Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

The other day I was notified that an article I created, Paul R. Devin, was nominated for deletion with the nominator saying it did not meet GNG. I created the article in 2006, when I was new, when the project was new, and when WP:N did not yet exist. I had long forgotten the article and it wasn't even on my watchlist. I wanted to support the deletion as I agree with the nominator but was prohibited by a T-ban I received a little more than two years ago. Devin was an official with the Knights of Columbus and I cannot make edits relating to the Knights.

In the two years since, I have dramatically reduced the amount of time I spend editing. In the last few months I have only made a handful of edits, and it will probably remain that way for the foreseeable future. I simply don't have the time to devote to the project that I once did. I have also tried to make amends with those with whom I have clashed in the past and have stayed away from them in general. I have also largely moved away from contentious articles and instead have made putting women in red a focus. I've probably created close to 200 articles since then with many of them biographies of women.

More importantly, I have consciously moved away from the types of actions that precipitated the ban. I now recognize that I had a much more liberal interpretation of WP:ABOUTSELF than the community and I continued to argue after it was clear the consensus was moving away from me. Given how little time I have to devote to the project these days, I have no desire to spend any time at all on content disputes. I would much rather spend my limited time editing in quiet little corners of the encyclopedia and don't foresee making major changes to Knights-related articles. I even put into writing a plan to handle disputes and asked people to call me out on it when I fall short. All that said, I would like to be able participate in things like the deletion nomination mentioned above, and fix things like the reference error (currently number 48 on Knights of Columbus if anyone else wants to go there) that has existed since 2019.

I would especially like to know, even if I never make another Knights-related edit again, that I have regained the trust of the community. With that in mind, I am asking for a second chance and for my T-ban to be lifted. I would be glad to submit to a review in several months to make sure everything is copacetic. Alternatively, I would like to be able to at least participate in talk page discussions for a period of, say, two or three months, and then the community can evaluate my participation and see if a removal is appropriate.

Thank you all very much. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support lifting the TBAN. This is the Platonic ideal of a TBAN appeal - acceptance of wrongdoing, understanding of why things went wrong, commitment to focusing elsewhere on the project, and a plan for the future. It's especially significant to me that the reason for wanting the TBAN lifted is that Slugger wanted to support, not oppose, deletion of a minor KoC official - clearly things have changed. I see only one warning for TBAN violation, and that was made right as it was imposed. It was clarified at the time as being an error, apologized for, and not repeated as far as I can tell by searching Slugger's talk page archives. Based on all this, I don't really see any need to make it probationary and have a review in X number of months, but if the community feels that needs to be a condition for lifting the TBAN, consider this a support for that as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - this seems completely reasonable. I have also left a question on the AfD requesting that someone who's familiar with the topic give some input on whether it meets a couple of the more niche notability criteria, as at a layperson's glance there seems to be a small chance (but I suspect not). If the TBAN is lifted, your input would be appreciated. Theknightwho (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Can't ask for fairer. Ravenswing 21:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: - 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Miniapolis 23:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lifting of TBan. Their explanation above shows that they have changed and will not repeat same mistakes that caused the ban. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support sure! Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 09:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment not enough to oppose, but I think folks should have a look at Slugger's activity at Political activity of the Catholic Church on LGBT issues and Talk:Political_activity_of_the_Catholic_Church_on_LGBT_issues#Promotional_crapwhere some of the issues that came up in his Knights editing surfaced again. While I have no doubts that this is in good faith as is Slugger's editing, I have some concerns about his ability to edit neutrally, and wonder if there's a potential guardrail option. Courtesy @Roscelese: who also engaged with the editor there. Star Mississippi 16:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC) Changed to oppose in lieu of conversation w SPECIFICO below. I see no indication he's going to change his patterns, especially if good faith questions are "unfounded speculations". A desire to !vote in an AFD isn't a reason to revisit editing troublesome areas. Star Mississippi 18:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, while Slugger seemingly had a straight-up COI related to the Knights of Columbus his editing on topics related to the Catholic Church in general ran afoul of policy on a pretty consistent basis. I'm definitely concerned that the recent cooling of those edits is motivated more by a desire to avoid being site-banned than actual commitment to improvement and that the destructive editing will resume if sanctions are lifted, but that can hopefully??? be addressed by just fast-tracking further reports of disruption from this user. Obviously it would be great if it turned out that he did not have to be kept out of topics that he cannot edit neutrally by force. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...aaaand I just checked my watchlist and no, he's still at it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Star Mississippi, If that's the way you feel, then that is the way you feel and I won't argue with you. However, I want to make sure you are basing your !vote on what I actually said. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but the "unfounded speculations" to which I referred where found "elsewhere in the thread." I wasn't commenting about Specifico's question and you'll notice that I did, in fact, respond to her as I agreed that her question was in good faith. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    thank you for clarifying. I wasn't clear that you weren't referring to Specifico, although believe bulk of my comment stands. Will review in the morning if I find it's not the case. Star Mississippi 03:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Question for @Slugger O'Toole: - Could you describe the conduct for which you were sanctioned? Part of the plan for the future should be a clear understanding of the cause for the sanction. What was it about your edits that led to the sanction? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have briefly addressed the past and my plans for the future above. As stated, I have little time to edit and don't wish or plan to engage in disputes. It's one of the reasons I have not, and will not, respond to unfounded speculations about my motives elsewhere in the thread. I just don't have the time or the inclination. Likewise, I don't see a back and forth re-litigating the circumstances of my ban as being productive. I am sorry if what I said already is not enough for you as it seems to have been for everyone else.

The community has the opportunity to give me a second chance. If they do, and I abuse it, the ban can easily be reimposed. If nothing else, I think I have shown that I will abide by the terms of a T-ban, as it seems you have abided by the terms of yours. If the community decides the standard offer does not apply to me then nothing will change, including, it seems, that reference error now in its third year. Either way, I am more interested in looking forward than backward. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt reply. It appears to me that you have misrepresented the simple question I asked and failed to post any substantive response. From my experience at the Knights article, this is exactly the kind of uncollaborative engagement that resulted in your ban. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Checking Slugger's recent activity, I see lots of the same old problems here. SPECIFICO talk 18:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Slugger O'Toole's stated rationale for lifting the topic ban was already a bit suspect -- it's for the purpose of voting to delete one of Slugger O'Toole's own articles? really? -- but the evasive answers to basic questions and the antics at Talk:Political activity of the Catholic Church on LGBT issues means that Slugger O'Toole is going to have actively convince me to change my mind. --Calton | Talk 03:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• we still have active editors with sanctions, who were active before WP:N? Thats... well, absurd. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The TBAN was imposed 2 years ago, so not as extreme as it sounds. Theknightwho (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

56FireLeafs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has been removing a significant amount of content without leaving much, if any, reason/explanation in an edit summary. Seems to feel justified because, as 56FireLeafs said on their talk page in November (diff #1 below), "What am saying IS right". Much seems to be based on own option / wp:OR.

1. Diff: Discussion on own talk page Nov 2021 Appears not much has changed since then.
2. Diff: Edit and reply on BhagyaMani's talk page
3. Diff: "Reason" added to my talk page This is obvious evidence that Wikipedians hate Ligers.
4. Diff: Same content added to 56FireLeafs'

I did add two citations to Liger after reverting 56FireLeafs. They were easy to find.
Pinging talk page owners: @BhagyaMani and Sandstein:
This leaves me to strongly suspect that 56FireLeafs is WP:NOTHERE. Adakiko (talk) 09:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

S/he deleted ref'ed content at the Panthera blythae page a few times without giving a reason. And after I reverted their edits 2x, s/he posted ↑ talk. Y'day, s/he deleted the same content one more time, but after I posted a warning on their talk page, s/he stopped. I think s/he just did not understand NPOV yet, has lots of opinions but little knowledge. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon for not giving reasons. But you have to admit that many info in those pages is not necessary. And what am saying IS mostly right. The relationship between Panthera Blytheae and Snow Leopard and the fact that it has at least some basic Panthera features and also the fact that is NOT considered the oldest Pantherine already places it within Panthera. Although i admit this statement can be questioned, my Liger claim is objectively correct. Carol Baskin has little to no knowledge of biology. So before i continue am gonna debunk the arguments most Liger opponents use:

"Their unnatural": Then don't shave your armpits, as that's unnatural. And also don't have a house either as that's unnatural. Natural and unnatural doe snot mean good or bad.

"Their habitats do not overlap": A) At some point in the Pleistocene they did. B)So your telling me that an American man cannot date a French woman just because their from different places? Also, Brown Bears (Ursus Arctos) and Polar Bears (Ursus Maritimus) live in different places but after Polar Bears migrated do the south they started hybridizing with Brown Bears.

"They don't exist in the wild": At some point they did. Plus, what does that have to do with anything of weather Ligers should exist or not?

Now that ive debunked this claims lets talk about why does animal rights groups are wrong about Ligers (PS: Am not defending the practice of breeding Ligers for profit, am only defending their existence). This groups constantly talk about Panthera Hhybrids suffering from "diseases". This is inaccurate because:

-Their studies are only based on Ligers (P.Leo x P.Tigris), not Panthera hybrids as a whole.

-This studies say that Ligers suffer from "sterility". First off, what does being sterile have anything to do with health? Second, females are perfectly capable of breeding, males usually are sterile but there is a small chance for them to be born fertile. There was the case of a fertile mule in Texas. Also, not being able to reproduce=\=being useless. By their logic, i suppose that then homosexuality should not be allowed either, since males cannot reproduce between themselves, right? This video explains everything: Myths and misconceptions about evolution - Alex Gendler: minute 2:10

-This studies are only in reference to captive breed animals, but not hypothetical wild Panthera Hybrids. Animals breed in captivity =\= animals born in the wild. They also are only biased towards certain Ligers they supposedly saw but not ALL Ligers in Earth. They also forget that the reasons why they might suffer from diseases is due to zoo conditions (they same we could say about non hybrids in zoos) or inbreeding (There is evidence that white tigers are many times inbreed in zoos, and considering that zoos cannot afford having too many animals, lack of genetic diversity in Liger breeding is not that uncommon).

-Many of the people who made this studies have very outdated information and many of them possibly work for or support PETA.

-They gave a link to Carol Baskin's, who as i told you has little to no knowledge of biology, is a hypocrite who shames Joey Exotic for keeping Panthera species in cages despite her doing the same thing, using the same awful arguments against Ligers and also possibly killed her husband.

There you have it. Feel free to debate me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 56FireLeafs (talk • contribs) 21:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And that right there is a clear flag of WP:NOTHERE if I ever saw one. This isn't the place to debate the supposed naturalness of ligers (and for the record, ligers not occurring in the wild does make them rather unnatural, and sterility is in fact considered unhealthy), but your own battlefield mentality.

For my part, I'm the one who read and added that section to P. blytheae, and I actually read the source through. It is valid, written by people who know what they were talking about, and had valid concerns. The species has not been studied enough to state that its position is a fact. For that matter, very, very, little in paleontology is considered a fact when it comes to the classification and position of species. Your insisting otherwise calls into question your competence here.

I concur with BhagyaMani that 56FireLeafs has many opinions and little knowledge, and also call into question their WP:COMPETENCE. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not know who is that guy your talking about, i would appreciate if you gave me more info of him. "This isn't the place to debate the supposed naturalness of ligers". I was asking to debate n my page. And am not asking weather their natural or not, am ask if its fine for them to exist considering that Humans breed with Neanderthals and the fact that the eastern coyote was the result f crossbreeding between Coyotes and Wolfs. Panthera hybrids are no different as in all three cases its between species of the same genus. And you have to remember that natural\unnatural=\=good or bad. I suppose yo shouldn't brush your teeth as that's unnatural, right? And at some point ligers possibly did happen:https://markgelbart.wordpress.com/tag/tiger-x-snow-leopard-hybrid/ .People also thought that Brown bear and Polar Bear hybrids where unnatural as they did no happened in the wild, and look now, there are starting to hybridize. Not to mention there is evidence that lions crossbreed with snow leopards, who are closely related to tigers. "and sterility is in fact considered unhealthy" the fact that its considered doe snot mean its true. Also, female ligers are always fertile, male usually are sterile but their is a small percentage for them to be fertile. There was the case of a fertile mule in Texas. And ive seen lots of male sterile Ligers that appear to be fine. And the reason why am making this debate is so people can get the right information so we can make sure the page does not misinform the viewer. I've tried to change the page multiple times so i could present the correct information but it appears that unless i can convince them otherwise, Wikipedians wont let me make the changes. Many Wikipedians are so biased towards reading articles that they never question if the articles in question are factually correct or if they contain outdated information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 56FireLeafs (talk • contribs) 05:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not here to question articles--what you're talking about sounds a lot like WP:OR. If you have reliable sources, by all means, present them, but "debate me" is not a helpful stance and your current trajectory will get you blocked from the site sooner rather than later. Best of luck however you choose to proceed. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be relevant, but they decided to take it to my talk page as well, with the same badly-spelled and formatted paragraph as above. And I would like to point out, blogs are rarely acceptable sources. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note the following was drafted with other editors at WP:PALAEO, and many more diffs can be provided: Ever since they joined Wikipedia last year, Magnatyrannus has made over a thousand edits to dinosaur- and paleontology-related articles. While some of his changes are valid, a vast majority are subpar; among other things, they have rewritten pages and templates to fit his viewpoints of how dinosaurs are classified, going as far as to delete statements they personally disagrees with, (diff 1 diff 2) and has WP:EDITWARed to keep them (see here). They have shown a strong preference for his "offical classifications" and a stern refusal to accept alternate viewpoints and seek consensus (see here, here, and here). They usually don't communicate, but when they do, it's usually a mocking remark (diff 3 diff 4). They have also written personal attacks on the user pages of those who disagree with them (diff 5). It has become tiring for WikiProject editors to sift through his changes to determine which are valid and which are not. Off-wiki evidence shows his combative attitude spills over to external sites, so we believe they are not WP:COMPETENT enough to build an encyclopedia. FunkMonk (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Co-signing the above and adding a few supporting diffs:

• Personal attacks: [1]
• POV and failure to understand consensus: [2]

Notably, many of Magnatyrannus' contentious edits are based on a single scientific paper expressing views that are not yet universally accepted by researchers, which violates WP:NPOV. Despite multiple attempts at communicating how scholarly consensus is established and promises by Magnatyrannus to the contrary (see linked diff), the user continues to engage in edit-warring behaviour to implement the findings of a single paper instead of the most neutral alternative (see diffs by FunkMonk). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One may note that Magnatyrannus has continued to (seemingly) try to engage in edit-warring behaviour (see this revert: [3]) while completely ignoring this discussion. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue with Magnatyrannus's edits is WP:IDHT, they essentially ignore the consensus of other users are edit war their preferred version. The fact that they make juvenile insults on other people's userpages shows major WP:CIR issues. I'd recommend a topic ban from taxonomy or possibly an under WP:NOTHERE block. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Awaiting administrative action He's still reverting other editors even if other viewpoints are explained to him, see [4] Atlantis536 (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At least some action feels necessary to get Magnatyrannus to even acknowledge this ANI thread. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have indefinitely blocked Magnatyrannus. Cullen328 (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Jacob300 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jacob300's edits are biased toward Somaliland. As far as I can see, that trend is likely to start around October 2020.

The editing trends of Jacob300, it has a very much history of deletions. Almost all of them are designed to remove statements that are detrimental to Somaliland. Jacob300 gives reasons such as "unsourced + duplication", "stable version", "No relevance to article" OR "Removed as per WP:BOLD" OR "Irrelevant". But it is clear that they are afterthoughts. Jacob300 often do editing wars for the similar reason. For examples, Las Anod, Khatumo State.

Somaliand has border disputes with its eastern neighbor, Puntland, in addition to the famous independence issue. (See also a BBC News.) This dispute involves the particular circumstances of the region, but is essentially a typical border issue. If we gather and compile information in good faith, we can find information that is favorable to Somaliland, and we can also find information that is unfavorable.

Jacob300 recently reverted several edits that I took the time to go over, without adequate explanation (Bo'ame, Buraan, El_Afweyn.) I think it's unacceptable to remove information that other editors have taken the time to research just because they doesn't like it. If ever contributed to Wikipedia after doing some research, they can imagine how demotivating it can be to do this.

I had several conversations with Jacob300 to resolve some similar issues, but his explanation was not logical.

• Talk:Khatumo State - ([5]) To show that a news site (Hiiraan Online) is a reliable source of information, I indicated a book (Between Somaliland and Puntland), but Jacob300 said, without giving any evidence, "it is also clear that Hiiran.com writers are not professional news writers." In a related discussion earlier, Jacob300 referred to the same site as "tabloids' articles," but this rationale is also not provided.
• Talk:Badhan, Sanaag - I asked Jacob300 why he reverted my edit based on a news site (Somaliland Today) as an unreliable citation, but he did not give me a clear answer.
• Sool, Somaliland - The reason for the revert by Jacob300 was unclear, so I asked his talk page for the reason, but there was no answer.
• Dhahar - Jacob300 reverted an edit of the other editor (not me) on the grounds that it was "Reverted to stable version." However, the reverted version indicated by Jacob300 are not stable, so I asked for an explanation on Jacob300's talk page, but got no answer.

I think Jacob300 is not neutral in matters concerning Somaliland, I think he should not edit anything related to Somaliland.--Freetrashbox (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• At a minimum he needs a DS notice since he’s in Horn of Africa territory. 2600:1011:B121:9DA:5CF9:FDE7:C776:D375 (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response: All of my edits and contributions are fully explained in related edit summaries and your notion that I remove statements “detrimental to Somaliland” are unfounded. In reference, to my edits on Bo'ame, Buraan and El-Afweyn - I have clearly stated in my edit summaries that reversions were made in accordance with WP:BOLD. If you disagreed with such edits, you could have taken this to relevant talk pages.

For example, the edit I made on the Bo'ame page was in relation to the lack of relevance and undue weight it had on the article. In addition to unnecessarily bloating an article. E.g. in the sentence “In May 2015, Puntland's Ministry of Education visited the educational situation in Bo'ame district.” - Please explain how this is a notable event? As Wikipedia is not a news source.

Additionally, my edit on the El-Afweyn page was also made on similar grounds. “In July 2001, the government of Puntland enacted the "Provisional Constitution of the Republic of Puntland," declaring the Sanaag region, except for El Afwein and the northeastern part of Erigavo, to be its territory.” - Please explain how this relevant to the article? The addition of the header “Puntland influence” can also be viewed as not being in accordance with NPOV.

It should also be noted that IP user 2600:1011:B121:9DA:5CF9:FDE7:C776:D375 (talk · contribs) has only made a single edit requesting a DS notice against me, which can be viewed as strange.

Kind regards, Jacob300 (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, you've addressed two of the issues there, fair enough. You've failed to explain several others. What makes Somaliland Today and Hiraan Online unreliable? You repeatedly use the phrase "reverted to stable version," but what makes those versions "stable," and says who? These are questions to which, as Freetrashbox accurately states, you've failed to respond. WP:BOLD does not immunize you against the need to defend your edits, when asked to do so, to the satisfaction of consensus. You may do so now. Ravenswing 00:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the most important things to know about a town in this area is what kind of organization is providing what kind of government services. In my description, you can see that the Puntland government is involved in the administration of Bo'ame. This is quite a different feature from its neighbors Gambadhe or Fardhidin. Basically, Puntland's involvement in the administration in Sool is rare. The statements you erased together, such as the deadly conflict in August 2021, and Bo'ame's non-participation in the famous Somaliland national election of 2021, are also incidents notability of mention.
  As for El Afweyn I have already explained why on the Talk page. However, your response to that was difficult to understand, as it effectively just repeated what you said before, and lacked specifics. Also, the name of the section was "Puntland influence" because the influence of Puntland was significant, and the name does not indicate that Puntland was good or bad.--Freetrashbox (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Omegatron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Djm-leighpark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1087#Personal attack by Achezet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Disclosing ANI discussion involving Djm-leighpark not Omegatron with regard to article/talk overlaying discussion)

Omegatron is an admin who notes "people are frustrating", at least at this version of their tlak page, which is a worrying trait for an admin; though no admin tools have been exercised in this event. I will suggest their contributions over a desire to move the article Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination to Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia have been disruptive and problematic, not of the standard to be expected of an experienced user let alone an admin where a higher standard is expected. A BOLD move of what might reasonably be expected be controversial at Special:Diff/1060932429, let alone issues because a move had previously been slightly discussed at Talk:Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination/Archive 1#Adenoviruses only?, though the entire content of the talk and archive should have been. Following a somewhat assertive exchange correctly in my opinion raised a Special:Diff/1060938802 requested move on 18 December 2021. However per my comment at Special:Diff/1061542226 Omegatron had indulged in disruptive undated modifications and additions to discussion and a Canvas, which while I can AGF he intended to be "fair", was, I would say, ultimately biased. Plus per WP:CANVAS good practice would have been to "leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users." Ultimately the CANVAS issue is minor, change talk discussions, especially a nomination to which responses have been made, is a serious matter. Whether Omegatron's timing to challenge this today was to do with RL, which I can accept, although doing a CANVAS and then disappearing is not really great practice, but it can happen. However responding today a few days after the Special:Diff/1065055859 discussion was closed, half questioning my concern about discussion irregularities (and not owning the major part or the problems) at Special:Diff/1065826060 brings this here, plus Omegatron seems not to have respected closer Mike Cline's request to discuss a move review on his page as requested, but rather to continue on the article talk page dragging me into it first. This seems like behaviour that is unbecoming or any user, let alone an admin. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't want to prejudice any serious discussion here, but, to be brutally honest, it is starting to look a bit like either no-one cares about this complaint, or they are all going WP:TLDR. I make no comment on the validity of the complaint. As an aside, this may be better suited to WP:AN. Just a few peanuts from the comment gallery. Cheerio. Mako001 (C)  (T)  15:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mako001: @Omegatron has 48 hours to respond here, and I'd be encouraged to suggest 72 hours. And yes, course no one cares, and usually coming to ANI costs the raiser. Though at at this rate I'm frankly expecting to see a voluntary de-sysop, or alternatively I'm likely to get the old block if I get frustrated and give the short form. Anyway at some point I'll consider perhaps wasting my time and doing something or other or nothing. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to make a summarised version of the above, to avoid the TLDR issues? Again, I'll be brutally honest and say that, since no-one else has really responded here, it could be that no-one else thinks that your complaint has any merit? Again, no comment from myself on whether it does or not. Has omegatron been active in the last few days? If not you may want to email them politely and ask them to respond to this thread. Anyways, I'll leave this thread for now, I don't have any other reason to contribute to it. Mako001 (C)  (T)  23:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mako001 So you wish to suggest me to out and expose my email address to Omegatron? I think not sunshine. I'll make it simple. Omegatron has initiated discussions. I have responded, at great time expense, and RL cost, here and on the closers talk page. It is generally expected users, let alone admins, would be expected to keep pace on initiated discussions. Yes, there can always be RL reasons, there might be personal or weather events suddenly come up. But equally well this admin may be teaching a behaviour not to respond when its been reasonably alleged your, let says "playing dirty". Now if admins are condoning altering of making undated alterations of talk page discussions after people have replied then perhaps they should stay away from commenting here. But its a sad examplebad example to set. Thankyou. 01:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC) -- Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Reading through the discussion, I see some bludgeoning by Omegatron. It would also have been better for them to have put their comments citing various sources beneath a discussion section header to separate it from the opening statement more. The canvassing concerns seem hyperbolic, particularly given the balance of the !votes in that discussion against Omegatron. I don't think there's anything sanctionable here at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rosguill: Thankyou for taking time to analyze. With respect I think you've been a little soft to the unsigned significant changes in the discussion/nomination when people have responded to that nomination. So it's gone above a little bludgeoning. In terms of the canvas not affecting the !voting, that not really the point. Per Special:Diff/1061321198 the criteria was one of the top 10 contributors to this article - actually I've pretty sure on the edit count metric was not top ten prior to the canvas but useful contributions post canvas brought this user into a top ten edit count. A "top-ten" contributor who had been strident in attempting to ensure the article was not promoted was omitted. It is actually pretty easy to accept that Omegatron would believe they were doing an unbiased canvas ... though in practice it is very difficult to avoid concerns of systemic bias from particular angle and the obvious thing per recommendation is to declare the canvas on the discussion. But ion all events the canvas was secondary to the bludgeoning and talk interference and I again put as a very poor example for admins to show. Thankyou. 12:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Aydın memmedov2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. Added "We are not iranian, This is nothing but fascism, we are not iranians (persian), we are a modern Turks people. You are carrying out the policy of assimilation of Azerbaijanis here." on the Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis page.[6]
2. Added a link published by the government of the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, a country without media freedom, in order to press a historic 15th-century Turkic woman as "the first diplomant woman of Azerbaijan"[7] (See also; Historical_negationism#Azerbaijan)
3. Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 14th century Turkic figure.[8]
4. Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 14th/15th century Turkic figure.[9]
5. Added a fictitious flag (per the file description and Commons) to the Meskhetian Turks article.[10]
6. Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 15th century Turkic figure.[11]
7. Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 18t century Turkic figure.[12]
8. Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 18t century Turkic figure.[13]
9. Warned on numerous occassions.[14]-[15]-[16]-[17]

Looking at the compelling evidence, it appears that said user is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• from what I've seen personally, I agree that the reported user is a NOTHERE nationalist editor. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• this kind of behaviour is hard to treat, a topic ban with an option of applying for a ban lift in 6 months if behaves in other areas perhaps could treat the problem. --Armatura (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The forum comment at Iranian Azerbaijanis is quite bad form. I'd be able to AGF about most of the other edits in this report, but am much more concerned by edits like Special:Diff/1061922934, where it appears that they attempted to pass off a source as saying something it did not. I think Armatura's suggestion of a medium-length tban is sensible, and think that having it apply to "origins of the ethnic groups of the Caucasus and their languages, broadly construed" would address the scope of articles where they've exhibited battleground attitudes. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Geek has, for their first 500 edits, made some 140+ useless edits to his common.js (examples [18], [19], [20]) and for the rest a series of category changes later self-reverted, see for example [21] and [22]. Since reaching 500 edits and 1 month tenure, the user has begun to focus on ARBPIA topics. As in other cases this feels like obvious socking, but even without spending the time to figure out who it is (guessing Yaniv) the extended-confirmed status was clearly gamed and should be revoked. nableezy - 03:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Geek (talk · contribs) has made a total of 562 edits from 5 December 2021 to 16 January 2022. That includes 143 edits to User:Eastern Geek/common.js and 218 edits using Cat-a-lot. I plan to remove the extended confirmed user right. I'm wondering if that needs to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2022#Palestine-Israel articles. Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought if you remove the extended confirmed user right, it gets restored automatically next time the user edits?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the extended confirmed user right and I believe it will not be automatically re-added. It could be added by an administrator if they were satisfied that it was appropriate. I notified the user but I'm still not sure whether it needs to be logged (I can't find any examples of similar actions being logged). Johnuniq (talk) 08:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not think it needs to be logged.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I remembered an SPI discussion where an editor said that User:Icewhiz's sockpuppets used the strategy of racking 500 edits by making minute adjustments to pages, and editing PIA pages once the accounts became Excon'ed. Could we consider sending Eastern Geek there? Apolitically yours, NotReallySoroka (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's something that gets done by many socks in that area. Yaniv is fairly similar to Icewhiz, and they seem to coordinate off-wiki. They are similar enough that relatively few users can tell them apart. Nableezy is quite familiar with both. I'd say that if Nableezy says it's Yaniv, it's more likely Yaniv than Icewhiz. GizzyCatBella is also very familiar with them, it might do to let them know about this thread? Mako001 (C)  (T)  23:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz was slightly more subtle than entirely useless edits to a file in their userspace imo. On brand for Yaniv but not a slam dunk. Would bet dollars to donuts its a sock of somebody though. nableezy - 00:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following text added by Nunuxxx (talk · contribs · count) to Armenia–Georgia relations [23] is taken word-for-word from pages 185 and 186 of "Armenia: Secrets of a Christian Terrorist State" by Samuel Weems, an infamous genocide denier, historical negationist, and criminal:

• The sufferings of the people of Akhalkalak dwarfed the tribulations of all other Armenians in Georgia. Thirty thousand had perished as the result of the Turkish occupation, and those who survived were starving. Some mothers attempted to save their daughters by offering them as wives to Georgian militiamen and soldiers. Russian, Jewish, and Georgian entrepreneurs were reportedly buying young girls for 100 to 300 rubles and sending them to brothels; eight- to twelve-year-old orphan boys were being sold for a pittance at Bakuriani; hundreds of women and children were pressed into servitude in the adjacent Muslim districts. All roads leading away from Akhalkalak were strewn with the bodies of fleeing Armenians.

Links to the pages [24][25]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That extract is from Richard G. Hovannisian's “The Republic of Armenia Volume II: From Versailles to London, 1919-1920”, in the second paragraph of page 151, as was cited in the Armenia-Georgia relations article. I'd like to add that if you were concerned about a copyright violation, you could have reached out to me directly instead of escalating to ANI (which is a last-resort avenue). In any case, I did not read about or hear of Samuel Weems or his book before. I believe what may have occurred is that Weems copied the extract from Hovannisian's book to validate his own publication. - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 13:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nunuxxx, could you expand on this a bit, I don't seem to understand: are you saying that this has been copied verbatim from a source, just not the source that ZaniGiovanni thought it had? Is there any reason why that is not WP:COPYVIO? (Also, are those curly apostrophes?!?) Girth Summit _(blether) 15:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Essentially yes, I mistakenly forgot to place the extract in a quote block as I had intended, however, I did remember to cite the source of the extract so as to indicate its origin. I will correct this shortly, or paraphrase it, whichever is more suitable. - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 15:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nunuxxx: this doesn't seem like a reliable source, shouldn't it just be removed? Levivich 15:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As someone who has studied the subject in great depth, I can attest to the fact that Richard G. Hovannisian is considered in English academia the foremost expert on the First Republic of Armenia which is reflected by the detailed 4 volume series on its existence which he has published through the University of California press. He is acknowledged and cited by numerous authors, Armenian and Azerbaijani alike for his reliable and thorough academic contributions to the subject, therefore, I believe his publications can with certainty be considered as reliable. - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 15:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, my mistake, I misread and thought you were quoting Weems not Hovannisian. Levivich 15:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I find it hard to credit the idea that you could have mistakenly forgotten to put text like that in a quote block. This isn't just about missing some tags: when you are going to quote someone, you have to write attribution stuff around it (e.g. "Armenian American historian Richard G. Hovannisian, writing in his history on the period The Republic of Armenia (Volume II), wrote..."). You didn't bother with any of that, you just presented it as your own words, and put it inappropriately into Wikipedia's voice. That's completely inappropriate on several levels: putting the obvious COPYVIO issues to one side, historians don't write encyclopedically, the are often making an argument and writing persuasively. Their views are their own, whereas we have to attempt to represent scholarly consensus. I don't have a view on whether the source is unreliable, as Levivich suggests, but certainly inserting without attribution as you did is massively inappropriate, and it makes me worried about whether your other contributions need to be checked over. Have you ever added text from a historical work in a similar manner before? Girth Summit _(blether) 15:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I have used Hovannisian's work in other articles, yes. After familiarising myself with WP:COPYVIO, I deleted one paragraph that I used from the source here. I also created this article with that source and I can nominate it for deletion for COPYVIO or you could delete it yourself. I'm a relatively new editor, I only recently became active on Wikipedia some months ago starting with adding statistical data into tables, so I'm still rather inexperienced in regards to copyright policies of Wikipedia. I'm sorry if it seemed like I was trying to pass it off as my own, that was not at all my intention and I will certainly try to be more careful in future to ensure my edits are made in accordance with WP:COPYVIO and WP:MOS. - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 16:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you copy any content from the source into the article? Our automated copyvio detection tools don't pick up anything on that article, but they are not foolproof - if the stuff comes from an offline source like a hardcopy book, or it's an online source that the tool can't access, the copyvio won't be detected. If it only contains a few sentences that were copied, they could be removed/rewritten, then I could revdel the old versions. If most of the text of the article has been copied from the book, it would be simpler just to delete the article and start again from scratch.

  Copyright is a complex, but important part of editing here. You can start by read WP:COPYRIGHT, the overarching policy, then following the links in there to find out more. But to understand it in a nutshell, take this on board: you must not copy text from any source. Ideally, you shouldn't be basing content off of a single source - you should try to collect two or three sources covering the material you want to write about, then try to summarise what they each have to say in your own words. Occasionally, there will be particular phrases that are almost impossible to express in different words - that's OK, but keep it to an absolute minimum. If you get the the point that you have copied a whole sentence, you have gone much too far. Changing the odd word here and there is known as WP:Close paraphrasing, and it's also not permissible - if your sentence presents the same ideas in the same order as the source, just using the occasional synonym to make them different, then it is too close to the original. Even in cases where the source is out of copyright, or in the public domain, there are tags that you need to apply to provide attribution if you copy from it in order to be compliant with our policy here. Oh, and in case you were thinking about copying content from one article to another: WP:CWW. Even if you wrote the original text yourself, you need to provide attribution when copying it into a new article.

  Going further than that, there are issues with the text quoted above which make in unsuitable for an article here. One group of people's suffering dwarfing that of another group of people: that's a subjective judgment, whcih can be mentioned, but the person who wrote that needs to be attributed; Wikipedia doesn't make judgments of that sort in its own voice. The rest of it should have been summarised into a sentence or two about people being sold into servitude and prostitution in order to survive - to fit with our house style, it shouldn't be written as emotively as it currently is. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I did copy and cite some paragraphs (with minor adjustments to grammar and geographical terms) in that article, however, it's from an offline PDF so it may not have been detected. Alternatively, perhaps the article could be moved to a "draft" and rewritten to conform to WP, or I can rewrite it from my sandbox, whichever you think is more appropriate. Thank you for explaining the policy in-detail, I will definitely acquaint myself with WP:COPYRIGHT to make my edits more original, and also more objective in accordance to WP:NPOV, as I understand the purpose is to present an objective collection of information and facts and let the reader form their own conclusion. - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 04:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for being frank about that. I've deleted the page, and its associated talk page, as a copyright infringement - copyright violations aren't permitted anywhere, including in draft space or user space I'm afraid. If you are going to copy content from a source, you need to do that offline on your own device, and ensure that it is re-written in your own words before uploading here. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Pinging Moneytrees, as an admin with more familiarity with copyvio issues than I have - if you could skim through the thread above, and comment on whether you think any further investigation/action is required, I'd be grateful. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Girth Summit You asked if they copy-pasted text to other articles. Not sure if these violate COPYVIO, but here: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Wanted to also add that it's interesting how Nunuxxx, being a self-proclaimed person who studied the subject in great depth, misrepresents historian and their quotes, ignoring conclusions in the book and passages he cites, just to defend his tendentious edit. Please see reply and explanation regarding that edit here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you're slightly mistaken on one point; WP:NOATT says If the re-user is the sole contributor of the text at the other page, attribution is not necessary, so if they wrote the original text and it has not been altered by other editors, copying without attribution is permissible. BilledMammal (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I may some changes to the article on Samuel Weems where the material from the obit tracks with the source content, though probably in an acceptable manner. That biography raises some neutrality concerns and makes me wonder if the book mentioned at the start of this thread is actually a RS for use on WP for anything but Weems' own views. I wondered about a talk page-discussion, but figure there are few eyes on that page. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Dua Lipa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Veneta1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This was archived on 24 December 2021 (diff) without any comments, so i brought it back.

This was archived a second time on 9 January 2022 (diff) with the suggested sanction still pending; i had posted it on the main noticeboard by mistake, but received a couple of comments nonetheless.

This is a textbook case of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, as explained here. User:Veneta1 has been trying since March 2021 to either alter the meaning of, or totally remove reliably sourced content pertaining to the maternal ancestry of the subject. The diffs below pertain to reverts over the course of 9 months. He/She has been reverted and warned multiple times in the past by a number of editors, yet continued with the same disruptive editing; even after being reported at WP:ANI on 20 December. This needs some attention, and hopefully an admin will take a better look, now that i brought the report back from the archives.

Diffs of User:Veneta1

1. 01:48, 10 March 2021
2. 03:17, 15 March 2021
3. 20:47, 6 April 2021
4. 21:36, 6 April 2021
5. 22:23, 6 April 2021
6. 00:04, 27 April 2021
7. 21:48, 28 April 2021
8. 00:07, 29 April 2021
9. 15:16, 30 April 2021
10. 22:46, 31 May 2021
11. 19:30, 5 June 2021
12. 21:27, 26 June 2021
13. 16:34, 18 July 2021
14. 05:44, 23 August 2021
15. 19:48, 23 August 2021
16. 22:06, 23 August 2021
17. 09:18, 24 August 2021
18. 09:01, 1 September 2021
19. 21:52, 1 September 2021
20. 00:01, 9 September 2021
21. 05:27, 12 September 2021
22. 07:03, 16 September 2021
23. 22:49, 30 September 2021
24. 08:00, 15 October 2021
25. 18:55, 20 October 2021
26. 08:23, 17 December 2021
27. 17:24, 17 December 2021
28. 13:16, 19 December 2021
29. 14:00, 20 December 2021
30. 01:14, 27 December 2021

Diffs of edit warring warning

1. 02:29, 7 April 2021 by User:Binksternet
2. 06:02, 23 August 2021 by User:Binksternet
3. 20:40, 23 August 2021 by User:LOVI33
4. 10:41, 2 September 2021 by User:Demetrios1993
5. 15:17, 9 September 2021 by User:Demetrios1993
6. 23:00, 20 October 2021 by User:Demetrios1993
7. 13:49, 20 December 2021 by User:Demetrios1993

Sidenote: I initially reported the user at the "Edit warring" noticeboard, but was forwarded here, since this is a long-term issue. Demetrios1993 (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The editor should be given an warning, and avoid repeating these edits unless they discuss it first on the talk page and seek consensus, providing that they have reliable sources to back their edits. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 09:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, they shouldn't be given another warning, because they've had seven warnings already. They've edited their own talk page so we know those warnings have been received. They've been informed of what policy says. We're now well within sanctions territory. Suggest a pblock from editing Dua Lipa, which would be revocable once they indicate an intent to edit within policy.—S Marshall T/C 10:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall: I agree; a WP:PBAN seems like the most appropriate sanction. Demetrios1993 (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This report is still pending administrative action. If any administrators are reading this and can impose the suggested sanction, i would appreciate it; unless someone disagrees. Demetrios1993 (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Demetrios1993: If this is still happening in January 2022, please post the diffs of it. If it is not still happening in January 2022, then this is done and can go back to the archives: you've already achieved the goal, which is to stop this from happening. Levivich 18:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: Thanks for the reply. The issue is that Veneta1 continued with the same disruptive editing even after he/she was reported at WP:ANI on 20 December 2021. So, i don't think my report had anything to do with it; i assume the only reason he/she hasn't disrupted the article since 27 December 2021, is because he/she hasn't bother editing Wikipedia, as is evident from his/her contributions. Nonetheless, the fact is that the user has been reverted and warned multiple times in the past by a number of editors, yet this didn't prevented him/her from the same behavior. Assuming good faith is very hard at this point, and i feel that if the user isn't sanctioned appropriately, we will have to deal with the same matter in the future. Again, this is an issue of tendentious editing, which has helped the user evade detection for a long period of time. Demetrios1993 (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PBLOCK issued (not a PBAN, which is something quite different). Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Thanks for dealing with the matter. By the way, in short and for future reference, what's the difference between a WP:PBLOCK and a WP:PBAN? Demetrios1993 (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A PBLOCK is a block from editing the article, a PBAN is a ban from the page, including its talk page. The advantage of a PBLOCK is that it leaves the talk page open for constructive discussion. Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused, because WP:PBAN, as it is written, implies the possibility of including or excluding an article's talk page from the ban. Demetrios1993 (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I'd be comfortable with a tban. AGF isn't a suicide pact, and we've got manifest proof of the editor's intent. Ravenswing 19:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I also gave them an alert for Arb Balkans edits, as this does seem to fit into "broadly construed", and should make enforcement easier if they continue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user is making personal attacks in his edits accusing people of vandalism and being Hindu nationalists. He has also removed many user discussions on Jhatka’s talk page and inserted more personal attacks against people on there. Kindly take a look at it. 2605:8D80:626:1CB3:3D3B:CB63:BB5E:AFEC (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last edit was six days ago, so to us, this is a stale dispute. Nate • (chatter) 00:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone over their contributions, and given some advice their talk page on some issues with their editing. I reserve judgement for now on whether they are here to build an encyclopedia or not, as I saw some things which were very concerning, but also some decent work as well, which definitely mitigated the concerns for now. I hope they won't end up back here, but I wouldn't be greatly surprised if they did. I recommend that this be closed with the outcome as "user warned". Mako001 (C)  (T)  14:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 2601:644:8D81:8690:D4F:EA31:7031:CB4E (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

[37] Holy smokes, this IP posted one of the most grossly offensive things I've seen in my years here, additionally engaging in personal attacks by calling editors triggered libs and ratfucks. And their response after being warned does not bode confidence that they'll learn from this [38]. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Curbon7 (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I opted to go through here instead of AIV since rev suppression is probably preferred. Curbon7 (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the IP for 3 months. I get that people are probably going to disagree with me, but I don't think we should be using revision deletion so often. Someone else can revision delete it if they really want to, but this looks like some edgelord trying to get a rise out of people. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't disagree with you. Deb (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Edgelord"? Wow. I just learned a new synonym for "troll". Thank you, NinjaRobotPirate. Cullen328 (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're just infected with the internet and the lack of consequences related to posting such stuff. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 10:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was a new one on me too, but it seems to fit. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I revdel'ed it before I saw the above. I generally do just to remove their trophies, at least when they are really out there, dripping with racism. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it suggests doing so somewhere in WP:DENY, and that policy was basically written with this sort of nonsense in mind? Mako001 (C)  (T)  23:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aramaram159 has been adding SYNTH and OR to Aramaic original New Testament theory (see the recent history of the article). The user has so far no communicated, and has ignored my three warnings. @Ymblanter: has masked 8 revisions of the user on this page for copyright infringement. The user needs to be blocked, and for good measure I think Aramaic original New Testament theory should be protected. Veverve (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked a week for copy vio. Feel free to discuss the other issues here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Ymblanter: Is what is left at Aramaic original New Testament theory#Mistranslations a copyright infringement? The writer died 66 years ago. Veverve (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The book was published in the US in 1936, so, yes, assuming it was copyrighted, and the copyright was property renewed, it will be copyrighted until 1 January 2032--Ymblanter (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: I guess you should remove it and mask all revisions until now, then. Veverve (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but it might be a misunderstanding. I was talking about the book by Torey, but there is no text from it in the current version. Ig you mean Norton, who is extensively ciyed, that book was published in the UK, and then we need the death date - which I could not easily locate.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: I was also talking about the book of Torrey, whose very long quote begins with "Exhibit XIX. Wrong Vocalization of the Aramaic" and is currently in the article. Veverve (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks.  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 06:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DiploCult (talk · contribs) This editor contacted me via email sent through WP. This in an effort to get me to make Paolo Petrocelli back into an article. It is currently a redirect per this AFD[88]. There was nothing wrong with the email, it was a plea, providing many sources,in order to prove Diplocult's notability. Yes, in the email Diplocult admitted being Petrocelli.

This is just a notification of this off wiki contact. I thought it may be necessary because-

• Diplocult has a COI. He made four edits to the article but back in 2020.
• Diplocult may have contacted other editors or may still do so.

I have no plans to edit the article (Which I have never edited at all) which was last edited 3 months ago. Any administrator who would like to see the email, I'll be happy to provide a copy....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I received the same email via WP. I have no idea why he contacted me. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 22:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• My God, why do people insist on embarrassing themselves this way? The relentless self-promotion is absolutely nauseating. See https://www.paolopetrocelli.com/ (or any number of other websites endlessly repeating that Paolo Petrocelli, PhD-EMBA-FRSA, is a senior cultural manager driven by the belief that culture, arts and education are a major force for growth, development and change globally. A passionate, innovative and dynamic manager with an extensive experience in leadership positions in a variety of organizational settings, he is an international relations and global cultural affairs expert and so on and so forth). EEng 02:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC) I haven't been able to determine whether FRSA is the Federal Railroad Safety Act, Free Radical Scavenging Activity, or the Florida Roofing, Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Contractors Association.[reply]
• I was also contacted on 14 January, and the most annoying thing was the flattery towards me written in the e-mail. At this point, it is possible that every Italian who contributes here has received an email from him. Alex2006 (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not Italian! rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 00:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not that there's anything wrong with that. EEng 05:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I was not contacted! EEng 05:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have also received the same email with accompanying flattery. I left a message on his talk page to the effect that for the sake of transparency, I will only discuss the issues he raised in the email on his talk page and left it to him to initiate the discussion there. Note that he appears to have a second account Musicdiplomacy (talk · contribs). See here. Of interest also is Draft:Stauffer Center for Strings, a new conservatory of which Mr. Petrocelli is the director. The draft has been created by a paid editor, who after being challenged subsequently disclosed this. Voceditenore (talk) 09:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • DiploCult replied[89] to you at his talk page. I saw Musicdiplomacy too but didn't investigate too deeply....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I noticed. I have since left him some advice there. Voceditenore (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Voceditenore: DiploCult is Paolo Petrocelli, They admitted so at the very beginning of their email to me. So WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:COI should apply....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @WilliamJE: Yes I know who he is, he said so in his email to me and on-wiki. He also knows that I know. That's why I told him that if he tries to write a draft, he must declare his conflict of interest. Ditto adding to EMMA for Peace. He's already been warned multiple times by others about WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. All of that is implicit in my advice to him. But I'll add a link to that guideline in my message just in case. Voceditenore (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

          Maybe the Cato the Elder anecdote will sink in. EEng 05:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WIR: Yara Salman - administrator advice needed?. Looks like this was initially 2016 COI multiple Admin deletions, and then Admin protected from recreation in 2021. Since that time, the WikiProject Women in Red member Lajmmoore has put forth a legitimate effort to create the article, minus the COI. I've left a message on the WIR talk page asking the blocking admins to allow this article to be published. No responses yet. If we do not get a response in a day, perhaps, how can I move this to Main Space without violating any kind of wheelwarring dictates, or anything else? Please advise, thanks. — Maile (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) @Maile66: For infos, of the two admins you pinged at WT:WIR, Materialscientist has tuned off "most of" their notifications, and that includes echo, while SeraphimSytem hasn't edited in nearly 24 hours. So a post to MS and SS user talks directly rather than a trip to WP:ANI seems to be the best strategy!  :) As well as notifications of this thread here, of course. SN54129 19:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had edited an article drafted by User:TrangaBellam with good faith a couple of hours ago but they were not content with these edits and left an unpleasant message on my talk page. They then started to nitpick several of my recent article translations from Bengali to English, mass deleting chunks of information, removing relevant citations, despite being told by other users that there is nothing wrong. I suggest looking through his recent contributions since editing my talk page and you will see majority of them are not focused on contributing to and benefiting our encyclopaedia but trying to criticise each and everything. It's totally fine to add "citation needed" comments, but their attitude is not sensible and it seems they are actively targeting me by specifically going through my recent article translations. SalamAlayka (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I scanned your contributions because of your misplaced belief that translating content from other wikis excuses you from providing citations etc. A summary of my relevant edits:

• I redirected one of your articles and was thanked by a very longstanding editor.
• I came across Zobeda Khanom Chowdhury mis-citing sources and using circular sources, and nominated it for an AfD. This is a borderline case and might go either way depending on who shows up.
• I tagged Habibullah Qurayshi—which was already tagged for depending on a single source by some other reviewer—for potentially failing WP:N, which you are free to undo.
• I tagged Ismail Alam for using unreliable sources from fringe publishing houses.
• I discussed issues about your latest article (Nur Qutb Alam) at a talk-page section and provided some suggestions. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise I'm only human. If you want me to address all of this it will take time. I just created the Nur Qutb Alam article and you've already criticised it... just give some time and it will improve. Be patient, don't be aggressive when addressing, and we can go through it eventually bit by bit. SalamAlayka (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving a note at talk-page is not criticism, per se. I pointed out what is allowed as a source (and what is not) about articles concerning S. Asian History.

The articles which were tagged by me were written by you weeks ago. Tags stay for months, before being actioned: you have no worries. But, please do not write unsourced controversial statements (like at Syeda Shahar Banu) or delete sourced content (like at Titumir). Go through the articles, you have translated and cite every line to a decent RS. Else, remove them. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• SalamAlayka, it looks to me like Tranga Bellam is trying to help you rather than "nitpicking" or "trying to criticise each and everything". You'd do yourself a favour if you listened better to their comments. Also, I don't see anything "unpleasant" about their messages on your talkpage. Bishonen | tålk 21:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

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

I recently removed and moved some pictures in Ainu people per WP:Gallery, when suddenly a user reverted my and three others edits. I should note that I did not remove any outstanding pictures, but two paintings and one rather bad quality one. The other pictures simply got moved. Not sure what can trigger such an outburst. The edit summary is quite horrifying babbling about "pseudo white Caucasians" and "mixed breeds".^[1] I seriously doubt that such terminology is acceptable, and the worldviews of an user using these terms should not be spreaded in an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. Last but not least, the removal of content seems disruptive and was not explained in his/her "edit summary". As such I think reporting this incident for racist terminology is a good reaction. I have also pinged the user on the talk page. A comment or sanctions should be enforced if further disruptive and racist eruptions come out of this user.-193.107.22.36 (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vamlos (talk · contribs) editing habits and focus on race and Asia looks awfully like that of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/WorldCreaterFighter. His 30,000 byte addition to Talk:Interracial marriage in September 2020 is truly something to behold. I think a WP:NOTHERE block is in order. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Without comment on the DE/NOTHERE aspect, noting that Dreamy Jazz found Vamlos  Unrelated to WCF at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WorldCreaterFighter/Archive § 22 December 2021. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. There is a clear, uncomfortable focus on racial purity in Valmos's editing, as can be seen in this recent edit they made to Orang Asil. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Such a fascination with race and purity, expressed in these and other edits, bespeaks a basic mindset that has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. I have blocked per NOTHERE. Perhaps the user is unrelated to previous race-obsessed editors, perhaps not. At the very least we can say that a talk page full of warnings for all kinds of disruption (lack of proper edit summaries, unverified edits, poor writing, racist language in article space) have not helped. Drmies (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Curbon7, my apologies for (temporarily?) removing your close: the editor has placed an unblock request. That they argue that a term used by "colonial officials in the British Empire during their classification of indigenous populations" could still be used today in this encyclopedia is not the strongest argument, but hey, YMMV. I hope one of my fellow admins will look at the unblock request and take into account comments made here at ANI. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: suggested on my talkpage that this user is likely to be a sock of DerekHistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who they contend has incorrectly been conflated with WCF. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:Curtis Yarvin#WP:BLPGOSSIP This article is Defamatory and Places wikipedia in legal jeopardy. sbelknap (talk · contribs) has cited the "Hulk Hogan-Gawker-Peter Thiel" events (Bollea v. Gawker) as justification for removing content from the Curtis Yarvin article on BLP grounds. This information includes a direct quote from Yarvin's blog which has been cited by two reliable sources. Yarvin and Thiel have worked together in the past, so per sbelknap, including this information is "an existential threat to wikipedia" because Yarvin's buddy might come for Wikipedia like he did for Gawker. The chilling effect issue is obvious.

Per most reliable independent sources, Yarvin's fringe political views are the primary reason he is notable. Without those views, and sources about them, it's unlikely he would warrent an article in the first place. Failing to summarize these sources would damage the neutrality of the article.

Previously on that talk page, sbelknap has also argued that Yarvin's father's Jewish ancestry should be mentioned via obscure primary sources. This was, apparently, intended to be an indirect counterpoint to sourced comments that he is associated with the alt-right, which is associated with antisemitism. For this, sbelknap, bizarrely, compares Yarvin to Werner Goldberg, a Nazi soldier who also had a Jewish father. Yarvin's own blog is the closest thing we have to a reliable source for his paternal grandparent's religion/ethnicity. sbelknap also cites a Daily Mail blurb about Larry Sanger as a reason to include primary sources in BLP articles.

I consider all of these to be serious red flags.

There are obvious BLP issues here. I have tried to explain these issues and have gotten nowhere. Considering the "existential threat" comment, I would appreciate it if someone with more knowledge of WP:NLT looks at this situation.

Grayfell (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my very much non-admin opinion, this is the kind of legal threat that deserves an immediate block, for at least some time. To my mind, there is a big difference between, "this is defamatory," and "unless this article reflects my preferences, I will bankrupt Wikipedia as an associate of the article's subject famously did to a media company." People who wander into WP:NLT territory should be warned. This is not a wander; this is jumping in with both feet. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something but... Where exactly is the threat here? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, sbelknap described this as an "existential threat" to Wikipedia. The idea being proposed is that Wikipedia itself will be sued into oblivion by Yarvin's patron. This threat was supported by a totally unrelated legal case brought up by someone who is chummy with Yarvin. As far as legal threats go, that's pretty direct, but even without that, it still introduces a chilling effect to suppress sourced content. Grayfell (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is none. :: Per Wikipedia:No legal threats quoting from section on Defamation "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to delete libelous material as soon as it is identified." sbelknap (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have failed to explain why a direct quote of something he said, as supported by multiple reliable sources, is "defamatory". Yarvin said the quit part loud, on a blog he published himself, and reliable sources noticed that. That's not defamatory. Since you claimed that legal action was plausible, and used that threat to remove content from the article, you have made this into a much wider and more serious issue. Grayfell (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, see the diff: "This article defames Curtis Yarvin and is an existential threat to wikipedia. Interested editors can review the Hulk Hogan-Gawker-Peter Thiel events to understand the legal consequences of defamation to a media entity. The Curtis Yarvin article notes Yarvin's association with Peter Thiel. Being an anonymous wikipedia editor may protect that editor but that is not going to protect wikipedia itself from legal jeopardy. As one example, ... Yarvin writes, 'It should be obvious that, although I am not a white nationalist, I am not exactly allergic to the stuff (as should be the case with any intellectual—anyone who takes this as an endorsement of white nationalism is an idiot).' ... This is grossly distorted by a journalist, and by the time it gets to this wikipedia page, it means precisely the opposite of what Yarvin intended." In addition to it being original research on Sbelknap's part to examine Yarvin's blog in search of potentially exculpatory ways to parse the latter's language—based on the transparently false premise that either Wikipedia or the reliable secondary source labelled Yarvin a "white nationalist" in the first place (they did not)—the above comment seems intended to create a "chilling effect" by raising the implication that Wikipedia itself (if not "anonymous wikipedia editor[s]" individually) will likely face "legal jeopardy" of an "existential" nature if the quote from Yarvin's blog is retained.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Independent of the question of whether this actually is defamatory, that is not remotely a legal threat. It's hyperbolic and overkill, but it's not a legal threat. For it to be a legal threat he would have to, well, threaten legal action. Flagging potentially defamatory content is a basic part of maintaining the encyclopedia. We have a whole series of templates for it. People should take care to not point out potential defamation in an alarmist manner, as that can be disruptive. And they should not do it as an excuse to cover up encyclopedic content, as may or may not be happening here. But it's still not a threat. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of those templates. That is a useful resource. Thanks. sbelknap (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As one example, see the diff "Yarvin has written in support of slavery" This is not what the cited secondary source asserts and the secondary source cherry picks text from Yarvin's writings. This and other examples in the article seem to me to be clearly libelous. For BLP, it is essential that wikipedia articles be scrupulously fair. sbelknap (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The legitimacy of the defamation claim is extremely important to whether or not this is a threat. sbelknap is essentially saying "it's a nice website you've got here. It would be a pity of anyone sued it for defamation". This is still a threat. In this context it can only be an attempt to preemptively derail the discussion with the veiled threat of a ruinous lawsuit. Why else would any editor of that article find background information about Hulk Hogan and a defunct gossip site relevant or helpful? If not as a "warning", why even mention it? Grayfell (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the user in question has refused to explain their objections to certain material, instead simply asserting The burden is on each wikipedia editor to avoid libel. I provided links to the primary source - this is decidedly unhelpful and creates a pointless game of twenty questions. If there is material which is libelous, we should change it, but if a user is unwilling to identify their objections, they are not acting in good faith. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by my interpretation, Sbelknap had not yet crossed the line of WP:NLT, but they are skating very close to the line of the very thin ice and that rarely ends well. Threatening to call out the "billionaire dogs" is not an effective debating technique. Efforts to bring the article more correctly into line with what reliable sources say is commendable. Threatening and intimidating other editors, and whitewashing article conten, is utterly unacceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think much of sbelknap's hyperbole, but I'm with Tamzin -- that wasn't a legal threat, and interpreting it as such suggests an overactive imagination. Especially given that breaching NFT tends to bring down no-warning indef blocks on the culprits, I feel strongly that the tocsin should never be sounded for the same on the basis of inferences, interpretations, impressions, or purported "chilling effects." "If you edit against the way I like I will sue you/call the police on you," that is a NFT-level legal threat. This? No. Ravenswing 13:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have previously been sued over editing I have done on Wikipedia, and I know many other editors have as well, so this isn't an overactive imagination. This kind of thing absolutely does have a chilling effect. It drives away editors, because it should drive away editors. Good-faith volunteers to this project should not feel obligated to have to deal with that kind of thing, which is why we have a policy on legal threats. People who have experience with lawsuits know they are not always a joke or an empty threat, and that's exactly the purpose of these threats.

What is an "NFT-level" legal threat. Do you mean NLT? Grayfell (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sbelknap has a long history of repeated instances of edit wars and not good faith. He targets political and philosophy posts. See his talk page for a summary. This looks like a case for WP:BLOCKDETERRENT based on "#3 encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms." Boromeliad (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just have to say, I find the interpretation that this is not a legal threat gobsmacking, but as noted, I am not an admin and will leave the subtleties to wiser heads. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are mostly of medical articles, particularly for pharmacology and medicine. I have consistently acted in good faith for my edits. In 2018 I was one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. If you look through my edits, you will find that I have made some useful contributions and also that I have learned from my experiences on wikipedia, as I will endeavor to do in this case. What I have learned here is that there are templates for addressing problems of defamation and libel, and I expect I will use those in the future to communicate these problems to my fellow editors. sbelknap (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that what you have learned is that you may freely chill speech on Wikipedia so long as your threats are veiled in the mode of "nice website you've got here, it would be a shame if something happened to it." Dumuzid (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rlink2 appears to be Rotlink, who was blocked in 2013 indefinitely for unauthorized botting, both on and off his account. The site he has been adding as an archive URL appears to trace to the websites he added on Wikipedia before he was blocked, and there's some concern in discussion with a few other administrators that he owns the website in question. (Editors may also be interested in reviewing the earlier account's global contributions, where there are about dozen blocks on several wikis.)

Currently, he operates AWB on his main account (clearly using some script to fill in website titles) as well as an authorized bot account Rlink2 Bot (contrast the declined RotlinkBot).

My first inclination was to block for the seeming evasion, but the editor's talk page is largely without issue so far and the bot account was approved. However, given the potential COI and his main account being used for high-speed editing itself, I am left in a bit of a quandry. (A few of the other admins I discussed with seem to lean more strongly toward blocking immediately, though I'm sure they can speak for themselves.)

Opinions sought/welcomed (or bold action if someone feels more strongly on the point). Izno (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Revoke AWB access from account for flooding. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How am I flodding? I go at 10 edits a minute, which is consistent with other editors. Let me know how I am supposed to use the tool and what rates are acceptable. Rlink2 (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way you are verifying all your edits at that rate, you are obviously blindly accepting software suggestions. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, sometimes there are times I do take shortcuts. However, 99% of my edits are verified, and I revert errnonous edits all the time. Now, I'll just make sure its 100% instead of 99%. Rlink2 (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Revoke AWB access including the bot. I am fairly convinced these are the same individuals, and I believe they have some sort of stake in the archive sites (archive.today and ghostarchive.org) they are performing automated work in regards to, if not being the outright owners. I believe the main account's current AWB activity looks to be the unapproved activity proposed as a second bot activity here. Activity on eswiki should also be noted. The four RFCs on archive.is should be reviewed for historical content, including admission of Rotlink of either owning or being heavily involved in the development of Archive.is and the 2013 botting issue that resulted in over 30 cross wiki blocks. More action may be required. -- ferret (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "relationship", if anything, I have been in talks with Mark Graham of the Wayback machine in terms of possible collaboration, and we have many editors on here already working with the Internet Archive. Supposing I was related to archive.today (or otherwise), I don't think "getting" at me for that aspect alone is helpful because we have people working for archive.org as well. I have a metheology for picking archive sites to use, we have a limited amount of archive sites, and some of them do stuff that the others can't. If Wayback can't archive a site, but something else can, I don't think it's right to say I'm connected when there is a clear explanation for why I do what I do. For example, archive.today can bypass paywalls, archive.org can't. And ghostarchive.org can do Youtube videos, which up until very recently archive.org could not. And you seem to be missing my bare ref fixes that also use web.archive.org. You omit that part of the argument as well.

Regardless, I have spent a lot of time on non archiving matters, such as fixing bare refs. There are clear differences between my and Rotlink's account (such as the fact Rotlink doesn't appear to be a native English speaker). Rotlink only added archive links, from the look of it. If the community realizes that my time spent archiving refs is not appreciated, I will stop doing it. Maybe even revoking AWB access is the right choice, even though I do review every edit I make with it. But I do not think a full on block is required. Rlink2 (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlink2: Well, the difference between other editors with the Internet Archive and you with Archive.Today would be disclosure. If what ferret is saying is true (idk maybe it is; maybe not), then you should definitely be transparent about it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: Thanks. I know it sounds maybe a bit hard to believe, but I have no relation to Rotlink or any other past editor. For those that want to believe other wise, all I can really say is that I am willing to stop any work with alternative archive sites if that is what you all want. I didn't have any plans with alternate archive link repair for a while, since my editing plans involved filling bare refs, and then filling in the titles for "Archived Copy" (see Category:CS1_maint:_archived_copy_as_title) when that was done. Both of these efforts have nothing to do with any of the alternate archive sites, and would/is taking months of my time. If using other archive sites results in COI accusations and stressful ANI threads, it is not worth the time and effort for me to keep using them, to be honest. Rlink2 (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: when you say that Rlink2 appears to be Rotlink, are you speaking with your checkuser hat on? Firefangledfeathers 02:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, solely based on naming, behavior, and strongly overlapping interests. Izno (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Firefangledfeathers 02:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All this seems to be based on the fact that you think I am Rotlink, which is not the case. Yes, the username might be similar (unfortunate coicidence when picking my username) but I have no affiliation with Rotlink whatsoever. I read the archive.today RFC before creating an account and I thought the name "Rotlink" sounded cool, so maybe it had an subconsious effect on my username. I knew someone would think that this was the case sooner rather than later, so for that reason I kinda regret choosing that username. Rlink2 (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Immediately revoke AWB access and block: This user is using their account to operate an undisclosed bot. Their edits indicate that they are a meatbot. Furthermore, there is no possible chance that they are properly analysing the truly absurd number of edits that they are making. All of this is incredibly problematic, even ignoring the probable ban evasion and conflict of interest. Considering the sheer amount of disruption and other questionable actions, a block is warranted in this situation. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 00:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except, I am looking at all of my edits with AWB. I explain that I revert my errnouns edits all the time, and I also just recently maintained a list of broken pages of my script https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rlink2/Problem_cite_titles. If i waasn't looking at all those edits, I wouldn't have started maintaining that page and also reverting errors in the script, like I did in the example on my talk page. Rlink2 (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday you made 3316 edits non-stop across 7 hours at a rate of 8-11 a minute. During that rate of editing, you saved edits ranging from small minor single citation fills of under 100 bytes, to huge 2000+ (and even a few 10K+) byte changes that touched dozens of citations. Even for the large ones, you spent less than 10 seconds before your next edit. It's difficult to believe you're reviewing these edits. -- ferret (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, sometimes I do sacafice quality for speed, especially before the new database dumps come out. This is the exception though, not the rule. And sometimes I have days off, yesterday was MLK Day, so I have more time to edit. It wasn't non stop, there were clear breaks however. I don't edit when I'm sleeping, and I don't edit when I'm at my workplace. If I was running a "bot" I wouldn't have a list of bad links, I wuoldn't be constantly reverting mistakes. Also note that everytime someone leaves me a message on my talk page, I respond instantly. If I was running a "bot" I wouldn't be able to respond that quickly to messages since I would be away from the computer. Rlink2 (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've noticed this user prolifically across my watchlist recently. The sheer number of edits is astounding, and indicates either a meatbot or a literal unauthorized bot. Either way, it is clear these edits are done with little or no care for their accuracy or helpfulness. To give just one example, I've noticed the addition of a template [90] which, if we go to its template page, appears to do nothing and was created on January 12th by Rlink2. I am not a template expert, but I can't see the point of adding this template which appears to do nothing to thousands of articles. And even if it does serve some sort of purpose, the total lack of documentation is wrong and must be corrected so we have some clue as to what the hell the template does. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings: The purpose of that template is to mark bare PDFs, since the title of those are not so easy to extract. I should have added some documentation, but didn't, sorry. The purpose is for me and other editors to categorize and then go through the PDFs that are bare. I really did (and still do) like your train articles. Rlink2 (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm glad to see it does serve a purpose (and that you like my articles), please add some documentation though. I am not convinced you are related to Rotlink, particularly considering the difference in English proficiency. Fighting linkrot is important, but I think I speak for many when I say you need to be more careful with your mass edits. I have compared AWB use to a B-52 bombing run: it can be very powerful, but if you call in the bombing run in the wrong place, the cleanup is massive. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Trainsandotherthings:. I am just stressed right now and your feedback made my day.

If the issue is with my choice of archive site, just say so. If the result of the ANI thread is that I shall no longer do link work with any archive site that isn't archive.org I will happily follow that. I do way way more than just archive stuff. Wayback is the gold standard of archive sites, and it is always the one I prefer the first. My work will not be seriously impacted if I am prevented from using any site that isn't archive.org, it just means longer do anything with preventing linkrot with sites that do not work with the Wayback machine, which, thanks to the amazing team at Archive.org, is rapidly becoming fewer and fewer. In the mean time, however, those links will unfortunately have to rot. The Wayback team is amazing and I am sure they will get to fixing all the issues, but in the mean time we should not prevent the usage of other archive sites until the Wayback team can fix the sites not working properly. But this is up to the community to decide. I was and have been taking a break from archiving "no-Wayback" sites anyway.

If the issue is that I go too fast, I will make sure to slow down. Yes, I have been faster in recent days, but usually I go at 10 edits or less which I think is OK.

If the issue is that I don't review my edits all the time, I will begin reviewing my edits all the time (which i already do for the most part).

If the issue is that I need to be more careful, I will be more careful. Yes, I have made mistakes with AWB before. Just look at the Citevar situation. I responded by cleaning it all up. We are all humans, imperfect. I propose that if my AWB access is revoked, it is revoked for a limited amount of time (maybe a week? month?) because I think I do important work with it. My edits have been a net good, based on community feedback. And keep in note that even Izno said editor's talk page is largely without issue so far meaning that there is some level of support and consensus for my work. I respect each and every one of the editors in this thread, and I hate to see misconception burn bridges. Rlink2 (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was myself dragged over the coals at ANI for the better part of a month in November 2021. It was an experience I would not wish upon anyone but the most disruptive editors or vandals. It is why I usually refrain from commenting here at all, but as I said earlier I've seen your name pop up a lot on my watchlist so I felt the need to comment here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm currently leaning towards revoke access per the issues brought up by trainsandotherthings. Adding {{Bare URL PDF}} to enough pages that it got semi-protected seems a bit irresponsible. This is the type of thing that should've been brought up at {{Bare URL inline}}'s talk page or WikiProject Inline Templates before it got added to 1,532 different pages.
  This user certainly has potential though, so I am a bit torn. If access is revoked, I do think there should be a clear path for them to regain access. For the record, I have also not looked into the Rotlink connection at all. My comment is just a reflection on the AWB usage rather than socking accusations. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @MJL: I see nothing at all irresposnible about Rlink2's creation of {{Bare URL PDF}}. It is analogous to {{Bare URL inline}}, but helpfully provides a distinctive designator for PDF bare URLs, which pose a particular problem because there is no reliable way for tools to extract metadata from PDFs. It would have been better to complete the template before deploying it, but that oversight is a very minor issue, and easily remedied.

  If you or any other editor actually discussed this with Rlink2, you would them open, attentive, and well-seized of the issues. This issue would have been resolved promptly.

  It is very sad to see something like this used as "evidence for the prosecution", when no effort has been made to have the usual discussions about whether it is actually a problem. (Hint: it's not a problem. It's a productive addition). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  PS: I have completed and documented {{Bare URL PDF}}. It may not be the perfect solution for PDF format WP:Bare URLs, but I thank @Rlink2 for taking this useful step forward.

  If editors want further discussion of how we can make progress on identifying and fixing the backlog of 47,887 untagged PDF-format bare URL refs (as he 20220101 database dump), this is not the appropriate venue. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As an editor who fired a rocket at Rlink2 at an early stage (for an error that turned out have been made by WorldCat), I too began by being suspicious of their motives. I also had a sharp intake of breath to see so many of the pages I watch come up with bare URL flags. It was annoying that I missed them being added in the first place but we should not shoot the messenger. Some editors have complained at talk:Rlink2 that just to add title= is inadequate and want to see a full set of metadata: it seems that they would rather have a bare URL than a basic one. Personally I have found it a useful prompt to go get the metadata since invariably the site needs to be deconstructed by human eye. "The perfect is the enemy of the good". Blocking their AWB access is being an enemy of the good. Maybe they should be admonished for employing 'almost a bot' but let's not get on our high horse about it. Does Counsel for the Prosecution propose that CitationBot be shut down too? If not, why not? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Revoke AWB access as above, and launch SPI into possible sock puppetry/block evasion. GiantSnowman 19:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If Rotlink was blocked in 2013, it seems unlikely there would be any technical evidence left for a CU inquiry. A gap of 7 years between Rotlink's last edit and Rlink2's first edit would also seem to make any other attempt at proving socking/block evasion pretty well impossible too. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 20:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Congratulate Rlink2 for excellent work improving articles at a steady rate. Any bot-like process will leave imperfections behind due often to pre-existing and unpredictable errors in articles. Oculi (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Oculi, I agree. Rlink2 is doing great work, and should be congratulated, not hounded.

  This thread is an depressingly good illustration of the principle that no good deed should go unpunished. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Woah there! This discussion is deeply unpleasant to read. It seems like a pile-on.

The complaint is based on a supposition that @Rlink2 is a) a block-evading sock, and b) somehow in cahoots with archive sites. No actual evidence has been offered for either assertion other than a similarity of usernames. Rlink2 denies both, and nobody has added any further evidence.

The choice of this venue for a socking allegation is very quite strange, because Izno is a checkuser, so should know that suspected sock cases should be brought to WP:SPI. Why has that not been done here?

As to the alleged "collusion" with archive sites, no evidence has been offered of any such collusion. And what harm could be done by any such collaboration? Archive.is is an acceptable archive site, so why this rush to monster an editor who archives some pages there? If some editors want to re-open the debate about whether to use Archive.is, they should open an RFC rather than monstering an editor who archives refs.

As the OP notes, Rlink2's AWB work is mostly uncontroversial, accurate filling of bare links, and issues which arise out of that being discussed openly and amicably on their talk page. Their edits have made a huge contribution to clearing the backlog of bare URL refs, and I am shocked to see that valuable work being brought to a halt on the basis of a set of wild accusations.

Nobody seems to have identified any actual harm being done by Rlink2. So what is this drama actually about? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My only note was regarding to flooding watchlists and recent changes with fairly high speed AWB use, when they have an open BRFA for this already - but instead of completing that they are just slamming the edits through the unflagged account. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a lot of sympathy for anyone who doesn't pay too much attention to BRFA. My recent experiences there have been of very poor communication speed, poor assessment and being subjected to gratuitous personal attack and insults which no BAG member was wiling to challenge.

Until BAG can reform itself by make it less of a hazing exercise and showing the maturity to genuinely review its bad decisions, editors are well-advised to stay clear. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with BHG. I would like to see any sockpuppetry accusations handled at WP:SPI in accordance with the burden of evidence there, as it's usually done. As for the bot use, that's a separate issue. While personally I'm not too happy about meatbots, this noticeboard has time and time again failed to revoke AWB access for editors running actual meatbots. While I'd like to see a consistently harder stance on that, I do find it difficult to believe the tally above for revoking access is solely due to the editing behaviour. archive.today is a perfectly acceptable and popular archive site.

All the OP has said is that and there's some concern in discussion with a few other administrators that he owns the website in question -- there is no evidence presented for the assertion, and I'm not going to go digging around for evidence myself. I'd like to see some evidence presented here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux and ProcrastinatingReader took the words right out of my mouth, honestly. All this infighting could instead be used to advance progress on Rlink Bot Task 2. The description and the goals have been slightly changed (for example, the bot will find bare refs itself, it won't need submissions), but for the most part I think it is best for everyone if we focus on advancing the bot task. The goal was always to get the bot task approved. Rlink2 (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: it seems to me that unless Izno can present some actual evidence to support their allegation that Rlink2 is the owner of an archive site, they should strike the allegation and apologise.

Same with the allegation of sockpuppetry: Izno should take their case to SPI and accept the outcome of that established process, or strike it and apologise.

Editors should not be subjected to unsupported allegations which are the taken by other editors as grounds for sanctions, which is what has happened here.

And given that Ser Amantio di Nicolao remains unsanctioned for about 4 million edits with a very badly-run unauthorised bot (he's too lazy to even use meaningful edit summaries, and that's the least of the problems), it would be grossly unjust to sanction Rlink2 for a well-run AWB task on a scale several orders of magnitude smaller. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The archive wars/RFCs are long behind us and I think I speak for all of us that we don't need to restart those. The issue of if we should use archive.today is completely seperate from me, if that is a discussion you want to entertain that is fine, don't take it out on me like BHG said. Like I've said before, I will happily accept not being able to work with any archive site that isn't archive.org, if your issue is that I somehow own these archival websites, and the community says they do not value my work with those alternate archive sites. If I was the owner of any of these sites I would not be making that offer. So that alone invalidates the supposed allegation of ownership.

Regarding name similarity and sockpuppetry, see Wikipedia:Editors_who_may_be_confused. I should note that some of these users with similar usernames also share the same interests (for example, two of the usernames just so happen to be 'crats, and two of other similar usernames belong to two different amazing admins who both are intrested in sports topics). It's not some crazy, out of the world, one time thing, for someone to have a similar name to another, and for them to have similar interests. I think that if you want to say I someone else, you should have more evidence than just a similar username and having similar interests. Rlink2 (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricaneinfomation. is repeatedly creating articles that are not notable, from articles Tropical Storm Helene 2012, Hurricane Isaac 2018, and Tropical Storm Ana 2021. IMO, this has got to stop, especially creating the Hurricane Isaac 2021 hoax article, even though this user has edited 2-3 days ago. This user has also been repeatedly warned, one was a final warning. Any thoughts/comments on this? Severestorm28 02:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I left a final warning as I'm about to go to bed and don't like to block and run. No objection to someone taking it further, but concur with @Severestorm28: that we're long past patience, especially with the recreation of Isaac. Star Mississippi 03:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Huh. I was about to mention that he'd only created three articles ever, but the talk page does look daunting, with all the warnings and pleas to engage in actual conversation over these edits. I also see some serious WP:OWN behavior with requests for page protection [91] [92] which run "I need Semi Protection because I don't want anyone want for anyone to vandalize/destroy my wikipedia page. Since I go to college and when I'm not here people can vandalize my page all they want to and I don't want for anyone to do that." I'd support a NOTHERE block. Ravenswing 04:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd support with Ravenswing about the WP:NOTHERE block, because now, he's just asking me whoever deleted the Helene article. This user is taking it too far, especially with too many talk page warnings. Severestorm28 13:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Further information, User talk:VocalIndia#Speedy deletion of Chen Jinggu

Hi, as according to my two year over experience on Wiki, i can't accept that was copyright violation , it was only one sentence with a few general words. Firstly, I started Chen Jinggu article with one sentence then i added "Legend" section that was copied from Guanyin article. I've explained in the page's edit history for attribution (WP:CWW). I don't know that was original editor's copyvio. Violently admin removed the whole article. Really need to delete the whole article? They should only remove copyvio contents that came from Guanyin's article. Clearly that is not my violation. However, admin Justlettersandnumbers says the original stub version is also a copyright violation. I've shocked and that was only one sentence describe "Chen is a historical shaman priestess. She is one of the most important Fujian goddesses and chief deity of the Lüshan Sect. " That tiny sentence was also edited by several editors. See below. Really?

. What a bullying! Sorry, I was angry and fiercely responded. Pls kindly teach me out and want to restore original stub. Tia VocalIndia (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's not bullying every time someone disagrees with you. And I don't know how "violently remove" is--but what I really don't understand is the problem. If you, as you claim, copied something from some article, and it turns out to be a copyvio, then what's the problem? The copyvio is removed, and we move on. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

but admin deleted the whole article with accusing of my stub is also a copyvio "Chen Jinggu is blah blah". I dont think it is copyvio. VocalIndia (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The personal attacks need to stop. In the past few hours you've repeatedly called other editors "dogs" [94][95][96], "jealous [dogs]" [97], having a "poor mind" [98][99], "useless" [100], and "disgusting" [101]. DanCherek (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, As i said above I cant't control my anger. I've removed some PA words before this ANI. VocalIndia (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot control your anger, then you do not belong on Wikipedia. Period. You are required to control your anger here, no matter the provocation, real or imagined. Ravenswing 04:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As I frequently have to tell editors, you need to write Wikipedia in your own words. We don't need you (or anyone) just loosely transcribing what's already out there. That can be read at its original location. No one has "bullied" you, and hyperbole like "violently" removing your edits is so silly it's distracting to your whole point. Please just stop all this and take the constructive criticism to heart. Learn from it instead. Sergecross73 msg me 03:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sergecross73 I can't accept that -- is a historical shaman priestess who became one of the most important Fujian goddessesand chief deity of the Lüshan Sect was copyvio. not eligible for vio criteria. Everyone have to right this writing method. VocalIndia (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I have no opinion on the issue at hand as I am not familiar with it at all, but just noting that there's a big language barrier, it seems, which further complicates things. For example, they may be using the word "violent" for something else, but I don't know. Having said that, as a language barrier obviously doesn't excuse behavior like this, I otherwise agree, broadly speaking, that the aggressive behavior and personal attacks need to stop. Amaury • 03:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As someone who has some experience with copyright violations, I do agree that stating basic facts aren't serious copyright violations, however I do believe that sentence could have been worded better. It is impossible to reword phrases such as "one of the most important ... goddesses" without making the sentence confusing, so it would have been better to reword the structure of the sentence instead, probably something like "Chen Jinggu is regarded as one of the most important Fujian goddesses. Once a shaman priestess, she became the Lushan sect's chief deity" to make it less similar to the source text. If there are any more people who are more experienced with copyvio than I am, please try to make things more clear or correct any errors I may have made. Akbermamps 04:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Akbermamps. I've also noted that "the basic facts aren't serious copyright violations." according per my experience. That's why I strongly against admin's action. Thank you for pointing me to the right direction. VocalIndia (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• OP has thrown up a ragequit statement on his user page: "This user is no longer active on Wikipedia as of January 18, 2022, Some finding my minor mistake for their grudge and covert to a big mistake. Time to say Bye Bye. Be happy. Wikipedia is a bullying school for guys who has poor English. (His/Her mood is very disgusting." The degree to which we can take this seriously, mind, is that they made 14 edits so far after posting the Retired notice. VocalIndia isn't a newbie, mind, with nearly 5000 edits, but I question whether they're more than a liability with that kind of attitude. Ravenswing 04:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) This very much is a WP:CIR issue. Even some of his most recent edits show a fundamental lack of understanding of copyright in previous occasions, as well as lack of understanding for proper sourcing (re:this edit from 30 mins ago). That's not even getting into this user's conduct at AfDs, which has been less than admirable. The thing that makes this sad is that this user has some genuinely great actions, for example with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hold Nickar. However, even with that AfD, his anger issues clouds over the good edits he does. Like this AfD was successfully litigated between me and the nominator to the point the nominator decided to withdraw, but that didn't stop VocalIndia from getting angry for no reason. This editor has the potential to be good, but consistently falls short of the line with no indication that he will cross it. Curbon7 (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is it that so often the people who engage in bullying behavior are the same ones who complain that others are bullying them? Anyway, the ability to control one's anger is a non-negotiable essential for participation here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The diffs by DanCherek are damning enough—I've blocked VocalIndia for 1 week for personal attacks. Civility is required from all editors on Wikipedia. -- TNT (talk • she/her) 04:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a copyright investigation needs to be started? I see e.g. Huang Tianhua, which they created in January, vs. this

Opening a WP:CCI may be necessary. Fram (talk) 08:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the bullying admin, and for all I know also the "Montha fackka!!!". For those who can't see the history: at Chen Jinggu, VocalIndia copied a big chunk of text, with correct attribution, from Guanyin, and can't be blamed for that. Both Primefac and I tried to remove the copyvio before deleting (I'd restored it in the hope of saving it), but found that that wasn't possible. VocalIndia became agitated and fairly incoherent. To the extent that I can follow the user's talk-page posts, he/she seems to show a worrying lack of understanding of what is meant by copyright, both in general and in this project.

I agree that it may be necessary, Fram, but I'm not yet sure – I looked some contribs yesterday and saw many that seem fine, but found and removed copyvio from Prince Euneon. I think more investigation is needed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Princess Tatiana Alexandrovna Yusupova is an unattributed and poor machine translation of the Russian article (leading to stuff like "This novel was actively discussed in the world" when no novel is being discussed at all), Hong Guk-yeong has text copied without attribution from Royal Noble Consort Wonbin Hong. Heifeng Guai unexplicably has text taken from a 2014 Facebook post about a (Dota2?) game character[103]? Whatever the original source, not new writing but copyvio. Fram (talk) 10:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the editor correctly pointed out that the "princess" article is not an unattributed translation: I only checked the edit summaries, but the translation is noted on the talk page. Still a very poor machine translation, but not a reason to add incorrect accusations of course. Fram (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't agree that their edits to Hold Nickar are good.

("Hold Nickar is the king of the sea nymphs" is also copied from a source, but a different one).

In addition, the first of those sources is shaky to say the least, and so are some of the other sources they proposed in the AfD – but that is a content issue, so not the important point here. --bonadea contributions talk 09:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I just meant that it was originally soft deleted and he brought it to a !keep. I didn't actually look at the article. Curbon7 (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does not look like this editor is capable of editing productively here. Paul August ☎ 17:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address 70.66.130.107 has been making some problematic edits. Particularly pertaining to global warming misinformation, and other political based misinformations. This user also seems to engage inn editing in complete non facts such as how spires affect the height of buildings. Profile seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.66.130.107 " There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 70.66.130.107"}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyMcEvoy (talk • contribs) 04:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyMcEvoy: You didn't notify the IP user as required, so I have now done that for you.
Either way, I am guessing Timothy found this user via this edit and started digging. This is the diff for the global warning skepticism. This series of edits are some of what I imagine are the other political based misinformations. A block may be appropriate here if they edit again (which they might idk). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked Nimmmad (talk · contribs) last year for disruptive editing - in effect editing footballer statistics incorrectly. He has popped back up and is doing the exact same thing. I think an indef is required. GiantSnowman 10:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Previously raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1057#Nimmmad. GiantSnowman 10:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And this editor still has never edited a talk page, including their own. Did I see somewhere that we'd partially fixed the 'no way to warn mobile users' problem? valereee (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed a 1-week from article space with a block message I hope they'll be able to see. Maybe that'll help them find their user talk. valereee (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - if they re-appear doing the same afterwards we'll let you know. GiantSnowman 19:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serious WP:COI, WP:CIR, and WP:FRINGE issues. The editor has today created Astrology Beliefs By Ankit Sharma, Astrology Beliefs, Facts About Astrology, and Ankit Sharma (Astrologer). The latter one lived from 1931 until 2020, but looks alive and kicking in the many identical interviews he gave in 2021... Editor already created Pt. Ankit Sharma in 2018, and got advert and coi warnings at the time. I think we can do without them. Fram (talk) 12:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pages have already been deleted? Would you suggest an indef or topic ban? SoyokoAnis - talk 15:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The last article is still live (it was created today).Nigel Ish (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigel Ish Article was just deleted.

@Fram A topic ban from astrology topics would be ideal. But I seriously think this user needs help on those issues you stated. Especially 5 articles deleted already. So maybe a 2w or month block. SoyokoAnis - talk 17:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with an indef, but no problem if people want to try a more limited block (topic, namespace or duration) first. Fram (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted Draft:Ankit Sharma (Astrologer), which was in article space but was moved to draft space by MickyShy. My summary said "promotional language, self-promotion, A7, improperly verified BLP, NOTWEBHOST violation, duplicate also posted as Ankit Sharma - Indian Astrologer"--and they created the latter after Fram started this discussion. In addition, there's Astrology Beliefs By Ankit Sharma, which is an unattributed copy of Astrology with some changes, and Astrology Beliefs and the other are pretty much the same. All this (promotional writing, unsourced BLPs, unattributed copying to create fringe articles, thumbing one's nose at the community by creating another version of a promotional article while the first is being discussed, coupled with incompetence and copyright violations in their earlier edits, mixed with a possible COI for those universities) adds up to a NOTHERE block. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies I guess it does. So a topic ban is out of the question? SoyokoAnis - talk 18:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SoyokoAnis, if a user has been blocked, it means they cannot edit at all. A topic ban is not needed until/unless the person requests unblock, which they would do on their user talk page. I'm going to suggest you try to avoid ANI for now, as you really aren't experienced enough to be helping out here. valereee (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting repeatedly cast aspersions, having my comments removed from the comments section. And getting gamed and gaslighted by Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) at this 3RR report. I haven't done anything wrong and I'm tired of this gamester trying to deny his own culpability when he has clearly gone over the top in edit-warring. Skyerise (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• What. You were annotating Kwamikagami's own notes, in their text; that's not OK. As for aspersions--you are calling them a "gamester". Kwamikagami, you like Roblox or Shellshockers? Drmies (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean like this? Oh, but wait, that's them. Skyerise (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's comment Inception EvergreenFir (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand what you mean or how it somehow incriminates the other editor--I do get the sarcasm! Anyway, I see you are not disputing my comment about the allegedly unwarranted removing of comments. Drmies (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That comment was put in the middle of the report section, above the Comments: line. Skyerise (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Skyerise I'm not sure what you're referring to but Drmies seems to be referring to [106] which is in the middle of Kwamikagami's signed comment, a signed comment which inside the comment section (i.e. below the comments line), and completely inappropriate. Please don't do that again. If you need to to address or dispute something Kwamikagami said, then please add it below their signed comment, like everyone else does, not in the middle. You can use quotations, descriptions whatever to make it clear what you're referring to as needed. The fact that Kwamikagami initially replied to the comment you added in the middle of their signed comment also in the middle (of their own, not your signed comment) doesn't excuse your behaviour since it's always confusing when people create problems like you did. Nil Einne (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, I apparently pasted the wrong diff. Here is where he added a comment inside the report section, the same thing he complained about me doing. [107]. Skyerise (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • After you said it was okay to post responses inside each other's comments, I posted one (clearly marked) inside yours. So you're accusing me of being a hypocrite for acting the way you did and then said we should? No aspersions here, but I do find your behaviour amazing. — kwami (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 170.51.104.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone from the outskirts of Buenos Aires has been busy genre warring in pop music articles, and leaving abusive edit summaries such as "DON'T ADD GENRES WITHOUT SOURCE, BITCH", "fuck the unsourced", "Put yo ass in a chair" and "Block me if you dare, Dog". I don't sense a positive net worth to the project. Binksternet (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fully support blocking. I'm not well-verses in range blocks though, so I'd rather have someone else take care of that. Sergecross73 msg me 22:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I don't like this edit, either: Eminem is a shit, lol. Not that the edit itself is problematic, but I think insulting a BLP is unacceptable. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a WP:GWARrior from Argentina, but this does not appear to be the same editor. That editor made no use of the edit summary, but was an active block evader. Their SPI page is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/190.16.216.10. The block was two years ago and was only for six months. Different genres. Different ISP. Slightly different area. Not likely the same editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WG, your IP gwarrior showed up just a few hours later: Special:Contributions/190.191.147.178. Funny you should mention it. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First thing that comes to mind when it comes to Argentinian (sorry, that's the Spanish pronunciation) music editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for three months. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Damien Linnane (talk · contribs) called an editor liar. Unfortunately, I deleted a bit too much of the URL when I changed it to a diff and added it to Damien Linnane's talk page. It was only later that I saw a second instance. I was called out for the poor edit and the interaction did not improve. While that transpired, the other editor, L32007 (talk · contribs), wrote that they felt attacked by Damien Linnane on that original talk page, and made it clear that they were discussing a separate topic. Back on Damien Linnane's talk page, the editor wrote, "Of course I called an editor a liar" and continued to explain why that was perfectly acceptable to have done so.

This is, unfortunately, a mess. L32007 is most clearly a WP:SPA and has edited primarily on the topic of Hillsong Church and associated articles. Do I expect the editor to attempt to minimize the church's (more like a denominiation's) problems? Of course! Do I think the editor is intentionally lying? No, I WP:AGF and assume an error. Do I think that there may be political spin? Probably.

Damien Linnane, on the other hand, is attacking, unrepentant, aggressive and treating editing like a battleground, at least with this subject, and two separate editors.

Am I perfect? Look at my block log, but I have attempted to stay cool on this topic. If no administrative action is taken on either of these editors, at least a nice discussion about WP:CIVILITY with Damien Linnane would be worthwhile and one about WP:COI with L32007, since my earlier comments on their talk page did not seem to help. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand how you could see me as WP:SPA, I have limited interests haha. I understand the COI re: Hillsong Church, but the closest COI I have is that I am a pentecostal Christian. I am not paid, endorsed or otherwise instructed to edit by any church. I appreciate your pushback on some of my edits Walter and your efforts to ensure balance when you have felt my edit has gone too far, as that is also my goal. I will try to broaden my contributions to other topics in future, Cheers. L32007 (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to note Walter Görlitz only started this conversation after I informed him I was drafting a topic at ANI regarding this incident myself [108]. Why he felt the need to get in first when he knew somethign was currently being drafted, is up for you to decide.

I came across the Hillsong Church article for the first time in July 2021. As I pointed out in my debut contribution to the article's talk page, there are some very biased editors deliberately manipulating sources in favour of the church: [109]. The main one was Adammoore1982, an SPA who was blocked from editing the article for over a year after someone else raised concerns about their behaviour here at ANI last November. However, as my talk page comment pointed out, L32007 has also made similar behaviour. In July 2018, with this edit they used a primary source to make original research comments that a letter from a minister was an apology and refuted any allegations against the church: [110]. As L32007 has just admitted today [111], the letter was not an apology. Nor did it refute the allegations in question, though anyone who actually reads the letter can determine this for themselves. This incident was not isolated.

L32007 edits infrequently. Prior to today, their last series of edits to the page was in December 2020, when they used a primary source to add original research to the article regarding childhood sexual assault: [112]. The edit was reverted by Zazpot, who clearly explained that the edit was being reverted as it did not back up what L32007 claimed it did: [113]. L32007 then proceeded to reinstate his own original research back into the article the very next day, where he again presented a Hillsong pastor's reasoning for not reporting crimes as a hard fact, whereas the new sources he included only state this is the pastor's interpretation of the law (regardless of whether he was indeed correct, the sources did not say that) [114]. Thankfully, their edit was partially reverted and worded in an appropriate manner by Avatar317 [115]. If that isn't enough evidence for you of their editing behaviour, please let me know as I'm happy to go through more of L32007's edits.

In addition to their original research, I obviously agree with Walter Görlitz that L32007 is an SPA. The ANI topic I was in the process of drafting was, and still is, going to ask you to take action against them on the grounds they are an SPA making extremely biased original research edits. Walter Görlitz just commented above that they expect L32007 "to attempt to minimize the church's problems", and (correct me if I'm wrong Walter) appears to have no problem with an SPA doing that. I, however, do not think a single purpose account who is only here to defend the church's reputation should be acceptable. I ask ANI administrators to take whatever action they think is appropriate.

Walter Görlitz is the top contributor to the Hillsong Church article. Despite this, when I pointed out the biased edits from Adammoore1982 and L32007 last year with detailed evidence, also pinging Walter to essentially thank him for reverting one biased edit, Walter made no comment. That's fine, but it's interesting to note, especially considering what has happened since then.

Yesterday, L32007 made a terse and very late reply to my talk page comment, ignoring the majority of my criticisms and instead claiming the letter I said he was using for original research was a different one that what he had originally used. I went through snapshots of the letter on the Internet Archive, and responded by providing hard evidence that the letter has not changed at all since it was uploaded to the Hillsong Church website in 2012, and is the same version that appeared when L32007 falsely claimed it was a letter of apology in July 2018. My post was 143 words long. 137 words was evidence that L32007 was not being truthful. Six of my words essentially concluded that he was lying. Regardless of this, Walter left this confusing message on the Hillsong Church talk page, saying I should "focus on the content rather than the contributor" [116]. Regardless of whether or not I made a personal attack, I did indeed primarily focus on the content. Walter, however, consistently ignores complaints against anyone accused of protecting the church's reputation, and instead attacks anyone who points out their bias.

Walter did not respond to my evidence against L32007, and instead his only action was to leave a generic template message on my talk page accusing me of being uncivil for pointing out another editor was not telling the truth. He explicitly stated it is uncivil of me to say another editor is lying "even if [the allegation] were true". If Wikipedia does indeed have a policy against pointing out lying, I haven't heard of it. I don't think there was anything inappropriate about my actions. L32007 has a history of or spinning sources with his own original research. Eventually, you have to reach a point where you can only presume someone is intentionally being dishonest.

Walter Görlitz has also responded to my perceived personal attacks with personal attack of his own. In this message on my talk page [117], he states, completely without evidence, "I suspect that you call so many editors liars, whether calmly or not, and whether you feel justified and have supposed proof". In his post above, he accuses me of "attacking, unrepentant [and being] aggressive" against two editors. Firstly, I didn't even start the ANI complaint against the first editor, Adammoore1982, though I note ANI agreed with my opinion that he was an SPA, and took appropriate action in banning him. Walter seems to have a serious problem with me pointing out biased editing at the Hillsong Church, and I'll leave it up to you to decide why. I only came across the Hillsong Church article in passing and clearly spend the majority of my editing time working on completely different topics. I simply left a comment on the talk page pointing out what I saw as biased editing from two editors, and according to Walter, pointing out biased editing is unrepentant aggression. I suggest appropriate action be taken against him as well. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have had no previous interactions with me prior to today, so the idea that "Eventually, you have to reach a point where you can only presume someone is intentionally being dishonest." is absurd. I don't really want to defend edits made years ago, but I will say that any edits I've made were NOT done with original research and were made in good faith. From memory the section being talked about here predates my contributions to the article, but I could be wrong. I have contributed lots of good encyclopedic content about the Church, including the majority of Hillsong Conference and TBN Inspire -- yes, I have a special interest. No that isn't WP:SPA. But, if the administrators wish I can 'sequester' myself from making edits on the Controversy section of the page in question. I would prefer not to do that, I like to think I'm acting in good faith to make the page better and more accurate. I do have a view about that page that it's a bit WP:INDISCRIMINATE (it's a lot better than it used to be though, thanks to cooperation between editors), but editors are allowed to disagree. And I'm not engaging in any edit wars on the page. Walter and I have disagreed about my edits, and that's fine, I am committed to respectful discussion in the effort to make any page we're working on better. Cheers L32007 (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact I haven't interacted with you is neither here nor there. I've gone through many of your edits, therefore I feel very justified in saying (and have irrefutable proof) that you have a history of adding original research to the article. Also as you've pointed out yourself, the overwhelming majority of the articles you edit are related to the Hillsong Church, including TBN Inspire. Maybe you're confused about the definition, but an SPA isn't an account who edits only one article, an SPA is an account that edits a "very narrow area or set of articles". You're editing history clearly matches that description. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote, If you want to continue this discussion, WP:ANI may be the correct place to point out that other editor's behaviour. That was before you continued to attack. Other than that, I let my analysis stand, and you made no apologies for your behaviour. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never attacked anyone, nor did I "continued to attack" anyone after you mentioned ANI discussion as the appropriate place to bring this up, which I responded to by saying that I would indeed do that. Why you didn't tell me you were drafting something yourself, I do not understand, though it's easy to guess. I have nothing to apologise for. L32007 has a history of adding original research which goes back several years. Already knowing this, after he said something else that was clearly untrue, I said he lied. It's that simple. Why you're focusing on me saying he lied in passing, instead of years of his biased editing, is up for admins to decide.

In closing I would like to note something that appears to have been lost along the way. This all started not because of L32007's original research, but rather because he was adding original research AND then complaining about edits from others that he perceived were biased on the article's talk page. I was just pointing out that he appeared well versed at recognising bias when it was made by others, which is evidence he was at least aware on some level (if not completely aware) of the biased edits he was making himself. I have nothing more to add, and await a response from admins. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walamba.kana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[118] [119] [120] - Removed 1,500 text, replacing the Arab background of the figure with that of an Afghan/Pashtun

[121] [122] Removed 6,472 text, added unsourced claim that the dynasty was Afghan/Pashtun

[123] Removed the probable Tajik background of the dynasty

Right after his block expired, he removed the Persian/Dari spelling of this article and replaced with Pashtun [124]

Moreover, he also earlier wrote this rather nasty comment to me in his edit summary because I reverted him; HistoryofIran koss madar Irani khar = HistoryofIran your mothers pussy you Iranian donkey

I think it's clear to say that this user is WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrsten Sinema was just the target of page move vandalism. I think I got all of the logs but one is still visible to me as if not revdel'd on my watchlist. Please make sure I got it all. It may need to be suppressed by someone at a higher pay grade than me. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think logs have been properly revision deleted. I was able to find the target but I think iy is only because I can see deleted edits, and this is fine, we do not need an oversight here.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being continuously harassed on my talk page by a Denver, Colorado-based IP hopper. They're on the range 2607:FB91:1100:0:0:0:0:0/43 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and the IP 174.16.104.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I'd appreciate it if an admin could watch my talk page for any inappropriate behavior at the least or semi-lock my talk page at the best. wizzito | say hello! 05:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP has been blocked and talk has been semi-protected. Thanks! wizzito | say hello! 06:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have another IP harassing me through edit summaries, 119.111.181.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) wizzito | say hello! 06:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This IP has made unsourced edits to Afghanistan-related articles. [125][126][127][128][129] Please do something. Thanks. --Firestar464 (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They continued after your warning that they must use sources, so I have blocked for 31 hours. It's possible they're trying to be helpful, but haven't seen the warning. If that's the case, the block should help them find their page. Thanks for reporting, Firestar464. Bishonen | tålk 08:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

51.6.138.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - [ANI NOTICE]
51.6.138.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Alexander Davronov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Is it WP:BKFIP having fun again by going after my edits? Can someone take a look?

IGES

21:20, January 19, 2022 - «fixed style errors, removed badly-written recent addition»

19:53, January 17, 2022 - «tidy-up; source»

↑ Removed my small, but well sourced contribution under a pretext of minor issues

ANGLE (software)

17:31, January 19, 2022 - «restored older text which was in good English»

17:27, January 19, 2022 - «Undid revision 1066555004 by Alexander Davronov talk) riddled with errors»

23:05, January 18, 2022 - «‎top: OpenGL ES»

↑ The same

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, that's them. Blocked for 3 months. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, for the past few days on the Adamawa State page, the users 2.25.21.231 (talk · contribs), 208.127.196.42 (talk · contribs), and 208.127.199.28 (talk · contribs) have continuously changed statistics without citing a source, contesting that the current source supports the edits, or even explaining the edits. There appears to be a concerted effort by these accounts to remove or diminish notes of the Fulani ethnic group and their language, Fulfulde along with unsourced religious "statistics" that literally do not add up. Their efforts seem to be focused on three parts of the page:

• The accounts are deleting mentions of the Fulani from the demographics paragraph in the page's summary: a credible source—that these accounts are not contesting or removing—states that between 10%-20% of the state population are Fulani, thus easily making the group one of the largest in the state and notable enough to be in the demographics paragraph. Before recently the users did not delete the entire group from the sentence, instead editing that the group is confined to certain LGAs; however, due to some Fulanis nomadic lifestyle and the groups long history in the area, they also live throughout the entire state as no single region encompasses the ethnicity's area.
• The accounts are changing religious statistics without explanation by dramatically reducing Muslim and traditionalist percentages: religious data in Nigeria is extremely hard to come by (I used a Afrobarometer survey from a few years ago along with recent maps that looked at additional data) but there is nowhere that comes close to suggesting that all Muslims are of the Izala sect or that Christians make up nearly 70% of the population. There could be arguments made that any one of the main religious groups have a higher or lower percentage than the 55-30-15 split I wrote but 25-67-7-1 is literally made up (especially considering their earlier edits had the numbers at a math-defying 30-67-7 split). I look forward to working with others to find better demographic data but the IPs "data" is absurd.
• Lastly, the accounts are deleting mentions of Fulfulde from the language section: I cannot access the current language source, however, the users have refused to cite a new source or say that the current source supports the edits. Just going based off my ok knowledge of the state, it would make logical sense for Fulfulde to be spoken in most LGAs, Fulanis live throughout the entire state and Fulfulde is a regional language that many non-Fulanis learn as a second or third language. There was even a study that I found that states that all Adamawa state LGAs have Fulfulde (and Hausa) speakers leading me to question the deletions.
• I'd appreciate admins looking into the issues—especially as all three IP address seem to have made disruptive edits on other pages before—and look forward to the response, thank you Watercheetah99 (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I protected the page for a week--Ymblanter (talk) 08:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]