Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Possible undisclosed paid editing and/or meatpuppetry at Talk:Bryan Scott (quarterback)

Coffee765 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There have been at least 11 accounts over the last few years that edited Bryan Scott (quarterback) or its talk page that were paid by or on behalf of the subject of the article (disclosed and undisclosed) and subsequently indeffed (there's a list on the top of the talk page). The subject is notable but does not receive a ton of traffic, so whenever a new user edits the article or talk page and has no edits to other pages, it usually turns out to be another paid editor or sockpuppet. I indefinitely extended-confirmed-protected the article in March 2021 because of the sockfarms. Another new user whose only edits have been to the talk page popped up (Coffee765) with requests to make changes to the page, which I initially responded to from a content standpoint ([1]). With this article I fear I have been toeing the line with WP:INVOLVED and would like other administrators to chime in here. I would also like a review of the indefinite article protection since it has been 2.5 years. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The only way to check the potential of disruption might be to remove the protection for some time and watch. What do you say? Lourdes 08:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Eagles247@Lourdes Thank you for bringing attention to this. I am not a sockpuppet or a paid account. Honestly just a fan of Bryan Scott's and think his page should reflect the awards he has rightfully earned. I am a fan of the CFL, and as he has entered the league I googled him and wanted to learn about him and realized some of his awards/relevant facts are not published on his wiki. Coffee765 (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Coffee765, when your first edit at Wikipedia mentions that you have posted this earlier as an edit request, it is logical to presume that you have operated with other accounts earlier. Lourdes 05:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lourdes Understood how that could seem, but I have just become a fan of Scott's since he joined the CFL. (Why my first edit was Toronto Argonauts related) Again as I stated before, I wanted to learn more about him and usually Wikipedia is the perfect place to do so- but when I noticed some of the achievements I had been hearing about Scott (through social media and in game attendance via word of mouth) were not even on his own wiki article- that is when I began diving deeper. I just want to make sure he (along with other players) get the recognition they all deserve. Only trying to help these players and Wikipedia for that matter! I would really appreciate if administrators could take a look at the edit requests I have presented, along with the resources as proof, to justify as to why these requests are factual records that should be added to Scott's page. Coffee765 (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

No one "deserves" recognition on Wikipedia. Flat out, full stop, no.

Anything you wish to add here must have reliable, independent sources and be duly balanced with their overall importance to the subject matter. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds ok then- remove the "deserves" - these are still edits that 'have reliable, independent sources and are duly balanced with their overall importance to the subject matter.' Any edit request I have made has been supported by widely known, fact based sources - and these edit requests are suggested based on the completion or revisions of other professional football players pages. Any request I have asked for is not an opinion based edit request, but a fact based edit. It almost seems that others (wikipedia administrators) are purposely taking edits down for their own opinion based perspectives. If I have an edit that is sourced from a reliable, independent source, and does not interfere with the overall balance of the page- should it not be added? Just trying to understand why these edits are not being added. For example- adding Scott's Spring League MVPs seems logical as the WP:NFLINFOBOX lists league MVPs as something that should be included. Again- just going off instructions from Wikipedia itself. Coffee765 (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, well, I'm not an administrator, and I happen to follow the CFL, and several of your requests are entirely offbase. You seem to feel, for instance, that The Spring League -- a glorified developmental and showcase camp that lasted four years, and wouldn't even rank as a minor league -- is a "predecessor" of the CFL (which in fact predates it by many decades). We do not list every "league MVP" ... what, Pop Warner leagues as well?

If you really do want to glorify Scott, feel free to set up a fan website. Here, however, in sports articles, we work with significant facts, significant records, coming out of significant competitions, and the great majority of that is top-flight competition. Ravenswing 19:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ravenswing Not sure why your tone has become so harsh? Clearly from your response you are bitter about me being a fan of Scott's? Which seems out of pocket.

Regardless of my fandom, everything I have listed has been a significant fact, significant record out of a significant competition. Nowhere have I not listed a reliable source to support evidential facts.

The Spring League showcased many players that are well known players in both the NFL and CFL. This by default shows that it is a 'significant competition.' Winning the MVP title should also serve as a 'significant record,' which again by default acts as a 'significant fact.'

In addition, two of the largest platforms for sports - Fox and ESPN- have recognized The Spring League on more than one account.- so not sure how you/wikipedia could not also recognize the league?

If we are looking at players we can use Johnny Manziel as an example- heard of him? Scott won the game they played against each other in the TSL. Manziel playing in this league just shows the caliber of talent needed to, again, make this a 'significant competition.'

I can send you a list of players from The Spring League if you'd like, including their stats to serve as a 'significant competition.'

Also belittling Pop Warner does not serve as help to you. Nowhere have I compared Pop Warner to other leagues.

Another question- if you are not an administrator did you come to this page just to act//respond negatively?

I am responding to you only to show others who read this that I am wanting to better Wikipedia as a whole by making sure the articles have factual information- and possibly flag those who are coming to pages with their biased opinions. Coffee765 (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Coffee765, at ANI, editors mostly go right to the point and do not tarry on niceties -- one reason you might have felt the responses are flat on. On the other hand, your statement "I am wanting to better Wikipedia as a whole by making sure the articles have factual information" doesn't hold basis, as all you want to do is for one article. And if you've actually contributed to other articles, it would be good to know with which other accounts you have done. Eagles247, your indef protection seems okay for now, given the discussions above. If you have no other issues, we should close this discussion. Thanks, Lourdes 05:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lourdes: I maintain that Coffee765 is more likely to be an undisclosed paid editor and/or sock/meatpuppet than a random Bryan Scott fan who happened upon the page, given the proliferation of similar accounts that have popped up at that article and the responses given by them here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 12:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

(nods) Certainly it's concerning that Coffee765 can think of no other reasons for opposing his stance other than "bitterness" (concerning the third-string QB for the Argos and a guy who's played all of three minor league matches? Seriously?!?) or bias, with the inference that it's inconceivable that other editors might have upholding Wikipedia policies and guidelines as motives. Ravenswing 14:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

• In a surprise plot twist that nobody was expecting, I can confirm that this account is a sock of BigBoyzz1006. Blocked and tagged. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Eagles247, if you're worried about involvement, I'm willing to unprotect, reprotect under ECP, and log under NEWBLPBAN under my signature, but I do not consider unprotection a good idea at all. Courcelles (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Courcelles: That would work. @Girth Summit: Thanks for handling that. This thread can be closed now. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Eagles247 Done and logged. Courcelles (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• Just to clarify things on this, as I missed most of this discussion but am aware of this article through Upwork. There's a client on Upwork who has been hiring paid editors for this article for some time, most recently to approve requests on the talk page. It is a fairly new technique that I've only seen a few times, but the client posts the requests to the talk page, the paid editor then implements the requests, and it all looks above board. Based on the SPI it may be that the client was in turn a paid editor subcontracting, as that happens from time to time as well. Anyway, I expect this may be ongoing in some form or other. - Bilby (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'd be interested if you could email me a link to the relevant Upwork page, Bilby. Looking through the contribs in the history, I see lots of accounts blocked as socks of various different masters - that makes sense if it's a bunch of requests that people are picking up as they come along rather than a single individual working on it long term. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  Hiring MULTIPLE paid editors to plump up this fringe football player? Either he has delusions of grandeur, or he's got a serious stalker and ought to lay in some security. Ravenswing 17:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Edits without support of reliable sources from Abdullah1099

Abdullah1099 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has been engaging for months in edits that, on top of often being inaccurate or badly formatted, have always shown a lack of reliable sources in support. While this could be initially justified by his inexperience as Wikipedia editor, he has subsequently been advised many times by multiple editors in his talk page to pay attention to this kind of details (here, here and here for example). Despite that, and despite his positive messages of reception below those advices, he has never backed down from his disruptive behaviors, usually on a daily basis (this [2] being the last example as of today) forcing other editors to constantly check his movements to add the necessary corrections. Due to this behavior I would call for blocking this user from editing since he has shown multiple times his lack of respect for Wikipedia's rules regarding the use of reliable sources and for the advices of more experienced editors.Fm3dici97 (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Fm3dici97 WP:CIR issues. Second times. -Lemonaka‎ 14:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand that. And I've been understanding about potential problems caused by lack of experience or difficulties with adapting to Wikipedia standards. But as I tried to show, me and other editors tried multiple times to offer him friendly advices about how to properly edit Wikipedia. And not even once he came back by asking for suggestions or consulting with us on controversial matters. Instead, he kept going ignoring most of what we shared and kept doing things about which he had been explained multiple times how to behave, including:

• editing live events before having confirmation of the outcome (with the obvious result of wrong updates);
• adding unsourced content and/or modifying existing content without updating the sources;
• copypasting template entries with little to no attention to adapting their content to the contexts where they were used;
• ignoring indications explicitly mentioned as comments in the edited page (e.g. respecting alphabetical order when adding new items to a table) and so on;
• publishing articles with little (and unsourced) content.

This is the second time I resort to this noticeboard. The first time, two months ago, I've been asked to be patient and to try to be the first in engaging him in talk pages. I tried, but despite that the behavior hasn't changed, with the result that his edits have to be regularly corrected. I can accept another indication to wait, but this raises a question: where to draw the line? Where does lack of competence turn into lack of will to respect consensus and rules? Fm3dici97 (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Nope, I mean they need a CIR block. Not a clause for their behaviour. -Lemonaka‎ 12:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Who can enact such a thing? Fm3dici97 (talk) 10:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Unblock review, please?

Sometimes unblock requests linger for a long time. User:Marginataen has been waiting for a month and 15 days. Could somebody kindly take a look? Bishonen | tålk 08:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC).

No -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I commented there. Mostly acceptable. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Going through all that obtuseness is a slog. I am unconvinced that this editor will be a net positive to the encyclopedia if unblocked. Maybe another administrator might be more optimistic. Cullen328 (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I've taken a look and am moderately more optimistic. I've left a comment there. Incidentally, @Bishonen (and @anyone else unhappy with the current system), I've got an idea in the works for an overhaul of the unblock system. Let me know if you're interested to be pinged once I have something halfway presentable. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Me too. I'm going to ping a few admins I often see working the unblock queue, just as a heads up on this. Yamla, 331dot, Jpgordon. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious to see what you have in mind. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Me too, Tamzin. Deeply interested and happy to work toward specific changes in this area. --Yamla (talk) 10:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

revoke TPA and extend block of 142.190.0.194

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

---

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

talk page abuse. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 16:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Harrassment over an image

There has been an edit dispute with CorrectieTik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the article Iblis. The issue started with [version]. The other user added in their edit summary "Much clearer, more SPECIFIC and direct image of Iblis which is 1.more accepted by scholars 2. gives the layman a better idea of the figure of Iblis. 3. was the main image before", wheras I responded in my [[3]] revert: "it was the imagine before" is not an arguement. 2. how is this a better idea of the figure of Iblis, if only the black figure and the turban is present and none of the other comon features? 1. No there is no scholary consensus. There isn't even a citation about that. It is a Siyah Kalam on which it was considered to be Iblis, but this isn't even for certain." Thereupon the other user [my revert]. What started bothering here is the edit summary "I made a good argument, nothing I said is disputed by you. Stop the vandalizing. Start a talk if you dont agree WITH arguments" ignoring the point by point edit sumamry, why the revert was a bad idea. However, since this looks like it is going to become a dispute, I went to the [[4]] talkpage of the article. The other User, however, ignored to comment on the talkpage, and [reverting again] and left message [on my talkpage] (see section called Iblis). I tried to make the user aware that the proper discussion is the talkpage of the article. Since it seems to be a new user, I explained them the third revert rule, and admonished them to calm down so we can solve this dispute. The responses however, there filled with hostiliy, personal attacks, and accusations while ignoring everything I put forth both on my talkpage and the talkpage of the article. The condenscending tone and talking down in their writing makes me uncomfrotable and I see no way to properly hold a discussion with the User anymore. That they decided to treat Users like this if they disagree with them, also makes me doubt if they are willing to contribute to the Wiki project in any positive way. I informed the User on their talkpage [[5]].VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)" (This line will disappear when you save this edit.)

There has been an edit dispute with VenusFeuerFalle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the article Iblis. The issue started with [version]. I changed the first picture of the article with this edit summary: "Much clearer, more SPECIFIC and direct image of Iblis which is 1.more accepted by scholars 2. gives the layman a better idea of the figure of Iblis. 3. was the main image before"

And without any good reason it was changed back. Over and over again. The picture ALREADY featured IN the article, so clearly it is an acceptable depiction of the figure of Iblis. This is even agreed upon by user VenusFeuerFalle: as he/she is reverting it back to the version with the SAME picture depicted in another part of the page.

The issue(s): 1. The picture I posted as the main/first picture was already on the page (center)

2. User VenusFeuerFalle does not seem to dispute the picture itself, but is just changing it back to the center of the page

3. The picture featured as the main/first picture before

4. The picture VenusFeuerFalle prefers has SEVERAL figures in the picture making it hard for people to find out who is the actual figure of Iblis, since the article is ABOUT Iblis and not about the other figures it seems logical to have a main/first picture with the actual figure on it ALONE. Example: in an article about Michael Jackson would one prefer a main/first picture of Michael Jackson ALONE or a picture with his brothers of the Jackson Five?

5. I have explained my reasoning clearly, and user VenusFeuerFalle is not open to any discussion. He/she acts as if he/she is the boss. I am not making a radical change as this picture was/is already on the page: also to the satisfaction of user VenusFeuerFalle! Otherwise the picture would have been removed all together by him/her I assume. It was not. So:

6. This is just a dispute about the position of the picture IN the article. Which seems really strange: user VenusFeuerFalle has NOT explained why he/she is so concerned about it being the main picture but he/she is fine with it being in the article elsewhere.

7. User is rude, unfriendly and refuses to explain its motives. Just tells me I should listen to him/her (why? Is he/she above me? My superior?). Complains I am new (I'm not) as if this is supposedly a reason to start a revert 'war' (over nothing). Bullying is wrong. CorrectieTik (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

VenusFeuerFalle, where is the proof of "harassment"? Just quote a sentence or two accompanied by a pertinent WP:DIFF, to start with. Everyone: it's best to keep arguments over the content dispute itself to a minimum, as that falls outside the scope of this noticeboard. El_C 04:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I've full-protected the page. CorrectieTik, once your edit was reverted, you should have gone to the talk page to discuss. VenusFeuerFalle, you (more) and CorrectieTik are bound to be blocked for edit warring. Please follow dispute resolution in case your talk page discussions fail. Once the protection expires, CorrectieTik, if you revert again without consensus to change, you will be blocked. Please be careful. Thanks, Lourdes 06:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I accept that. But the page was reverted back again by VenusFeuerFalle right in the middle of this dispute.

A warning to him/her would also be appropriate then. Or am I the only one who can't edit now? Basically he/she has its way now with the old picture being up without anything resolved. Seems you are taking sides.

Either way: I am not wanting to get blocked over the position of a picture in an article, so I will wait for any administrator to see and read for themselves hiw ridiculous this dispute is over a picture user VenusFeuerFalle accepts as well, but he/she just disputes the position (bizarre) of the picture in the article. CorrectieTik (talk) 08:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Correctie, there are no sides being taken. I have reverted the article to the stable version before you and Venus started edit-warring. Please go to the talk page to gain consensus for the change. Thanks, Lourdes 09:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

My pronounce are literally "they/them", show at least a decent amount of respect. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I failed about 30 minutes to properly convert the version differences. This is the best result I could get by following the advise at H:DIFF. Whenever I enter the link on this apge, it doesn't display the entire URL.

[6]: "This user is constantly reverting additions I have made to the article about Iblis. I have given good reasons for the image change. But without reason ('oh you are not correct' is hardly a good reason) it is reverted. This user is not the 'boss' of the article, and has to accept different views on the subject. Especially because the picture I changed and added as the main/first picture, was on top of the page before. So there is no doubt the image is a correct depiction of the figure of Iblis. Further reverting back is just bordering vandalism by now. And this needs to stop. This isn't about ego, but about creating a platform with correct information. Which I tried doing, and user VenusFeuerFalle is not". These are blantant lies, as I did (as shown in the links of my initial comment on this subject) The user chooses to ignore me and then blame for doing things I haven't done. They also speak about me in the third person on my own talkpage.

next, they just decided that my revert was a form of vandalism and keeps on insisting I did on the further comments[7]:

"You keep on with reverting back without even replying here. You are vandalizing"

Condescending talk, as if this user needs to berate me, especially about things I haven't done and insists on their own version of that is going on, still ignoring all attempts for a dispute resolution [8]: "I made several arguments, to which you did not reply. You dont get to threaten me with "youre going to be in trouble". I suggest you leave the picture alone, as you 1. have not given any valid reason to be against the picture 2. The picture features on the page anyway, so why do you care so much if its on top or in the middle? It seems utterly useless to pick this fight with me. Again: you are not the boss or owner of the article."

Here the person starts writing in Caps, accuses me of vandalism, threats, and continues all attempts to bring the original issue to the talkpage, keeping getting personal [9]

"You dont reply at all to arguments iv made. And this is a good place to discuss your behavior of reverting changes made by people. As this is an issue with YOU not the page about Iblis. As the pictures features on the page anyway. So this is about you vandalizing and threatening me, so it belongs on YOUR talk page."

After saying that they aren't listening, they are on the wrong page, they just respond with the condescending words: "You listen to ME" [10]

Now they started, while this discussion here is open, a new section on my talkpage (I reverted this because I am tired of these types of comments by the user, which don't contribute to the original issue) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVenusFeuerFalle&diff=1176406700&oldid=1176330838, and trying to shift the discussion to the edit-war while the issue is something entirely else. To the issue I emphazised they decided to turn a blind eye on:

"Starts an editing war over the POSITION of an image on the Iblis page.

So understand this: User does NOT dispute the picture itself! But does not want the picture to be featured on top of the page! Will only accept the picture to be placed in the center of the page. When I change it back the user files a complaint on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Get this: a user complaint filed against me because of the place of a picture in an article.... Then gets confrontational and bossy as well. "LISTEN TO ME!"...." They completely twists what I said. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The version differences are all within my initial comment regarding this matter and linked. I don't know why but the links appear in numbers. Please check the link or my talkpage. I reverted the last recent offensive comment, because I don't want to itneract with this user anymore. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I get that Lourdes wants to wrap this report up, but I don't like un-proven claims of WP:HARRASMENT to just be left hanging there — see WP:ASPERSIONS. So we'll see what VenusFeuerFalle has to say about that. El_C 09:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Against the accusatiions of User CorrectieTik? I don't think any of these points apply. Here is what I have to say about each point:

"The issue(s): 1. The picture I posted as the main/first picture was already on the page (center). My response: I have no issue with the image itself, but since this is merely a folkloric tale figuring this figure, I supoose it doesn't belong to the top but to the folkloric section about undefined traditions. I made this clear in my first response back in an edit summary before this situation escalated.

2. User VenusFeuerFalle does not seem to dispute the picture itself, but is just changing it back to the center of the page. My response: This is exactly point 1.

3. The picture featured as the main/first picture before: and before this one was the main picture [and the Angels watched by Iblis.jpg - Wikimedia Commons|this one was the main image]

4. The picture VenusFeuerFalle prefers has SEVERAL figures in the picture making it hard for people to find out who is the actual figure of Iblis, since the article is ABOUT Iblis and not about the other figures it seems logical to have a main/first picture with the actual figure on it ALONE. Example: in an article about Michael Jackson would one prefer a main/first picture of Michael Jackson ALONE or a picture with his brothers of the Jackson Five? My response: What has this todo with the conversation here? The user could have brought this to the talkpage as I recommended. But they choose to ignore this and blame me for vandalism.

5. I have explained my reasoning clearly, and user VenusFeuerFalle is not open to any discussion. He/she acts as if he/she is the boss. I am not making a radical change as this picture was/is already on the page: also to the satisfaction of user VenusFeuerFalle! Otherwise the picture would have been removed all together by him/her I assume. It was not. So: My response: First, I really don't see a reason to gender me, but whatever, second, yeh I acknowledged their points and responded to each of them. Unlike they did to my points.

6. This is just a dispute about the position of the picture IN the article. Which seems really strange: user VenusFeuerFalle has NOT explained why he/she is so concerned about it being the main picture but he/she is fine with it being in the article elsewhere. My response: No it is not. And still have explained each point they made.

7. User is rude, unfriendly and refuses to explain its motives. Just tells me I should listen to him/her (why? Is he/she above me? My superior?). Complains I am new (I'm not) as if this is supposedly a reason to start a revert 'war' (over nothing). Bullying is wrong. My response: They did come to my page with a condensencing tone, ignored all my advises to behave properly, ignored all links to Wikipedia guidlines, and started accusing me and starting writing in caps. I don't think that "listen to me" was bossy, especially since it lacks context. The user ignored everything I wrote and was totally missing the point of each of my replies. Also I didn't said "listen to me", I said "please listen to me". They also ommited that I said "and bring your concerns to the talkpage. You know that. I am going to be nice and do this for you". It was about thee times trying to explain them, my talkpage is the wrong place to discuss this. At this point still ignoring their behavior. I did my best to reply in good faith to the user. I pinged him on the Iblis talk page. They are aware of the talkpage feature, but decided to keep writing unpleasent replies on my talkpage, after several times asking them to stop. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

CorrectieTik, this is a content dispute. Nobody has performed any vandalism. Just discuss it in a civil manner on the article talk page, which is there for that purpose, and go to dispute resolution if you can't come to an agreement there. Take special note of the second sentence in that link. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Revoke TpA for User:Buildwell architects

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

---

Buildwell architects (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User talk:Buildwell_architects They should probably have their TpA revoked as they were blocked as a promotion-only account and they are still posting promotional content onto their talk page. Seawolf35 (talk) 06:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done sheesh -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Persistent small edits on multiple pages by User:Landnama

User:Landnama account was created on 14 August 2023, but already received 583 edits. In the account Special:Contributions/Landnama found persistent small edits (which could be done in one or few, like adding internal link "[[ ]]" was done on multiple edits instead per thing/person, or adding categories with similar proceeding) in short period of time between edits on multiple pages, such as in United Nations special rapporteur, Surya Subedi, Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (which most of it already been stripped), Phoebe Okowa, and many more.

Note: For the information, I found this page from WP:DE in WP:DDE section. I'm also new user but from 2020 (so feel free to correct me if I made a mistake), but after 3 years with relatively consistent edits, I can't grasp how someone manage to get 500+ edits in just 1 month. It really shocked me ngl. O_O

Best regards, EdhyRa (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

• You need to inform them on their talk page when you report them here. That is mandatory. In the meanwhile, Landnama, what is your relation with Surya Subedi, an article which now looks like a hagiography after your multiple edits? Thanks, Lourdes 07:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

  Ah yes, I forgot to go to the talk page. I'm still doing other edits too. On the way (edit: you already done it, thank you again, sorry for trouble). Thank you for reminding. EdhyRa (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

• @EdhyRa: What are you actually reporting here? Making 500 edits a month isn't particularly unusual. Making lots of small edits when you could make one big one is mildly annoying but not grounds for anything more than a polite request on their talk page. Am I missing something? – Joe (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

  The only thing that could possibly be report-worthy is if this user has been gaming extended confirmed status. Is there any evidence of that, such as performing actions that are only allowed to people with extended confirmed? Edit count is meaningless except for confirmed and extended confirmed status. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think there is still no evidence about that, but for evidence for small edits is here (some of it):

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_J._Busuttil&diff=prev&oldid=1173868611

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Surya_Subedi&diff=prev&oldid=1173868450

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phoebe_Okowa&diff=prev&oldid=1173868352

  In this cases, he/she did the exact +40 edit by adding empty "| death_date = | death_place = " parameters in their infobox (on alive person), and his/her reason is "(Added | death_date = | death_place (both empty) to Infobox (planning ahead).)", why? EdhyRa (talk) 10:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

  • I just found the evidence of page creation that neither passed through WP:DRAFT nor WP:AFC by @Landnama because of their extended confirmed status (status flag update were given on 14 Sep 23, but they already reached 500 edits on 7 Sep 23 at 04:49 UTC [11], see [12] for their logs):
    • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=151883473 (already Congregation Etz Ahaim Sephardic)
    • This article was created on 7 Sep 23 at 20:19 UTC, just almost 16 hours after passed 500 edits.
  • Prior to that, they tried to create Haim Baruh article on 5 Sep 23:
    • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=151792895 (currently still Draft:Haim Baruh)

  I hope this can resolve the issue. EdhyRa (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  Phil Bridger, I definitely know of one thing only extended confirmed users can do... and it's related to me, but beans. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 12:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  According to WP:DISRUPTSIGNS point 1, I suspect he/she making Wikipedia:Tendentious editing for "continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time", but just like I said, I'm still newbie and didn't actually understand yet about this matters policy, that's why I reached here for guide as from WP:DDE instruction, because I'm might be wrong about 'tendentious edit' thing.

  Also, I'm quite aware about 500 edits a month, but from my experience it is usually from either alt account or bot. It is unusual for new users did that, am I right? Also, it not just 'normal' edits, like I said it is small separated edits which could be done in 1 run, but intentionally done it in multiple runs. Thank you for replying. EdhyRa (talk) 10:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note: Landnama is confirmed to be doing this with two accounts. They are also using Fagur. I’m on the fence about how disruptive this all is, I’ve not taken any admin action yet. Courcelles (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

  User:Fagur account was created on 13 September 2023, but made first edit on 16 September, however started doing 'excessive spam edits' on 18 September 2023 (literally 1 day after User:Landnama last edit on 17 September 2023 − which was reverted) by doing continuously +4 ("[[ ]]") internal link edit on these pages (on majority): Patricia Bartley, Deborah Kerr, Emily Anderson, and Alexander Anderson (physicist). Already making 71 edits in span of 3 days (5 days since created) since the first edit.

  Thank you for the information, man. Appreciate it. EdhyRa (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

  After consideration, I've blocked both accounts. They need to discuss the concerns not just wait them out, and this feels like extended confirmed was being gamed by multiple accounts. Courcelles (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  Idk what to say tbh. This is actually my first experience regarding this matter. This begin when I curiously see via WP:XC on WP:UAL then clicked Special:ListUsers/extendedconfirmed. Then, checking "Sort by creation date" and "Sort in descending order" (see [13]), I immediately shocked seeing many users account was created on the period of July-Aug-Sep 23 already extended confirmed. But, I quickly aware that the top 5 on the list is either alts or energetic users. However, at 6th place which is @Landnama, their edits was unusual that's impossible to not notice.

  Also, is this issue already resolved (and should be closed)? or wait for them to reply in this topic?

  Also again, thank you so much to you all who spent your time to hear my request. I really appreciate it. EdhyRa (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  EC is only 500 edits and 30 days, so it's entirely reasonable to see August creation dates hitting it. ANI threads usually get archived pretty quickly if folks stop talking, so there's no need for a formal closure. I've left them instructions on how to request an unblock, but since they are blocked, that would be handled on their talk page, not here. (Which, if they're reading, will be easily granted provided you don't sock anymore and engage. This is not a permeant block!) Courcelles (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I feel hounded at and attacked by User:Veverve on non-Roman Catholic articles, and my talk page

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

---

For a few days I have been engaged in a content dispute on the page for Liberal Catholic Church by User:Veverve. Because some random users decided to add intentionally biased information from some Liberal Catholic Church Theosophical Synod, a lot of the information sourced was removed by Veverve in response to that other user's actions. In return, he also appears to have blanked the article with content that solely appears to besmirch the character of anyone that is not Roman Catholic. I have seen this with other contributions to their pages lately by going into their contributions list. Anything that does not come from one of their approved renditions of a reliable source are to be promptly removed. Communicating on my talk page I noted their history of being blocked for reacting harshly to editors in content disputes. To prevent myself from being blocked, I am taking this here as they so appeared to have challenged me to do so. Please look at the contributions history for the Liberal Catholic Church from yesterday (Sept 20) and today (Sept 21) to take a look. I will not be ran off this website by someone with a known history of disputes, who claimed I have attacked their character! AndreasMar (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Please also look at Talk:Liberal Catholic Church for the horrible discussion. There is nothing fruitful that may come out of that talk discussion. AndreasMar (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about? I can see nothing in the article history or its talk page that comes anywhere close to hounding or attacking or horrible. The editor has simply followed normal procedure by reverting changes that he did not think were supported by independent reliable sources and starting a perfectly civil discussion on the talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how Veverve has done anything wrong here? You made an edit, they reverted it and started a talk page discussion where they lay out some completely reasonable objections to the edit on the basis of the sourcing used, stating that that there has been inappropriate use of primary sources, use of unreliable sources and that the content is not actually supported by the sources you provided. You proceeded to edit war and refused to engage on the talk page and actually discuss the concerns they raised. When you did go to the talk page you attacked and insulted Veverve claiming that they had no common sense and implied they were too stupid to understand your edit, made ridiculous claims they are "bullying" you then immediately filed an ANI thread? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with both of the comments above; the biggest problem here is this edit from @AndreasMar which is straying into personal attack territory. WaggersTALK 14:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

People, in my personal defense...the talk page discussion didn't come until after he and I kept reverting one another. The only difference is, I tried my best to add sources that would support the claims. The edit war happened before the talk page discussion ever came to be! I did not claim they had no common sense but referred to the note that we can edit and assume good faith off common sense. BUT, I did imply that they did not wish to discuss by using the methods of common sense to harmonize the material by reading and making some healthy statements as all information leads up to a certain point where things can be assumed as objective regarding their notability. I felt bullied by them because they look to be a veteran and no matter how many better sources I provided, they continued to be reverted. I even kept trying and trying and felt hounded at in summaries for not being good enough an editor here with gathering information. I felt bullied especially when it looked to me on my talk page that I was being challenged to take this there...so I did...this is how I feel about this situation. AndreasMar (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Someone please read my additions here, and read the WHOLE of the sources provided. Then, someone get back with me please. I have scoured so many databases and these are the best sources available. AndreasMar (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Nobody here is going to try to settle the content disagreement you seem to be having - that's not the role of administrators, and not what this board is for. The standard procedure is that when you introduce new content and it is reverted by someone who thinks it inappropriate, you need to engage in a discussion on the article talk page and try to get a consensus - in a civil manner, without any personal attacks (and please do follow those three links and understand the policies they describe). The onus is on *you* as the one who wants to add the contested content to gain a consensus for its inclusion. If you can't get a consensus supporting the content you want, it simply doesn't go in. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I felt bullied especially when it looked to me on my talk page that I was being challenged to take this there: I only asked you to take me to ANI because you have accused me by stating I was removing content [I] did not like and was POV-pushing on multiple WP articles related to Catholicism. Those are issues the ANI takes care of; if you make those accusations on your talk page, you must be able to support them at ANI. Why are you not raising those points here, and instead talk about a simple editing disagreements? Veverve (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

My notifications were going off like crazy on my phone so let me stop to pull out this laptop and say this. First, I see where I have err'd here. Second, I am starting to understand and see where this is and should be going. Forgive my ignorance with this whole reporting situation. If anyone cares to read my latest response on the content dispute please go here: Talk:Liberal_Catholic_Church#Use_of_primary_and_non-reliable_sources. I do not want to waste anyone's time on this board anymore. AndreasMar (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

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

User repeatedly reverting a redirect draft against template advice

• Dynamic Island (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Gonnym (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Posting here to invite review of a silly edit war over this redirect, which is currently listed at redirects for discussion. The title refers to a design element first introduced with the iPhone 14 Pro and currently discussed there (and the redirect targets that section), but with the next iPhone also incorporating the same feature a proposal in the discussion is to create a separate article discussing the feature, since it now applies to several topics. When such a proposal is made at RFD it's quite common for an editor to create a draft of the proposal below the RFD template, and the template adds a hidden note advising that that is the case (the hidden note reads "Don't add anything after this line unless you're drafting a disambiguation page or article to replace the redirect." (emphasis added) This has been usual practice at least since I've been participating at RFD, since some time around 2014, and that text was added to Module:RfD back in 2018. There's no policy guidance on this, I don't think anyone ever considered that it would be necessary.

It seems that Gonnym, who has edited the module recently but did not alter the message, has suddenly decided to object to this practice by singling out this particular redirect and repeatedly reverting the draft, most recently insisting that a draft must be made elsewhere, for reasons they haven't said. It seems to me that they're doing this to make a point, and unnecessarily impeding the discussion in the process, and I would like them to knock it off. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

for reasons they haven't said - that is completely true, unless you ignore my edit summary which read This is very not editor friendly to reach. Just move it to the actual draft namespace, or your userspace after which you did not enquire or ask any further clarification other than try and intimidate me with the edit warning on my user page right before you reverted for a second time.

I'm also unclear how It seems that Gonnym, who has edited the module recently but did not alter the message is relevent here? Did you mean me editing this to fix a lint issue meant that I actively read the entire code?

suddenly decided to object to this practice by singling out this particular redirect is there some kind of place I need to sign up before I'm allowed to edit a particular redirect? Please advice. On a more serious note, I suddenly came across this redirect as you made a draft with errors by adding a reference without a {{Reflist}}, which placed this page on list. While fixing other pages on the list, I saw this. Any other creative imagery text you want me to respond to? Gonnym (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

If your objection was over a missing reflist, an honest mistake on my part, the solution would be to add a reflist, not repeatedly revert the entire thing, and you could have said so at the time. I have no idea what you mean by "very not editor friendly to reach", but your suggestion to create the draft elsewhere instead of on the page being discussed wouldn't have made it any easier to "reach". As I said to you in my edit summary and explained above, drafting a proposal below a redirect nominated at RFD in order to illustrate the proposal is common; some examples: I-95 exit list, Coach Harbaugh, Coach Gruden are all currently listed and have proposals drafted below the redirect notice, and here are some from the past several years: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. You've also been an active participant at RFD for a number of years, you must have been aware that this is the case, so why revert this draft now out of the blue? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Here's a few more: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

It is not particularly difficult to find more examples of this common practice, so I'll just add a few more to demonstrate that it's also a longstanding convention: this one from 2012, and another from 2010. On the contrary I'd like to know where you got "don't create a draft inside a redirect", considering that you ought to know from your own participation that this is, in fact, a common and longstanding practice in RFD discussions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

About several edits by Dominic Pringle

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

---

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

This user has repeatedly added unsourced information to articles, and just did so again today after their fourth warning. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I’m sorry but who are you? Are you stalking me? Dominic Pringle (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Dominic Pringle: Nope, I just happened to be notified because a message was added to § September 2023 on your talk page, which I'm subscribed to because I previously left you a message. I notice that this isn't the first time you've accused an editor of stalking when faced with criticism. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

My last edit was pretty verifiable, and the content it replaced wasn’t even sourced

Anyway, I won’t make any more edits for a while if that makes you happy, you don’t have to try to get me banned Dominic Pringle (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Dominic Pringle, rather than go in all guns blazing with paranoid claims of stalking how about just following some of the advice that you have been given? Nobody knows who you, or any other editor, are, and what you know about a particular subject, so the only way we have to know that you are telling the truth is if you cite reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Not every harmless minor edit has to be quoting an elite media outlet

As long as it’s not likely to be challenged, it is harmless

I wasn’t gonna edit anymore for a while anyway, but it seems (Personal attack removed) is making it his mission to get me banned Dominic Pringle (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Dominic Pringle: you need to acquaint yourself with some policies that apply to all editing here. One that you've already been repeatedly referred to is verifiability: in a nutshell it is not sufficient that you "know" something, you must provide a citation to a reliable source so that anyone else can verify the information you've added or changed. It is not strictly necessary to cite everything, but if your edit is challenged or reverted then you must provide a source before restoring the edit. It is also mandatory to add a citation to support any contentious information about living persons. Another is assume good faith: you should assume that every other editor is trying to help, unless you have a very good reason to think otherwise. If you always jump to the assumption that everyone is out to get you, it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. And I suggest that you quickly familiarize yourself with the no personal attacks policy; I have removed the personal attack in your comment above. Please feel free to ask questions if any of this is not clear, but I must warn you that you are very close to being blocked from editing if you continue to ignore these policies. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, well thanks for not blocking me I guess

I only made minor edits that I thought weren’t controversial or likely to be challenged, I didn’t expect all this trouble

I couldn’t always cite an establishment media source, but the edits I made were harmless, true, and important, and I felt there was no reason whatsoever for anyone to challenge them or suspect them of being false....if there had been such a reason, I would’ve cited a source Dominic Pringle (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@Dominic Pringle, if you don't have any source for your edits, how do you know that they are "true"? And more importantly, why should anyone else believe that they are true? You really need to read WP:V. There are some very simple statements that are so well-known to every living person that they don't need to be cited, like that the sky is blue, but certainly not among such well-known truths are statements that a particular person was born out of wedlock, that a particular person was the third son of his parents, that a particular person had a difficult relationship with his mother, or that some skilled writers express no ideas in their writing (which is not only not uncontroversial, it seems blatantly false). Please acknowledge that you have read and understood our verifiability policy and will abide by it in the future. CodeTalker (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Anyone who knows about Peter Tosh knows he was born out of wedlock

Anyone who knows about Stefan Molyneux knows he had a difficult relationship with his mother

Anyone who knows about Max Crumb knows he had 2 older brothers, the wiki itself even mentions them and has links to their wiki pages!

The writer thing I can understand might be controversial, but there really ARE skilled writers who DON’T express ideas, such as clerks.... please leave the rest of my stuff alone if it’s harmless, and not likely to be false Dominic Pringle (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@Dominic Pringle: if those facts are so widely known, then you should have no difficulty finding reliable sources to support them.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Not EVERYTHING has to be quoting a media outlet

Only stuff that’s likely to be challenged or likely to be false Dominic Pringle (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikipedia isn't intended as a work for "anyone who knows about" someone to add stuff. We explicitly reject people adding stuff based only on personal knowledge. I suggest you find some other project if that's how you want to edit since it sounds like your views on how Wikipedia should operate are in fundamental opposition to how we actually operate. Nil Einne (talk) 10:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

OK

Can you all please leave me alone now?

I wasn’t gonna edit anymore for a while anyway Dominic Pringle (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I've indef'd Dominic Pringle for NOTHERE. The simple fact that they refuse to acknowledge that WP:RS is required, and doubled down in this commentary alone tells me they are not here to build the encyclopedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

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

User talk:204.148.142.250

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

---

I'm not sure if this is escalating too quickly but this IP address has been editing very quickly, very often multiple articles per minute, to "fetch Wikidata" to make infoboxes on random biographies about women. Many, many of these have been reverted, and then the user has reverted back [32], mainly on reverts by User:Nikkimaria. The user has not put an edit summary for any of their actions. I spotted this user from their action on Marta Bosquet, which just drew an infobox around the photo, introducing no data whatsoever. [33]. A random click found this edit, where the "infobox" is no more than the title of the page! [34] And here's another one, albeit on a long-dead person. [35]

Fetching data from Wikidata, even if it is a Wikimedia website, fails WP:V as there is no oversight about whether the material is sourced or accurate, and most of these edits are on living people. Is there any way to do a mass revert? Can this user be slowed down so they make fewer of these pointless and confusing edits? Thanks Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The IP is continuing the edit pattern of two recently blocked accounts: Arnold Henry Guyot and Goudabuddha. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

It looks like User:NinjaRobotPirate has blocked the IP for month and their edits have been reverted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Incivility and Personal attacks by User:5staravenger

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

---

5staravenger editing his own article Alex Tan as claimed by him here and here.

Casting aspersions and borderline personal attack [36] on GMH MELBOURNE. Incivility and threats to sockpuppet [37]. Basically casting aspersions on me and incivility again [38].

Disruptive editing by 5staravenger on his own article and obvious case of WP:NOTHERE. JASWE (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Fk you. 5staravenger (talk) 05:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no recourse to correct inaccuracies and false claims on my biography and the admins refuse to allow edits. Why do people get angry and go on a ruckus throwing f bombs? Think you idiot. 5staravenger (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, I think we've seen all we need to see here. I'd certainly support an indef block on 5staravenger, if no friendly admin beats us to it. The Alex Tan article could stand semi-protecting as well, presuming that 5staravenger means his threats. (With that, the article is a hot mess, pretty devoid of sourcing, and may need to be reverted to the last stable version before the SPAs got into it ... which is two years ago. Ravenswing 05:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Fk you too. 5staravenger (talk) 05:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Aplenty of you pretentious pricks who have nothing to prove in real life compared to me. 5staravenger (talk) 05:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

nothing to prove in real life compared to me - LOL, if that isn't pretentious, I don't know what is. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 06:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Another threat to sock puppet on my talk: [39] ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 06:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

There was also another account in the past who claimed to be the subject as well in the past. Or at least, the way he replies to anyone who disagrees with him is practically the same. And if its really the same guy, in his own words to conflict resolution - "Remove the page or we do this forever" ---- Zhanzhao (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked the account here and an associated sock. I think the article could use some more cleanup in the meantime. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 07:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

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

IP range block

• 2001:4451:948:6d00:f57e:c43f:b1e3:d07c (talk · contribs)
• 2001:4451:948:6D00:849B:2DB5:68D4:1822 (talk · contribs)
• 2001:4451:948:6d00:487e:18bd:8e1c:beaa (talk · contribs)

This IP range needs to be block due to disruptive edits accross Bus companies of the Philippines articles, violation to the WP:OR leaving without edit summary. Jjpachano (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jjpachano what exactly is the disruption that is occurring? I opened a few diffs but I cannot see anything that is vandalism or obviously disruptive. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Victuallers and misuse of the admin tools

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

When looking at Special:NewPagesFeed, I noticed Rose Edouin, a creation by User:Victuallers with the indication "Previously deleted". Having been aware of multiple issues with some of their creations, I checked what this was about, and noticed that they deleted an apparently perfectly valid redirect before creating the "new" page under their own name. I raised this at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Rose Edouin, and checked their logs to see if this happened regularly.

Sure enough, the last few weeks alone, they deleted existing redirects at Terri Libenson, Nell Gifford, Louisa Henrietta de Rivarol and Ena May Neill. A lot worse was their Undeletion of Caroline Elizabeth Newcomb, with the reason "This page was deleted without explanation. She is notable by AU experts. How this missed AfD baffles me. I strongly suspect this was a bit of stalking and they didnt even use their ownname." No idea how they succeeded in missing the rather clear explanation given by User:Justlettersandnumbers at the time of deletion: "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/newcomb-caroline-elizabeth-2238/text2441, https://collections.museumvictoria.com.au/articles/1883". And sure enough, Victuallers succeeded in bringing a copyright violation back into the mainspace...

The combination of repeated WP:INVOLVED misuse of the tools (deleting valid page history to get the credit as page creator) and misuse of the tool to undelete a copyvio (with the lack of competence in not even finding the deletion reason), coupled with other recent issues like copyright violations, total disregard for proper attribution (which had to be explained nearly step-by-step before they got it), ... makes me doubt that they should continue to be an admin, but perhaps some clear final warnings from uninvolved editors may be sufficient? Fram (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm a newish admin, and AFC is not my main cup of tea. Isn't it common practice to G6 a mainspace redirect—one that has only minor history—to make way for an AFC draft publication? That's what happened with Terri Libenson. Victuallers is not credited as the page creator, since another editor created the draft. I haven't looked into the others. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

At least Rose Edouin was not an AFC accept/move. It was a copy-paste-edit fork from another article, slapped in place after deleting the redirect. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I've struck out Libenson, as that is the only one not deleted to put his own creation. I don't know if this is or isn't standard AfC practice, but in any case it doesn't belong with the others in this report, thanks. Fram (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that Newcomb isn't as clear a copyvio as the original deleter thought - the referenced article it copies from is licensed as CC BY 4.0. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, I haven't yet read this discussion (to which I was pinged) in full. I think you may be partially right about the Newcomb article – the museumvictoria.com.au page carries no CC release and is clearly marked as copyright, so may (or may not) fall under their "otherwise noted" exception (wouldn't it be good if institutions could learn how to implement the CC releases they want to make?). But I see no justification for the copying of content from here, and am guessing that that was my principal reason for deleting the page on 28 November 2018. There was then, and still is, a substantial CCI still open for this user (any help much appreciated!). I've removed the residual copyvios from the ADB from Caroline Elizabeth Newcomb. We really need to engrave in stone that G12 deletions may not be restored. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Rose Edouin had exactly one edit, creating a redirect. There is nothing else in the history. Anyone with the page mover right would've been able to move a draft on top of it, replacing it. It's pretty standard, and the history didn't need to be recovered. Could some admin check to see if the histories of the Gifford, Rivarol, and Neill articles are the same? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I undeleted Gifford, as that was a redirect that didn't need to be deleted. I left de Rivarol as it was, because the redirect was created by Victuallers themself. Neill, I'd like a second opinion on. Victuallers created it in 2015. After a couple of edits and a short talk page discussion, it was redirected. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I undeleted the deleted edits on Neill. They are relevant to the article history, and the first edit was by Victuallers, so that wasn't an attempt to "steal credit" for article creation. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: What do you mean need to be deleted? Which need to be deleted, which don't, and which need to be undeleted? The whole point of creating this ability in the page mover right is a redirect isn't meaningful content that needs to be retained. If there's more than just a redirect, it should probably be retained, but not just a redirect. The only real function of undeleting a redirect is to ensure the wrong person gets notified if an article is, say, tagged for deletion, and to ensure that the person who might want to receive notifications about incoming links cannot get them. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

That's a very good point about notifications, Rhododendrites. I want to see how this discussion goes, but I may go ahead and re-delete those two edits, and I wouldn't considered it a WP:WHEEL case if somebody overrode me first. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree it can yield better results in terms of more relevant notifications if redirects are deleted. It does feel a bit wrong if admins use deletion to give themselves creator credit, but {{db-move}} allows anyone to request that, so perhaps it shouldn't feel wrong. —Kusma (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes I think you will find they are the same. This has been discussed before with the same conclusion as yours Rhododendrites. Victuallers (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the deletions. I've done similar myself in the past and done similar for non-admins who have asked me to. A redirect is not meaningful history. Undeleting something that was G12'd is poor; @Victuallers you should have discussed that with the deleting admin first and come to an agreement that it could be undeleted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Fram it sounds like you've been working really hard on coaching this admin but haven't been able to build the positive working relationship you'd like to have or elicit editorial/behavioral changes you think are important. I'm sure we can collectively work out a win-win low-drama solution that moves us forward. What's the most critical issue that needs attention? How can we most help *you* today? jengod (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Jengod, it sounds like you're using an AI bot and haven't instructed it very well. What is your comment intended to accomplish? Bishonen | tålk 08:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I think I disagree about the desirability of deleting redirects. There's an attribution issue under the license, I believe? One could say that only matters when there have been substantial edits since creation, but that's a slippery slope: Ena May Neill received 2 small copyedits in addition to one by Victuallers himself before its redirection, and the redirect decision itself constitutes another part of the history that should be transparently documented; the discussion is on the talk page of the article and so was presumably also deleted? Also, it's the responsibility of the editor initiating an AfD discussion or other deletion proposal to notify all substantial contributors to the article. Notifying only the creator may be what you get it you let some automated process such as Twinkle do it for you (and that's already more than some nominators do), but in many instances there are others who contributed to the article and thus should be notified. This is a collaborative project; the norm should be that an article gets worked on by multiple editors, and we are held responsible for our edits, including our interactions with fellow contributors, and shouldn't fall back on automated processes as an excuse (or expect everyone to be monitoring their watchlists, another form of automation; those are often huge, plus the article may have been moved and the nomination thus be for a new title). Yngvadottir (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Even in that one article that had more than just the redirect itself -- an article which Victuallers created, but which Fram included in assuming bad faith that Victuallers was "misusing admin tools" to get the credit as page creator -- the only edits that weren't Victuallers did not contain anything copyrightable. Someone ran AWB; another person ran some other script which replaced the name of a template. There's nothing to attribute. I would be curious to hear why Victuallers deleted their own draft instead of just revising the old version, though, because it's odd not because it's insidious. it's the responsibility of the editor initiating an AfD discussion - It's not. Not even the creator is mandatory. Would be nice, but in practice it never happens beyond what's automated. When it does, it's just as likely as not to be labeled canvassing. I know, I know, but these are the times we live in. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

So deleting things that don't meet any of Wikipedia's speedy deletion criteria isn't a misuse of admin tools? Huh? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

What was deleted without arguably meeting G6 or G7? —Kusma (talk) 06:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I must be way out of step, then; I've always followed the instructions at AfD and informed all major contributors, and I was pretty horrified when an article of mine was speedy deleted on erroneous grounds (the nominator and the admin had only to look at my first edit summary) without any notification. No, it's not mandatory, but neither is more than minimal civility. It's seriously uncollaborative to ask for people's work to be deleted without the simple courtesy of letting them know (even creators of attack pages should get a templated notification), and automation is a poor excuse. Anyone who can't be bothered to even tell their colleagues that they have asked for their work to be deleted shouldn't be surprised if the level of acrimony and assumption of bad faith on the project continues to rise. (And, as I said, it's a slippery slope. What about the discussion that led to the redirect? What if a non-admin was examining one of those two people's gnoming patterns for some reason, including improving a tool?) It's also wasteful, but I know we aren't supposed to make any arguments based on server capacity. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

My comment was intended to communicate that Fram's first post when he came here looking for help indicated that he believed there were grave issues that needed to be addressed.

>"perhaps some clear final warnings from uninvolved editors may be sufficient?" Fram requested help with coaching. What has he already communicated about that didn't get a response or a behavior change, and what would he like reinforced by other people? jengod (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh I see from your edit summary @Bishonen that you actually think I used AI

to write that comment? LOL and I strongly deny the accusation! The only time I've ever touched such a thing was at my kid's birthday party they coaxed me to give ChatGPT and I asked it to write a Wikipedia article on cienegas of California and it did a meh job. The kids told me I gave it too long a prompt tho. jengod (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I've actually done a few similar undeletions recently (not of Victuallers's work) and I don't really see it as a matter of copyright but of history that's potentially interesting and should stay accessible to non-admins where possible. I think it's interesting to note that Terri Libenson was a redirect for over fourteen years before becoming an article and ditto with Louisa Henrietta de Rivarol (for nearly nine years), and have undeleted them accordingly. I don't think it's quite a deal-breaker and if consensus is that these should be re-deleted I could live with that. An example of a redirect I recently undeleted in similar circumstances was Signe Byrge Sørensen; I found it while checking deleted contributions of Patrick, inspired by this RFC about removal of text about minor edits because the relevant text was added by Patrick way back in 2003. (I went to check his deleted edits from around that time in case I was missing something, and found this edit to "Dating" that I undeleted from around that time). I've found all sorts of things by checking his and my deleted edits, but most of these sorts of deletions seem accidental and almost all deletions I've reviewed by looking at deleted contributions were completely fine. Graham87 (talk) 07:45/08:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Also re Terri Libenson, I've just discovered that the talk page was created by a bot in 2014, so in that case I feel more strongly that the corresponding article history should be undeleted to show *why* the bot created the talk page way before the article existed. Graham87 (talk) 07:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that having history accessible to non-admins is a laudable goal, but for trivial bits like redirect creation, notifications going to the right person instead of a bot is an equally acceptable goal. —Kusma (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I see that as a problem with the tools though (albeit a corner case that's hard to fix). People should take responsibility for every edit they make, either with or without a semi-automated tool, and should check to see whether what the tool is doing makes sense. (Speaking as someone who does all deletion nominations, etc. manually). I've just encountered so many weird cases with so many pages (some random examples) that I barely trust any semi-automated tool here. Graham87 (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree that redirect creation is "trivial", choosing to redirect a page to another is an editorial decision with equal significance to choosing to create an article at that title. If bots are delivering notifications to the wrong person then that is a problem with the bot not a reason to speedy delete pages that don't meet the speedy deletion criterion and/or declare other editors' work "trivial". We should always fix the bot to work with the encyclopaedia rather than attempting to "fix" the encyclopaedia to work with an incorrectly coded bot. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

There's not just bot and Twinkle notifications that go to the page creator, but also Echo notifications for "someone has linked to your page" that go to the earliest editor in the page history. I don't think there is a good way to fix those in software. But it would perhaps be better for everyone if the creation credit for KAIA (group), a redirect that was turned into an article, would be given to the person who converted the redirect to an article, not to me who just happened to create the redirect while gnoming. (As an aside, creating articles about people who become important politicians is a good way to be informed about what they do; my most successful article creation is Ursula von der Leyen and she gets a lot of links). —Kusma (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Echo notifications should also be fixed, for exactly the same reasons (phab:T66090 is relevant). Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Re the KAIA situation, I agree because you created the redirect before the girl group was even founded, so I moved the redirect edit back to KAIA where it was originally. I've made similar history switches before, such as at "Bardcore". Re echo notifications not going to the page creator: I've experienced it myself but it's a minor inconvenience; for example I think the redirect edit before my article creation in this diff at Kevin Cullen (doctor) is integral to its history. Graham87 (talk) 11:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Strictly speaking, the history of KAIA now a bit of a lie, but it makes more sense than before :) I usually leave such situations alone unless there is a good reason to mess with the histories. —Kusma (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Vis à vis User:Justlettersandnumbers: Copyright issues; but alerting Victuallers is 'silly [and] nagging'. Also [40]. No brainer. Pull his autopatrolled right. A shame that an editor as supposedly experienced as him needs to be treated this way, but you see, he puts quantity ahead of quality. See UP. Their understanding of INVOLVED was also questioned some time ago. SN54129 13:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

User trying to defend their edits

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

---

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

This user is trying to defend their decision on places like the Teahouse and pages for undeletion to create a page on a non-notable person (said page was deleted Twice). --24.211.70.219 (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Nothing that needs admin intervention at this time. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, just so you know, I’m pretty sure that this is an undisclosed paid editor (although there is nothing to prove it). 24.211.70.219 (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually, they are probably writing about themself. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

They (indirectly) confirmed it. 24.211.70.219 (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Close this discussion, the user has just declared a Conflict of interest (COI) on both their talk page and on their user page. 24.211.70.219 (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Why do you say that this a worse notice board? ANI is well known for being the Happy Place on Wikipedia! ANIisTheHappyPlace (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

So whose sock are you? Secretlondon (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

That was a mistake, I meant to say wrong noticeboard. 24.211.70.219 (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Long term disruption at movie articles by related IPs

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

---

• 142.115.176.126 (talk · contribs)
• 173.242.178.98 (talk · contribs)

Pretty clearly the same user from the same geographical area, with lots of overlap at Lightyear (film) and edit warring at Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse. I don't know if this is actionable, but responses like [41], [42], [43], [44] don't inspire confidence. When not contentious, today's edits at Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2 raise WP:CIR concerns. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks--blocks placed. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Drmies. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
    • At your service. ;) Drmies (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

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

GhostOfDanGurney/VQuakr

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

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

I recognize my conduct has not been sterling here and I genuinely don't think admin intervention is needed in this instance. But if someone is threatening to drag me here because I asked them to leave me alone, I may as well pre-emptively get my side out because I refuse to retract that request. The following are the bulk of VQuakr's edits (all but one that he has made since September 20). I obviously can't speak for what he wants out of taking this to ANI.

• 18:45 September 20 User's first edit since August 30 is to oppose my WP:RM of Hardeep Singh Nijjar and was their only edit that day. RM was closed as a well-attended no consensus that was closed early due to appearing on the main page. Me, still thinking that a separate article titled Death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar was feasible, sought consensus to split content from Hardeep Singh Nijjar to it. I did so as a compromise due to the editors in the discussing asserting that a BLP of Hardeep Singh Nijjar could be expanded (and it has been). I acknowledge that that may have been WP:TOOSOON as the BLP still hadn't been expanded to the point that it is now.

• 18:33 September 21 User speedy closes my split proposal despite being WP:INVOLVED in the previous RM, with a strongly worded close message to drop the stick. Fine. I think this was an involved WP:BADNAC but no point challenging it. Move on. But apparently no.

• 18:37 September 21 User posts on my talk page, saying that my proposal was, "ill-advised" and to, "[p]lease listen to your fellow editors...." which seemed odd because the split was intended as a compromise after listening to fellow editors. The close message was sufficient; messaging me directly honestly at the time did feel like rubbing salt in the wound, but I assumed good faith, asked what specific comments he wanted me to listen to, asked him to sign his close and shared my concern that it was a BADNAC.

• [45] User's reply either misunderstands or dodges my question regarding listening to which editors and dismisses my concern due to BADNAC being an essay.

• 07:46 September 22 Dodges the question in order to lecture me for asking it. I initially respond before giving up on trying to get answer before he could reply to it again and reverting the whole discussion; I've already noticed at this point that his only edits this whole month have been either to oppose/speedy close my proposals and have this discussion with me. Obviously it's not close to enough to cry to ANI about it, but it feels enough like hounding that I want to be left alone. I had accepted that my chosen way to go about creating an article was met with no consensus. I made a second edit (which is the diff linked to) telling them, "as civilly as possible, to take a hike".

• I then got upset (weak, I know) when I noticed after that another editor (who I don't believe warrants dragging here or naming) created 2023 Canada–India diplomatic crisis, which was effectively the same article I had created previously at Death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar. This led me to nominate "Death of..." at RfD as moot since people are more likely to search for either just the name "Hardeep Singh Nijjar" or "Canada-India [fill in your favourite word here]" and "Death of..." works better as a CONCISE article title than as a redirect. I log off for about 3 hours to cool down.

• 15:33 September 22 VQuakr attends the RfD to question my nomination.

• During this time 2023 Canada–India diplomatic crisis is BLARed by another user, then reverted by the creator. I inform the creator of my previous attempt to create the article and ask them to not restore the article again. They reply saying that it has been mentioned on the main page., to which I reply saying that that was, "bullshit."

• 17:51 September 22 VQuakr enters this discussion, picking on my wording and accusing me of article OWNership, telling me to, "quit whinging". I reply to this with, "Quit following me and do not ever ping me again."

• 17:58 September 22 VQuakr considers that a personal attack, referencing me to WP:AOHA and saying they will drag me here if I don't strike it.

I have no intentions of striking a request to not follow me (especially a user whos apparently singular focus has been to either oppose my proposals or scold me for making them, much as I tried to AGF), and do not consider it any more of a personal attack then their "quit whinging." ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  19:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

A couple of notes:

1. Starting another formal discussion the same day one is closed isn't a great use of process. Practically speaking, it is much easier to manage contentious topics when they are contained to fewer articles, as article families have to be maintained to prevent POV forking. In this case, I think a bit of informal follow-up discussion would have been a better use of the talk page.
2. I didn't dodge any questions. Your question, What specific comments did you have in mind when sending me this? did not mention "other editors" and therein lay my confusion. I understood you to be asking which of your specific comments, and replied in that context. You clarified the question in the same series of edits that pinged me and asked me to take a hike, so you never got an answer. I have trouble finding where that's my fault, and there certainly was no malice on my part in the misunderstanding.
3. "Quit following me" is a clear WP:AOHA violation that needs to be self-reverted. All of our intersecting edits have been related to the same subject: the RFD was linked from the article talk page, and the 'crisis' article was linked from the RFD. If you have evidence that I've been chasing you around antagonizing you in unrelated areas, that is the sort of evidence that you should be presenting here. You don't get to throw out baseless claims of harassment just because someone disagrees with you more than once.
4. Yes, "quit whinging" was poor form on my part, and I apologize for that. I'll not strike it just now since we're active on ANI, but I will do so once the dust settles. To rephrase: once you hit "publish changes", edits belong to the project. Comments that focus on why "your" content was not retained are generally less likely to be helpful than ones that are content-oriented.
5. I'm hopeful that we can each redact/strike the comments referenced above and move on with our day. You are welcome to continue to use pings/my talk page when warranted, but if you are wanting me not to contact you in the future then it may be better that you do not. VQuakr (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Your RM was ill-advised. Your split proposal was also ill-advised, especially so. It was completely out of touch with good editorial practices in the area of managing content across multiple pages, as you appeared to be oblivious to content forking concerns and unaware of summary style. An established editor would ideally not need to consult multiple other editors to be able to make the right calls on this fundamental level. By not deeply engaging with how bad of an idea (not bad in some dramatic sense, just absent of good) it was to start the bad RM and the bad proposed split in quick succession, which is especially clear now after the fact, but it was always clear, and putting so much emphasis on the procedure, i.e. who should close and who shouldn't, how essay abc matters, etc. you're leaving me with a poor impression of your sense of proportion and priority in this context. The RfD you subsequently started is terrible. If we have an article about someone, and that person's death is covered in the article, we can always have a "Death of ..." redirect, because redirects are cheap; that's not something that editors need to concern themselves with at all. All such processes have operating costs even when they are good ideas. VQuaker recognized that you're detracting from normal development of this article with your poorly conceived ideas about what editors need to focus on and what needs to be done. What needs to be done is further normal article work. Not pointless expensive formal processes with no chance of producing anything. You're not being followed, this is a major event, and VQuaker became interested in this article's development as someone who is probably interested in political events. VQuakr has not been editing on a daily basis. On this day, when he came to edit, he chose to do this. I assume he saw the tag and became concerned that there may be bad ideas circulating, and tried to do something about it. He was also courteous and you were not (edit: forgot about the "quit whinging" part during my writing this comment). Civilly asking someone to take a hike is not civil, and "Quit following me" was uncalled for. He also referenced relevant and useful PAGs in his replies to you. Including WP:AOHA.—Alalch E. 21:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Suspected repeat WP:COI at Grimes

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

---

I am concerned about repeated whitewashing on the Grimes wikipedia page - suspect PR acc involvement as any edits documenting inconsistencies in information she has released about herself are being repeatedly removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Battenintokyo (talk • contribs) 23:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• Battenintokyo, don't bother notifying me. Also, you're quite good at edit warring and making accusations and BLP violations, but you can't even sign your posts? Drmies (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  • you weren't involved in making the original rotation of problematic edits, just removing my complaints - which is what I thought the talk page was forBattenintokyo (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
    • Your one complaint was a BLP violation, your other was silly. You seem to think there's some Grimes-supported conspiracy, and I'm part of it. Come on. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

      no, I think you're a random editor who isn't fully aware of the highly suspect, likely conflicts of interest among people editing her page at present Battenintokyo (talk) 23:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• I've indeffed Battenintokyo.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Pbritti

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

---

User:Pbritti is exhibiting irrational, vindictive behaviour in the reverting of my edits to the detriment of article quality. Admittedly my behaviour is not ideal but bad editing really riles me. I gave edited mainly using 121.98.204.148 and 103.21.175.72.

I am not block evading as claimed by the editor. My IP addy changes since I edit at work and home and my home ISP changes my IP address. 103.21.175.81 (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Block evasion by 121.98.204.148. @The Blade of the Northern Lights:, is there an option to deal with this more permanently? ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Your edits are the problem. They are not advancing WP at all. 103.21.175.81 (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

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

User:SummerKrut

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

SummerKrut has made multiple personal attacks in edit summaries, using the Russian language for the strongest attack, potentially with an intent to evade detection. Examples:

• ни к чему твой крестовый поход против русского языка не приведëт "your crusade against the Russian language will lead nowhere."see diff on Riga
• отмена правки гиперпатриотичного украинца "canceling the edit of a hyperpatriotic Ukrainian" see diff on Kupiansk
• сколько польских сортиров уже отмыл? "How many Polish toilets have you cleaned?" see diff on Riga
• сколько польских сортиров уже отмыл? "how many Polish latrines have you cleaned?" see diff on Severomorsk
• не надоело отменять всë подряд? "Aren't you tired of canceling everything?" see diff on Ganges
• you are not allowed to edit pages related to eastern europe anyway see diff on Borshchahivka
• let's wait for them to end up not providing any arguments and shaming themself see diff on Ganges

I have previously reported SummerKrut at ANI for battleground behaviour in particular on the contentious topic of Eastern Europe (see [46]). That ANI derailed a bit when two administrators got into an argument with each other. SK got blocked by @User:Lourdes and that block got lifted after SK retracted the personal attacks and promised to not repeat them [47]. Unfortunately, the above edit summaries show that this promise has not been upheld. I consider the fact that the attacks are not in English an aggravating factor as this makes it hard to detect for >99% of Wikipedians (few will Google translate edit summaries to hunt for incivilities).

Beyond hiden personal attacks, SummerKrut also regularly leaves misleading edit summaries: e.g. marking page moves as minor.

The majority of SK editing activity appears to be adding Russian language names to places outside of Russia, which they do usually without edit summaries (65% of major edits since June 2023 without edit summary [48]. AncientWalrus (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC) AncientWalrus (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

• I have blocked SummerKrut, who was previously blocked for one week in June for personal attacks. In light of that earlier block and the continuing attacks -- I verified the translations of the attacks in the edit summaries -- I have blocked them for one month.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  With all due respect, a month sounds like too little for someone who has already been blocked for personal attacks, had his block lifted after promising not to engage in such behaviour in the future, and not only has continued to do so but does so in another language to try to slip it under the radar. Also implying that someone has been forced to go to Poland as a refugee and makes a living cleaning toilets is way beyond the pale. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks @SouthernNights. I am no expert in blocks but I think the question of WP:NOTHERE arises. Instead of apologizing for their vile comments, in their response to the block, they suggested they will leave even fewer edit summaries in the future (recall that 65% of SK's major edits have no summary at all), in their words: the policy you cited clearly states 'All edits should be explained', therefore, leaving an edit summary is my right, not an obligation.. There seems to be a disregard of wider community norms, not just civility. I wonder if an WP:INDEF would not be more appropriate. Looking at the entire editing history shows that most of SK appear to only marginally improve the encyclopedia. It is mostly POV revert warring with "pro-Ukrainian/Belarusian" IPs, undoing undiscussed moves regarding a single vowel change in a small village's name that no one has objected to in 6 years (from Belarusian Novalukoml back to Russian Novolukoml [49]). Alternatively, a topic ban on editing place/event names that are on territory that is not Russia would be a good way to prevent future disruption from SK. AncientWalrus (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

After reading SummerKrut's response, to the block, I'm considering it. But I'd like to hear other admins weight in on this.--SouthernNights (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Certainly a combative fellow. I'm not seeing where SummerKrut has made so very positive a body of work (fewer than 1000 article space edits) as to give the benefit of the doubt. (And to address AncientWalrus above, I'm one of those editors who routinely translates edit summaries/talk page comments rendered in other languages. This being the English Wikipedia, my presumption is that an editor suddenly choosing to communicate in a foreign language is doing so with the hope of getting insults past us, and that presumption seldom proves mistaken.) Ravenswing 23:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I just indefinitely blocked SummerKrut. --SouthernNights (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

User:DaFuqBomm

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

Impersonate In page Article Skibidi Toilet real name Alexey Gerasimov YouTube Channel Name DaFuq!?Boom!. User edit article spam fake channel name on YouTube. 47.234.198.142 (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

This is completely incoherent. What are you claiming is happening? What action do you want to take place? Why does this require admin attention instead of a regular user action? --Yamla (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I see user DaFuqBomm created account 23 September 2023. It dose not meet Username Policy. 47.234.198.142 (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Looking at what's available, I assume they're saying User:DaFuqBomm is impersonating the creator of the Skibidi Toilet series and using it to promote a YouTube channel. Here's a diff [50], pretty clear cut looking at it. Unsure if this requires an immediate jump to ANI (it's the account's only edit so far) but it's not a terrible complaint. Tessaract2^Hi! 20:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:UAA would probably be a better venue, as this account is impersonating a youtuber to add spam links to a fake "second channel". 86.23.109.101 (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked DaFuqBomm for promotional username, promotional edits. Cullen328 (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Clearpulse

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

---

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

Creating an account for the sole purpose to promote. see its revision on stress ball. B3251 (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@B3251: I can't see that diff now because it was evidently revdel'd. But if the user is promoting a product that is related to their Wikipedia username, you can report that to WP:UAA as a promotional username. Very simple to do with Twinkle. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)

Blocked for username violation. Edit was pretty blatant promotion. Red Phoenix ^talk 04:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Somebody under multiple IPs continuously vandalizing Sawdust article

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

On September 19, an IP vandalized the Sawdust article by adding this edit, stating "Sawdust is the main ingredient in pepperoni and many types of noodles."

Taking a look at the revision history, you can see after having their revision reverted, the IP proceeded to reinstate their vandalism three times before being blocked for a week by administrator @Ponyo. After which, it seems that the IP has been evading their block to once again reinstate their vandalized revision on the Sawdust article, but this time by using multiple IPs & switching to a new one every single time somebody reverts their edit. The following is a list of IPs that have been used:

• 64.141.33.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 209.171.85.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 66.244.248.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Judging by the revision history, it seems that the individual waits for several hours before hopping on a new IP and reinstating their vandalized revision, so I do not see this stopping. I'm hoping an admin could look into this and potentially pursue further blocking and/or page protection. Thank you.

Pinging @Novo Tape in case they'd like to provide any input, as they have also reverted the vandal's revisions. B3251 (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'd like to add that, based on the page history for Ottawa, User:2607:FEA8:D55E:6F00:50FC:255E:F8A5:F824 could possibly be a block evasion of the same user. Besides that, I don't have much to add (although I agree that page protection might be in order). Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 03:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Libya345433

Libya345433 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor has created a significant number of unsourced articles, most have been moved to draftspace and some have since been rejected by AfC. (See user talk page). Multiple editors have left comments to try and help, but they have been ignored. See user talk page for history.

Today the editor is linking mainspace articles to their drafts.[51], [52], [53], [54] (there are more, I left these are examples).  // Timothy :: talk  02:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked Libya345433 as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Repeated disruption on Blue zone and talk-page

• Sauljnewman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.6.50.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 192.76.8.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 192.76.8.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sauljnewman has been edit-warring on the Blue zone article, repeatedly adding original research to the article. If you check the talk-page discussion they have been told many times why their editing is problematic. The same user has admitted to using the other IP addresses (they are all the same editor). I am not sure why they need all those IPs and an account but I will assume good faith as they are not claiming to be different users. After the user was told the content is WP:OR and unreliable they edit-warred on different IPs. After they were reverted they are now using the talk-page on different IPS [55], [56] repeatedly claiming that other users are "blocking" their edits. This is not good faith editing as they have been told why their edits break policy. The user has been told that their edits are WP:OR (the sources they are adding do not mention blue zones) and they seem to be doing their own statistical research, but the user repeatedly denies this and says they are not doing original research. This seems to be reaching close to a case of WP:NOTHERE. A block from the blue zone article may be suitable.

Any admin advice here about what could be done would be useful. At this point the comments on the talk-page from Sauljnewman's are disrespectful and bordering disruption because they have ignored advice from several experienced Wikipedia users. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I've semi'd it for 2 weeks. Just giving the rope here for them to try to get consensus on the talk page. Thanks, Lourdes 15:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Sarahbriner1139

New SPA User:Sarahbriner1139 has been spamming some sort of jokey spam thing about themselves, using altered copied of WP articles, to main space, user page and their user talk page. They attempted to add the whole thing as a FP to the edit filter, then deleted a big chunk of outstanding genuine FP requests, apparently to bump theirs up the queue. Level 3 and 4 warnings blanked with no response. Clearly WP:NOTHERE.

• Indeffed. Enough nonsense. Courcelles (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

CatmanBw (talk · contribs) edit warring / deleting deletion proposal (1rr violation) + personal attacks on identity.

See Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, this user reverting my edit on deletion proposal for this poorly sourced page. my edit, second revert [57]. Also second thing [58] he wrote on my talkpage I kindly ask you not to nominate pages for deletion just because they go against your views. I understand that the article SDF insurgency in northern Syria goes against your views because your Turkish. However, it's one of the chapters of the Syrian civil war and we are trying to document everything that goes in the war for history. So please don't nominate pages just because they go against your feelings. This is not the first time attack on my identity on wikipedia. Beshogur (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I reverted your first nomination for the deletion of the page manually because I couldn't do it automatically. You proceeded to nominate the page again for deletion. There is an obvious bias in your edit history towards a Turkish point of view. Just because you question the conflict of interest of an editor, it doesn't mean that you are attacking them. CatmanBw (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh more personal attacks. Beshogur (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Beshogur, how is it possible that you haven't noticed that PROD may be removed "if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason"? Restoring it after removal was completely inappropriate. --JBL (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. CatmanBw (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Restoring it after removal was completely inappropriate to be honest, I am terrible at nominating articles to deletion. Didn't know that. Beshogur (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion is a lightweight way of performing uncontroversial deletions, see the first sentence of WP:PROD. A proposed deletion can be contested by anyone for any reason (or even no reason at all), and once it has been contested you cannot renominate the page for proposed deletion again. Reverting an editor to reinsert a contested prod notice with incorrect instructions that they cannot remove it [59] then claiming a 1RR violation when they remove it again deleting deletion proposal (1rr violation) seems like gaming the system. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing that. CatmanBw (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Well I didn't know that either. However there is nothing called SDF insurgency in northern Syria. Plain made up article compiled with various sources including unreliable ones like twitter accounts and wordpress like websites. Beshogur (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the insurgency has been documented by one of the most reliable sources in the Syrian civil war, which is the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights . A source that has been quoted by many international news organizations (such as Reuters and CNN). And that's just one source that is documenting it. CatmanBw (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that the article is plain original research. And you see that SOHR is pretty much controversial source. The organization consists only by one person. Beshogur (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The instructions on how the PROD process works were explained in the template you added. If you still think an article should be deleted after a PROD has been contested your next step should be to take it to WP:AFD for a deletion discussion. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Here is a google search result from the link Beshogur provided: [AP News] CatmanBw (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The source only talks about PKK insurgency, not SDF insurgency. One particular attack. The whole article is compilaton of bunch of sources. And none of the sources except Foreign Policy stating "There are clearly the indications of an insurgency", and ANF (which is a PKK website) quoting Salih Muslim (had no relation with PYD in 2018) stating guerilla attacks will begin. Beshogur (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The Turkish government refers to SDF as PKK to undermine them. In reality, they are not the same organization. (This just proves that you are biased towards a pro-Turkish government point of view). I can bring you many sources that document the insurgency if you are interested. CatmanBw (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

This just proves that you are biased towards a pro-Turkish government point of view another personal attack. Just stop. Beshogur (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@CatmanBw Please stop attacking people on the basis on their nationality, and accusing them of bias without providing evidence in the form of diffs to support your accusations. If you continue you are going to end up blocked for making personal attacks. Comment on content, not the contributor.

These arguments about the validity/reliability/relevance of sourcing belong in a deletion discussion, not an ANI thread. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:No personal attacks

"Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic." CatmanBw (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

You are not "Questioning an editor about their possible conflict of interest", you are attacking them on the basis of their nationality and accusing them of of misconduct/having ulterior motives for their edits without evidence. Either provide proper evidence that Beshogur is making biased/nationalistic edits in the form of WP:diffs or stop. If you continue you are going to end up blocked. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

CatmanBw, Beshogur's nationality is irrelevant to the correctness or otherwise of the edits, so there's no need to mention it. Beshogur, if you still think the article should be deleted then nominate it for discussion at WP:AFD rather than reinstate the WP:PROD tag, or if you think some other change to the content should be made then go to Talk:SDF insurgency in northern Syria. I don't think there's any need to do any more here, as this seems to be a combination of a content issue and some misunderstandings about Wikipedia processes. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• I've left a final warning on CatmanBw's Talk page about personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  I still don't understand how it's a personal attack. I did not insult anyone. I was only trying to say that the editor in question has a pro-Turkish government bias (based on his edit history). I am not insulting them in anyway and I have nothing personal against them. CatmanBw (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Bookspamming

Primary, if not sole intent is WP:BOOKSPAMing at multiple articles on behalf of Daniel Newman by BillyGoatsBluff (talk · contribs). This seems like a WP:POINTY response [60]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Restrictions abuse by moderator Wutsje

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

---

Report on Dutch Wikipedia by moderator "Wutsje". Abusive restrictions and repeated removal of original content information on Bersiap topic. User090998 (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@User090998 This is the English wikipedia. Each language project is individually run and gets to set their own policies and elect their own administrators - you will need to raise this on the Dutch wikipedia as English wikipedia administrators cannot help you in this dispute. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

user:Wutsje's only recent edit to Bersiap on English Wikipedia is to restore a justified citation needed tag. Meters (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

This doesn't pertain to English but Dutch Wikipedia on which Wutsje has installed a block. User090998 (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

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

---