Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Content deleted Content added
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
Line 698: Line 698:
Overflow from the article. I don't know if the appropriate action is a page lock or smoking out a mass of sock or meatpuppets, but it looks like orchestrated disruption. [[Special:Contributions/2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 17:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Overflow from the article. I don't know if the appropriate action is a page lock or smoking out a mass of sock or meatpuppets, but it looks like orchestrated disruption. [[Special:Contributions/2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 17:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
*See also blocked {{user|AT1(AW)Howell}}. [[Special:Contributions/2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 17:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
*See also blocked {{user|AT1(AW)Howell}}. [[Special:Contributions/2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 17:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

== Block needed on {{u|CaradhrasAiguo}} ==

It's not good it's necessary to request the sanction, but {{u|CaradhrasAiguo}} is apparently going through this editor's contributions on pages where reports of China's cultural cleansing of Tibet are located, and reverting months of various edits by editors, based on the editor's entrenched POV, their WP:OR on various sources, while reasserting his questionable "academic" sources. The reverts continue to be bad faith, and clearly function as a form of censoring information on Wikipedia which is not part of their entrenched POV and not pro-China. This is occurring as reports by that editor and this editor have been presented here.
Today, that editor deleted a BBC RS and associated edits on the abducted [[11th Panchen Lama]] here [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/977879525] to reassert his entrenched POV aligned with "academic" [[Melvin Goldstein]] whose work is disputed by [[Jamyang Norbu]].

(saving to edit and continue adding diffs)
[[User:Pasdecomplot|Pasdecomplot]] ([[User talk:Pasdecomplot|talk]]) 18:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:33, 12 September 2020

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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. (archivessearch)

    Bad faith editing by User:Andrew Davidson

    Concern is regarding an issue (singular) with Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs). I'll be short. What the fuck is this [1]? Isn't this as egregious as someone putting a picture of a certain person who says bigly, beside an article titled Mental disorder? I don't go around digging someone's edit history. But I am confident that despite being aware of BLP policies, he made a troll page to provoke others. I have zero intentions of ever communicating with him in the future but I want to ask him here. What's your obsession with Greta (who was then 16)? His version was removed here and here (by User:ජපස and User:Bradv respectively), which means it stayed in public and indexed for more than a year perhaps. - hako9 (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    "I don't go around digging someone's edit history." - but you've gone around and dug out someone's edit history from 18 months ago? The picture seems fine in the context of that one-line stub. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    you've gone around and dug out someone's edit history from 18 months ago? What? The article has been nominated for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-anxiety. - hako9 (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but that's not obvious from the diff you provided. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's a troll on AfDs as well, mostly centered around accusations that he doesn't believe but which are designed to annoy the target:
    • Good luck getting AfD closers to acknowledge these personal attacks, but maybe there will be a less unsatisfactory response here at ANI. Reyk YO! 16:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article in question is currently at AfD, where I have explained some history of the article. It was initially based on this BBC article, which highlighted Greta Thunberg in this context, including the cited quotation of hers. I read that BBC article at the time, noticed that we didn't have a corresponding article and so got one started. Lots of other editors have expanded the article since and I've mostly left them to it. This just seems to be ordinary editing per WP:BOLD. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you, for instance, put a picture of Sushant Singh Rajput in an article titled depression, with his quotes (out of context), in the caption. The BBC article doesn't put her picture as the top display. Is this not completely un-encyclopedic? Isn't this enabling and encouraging other editors to inundate this article with her personal life and her mental health, all in the garb of "eco-anxiety"? - hako9 (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, thanks a lot, for leaving this articles to others. The harm you caused would maybe be more difficult to fix than creating an article from scratch. - hako9 (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (after several edit conflicts) No, "his version" was not removed in those edits. He neither created the caption removed by User:ජපස nor the text removed by User:Bradv. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you @Phil Bridger: for pointing it out to me though, that those weren't "his versions". Striked that word. - hako9 (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The OP is now claiming that I have an "obsession with Greta" and adds some innuendo about her age. But the OP fails to provide evidence of such an obsession. So far as I recall, I have never edited the article about her and it wasn't on my watchlist when I looked at it just now. I don't think I've even read the article before as it was interesting to discover that her second name is Tintin, which I was not previously aware of.
    What I have done previously is create some other articles about environmental topics including beach cleaning; back to nature; ammonia pollution; decline in insect populations; plogging; Boyan Slat; sharawadgi. I have also created hundreds of articles on a variety of other topics as I'm not especially obsessed by any particular topic. One such other article was give a dog a bad name and hang him. I don't recall exactly, but suppose that was inspired by some similar proceeding here at ANI. Tsk.
    Andrew🐉(talk) 17:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Why was it interesting for you to discover her second name is Tintin? - hako9 (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lot of articles about ecoanxiety mention Greta. She represents worrying about the environment rather well. I don't see this is an insult. Why call it a "mental disorder" when people are worried about the environment? Dream Focus 17:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at this version (before today's nomination)- [6]. Quoting from the article's lead Swedish teenager, Greta Thunberg, is a high-profile example of youth who have been affected and has been pivotal in making climate anxiety more visible around the world. At the age of 11, she became seriously depressed because of her worries about global warming, although her anxiety exacerbated her pre-existing mental health problems. Here is the source (paints a completely different picture imv)The Guardian. Do you find anything wrong? If not then ask yourself, what is this article about. Is it about psychological emotion or about a girl and her personal life. If a line on this and her past was included in her own article, that would've been fine. This isn't. - hako9 (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That wasn't in the original article he created. Her article has a section for her mental health issues including depression. Greta_Thunberg#Mental_health Dream Focus 17:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dream Focus, It wasn't. But I'll repeat, his creation of the article was done with a purpose of enabling and encouraging other editors to inundate the article with her personal life and her mental health, in the garb of "eco-anxiety"? - hako9 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds rather ridiculous. Why would you believe someone would create an article for that devious purpose? How exactly would that even work? You honestly believe he somehow knew others would come and add in more information that you find offensive, despite it being listed in her own article? Dream Focus 18:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The section on her page distinguishes completely, her past and the issues she overcame, in contrast to her activism later in life. The article portrays that the psychological response in teens is unsubstantiated by way of making her the poster child of people who had issues earlier in life, and who are known for that mere reason. - hako9 (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not seeing an ANI-level issue here. Would need much more evidence to make the case for a tban or some other sort of action. I don't agree with Andrew's editorial decision in that article, but don't think it rises to the level of a behavioral problem. BD2412 suggested a very sensible approach to handling the article(s), and as Reyk's comments show, the longer this stays open the more likely it is to drift into other issues. If something's going to happen with Andrew (or ARS, since that's relevant to this AfD) it's probably not going to happen in the context of this thread. $0.02 — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      maybe there will be a less unsatisfactory response here at ANI- every time I allow myself the least bit of optimism I end up disappointed. Why do I bother? Reyk YO! 18:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Looks like I stand corrected. Usually bringing up unrelated issues with regard to the subject of an ANI report, when the initial report doesn't have much meat to it, doesn't go anywhere (and IMO weakens those same arguments for when they are relevant down the road), but it looks like perhaps enough is enough [for a warning]. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Although the diffs provided by Reyk are much much more serious, can someone please comment on whether an article creation like this is ohk? Am I losing my shit over a paltry issue or does my concern have maybe, an iota of validity? - hako9 (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Rhododendrites, I understand what you're saying and I guess my passive agressive complaining just now wasn't a good idea. But sometimes you just can't satisfy everyone. If I protest at the AfDs, closers ignore it. If I start an ANI myself people will accuse me of just having an axe to grind. If I attach my concerns to another ANI regarding insinuations against people who don't deserve it that's too off-topic. If I wait for a more AfD-centric discussion I'll get dismissed because the alleged misbehaviour was too long ago. Reyk YO! 20:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Andrew Davidson: if you post more bad faith, passive-aggressive speculation about the motives of editors, I will block you for violations of WP:CIVIL. Insinuating that someone is racist or shilling is unacceptable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Chin up, Reyk! Lev!vich 18:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll mirror both you and NinjaRobotPirate in that this definitely needs to be closed with at least a warning so the next problem can't be just passed off as not actionable again and again. Andrew Davidson needs to take this seriously and that any further actions like this will be sanctioned. I don't know how well a warning will really work given all this time and many warnings from editors, but it's clear the battleground behavior related to AfDs is not stopping. The recent sniping at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Skull_Cave was the most recent one that caught my eye before this ANI. Blocks need to be tried to get it to stop at this point. Otherwise, if we start totaling up diffs of WP:TEND behavior that by definition may not be actionable individually, we're looking at needing a topic ban from deletion related topics if this doesn't stop. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I had thought this complaint was something of an exaggeration until I saw this diff. Here, the user lists three sources that are ostensibly about the topic of eco-anxiety. The problem is that none of the sources are about eco-anxiety. None of them use the term even once. This kind of appalling editorial indiscretion is an enormous red flag. I don't know what to do about it, but it's clear this user is here to use Wikipedia as a venue for his own original research rather than a means to collate what third-party sources say about a topic. This is a really big issue as far as I'm concerned -- especially as the user seems to have sufficient abilities to make it appear as though he is following Wikipedia standards and practices when in fact he is flouting them completely. Something needs to be done. jps (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    That diff you link is unfortunately what I've experienced at AfDs where they are involved too. Much of this ANI deals with their battleground behavior issues, but what you're describing is more of a WP:COMPETENCE issue. It functionally becomes a WP:BLUDGEON when Andrew repeatedly does that across AfDs. I hadn't taken the sanction idea as seriously before, but I am drifting more towards a deletion topic ban (whether for competence or battleground issues) being in the cards. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmmm. The OP who couldn't properly link a WP:DIFF aside, I was pinged by Reyk and I do concur that Andrew's behavior in some areas of the project is problematic, in two dimensions. First, an occasional lack of civility is an issue, coupled with a significant amount of POINTless disruption with AfDs. Few examples: 1) an edit summary accusing others of disruptive PROD (I think it is deleted now). 2) in another recent AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skull Cave Andrew accused the nom (me) of "abuse of our deletion process"; his Keep vote was the only one there and User:Argento Surfer explicitly said 'you should stop tossing around these bad faith criticisms of "abuse"' 4) another recent AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byakhee saw where his keep vote was the only dissenting one saw him making yet another personal attack at the nom (me): "The nomination's claims are therefore false.". This has been pointed out by User:GizzyCatBella [7]. 5) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redbird (comics) he accused the nom (me...) of "cookie-cutter" nomination, his post there led to explicit criticism by User:Darkknight2149: [8]; and he used the cookie-cutter in other AdDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miraz's Castle where again his vote was the only dissenting one 6) a pattern of dePRODing articles with an unhelpful rationale, and not participating in the resulting AfDs even when pinged directly (I could link dozens of cases like the recent Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tamaran or the still ongoing but quite clear Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purdue Outing Club; here's a random one from few months ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan Clark - please note that this is not a case of 'once every few weeks', but rather 'several times a week'); this is particularly problematic when the dePRODs are done on content that is unreferenced and later not contested by anyone like the (still ongoing) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wingmen_of_Thanagar. His pattern of dePRODing has been subject to numerous complaints before like this recent one by User:DoubleGrazing: [9]; they are easy to see because Andrew habitually removes such warnings from his talkpage... through some discussions are preserved: User_talk:Andrew_Davidson/deletion_discussions#Mass_prodding_by_Piotrus, few more at User talk:Andrew Davidson/deletion discussions but I think most are not archived and I don't have the time and will to dig through the diffs of his talk page. ANI archives, however, are more stable: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#Proposal:_Require_Andrew_Davidson_to_provide_a_rationale_with_each_de-PROD, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive299#Andrew_Davidson_disruptive_editing_in_AfD. I really don't know what to do, since this is not white and black, some of Andrew's dePRODs are valid, and so are some of his AfD comments. But the ratio of bad to good is a problem here. I really don't like the idea of sanctions when an editor is editing in good faith, and even through I disagree with Andrew quite a lot, I am not sure I'd support any topic ban. But one suggestion I do have is a custom sanction that would force him to provide a meaningful rationale with his dePRODs. Check: [10] and remember that it only shows kept articles (or ones nobody bothered to challenge again). But a lot of the stuff he dePRODs with no edit summary, not bothering to comment in AfD, effectively wastes community time (and I repeat - if anyone wants more data points, I can easily list several dozens of articles that Andrew dePRODed with a generic edit summary, that he did not participate in a resulting AfD even after being pinged, and that were uncontroversial deletes). And when he comments in those AfDs, as the diffs show, too often those comments are not constructive nor polite :( PS. To be clear: I don't mind deprods, and I don't want to topic ban Andrew from dePRODs, but what I see is a pattern of mass dePRODing with no BEFORE on his part, as evidenced by mentioned dozens of articles that he PRODed with no rationale, that in turn were AfDed with him being pinged and where he did not participate, and nobody else found any reason to keep an article. When this happens dozens of times each months for years now I think we have a problem. Andrew needs to stop dePRODing on a whim, and when he occasionally participates in a resulting AfDs, he needs to AGF the nom and make his arguments constructive, not battleground-ish. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Piotrus, I did not link a diff because I had a single issue with the user. That of creation of an article with a picture and caption of a person to try to portray that person as maybe an environmental alarmist at best and a person with mental health issues at worst . If no one finds this as an issue of malintent, it would be better that I strike my comments and let others speak. Sorry for wasting everyone's time. - hako9 (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hako9, in my opinion, the matter you brought forward is worthy of attention, and is relevant to the broader discussion, and there is no reason for you to apologize. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cullen328 Apologies are under-used here, but yes, this was my mistake - I didn't realize you meant the very first diff. Through next time it wouldn't hurt to make it more clear. I apologize for dismissing the OP's link. This is not a waste of time. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a gracious thing to say, Piotrus. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328: I... I really wish this wasn't something to thank me for. This project would be in much better shape if people would be more willing to say 'sorry' and 'thank you' more often. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Piotrus, Oh man. Thanks for saying that. From the beginning of starting this post, I was constantly thinking, Am I assuming the worst in people or have I gone completely insane. I just want to make a final comment. I don't want any action against Andrew (atleast for my complaint of creation of that article. Reyk's and your issue, needs different look). I just want someone to say to Andrew that, Dude, that article, with that picture and that caption, was 100% INSENSITIVE and you just can not do that. - hako9 (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since I was pinged, I'll say that my interactions with Andrew have probably been disagreements at least as often as not, but I believe he's a net positive for the project. His standards for inclusion are lower than average, but his quality of contribution is higher than average - when he was reviewing a DYK nom for me, he actually bought the book and read it before passing so it wouldn't just be a rubber stamp. Although I can appreciate the sheer volume of deletion noms he wants to oppose is probably overwhelming, I would encourage him to put effort into improving the articles he defends rather than add a bullet pointed list of references to the AfD. That effort will either result in some WP:HEY keeps and people will start giving his opinion more weight, or he'll realize his sources weren't as useful as he believed. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There is nothing egregious here. And there is no need for the OP to say, "What the fuck is..." It does not make the argument better, it is distracting. Andrew Davidson has written a great article and many others on the project...that the OP misinterpreted the intentions of Andrew D who used a photograph of a well known environmental voice, is not the fault of Andrew D. This is also quite a dramatic revert by JPS also with a very...uncivil "Fuck no" edit summary. That the truth is offensive to certain editors is not a problem with Andrew D, and now that everyone has been overruled by Bradv's edit we can move on. Or maybe not...JPS also nominated the article for deletion as possible WP:REVENGE and that seems more egregious and disruptive to the project. Lightburst (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need for action here except maybe a boomerang. If there was a valid case to make against another editor it should be possible to do so without use of the f word, calling them a troll or assuming you know what they think. Accusations that include phrases such as "He's a troll on AfDs as well, mostly centered around accusations that he doesn't believe but which are designed to annoy the target". Don't need further investigation - unless accompanied by a diff from the target saying that they hadn't actually meant an accusation but had only done it to annoy. The best way to deal with such attacks is to dismiss them out of hand. ϢereSpielChequers 15:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      WereSpielChequers, because you know that the Colonel's accusations of racism and shilling are indefensible, you seek to dismiss the complaint by quibbling about its wording. Pathetic. Utterly pathetic. Reyk YO! 15:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt they are indefensible, but that isn't the point. Using the F word, calling someone a troll and presuming you know what they think are not some minor typo that could be dismissed as a quibble. If there were valid complaints to make against the Colonel they could have been made without them. ϢereSpielChequers 16:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you should have tried to dismiss my valid complaints before several administrators in good standing backed them up. Bit late to protect your friend now. Reyk YO! 16:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope none of our colleagues share whatever moral code led you to conclude that three accusations of racism merit "no need for action" but using the words "fuck" and "troll" merits "maybe a boomerang". Lev!vich 16:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The combination of the f word and the presumption of knowing what someone thinks means that I am unlikely to find the rest of the case convincing. a set of diffs setting out an allegation of trolling would be worth investigating, but it would be much much stronger without those two minuses. Taking this alleged accusation of racism. I disagree with the Colonel re the notability of Azerbaijani long service awards. Many organisations have ten year, fifteen year and twenty year long service awards. Wikipedia itself has a service award system, and I'm comfortable that it isn't mentioned in our article on Wikipedia. I suppose if I had taken part in that AFD I might have argued for merge rather than delete, if there were an article on Azerbaijani awards or perhaps to the article on the Azerbaijani government; but can't see myself !voting keep on that one. As for whether it is systematic bias or English language bias or indeed racism the Colonel himself doesn't as far as I can see presume to assume other people's motivation. There is a perfectly legitimate minority view among some in this community that our audience is the English speaking world, and that a topic like this might belong on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia but it doesn't really belong here. I don't share that view, not least because there are English speakers practically everywhere but also because our remit is to cover the sum of all knowledge and I'm aware that many of our readers do so via translation tools - our reach is beyond the English speaking world. However I wouldn't assume that someone holding that view was institutionally biased or indeed racist; let alone someone who, like me, wasn't convinced that any organisation's long service award really merits its own article. The Colonel did say some fairly disparaging things about deletionists in that thread, comments that would sink an RFA if he were to run there. But I read him comments as being more polite or less incivil than the person who used the f word and called him a troll. In short I take racism very seriously, I am very sure that the colonel does as well. If he were to accuse someone of racism I am confident that he would do so with good evidence, I don't see him using the word "racism" in that diff. ϢereSpielChequers 17:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • So mentioning a "system bias" makes you a racist? He comments to someone from New Zealand [11] and someone from Poland [12] how they don't seem to mind if list of shopping malls in their countries don't have sources, but are willing to delete the list of those in Africa. Race was never mentioned nor implied. Just an accusation of a double standard for their own nations perhaps. Not assuming good faith though. Should've been worded differently. Dream Focus 18:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Dream Focus, Why did you conveniently leave out this diff, where Andrew, called another user (who nac'd an afd) a "presumptious (sic) non-admin and Nigerian, who needed to be put in their place".
      I am speaking for myself here, but I wouldn't like to be talked in that tone ever. IRL or online. If someone called me a presumptuous guy who needed to be put in their place, I frankly wouldn't complain. But why mention a user's nationality? What was the intent there? Notice the mention of nationality after conjunction "and", as if to belittle someone. Am I reaching here? Or Is this the kind of way and tone to speak to someone? - hako9 (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Hako9, actually Davidson is falsely attributing those hateful and racist views to someone else. Reyk YO! 20:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading tea leaves to assign motives or racist intent (I personally do not see it). Too often with written word, editors see what they want. Lightburst (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lightburst, How would you classify that projection? Some kind of paternalistic prejudice, to be too polite? - hako9 (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just looked at the diffs supplied by Reyk at the top of the thread and I'm utterly shocked, especially from someone who I have worked with in many positive ways to write and improve the encyclopedia over several years. Andrew, this comment is a personal attack and I'm pleased to see that fellow administrators agree that is completely unacceptable to insult fellow editors like this. Please do not do this again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I haven't read all the diffs above, but I find these types of comments problematic:
    • One long accusation of bad faith: [13],
    • "where he managed to get the close overturned as the closer was a presumptious non-admin and Nigerian, who needed to be put in their place." [14],
    • "What the nay-sayers fail to explain is why we should single out African countries for systemic bias"[15].

    The full comments from the above show more problems.   // Timothy :: talk  02:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    In yet another bad-faith accusation today, Andrew Davidson has accused a user who began a discussion of inappropriate forum-shopping (without at all contributing to the discussion as others were, just casting it as "vague"), where in fact the OP was uninvolved in the separate Wikiproject discussion that was largely unanimous and ended more than a month earlier. Reywas92Talk 18:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Update The AfD for the article in question has now been closed. There were lots of !votes and the score was 13 merge, 8 keep and 2 delete. The conclusion was to merge to an article that does not exist! In the course of the parallel discussion at the fringe noticeboard, someone shrewdly noted that, at last year's discussion of climate psychosis, it was then decided that eco-anxiety was the preferred target. As that happened in August 2019, when the article was much as I had created it, this demonstrates that the article was considered satisfactory rather than outrageous. In December 2019, Piotrus further confirmed this status by destubbing it. The OP's claims that this was a bad faith creation in pursuit of an obsession seem quite mistaken. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Britney Spears is better than those wannabes

    Some POV stuff about Britney Spears being better than other singers is being added to articles by two IPs from Massachusetts. Can we fix this? Binksternet (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked the most recent one for a few days as it's pretty unhelpful editing - but these seem to be fairly dynamic Verizon IPs covering most of the state; we would have to rangeblock a /42 just to cover the range these two are on. It's pretty harmless low-grade stuff so I doubt it's worth taking any drastic measures at this time. ~ mazca talk 20:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    May be worth asking at WP:RFPP for protection if they return to specific articles.--Hippeus (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Only Melissa Cherry is better, —PaleoNeonate04:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Take Me From Behind" is a classic of our time. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And "It's not about sex at all. Just, you know, love sneaking back on you... from the behind." —PaleoNeonate23:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Temperament and name call isues of Adityabill2001

    So, this started with this revert [16] of mine at Kolkata Airport, which was perfectly inline with this discussion on the article's talk page here (although at that point I was unaware of the discussion) on August 21. Adityabill2001 comes to my talk page and repeatedly and calls me nepotist mafia . I did try to reason with them and tell them to take criticism (warnings/talk page discussions) in the right manner, continue editing and maintain civility but to no avail the user continued with the temperament and nepotist mafia name calls. I discussed the issue with my NPPS Instructor (Barkeep49) , on my course page. Barkeep gave suggestions on how to deal with a situation like this. I followed Barkeep's instructions and gave a calm reply to Adityabill2001 on my talk page, which went well and everything was over and the user and I had no further interaction until today, when I reverted this edit of Aditya [17] and left an edit summary why I did so , he came to my talk page (after reverting my edit) in decent manner, and I tried to reason with him again but he started saying things like "hope this satisfies you" and I explained to them that its not about satisfying me but policy/consistency and that they could bring it up on the articles talk. They reply you will understand nothing which prompted me to give one last reply before closing the discussion telling them to read policies and wished them happy editing. Before I could close it they reply Bhai, chor de iss baat ko. Tere se nahi hoga (translation hi: Dude, you leave it you can't comprehend this). Honestly, I did not want to bring this to ANI (as I mentioned to Barkeep on my course page) but this name calling business is probably going way too far. Bingobro (Chat) 08:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Just had to revert another edit. Earlier this year they also were edit warring and trying to change the main photo despite clear consensus on the talk page. — Yours, Berrely • TalkContribs 09:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The user was blocked for being ignorant and edit warring. He was also rude to me, regarding the infobox image thing. Berrely informed me about this report and saw he went against the talkpage consensus oof the infobox image again. ❯❯❯   S A H A 09:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ArnabSaha:, @Berrely: I just got this on my tak page [18], by another user who had been adding the flight on the CCU article. I and Prolix had AGF reverted the users edit. Strange thing is no interaction when I reverted it or when Prolix reverted it but as soon as Adityabill2001 is no longer editing, User:NilInfinite has gone to my talk page, Prolix's talk and Berrely's talk page too. A sock perhaps? Bingobro (Chat) 09:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bingobro, yeah I was about to ask them that, quite likely, but there isn't sufficient evidence. — Yours, Berrely • TalkContribs 09:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Berrely:I find it weird that Aditya goes against clear consensus, gets blocked for edit warring, was rude to Saha, continues disruptive editing and namecalls along with reverts but we're supposedly the "nepotist wikipedia mafia" . Bingobro (Chat) 10:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again adding unsourced content. — Yours, Berrely • TalkContribs 19:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bishonen: No worries for not seeing this sooner. Altgough the user has very conveniently removed the warning from their talk. Bingobro (Chat) 05:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't matter. Any admin who comes there will look in the history. Bishonen | tålk 08:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

    Editor mass-moving articles without discussion, then nominating resulting redirects for deletion with a misleading rationale

    GPinkerton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is moving numerous articles about politicians to remove Scottish/English etc and replace it with British. He is then "fixing" links to the resulting redirects, contrary to WP:NOTBROKEN, and nominating the redirects for deletion with the rationale that they are not linked to. I think this behaviour is disruptive and unhelpful. Such a programme of renaming should be done via Requested Moves, and the unlinking and deletion nominations seem at best designed to muddy the waters. DuncanHill (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide exact diffs of precisely what you are objecting to and explain why you believe these changes to be "disruptive and unhelpful". My changes are not contrary to WP:NOTBROKEN, which states that It is usually preferable not to use redirected links in navigational templates and It may be appropriate to make this kind of change if the hint that appears when a user hovers over the link is misleading., which both apply in all or nearly all these instances. GPinkerton (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignoring whether the move and the changes of the links were needed or not; the deletion nominations are completely wrong. John Edwards (British Labour politician) was at John Edwards (English politician) first, and then at John Edwards (English Labour politician) since January 2015. That title was not wrong or misleading and doesn't need deletion, no matter if it is now unlinked or not. This matches nothing in WP:RFD#DELETE, and is not some exception which would benefit from deletion. The same goes for e.g. Charles Waterhouse (English politician), a completely unobjectionable redirect which had existed since 2009. Fram (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fram: The John Edwards one is especially egregious and misleading because there is not and never has been any such thing as an "English Labour" Party, and if there were it would not be appropriate for a Labour Party MP. How is it unobjectionable? It's misleading and wrong, and not supported by sources. GPinkerton (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    never has been any such thing as an "English Labour" Party
    It's hard to say whether that misreading is deliberate or not, given how oh-so-wrong it is. Helpful hints: "English Labour politician" has one subject/noun ("politician") modified by two separate adjectives/adjectival nouns ("English" and "Labour"). It could also be written as "Labour politician who is English" or "English politician who is a member of the Labour Party")
    Also, by your logic, there's also no such thing as the "British Labour Party" -- at least according to Labour Party (UK) -- so your usage, if you're employing the same logic, is equally wrong. So yeah, someone is being misleading. --Calton | Talk 17:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Calton: So move it. No-one disagrees he was in the Labour Party, and no-one denies he was a British politician. If you can come up with a less misleading, less ambiguous, and shorter name, go ahead. It's the entirely unsourced and misleading interpolation of "English" I object to. It's worth noting that while English Labour Party is not a thing on Wikipedia, (or elsewhere) British Labour Party naturally redirects to Labour Party (UK), exactly as it should. GPinkerton (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To follow Calton's logic, one can see why it's quite normal to see why one can have a British Labour Party: a "Labour Party" which is the subject/noun of the adjective "British". One cannot have an "English Labour Party": there is no "Labour Party" to which the adjective "English" can reasonably refer. It follows from this that a party which does not exist cannot have members, while one that does must. GPinkerton (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That line of thinking has more twists than a pretzel. Sounds like you're more interested in making a WP:POINT than anything else. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I don't see that. What point would that be? What part is hard to follow? (I've fixed some typos.) If you're just saying that this line of reasoning supporting "English Labour" is illogical, then I agree. GPinkerton (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So move it. Not my job, yours: I'm just pointing that your claimed rationale for your action was bogus.
    no-one denies he was a British politician Not the issue at all, is it? Hint: the word you swapped out, perhaps thinking no one would notice, is "English".
    To follow Calton's logic.., Repeating your error and trying to claim that it attaches to me isn't your best move. --Calton | Talk 18:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Calton: The word English does not appear in the article or the sources. Its inclusion in the article is OR. You have demonstrated only your opinion of my motivation, and your comments fall far short of substantiating your aspersions of an ulterior motive. I say again, no-one denies he was British and a British politician active in British politics. The fact an old article title described him as "English Labour" is no kind of proof of your allegation that my claimed rationale for your action was bogus. I suggest you retract your assertions. GPinkerton (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Experienced hands will know that before too long a Scottish editor is likely to re-Scottify all these anyway, so it is wasted effort. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be, but without sources they'd be in the wrong so to do. It's also wrong to assume Scots don't understand sourcing rules ... GPinkerton (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep on track please people! Cutting to the chase here - the mass moving of articles is disruptive, and the nomination of redirects even more so. That's it. I suggest the RFDs are all closed as 'speedy keep', the page moves are reverted, and that GPinkerton is trouted and warned not to do anything like this ever again. GiantSnowman 21:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    How are they disruptive and why should they be reverted? Surely the WP:BURDEN is on those who claim the original titles are better. Otherwise there's no reason to move them back. No-one seems to be saying the original titles meet the relevant policies, only that tradition should somehow outweigh the standing policies. GPinkerton (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to change an article name, use WP:RM and get consensus. Arguments over whether somebody/something should be described as 'English' or 'British' or 'British' or 'English' can be made on the article talk page. GiantSnowman 21:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ...is the correct answer. We'd have to use mass rollback on all the link changes, though, there are hundreds. Black Kite (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this not count as what is described as what is described in the WP:RM lead?

    "Any autoconfirmed user can use the Move function to perform most moves (see Help:How to move a page). If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page. ... A title may be disputed, and discussion may be necessary to reach consensus: see § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. The requested moves process is not mandatory, and sometimes an informal discussion at the article's talk page can help reach consensus."

    To me it looks as though these basically uncontroversial moves (which in themselves are as yet objected to) follow the guidance laid out on whatever page deals with this particular flag issue: that explicitly British Westminster politicians should be described as such, and those explicitly belonging to one of the nations are best described accordingly. This is often already the case in the opening sentence of the articles, which if I'm not wrong all deal with MPs elected to one-nation-type tickets, just as we describe Gordon Brown as British and Alex Salmond as Scottish. I would urge that each page move be considered on its own merits; I maintain that these are not objectionable changes considering the content and subjects of the articles. It is possible that some of these are more controversial than others, though most are very obscure, and one or two I also expanded somewhat, but others are free to disagree and make changes as appropriate; rather than just changing everything for the sake of it, I appeal to all to vet the changes individually and see whether it's not in fact an improvement in each case! If the redirects will still work even if the articles are moved back, then why the need to change them? GPinkerton (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No move from "Scottish" to "British" or "English" can ever be regarded as "uncontroversial". You have your opinions; others have theirs. Johnbod (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If neither the article text nor the sources cited describe an MP's nationality, and that MP is elected on a platform and to a party whose identity was specifically and explicitly British, and we know that such a person is exclusively notable for being in British politics and being elected to the British HoC, I really don't see what's controversial in these instances, in most of which the article did not breathe a word about them being anything other than British. Most of these articles have not had more than a few edits in the past decade and more. Many of their titles are legacies of Wikipedia adolescence, when naming policies were casual and editors free ...(apparently). GPinkerton (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    When it comes to judging if a move is "uncontroversial", the point is not whether you can see any issues, but whether it is in an area where experience (which, ok, you don't have) shows that other people are likely to disagree, however unreasonable that may appear to you and anyone else. So, best to go to WP:RM and find out. Johnbod (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mass moves are on the extreme side of WP:BOLD, and the whole point of BOLD is that when someone raises an objection you back down and discuss before continuing. It is very clear that people have now objected to the mass move, so they have to be undone for now. Arguing that you can go down a line of articles making rapid-fire mass edits to a wide variety of pages and that people who disagree must individually contest each one is absurd - any sort of seriously controversial mass edit needs to be discouraged and go back to WP:QUO when someone objects due to how disruptive it can be. Otherwise, people would be encouraged to aggressively mass edit stuff towards their preferred version in hopes that nobody will want to do the much more involved legwork of contesting each one and that they can therefore push their changes through as a fait accompli. Naturally when you make a mass edit and someone questions your underlying rationale, every page you moved is under dispute and must immediately go back to the old name until you've put them through RMs. If you genuinely still think this mass action is uncontroversial despite numerous people telling you otherwise, hold some sort of RFC in a centralized discussion location and await your SNOW approval (which obviously will not be forthcoming at this point - come on!) --Aquillion (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aquillion: Please discuss at Talk:John Edwards (English Labour politician) and Talk:Walter Elliot (Scottish politician). It is true that some have objected in principle but so far no-one has raised any arguments based on the articles or their subjects themselves. Anyway, they have been moved back, although one has now been moved to a new and even more misleading title without discussion. GPinkerton (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have moved a number of the articles back to their original locations; GPinkerton is quite welcome to open an RM request for them. I believe some of the Scottish ones to have been particularly problematic; XXX (Unionist politican) is actively misleading for a British politician, as the better known Unionist parties are Northern Irish. I have also closed the RfDs. Black Kite (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    the better known Unionist parties are Northern Irish That's just not true. The governing party in the UK is the Conservative and Unionist Party, and they arose from the merger of the Conservatives and the Unionist Party, the party to which these MPs belonged. In any case it's irrelevant, it can't possibly be misleading; the name of the party was "Unionist". Ireland doesn't come into it and even if it did, avowedly unionist MPs from Ireland would surely best be described as British MPs? I don't see anything particularly problematic or actively misleading. @Black Kite: can you please be specific about which you have moved? GPinkerton (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No; if you hear the phrase "Unionist politician" in relation to British politics, unless the subject is Scottish devolution you are almost always talking about Northern Ireland these days. At the very least, it's unclear. Black Kite (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with that assessment at all. Unless the subject is Northern Ireland, the phrase "unionist politician" (small u) refers to politicians in the camp opposing the nationalist politicians (i.e. the SNP and the Scottish Greens) in Great Britain. Furthermore, not only was the Unionist Party the dominant party of Scotland for most of the 20th century and had far more MPs than any other "Unionist" (big u) party has ever had. "Scottish Unionist" is a different thing altogether; describing Unionist Party MPs as "Scottish Unionist MPs" is not only unclear, it's downright wrong. GPinkerton (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind; I found them. Something has gone wrong with the talk page of Walter Elliot (Scottish politician). Please rectify! GPinkerton (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If one was a member of the British Parliament & a member of a British political party. Wouldn't that make one a British politician? GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    English/British is a prime example of a situation that is controversial despite what an uninformed editor might believe. If they continue to insist on this after an ANI thread where they are informed otherwise, a block may be necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    IP jumper adding questionable TV program(s) to TV station programming lists

    An IP user with frequently changing address keeps adding up to three program titles to lists of programs broadcast by a number of television broadcasters, particularly but not exclusively Fox-affiliated channels and Australian commercial channels, in addition to some Vietnamese stations. These are:

    The latter two are, yes, typically added together, positioned one after the other. Sometimes they're linked, sometimes not. Variations include:

    • Phao Pham Viet Dung[19]
    • Drama (Pham Viet Dung)[20][21], combining the two
    • (also on Pham Viet Dung)[22], appended to a number of existing listings

    The same user sometimes adds other programs as well.

    What's suspicious to me is (a) the multiple placement of the "Pham Viet Dung" title, with an without the diacritics, in each article where it's been added; (b) the arbitrary merger of that title with the "Drama" title in a couple of cases, (c) I can't find evidence that a program with that Vietnamese title exists (it appears to be a personal full name shared by a number of people), and (d) it seems unlikely that one program with an apparently Vietnamese title would be run by every one of Australia's commercial broadcasters, as is implied by its inclusion at 7two, 7flix, 7mate, 9Gem, 9Go!, 10 Bold, and 10 Peach.

    Sample IP addresses that this is coming from:

    You can find cases that I reverted at Special:Contributions/Largoplazo, between 10:13 and 12:30 on 7 September 2020. (In one or two cases I accidentally restored instances that someone else had already removed. I hope I've fixed all those cases.)

    I've placed warnings at the talk page of a couple of these addresses but of course the user is gone from that address by the time I've done that.

    Any suggestions? Largoplazo (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Now they're adding phony edit summaries: "Fixed typo, Fixed grammar, Added links". Largoplazo (talk) 06:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked both ranges; a previous block mentions sockpuppetteer User:PHAM VIET DUNG; edits from the original account aren't similar, but you'll see similarities if you observe edits from some of the confirmed socks (e.g., adding "Drama"). OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, excellent. Now I can dismiss the small voice in my head whispering, "But what if it really is a TV show?" Largoplazo (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    See Special:Contributions/95.168.121.207 and Special:Contributions/212.15.177.29 for the record of behavior. Two users, one person, who is rapidly stripping wikilinks from dozens to hundreds of articles per day, potentially through automated editing. No edit summaries given for their edits. A glance at the two contributions pages demonstrates that it's a single person behind both users. Both are just as rapidly en-masse reverting attempts to restore the pages affected regardless of which of the two IP-address users made the original edits. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks problematic. But also looks stale. The 212 IP was only active in late August (and prior to that a different 212... IP (212.15.177.32) was involved). The 95 IP, which does seem to be related (or else just is here to harass ComicsAreJustAllRight) was only active up through September 2. I don't see any activity in Special:Contributions/212.15.177.0/24 in the past week. Lots of activity in Special:Contributions/95.168.121.0/24, a different IP each day, but nothing beyond September 5. By whois, these are all Croatian broadband "static" IPs, but from behavior it's not that static. They are each larger than /24 (/19 or /21). I could support a rangeblock if this happens more. DMacks (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, and I'll keep my eye on the issue if/when it recurs to help address it. This person seems to slam a bunch of articles from those addresses, stripping wikilinks from a dictionary list of words, wait a while, then start up again. I expect the repair work I'll be doing on those articles to prompt another flurry, as articles addressed in my last pass behind the person seemed to be targeted for further vandalism. Looking at the latest edits by both IP addresses, I highly suspect use of an automated tool, as there are also block phrases changed in multiple articles, search/replace-style, regardless of the different context in which they appear. Weirdly, the common thread seems to be making articles less accessible for Wikipedia's non-expert audience, as not only are wikilinks being yanked out seemingly at random, common language is being replaced with specific-audience-only jargon. Don't know why someone would do that, let alone in the way it's happening. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The bad editing from the 95.* IP resumed on 8 September. The new edit was vandalism, since it removed pictures from the article for no apparent reason. Some decision is needed as to the width of any rangeblock and a proper duration for the block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The 95.* user is editing from Special:Contributions/95.168.0.0/16. All the recent edits appear to be related to comic books. Many edits from the range are highlighted as vandalism by mw:ORES. I've blocked Special:Contributions/95.168.121.0/24 for a month for vandalism. Other admins can modify the block as they think best. EdJohnston (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Zerolandteam385

    I think Zerolandteam385 needs the help of someone imbued with kindness and patience. The user has made 218 edits including the creation of 23 articles, of which five have been deleted and seven moved to Draft. These include Draft:5G zombie apocalypse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), 9/11 In Movies Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and a G4 recreation at 9/11 Predictive Programming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), also Microchip Is The Mark Of The Beast Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and edits like [23] and [24], which are, to be charitable, not well-sourced. I don't think this user has English as a first language, and I don't think they understand our sourcing policies. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It might be worth also looking at these edits[25][26] by Reo On at Microchip implant (human). RolandR (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A mention of conspiracy theories there is of course unevitable, remains to make sure it's WP:DUE, avoids fringe sources and doesn't misrepresent them... —PaleoNeonate14:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are still trying to add a "Controversy" section (with a level 1 heading no less) to Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic‎. This is despite me removing a wholly botched attempt (resulted in a broken article) and saying if the information belonged anywhere it belonged in the Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic#Politics section which deals with anti-mask attitudes already. I would have attempted to salvage some information, only the references provided were all in Greek. While I was happy enough to use Chrome's automated translation to see if In many European countries (mostly in Greece) did not appear to be referenced, and I prefer not to add or amend article content using automated translation. Something needs to be done regarding this editor, their constant attempt to create articles on crackpot theories using not much apart from Youtube videos is troubling. FDW777 (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "which are, to be charitable, not well-sourced" The second instance actually has a decent source, though it might be misrepresented by the editor. It is an article from a mainstream newspaper, To Vima, about a recent protest demonstration in Greece. The parents of young students are protesting against a new regulation that their children will have to wear face masks while in school. Dimadick (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Dimadick, it would help if he would use English-language sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because Zerolandteam385 has continued to create articles with useless sources and highly questionable content, I'm indefinitely blocking them. Sandstein 20:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Wiki Ed

    Is this a vaild thing? Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/SUNY Plattsburgh/Cell Biology Lab A (Fall 2020) - sort of interesting if it is. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Very valid, and not this first time this has been done on Wikipedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Goodstuff. Is This edit valid? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes this is as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What does cellular biology have to do with the Quran? ST47 (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears it was assigned by the instructor? Scratch that the student added it. @Ian (Wiki Ed): Could you chime in with any insight on this? RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ask The Great Oracle-- Quran and cellular biology --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, thanks for that! Had no idea. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    People frequently find anachronistic connections between ancient texts and cell biology; it's a hallowed tradition and a mainstay of pious debate relating to medicine in general and abortion in particular. GPinkerton (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @RickinBaltimore: It's not a good pick for a student to work on, and it's definitely not something we'd recommend in a cell biology class. I've emailed the instructor and asked them to get the student to pick a different article. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I remember a related (although far milder) incident when a student at the Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Brooklyn College/Orality, Literacy, Computer Technology (Fall 2019) wanted to work on a bunch of Led Zeppelin album articles, which I thought was a bad idea because the articles were all reasonably developed and had a lot of reverting of good-faith edits over a sustained period of time (which in turn were good-faith in themselves). I told User:Elysia (Wiki Ed) about it and they agreed it was a bad idea for an article. I see Ian has the same view. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I dunno. It sounds like one of those multi disciplinary honors class assignments that look good on one's CV
    Whatabout Islamic attitudes towards science? The subheading Embryology and the Quran could be expanded to Cell biology in Islam? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And there's probably something to say about old philosophy and beliefs in the perspective of history of science, the important would be avoiding foreknowledge claims in ancient literature about recent discoveries (I remember some related deleted articles)... —PaleoNeonate07:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to dig for offwiki links, but I've also seen it suggested that the Koran encapsulates quantum mechanics and astrophysics as well as molecular biology. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. Narky Blert (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes exactly, —PaleoNeonate23:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wiko world 100

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



    Wiko world 100 has repeatedly created an unsourced article at Assad Ullah Shah. After the 5th deletion the pagename was salted.[27]. Since then the editor has created the article at Talk:Assad Ullah Shah[28] and Wikipedia:Assad Ullah Shah[29].

    The user has been advised both on their talk page and in edit summaries that all articles must be referenced but this seems to be ignored. --John B123 (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Other pages deleted and user blocked. GiantSnowman 10:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Mark Boron

    This user is behaving disruptively over at List of largest empires. It began as a content dispute which has been discussed extensively on the article's talk page since approximately a week ago. They have since stopped commenting/replying on the article's talk page and moved on to solely editing the article itself without engaging in discussion, reinstating their edits repeatedly after being reverted (see below), moving the article to a different namespace [30], removing a bunch of unrelated markup from the page such as all the categories [31], adding a redirect template [32], editing the page protection template [33][34], and removing maintenance tags without resolving or addressing the problems (see below).

    In order to properly illustrate the problems, I think the best way to start is to list the times they were reverted on September 8. In total, they were reverted eight times by five different editors in just over 3 hours (seven times in 1 hour and 3 minutes):

    1. 20:05 (UTC) by Kahastok
    2. 22:05 by Usernamekiran (AWB)
    3. 22:10 by Ganbaruby
    4. 22:14 by Ganbaruby
    5. 22:39 by Sasan Hero
    6. 22:48 by me (part of a series of edits I made restoring the stable version of the article, as another editor had made additions that were not supported by the cited sources shortly before this all unfolded, at 19:31)
    7. 22:59 by Sasan Hero
    8. 23:08 by me (here I also explained the issues with their edits in the edit summary, in case the reason they kept reinstating their edits was that they did not understand why they were reverted)

    They then reinstated their edits yet again [35]. In order not to unnecessarily escalate this further, I pinged them on the article talk page explaining my issues with their edits [36] and added a couple of maintenance tags to the article [37][38]. They have not responded on the talk page but have instead removed the maintenance tags without resolving (or even addressing) the problems [39][40], so I left them a message on their user talk page telling them not to do so [41] and restored the maintenance tags [42][43]. They then removed the tags again [44] and also removed my message from their user talk page [45].

    They have been told to stop WP:Edit warring twice on their talk page, first by me [46] and then by Tbhotch [47]. They removed both messages [48][49]. They were also told to stop their disruptive editing thrice, first by Usernamekiran (AWB) [50] and then twice by Ganbaruby [51][52]. These messages were also removed [53].

    From the user's contribution history it is clear that this is a WP:SPA, and by my reckoning they are WP:NOTHERE at this point (though I think they were when they started editing). I think it's worth noting that List of largest empires has recently attracted at least two users engaging in WP:SOCKPUPPETRY (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roqui15/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hugo Refachinho/Archive – the latter mostly edited other articles but List of largest empires was one of the articles they edited using multiple accounts). Mark Boron has interacted with at least one of those sockpuppeteers, discussing the English-language version of List of largest empires on the Portuguese-language Wikipedia.

    It also seems a lot like they're trying to cause problems for me without knowing how [54][55] (and I'm guessing these edits [56][57] were also intended that way, but I'm not sure).

    I'm a bit unsure whether this report belongs at WP:ANI or WP:AN3 since there is a mix both general conduct problems and edit warring behaviour from this editor, but ultimately I decided to place it here (mainly due to WP:NOTHERE concerns). I'm open to moving it to the other noticeboard if that is deemed more appropriate. TompaDompa (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Mark Boron has been temporarily indefinitely blocked by Floquenbeam for 31 hours for disruptive editing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Including removing this very report twice [58][59], for the record. TompaDompa (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indef, pending an unblock request. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Two questions about partial blocking

    • Is it possible to block all pages with one or two exceptions? In the past we have temporarily unblocked users so they can comment at ANI or arbcom. Could we just unblock them for the one page and leave them blocked for all other pages? Or doesn't the software allow "block everything but X and Y"?
    • We sometimes get an IP that keeps vandalizing one particular page, and in such cases blocks are kept short because a new person may end up with that IP. If we gave the IP a partial block, would that make a lengthy block more palatable? For example, assume that IP 203.0.113.127 keeps vandalizing Black helicopter.[60] We normally wouldn't block IP 203.0.113.127 for a year or two because then someone new using that IP couldn't edit Wikipedia. But if we only blocked IP 203.0.113.127 from editing the black helicopter page for a year or two the chances that the new user of that IP might try to edit that particular page are vanishingly small.

    --Guy Macon (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like something worth trying. Partial blocks can be altered in duration, just like full blocks. Mjroots (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (1) Partial blocks can only prevent editing of (up to 10) specific pages or a namespace; see WP:PBLOCK. (2) It could be done. It’s a judgement call of course, likely only after other means of protecting the page from the IP have proved ineffective. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BostonMensa and MOS

    BostonMensa (talk · contribs) appears not to agree with the WP:MOS on the presentation of adjacent references. They separate them with a comma and a space. They have been advised, several times, of the MOS as set out at MOS:CITEPUNCT, but they do not reply to messages on their talk page and they continue with this behaviour: see their latest article creation at the point where they stopped editing it. They also appear to believe that the DEFAULTSORT belongs right at the end of the article, below stub tags, although they have been referred to WP:ORDER several times. It would be helpful if they could be reminded, through this page, that the MOS exists and should be followed unless there are particular reasons not to. Thanks. PamD 15:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Mjroots beat me to a block by moments :) user blocked for a week, with luck they might now communicate and we can solve this issue. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 17:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, continuing to repeat the same edits two days after a final warning seems like WP:IDONTHEARTHAT territory. Let them have some thinking time. Mjroots (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A minor thing considering the other concerns, but if they return to editing they should change their username due to WP:ISU. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit-warring and BLP vios. My guess is that The Last Narc (documentary) is causing the recent interest and disputes. The dispute at Kiki Camarena seems to be going ok, with lengthy discussions focusing on the quality of references and an open RfC. The rest is a mess. Maybe protect Félix Rodríguez (soldier) while the Camarena RfC is underway? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks @Hipal: I have previously requested [61] that Kiki Camarena be protected from IP edits, since there there seem to be many IPs helping or participating in edit warring [62][63][64]. If we were to protect all these articles from IP / new user edits, that would be ideal. -Darouet (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there other articles getting hit? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    These articles all seem to be related to Iran–Contra affair, and new attention, growing since 2013, to the Kiki Camarena component of it. Probably Amiram Nir should be protected, and maybe Barry Seal as well. I have no idea about others. -Darouet (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Hipal:. I think that The Last Narc testimonies, particularly those of former DEA Héctor Berellez that led the investigation of Camarena's murder, Phil Jordan, former DEA Intelligence Director, Mike Holm, DEA resident agent in charge in Guadalajara when Camarena got kidnapped and Manny Medrano, former assistant US Attorney and Lead Prosecutor in Camarena case, must appear in both Camarena and Rodríguez articles. I agree that the texts have a margin for improvement in both cases, some interesting data are still missing and some others seem a bit outdated. In addition, they could be presented more orderly. About the rest of articles you are discussing, I don't have much to add. Great job in The Last Narc article @Darouet:--Cocedi (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cocedi:: You are missing the point. I started this discussion in part to intervene with your behavior, rather than work directly to have you blocked or banned. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hipal: I don't understand this ad hominem and the direct threat of being blocked or banned, this doesn't seem like the best way to run talks. And anyway I don't know either in which point my behaviour was any different from yours in this topic. Maybe you can clarify it for all of us but I don't really see the point in taking things personally when as far as I know nobody broke any rule or was disrespectful. --Cocedi (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No "ad hominem". I didn't provide diffs because they are obvious. Edit-warring to include BLP-violating material without edit summaries, even after responding here. Blatant. Then leaving me a notice? As I pointed out in my first comment to you, if you don't understand policies very well, you shouldn't be working on BLP articles, nor articles under sanctions. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So as I said, ad hominem, funniest thing is that while you got all of us into this discussion, I already agreed with another editor on both articles, asking him to do the last edition. So I think that if you don't have anything else to add, we can let it here.--Cocedi (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like a baseless attack against me in an attempt to distract from your behavioral problems, or you simply don't understand what "ad hominem" means.
    Will you stop edit warring? Will you stop adding dispute BLP content against consensus? Will you start using edit summaries and work cooperatively with others? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What I'm going to do is stop answering you because I no longer see any sense in it, this is ridiculous.--Cocedi (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So being asked if you are going to continue to violate policy is "ridiculous"? Not if you mean to continue working on such articles. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Cleanup needed for subtle vandalism

    Special:Contribs/179.50.174.148 seems to have been engaging in a pattern of subtle vandalism for around a month, totaling roughly 100 edits. Could someone revert and review the pages for any further cleanup needed? Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I blasted a lot of these edits, but I doubt I got everything. There is a sustained pattern for over a year of subtle changes to serial killer articles. Given how much of it is vandalism, I treated the other edits accordingly. Maxim(talk) 17:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editor on categories of people from the Hebrew Bible and New Testament

    User:IslamMyLoveMyLife has only been editing on WP since 1 September but since that time he has been causing severe disruption every day on categories to do with people from the Bible. He continually creates new categories such as Muslim saints from the Old Testament,Muslim saints from the New Testament, Islamic figures from the Torah and Psalms,Muslim female saints from the Old Testament,Medieval Islamic preachers,Early Islamic preachers, on and on, and fills them up with names of characters or persons from the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament when the article the category is put on does not make any claim that the person is a saint or the category is just plain wrong.

    A few examples out of very very many - he put Paul the Apostle into a category he created, "Medieval Islamic Preachers" [65], John the Baptist into another category of his making "Muslim saints from the Old Testament" [66] and St Peter into a category he made "Islamic personalities mentioned in the Hebrew Bible" ("Old Testament") [67]. Weirdly, he has put Goliath into categories he created,"Muslim saints from the Old Testament" [68], "Islamic figures from the Torah and Psalms"[69], and "Early Islamic Preachers" (!) [70]. This, of course, is a character in a folk tale, a villainous giant who is in no way a saint or preacher and I cannot see how he can be considered "Islamic". Many of the categories he has created have had to be deleted and a lot of time spent trying to correct many ludicrous errors.Numerous editors have expressed concerns, warned him for disruption and edit warring and asked him to stop creating categories on his talk page but he pays no attention and just carries on as before creating new categories.

    I pointed out to him on his talk page "per guidelines WP:CATV Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. These prophets and people from the Hebrew Bible and New Testament should not be put into a category "Muslim saints" unless the article explicitly states with sources that Islam has made them saints. According to Wali the Salafi movement, Wahhabism, and Islamic Modernism, all three of which have, to a greater or lesser degree, "formed a front against the veneration and theory of saints". So that's millions of Muslims who do not even accept the concept of "Muslim saints",never mind retroactively applying the term to pre-Islamic characters in stories a lot of which have no historical basis, or people who were certainly Jewish or Christian and not Muslim at all."

    I had removed Eve from his category "Muslim female saints" but he put it back in again with the edit summary "Read "Religious views#Islam" [71], a section which does not say anything about her being a "Muslim saint". We are not trying to remove these articles from any categories involving Islam, as Marcocapelle told the editor on their talk page "there is no need for 7 categories. Two is enough, for Hebrew Bible people in Islam and for New Testament people in Islam."

    I would support the editor being indeffed under WP:CIR, he doesn't seem to understand what the word "medieval" means, as he put not only Paul the Apostle but also Elizabeth (biblical figure), Isaiah‎, Jeremiah and other utterly ridiculous ones into his category "Medieval Islamic preachers". I suppose however that going straight to an indefinite ban would be too drastic. I think he should be topic banned at least from creating or populating categories that deal in any way with persons or characters from the Hebrew Bible or New Testament. He doesn't know a thing about those topics, he thinks the Bible says that Adam and Eve were Christians [72] and that Jesus' disciples appear in the Hebrew Bible ("Old Testament") [73]. If he would show signs of listening to what experienced editors are telling him and stop the disruption I would not ask for any sanction at all but I see no signs of that occurring,Smeat75 (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Please, please add some paragraph breaks. No one is going to read this wall of text. ♠PMC(talk) 19:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.Smeat75 (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a report I was going to make; I was waiting to see if warnings would be heeded, but the tagging continued unabated. "Saint" is more or less broad category, even within Christainity, but especially in Islam, where it can be translation or approximation of a number of ideas. Eve can even be considered a Christian saint, as can Jesus ("St Saviour") and abstract things like Peace ("St Irene") and Wisdom ("St Sophia"), and I have sympathies with the idea of giving Biblical characters equal weight to their Koranic cognates, but really this is incompetent. Note to Marcocapelle there is the potential for two categories to be appropriate, as some "Biblical" people appear in the Koran and some are venerated in Islam, but some do not appear in the Koran and are venerated in Islam for other reasons. So there's cope for many of these articles being "in the Koran" and "in Islam" or only one of these. GPinkerton (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's news to me that John the Baptist is mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament. Or that St Peter is mentioned anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. And the rest. There's a strong odour of WP:CIR about such edits. Narky Blert (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There's an example of a New Testament Islamic figure who's not in the Koran (to my knowledge) but whose sainted head is buried under a column in the Great Mosque of Damascus ... GPinkerton (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In the main discussion, IslamMyLoveMyLife admits their WP:POINTy behaviour: because of the existence of Category:Christian saints from the Old Testament they started to create a similarly named Muslim category, rather than proposing to change the root cause of their frustration. Because of the repetitive nature of the disruption (see User talk:IslamMyLoveMyLife to get an overview of all similar categories they created in a very short period of time that have been nominated for deletion) and because of their ignoring a warning to stop (see User_talk:IslamMyLoveMyLife#Creating_new_categories), I agree with Smeat75 that a topic ban would be justified. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    GPinkerton, I could be misunderstanding you, but that figure, known in Arabic as "Yahya" (عليه السلام), is most certainly in the Qur'an. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 21:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, my mistake. Still, that's him more as prophetic wunderkind than the decapitated ascetic with multiple relic heads. GPinkerton (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:IslamMyLoveMyLife is actively editing (arguing about the same things he has argued about every day) but has not responded to this report. Do notifications work if a user has not created a user page? @IslamMyLoveMyLife: I recommend you participate in this discussion if you want to try to avoid a block or ban.Smeat75 (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    He unilaterally altered a category title from " Islamic religious leaders" to "Muslim religious workers" with an edit summary "many of them were not the Religious leader".[74] Edit warring as he is reversing the reversion by Marcocapelle.Smeat75 (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smeat75: I humbly request you to stop it, If you can categorize Adam, Eve, John the Baptist and the other Abrahamic figures as only the Christian and the Jew, you should also add an Islamic category and please don't forget that many of the Prophets and figures i have mentioned in the Islamic categories are even buried in Islamic mosques and cemeteries. IslamMyLoveMyLife (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a quick check at Category:Adam and Eve, and they are in an Islamic category as well as the Jewish and Christian categories. @IslamMyLoveMyLife: If there is an omission of a category in the article for John the Baptist or other individuals, it may be a good idea for you to ask at the article's talk page about putting it into a category and get assistance with the placement. —C.Fred (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @C.Fred: Who said there is no Quranic category here? I mean, in terms of categories, they're just called them Jews and Christian saints, when i created the Category:Muslim saints from the Old Testament Þjarkur considered it for renaming, no one considered Category:Christian saints from the Old Testament for renaming. IslamMyLoveMyLife (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @IslamMyLoveMyLife: You said it, just above. "If you can categorize Adam, Eve...as only the Christian and the Jew, you should also add an Islamic category...." There is already an Islamic category present. —C.Fred (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not trying to remove these articles from categories to do with Islam. We are objecting to creation of unnecessary categories. I am saying that someone who thinks the Bible calls Adam and Eve Christians and that John the Baptist features in the Old Testament, etc., should not be editing in this topic area. Smeat75 (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    IslamMyLoveMyLife, categorization should reflect the contents of the article. Several of the articles you added in categories do not mention status as either a saint or a prophet. Goliath, for example. If you think material is missing from the articles, you should suggest additions to the article's contents. Dimadick (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering the edit history and the username, it makes me wonder if this editor is WP:HERE for the encyclopedia in general. @IslamMyLoveMyLife: would you agree to stop working with categories for now and to perhaps change the focus like improving the Prophets and messengers in Islam article if necessary? My impression is that continuing to disruptively edit risks resulting in a general topic ban from Muslim topics or an eventual WP:NOTHERE block for advocacy. Also, are there other topics you would be interested to edit on Wikipedia? If so, moving on to show that you are not only on Wikipedia to advocate would be a good initiative. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate23:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would support either a topic ban or a wp:NOTHERE and wp:CIR. Consider that he added Ishmael to category "Early Islamic Preachers"[75] as well as Enoch (ancestor of Noah) [76], two figures who were not preachers, nor around during the time of early Islam (if they existed). This is a pretty clear case of just general incompetence that is unlikely to suddenly stop. If he doesn't understand what "early Islamic" or "preacher" means today, he's unlikely to suddenly start editing competently later.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely. Another ludicrous example - He categorized Og, a Biblical monstrous giant slain by the Israelites as a "Muslim saint" [77], then in his "Early Islamic preachers" category [78], then in another category he created "Pre-Muslim saints" [79] and when I or other editors took them out of these utterly absurd categories he edit warred them back in again. This is beyond incompetence, it is a joke, a disgrace. Would we let someone edit on a category "Capital cities" who has entered "London is the capital of Paris and Paris is the capital of Rome"? He knows nothing about the Hebrew Bible or New Testament and should be topic banned from dealing in those areas at all, or wp:NOTHERE and wp:CIR.Smeat75 (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor against consensus

    ItsTimeToGo (talk · contribs) and a prior IP address keep reintroducing a fork of New York City Subway rolling stock at A Division (New York City Subway) and B Division (New York City Subway). They have been reverted by myself and three other users so far, but ItsTimeToGo has not started a discussion justifying their edits. The user should at the very least be blocked for WP:3RR. Cards84664 18:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for edit warring. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Duck

    Just a quick notice that I plan on indeffing LocalContributor281 as a sock of ShaddaiWright. In an ideal world, I'd like to have another admin review this situation closely; but having followed this user's efforts over the past year or so, it's clearly the same person, and the intent (across multiple accounts) is clearly to insert their own artwork to replace artwork on prominent cartoon characters' wiki pages. Uninvolved eyes couldn't hurt if somebody has the time. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Shaddai Wright instead of ShaddaiWright, which does not exist Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reverted their most recent edit on Phantom Blot. Based on my inspection of the two images are the same quality and seem to just be the gif image in a png format. The png file is larger, so I've reverted because using a smaller file size for the same quality is better for the reader. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also from a limited inspection of edits I can see similarities. I'll look further. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unsure, though I don't know this user / the socks well. I have found evidence which points to a connection, but nothing definite. I'll leave this to someone else to make a proper review. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Good find, sorry for the typo. There are two interlocking issues here: One is that the user is using new usernames to evade a block, the other has to do with the specific edits. I suggest we simply block on the basis of WP:SOCK. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dreamy Jazz Sorry, I had overlooked your final comment. This is the challenge I'm up against. I've been doing my best to offer this user guidance for about a year, and I'm familiar with their approach. I'm entirely confident it's the same person; but the clues are subtle, and would require a good deal of work (either on my part or on yours) to demonstrate it convincingly. I don't really have the bandwidth to delve into the details; but I'm open to other suggestions prior to taking action. I'm happy to answer any questions too. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Pasting of copyrighted material

    Hey, there was some copypasted material from a magazine website of Excited delerium I reverted it, but when I've seen people deal with copyrighted material before they also hide / delete the commits containing the material. Is this something an admin could help me with? Please tell me if I'm askingn in the wrong place! Talpedia (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Talpedia: What page? What dif's? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Deepfriedokra:, these diffs https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Excited_delirium&type=revision&diff=977627119&oldid=977622700&diffmode=source. Here's my reversion : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Excited_delirium&type=revision&diff=977629209&oldid=977627119&diffmode=source (along with details of where the material was copied from). Talpedia (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Talpedia, Revdeled and warning left. Strangely it didn't appear at copypatrol but that was a pretty clear cut violation; they even left the "we" in. Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 01:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For future reference, as well as here, you can also use a template to request revision deletion and summon an admin who will remove the revisions containing copyright infringing material. See WP:COPYVIO. The template is listed there as well as instructions for other situations (where the entire article may be a copyvio, or there is no safe revision to revert to etc). Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You can also use Enterprisey's script to do so, see here [80] Agent00x (talk) 08:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My tiny WP:ESSAY "we" here would seem to be relevant here. Have I mentioned that Tasmania is not a fictional place, lately? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple issues at American National University, including defamatory content

    Asking for a user block, possibly page protection, and definitely rev/deletion of WP:BLP violations. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Dealt with by Ohnoitsjamie. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Problematic users

    I strongly believe that Xerxes931 (talk · contribs) and شاه عباس (talk · contribs) have been canvassing and coordinating edits off wiki. Both users have a history of being problematic as shown by their talk pages (from which they have made sure to remove any warnings) histories. Both accounts were registered on Wikipedia within three months of each other, at the end of 2018. However, User:شاه عباس's first edit, which was made two weeks ago on 28 August 2020, appears to be made to support User:Xerxes931's point of view in a talk page discussion, just like a few other of his very few edits that followed Xerxes931's edits. شاه عباس started an RFC after Xerxes931's and his attempts to push their POV in another article failed, and quite as you would expect, Xerxes931 dropped in to hastily support the proposed edits and (obviously) asserted the OP's "neutral" POV (I do think they are anti-British, at least). Both of the users were earlier made the subjects of a sockpuppet investigation [81], which was closed as unrelated. There is still a slight possibility of them being carefully managed sockpuppets. Nevertheless, it simply adds to their history of being disruptive and slightly dickish. And they sure do not understand how Wikipedia exactly works (such as the talk page guidelines), considering they have been registered for two years and one of them is an extended confirmed user. Idell (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Baseless accusations are seemingly common among people here. You are referring to the vandalism you committed on my talk page, I assume? Are you trying to self-fulfill your own prophecies by presenting them as something to look critically at? I did not report your vandalism because I didn't view it as worthwhile. It is laughable that your inability to present *ANY* valid argument in regards to the actual topic of discussion has brought you to throw ad hominem almost immediately. I suggest you delete this accusation before you are proven wrong by the admin team. As you said there was already a sockpuppet investigation and it was futile, but that was to be expected as it was just like this in its nature: a pathetic attempt to win a dispute without being attentive to the actual dispute. Xerxes931 (talk · contribs) and myself have no connection, we are not from the same country or ethnicity. There is NO reasonable justification for accusing us of working together. Keep in mind that this is a public encyclopedia, not a sort of social medium for creating "drama". Either support your case, or abstain from participating in discussion. If you think vandalism and baseless accusations will win you anything, you are wrong, and I hope the admins show you the correct way of engaging in *intellectual* (and not personal) disputes. شاه عباس (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Idell, Bradv closed that SPI; you are not bringing anything new here, nor are these accusations presenting new evidence. "A slight possibility of them being carefully managed sockpuppets"--yes, and there is a slight possibility that you know all these things better than Bradv. That they do not, supposedly, know how Wikipedia works is evidence against your socking claim. شاه عباس, no need to get so angry here if you are convinced the truth will set you free, though I understand that you're offended by what to me seem like false accusations. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: I’m bringing a possible case of meat puppetry, piggybacking, stealth canvassing and use of sleeper account(s). I and many others have found the users to be a huge nuisance. Their disruptive behaviour might warrant a tban. I even removed the page that they want to push their POV at from my watchlist, while these users have repeatedly tried to drag me into the argument (which they seem to be losing now). So I’m offended by you accusing me of making false accusations. I’ve been nice and merely tried to follow best practices. I humbly ask you to look into my "accusations" as I believe myself to have made them in good faith, based on their contribution histories. But please, do educate them, possibly in a better way than how many Wikipedians have tried to do. And sir, I’d like to retire myself from this thread so feel free to close it, immediately. Idell (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I humbly ask you to not raise old matters without new evidence. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "I and many others have found the users to be a huge nuisance" which other users? I assume "nuisance" here just means not conforming to your desire to have your personal beliefs on an encyclopedia. "I’ve been nice and merely tried to follow best practices." then why did you vandalise my talk page instead of going directly to a third party for mediation? However I do salute you on wanting to follow my advice and end this absurd thread that has been hitherto based on nothing factual or reasonable. Reminder for future practices: do not initiate claims based on prejudice and superstition. Believing that there is a conspiracy against you is not evidence. شاه عباس (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: As I’ve already mentioned beforehand, their newer edit warring, the discussion at the RFC, etc. are pieces of new evidence. Both their disregard of guidelines is suggestive of disruptive editing and either just a coincidence like everything else or a pattern. Also take note of both their disregard of talk page warnings; piggybacking on each other to make edits, before, as a last resort, agreeing to talk things out; removal of all talk page warnings and false accusations of vandalism; all combined. But thanks for the humble advice, duly noted! Idell (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I need a favor: compile a list of the all the related socks you suspect are working together. I have a hypothesis here, but I need the accounts, editing histories, and time to investigate my theory. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Miserlou

    Relating to a BLP article Alan Dershowitz that is subject to subject to WP:A/I/PIA, user Miserlou has violated the 1RR within 24 hours and doesnt self revert. User continues POV pushing on talk after notice.

    • 21:43, 9 September 2020 I have notified the user of WP:DS in this diff.
    • 22:23, 9 September 2020 acknowledges DS notice but continues on talk page POV pushing rather than self reverting.

    Request an admin to have a look. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The user is not making edits related to the Israel/Palestinian conflict. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @331dot: If the article is under 1RR (which this is) it doesn't matter what the edits are, surely? Black Kite (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's how it works, okay, I was just going by the type of sanctions cited. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    I honestly feel like the user Jtbobwaysf is using administrative procedures to bully and gaslight me. The issue is the phrasing of a single sentence which has nothing to do with Israel (I don't even understand the connection). I've been on Wikipedia since 2005 and have never heard of this "24 hour" rule before and certainly didn't mean to violate it. You'll also note that this was only escalated _after_ I made my case for the revertion on the discussion page, not when it occurred. Is he really upset that I made the edits twenty two rather than twenty four hours apart? What is my "POV" other than trying to make a single sentence - with citation - more accurate? And what does any of this have to do with Israel (I've never mentioned that and have no interest in that). This is so weird. Miserlou (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Miserlou, The article is under 1RR. You understand that, right? And you won't revert again? You can start an RfC on Talk if you like. If you revert again you'll be blocked. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been advised to come here

    There are multiple issues which I've written about on the teahouse. I'm not sure how should I report it over here without losing the discussion there. But I've been advised by an editor to post here so am posting over hereIitianeditor (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You need to provide diffs to the edits you are reporting as well as notify the editors in question, Iitianeditor Praxidicae (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the link given to me:

    . I hope this helps. Iitianeditor (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Iitianeditor My point then and still now is that you must provide diffs to the edits in question that are problematic and notify the involved editors. Praxidicae (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Praxidicae I'll learn it and get back in due course of time.

    Another violation which is "forum shopping" is here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket# where the discussion about my nominations are. A lot of cricket fans over there saw it and are now contributing to the nominations I've made. I've mentioned the same on the tea house as well. Iitianeditor (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Iitianeditor Honestly at this point I would encourage you to withdraw this. At this point you've more than mistated things and it's clear you've not read WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Notifying the relevant Wikiproject of deletion discussions is a normal part of the process of AFD, we literally have categories to do this. Praxidicae (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Praxidicae "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages" the nomination had ALREADY been included over there. The editor is trying to raise it on multiple pages. That is forum shopping as evidenced by the direct quote above. He started a discussion again to try and get support. Have a look at what he started the discussion with. He clearly trying to draw attention to those 20 nominations. "Hi. There's about 20 or so, starting here from yesterday, all by the same editor with the same rationale. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)" what's the purpose of that message if not for "forum shopping". Also, even if this is not what exactly you had in mind, I still believe that I've been disrespected by so many editors and I stand by my complaint. You can't just say "forget it and move on" that just encourages the bullies. Iitianeditor (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Praxidicae made me aware of this discussion via my talkpage. I posted this thread on Iitianeditor's talkpage this morning about a flood of AfDs. I also alerted the relevant project to said flood. Some editors, myself being one of them, have cast doubt on this editor being a new user, which they claim to be in each of their AfD noms (example). Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lugnuts it was already included in the cricket project discussion. What was the need to mention it repetitively on the talk page? Have a look at what you've started the topic by:"Hi. There's about 20 or so, starting here from yesterday, all by the same editor with the same rationale. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)" you've needlessly started a talk page discussion so that you can try and influence the outcome which is "forum shopping" (see above). Iitianeditor (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not forum shopping at all. Infact, the AfD process encourages doing exactly what I have done. Under "Notifying related WikiProjects" it clearly states - "If the article is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, they may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page(s) about the AfD." Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lugnuts I apologise. The link you provided gives additional context and you're right about it not violating any policy. I would like to remove my previous comments related to that. But it still doesn't excuse the attacks on my character you've made over there, which are highly offensive. The link you provided led me to the canvassing link which said what's appropriate notification and what's not. It said that I can post about it in the "village pump" if it has wider policy implications which I intend to do; just put it out here, incase it's inappropriate, someone might tell me.Iitianeditor (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, I brought this here as there is no further place for that above conversation for a harassment case in the teahouse. The separate conversation was about the notability guidelines. Thank you. HeartGlow (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just been notified of this (not by the person who is obliged to notify me, mind you)- nothing I've said is wrong. It isn't racist to say that it's suspicious and unusual that an editor with three weeks experience nominating 20 cricketers all from one country. OP should WP:DROPTHESTICK, accusations against so many editors won't them very far. If people still want action, maybe checkuser the OP- most editors with strange edit patterns and a knowledge exceeding their experience tend to be sockpuppets of someone. Maybe they are too. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Joseph2302 I'll drop the stick after you apologize to me for trying to paint me as a biased editor. If other people aren't able to learn as much as I did in 23 days, I guess I'd have to say that I'm a quick learner. Honestly, I take it as a compliment that you're saying my knowledge exceeds my experience which shows that I've really bothered to read as many pages as I could about the internal working of Wikipedia. It seems like despite being around for a while you've been unable to learn as much as I have in 23 days, well the secret is to read the policy pages thoroughly. And the most interesting thing is that you've never once gotten into the details of my edits or ever bothered talking about anything that remotely is related to policy or all of my well researched edits. All you can do is say an unconvincing plea of "you seem to know too much for being so new". I guess this is your problem, less focus on policy and guidelines and more on random, wild accusations. You're free to do whatever check you've threatened me with. I guess this is the reward (hours of pointless argument and wild accusations and hurtful comments) I get for doing well researched policy based edits. No question on my edits, only personal attacks. Iitianeditor (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iitianeditor: - can you confirm that this is your one and only account on WP and that you have never edited under another name or IP address? Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lugnuts Yes, I can confirm this is my one and only account. I have edited Wikipedia in the past without logging in (I didn't have an account then), but it was when I had no idea how it worked and it was usually small stuff that I noticed while reading articles. Although I'm unsure as to why you care so much. And what even is the point of asking me if you're accusing me of this? I could simply lie (although I'm not, I'm am an honest person).

    BOOMERANG: :@Iitianeditor:How the hell is the comment racist or a personal attack? You nominated 20+ articles for deletion, and every one was a Pakistani player, if that is 100% proof of your bias then I dont know what is! Then you start throwing baseless attacks about and accusing other editors of bad faith and much worse crimes with not one piece of evidence for your disgusting claims. I suggest a short ban for you until you realise your attitude and approach are incorrect and until you actually learn the rules of Wiki as opposed to your hubris filled claims that you do2A00:23C4:201:5F00:74BA:298E:EED7:3A8 (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm unable to ping you due to the complicated username. I think I'll put this to rest so that I can stop being accused of baseless bias. There's one particular editor who has created all these articles and all of them are extremely repetitive. I nominated 2 of them for deletion and they got deleted. That clearly showed community consensus for deleting such articles. Please tell me if you think it's not right to get upset when you're genuinely contributing and I don't think anyone contests that my edits were anything but helpful. It's only once the mob attacked me because they were upset things weren't going their way that I fired back. I can see you've jumped into this without understanding the context first. Have a nice day. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "It's only once the mob attacked me because they were upset things weren't going their way" - looks like WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality to me. There is no mob. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a rational person. You can keep doing this, although I'm exhausted. Keep picking up random sentences from what I've said and keep pasting in random links. I've anyway decided to quit Wikipedia due to the incredible stress of people saying stuff, so you can ban or whatever you want to do with me.Iitianeditor (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The best way to avoid accusations of bias is to not 100% match the actions that a biased editor would make. I've left a discretionary sanctions template on their talk page, so if the focus continues to be on deleting Pakistani people and Pakistani tribes, they can more easily be topic banned by any uninvolved admin. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Floquenbeam I've suitably justified that above. But more generally it seems like editors over here are trying to become mind readers and care about the intention more than whether helpful edits were made or not. Seems like a waste of energy. Iitianeditor (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • If an editor from India nominates 300 articles about Pakistani people and tribes for deletion, and doesn't nominate articles from any other country, would you agree that this is a problem of bias? If the number of such nominations when you start to get concerned is "n", what value of n would start to concern you? Does nIitianeditor=50? 100? 500? 1000? What you need to understand is that for many people here, naverage < 24. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maxim, Ponyo, have you two run into anything usefully related while you were studying this editor's range? Drmies (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, these are the reasons I believe this editor is not a new user. 1) In three short weeks they've listed a ton of AfDs. 2) Off the bat they are aware of the AfD process, the notability requirements for that subject area, and terms such as WP:BEFORE and "being bold". 3) Their use of Twinkle to do the grunt-work of deletion sorting ([[82]], [[83]]). What new user bothers with that?! 4) Their token rage-quit ("I've anyway decided to quit Wikipedia due to the incredible stress of people saying stuff...") I've shown my bit of WP:AGF with the post I made on their talkpage about mass-nominating pages. I know there's people who haven't liked my tone in the past, but I believe I've done my best to be polite and civil to this editor. If that's not the case, then please drop a note on my talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel the same way, I'm entitled to ask a question about their editing patterns. If anyone other than the OP thinks I've been out of order, then please let me know. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lugnuts the incredible way you misstate events has forced me to respond to you. Either you've done a sloppy job in your analysis or you're willfully misrepresenting facts. If you would've noticed carefully, on my talk page there is a message by an editor to use twinkle for deletion nominations. He left that message after I struggled to do it manually (which was a huge pain). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iitianeditor#Deletion_process the link since it seems like you're unwilling to actually check things and prefer to throw out wild accusations. Coming to wp:before, THAT'S LITERALLY THE FIRST THING MENTIONED ON THE PAGE WHICH TELLS US HOW TO DO DELETIONS. I can't understand why that's such a huge surprise to you. I would expect anyone with any common sense to atleast read the first paragraph of any sort of manual that gives them instructions to do stuff. Coming to my knowledge of the notability guidelines, a lot were derived from the two intial discussions which were nominated by me (they were done manually by the way) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tariq_Hafeez https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shoaib_Akram both of these were edited by other editors to bring into proper formatting and they recommended me to use twinkle for future nominations. I suggest you carefully study what I've said and stop slandering and harassing me over here. Also interesting is the fact that you've not been in favour of deleting any articles which I've nominated despite you yourself admitting that some should be deleted https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lugnuts#Thanks . It look like you have a personal problem with me and just want to "win". Another point you've made is about me listing a "ton" of AfDs. Let me clue you in, they were all created by a single editor. CreativeNorth. His articles on the sportspeople were repetitive and I thus nominated all of the repetitive ones (after nominating just 2 to see the outcome, see above). I don't understand why you seem to think that that's voodoo only a super experienced guy (like you maybe?) would be able to do. Iitianeditor (talk) 08:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    TL/DR - "I've anyway decided to quit Wikipedia due to the incredible stress of people saying stuff..." I guess that's not true either. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lugnuts when you're accused of stuff you didn't do publicly, there is a natural instinct to respond. Looks like this is the only argument you have left when your malicious intentions were exposed. "But you said you'll go away!!" Iitianeditor (talk) 09:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both of you knock off the bullshit, we don't like having to deal with the LTA people her and we don;t like dealing with children either. Lugnuts, you could be a little more supportive here, you've been on here since 2006 and I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard to leave useful links. Iitianeditor, when starting out at level 0/1, its best you stay away from the minefields like biography, politics, and religion articles until you've gotten some practice with wiki-topsoil, because charging in and digging is likely to result in you finding a landmine the hard way. Insofar as I can see, no one has done anything egregious enough to warrant admin intervention, although that may change in time. I'd recommend filing this one under "two wrongs don't make a right" and closing it with leave to reopen if something changes. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you'd bothered to read the thread, Tom, you would have seen this useful link I left on the OP's talkpage. Thanks for the personal attack too, rather than taking the concerns over a new user seriously. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've blocked Iitianeditor for 31 hours for persistent personal attacks and trumped-up charges in this thread, such as accusing Lugnuts of "malicious intentions" and Joseph2303 of calling them a racist (not true, Joseph did no such thing). Bishonen | tålk 09:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    Thank you, Bishonen. I don't know if Drmies range request will bring anything else or not, but I've got no problem with this being closed regardless. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Saturdayopen modifying Vital Article List without consensus

    I have noticed that the above user is making a huge number of changes (both additions and deletions) at various Vital Article List without any consensus [84], [85], [86], [87]. This seems to have been going on for the last week but picked up drastic pace in last 3 days. The user has already received a Level 2 warning for nonconstructive edits on a talk-page.

    I would like help in following: 1. Knowing is this the right place to report such an incident. 2. Experienced User investigating if my claim is right 3. In case it is right, rollback the changes made by the user and appropriately warning them.

    Thanks Roller26 (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Roller26, please remember to notify the user whom is being reported on their talk page, as the instructions above in red dictate. I have done so for you this time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tenryuu Thanks - Roller26 (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Apologies for bringing us here, but AIV isn't working; above is a sock evading a rangeblock put on 2600:8805:A083:7100:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) that's been at it for five hours with semi-automated edits, but a bot keeps misunderstanding my referral to this on AIV and removing the latter as already handled; please block the headlined range (continuing to add ages in infoboxes to non-living entities such as networks). Thank you. Nate (chatter) 20:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Article creations by Soul Crusher

    User:Soul Crusher (SC) has nearly 2500 page creations going way back to 2006. After reducing activity towards the end of 2016, SC has returned with a vengeance since mid-July with approximately 500 new article creations (mostly albums featuring industrial/electronic bands) and well over 1000 new redirects in less than 2 months. There is a growing concern regarding the notability of many of these albums. Sources are severely lacking with many referencing AllMusic listings that don't have reviews. Besides AllMusic, the ones that do have independent coverage come from the likes of http://www.aidabet.com/ and https://sonic-boom.com/. Not long after their return, User:Richard3120 contacted SC on their talk page to express concern about some of these articles. I chimed in a few weeks later regarding the excessive number of redirects that were pointing to targets without any mention of the redirect topic.

    • RfDs have taken place on August 22, August 24, and August 29, all resulting in delete.
    • Deleted articles via AfD include Sin Factor, Baby Had an Accident, Hypnotic Illusions (the first two of which SC has since tried to recreate).
    • I initiated an ANI on September 1 regarding the issue of redirects with general agreement by commenters. SC did begin limiting redirect creations to those having a specific mention in the target article, but I haven't done a deep dive on how appropriate they are.

    Ongoing creations of albums with questionable notability caught the attention of User:Ss112 and he tried to discuss the situation with SC on September 4. A week later, it continues. I have been more diligent the past few days by tagging articles for notability and nominating others for deletion. There also appears to be a complete unwillingness to engage in discussion. In the ANI, SC simply stated "I don't see a problem here - redirects are appropriate". SC's only response on their user talk to these concerns was to Ss112, saying only that "They are notable." And in AfD discussions, the most participation has been to today's nominations where SC claims "The page contains links to reliably sources." I'd like suggestions on what could and should be done. Removal of Autopatrolled? A ban on creating new articles or that they can only be approved via the draft process? Is a block warranted for failure to communicate and an unwillingness to co-operate? StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see a problem with notability or reliability of sources in any of the articles I created. I don't appreciate being brigaded again, I can read your language.Soul Crusher (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The cruxt of the problem is that you don't see a problem. Why not specifically address the concerns? StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have addressed the claims made on the articles' talk pages. I don't deal with slander and falsehoods.Soul Crusher (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "The article contains links to reliable sources" is hardly addressing the claims, especially when it's been repeatedly pointed out that the sources are not reliable ones that pass WP:RS... if they were reliable, the articles wouldn't have been deleted at AfD. It also doesn't explain why you believe you can ignore an AfD consensus and simply recreate the articles. Richard3120 (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't, and won't, defend Soul Crusher's recent actions. It is important to note--to at least state it once--that many of his truly notable early articles were repeatedly tagged for notability by serial taggers, when different tags could and should have been used. That is also a big problem. Caro7200 (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    B. M. L. Peters persistently removing talk page discussions

    B. M. L. Peters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) received a level 4 warning on 20:49, 17 July 2020 about removing discussions from article talk pages. When they did this again on 09:34, 7 September 2020, I left them another final warning. Yesterday they removed two discussion threads from Talk:List of democratic socialist parties and organizations, can something be done about this disruptive editor please? FDW777 (talk) 07:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    FDW777, blocked them 48 hours for disruptive editing, let's see if that will convince them to engage. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Death threats by unregistered editor

    MegastarLV seems to have been having trouble with a persistant unregistered editor who keeps reverting to a 12 February 2019 revision of Sevcec.[88][89][90][91] The last two edit summaries by this editor were "If you revert back, I'll kill you MegastarLV!!!!" and "I'll Kill You MegastarLV, I'll KILL YOU!!!", which are both obviously inappropriate. I'm not sure what should be done about this but no editor should nbe the target of summaries like this. --AussieLegend () 17:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    66.65.12.196 blocked 1 week, article semi'd for a month. Mjroots (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem with MilfordBoy1991...

    MilfordBoy1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Milfordboy1991's edits in Beethoven's 2nd (film) have been problematic and unnecessary. This editor wants to refer to Taylor Devereaux by his surname alone (just because of attempted sexual assault), which no one ever does in the film. And the name of the associate who ran the lakefront house in the film also is irrelevant, as it has absolutely no bearing on the film whatsoever. But Milfordboy1991 refuses to comply, just because they think I was the only one who disagrees with them. DawgDeputy (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DawgDeputy. Please never refer to another human being as "it". That is insulting and dehumanizing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Even Donald Trump? EEng 03:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, you said "human being". Carry on. EEng 03:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I also notice that you have not discussed this matter at Talk:Beethoven's 2nd (film). Why is that? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That is what Milfordboy1991 should have considered in the first place rather than ignore my edit summaries and simply remake their unnecessary submissions. DawgDeputy (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevertheless, I started the discussion at the talk page. DawgDeputy (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DawgDeputy, if you do not know an editor's preferred pronouns, then refer to them by their username, or as "the editor", or by using the singular they, as I have done here. Never call another editor "it" again. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Report on troll account

    Ngyk198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user tried to cast aspersions on my edits when I had to revert an edit on the 2020 Singapore circuit breaker measures, which was done because the information inserted by an IP user was not confirmed by either Singapore or UK governments, as well as in news reports. Please review this, the account has been recently created, might be suspicious. Thanks. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    What reason is there to believe this isn't just an involved IP who created a username account in good faith? That said, I agree that the comment itself is, at the very least, too terse to be useful. But, key here is that this article's talk page is, at this moment, blank. An effort to engage problems there ought to be the first step, while alerting the noticeboard should be the last (so as to be considered "intractable"). El_C 20:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    TheGreatSG'rean, you calling a person a troll based on a single critical remark is definitely "casting aspersions". Plus this comment was made over five days ago. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess that report is withdrawn. If that account isn't a troll, then what does this account do other than just post a single remark? Surely there's more than meets the eye? I checked the log and found just this comment. I would like to find out. Thanks. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 10:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Pasdecomplot continued WP:OR and other conduct problems

    In June, Pasdecomplot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was briefly blocked for "failure to abide by" WP:OR and WP:RS, and just within the past 10 days, was reported (see long list of diffs showing WP:OR). As a recent example, only after I had asked twice (1 2) for a RS to support their edit, they finally obliged, only for me to point out their WP:SYNTH violations. This follows other OR commentary on Tibetan issues[1] Or this gem in violation of how one would normally define an article's subject.

    Their advocacy is particularly illuminated with this alternative facts-level unhinged commentary (CCP-apparatchik goobolee-gook phrases) on an article they admitted they had not fully read! As a numerical illustration, of the 80 references present in the revision before they began editing the page, I count 15 cited to NYT, 7 to Radio Free Asia (created as a CIA propaganda apparatus), 5 to BBC, 4 to U.S. university publishing press, 2 to the dubious Adrian Zenz, and only 1 to Xinhua.

    In addition to the above documented issues, they are particularly intransigent in calling edits they disagree with "vandalism". After I warned them for that, they doubled down on their characterization. The wholly absent improvement / willingness to listen on their part suggests an editor not here to collaborate or learn. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^
      1. There is no {{Forcibly detained for template, it produces an error. A clear demonstration of unsourced POV-pushing.
      2. Note the wall of text at the end of the diff. Nothing of the sort appears in the cited AP article immediately preceding it.
    Pasdecomplot, to the best of my recollection, you have already been advised against characterizing edits as "vandalism" during content disputes. This is disappointing. El_C 20:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Good recollection, that advice was offered here, and Girth Summit strikes me as fair. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely, I can personally vouch that they are. El_C 20:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't going to comment, as I know PDC considers me to not be an ally, but for the record PDC edits on a mobile device and apparently has never edited on a desktop/laptop. I think this affects their ability to contribute in ways that don't frustrate those of us who are familiar with the web interface. —valereee (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, I'm remembering that now. But obviously faltering by calling good faith edits "vandalism" has no bearing on that. El_C 20:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, just FWIW —valereee (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe if you would @El_C read the reverts and diffs before possibly jumping to conclusions on the vandalism. Thanks. Oh, and why is @Valereee included? Self-nomination since they are not an ally? Just curious. Pasdecomplot (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Negative. Your failure to grasp what vandalism is (as opposed to what it is not), still, has become a problem which may require administrative intervention. El_C 01:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The diffs on possible VAND weren't sufficient. Ok, my apologies. And Valereee - that editor isn't participating in this process, correct? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasdecomplot (talkcontribs) 01:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @CaradhrasAiguo's issues with Conduct, WP:PA, WP:CON, approaching WP:EW, possible WP:VAN

    Briefly, I attempted to work with @CaradhrasAiguo here [92], but conduct issues (refusing to read talk, refusing to respond, entrenched POV) made WP:CON impossible to achieve, despite repeated attempts here [93] and here [94].

    The editor refused WP:CON but switched to WP:PA here [95] and was asked a second time to halt, here [96]

    Whether or not the editor was illustrating their definition of "malicious" (see previous mobile diff) is unclear, but the editor continued reverting edits of a photo caption here [97] and again here [98] and it's RS here [99] and more. Edits to Sinicization of Tibet here [100] were removed without WP:CON or reason while the page's opening paragraphs under the photo image were returned to entrenched POV, with incorrect information and without RS. The editor then switched pages to Yarchen Gar to revert edits here [101] where their opinions about RS, that contradict their entrenched POV, became problematic and a dispute. Commonly used terms like 'forced displacement' to describe a series of events found in RS is even questioned -not on talk but in their report. The editor's report also mischaracterizes the general sequence of events.

    A last attempt at WP:CON is here [102] (unfortunately subject to a late ping). The editor switched pages again to Antireligious campaigns in China, (a form of wikistalking in this case?) to continue to delete RS without WP:CON here [103] where the deleted RS quotation describes the current difficulties in gaining main stream media coverage.

    I've read WP:RS and WP:WBO applies for these edits especially during this time - French Wiki uses the same sources - on related pages. Two sources which seem to disturb the editor are FreeTibet, and International Campaign for Tibet. Yet, their own lack of RS in the opening of Sinicization of Tibet does not seem to worry them. Of note, the editor chooses to mischaracterize the governmental organizations Central Tibetan Administration (here [104]) and UNESCO as "advocacy groups", and the text using UNESCO as RS was deleted here ([105] and it's RS here [106]).

    The common thread connecting these issues is the documented cultural cleansing of Tibet by China, and the inclusion of the information in the pages entitled Sinicization of Tibet and Yarchen Gar. The repeated and willful deletion of balanced editing is also imo a form of WP:VAN, in that the behaviors negate the purpose of Wikipedia [107].

    If a formal request to use FreeTibet and ICT is necessary to continue providing quality editing to Wikipedia, I'd be happy to submit it. Regardless, the editor CaradhrasAiguo's WP issues go far beyond the use of these two sources. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasdecomplot (talkcontribs)

    I suggest someone may wish to merge this into the section said user made about your conduct above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. The fact you triple-down on the vandalism accusation is downright astonishing, Pasdecomplot. El_C 23:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Carleboo editing only in user space

    Since 11/30/17 and 9/11/20, Carleboo was not being here to contribute and build the encyclopedia because I noticed that this user edits only in its own userpage. Carleboo's userpage turns out to be looking like a fake article because it talks about "Simpkins". And Simpkins is not actually a real band. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we block to get attention?

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


    If an editor is unresponsive to reverts, edit summaries, and talk page comments, can a block be used to get their attention? See User talk:108.54.69.247. It's not that he's done anything egregious, and if he just said "no, I'm not going to bother learning how to enter dashes" I'd let it go. But I think he just hasn't figured out that he's being talked to, or that he can talk back. Dicklyon (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, we routinely block to get users' attention. But with only a level-2 warning on their talk page, I'm not sure this IP is a candidate for that yet. El_C 23:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So I should keep escalating warnings? Dicklyon (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, he kept going after my level 3 and 4 warnings. Can you get his attention please? Dicklyon (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The notion that an editor should be blocked for failure to use an en dash instead of a hyphen is utterly bizarre to me. I have been editing for 11 years and have never once used an en dash and have no intention of ever doing so, although I certainly do not mind if punctuation obsessives change my hyphens as they wish. I cannot understand why anyone would propose a block for such a triviality. On the broader issue, we can block for failure to communicate when actual damage to the encyclopedia is being done. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, what the heck are you doing? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Blocks are preventative only. See WP:BLOCKP. That said, if an editor's disruption is of a nature that the blocking admin thinks likely to end with a shorter term block, then that is well within admin discretion. I have handed out a few 12 hour blocks where I thought that was sufficient to end problematic editing. But we don't block unless there is a serious problem with someone's behavior that can't be dealt with by lesser means. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      What is disruptive or problematic about using a hyphen in a date range? I simply cannot understand it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I conflated the IP's edits. Unblocked with apologies. Sorry for my inattention. El_C 00:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    What's disruptive is failing to communicate, not the use of hyphens per se. This editor could probably learn to get it right if he could learn to communicate. That's why I asked about ways to get his attention. Three editors have reverted his edits and posted suggestions on his talk page (before El C). Dicklyon (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Failure to communicate can be an aggravating factor that can contribute to the decision to block. But it is not sufficient in itself. There needs to be an underlying level of disruption that justifies suspending their editing privileges. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Failure to communicate about utter trivialities is not a blockable offense, Dicklyon. We do not use a hammer to get somebody's attention about some lint on their shoulder. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I never suggested it was an offense. I wanted to know if a block could be a usable tool in such an impasse. As for trivialities, he's creating work for othkers to fix, and he might be happy to just do it right if only we could get his attention. I do understand that it is "normal" for editors to create work for others; I do that kind of work all the time. Dicklyon (talk) 00:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Folks, they might be "failing to communicate" because mobile IP editors are not given any indication that they have new messages. None. Every message you send to an IP editor whose edits are all tagged "mobile edit" disappears into a black hole, unless they happen to switch to the desktop interface, or stumble onto their talk page by accident. In WMF-land, this is apparently a "low" priority issue. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So what about a block? Do they get any kind of notification of that? Dicklyon (talk) 00:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but wikitext isn't parsed, so templates aren't expanded. So if the block reason is {{anonblock}}, that's just what the user will see. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Persistent promotional and unsourced edits at Daniel Algrant

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


    I've asked for a block of Anesiasaun (talk · contribs) several times for these edits [109]; [110]; [111]; [112]; [113]; [114]; [115]; [116]; [117]; [118]; [119]; [120]; [121]. When they didn't like the discussion at the tea house and the rationale I gave for deleting promotional edits, they did this [122]. Multiple warnings at the user's talk page have been ignored. Again, I'm asking for a block and reversion of unsourced and promotional content. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely. El_C 23:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    67.61.89.32 again

    At 12:00, 11 September 2020 the previous ANI report was archived.[123]

    At 19:02, 11 September 2020, 67.61.89.32 -- who got the ANI flu the moment he was reported -- miraculously recovered and went back to edit warring his OR into the page.

    May we please have a one or two year partial block of 67.61.89.32 from SpaceX Merlin? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that a pointed question has been posted to 67.61.89.32's talk page. It will be interesting to see whether he got a sudden relapse of the ANI flu when I posted this report. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    We need some eyes here; the creator of this article (who pulled an article about a minor school disturbance out of a blocked user's draftspace) is intent on trying to force through a keep on this article by using socks to keep the article, and is linking out the subjects and entities involved (two of whom were minors at the time) and creating a WP:BLP issue involving a case that has now been closed for fifteen years (see PG1's history, where they're linking out the three subjects), including the insertion of mugshots and Youtube links involving the story. Nate (chatter) 02:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear admins and @Mrschimpf:, there are sources covering the fight. This one is a good example. It talks about how it overdramatize the news. Another good example is this one, which shows other school violence incidents during the 2004 - 2005 school year. It proves that those two boys attended Punta Gorda Middle School. CNN and MSNBC's Contessa Brewer covers the fight. If AC Transit Bus fight can have an article, so can the Punta Gorda bus fight. This article can be saved. There is time to edit the article and make changes to it. Copyediting would work. This article must stay. --PuntaGorda1 (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Range block needed

    I'm not experienced with range blocks. Could someone please help with this? Thank you.

     Done: 49.144.128.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) -- zzuuzz (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    images that take up a lot of space

    User:Shyamal removed a large composite image, arguing it took up too much space. My argument is that it is very valuable and space should not be a consideration. The discussion is here [:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shyamal#Bronze-winged_jacana]. We are not edit-warring, but we both think an independent opinion would be valuable. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) We do have a specialized notice board for that. If that does not help, try dispute resolution notice board. Content disputes are not handled here. Kleuske (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Anthony Burke Ireland

    Could someone reign in Anthony Burke Ireland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) please? He's currently going on disruptive edit wars across numerous articles claiming There is no such place as southern Ireland and never has been, even when editing articles such as Southern Ireland (1921–22) and Parliament of Southern Ireland. FDW777 (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk page being bombed by multiple WP:SPAs at Hooyah

    Overflow from the article. I don't know if the appropriate action is a page lock or smoking out a mass of sock or meatpuppets, but it looks like orchestrated disruption. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Block needed on CaradhrasAiguo

    It's not good it's necessary to request the sanction, but CaradhrasAiguo is apparently going through this editor's contributions on pages where reports of China's cultural cleansing of Tibet are located, and reverting months of various edits by editors, based on the editor's entrenched POV, their WP:OR on various sources, while reasserting his questionable "academic" sources. The reverts continue to be bad faith, and clearly function as a form of censoring information on Wikipedia which is not part of their entrenched POV and not pro-China. This is occurring as reports by that editor and this editor have been presented here. Today, that editor deleted a BBC RS and associated edits on the abducted 11th Panchen Lama here [124] to reassert his entrenched POV aligned with "academic" Melvin Goldstein whose work is disputed by Jamyang Norbu.

    (saving to edit and continue adding diffs) Pasdecomplot (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]