenth time read about OR on Wikipedia: "The source I added states the dog is 5000 years old which further proves that it's an Assyrian dog"... This is not how Wikipedia works. And " The article name should be either Assyrian mastiff or Assyrian Shepherd, not Kurdish mastiff." goes against Wikipedia:Article titles. Semsûrî (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

There are only a few books that even mention the term "Kurdish mastiff" compared to the many that use Assyrian mastiff. So what if it says Assyrian Shepherd? It is referring to the same dog. Thta's why it says Kurdish mastiff OR Assyrian Shepherd. The article also says it's 5000 years old, so why should the article title be Kurdish mastiff instead of Assyrian? As another user stated, WP:COMMONNAME applies here and Assyrian mastiff is the more common name if you check sources. Šitādālu (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

---

I think my new findings should bring this debate to an end. Here is the exact same kurdish nationalist website that the user Semsûrî cited stating that it is indeed an Assyrian dog as they call it an Assyrian Shepherd: https://www.rudaw.net/english/lifestyle/18022020 or https://archive.ph/nZG4f. They even state that the dog is 5000 years old which is long before the kurds even existed. Šitādālu (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

The archive.ph reference doesn't work and yes now you can add "Assyrian shephard" dog to the page as another name. Semsûrî (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• For the record, the article at the locus of this dispute consists of four sentences. (Of course, bringing together dog breeds with WP:ARBKURDS was never a good plan.) As it's not mentioned yet here, there is currently an RfC on the talkpage regarding the name of the article. Hopefully editors will be able to uncover some relevant sources on the matter. CMD (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  I suggest uninvolved people with WP:COMMONNAME experience answer the RFC. Currently it's more heat than light over there, mainly fueled by Šitādālu. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  I've weighed in on the RFC, and I'd suggest others do as well. Regardless, I think User:Semsûrî, User:Šitādālu, and User:Kaghassi have, to varying degrees, acted inappropriately. Edit summaries from these three accuse each other of vandalism over what is ultimately a content dispute [187] [188] [189]. Semsûrî and Šitādālu are displaying WP:BATTLEGROUND-like behavior; the engagement on the talk page for the relevant article is minimal from both editors, with most of the arguments made through edit summaries. I do not believe any of the involved editors are currently deserving of a block, but this was, in general, disappointing. Lkb335 (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  FYI, User:Semsûrî and User:Šitādālu have begun reverting each other again at Savur. Again, edit summary squabbling favoured over talk page engagement.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  What I removed from Savur was copyright infringement and blogs. And I think Šitādālu has now been blocked. --Semsûrî (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  Šitādālu is not blocked; I checked. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 16:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  It does look like the account has been global'd, though I could be misreading that. Lkb335 (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  You read that correctly; they indeed are global locked. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Today, I came across two edits made to Mike Bacsik (2000s pitcher). I used the undo function because the removal of content was removing content related to the subject and follows the IP's point of view by wanting to portray this person only in a positive manner. I left a message on the IP's talk page. Later, the IP performed the same edit, which I reverted for the same reason. I went to their talk page to leave another message, and saw they replied. The IP reverted my revision again, this time leaving a rude edit summary. After reverting again, I warned the person about personal attacks. Then, they reverted again, leaving an offensive edit summary in the process. I stepped back for a while in order to avoid breaching the three revert rule. I would like some help in dealing with the matter. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 21:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• This is clearly not acceptable. An argument could be made about WP:UNDUE, but that isn't what the IP is doing, they have made it quite clear they want to just remve any mention of anything negative as it is "in the past". What's in the past is kind of the whole point of an encyclopedia, so that doesn't hold water, and needlessly personalizing a minor content dispute is never a good thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I have removed the excessive detail about his firing from a radio station from the lead. This person is notable as a professional MLB baseball player, not as a radio sports host. He made a stupid racist tweet on one day that caused him lots of problems including loss of that job, and he apologized repeatedly for that tweet. The previous version devoted undue weight to this particular incident, in violation (in my judgment) of BLP policy. The article, and especially the lead, should summarize this person's entire career, and not over-emphasize one really bad day for him, even if he was responsible. Cullen328 (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
    • I get you don't want to highlight his racism in the lede, but you do realize racism isn't a thing that happens to you on bad days, it's a deeply ingrained way of misthinking. No need to downplay it for the guy. Lila Wrist (talk) 05:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

      I wouldn't say racism is always deeply ingrained. Sometimes it's simply the result of ignorance to certain phenomena or issues, and can range in extremes from nazism to simply using stereotypes because you think they're true. Seeing the original tweet and its content "dirty mexicans" makes it seem to me like he thought such a phrase was equivalent to "cheeseheads" out of sheer ignorance, especially since no other tweets he has made convey hatred for hispanic people.

      While it should stay in the article due to the fact that it happened and was sourced, it should not be in the lede and only the major effects of it (him being hired by a new radio station), for the same reason we don't recognize Elon calling a rescue worker a "Pedo guy" in the lede, merely the effects that followed (him winning the defamation lawsuit). ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 11:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• The article looks compliant with WP:BLP currently, WP:UNDUE problems with the lead looks fixed, and let's face it, this isn't the correct venue to discuss such matters anyways. As a content matter, this should be discussed on the article talk page. No one is going to get blocked, so any objections to closing this thread? --Jayron32 16:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  Well, it looks like the matter has been resolved. There haven't been anymore edits removing the content, and Cullen328 blocked the IP from editing the page indefinitely. I have no objections to closing it. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 22:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  An indef block is clearly an overreaction, since they started editing the day they were blocked. They should have been blocked for no more than 31 hours. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

IP User 95.186.184.224 (talk) has been warned regarding possible disruptive editing done by them in article Harrison Davis and a lkbevel 1 warning template was sent to them. However, they hstarted to edit the warning templates. The edit was later reverted and another warning template {{'subst:uw-tpv2'}} was sent to them but they continued to edit the template. They also began vandalizing the warning tejbhgmplates wit nondgcgense, Used edit summaries that are uncivil, inappropriate or otherse unconstructive and restored the reverts made by me. EnIRtpf09b (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2022 ()

Blocked for 36 hours. Thank you for reporting, EnIRtpf09b. Another time, WP:AIV is a better, and usually faster, board for vandalism reports. Bishonen | tålk 11:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC).

I am a long time IP user interested in Turkey related articles, some of those include hotly debated topics such as the events of 1915.

For I stated my opinion that the events of 1915 does not constitute genocide (of course with references), he called me a "genocide denier" several times.[204][205][206][207]

Genocide denial is a crime in some countries and calling someone "genocide denier" amounts to accusing someone of committing a crime apart from its aspect as a personal attack.

I told him several times not to call me as such on his talk page.[208][209][210]

He then confused me with another user who edited the same page with me. Then, he then wrongly reported me to an admin for the perceived sock puppetry, which resulted my IP range being blocked for a week. By the way, the block was implemented without a checkuser verification.[211]

I think such actions should not be tolerated for the well-being of editors.

Best regards.--176.219.213.79 (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• Aside from the personal attack aspect, if you are alleging that no genocide took place, you do understand that you are in fact a genocide denier, right? It's not as if it's untrue, is it? Considering that your IP geolocates to Turkey -- not a big surprise there -- you can't complain that ZaniGiovanni has left you vulnerable to any legal problems whatsoever, given that your government shares your opinion. Ravenswing 03:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

  Simply because I am disputing that the events constitute a genocide does not mean I am a genocide denier. There are a lof of historians that dispute Holodomor constitutes a genocide and this doesn't mean they are all genocide deniers. The legal aspect of the accusation is not unrelated to the topic because accusing a Wikipedian of a crime is a heavier form of personal attack (Wikipedia:Casting aspersions). 176.219.213.79 (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

  "Genocide denial is the attempt to deny or minimize the scale and severity of an incidence of genocide;" first line of Genocide denial. Since doing so is not a crime in your country, exactly what about this is bothering you? Your dismay is surely no worse than that of any Armenian editor seeing your remarks, regarding a genocide that the vast majority of academic and historical sources (and the overwhelming majority of non-Turkish ones) states did occur. Ravenswing 05:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

  I've already answered this question here. 176.219.213.62 (talk) 08:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

  Plus, whether my stance on the events of 1915 is mainstream or not does not mean such name-calling is allowed. WP:NPA considersusing someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream to be a personal attack. 176.219.153.100 (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

  • "Simply because I am disputing that the events constitute a genocide does not mean I am a genocide denier." -- lol. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

    Funny joke but you might want to read Appeal to ridicule. 176.219.215.107 (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

    Are you the previous IP who was, rightly or wrongly, blocked for for being Ungitow? - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

    @ActivelyDisinterested They admit they are in their first comment hereHe then confused me with another user who edited the same page with me. Then, he then wrongly reported me to an admin for the perceived sock puppetry, which resulted my IP range being blocked for a week. This IP range needs a block for a combination of WP:DUCK block evasion and Genocide denialism related disruption. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 11:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

    Thanks 192.76.8.94 I missed that. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

    You can start a WP:SPI to see your assessment is incorrect. 176.219.152.135 (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

    SPI will not link IPs to accounts. Instead it's done on user behaviour, say if they have been pushing the same genocide denialism on the same pages as the account. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

    About 80% of people (about 60 million) in Turkey concur that the events of 1915 do not constitute a genocide. Therefore, it is highly plausible there are multiple users having similar thoughts editing similar articles. Your behavioral assessment, therefore, is incorrect. 213.14.255.20 (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

    I never made an editorial assessment, or any comment on you. I was just bring up a possible conclusion. That's all you're doing right? - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

    Is there some annual ANI comment special going on that I'm not aware of? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• I don't even remember you. Looking at the report User_talk:Blablubbs#Sock_IP, I had all the reasons to suspect sockpuppetry, and seems like the admin Bbb23 who blocked you for a week also thought so. This aside, why are you wasting my and everyone else's time? From your comments on Talk:Armenian_genocide#Suggestion, and extremely WP:TENDENTIOUS edits such as this (using a couple of WP:UNDUE partisan Turkish sources to prove a point) and these [212], [213], [214] (basically edit-warring and removing well sourced info from the article that the blocked for denialism account did as ell [215]), all of this led me to believe that you're an Armenian genocide denialist. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
• I've blocked the same range again, this time for one month, and because of the IP Talk pages havoc that occurred last time, revoked Talk page access from the get-go.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Bbb23: I just saw this. Is it a troll account or related to this case? --Mann Mann (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

  Honestly I don't know. You could open an SPI and request a CU. They haven't made many edits for much of a behavioral analysis. They're much older than Ungitow, but there's a 4-year gap in their edits between 2018 and 2022.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

  I saw that the other day, possibly a hijacked account? RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Will someone ban TotallyNOTMISTERDATA12 and nuke their edits? They are a WP:SOCK of MisterData124 and they (both accounts) serially insert unsourced data in articles about Romania. Global lock would be all right. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I blocked the new account. I see no basis for global locks for either account.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

This user has edit-warred at Bosnia and Herzegovina at the Olympics [216]. They have also made uncivil comments. --Firestar464 (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Firestar464: See also this IP, who appears to be the same person. NonsensicalSystem^(error?)_(.log) 09:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

That gives a range of 91.148.64.0/18. Firestar464 (talk) 10:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

It's edit-war because you people keep adding Yugoslav athletes who competed for SFRY into post-1992 Bosnia and Herzegovina Olympic article which they have NOTHING to do with. There already is another article dedicated to them and those athletes are already mentioned there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.97.216 (talk) 10:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I have semi-protected Bosnia and Herzegovina at the Olympics for two weeks. That should put a lid on it. As for "incivil comments", I don't think it's anywhere near the same ballpark as this. Also, Firestar464, is this supposed to be ironic? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by "ironic?" Firestar464 (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the IPs use of "coon" can be considered somewhat incivil. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The IP certainly seems to be up for picking a fight. If there are any other articles actively being disrupted, we can protect those as well. The diff presented by Firestar464 seemed to be little more than mild sarcasm and asking a question, though. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: IP back at it again with this edit. NonsensicalSystem^(error?)_(.log) 09:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems like they're WP:NOTHERE with their behavior in general "who cares about consensus," etc. Firestar464 (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Keep lying, that's probably the only thing you're good at. 91.148.82.106 (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

IP is back at it again with this edit at North Macedonia at the Olympics.Jeff in CA (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

And why are you adding Yugoslav results and medals on the list of another country? Macedonia did not exist as a state back than, nor before second Yugoslavia. I explained in my edit-summary why I removed that content. 91.148.82.106 (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

IP 142.162.133.44 left three of the same bizarre message under three headings, each differing by the different South Park Paramount+ specials. They're all unsigned and mention a Pebbles I never mentioned. They end with "I'm getting fed up with this whole thing! Now, I'm gonna kill you!". I'm not quite sure what's going on or how serious they intend it, but to play the same line instead of following up with details feels like it's already saying "I'm not gonna follow through". I will still probably email the emergency email to have my bases covered--CreecregofLife (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@CreecregofLife: Blocked and revision-deleted. I'm sorry this has happened to you. I would recommend that you email emergency just so that T&S are aware. I can e-mail them in case you haven't already. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I will gladly email them. I was readying to do so when the repeat incident occurred CreecregofLife (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Update: It was republished. Reverted quickly after, but still wanted it noted CreecregofLife (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Trolled after blocked, on their talkpage, TPA revoke requested.--PAVLOV (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Already handled. --Blablubbs (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

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

I would've reported this to UAA or AIV but I think this more of an account with an agenda than a vandal. Anyway the account, based on the contents of what they posted in their sandbox, seems to be only here to say that Ukraine is a Neo-Nazi state, in line with Russian propaganda. Likely WP:NOTHERE to help. funplussmart (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Clear user name violation and this sandbox screams WP:NOTHERE Valenciano (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Profoundly not here to build an encyclopedia. Indeffed. Acroterion (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• 2022 Buffalo mass shooting - ECP protection
• Grantsangsterr Indef vandalism block

I think he's just adding the name of some friend or something as the shooter. Some other editors doing the same, so suggesting ECP protection. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Acroterion beat me to it (three days, by which time the page will hopefully settle down). All the best, Miniapolis 22:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Please see 40.133.234.46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) they have been blocked before for 31 hours and then for 1 year back on 10th Feb 2021 for WP:NOTHERE, they have come back and was blocked from one article on the 17th March. They mix in ok edits with disruptive ones and some edit warring as per Harold Lloyd and current events. They wipe their own talk page so if you may come across one of their edits, you wouldn't have noticed so gets a lot of first time warnings and welcomes. The account needs to be blocked and made account creation only.— NZFC^(talk)(cont) 05:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

This IP editor has been warned at least six time in May 2022.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harold_Lloyd&type=revision&diff=1087226742&oldid=1087226178&diffmode=source
2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shredded_Chicken_Mini_Quesadilla&diff=prev&oldid=1087226331&diffmode=source
3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carlos_Ezquerra&type=revision&diff=1085831601&oldid=1085820452&diffmode=source
4. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rooibos&diff=1085931210&oldid=1085918941&diffmode=source

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:40.133.234.46&diff=1085836900&oldid=1085649861&diffmode=source
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:40.133.234.46&diff=1085980113&oldid=1085979963&diffmode=source

Please block editing on their talk page as in the 2021-02-09T06:34:03 block, otherwise this IP editor will remove the block message template & any "this is a shared IP" templates.

Also, continually blanking their own talk page seems to be their way of hiding warnings so other editors do not see them. I cannot AGF any longer on this one. Peaceray (talk) 06:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Since someone did the EXCITING task of removing my response, I will paste it here (notably they also do not even feel like giving constructive reasons for things other than clearly that they do not feel like letting my edits stand):

Hi Spencer. Since they posted here and it hasn't been removed, can I request that someone do something about this? I strongly suggest you block the ABOVE users for attempting to constantly revert my *constructive* edits. THEY are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. I'm not sure why a quesadilla should be redirected to a dollar menu item at some fast food place instead of to, you know, the actual food item. And obviously the definition of 'resultant' is not the mathematical definition (it could use a disambiguation page, but one exists for results, hence.). I tried to mention this on the Administrator board last week and got nowhere. I am tired of people accusing me of doing what *THEY THEMSELVES* are doing to me. Thanks! 40.133.234.46 (talk) 05:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

While I'll admit I could provide summary's in some places instead of using reverse vandalism button, rather than WP:BRD this IP would rather edit war and doesn't seem to realise even in the edits they have just reverted back again that they are doing things like removing references when they do it. They aren't WP:CIVIL and while they make some good edits, it doesn't make up for their history of bad ones and edit warring.— NZFC^(talk)(cont) 06:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Noting here that 40.133.234.46's statement thatsomeone did the EXCITING task of removing my response (...) clearly that they do not feel like letting my edits stand was part of an administrator's routine maintenance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=1087231153&oldid=1087229751&diffmode=source

I would ask that anyone reviewing 40.133.234.46's actions start with reviewing all the edits on that editor's talk page starting at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:40.133.234.46&diff=prev&oldid=1085649861&diffmode=source

Then go look at this editor's May 2022 edits on the pages mentioned in the warnings:

• Peter Wessel Zapffe
• Chris Cornell
• Talk:Rooibos
• Rooibos
• Harold Lloyd
• Shredded Chicken Mini Quesadilla

Peaceray (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

And *I* would ask that you clearly stop screwing with me. References were removed from some things, for instance, because they were patently false. Thanks. 40.133.234.46 (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Thus far this month, several editors have warned this IP editor for unconstructive editing, edit warring, removing another editor's talk page comments (without leaving an edit summary), warning about the three-revert rule, violation of the Manual of Style guidelines, vandalism, unconstructive editing, & disruptive editing. That is eight warnings in total. I have gone through all eight, & none of the warnings were for removing references or citations, as this editor seems to allege.

A cursory review of this IP editor's edit summaries reveal a failure to assume good faith, with edit summaries such as

• Clearly the person who keeps REVERTING MY RESEARCHED EDITS needs to be blocked.
• STOP EDIT STALKING ME AND REMOVING MY EDITS. SERIOUSLY.
• NO. THE MEANING OF SUPPOSITION IS INDEED UNCERTAINTLY. SEE WIKTIONARY. STOP EDIT STALKING ME.
• STOP EDIT STALKING ME AND REMOVING MY EDITS. SERIOUSLY.
• stop randomly reverting my edits. I CLEARLY STATED THEY WERE MOVED TO THE APPROPRIATE ARTICLES

This editor appears to only engage in discussion via the edit summary. Thus far this month, this editor's only edits to an article talk page were to remove material by another editor on Talk:Rooibos.

Thus far during this month, this editor has not provided edit summaries for about 70 edits. The MediaWiki software tagged nine of these edits withTag: references removed. There were other edit summaries with the references removed tag in which the reason for removal was not stated. For example,weird crap is an insufficient explanation for removing references, IMHO.

I think that reasonable fellow editors would find this editor in violation of several behavioral guidelines & conduct policies. Peaceray (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

This editor, Peaceray, *IS* CLEARLY edit stalking me. I replied to the individual, but I am going to message here (because it seems like they are waiting until I am idle to leave messages here that I do not get notified of). While today they have at least have stopped ARBITRARILY REVERTING MY EDITS (WITH NO REASON, the same thing they KEEP ACCUSING ME OF), they are STILL SPECIFICALLY TARGETING MY IP. Isn't there some rule against this? I'm trying to be nice, but this is very aggravating. It feels very distinctly like they are trying to take over what I am working on, and if they want to work on things WITH ME (they specifically are targeting pages that I am working on, and I'm not saying today's edits are awful but they are MY INTERESTS and it would appear that this person is clearly doing it SPECIFICALLY because they are trying to start something with me) then they should have the decency to ask. I have very specific interests and skillsets and education and it's very frustrating to feel like someone is only interested in MY edits (or whomever they are doing this to at the time; it appears this editor has a history of doing this). It's so stalkerish. Thanks. 40.133.234.46 (talk) May 11, 2022, 23:56

We really need an admin to step in here, there is a bit of WP:OWN happening with IP user going by the message left on Peaceray talkpage.

• These are MY pages that I am working on and if you were interested in collaborating, you might have had the courtesy of asking me (and also not METICULOUSLY GOING THROUGH EVERY EDIT I DO WHEN I AM NOT AROUND, AND SPECIFICALLY MINE)

I also have been keeping an eye on IP edits but decided not to engage with any improvements to their edits until discussion happens here, because like the message on Peaceray page, I assumed IP would react the same way if I did.— NZFC^(talk)(cont) 00:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Editor NZFC is clearly trying to manipulate words. I was not implying that they were "my pages". I am not claiming to own them and if you read both of my replies, and looked at my whole responses, you'd see that. My issue is both you and Peaceray are SPECIFICALLY looking at MY edits for no reason. Why are you doing this? I never started anything with you. I never got in your way. I never got into any sort of "edit war" with you. You instead chose to instigate by meticulously going one by one through all of my edits and reverting them. I once again request that Peaceray and, really to a larger extent NZFC, be spoken with with regards to edit stalking. There's no reason that I can see for this happening other than trying to get me upset (I don't like some other words that some people use, as I find such words the opposite of constructive, though it feels like they are specifically doing it). Thanks. 40.133.234.46 (talk) 40.133.234.46 (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I prefer, & will use, the word "monitor". I am monitoring 40.133.234.46's edits because some of this editor's edits, comments, & summaries are disruptions that go against English Wikipedia policies & guidelines. This has gotten my attention. I will revert actions that are clearly disruptive or that are against policies & guidelines. Peaceray (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I am perplexed. Currently this editor is by far making useful edits, but seems resistant to guidelines from the Manual of Style. When I make corrections in line with MOS:SURNAME (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_Shana_Grice&action=history) or MOS:DABORDER (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Javier&action=history) this editor seems to feel that the MOS is to be disregarded & reverts my corrections. Peaceray (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

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

This editor is continuously adding unsourced content on wikipedia page of Rukmini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) from last few days. He has been requested to provide relevant supportive references multiple times. But, so far no supportive reference provided. I also informed him about WP:RS on his talk page, but still he keeps on doing non constructive editing which results into edit warring and violation of WP:Tendentious editing. Please take note of this incident. Thank you.

Kridha (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Please look the editing of new profile User:Tatsuro22. Tatsuro22 is inserting news incidents which did not made controversy or related to controversy in controversy section with bold sub headings to highlight the individual to look negative. There are no references that identify it a controversy. No support for him in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Angana_P._Chatterji. He is revering without showing any reasons and canvassing many people to join him.101.50.2.74 (talk) 06:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.16.254.42

This IP needs blocking, dedicated solely to vandalism. As they have some knowledge of wikipedia jargon, I would imagine they have other IP's going, if anyone fancies doing some detective work.

--Boynamedsue (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

What makes you say they have knowledge of Wikipedia jargon? I see four edits, none of which were particularly constructive, but none are using any jargon. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, yes. I misunderstood the edit summaries as something the user was typing, my bad. All the edits are clear vandalism though. The nicknames applied to these individuals do not exist and are insulting. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The edit from today was pretty silly - probably a reference to this interview. The previous edits were from weeks ago - there isn't really anything urgent that needs addressing, but if they keep doing it you can report to AIV. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• 2001:569:BC16:6200:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2001:569:BC19:C500:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2604:3D08:367D:5D00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Three IP ranges in Western Canada have been genre-warring in music articles and making other disruptive edits for a few months now.[234] They keep edit warring at Beautiful Eyes and Fast & Furious. There's an obvious problem with WP:CIR,[235] and they haven't communicated via Talk pages except to make unclear edit requests[236][237][238][239] which are never revisited to continue a conversation. The disruption is annoying but not outright vandalism. Binksternet (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I looked through the ranges I only see one warning by you a month ago. Looks like they are mostly fiddling with things a good faith way but maybe not always helpful way. I don't really see enough explanations of guidelines/warnings for any action. Galobtter (pingó mió) 22:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

BoMadsen88 has been conducting an ongoing harassment campaign against me, with the most recent case being here. As you can see, the account does this via Talk pages that I frequent: Special:Contributions/BoMadsen88. There was an ANI raised about the account previously and the following was stated: "Other than that I don't think there's need for blocks or bans provided that the harassment stops. signed, Rosguill."

Also, the timing is almost too coincidental between this post on Reddit and the above mentioned Talk page edit. QRep2020 (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Please do tell me how I am harassing you. Did I contact you? I am pointing out what might potentially be a very big problem. With your edit history and behaviour there is unfortunately a very great risk of a strong COI. This has to be addressed asap. BoMadsen88 (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

BoMadsen88, please don't use article talk pages to post conduct reports, those belong on a conduct board such as this one. Beyond that, QRep2020, this report provides a poor summary. You don't link to WP:DIFFs but rather to entire discussion threads. You're expecting quite a bit from a reviewer here in that sense (WP:VOLUNTARY). And maybe someone will do it (delve deep), but if this thread goes stale, that'd probably be the reason why. Also, I don't know what you expect us to tell from linking BoMadsen88 contribs. At a glance, they just seem to be an Elon Musk WP:SPA. El_C 19:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

What may also need addressing 'asap' is your continued use of an article talk page to engage in the harassment of a contributor, after being formally warned to stop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Diff of warning? I must have missed it. El_C 19:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, a year ago, I see it. El_C 19:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:BoMadsen88#Indefinite_block. El_C 19:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

BoMadsen88 sitewide block converted to a p-block, the exact same one as QRep2020's. See my notes at the unblock request. While it doesn't negate some of the problems mentioned above, I'm inclined to give them the option of participating in this thread. El_C 21:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Look at their edit history. Their "purpose" was to get me banned and, hey, they did it. Only a matter before they come to my Talk page and gloat again. QRep2020 (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You are not banned. WP:BLOCK ≠ WP:BAN. El_C 22:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

El_C Hello, as stated above my sitewide block has been converted to a p-block for the Elon Musk Article only. However, this should be removed as well.

I was banned because of “conducting an ongoing harassment campaign against QRep2020” (Qreps2020 quote). But the only thing I did was pointing out my observation that the behaviour of was QRep2020 had been very problematic. QRep2020 has now been p-blocked by the exact same reasons that my work and research unraveled. It is therefore fair to say that QRep2020s problematic behaviour has only been uncovered and stopped now thanks to my observations and persistence. The reason that I have was p-blocked in the first place is now not valid anymore.

I only tried to make one of the most visited articles on Wikipedia less biased because of very problematic behavior I had witnessed for a long time. I accomplished that and I believe that is what every good Wikipedia editor should strive to do - don’t you too?

QRep2020 had a lot of edits on Elon Musk which gave him an authority on the page - this meant that other Wikipedia editors did not dare push the matter whenever anyone tried to point out the obviously biased sections in the article. And there has been many editors throughout the last 2 years that has tried in vain to make the article less negatively biased - each and every time QRep2020 has immediately shot the attempts down.

I am sorry I had to post my observations on the Elon Musk page, but I did not know where else to go. That will not happen again. BoMadsen88 (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

"The bridge crew remark sadly on their unwillingness to give up their hate"... Begoon 10:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Refactored from my talk page. El_C 19:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The same applies to QRep2020. Their top ten most edited articles are all Musk and Tesla related. This editor's purpose here on Wikipedia seems to be to make Musk and his businesses look as bad as possible. Cullen328 (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Well shit, so the good and the bad. Symmetry? I'm gonna re-open that ANI thread and refactor this, as they might need to be shown the door, too. El_C 19:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

This is absurd. If you look at my edits, they are not all negative. I've contributed 10 entries of my own. Please do no feed into this castigation. QRep2020 (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

QRep2020, if by "entries" you mean articles, isn't it true that all the articles that you have created are related to Elon Musk and Tesla? Isn't it true that in the past 24 hours, you supported keeping the poorly referenced quote calling Musk a "total and complete pathological sociopath" in the article? Do you deny that your main activity on Wikipedia is to add negative content about Musk? Cullen328 (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I deny it. Hindenberg Research has nothing to do with Musk. I've contributed extensively to the Fraud "article" (I was a little upset when I replied before and used the wrong word) and to the Trevor Milton article. Ken Klippenstein rubbed up against Musk but he is important reporter in his own right - same goes for Lora Kolodny. I can be obsessive sometimes, yes, but I always try to follow the rules. QRep2020 (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

QRep2020, Hindenburg Research is an aggressive short selling operation involved with the electric vehicle sector, and Tesla is the market leader. You also wrote and are the main author of TSLAQ, an aggressive short selling operation focused on criticizing Musk and Tesla. Cullen328 (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Based on my limited interactions with QRep2020 I think they are a good faith editor who clearly has an interest in Musk/Tesla but also tries to follow the rules. Springee (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps QRep2020 should be advised (not instructed, advised...) that expanding their editing to a broader range of topics might be of benefit. It should make claims of SPA editing seem less credible, and maybe help build a sense of perspective. As fascinating/annoying Musk is, he isn't the centre of the universe (yet ), and I'm sure QRep2020 can find other topics of interest, if editing Wikipedia is their thing (which it need not be...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC) Strike that, per El_C below - I'd missed that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

On closer review, I've p-blocked QRep2020 indef from Elon Musk and Talk:Elon Musk (see block notice). There are so many other topics to write about besides just negatively, about Elon Musk and his companies. Too many red flags, like, in the edit (diff) about and header titled"total and complete pathological sociopath" (link) and the one that states[E]veryone in Tesla is in an abusive relationship with Elon (diff — quoting WIRED, but still). And these are just edits from April 18 and April 20, respectively! El_C 20:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't add the sociopath remark, merely defended that it was used in accordance with the rules. QRep2020 (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't. See WP:BLP, and in particular the section on tone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

My initial impression is that this block was too hasty. ‎The "sociopathy" language went through a whole RfC and was present in the Good article pass version. Speaking of which, QRep appears to be one of the two main shepherds of the article through the GA process. There's been a lot of critical coverage of Musk over the past two years in reliable sources. I can't say I've reviewed QRep's editing pattern enough to say if they've outpaced the RS or not. I can say they've been quick to accept consensus and admit an error. I wouldn't be surprised if a warning sufficed to stem even the perception of disruptive editing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

If it's just negative material, though, isn't it more wolf than shepherd? I realize there are a lot cheerleaders, too, but is doing the opposite really any better? I'll keep an open mind, though, sure. El_C 21:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't all negative material. It's a balancing act. I have stayed out of plenty of matters concerning Elon Musk that I could have "fomented" if I wanted to turn the article into a hit piece.

Look, I got heated these past few days because I discovered people talking about me offfsite. And I shouldn't have focused on the stupid line about sociopathy - I just saw people coming out of the woodwork and was reactionary. I am a grownup, I can admit that.

Please give me a chance to show that I am not who you think I am. QRep2020 (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the protection request yesterday, which I declined (RfPP diff), and which is partly why this thread peeked my interest. In any case, these are only two pages you are restricted from, out of millions and millions. Indefinite does not necessarily mean infinite, but could just be undetermined length. El_C 21:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but that one page and its Talk page are visited by hundreds of thousands of people each day, that is why balance is so important. And yes I stepped over the line, like I said, but when the subject of the article tells people to modify the said, there is a constant need to maintain some semblance of critical ratio.

I would also like to point out the irony here that, regardless of what I am "answering to" here, I do not deserve to be libeled on a Talk page that is viewed by said thousands and now I cannot even answer to it because I elected not to give into a baser instinct. Given my status, can someone please remove the BoMadsen88 text from the Elon Musk Talk page about me. QRep2020 (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Elon Musk can say whatever (he can maybe even buy Twatter to make sure that it's his hivemind friend), but the fact is, as I mentioned in my decline of the RfPP request, that most of the users involved in recent disputes were extended confirmed, so it's unlikely they came from unReaddit. El_C 21:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Firefangledfeathers; I believe the block should be lifted, with encouragement for the editor to spend a little less time editing Musk-related articles and a little more time editing other articles. BilledMammal (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Uh, new comments go at the bottom. Weird placement. Had I not looked at the revision history in passing, I'd have not seen it. Anyway, I'm not unblocking either user. They both can appeal their block in the usual way. Appeals which I'm unlikely to comment on, either way (because because). El_C 01:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Just chiming in to add that I also believe QRep2020 is a good faith editor and valuable contributor to the project. When I started editing a few years back, all articles on Wikipedia related to Musk were extremely biased and promotional, failing to mention almost all of the well-documented criticism and controversies surrounding Musk and his companies. The number of trolls who still to this day try to change Musk's article to call him a business magnet is indicative of the "reality distortion field" surrounding Musk[240][241][242], and QRep has been one of the few active contributors pushing back to maintain neutrality. So while they may have been overly zealous at times, and a warning could certainly be warranted, I believe that the block was premature as they have made a very valuable contribution by providing some much needed balance in this subject area. Stonkaments (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

As noted on QRep2020's talk page, they should probably substantively address the possible WP:COI raised by Cullen328 (diff), who unlike me fumbling about, actually seems to have done his research. El_C 02:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328, were you raising the possibility of COI there? I just read that comment as an elaboration on the SPA point, tying all the articles back to Musk. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, I have not had the opportunity to read those more recent links so will respond based on what I knew at the time. I have seen no evidence of a clearcut conflict of interest though I am aware that some editors have accused this editor of being a Tesla short seller. I literally have no idea and even no hunch whether or not this is true. But following my criticism, they posted a denial on their user page. What I do know that this is a highly skilled SPA editor who seems to think that Elon Musk is a "very bad person" and is determined to use Wikipedia as a platform to negatively impact Musk's reputation. In the spirit of full disclosure, speaking personally, I think that Musk is a bizarre person who has received a lot of legitimate criticism. I am not a fan. He is obviously also a highly successful person with major accomplishments. He can deploy a troll army to have the Wikipedia biography say that he is a "magnet" instead of a "magnate" and I have opposed such baloney when it has come to my attention. But what I see is that this is an editor who by all evidence is here only to add content that reflects negatively on this living person and his businesses. Yes, there are a lot of negatives about Musk. But accounts focused on praising or discrediting Musk are equally disruptive. The Neutral point of view is a core content policy and editors who are here to push a negative point of view about a living person are inherently disruptive even if they try, on the surface, to comply with policies and guidelines. Contrition when an editor is sanctioned should be evaluated with a certain degree of skepticism, and the "I blew my stack" defense is not too persuasive, unless accompanied by persuasive assurances thst the disruption will not resume. Cullen328 (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I was mostly asking for clarification on COI, but I also appreciate your thoughts on the SPA-ness of it all. My angle is: could we have prompted similar levels of contrition and (hopefully soon to come) assurances against future disruption with a warning or temp block (though I know El C is allergic). I've said my piece, and I'd like to leave space for the opinions of others. So, I'd appreciate your contemplative thought on the matter, but please don't feel compelled to reply. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I was planning to take a few days off of Wikipedia before appealing and making assurances, but I do not want to invite a COI over my head too so I will say the following in hopes that it shows where my mind is at the moment:

Though I do not agree that I have exercised a "special purpose" here on Wikipedia - often narrow, yes, but not exclusive - I have no doubt grown obsessive about getting in front of what I came to perceive as a bend in the encyclopedia towards promoting Musk and his endeavors. In recognizing this, I promise to reread NPOV immediately during my small break from the site and assure that, if granted clemency, I will not make any updates to Elon Musk for a period of a month and will not push for any changes via discussions on Talk:Elon Musk as well. I also promise to not make any updates on other Musk-related articles during this time besides reverting obvious acts of vandalism or disruptive editing as a way of forcing myself to try and upend these assumptions I have cemented. Finally, I will force myself to spend time contributing to relatively distant topics on Wikipedia like @El C hinted at and will figure out a way to record any such non-Musk related updates I make on my Talk page as a testament to what I am doing to fix my behaviors.

Thank you. QRep2020 (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

It is difficult to assume good faith with your statement given that youdo not agree that I have exercised a "special purpose" here on Wikipedia, given that your past 1,000 edits (dating back to April 2021) exclusively deal with Tesla and Elon Musk-related articles. Obsessive is one way to put it. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

No, they don't. Look harder. QRep2020 (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Really? You're going to flat out lie about your edit history now? See for yourself: here and here. You're really going to still maintain that you are not obsessed with Tesla-Musk-related articles? What a farce. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

"Exclusively" has meaning to some. QRep2020 (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I am not lying. "Exclusively" means all. Not all of them are. QRep2020 (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I found two whole edits out of your previous 1,000 edits, my bad. 998995 edits out of your past 1,000 edits pertain to Musk in some shape or form pretty much constitutes exclusivity. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, if anyone can explain User_talk:QRep2020#Notice_of_Conflict_of_interest_noticeboard_discussion and User_talk:QRep2020#Tesla_short-selling_group_WP:COI_username, I'm all ears. El_C 02:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Might as well link the COIN discussion itself too. Still reading. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure El_C. Maybe SPA-like activity coupled with the letter Q is enough to say "this is a clear COI"? I think the COIN discussion came to no consensus on that point. QRep2020 clearly denies having a COI and has an explanation for their username. I get some real "small world" vibes from the cast of characters there, that's for sure. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure I follow, Firefangledfeathers (RE: "cast of characters"). But just to clear things up: I am Q. Tremble before my stromzezes. El_C 03:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

El_C, you messed up your link. I think you meant Q. Springee (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh my God! He admit it!

I just meant that I see a lot of usernames in common between that January 2021 COIN discussion and recent discussions in the QRep2020-sphere, this one included. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Springee: dude, I've already been called a god (fondly, I'm sure) once tonight. Or was it not-a-god? Anyway, I'm not tempting fate!

@Firefangledfeathers: that's right, I have QR clearance. Erm, I mean, you suck, Paul! El_C 03:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, there was a serious part: I dunno, at a gleence, it seems like it had fairly limited participation, either way. Not sure what prompted what by whom when. Mind you, like with the ANI report that QRep2020 provided in their OP, I see HAL's sig and my eyes sort of glaze over. No offense to him, nice guy and good content editor, and hopefully he returns to the project soon, but I just find it visually jarring. Damn, I'm terrible. El_C 03:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

It is always either amusing or disconcerting to see such highly experienced editors stray so far from the substance of the matter being discussed. Is that the norm these days? Cullen328 (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

i mean, have you read the responses on long anis? 晚安 (トークページ) 06:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: for my part at least, notwithstanding the undoubtedly excessive levity (though hopefully not too tone deaf), I hope you know that I always give serious comments, from you or anyone, serious consideration. El_C 13:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Woah, this case is really testing the breaking point of WP:CANVASS. See my list of evidence: Post at reddit of QRep2020 got partially banned; and r/EnoughMuskSpam where the pinned comment is featuring Criticism of Tesla, Inc. article. All I can say (as an editor mainly edit about SpaceX articles) that both User:Stonkaments and User:QRep2020 has been civil to me, and I think they are either from the most to least likely: simply growing obsessive at the topic, an activist, or a SPI/LTA. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Is this your first day at ANI? ;-) Levivich 19:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a reasonable compromise is QRep2020 agrees that no more than 50% of their meaningful edits will be on Musk related topics. By meaningful I mean things other than minor edits/contributions/spelling corrections etc. My concern here is that, so long as the editor stays within the rules, I don't see a clear issue with an editor having only a narrow interest. It's OK to argue that some content is DUE etc so long as an editor is also willing to accept when consensus doesn't go their way.

Springee (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Seconded. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

This block is warranted. There's a pretty big difference between "having only a narrow interest" and fixating on adding negative information. The latter falls into WP:SPA and WP:NOTHERE. Honestly I think QRep2020 is nice enough, but the editing behavior is clearly problematic. It has been problematic since COIN, and in fact has only gotten worse. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence there is actually a COI? Can you point to edits you think are over the line? Springee (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems that they listed a few here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_167#QRep2020. Personally, I am not convinced, and giving QRep another chance and see how it goes would be much better (that however does not mean that QRep is free of problems, it is best left to others to decide). However, Elephanthunter have very strong evidences of canvassing outside of Wikipedia in Reddit ([243], [244], [245], search result of QRep2020 on Reddit). In fact, a boomerang may apply here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing all of that out. QRep2020 (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: Can you explain your last two sentences with a bit more detail? BOOMERANG against who, for what? --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Three questions:

1. The COI thread linked above resulted in no consensus and was from over a year ago. Does anyone have any new evidence of COI to present?
2. Being an SPA is not against policy. Adding negative information to articles is also not against policy. Can anybody post three diffs of "bad" edits by QRep2020? Because I'm not seeing the problem here, other than someone editing a lot about a particular topic, which isn't unusual at all.
3. Are we within WP:OUTING policy to link any Wikipedia editors to those Reddit threads about QRep2020? Because if so, that's a real problem that needs to be addressed. And if not, then it should go to arbcom via private evidence rather than be raised here on-wiki at ANI. Levivich 19:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• For what it's worth: A quick review of that WWW site indicates that people are not attempting to attach an identity or any personal information to the Wikipedia account, and are referring to it by the account name. Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment and Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment do apply, and the account-holder has said "Look, I got heated these past few days because I discovered people talking about me offfsite.", though, so I think that people should be cautious about this. I think that great caution should also be exercised in trying to link the Reddit accounts to Wikipedia accounts, to the extent of not doing it, not least because it appears that the Reddit accounts are just trying to take credit for what someone else did. "We" did this? There's no evidence there of their actually doing anything. It wouldn't be the first time in the history of the world that people have indulged in empty bragging. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Private evidence submitted to Arb. Schierbecker (talk) 06:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
• Breaking nonsense: James Randal buys Twitter (Shut up me). El_C 00:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. By the way, is Reaper_Eternal's interpretation, the one posted on on my Talk page, of what my violations consisted of accurate? QRep2020 (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know why people keep pointing to this diff as a BLP vio when

  1. the line had been in the article for a year (since Special:Diff/1018696069)
  2. it was supported in an RFC (Talk:Elon Musk/Archive 9#RfC about Musk's treatment of employees), and
  3. it was in the version that was promoted to GA (Special:Permalink/1026867820).

  All of these three points have been raised in this ANI thread and also on the talk page at Talk:Elon Musk#"total and complete pathological sociopath". Turns out, consensus changed, and the line was removed, but that was after. No BLP violation that diff. Above I asked for three "bad" diffs, and this ain't one of them. Levivich 17:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tesla,_Inc./Archive_2#Founders Certain users (QRep2020) involved in biographies policy violations participated in the conversation. I propose a new conversation about the founders of Tesla. A lawsuit settlement agreed to by Eberhard and Tesla in September 2009 allows all five – Eberhard, Tarpenning, Wright, Musk, and Straubel – to call themselves co-founders. --JShark (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

It runs deep... I shouldn't have been involved in this thread. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

This, and your edits to Tesla, Inc. come close to WP:GRAVEDANCING -Behaving as though a consensus is no longer valid simply because a blocked or banned editor contributed to it. Whilst consensus can change, the simple act of blocking does not change it - if you wish to overturn the previous consensus then further input should be sought. If you want to overturn the consensus, then open a discussion, but the status of QRep2020 is not relevant. BilledMammal (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

QRep2020 isn't even being "blocked" in the usual sense, which further invalidate JShark's argument. I have fear that this ANI thread is becoming (or have been per off-wiki Reddit posts) a place for people hate and love Musk clash together, and I hope some administrator would lose this asap. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

If We're handing out topic blocks I think JShark has also gone out of their way to earn one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support partial block. The last few edits include [246][247][248][249][250][251]. Actually they don't include that, those are literally the last few edits (no cherry picking). A single purpose account whose sole objective is to add negative information to a BLP should not be editing that BLP. Good block. Aircorn (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  You linked to six edits in reverse chronological order, let's look at them each.

  1. Sixth edit (Apr 16 21:41) was re-reverting a bold edit that was made at 07:41, reverted by another editor at 09:29, and reinstated by the first editor at 18:51; it was a good edit per WP:BRD and WP:MANDY
  2. Fifth edit (Apr 17 14:53) was implementing the talk page discussion at the time at Talk:Elon Musk#Should this material on racial discrimination be included?; good edit
  3. Fourth edit (Apr 17 19:57) was reverting a bold removal made at 17:25; the phrase that QRep restored with the revert, "stances and highly publicized controversial statements", had been in the article for at least on year prior in the form "stances and highly publicized controversies" (that's as far back as I looked); good edit
  4. Third edit (Apr 18) is the edit I talked about above, that was per an RFC result, and also was in the Good Article version of the article (the first edit C linked to in the comment above at 20:25, 20 April 2022); it's also a good edit, because it's backed by an RFC
  5. Second edit was implementing a talk page discussion from Talk:Elon Musk#Bad writing at end of lede; good edit
  6. First edit was a bad edit (it's the second edit C linked to in the same comment above)

  So five good edits and one bad one. Levivich 23:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  Its not about whether the edits are good or acceptable. It is the simple fact that every edit is negative to a BLP. Taken as a whole this is someone whose only intention is to add negative content about Elon Musk, not to actively contribute to making the encylopaedia better. Aircorn (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  It's exactly about whether the edits are good. A group of good edits, taken together, are not a bad thing. It's not all negative (not all of those six were negative), there's a lot of negativity in the sourcing, and correcting constant whitewashing means introducing negative content. It's just how it is. Did you read the Slate article from a couple days ago about this by the way? It explains this. Let me quote a part for you:As the user Warbayx put it, “literally 1/4 of Musk’s front page is dedicated to criticism, how can anyone think this is unbiased and fair?” To which the user PraiseVedic replied, “I would say that more than 1/4 of the coverage Musk receives in the media is critical of him, so if anything Wikipedia is under-criticizing him, if that’s a thing.” Anyway, six negative edits on one day is not a lot. I've added a lot more negative stuff about people on this website than that. You know all my edits about the police are negative, for example. Because I edit articles about police brutality. It's inherent. If you edit about Musk or Putin or Johnny Depp or many other high profile people, it's gonna be a lot of negative. Levivich 13:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  Its not though. The only difference I see with this case and StuartYeates a month or so ago is that we don't have the smoking gun of a linked twitter account telling us of their intentions. If anything this is way worse from an onwiki behaviour point of view as Stuart worked on multiple other topics and BLPs without much problem whereas here we have a SPA with one very clear intention. Again if your only reason for being here is to add negative comments to a BLP (which is not refuted and should not matter who the BLP is) then you shouldn't be editing here. You do a lot of other things, including mostly adding good commentary here, so your situations don't compare. Aircorn (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  But they're not only adding negative comments to a BLP. Look, of the six edits you posted, only one--the First edit--was adding negative content...

  • The second edit is not negative content, it's just neutral wordsmithing. Also, it's implementing a talk page discussion started by, and with the participation of, editors other than QRep. There is no way we can call that "QRep adding negative content to a BLP"; it's multiple editors figuring out how to say something neutrally, which we call "consensus". Implementing consensus (or attempting to) is not "adding negative content to a BLP".
  • The third edit was restoring negative content that had been removed against an RFC, and that had been there since the GA. Restoring longstanding negative content is not "adding" negative content.
  • The fourth edit also did not involve negative content, just wordsmithing. Also, it was restoring longstanding language. So it's not "adding" anything.
  • The fifth edit was adding negative content, but it's following talk page discussion, and the suggestion to add the content was made by an editor other than QRep (and other editors agreed). It's not fair to pin that on Qrep as "adding negative content" when they're not the impetus for it, they're just taking the crack at writing it up after a talk page discussion.
  • The sixth edit wasn't adding negative content, it was re-removing overly-positive content recently added by someone else, that was already reverted by someone else. That's not "adding" anything either.

  Implementing talk page consensus, reverting promotional language, restoring longstanding language changed against or without consensus... none of these things is "adding negative content to a BLP". These are all things we should be encouraging editors to do. I think of these six edits, five are good edits that we want people to be making. That's not something to sanction someone over. Levivich 01:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  Second this. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  Also agree - I see they have appealed their block, and I hope the appeal is granted. BilledMammal (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  The block has been removed. Appreciate the votes of confidence, everyone. I believe this discussion can be archived now. QRep2020 (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

‎Palow s coba11 (talk · contribs) looks like a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Most edits are adding bare links to other Wikipedia articles (or mirror sites like wikiwand) as citations. Talk page messages have had no effect. MrOllie (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie: As a Wikipedian who is hard of hearing, can I ask we don't use "deaf" in this way? — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 17:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The only time that you can see notifications on mobile is when about to edit. Hopefully they see it then. RHF 19 (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

What rubbish, I always see all notifications on my mobile device. Oh, yeah, I virtually always use desktop mode. 😁

Clearly good faith, so I've left them further advice, hopefully they actually read that (and everything else on their talkpage). Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 03:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Long time since I've been at ANI, but this one does not fit into AN3, AIV, or other noticeboards. Apparently, this user had been PRODding articles about Jain groups under BLPPROD, which I quickly dePRODded procedurally, as they were not BLPs. They had also removed an AfD tag here, which I promptly reverted as well. They had also left some rather inappropriate warnings here. I am seeing a couple of constructive edits coming from this user, but they had already been blocked for edit warring. Thanks, and I hope to get some feedback. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 16:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

A site block of 24 - 72 hours would be fine to stop this disruption. 106.214.120.46 (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

He has already got site block and the user is still engaged in adding unreferenced material [[252]], he also gave inappropriate warnings when in fact it was him who was edit warring just to add word "Jat" there. And for this wrong prod it looks like some kind of revenge based editing against me. Just see he added BLPPROD on an unrelated article where it is not applicable [[253]]. He also removed AfD tag from an article. I think there is a case of WP:CIR, and all this is happening after facing recent ban for edit warring.RS6784 (talk) 05:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The user is also continuously directing personal attacks on other editors, just see here [[254]], here again putting personal attacks- [[255]]. Now just see here [[256]] the editor created a new page- duplicate version of the one Khokhar page where he had been banned for edit warring. This is open case of WP:CFORK RS6784 (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked indefinitely as it's clear that the user is not here to build an encyclopaedia but rather promote an agenda. —SpacemanSpiff 07:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• Laguna Woods church shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Thomasrobbe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 90.131.34.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Both the user and IP are adding hoax content to a page about a recent mass shooting. They appear to be User:Meters/Frank Mortenson LTA (courtesy ping Meters), but either way it's getting tiresome reverting this BLP-violating material. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

A Tele2 ISP out of Lithuania making an edit about Frank Mortenson is a big duck to me. Meters (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

ossible socks?p RHF 19 (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, comment error. Think they're a sock? RHF 19 (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It most certainly looks like it to me. Love of Corey (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe there is an SPI on this one. Users are just using my LTA data. Several previously blocked users are listed in User:Meters/Frank Mortenson LTA#Accounts. The behaviour is a bit odd, since the intent is usually to promote Frank Mortenson, but as I wrote, a Tele2 Lithuania IP with a focus on Frank Mortenson is unlikely to be anyone else. Meters (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Another for the list, @Meters. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Quick update, the article has been semi protected. RHF 19 (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Meters. There is an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Birdsflyinghigh123. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• Page Protected x 72 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks! Love of Corey (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  Will update behaviour and account/IP Meters (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Ad Orientem Thanks, by the way. RHF 19 (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  Time for an edit filter. Already done. Acroterion (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  Meters, the socks kept using an article from a Medium columnist that just posts derogatory, false claims about Frank Mortenson, like he's being investigated by the CIA, he's a white supremacist, involved with the KKK, guilty of terrorism, so I'm surprised that the former IPs and accounts were promoting him because it looked like online harassment to me. But we have less to worry about now that there is an edit filter. I have to learn not to try to make sense of the behavior of sockpuppets. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  Yup, I don't know if this is the same LTA or two different ones. It may be that the edit filter is working so well that they have had to switch to negative mentions just to keep him on Wikipedia. I'm not going to worry about it as long as we keep quickly whacking them. I've added the SPI and new (to me) behaviour to the report so others can see it. Thanks all. Meters (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Clearly NOTHERE. This account has been indentified as an open proxy. It was warned for vandalism in June and December 2018, May 2019, as well as in January 2021. Then, in October 2021, it was blocked and recieved 8 warnings. It was then globally block as an open proxy for 6 months. Within 3 days of being unblocked, it was blocked for 3 months. There has been only one contribution by this user that is not obvious vandalism. Starship SN20 (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@Starship SN20 As you noted in your report this IP had already been re-blocked by the time you reported them here, what do you want an administrator to do? 192.76.8.94 (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I think something more permanant (a few years). It is only used for vandalism. Starship SN20 (talk) 11:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a bog-standard fiber-optic business connection, possibly a school, rather than an open proxy. Regardless, it has been blocked for three months for vandalism, the latest in a series of escalating blocks, and that is sufficient for now. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

These users seem to be WP:SOCKS of each other. They edit the same pages and the same topics, give each other barnstars, and have the same user page design. Could someone investigate this, and block the accounts if they are connected. I'm only posting here and not at WP:SPI because my account hasn't been autoconfirmed yet. Thanks, --எ (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC) (originally at 04:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC))

I'll see if I can get someone to look into this for you. RHF 19 (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Ignore RHF 19's comment, they are blocked and cannot help. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe Thank you, can you help ? எ (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind, I filed an SPI -- எ (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I indeffed this user as WP:NOTHERE when he/she re-added unsourced negative content to Toll Brothers after this final warning. However, he/she quickly reverted that edit, and had also (unknown to me) left a reply to my warning that made my block look WP:INVOLVED, so I've undone it. Would someone else like to take it over if that seems appropriate? Note: please see the filter log. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

That wasn't an WP:INVOLVED block no matter which way you look at it. Regardless, I've reblocked the account.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Respected Sirs, It has come to my attention that the article Neal Communities has been continually bombarded with promotional material. In recent months User:Bobrien12 has added un-encyclopedic material including using the company's website as the sole source for several facts and figures as well as attributions etc. He admitted in this revision [257] that he was an employee of the company in question. He takes his ladle and continues to serve up a dark stain on the name of the Free Encyclopedia. I am a new editor and I am not really very familiar with procedure. I hope that the proper authorities can rectify this matter. Technicalrestrictions01 (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks like Bobrien12 now is working with others on the talk page to handle this COI appropriately. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Recently the user Spburstein506 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made hundreds of edits using a script to correct typos. However, because the changes were not previewed by them, this caused nearly all of these edits to be incorrect.

Examples:

• Example 1 – transcription of foreign-language text
• Example 2 – proper name
• Example 3 – foreign title
• Example 4 – uncommon sports term
• Example 5 – species name

Some of the edits were legitimate typo fixes:

• Example 6

But these are very few. Having gone through around two dozen of them I think only two or three were correct. Others and I have already reverted many them, but many more remain. I believe the edits were made in good faith, but because of their sheer number I would suggest they be reverted using mass-rollback.

The original discussion about these edits was started on the Languages Wikiproject talk page. In this matter I have contacted Fastily, an admin, here. He refused to do the rollback but directed me here. There might be some other places where this has been discussed which I am not aware of.

Regards, MichaelTheSlav (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• This is a very simple case, and as I commented at the WPLANG thread, it can just be fixed with a mass rollback of the 150 or so as of yet unreverted edits in this filtered contributions list. All it takes is someone with the rollback userright and the willingness to click a few buttons using User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback. No further action needs to be taken, as the editor has stopped those fixes and it doesn't seem like they're going to restart.
  I would like to add that the correct edits are even fewer than might seem: example 6 above is presented as a correct fix, but it's not: "sackness" there is not a typo for "sickness" but an incorrect word for 'sacking'. – Uanfala (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• I have mentioned this conversation at Wikipedia talk:Correct typos in one click and pinged the author of the script to inform them of the issue. TSventon (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I've just reverted them. ― Qwerfjkltalk 16:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• I see that after the rollbacks performed by Qwerfjkl and Elmidae, as well as by some smaller-scale manual fixes by a number of other editors, the offending edits have been reverted. As far as I'm concerned, this has been resolved and there's nothing else to do. – Uanfala (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I recently removed the full name of UFC fighter Tony Ferguson from his article because it's not used in any independent media sources whatsoever. The source used to include it is independent research via a commission document. Per WP:BLP, this is a no-no because it constitutes WP:DOX. We need to err on the side of NOT including personally identifiable information on Wikipedia unless it is already widely available, and by all accounts, the only reason his is available via a Google search at all is its presence on his page.

When making this deletion, I explained my rationale on the talk page, Talk:Tony Ferguson.

User:Cassiopeia reverted the edit, ignored the talk page discussion I started, and decided to call me a vandal on my talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sorry_sir,_that%27s_classified_information&diff=1087400445&oldid=1073662994

I am bringing this to ANI attention because I take BLP extremely seriously with a lot more scrutiny than a typical Wikipedia article, which is precisely what WP prescribes. I am in general concerned that User:Cassiopeia may have something of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on his edits to MMA articles, often gatekeeping the contributions of neophytes like myself, but I wish to assume good faith on that matter and await a greater rationale for why he decided to call me a vandal after reading WP:BLP. --Sorry sir, that's classified information (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• The overwhelming majority of news sources don't include the full legal name of their subjects, but those legal names are nonetheless valid inclusions in articles about them -- and indeed, are routine -- even in many cases where the subjects themselves would devoutly love to suppress the information. This particular case scarcely involves someone seeking to avoid publicity, or unwarranted digging. This is someone actively participating in professional sports, and the source in question is a publicly available government document issued in support of that endeavor. (It's a freaking scoresheet, for pity's sake.)
  Furthermore, WP:DOX absolutely, positively does not apply here: it's intended to protect the anonymity of Wikipedia editors, not of BLP subjects, and the only guidance there dealing with non-editors is "Content and sourcing that comply with the biographies of living persons policy do not violate this policy; neither do discussions about sources and authors of sources, unless comments about persons are gratuitous to determining source quality." Finally, I'm missing the diff where you talk this over with Cassiopeia before dashing straight to ANI to complain; might you provide it, please? Ravenswing 02:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
• Perhaps you were thinking of WP:BLPPRIVACY instead of WP:DOX? 🙂 — TNT (talk • she/her) 02:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
• Just to note, 'twas me who reverted the removal and restored his name. Cass only restored the current ranking that you reverted, which could be what prompted the warning template being issued. That aside, I completely agree with Ravenswing. Media sources probably don't publish his full name because, why would they? Not all that relevant, but the guy has "Anthony Armand" tattood on his arm. I think it's safe to presume he's not trying to hide his full name. – ².O.^Boxing 02:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I've added a more appropriate source for the name. – ².O.^Boxing 03:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Come to that, a simple GNews search for "Anthony Armand Ferguson Padilla" turns up articles on CNN and in the Kenyan and Indonesian press; elapsed time, less than it took me to type this response. Ravenswing 05:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry sir, that's classified information See below

1. The warning was for the edit you removed the source ranking info see here here-1. I am one of the counter vandalism trainers in Wikipedia and it is my work to warns editors who make disruptive, vandalism, promotion, copyvio, NPOV, adding unsourced, spam and etc edits.
2. DOX has nothing to do with BLP. Pls understand the guidelines.
3. The full name is support by independent, reliable sourced content.
4. I am not the one who reverted or restored the full name info but other editor - see here-2. Pls check carefully next time before state the wrong fact. So I have no idea why the ANI is for.
5. Pls note if any disagreement, then go to the article talk page and "invite the involved" editor and discuss is "extensively and lengthy and you can also invite other experienced editors to comment who know a lot about the subject". If after all the above, and still distributive then an ANI can be raised for ANI is the last resort and not without discussion then go to ANI. You have not event ping me and any discussion of the issue and straight went to ANI and this is not how thing work. Thus, pls understand the the procedures. In Wikipedia, editors should discuss the issues in hand on the article talk page and not run to ANI for every issue. I have about 200K edits and have
6. Finally I am an experienced MMA editor in Wikipedia, and I am here to help. Do raise any questions or seek any assistance if you may. Cassiopeia talk 09:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• I thought WP:DOX applied to other editors? As far as I'm aware Ferguson does not edit wikipedia (if you've seen his twitter you can probably figure out why.) ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 20:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
• As a BLPN regular, I have a fairly different perspective from most others here. While User:Sorry sir, that's classified information may have used the wrong policy and came to the wrong board (they should have raised this at WP:BLP/N rather than here), their actions quite correct and it's User:Squared.Circle.Boxing and User:Cassiopeia who at least initially edited completed inappropriate. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY and to a lesser extent WP:BLPNAME we do not rely on primary sources no matter if they are government issued or part of some competition to support someone's name. We require that the name is published in reliable secondary sources. Until and unless someone adds such a source, it is appropriate to remove the name. It does not matter whether we have reason to think the person is trying to intentionally conceal their name. In the absence of sources it's not our concern. In particular, it does not matter whether editors think like User:Ravenswing that it's basic information. No suitable sources then no name, period. You can yell until you're blue that it's basic information but if it's basic information then it should be trivially for you to find suitable soures. Perhaps the OP could have done WP:BEFORE but if you regularly edit BLPs you come across a lot of these terribly sourced names all the time, and sadly a lot of experienced seems to think it's acceptable when it isn't. Knowing jack shit about MMA, I would have no idea whether this is one of those large number of cases where the name isn't available in reliable secondary sources and so should not be included or it is it's just that editors seem to think it's acceptable to source it to crappy "official" sources and myself would likely have just removed it if an editor brought it to BLPN and fought to keep it out until an editor acceptably sourced it. It's good that this eventually happened but it should not have taken an ANI thread for that to happen. If you're fighting to keep a living person's personal information an an article you should be the one finding the sources, not the editor you are reverting. Nil Einne (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  I should clarify it's possible in some cases evidence that the subject is trying to conceal their name or not trying to conceal their name may be relevant. But this is only likely in certain cases, such as when there are very few sources covering. It doesn't matter when there are no reliable secondary sources, nor if a lot of them. Also thinking about this more IMO this is serious enough that I'm hoping we get rapid correction from the editors concerned since if we don't, I could see a BLP topic ban in order. For that reason, I've given discretionary sanctions alerts to the two editors involved, as well as to Ravenswings who while not involved expressed some extremely concerning views here which as I said are not at all in accordance with BLP policy. It may be that Ravenswings thinks such things but fortunately does not involve themselves on adding or keeping real names in articles so it's not an issue and if so I apologise. But it seemed better to be safe than sorry, if these editors do exhibit non BLP compliant editing in the future, it would be easier to deal with under DS rather than needing a community ban IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 07:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  Nil Einne I am NOT the one who revert the info, pls check the article history page and read the comment on this discussion first prior messaged on BLP DS alert me on my talk page.[

  Both user Sorry sir, that's classified information and Nil Einne didnt check the article history log and jumped into ANI immaturely on me. Please check first or come to my talk page or article talk page (ping pls) and discuss prior this uncall for ANI..[User:Cassiopeia| Cassiopeia]] talk 23:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Cassiopeia: I was aware you were not the one who reverted the OP. However you were the one who falsely accused the OP of vandalism. [258] I don't know why the OP reverted your attempt at updating the scoring information [259] but it's clear from their edits that they were primarily trying to deal with a BLP violation they had identified. The most likely reason considering your edit was the most recent one at the time is as a new editor, they were trying to work out how to fix the article an edited an old version or used the undo button not understanding that the BLP violation had been there for a while. Whatever the case, it was inappropriate for you to accuse the OP of vandalism since despite their mistake, their edit was constructive since they were dealing with a BLP violation which is far more serious than some dumb ranking update. The fact you did not revert them dealing with the BLP violation is no excuse for you to falsely accuse them of vandalism. You then come to this thread after the OP had already explained what they were trying to do and given enough information that any editor with knowledge of BLP should have recognised they were dealing with a BLP violation. But instead of apologising to the OP for your false accusation of vandalism and for not noticing or dealing with the BLP violation yourself earlier, and thanking them for identifying a BLP violation, you defend your actions. You said that "The full name is support by independent, reliable sourced content" but while this may be true now, there were no inline citations for the full real name at the time which was what the OP was trying to deal with. Lacking such inline cites for the alleged full real name of a living person is simply not acceptable and is an urgent BLP problem that needs to be dealt with as the OP did. Any editor who wishes to add such information (back or initially) needs to be adding such inline cites, not just claiming they exist. And while you falsely accused the OP of vandalism, at no stage did you warn the editor who added back the BLP violation. You boast how you're an expert on MMA articles. I know very little about MMA, but I know enough to recognise that a large number of people involved are living people. Therefore if you're an expert on MMA related articles you need to also need to have good familiarity with BLP. So you should be recognising BLP violations more easily than the OP not the other way around. But instead it's clear you've failed to recognise this BLP violation and came here and faulted the OP when the only made a few minor mistakes in particular accidentally reverting your ranking update, identifying the wrong policy and coming to ANI instead of BLP. But these are all minor issues compared to the fact you and two others appeared to think it was perfectly fine for our article to have a BLP violation just because the sources probably existed somewhere but had not yet been found at the time. So yes my BLP DS alert was entirely appropriate as was my earlier comment. To put it a different way, if you're going to be "I am an experienced MMA editor" who is "I am here to help", then you need to either familiarise yourself with BLP, or stop editing MMA articles there's no two ways about it. To be clear, I've avoided calling this a serious BLP violation since it seems clear sufficient sources exist to allow inclusion of the name. However it was a very obvious and all too common one that could have easily been a serious BLP violation. Any editor with basic familiarity with BLP needs to recognise that sourcing an alleged real or full name to a scoring sheet or some other primary source is not acceptable in any way and that these are the sort of problems which can easily be serious BLP violation if acceptable sourcing doesn't exist. Actually there is just one case at BLPN which was dealt with by oversight. Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Nil Einne I suggest you again, to read the whole message on this threat to understand why I place the warning on editor page prior jumping into conclusion. I didnt revert, an you place a BLD DR on my talk page which is a false accusation. Please do "read" and check first prior all this uncall for message and misunderstanding. This whole ANI on my was the editor didnt check carefully on the history log and assuming of what happened, and you did the same here. To state I am an experienced MMA editor and provide assistance to the editor who is new to Wikipedia/mma article editing is a "friendly" toward the new editor and this is the way we try to help other editors in Wikipedia - you read too much into what I said and misunderstand the point. Cassiopeia talk 23:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• This is mostly offtopic ANI, but since the discussion is here, just a brief explanation of why this is the sort of thing which editors who regularly edit BLPs need to recognise as a problem. There are some areas and cases where it's very common for pseudonyms to be maintained with no reliable secondary sources using the real or full name of this person. One obvious area is with actors in adult films. Some editors insist on trying to add real names, using atrocious sourcing like trademark documents or other legal document, something that is completely unacceptable. To be clear, while that may be the most common area, by no means is it exclusive, there was a case I dealt with in 2021 of a singer who only discloses (part of?) her given name where editors were trying to add the full name based on ASCAP records and sheet music. And very recently, there's a case at BLPN which I wasn't involved in but where oversight got involved. Note that in this case the name is said to be in one possibly reliable secondary source, although the article on the person does mention a conviction so in some ways it's more severe but ultimately that doesn't affect whether it's a problem. Anyone who spots such problems with real or full names that are not acceptably sourced should be fixing them, either by finding sufficient reliable secondary sourcing or if there's none probably requesting revdeletion or maybe even suppression/oversight. At the very least, removing the info until it's dealt with is appropriate. It may be in MMA it's very rare that the full and/or real name is not in reliable secondary sources. If you know that but the sourcing is a problem then you still need to either fix it by finding those sources or remove it until someone does. Nil Einne (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

2003:6:310F:520:CA2:99EE:3796:800D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New IP is bent on removing any non-Armenian links to anything related to Greater Armenia.

[260] Removed the Turkic etymology

Attempted to alter sourced information several times at Antiochus I of Commagene, replacing "Iranian" with "Armenian" [261] [262] [263] [264]

[265] Attempted to make the Persian connection less certain by adding his own word "probable"

[266] Removed sourced info by a high quality source from De Gruyter, dismissing its author as a "nationalist who denies ancient sources should not be given a platform on Wikipedia"

[267] Removed sourced info which mentions the Iranian origin of the name Tigranes

[268] Same as above

Clearly WP:TENDENTIOUS, and if I may be so bold, WP:NOTHERE as well. Nothing good ever comes out of this type of behaviour.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

It clear that this ip has violated WP:3RR and is now edit warring on Antiochus I of Commagene Chip3004 (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran Blocked. [269] this is pretty bad. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I widened the range to Special:Contributions/2003:6:310F:520:CA2:99EE:3796:800D/56 and this is clearly someone with a history on Wikipedia and with you. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

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

The editor has continuously ignored any suggestions I have made to look at WP:NTOUR, and is being disruptive on tour articles as well as adding unsourced material. He has been using multiple IP addresses previously, and has been doing this for almost a whole year. An example was changing venues on the End of the Road World Tour despite there being sources that they were not playing at the venues he changed them to, using the excuse that "he wants them to play there in open air venues". I suspect that this is vandalism as well as not taking WP:CRYSTAL into consideration when adding additional dates that never happened but said was "predicted" despite no sources showing that it happened. He would also revert non-notable articles that had been redirected before, for the sake that he wants to "keep it".

One of his accounts, TRCTheRaulChannelProductionsInc2021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked, but I will leave the IP addresses he has previously used beforehand:

• 201.76.252.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 186.219.105.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 187.87.77.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 138.255.219.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2804:FEC:28B:1700:F43E:1B9D:87E2:F9D1 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2804:FEC:213:6700:5C60:CA05:7CA9:F815 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 201.76.239.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 131.0.85.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I will point out one more thing before I leave it here, that under the IP 187.87.77.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), he was placing tour tables into album articles which are supposed to go in its own article. I had reverted them as it was disruptive, and the IP began to add them back, using personal attacks towards me and a few other editors in the edit summary. As stated before, this has been going on for almost a year. HorrorLover555 (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@HorrorLover555 I blocked for block evasion. I don't think there's much that can be done about the IPs unless they are recently active. If you see this editor again you should be able to report to WP:AIV for obvious block evasion, just link to the previous account and a couple edits for WP:DUCK. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)