Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

  • Before posting a complaint about a user on this page:
  • Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses.
  • If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, click here.
  • Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • Please consider using the help navigation page before posting the issue here. The administrator incident noticeboard should only be used as a last resort.

Sign your post by adding 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Closed discussions should not usually be archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. (archivessearch)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

New editor doing disruptive editingEdit

A new editor Johnbendenz is disruptively editing multiple pages and placing random redirects on the pages like Man Singh Tomar, Chauhan etc. He is doing it even after final warning. He is also removing PROD tag from the article he created i.e. Bhadana Kingdom despite mentioning not to do so in edit history. Sajaypal007 (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The guy who is Might be Rajput and with the (Id SajayPal007) who is might be a paid Rajput Shudra editor intentionally deleted Sources, references, Linkings,Images ,citation even text from My pages Including Bhadana kingdom, bhadana clan, Hun clan and kassana clan how he can remove sources, links, citation,refrences ,images and gategories and all related stuff even these all pages were proved by Wikipedia guidlines and met all the requirmnets of wikipedia please do Acknokledge why this Guy is associating Chauhan Clan, Tomara and paramaana of controversial pages with rajput? with one single group? these all chauhan paramara tomara were multicultural multi ethnicity surnames why he is doing all this with fully biasness? there are no old references or sources of the origin of chauhan tomara paramara associated with rajput or single group why he is doing all this with fully bias? Chauhan Tomara Paramar all are controversial and multicultural, multi religious and ethnicity clans they belongs to jatt Gurjars as well as with Rajput and Dalits Dear adminstrators please do review on the controversial pages( paramara dynasty, tomarana dynasty and chauhan dynasty) also do review on my proved pages by wikipedia guidelines and were removed by This rajput Guy (sajaypal007) Intetentionaly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbendenz (talkcontribs) 11:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the edits of Johnbendenz and they look very worrisome. At least disruptive, but vandalism comes also in my mind. The Banner talk 12:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
I am going to block this editor from damaging article space. Johnbendenz, editing Wikipedia is not a game. First of all, articles and comments need to written in correct English. Second, sourcing must follow guidelines in WP:RS. Thirdly, and you may not have known this but you know it now, please see this, Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: Looks like you edit- block(?)-conflicted with Drmies there... (two minutes between entries in the block log). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I have restored the original block settings. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: I think you might have made a mistake? Drmies blocked User:Johnbendenz indefinitely from article space but you seem to have blocked them indefinitely sitewide unless I'm misreading the block log. Nil Einne (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I can confirm that the block log specifies a sitewide block, not a mainspace block. Perhaps User:Ad Orientem forgot to change the block setting to partial, only setting up an indef. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the practical difference is between a block from editing anywhere in the mainspace and a sitewide indefinite block. If you aren't comfortable letting someone edit in the mainspace, what's the point? -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem To let them come back to ANI and argue their case. To let them make edit requests on talk pages if they are not trusted to edit mainspace pages. To give them more rope. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Syrriana - WP:CRYSTALEdit

Syrriana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Despite several warnings on the user's talk page, the user continued to add WP:CRYSTAL info, see latest edits in 2022 Indian Rajya Sabha elections history. The user put edit summaries such as "@DaxServer you are aware of the fact that The Aam Aadmi Party has 2/3 majority in the assembly. Due to this the rest two seats are sureshots seats of Aam Aadmi Party." [1] This is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL and doesn't belong in WP until it happened, aka the candidates are elected to be the next MP, unanimously or otherwise. I've asked the user explicitly not to add these info anymore a few hours ago. I believe I've already made three reverts related to this user in this context, so this would also double up as WP:EWDaxServer (t · m · c) 13:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Point them to Dewey defeats Truman. (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Or is WP:AN3 a better venue? Not quite sure — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
It's worth noting, CRYSTAL is not a blanket ban on future events: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." If there is reliable sourcing and the event is both highly likely and notable, then it can be included. Given national elections are notable, then as long as reliable sourcing indicates those election results are extremely likely (ie almost certain), they can be included. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
For example, are you saying that we should mention that Biden will be the elected president in 2020 even before the actual election happened because sources that support Biden are perhaps more reliable (in WP-sense) than the sources that support Trump, thus there is reliable sourcing (in your words) - just because Given national elections are notable, then as long as reliable sourcing indicates those election results are extremely likely (ie almost certain), they can be included ? The first two sentences from WP:CRYSTAL say Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future. "Wikipedia does not predict the future." Please read that again. One can mention that elections are scheduled/expected to be held on/in __, with only one candidate running in the election to the __ constituency. Not that that particular candidate is the elected official. See the difference between those two? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
CRYSTAL is clear (pardon the pun) about given circumstances for writing about future events. I'm not prescribing any particular form of text, simply noting that if sourcing supports an almost certain future event it can be included. How one chooses to include that material is a matter for editorial consensus. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I took a look and (though I'm not sure I totally understand this), I think what Syrriana is basing their edits on is that the elections to the upper house are made by members of the lower house and therefore a party is guaranteed to have a certain number of seats when the election takes place? Regardless, I think DaxServer is right to be chary about this. First, and again this is an assumption, until an election actually takes place I presume that there is a distribution of seats that actually exists and does not necessarily correspond to the proportion of representation in the lower house. Second, if the first is not the case, then any change should be properly contextualized ("e.g., this will be the number of seats based on the parties lower house representation" (exact statement cited)). The future, as Jim Morrison rightly reminded us, is uncertain (and, as he noted, the end is always near). I suggest Syrriana, who has apparently decided not to opine here and also shows a deplorable lack of contributions to talk pages, either explain their position on the talk page and seek consensus or desist from making these changes. If they persist in making these changes, they risk being blocked or sanctioned. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I came here after seeing how this user is using edit summaries for discussion and found notification of this report. I believe this user is not going to WP:ENGAGE unless some restriction is imposed. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Since they've returned and continued to add results for future elections, I've given them a short block. Escalating blocks will follow if this occurs again. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Venkat TL mass page movesEdit

Since the last topic ban from DYK on 5 May, [2], Venkat TL has been doing mass page moves despite a couple of warnings to stop it. The first warning was mild and another warning was final. However, none of these warnings helped Venkat TL to stop.

In just 1 month, Venkat TL has made over 16,000 such page moves that are nothing but WP:DE because his page moves have no basis other than a "proposed" convention over which multiple editors have disagreed with Venkat TL.[3]

The participants of the last ANI thread assumed that this user's disruption won't stop with just a topic ban from DYK.[4] I agree they were correct. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

But still none of this fulfilled the actual requirement you were told about some 11 days ago[7] which you recognized[8] but you are still continuing your page moves without fulfilling the requirement. Srijanx22 (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
  • On different occasions, by different editors, Venkat TL was reminded that propsal is not formally closed, and it is not a policy yet. They were also asked to stop moving pages. They should have stopped. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Further context: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal for new article title naming convention - RfC or local consensus, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 189#Wikipedia:Naming Conventions, and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Indian constituencies) — especially the two RMs. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
    • After your !Vote I, put the implementation on hold, stopped moving new pages and focused on fixing the disambiguation pages. There was no votes in those threads for another 10 days, so I re-started the moves yesterday.
    • I also noticed that you were admin shopping 12 days ago and have older axes to grind. Venkat TL (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
      @Venkat TL no votes doesn't mean it is ok to just go ahead and do whatever you think it is ok. let someone close the discussions and move on from there. You were jumping the gun. – robertsky (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
      Look, the proposal had been open for 2 months and had clear consensus, which is why I proceeded. In my opinion 2 months is a good long time for an open discussion to judge the consensus. that said, I have no problem to wait for another 2 months. I will not make any more moves. Venkat TL (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Venkat TL: you still havent answered why you started moving pages again. You were very well aware that the proposal was contested. There is difference between not badgering, and going unresponsive/avoiding scrutiny. It is looking like you are doing the latter. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
    My openening comment in that thread was "Hi. If there is an RfC regarding a policy change, and it is tainted, what will be the appropriate venue to ask for a procedural close? Given the editor who started it is retired. AN, or ANRFC? —usernamekiran (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC) I was asking for next appropriate step. That is not admin shopping at all. I didn't even mention you, or the RfC. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Venkat TL Can you explain the moves from, for example, Chittorgarh (Lok Sabha constituency) to Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency. Because the former looks natural to me. If you can supply reliable sources that show that the latter is the well known form, then everything is OK. If you can't, then we have a major problem. Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Black Kite, you are asking to discuss content dispute here. It would be off topic, but since you have asked, here you go. Please look at the quotes below from reliable sources. Please refer to the explanation of WP:NATURAL that I have made on the proposal page (link). These quotes below show how the constituency is commonly referred to in mainstream reliable sources.
  • If a Rajput candidate is fielded in the adjoining Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency, chances are a Brahmin would be fielded here and vice-versa. Mar 17, Geetha Sunil Pillai / TNN /. "Rajsamand seat too complicated for caste equations | Jaipur News - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 23 May 2022.

Venkat TL (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Black Kite I may have not pinged correctly in my reply. Venkat TL (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Chittorgarh is the name of a geographical entity (a settlement). "Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency" is the name of the entity related to elections. The border of the geographical entity is never the same as the Lok Sabha constituency, though they may have some overlap. The bit "Lok Sabha constituency" is not just an attribute, it is an essential part of the name. When you just say "Place" for example Chittorgarh, it will be understood as the geographical entity (city), Never as constituency unless you mention it clearly. One has to mandatorily state the full name Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency if they are talking about the constituency. The examples from the reliable sources above show this. Wikipedia disambiguation guideline WP:NATURAL says According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary... Natural disambiguation: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title...Comma-separated disambiguation. With place names, if the disambiguating term is a higher-level administrative division, it is often separated using a comma instead of parentheses. The suffix "Lok Sabha constituency" or "Assembly constituency" serve as WP:NATURAL disambiguation from the city name, so they do not need to be inside brackets. The parenthesis also add an overhead of extra work to add the piped links whenever using the constituency name in prose. The piping issue due to disambiguation bracket is huge. there are close to 4120 Indian assembly constituencies and 545 Lok Sabha constituencies. Each of them gets linked on an average 100 times on Wikipedia. That is 5,00,000 unnecessary piped links. This is exponential damage and waste of efforts which can be saved by dropping the unnecessary bracket. I face this issue everyday while working on constituency and biography articles. Venkat TL (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
erm... So you decided to move thousands of pages while multiple editors had asked you to stop it — because you found the current naming system a little out of your comfort zone during article editing, while knowing it (the moves) will mean editing around 500,000 links? Actually, it is your page moves that are "exponential damage and waste of efforts". This is nothing but WT:DYK incident all over again: proposing changes to policy because you dont like it, not listening to other editors, casting aspersions, battleground behaviour, and now moving thousands of pages even when told to stop. Thats nothing but disruptive behaviour. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
That's my take too. This is simple disruption and unless I see a genuine reason for editing 500,000 links here apart from WP:ILIKEIT, I don't see any other option here but to prevent Venkat TL from causing any more damage. Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I think they have already moved almost all the pages of that field. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Other than wikipedia and its mirrors, very few sources use brackets (I chose a constituency that has received more coverage). I haven't gone through every category in Category:Constituencies_by_country, but even on Wikipedia, a lot of constituency articles do not use brackets (see for eg, US, Mexico, France, Australia, Srilanka, Philippines) Hemantha (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
@Hemantha: Hello. "appropriate title" is not the main point here. The proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics#Proposal : Wikipedia:Naming conventions Indian constituencies was disputed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Indian constituencies)#Proposal state, Venkat TL was aware of that (they participated in the latter discussion), later DaxServer expressed their concerns about the process of the proposal at Proposal for new article title naming convention - RfC or local consensus|village pump - policy. In that discussion there were only four participants including Venkat TL, and three of them were in favour of a fresh RfC. Venkat TL was reminded a few times that the "proposal" was not formally closed yet, a fresh RfC was required, and the proposal wa not accepted/converted as policy yet. Still, Venkat TL performed mass moves, which were being discussed/disputed, that is simply put - not listening to fellow editors (WP:IDHT?), and disruptive. For someone who quotes/brings up policies, guidelines, and essays so often, saying "I did it because there was no participation in a long time" is not acceptable. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

NikolaosFanaris: continuous baseless accusations against meEdit

Summary: User:NikolaosFanaris has

  1. consistently accused me of being affiliated with a far-right political party.
  2. claimed that I am: "Sugarcoating neo-Nazis".
  3. claimed that I am: "[trying] to mislead"
  4. claimed that I am: "lying"
  5. raised a COI about me in which he lied.
  6. deleted my discussion on his Talk Page[9] regarding the situation.

Here are some of his statements (emphasis mine):

  • "[..] this is clearly a cherry-picking attempt [..] to sugarcoat Kasidiaris' criminal past and neo-Nazi ties [..]"[10]
  • "[..] you are lying on the discussion page hoping that this could result in changes here to sugarcoat the article [..]"[11]

He asked if I am involved with the political party and I answered: No[12].

Later on he says:

  • "To everyone reading this, I believe that AkisAr-26 is closely associated with the party and tries to mislead readers by distorting facts"[13]
  • "[..] it's clear there is a conflict of interest here - what is your role with Greeks for the Fatherland?"[14]
  • "Are you involved with the party Greeks for the Fatherland? Are you working for them under any capacity?"


Then I explain again that I've already answered that.[16]

Later he says:

Then he creates a topic claiming I am involved with the party. On top of that he lies in the COI about what was said:

  • "AkisAr-26 appears to be involved with the party Greeks for the Fatherland. This is a clear indication of WP:COI. Although I asked him the same question numerous times, he dodged it and moved on without commenting."[17]
  • "Sugarcoating neo-Nazis on WP must be your main hobby"[18]

As a result, I believe my reputation as a WP editor has been damaged from untrue or baseless claims, which were made intentionally, multiple times and while knowing that they are untrue or baseless. AkisAr-26 (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

That is a very interesting take on the whole case, especially after all those days of questionable editing by AkisAr-26. For starters, I stand by what I previously said in regards to the possibility of close connection to the subject. AkisAr-26 is quite passionate about Greeks for the Fatherland - a party that has undeniable ties with the neo-Nazi leader of Golden Dawn, Ilias Kasidiaris. It all started on May 15, 2022 when AkisAr-26 suddenly appeared on Wikipedia [1] to defend the neo-Nazis and openly threaten me with legal action. To quote his words (and also use bold that he obviously enjoys a lot): As a personal note, I'd be rather careful with terms that can be considered defamatory, since they carry a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison (plus damages). As some journalists have recently found out, the law cuts both ways. Especially when defaming academics and high-ranking officers. This is his first appearance - the first edit on the article, showing the exact reason he joined Wikipedia. The rather aggressive tone confirmed my suspicion that he might be an inactive user with an old account (possibly banned), paying attention to the developments on the page after Greeks for the Fatherland was protected from anonymous IPs only a few days prior to the legal threat [2]. Of course, AkisAr-26 did not stop there, he asked for evidence about the party being neo-Nazi and orchestrated a carefully-executed plan to dispute the facts by requesting evidence to be brought before him despite the fact that he is very familiar with the neo-Nazi criminal Ilias Kasidiaris and his neo-Nazi past and symbols. He then accused me of defamation [3], disputed a series of facts by bringing up the Greek constitution [4], challenged repeatedly the neo-Nazi past through different and confusing wording [5] and distorted other aspects through edits: he attempted to present an non-existent performance of the party in polls by improving some statistics with unfactual polls [5] but most importantly attempted to distort the leader's neo-Nazi past [6]. To conclude the above-mentioned points, I would not be passionate about the facts and information surrounding this article, but seeing someone so relentlessly and consistently distorting information on Wikipedia related to neo-Nazi activity in Greece raises many concerns about their intentions and links to the organisation. All the above evidence clearly shows that the user is attempting to sugarcoat Greeks for the Fatherland by inserting his heavy POV and attempting to challenge other claims by users, hoping that there won't be disputes and that would safely allow him to remove factual information from the article. In its previous state the article was vague, inconclusive and was missing essential information - I am pretty sure that the activity of many IPs played a role in this as seen in the editing history. My arrival.. complicated things. My suspicions about the close connection have been further-amplified as a result of the user's activity on Greek Wikipedia which is focused exclusively on the convicted neo-Nazi leader and his new political party [7]. I hope I have fully clarified my stance on the issue. No damage was ever inflicted on the user's reputation cause he hasn't got any reputation. He showed up with one aim: to distort facts on Greeks for the Fatherland. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
  1. No, that was not a legal threat (I assume you mean against you?). This says exactly exactly what it means: I am careful with my wording against powerful politicians unlike journalists that use defamatory expressions without care. I've been referring to journalists all along. And I still stand by my claim that such content is defamatory to the academics, former generals, judges, lawyers, police officers and all other current members of the party that have never displayed neo-nazi sympathy. Neither has the party (to my knowledge). But I never claimed that you are the one committing defamation. It would make no sense to suggest that you are defaming them since those are not your claims, but the sources' claims. Additionally even if it were your claims, no one would bother with a random wiki editor, when there are hundreds of public high profile individuals making those claims in public. It makes zero sense to use it subtly as a legal threat. Could I phrase it differently? Perhaps. It didn't even occur to me that you might perceive it that way. All you had to is confront me about it and I would clarify it immediately.
  2. No, I didn't accuse you of defamation; that's a lie. The link[19] you posted has nothing to do with defamation. Did you post the wrong link? I don't even mention defamation. I used the word 'defamation' or similar in the Talk Page[20] but nowhere was it pointed at you (simply use Control F to check them).
  3. No, I didn't dispute Kasidiaris' past in Golden Dawn; that's a lie. On the contrary, I said: "I didn't dispute Kasidiaris' past in Golden Dawn"[21] To make it more clear, I believe that his hand symbol isn't a meander as he claims. But that is irrelevant; my focus is on the accuracy of claims against GreeksFTF.
  4. No, I didn't mention the Greek constitution; that's a lie. Did you post the wrong link[22], I don't even mention the word "constitution". (I don't remember ever mentioning the constitution at all.)
  5. Yes, I do challenge the 'neo-nazi' allegations against the party since it's not supported by the linked sources that I read. They contained assumptions, not evidence. When we paraphrase the content, we should do so accurately. That is, state that some journalists and academics believe that the party is neonazi, instead of stating that the party is neonazi which obviously implies there is evidence and not suspicion. Therefore, I asked several times that you quote the evidence but you failed to do so, since - I believe - they don't exist. To further clarify, I do believe the journalists claims should stay in the article, but they should be phrased correctly.
  6. No, my edits are not focused exclusively on the party as you claim; that's a lie[23]. Most of my edits are on the party, due to the prolonged disagreements you and I had along with the gross inaccuracies in the article.
  7. No, I didn't use "unfactual polls" as you claim; that's a lie[24]. I simply removed the old poll (2020) and kept the others (2022). No, I didn't distort the facts about the polls; I simply updated the % from the non-obsolete polls. As the edit comment says: "Removed obsolete polls (they were 2 years old)."
  8. No, I have nothing to do with this[25].
  9. No, I did not "[attempt] to distort the leader's neo-Nazi past" as you claim; that is a lie[26]. The edit-comment to which I assume you are referring, clearly states that Golden Dawn is not a criminal organization. It does not state that there was not a criminal organization by many (most?) Golden Dawn members. It clearly states that the official wiki of Golden Dawn[27], describes it as a party, not as a criminal organization unlike how you want it described in other wikis. It clearly states that if Golden Dawn was indeed a criminal organization, recruitment/participation/helping them would be illegal. Yet it isn't. Facts disprove the absurd claims by journalists, probably caused by political animosity and ignorance of Greek Law. Journalists are not perfect. If a nobel prize winner claims AIDS isn't real, that doesn't mean we should include it in WP as fact. AkisAr-26 (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
As seen above, user AkisAr-26 has used 5,000 characters to accuse me of being a liar without bringing up any single piece of evidence to explain his thoughts. It's just more words. Instead, he links to the same diffs just to call me a liar and justify the sugarcoating of a neo-Nazi criminal on Wikipedia. I stand by what I previously said: there is a connection between the user and Greeks for the Fatherland. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
What do you mean? I explained in detail the false information you presented as true. Take point 7 for example. You stated that:

"he attempted to present an non-existent performance of the party in polls by improving some statistics with unfactual polls"

Here's my edit[28].
Where are the unfactual polls? I see none. I did not add any polls. Do you disagree? Also, where's the "non-existent performance"? Doesn't it exist since just now I literally copied and pasted it from the sources? Do you disagree?AkisAr-26 (talk) 10:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately the user keeps lying and falsely describing my actions. He posted a lets-retract-our-accusations suggestion[29] which at first I liked, until I saw he unjustifiably reverted[30] 2 of my edits in Greek WP:

  • he lied about my 2nd edit claiming[31] that I: "removed the mention about ties to extremism without justifying why, when reputable sources state so."
    • I didn't remove them, I moved[32] them in the relevant section.
  • he lied about my 1st edit claiming[33] that: "The [..] edit is also inaccurate because Kasidiaris' new party is mentioned clearly as a far-right group."
    • I did not remove the claim[34]. I removed one of the two sources backing the claim since it had no mention of the party whatsoever (I searched for all related terms I could think of; didn't read the full article). Meaning it's irrelevant.

All in all, I did like his offer for retracting our accusations in the Noticeboards and I think the Noticeboard should take it into account as a positive action on his part; it was well written, just like his responses here, showing lots of experience in handling such situations, and I appreciate his effort (along with anyone possibly helping him phrase it so eloquently). However, I have no choice but to decline it since the same behavior continues. AkisAr-26 (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The user just deleted this whole topic from the Noticeboard[35], stating:

  • "Discussed it with the user and resolved it on the talk page. All good :-)"

Which is yet another lie. As I said 4 lines earlier on this topic:

  • "However, I have no choice but to decline [the offer at my Talk page] since the same behavior continues." AkisAr-26 (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

User:SlidingD's copyright violationsEdit

Has been adding photos by GettyImages onto some footballer's articles. He also does not want to listen to us despite I had left a note one hour ago (he then re-added a copyrighted photo onto Rafael Leão) This must stop! Can he also be global-locked? He also causes problems at Commons. Dr Salvus 21:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

SlidingD appears to be editing while logged out as well. I've dropped them a notice. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Ok, if you think its a copyright violation, ok then suit yourself delete the image, but being blocked or globally blocked its not necessary. SlidingD (talk) 08:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Ok, if you think its a copyright violation, ok then suit yourself delete the image, but being blocked or globally blocked its not necessary. SlidingD (talk) 08:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
@SlidingD I'm not an admin anywhere, so I can't delete the images you irresponsibly add. You had already been warned but you then added the picture to Leão's page, like if you'd never been aware of this. Dr Salvus 09:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
He seems to also be editing under an IP address, with which he's been edit-warring at Dušan Vlahović. (As another editor pointed me out) Dr Salvus 09:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I have warned them for edit warring. GiantSnowman 18:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Bad faith fromEdit

In this edit, BrickMaster02 (talk · contribs) falsely accused me of vandalism for WP:BOLDly redirecting an article. This is extremely bad-faith editing, and it seems this isn't the only time they've been accused of that. An attempt to ask them why they accused me of vandalism was immediately removed from their talk page. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

He claimed that the article was "sourced entirely to social media"...even though there are various citations from reliable news outlets listed in the article. As well as information sourced from The Futon Critic, Paramount+'s loglines, and the actual show itself. BrickMaster02 (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Tread carefully. I have declined your report at WP:AIV which might reasonably be construed as bad faith. You need to familiarize yourself with what is, and is not, vandalism. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Redirection is not vandalism. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
@BrickMaster02: Also, even if it were vandalism, why did you go straight to {{uw-vandalism4im}}? That template is reserved for the most serious of vandalism cases, which the redirection was most certainly not. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
And reporting a veteran editor to AIV over something like this is clearly bad faith on your part. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I see bad actions by User:TenPoundHammer, too. This is very inaccurate because the article was not entirely sourced to social media. Another example of a bad deletion (nomination) is CNN Special Investigations Unit when one look at the "scholar" link shows that there is at least one reliable source and the article should not be deleted via PROD. Both articles are related to television. I see a lot of prods related to television in their contributions. Maybe too much?Lurking shadow (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
FYI, I remember seeing this previously, this might be relevant here as well...: WT:TV#Mass deprod of 146 articles.
I'm not trying to defend BrickMaster's bad faith (it's quite obvious this was a WP:BOLD redirection rather than any sort of 'vandalism'...), but I also agree in the fact that, "sourced entirely to social media" is inaccurate. A.) Why would you not look for better sources first then?... B.) I'm certain there are plenty of other sources that could be used if needed. C.) Although I personally don't agree with it, the recently-opened merger discussion is a far better first step.
TL;DR- BrickMaster's accusation of 'vandalism' of any kind is inappropriate here, but not quite sure that a bold redirection was appropriate here either. Magitroopa (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
In addition to the above I mentioned, I also just came across this on TPH's talk page. So yes, I would say this is more than just an issue regarding BrickMaster's bad faith. Magitroopa (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
That's a good point. Now if you had said that earlier, rather than reverting with a blank edit summary and dropping a generic vandalism template, we wouldn't be here. This is a collaborative project and communication is required. Colin M (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
There are two problems. One is a lack of WP:AGF in interactions by BrickMaster02. BrickMaster, do you understand the problem? If yes, how will you avoid it in the future? TenPoundHammer, do you understand the problem with your actions? How you could cause promising articles to go away by backdoor processes like redirecting and prodding? And can you give us a reason for why you used these inaccurate reasons? And how do you want to avoid this in the future? Lurking shadow (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
BrickMaster02? TenPoundHammer?Lurking shadow (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not see this post here. I understated the rationale for redirection; the article as it is is sourced entirely to press releases, social media accounts, and while there are a couple sources, they didn't seem like enough. I didn't see anything worth keeping so I redirected per WP:BOLD, which you are allowed to do. I'll make sure to check an article more thoroughly before redirecting in case there is something worthwhile Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 22:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
If you can give us an assurance that you will, before prodding articles and redirecting articles, do a WP:BEFORE search including all links a normal PROD would show(including scholar); that you will, if the BEFORE search shows many hits, and prominently hits to other topics, conduct a narrower search excluding those if possible; that you will, if there is some sourcing that narrowly doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:RS, in your opinion, send these articles to WP:AFD directly, then I'd be satisfied.Lurking shadow (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I forgot to say that you should not use exaggerated edit summaries either. But it should be obvious why you shouldn't.Lurking shadow (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I now understand what I did was inappropriate behavior, and will think twice before doing something like that again. BrickMaster02 (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Nyaytyhyaynyiyeylyluytyeysy repeatedly creating unsourced stub articlesEdit

Nyaytyhyaynyiyeylyluytyeysy (talk · contribs · count) has created multiple unsourced stub articles, many of them of questionable notability (see their page creation log). Most pertain to people and families from New Brunswick. Some of these have included topics about living people (e.g. Draft:The Lutes-Rideout family of New Brunswick and Will Gao) The user has received a few warnings and numerous notifications of articles that have either been tagged for deletion or draftified, all of them stating that content must be sourced. This user generally has not responded to talk page comments. By all appearances, this person is acting in good faith, but this behavior appears to be more of a WP:CIR issue. A new pattern seems to have developed today. The user creates an article, it gets draftified, and then they recreate the page minutes later with a few sources. (see Draft:Else Wirich, Draft:Else Wyrich, Draft:Friele Gensfleisch zur Laden, and Friele Gensfleisch zur Laden). While these citations are an improvement, the editing pattern is still disruptive. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

One update, the new page at MacAskill house was created with sources, but the notability is still questionable and it could stand to be merged. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
The aforementioned user just created Mary Jean Irving with no sources at all. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I've issued an absolute final warning. Any more editing that violates WP:BLP and an indef is forthcoming. Mjroots (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Looks like this user is refusing to listen to any advice and accusing anyone who tries to teach them of either harassing or being rude to them, despite obviously not being the case (yes I know WP:NOTTHEM isn't quite applicable but I can't think of a better way to explain it). I can't see how this user will be a productive editor. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 22:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
They replaced their userpage with a personal attack.LaundryPizza03 (d) 01:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Although they quickly self-reverted, it's not the time they did this [36]. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
@LaundryPizza03: At this point I'm starting to question whether they even are here to build an encyclopedia. I can't see them remaining unblocked after this one, and if they are unable to collaborate they shouldn't be here. Also, now I understand what the warning is for; I guess the additional accusations are gravy. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
And more personal attacks here, though it was before they received the warning. Although, @TheDragonFire300:, I don't think WP:NOTHERE applies. I think they did want to contribute to the topics where they made those articles but couldn't really handle their work being undone or having criticism heaped on it. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I was just about to comment that. It would seem I'm not the only one with a maturity problem (yes, he did tell me Now your [sic] threatening me??, real mature.) Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I have given Nyaytyhyaynyiyeylyluytyeysy a 31 hour block for disruptive editing including personal attacks and trolling. If that behavior resumes, the next block is likely to be much longer. Cullen328 (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Personal attacksEdit

Here once again [1] by CarpathianAlien, who has engaged in edit-warring and been warned yesterday [2]. To quote their words: Dude are you blind? The website itself calls itself Communist. Jesus Christ why are you allowed to edit pages on Wikipedia when you support mis- & disinformation. You need to be banned from Wikipedia ASAP. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Showcasing the original attack by @NikolaosFanaris which preceded mine, implying that my perception of reality bars me from being capable of editing Wikipedia [37]: you should have a quick reality check before editing on WP again. This follows his constant & multiple revisions of my edits, in favor of using partisan sources, as well as accusations of vandalism. CarpathianAlien (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
You referred to a top Greek academic theorist as a communist, claiming that I am wrong about the far-right label [2]. You were previously warned about your edit-warring [2], whilst your edits are disruptive as they based on personal claims and assumptions, accusing us of propaganda [3]. I encourage you to rethink your approach here, pal. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
You are once again twisting my words — I never specifically referred to the academic as a Communist, but the very website you are using as a source, which any Greek speaker can see, as the website header identifies the website as Communist.
Also, worth noting that in an earlier version of the article, the characterization of the party as "far-right" in the body of the article, was completely unsourced. Still, @NikolaosFanaris proceeded to revert my edits that removed this unsourced characterization. Not just that, but earlier versions only used dated and partisan sources to attribute this characterization. As of the time of this post, @NikolaosFanaris continues to treat a self-described Communist website a as valid source, something that is beyond comprehension and should instantly prove that his edits are strongly partisan.
We, as Wikipedia editors, need to do better and prevent the mis- & disinformation practices adopted by partisan vandalists like @NikolaosFanaris. CarpathianAlien (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, goodbye. Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Violation of WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:TENDENTIOUS by McvtiEdit

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

This user seems to be on a mission to Mandaean-ify several historical figures by using mainly non-WP:RS sources which completely disregards WP:UNDUE. He has recently done it in Jabir ibn Hayyan [38], where he uses a non-WP:RS source from a political weekly magazine, and a source which makes a passing mention of this figure being 'Mandean/Sabian', which per the discussion here (Talk:Jabir ibn Hayyan#Jabir as a Mandaean: questionable sources) completely goes against WP:UNDUE. Both me and User:Apaugasma have reverted his additions there, yet this user keeps attempting to restore it [39], completely disregarding the previous discussion, even when it comes to the reliability of one of the sources. He uses 'no consensus' as an argument [40], even though it was he who made the addition. At Sabians and Mandaeans, he even attempted to push this alleged Mandean descent of Jabir as a fact, also resorting to edit warring [41] [42]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

One minute after this report was filed, the user proceeded to violate WP:3RR at Jabir ibn Hayyan (the diffs are fairly obvious). Edit warring + policy violation. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I would like to note that I reverted before noting this report and I reverted it to its original edit before [User:HistoryofIran] continued to edit war on at least 3 different articles, wanting to change articles without consensus as shown here [43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51]
User:HistoryofIran continuously reverts edits even though I provided reliable sources. It reached the point they added incomplete sentences to the Mandaeans article and they did not correct it. They insist on pushing their agenda and refusing to accept that Jabir ibn Hayyan may have been a Sabian from Harran even though I provided at least 3 reliable sources that are Islamic.[52] (page 95) [53] (page 47 spelled as Sabaean) [54] (page 233). User:Apaugasma went on to completely overhaul the Sabians article without seeking consensus repeatedly mentioning only one scholar Van Bladel and dismissing all other sources which does not show a NPOV. They also went and changed Al-Battani article again without seeking consensus. I have tried to explain that Mandaeans are the same as the Sabians and lived in Harran, thus they were called Harranian Sabians. They are also known as Nasoaraeans and Gnostics and this is all available on the Mandaeans and Mandaeism article backed by reliable sources which they fail to acknowledge repeating only Van Bladel as their source. User:Apaugasma even mentioned that Mandaeism is a late ancient religion. I informed them that Mandaeism is still alive to no avail. User:HistoryofIran violated WP:3RR in the Mandaeans article disrupting it. Mcvti (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
  • It's a bit of a WP:1AM situation. Mcvti holds some views about Sabians and Mandaeans which are in direct contradiction with reliable sources. Unsurprisingly, other editors take the side of the sources. In such a situation, it's highly tempting to resort to edit warring rather than to further the discussion [55] [56]. Mcvti is not experienced enough to know this, but this of course only make things worse, and turns more editors against them. Hence we end up here. Mcvti, when multiple users revert your edits or object to them in any way, that's a clear sign you should stop editing the article and seek consensus for your edits on the talk page. Please also read the sources, and directly base your arguments on what they are saying. If you can't get consensus, drop the stick.
That said, I have to agree with HistoryofIran that beyond the 1AM and the edit warring, this is also a case of tendentious editing. Mcvti's views are not just in contradiction with reliable sources, they tend in a very definite direction. The Mandaeans were the real Sabians of Harran. [57] Great Harranian mathematicians such as Thabit ibn Qurra and al-Battani were Mandaeans, naturally. [58] [59] Thabit did not speak Syriac, he spoke Mandaic. [60] Now since Thabit was really a Mandaean, like the Mandaeans he must have been Mesopotamian, not Syrian (Harran being located in northern Syria is just a bad accident, ignore that). [61] And since Sabians are really Mandaeans, they are of course not Hellenized! [62] Bad Greeks! Is that enough? No wait, let's not forget the great chemist Jabir ibn Hayyan: since he was great, obviously he was also Mandaean. [63] If you believe what Kevin van Bladel says, you don't have NPOV. No really, Van Bladel himself has been refuted. [64]
It's a kind of WP:PROFRINGE really. It's exhausting. Mustering up all the good faith I can, I'd say they are taking Wikipedia and other internet stuff as reliable sources and neglecting to properly consult the relevant academic literature. I strongly recommend that if any more problems turn up with regard to Mcvti and Mandaeans, a topic ban should be put in place. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 18:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I will copy directly from Brikha Nasoraia's article who is affiliated with the University of Sydney and Mardin Artuklu University [65]: "For example Ibrahim, (Abu Ishaq al-sabi) (309 A.H.) and his relative Thabit Ibn Qurrah (365 A.H. or 369 A.H.), and their families, were both prominent Sabian Mandaean scholars in Baghdad. We know they were Mandaean based on an observation of their genealogy and also the nature of their works." He also states "Therefore, not all Sabian Harranians are pagans and idolaters. In fact, many of them were Sabian Mandaeans who remained in Harran and neighbouring areas when the majority of the Sabian Mandaean community migrated towards the middle and south of Mesopotamia in the first and second century Common Era."
I have also copied from Lady Drower's book The Secret Adam [66]:
"That such brilliant scholars as the Sabian Thabit-ibn-Qurrah and his school, who were responsible for many translations into Arabic from the Greek, were acquainted with Stoic, Hermetic, and Platonic literature is of course probable; nevertheless they may have been no pseudo-Sabians but genuine members of that sect, Nasoraeans, who practised baptism and were faithful to the religion into which they had been born." ...."Let us consider the names of some Harranian Sabians who became famous under the Abbasids as scholars, physicians, and so on. We find the name Abu’l-Fath-al-Mandái (i.e. ‘the Mandaean’), and Ibrahim-ibn-Zahrun-ibn-Habbun-al-Harrani, whose son was another Zahrun, and Hilal-ibn-Ibrahim-ibn-Zahrun-abu’l-Husain-al-Sabi-al-Harrini. To this very day ‘Zahrun’ is the name most favoured by Mandaeans."
This is not my original research. Thabit ibn Qurra's full name is Al-Sabi Thabit ibn Qurra Al-Harrani meaning he is a Harranian Sabian and yet also a Mandaean or to be as accurate as possible 'may' be a Mandaean. Drower is the most prominent scholar on the Mandaeans, how is this fringe?? Clearly Drower is considering scholars with names including al-Harrani al-Sabi meaning Harranian Sabians as Mandaean. Sinasi Gunduz did a thorough study on the Sabians and concluded that the Mandaeans and the Sabians are one in the same[67]. How is this fringe?? Askari in his article in the Executive Intelligence Review [68] stated that Thabit ibn Qurra, Al-Battani and Jabir ibn Hayyan were Mandaean or Sabian Mandaean, but the source was rejected along with Brikha Nasoraia's article. I also provided Polyhedra by Peter R. Cromwell and Greatest Scienctists of the World by Vikas Khatri both mention Thabit ibn Qurra as a Mandaean again dismissed by User:Apaugasma. They appear to favour Van Bladel only. I have tried to explain that the Mandaeans are also known as Sabians, Nasoraeans and Gnostics and this is found in this source [69] on page ix but I am continuously ignored. User:Apaugasma wrote on the Talk page on Sabians "When in my edit summary here I wrote that Drower 1960, p. 111 is merely speculating that some Harranian Sabians may have been Nasoraeans (not Mandaeans!), the last bit "(not Mandaeans!)" is wrong and an artefact of my ignorance on this subject." They admit that the subject matter is not their area of expertise and previously called Mandaeism the late ancient religion thinking it no longer exists and accuses me of promoting fringe theories and contradicting reliable sources and Tendentious editing. Frankly I believe I am being falsely accused and a case of tendentious editing on their behalf due to the topic not being their area of expertise. Van Bladel here believes Mandaeans originated no earlier than the 5th Century in Sasanid Mesopotamia. This goes against what renowned scholars such as JJ Buckley [70] believe, that Mandaeans originated 2000 years ago in the Palestine region. Buckley also states on page 4 of her book [71] that Mandaean lead amulets have been dated to as early as the 3rd Century. Scholars specializing in Mandaeism such as Kurt Rudolph, Mark Lidzbarski, Rudolf Macúch, Ethel S. Drower, Eric Segelberg, James F. McGrath, Charles G. Häberl, Jorunn Jacobsen Buckley, and Şinasi Gündüz all argue for a Palestinian origin. Richard August Reitzenstein, Rudolf Bultmann, G. R. S. Mead, Andrew Phillip Smith, Samuel Zinner, Richard Thomas, J. C. Reeves, G. Quispel and K. Beyer also argue for a Judea/Palestine or Jordan Valley origin for the Mandaeans. Van Bladel is in the minority when it comes to Mandaean origin and dating however User:Apaugasma dismisses all these prominent scholars and chooses to follow only Van Bladel accusing me of not having a NPOV. Van Bladel has been reviewed here on his latest book regarding the Sabians (Mandaeans). I would like to recommend that [User:Apaugasma] and [User:HistoryofIran] have a topic ban put in place on the subject of Sabians and Mandaeans for [User:HistoryofIran] who continuously reverted the article and disrupted it and [User:Apaugasma] admitting they are ignorant on the subject and using predominantly Van Bladel as a source while ignoring others and feels the need to ask for a topic ban be placed on me. Here is a quote from [User:Apaugasma] on the Sabian talk page "Regarding "The Mandaeans formally call themselves Nasoraeans and are one in the same": Whatever your source may be for this wild claim, at least scholars like Drower 1960, p. 111 do not in any way take the Mandaeans and the Nasoraeans as "one and the same"." However Drower states "I chose none of these names when writing of them in this book for, though this may appear paradoxical, those amongst the community who possess secret knowledge are called Nasuraii (or, if the heavy ‘s’ is written as ‘z’, Nazorenes). At the same time the ignorant or semi-ignorant laity are called ‘Mandaeans’, Mandaiia-‘gnostics’. When a man becomes a priest he leaves ‘Mandaeanism’ and enters tarmiduta, ‘priesthood‘. Even then he has not attained to true enlightenment, for this, called ‘Nasirutha’, is reserved for a very few. Those possessed of its secrets may call themselves Nasoraeans, and ‘Nasoraean’ today indicates not only one who observes strictly all rules of ritual purity, but one who understands the secret doctrine." Surely this proves that [User:Apaugasma] is not well informed on the topic. Mcvti (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
You are demonstrating your tendentious attitude right here. Apparently, Drower 1960's brilliant scholars as the Sabian Thabit-ibn-Qurrah [...] may have been [...] genuine members of that sect, Nasoraeans [=Mandaeans] (my bolding) is enough for you to change the article's previous text The Harranian Sabians played a vital role in Baghdad and in the rest of the Arab world [...] The most prominent of the Harranian Sabians was Thābit ibn Qurra to The Sabian-Mandaeans played a vital role in Baghdad and in the rest of the Arab world [...] The most prominent of the Sabian-Mandaeans was Thābit ibn Qurra (my bolding), outright removing two RSs in the process (Van Bladel and Roberts). [72] That's classic tendentious editing.
Yes, I may have dismissed the Mandaean priest Brikha Nasoraia too soon, who along with Drower 1960 does constitute a valid minority opinion (about Thabit being possibly Mandaean). That was a mistake, about which I'm perfectly willing to communicate. Can you admit that you have been dismissing Van Bladel for the wrong reasons, i.e. that his novel 2017 thesis (published by Brill, no less) on the dating of the Mandaean's origin contradicts previous scholars' views and has been critically received in some quarters? How does such a perfectly normal occurrence of scholarly disagreement justify dismissing anything Van Bladel says on anything related to the Sabians more generally, even the most basic stuff such as the distinction between Harranian Sabians and Mandaean Sabians, or the fact that the Quranic Sabians have been identified with a large variety of religious groups by scholars?
You do not only dismiss Van Bladel, but also other RS I've used, such as De Blois writing in the Encyclopaedia of Islam and Jaakko Hämeen-Anttila, [73] [74] who all confirm that the view that the Quranic Sabians were the Mandaeans is just one among many existing scholarly views. You seem simply not willing to admit that Executive Intelligence Review is not a RS for this topic. You reverted my 7 edits but have only explained your objection to one sentence on the talk page.
This is not just a regular content dispute: it's you pushing your personal views while failing to respect both sources and policy. I take back what I said above about you basing your views on internet stuff: you do know the academic literature, but you are rejecting RS when they contradict your views and pushing non-RS when they affirm you views. It's not a lack of knowledge, it's intentional POV pushing. If you can't understand and admit that this is what you have been doing, you should not be allowed to edit on this topic any further. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 11:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
The cut up text in green you just added is difficult to follow and appears simply a means to smear me with Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. I have not dismissed Van Bladel or any reliable source. In fact, I clearly stated on the Jabir ibn Hayyan Talk page that Van Bladel should be included in the article along with the other sources. It is you who dismissed the sources showing that Jabir ibn Hayyan may have been a Sabian from Harran and also Brikha Nasoraia as a source. What I was trying to convey to you is that there are other scholars you should look at. Van Bladel is criticized by scholars on his views regarding Sabian-Mandaeans and his views on the origins and dating of Mandaeans goes against what the majority of what scholars believe. However, even Van Bladel in his book 'From Sasanian Mandaeans to Ṣābians of the Marshes' concludes that the Quranic Sabians are the Mandaeans. The point is to try and show you that the Haranian Sabians were not only pagans or hermeticists, but also included Sabian Mandaeans as Brikha Nasoraia explained in his article which you now accept as a source. I do accept the sources that state Jabir ibn Hayyan was not a Sabian from Harran, but I also accept the sources that say he is a Harranian Sabian and wanted both viewpoints included in the article. However you and [HistoryofIran] reject this outright showing that you both do not have a NPOV and pushing your own agenda. You admitted previously that you are not familiar with the topic and reject reliable sources and yet you have come here asking that I be banned from the topic. You made sarcastic comments about my edits in your first reply here along with [HistoryofIran]'s confrontational tone showing you are both not following Wikipedia:Civility. [HistoryofIran] violated WP:3RR in the Mandaeans article without seeking consensus.[75][76][77] I am seeing a problem here in other editors violating WP:3RR and not being called out for it. I was trying to revert back to the article's original version before the edit warring began. [HistoryofIran] left the article with incomplete sentence structure and did not correct it. After I reverted and informed them in the summary, they simply reverted again and left the error deliberately which is tantamount to vandalism. This is why I reverted the other articles trying to return them to their original version before the edit warring began by [HistoryofIran] and yet they have come here to file this report. Due to these reasons, I would like to recommend that [User:Apaugasma] and [User:HistoryofIran] have a topic ban put in place on the subject of Sabians and Mandaeans. Mcvti (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
@Mcvti: re the cut up text in green, let me make that clearer: here you removed two sources (Van Bladel and Roberts) saying they were Harranian Sabians, added two sources (Nasorai and Drower) one of which (Drower) says they may also have been Mandeaen Sabians rather than Harranian Sabians, and on the basis of that simply replaced "Harranian Sabians" with "Sabian-Mandaeans". Only Nasoraia supports the text as you rendered it, but presumably even he would admit that most other scholars think they were Harranian Sabians (the fact that he does not mention this, even not in a footnote, very much speaks against him as a scholar). You simply erased the majority POV from the article, saying in the edit summary you "corrected" it. This is what we call tendentious editing, and it's not acceptable. Do you understand and recognize now that you did something wrong there? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 19:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin with some knowledge of the subject matter, there is a problem here. As Apaugasma points out, "Executive Intelligence Review" is in no way, shape or form a reliable source (it's affiliated with the Lyndon LaRouche movement); including it suggests that Mcvti is not really engaging with what "reliable source" means in Wikipedia terms. The discussion at Talk:Jabir ibn Hayyan also suggests considerable synthetic leaps based on outdated sources to insist that that individual must be a Mandaean. I appreciate his work in raising the profile of the Mandaean community, a worthy endeavor, but trying to "claim" as many historical figures as possible for that community without nuance and careful examination of diverse sources is not very productive; that energy might be better directed to writing about Mandaean culture in general. I hope we can avoid a topic ban here; people who can make useful contributions about the Mandaeans are rare. Choess (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I accept your decision that Executive Intelligence Review is not a reliable source, and if you see that the other sources claiming he was a Sabian from Harran are also rejected, I will accept that as well. However, if the other sources claiming he was a Sabian from Harran are reliable, can it be included in the article as an alternative viewpoint? I do not want to push that he was a Mandaean, but if the source only mentions Sabian from Harran, then I am content with that. I have removed the Executive Intelligence Review source and removed Jabir ibn Hayyan and Al-Battani as potential Mandaeans. However, since Brikha Nasoraia's article is a reliable source, I have kept Thabit ibn Qurra as a Sabian-Mandaean.Mcvti (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
So in other words, you finally removed the info I had tried to remove several times across multiple articles - the very edits in which you have in this section called "disruptive" and as part of my "agenda" and "lack of neutrality", and which I (and also Apaugasma) should be topic banned for. Pretty ironic. I find it really problematic that it took three users to tell you that a source was unreliable + a whole report for you to finally remove it. I do not believe this user has suddenly changed, and is only doing this to avoid the consequences. If they are not able to properly cooperate and discuss with Apaugasma at Talk:Sabians#24 May 2022 updates and changes, then I support this topic ban. Rather have no users to edit in the Mandaean articles than users who engage in tendentious editing. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
You left the Mandaeans article grammatically incorrect and after I informed you about it, you simply reverted and put it back with out correcting it. Your tone on the Talk pages is confrontational. You considered all the sources to be not reliable, not just Executive Intelligence Review. Even Apaugasma admitted the other source I provided was reliable, but it names Jabir as a Sabian and does not specify Mandaean which is why I have removed it. Apaugasma has also admitted to mistakenly dismissing Brikha Nasoraia's article as a reliable source. I will wait for the decision for the other sources I provided about Jabir being a Sabian from Harran.[78] (page 95) [79] (page 47 spelled as Sabaean) [80] (page 233). I have not seen anyone consider them also to be not reliable here. I have asked Apaugasma on the Sabians Talk page to wait for the decision here, and I would be glad to take a look at the Sabians article with them. Mcvti (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
@Mcvti: you misunderstand the nature of this noticeboard. We don't decide on content here; the subject here is solely conduct. The best way to show that you can work with other editors is simply to do it. I have already explained to you on Talk:Jabir ibn Hayyan why these sources (two of which I provided as an example of bad sources) are not reliable in context, and HistoryofIran agreed. The way forward is to either engage with that argument on the article talk, or to drop it. Please also engage at Talk:Sabians. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 18:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
yes, but I am hesitant to go into the Sabians article only to be topic blocked in the middle of any changes. You and [HistoryofIran] have requested a topic block against me and I would like a decision on that before I dive into it since Mandaeans and Sabians articles are interconnected. I would like to be able to come to a proper consensus in the article and not be blocked midway. I hope you can understand this. I would be glad to look at it with you when a decision on topic blocking is reached, that is ofcourse if I am not blocked. Mcvti (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that it's stressful and that you would like a decision. But you need to understand that the decision itself will depend on your conduct from this point on. As Choess mentioned, we would like to avoid a topic ban since we are in need of editors knowledgeable about Mandaeism. Topic bans are not given out lightly in any case. But whether it eventually happens will depend on your ability to take the criticism aboard and to move forward. I explained why some of your editing is tendentious above, so it would be great if you would reflect a bit upon that. But the most important thing is to move forward: let's show ourselves that we can cooperate, and that topic bans are not needed. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 19:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Since you accept Brikha Nasoraia and Drower as reliable sources, I hope we are agreed that Harranian Sabians included Mandaeans. My mistake was depending on Askari as a source to differentiate that Jabir and Al-Battani were Mandaean rather than Hermeticists or pagan in Haran, but after Choess pointed out the Lyndon LaRouche movement (which I am not familiar with) I realized my mistake about the source's reliability and corrected it. I hope you can see that I am not pushing they are Mandaean, but relied on a bad source. The Mandaeans did not only live in the marshes of Mesopotamia as Van Bladel put in the title of his book, but were found in Baghdad, Harran, Edessa and were scientists and intellectuals like Thabit ibn Qurra and others during the Abbasid Caliphate. Chwolson also thought that the Harranian Sabians were made up only of pagans and not the Mandaeans who he describes as the real Sabians of the Quran in the marshes of Mesopotamia. Drower mentions this in her book The Secret Adam. Mcvti (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Again, content should be discussed at Talk:Sabians, not here. But it is truly worrying that after the long quote from the Encyclopaedia of Islam I gave you there, you still present Nasoraia's legitimate but minority POV that some Harranian Sabians (notably intellectuals working at the Abbasid court such as Thabit ibn Qurra) were Mandaeans as a fact that we as editors should agree upon, while it is directly contradicted by a multitude of top scholars (de Blois, Van Bladel, Roberts, Hämeen-Anttila; even Drower only presents it as a possibility).
It's as if any POV given by reliable sources that contradicts your preferred view just doesn't register with you. That's why I said earlier that this not merely a content dispute: it's you being tendentious and failing to grasp and apply WP:NPOV. It's deeply problematic to single out the view of one scholar (Nasoraia) whose disinterestedness as a high-ranking Mandaean priest and functionary is questionable and who publishes only through minor publishing houses, and at the same time completely ignore the contradicting views of top scholars publishing with Oxford University Press, Brill, Encyclopaedia of Islam, etc.
All the while, you're not engaging at Talk:Sabians. How long do you expect other editors to keep dealing with this? You still haven't given a proper rationale for reverting these 7 constructive edits, now 2 days ago. Your attitude must change, and it must change now. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 09:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
If you paid attention to what I wrote above, Brikha Nasoraia believes Thabit Ibn Qurrah is Mandaean due to genealogy and Thabit's work. Brikha Nasoraia appears to be the only scholar to study Thabit's genealogy, which is paramount in determining if Thabit was Mandaean. You clearly do not have a grasp of the subject matter and from your edits on Sabians cannot properly differentiate between Manichaeans, Sabaeans and Mandaeans with respect to Sabians. You ask me to look at the Sabians article and at the same time ask for a ban. What great logic. So we have evolved from Jabir ibn Hayyan, to a topic ban on Mandaeans, to now, a topic ban on Sabians. I am guessing in your next edit, you will ask for a ban on something else too! As I have mentioned above, the Mandaeans and Sabians articles are interconnected and the main articles I edit. Being banned from either will affect my contributions to Wikipedia. Mcvti (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
There is a difference between admitting that you're wrong, which I did a few times in this case, and having no grasp of the subject matter. It's the heart of the problem here really, that you appear to be incapable of understanding that you're wrong when confronted with reliable sources. I quoted Van Bladel for you saying Modern scholars have identified the Qurānic Ṣābians as the Mandaeans, the ḥunafā' understood as Gnostics, Christian Sabaeans (Saba', the people of Sheba) of South Arabia, the Manichaeans, Elchasaites, the Gnostics understood as the Archontics or Stratiotics (a Judeo-Christian sect mentioned by Epiphanius in the fourth century), the ḥunafā' understood as “sectarians,” and even just as the Ḥarrānian pagans. Citing the scholars who have made each identification, Van Bladel effectively does the NPOV work for us. Yet you present this as not knowing how to properly differentiate between these religious groups? Such disparaging is anti-Wikipedia at its core. It does in fact raise serious questions as to your ability to understand and apply policy elsewhere. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 07:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
You are clearly trying to WP:GAME to getting your way. If my contributions to Wikipedia are not wanted, then I am fine with that. Mcvti (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: narrow topic banEdit

Per the above, Mcvti has engaged in tendentious editing, has edit warred at multiple pages about it, is not engaging at talk pages even now two days later, and refuses to WP:LISTEN to constructive criticism about their behavior. It has been mentioned above that they have worked a lot on Mandaean-related articles, which means that banning them from editing on that topic would potentially constitute a loss for the project. I therefore propose a more limited

topic ban on the identity of the 'Sabians', narrowly construed as the meaning of that term and which religious group(s) it designates, and excluding any other aspects of subjects called 'Sabian' apart from their status as such.

This way, they can continue editing articles like Mandaeans or Mandaeism without getting sucked into the controversial questions surrounding the identity of the Sabians. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 10:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I am pinging some editors & admins who I know have worked on this type of topic or may have relevant background knowledge: Cerebellum, Doug Weller, Al Ameer son, Choess, Nebulousquasar, Editor2020, and AhmadLX. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 10:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 10:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: Mctvi is not absorbing the input of other editors, acknowledging their problematic behaviours in this limited topic area or engaging in a collaborative or collegiate manner to resolve differences of opinion on this content. Added to this is clear edit warring, including at least one instance of a WP:3RR violation — for which there has similarly been no acknowledgement or expression of regret. Here, the user either doesn't understand the rules or refuses to abide by them (WP:CIR), and is therefore a potential liability in subject-matter areas that conjure up strong opinions of them. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: Per Apaugasma and my comments up above. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I don't want to get sucked into controversies regarding ethnicity and identity in the Middle East, which is always a very hot topic that can easily fuel tempers. But I will say this: I hope that at least Mcvti can voice his opinions on talk pages even if there's overwhelming community support for a narrow topic ban, and even if editors might not always agree with those opinions. I would also very strongly encourage Mcvti to continue contributing to articles relating to the religious, philosophical, and mystical aspects of Mandaeism. Apart from HarJIT, Mcvti, and me, there are almost no contributors writing about Mandaeism (the religion), so I would agree that a wider topic ban would "constitute a loss for the project." Nebulousquasar (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per Apaugasma. I understand Mcvti's frustration, but Wikipedia is not the place to set the record straight. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring by TolWol56 on Claire Danes; WP:BLP issuesEdit

TolWol56 is currently engaged in an edit war on Claire Danes to maintain a poorly sourced, factually incorrect paragraph they wrote. There was an earlier RFC which questioned whether or not mentioning the event was WP:UNDUE, which ultimately resulted in a decision to keep the paragraph, and to remove the word "racist". The editor continues to insist that no edits can be made because of the outcome of that discussion, and has been extremely disrespectful toward me instead of discussing and acknowledging the issues with what is on Danes's page. I opened a notice on WP:BLPN, but considering this user's behavior, I would appreciate some help.

After the first two reversions by TolWol56, I attempted a rewrite which took all of their comments into consideration, but that was also reverted. What is currently on Danes's article does not pass a fact-check with high quality, reliable sources (of which there are dozens), and the editor does not seem interested in ensuring what is on Danes's page is accurate, neutral, and encyclopedic.

SquareInARoundHole (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

SquareInRoundHole is edit warring against the RfC-supported version.[81]
On BLPN he has been already admonished for his language issues, misrepresentation, false allegations of BLP violation and claim that only "white" people engage in "whitewashing".
He believes that other editors "does not seem interested" just because they are not entertaining his POV. TolWol56 (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
@TolWol56: A single revert due to BLP issues and a single rewrite addressing your POV is not what an edit war is. No one has "admonished" me. You have been flaming me via my talk page, via edit summaries, and in your responses. Not once have you engaged with my issues with the description of the events and your citations in an earnest way. It is a BLP violation because what is currently written is poorly sourced and inaccurate. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
  • It looks like TolWol56 has been reverting to maintain substantially the same wording of this paragraph for months; several different editors have attempted to maintain the information and write it in a manner that is of a better tone and more closely matches source material. I can find reversions of this nature going back to February of 2020, including some where they call long-time Wikipedia editors "trolls" for editing this paragraph. This kind of WP:OWN behavior is a major problem, and needs to stop immediately. I have half a mind to page block them from this page given the way they deal with it. --Jayron32 17:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you for your assistance! SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
  • It also looks like TolWol56 has been using a number of different sockpuppet accounts to edit war this information for even longer than that. See User:TolWol55, and before that to a number of unregistered IP addresses. They have been warring this into the article for years. Here is an IP from 2017, User:Dkraftyoneisright is likely another sock account from 2016, Here is an IP from 2014. Based on the text of the additions, and the manner in which they interact with others, it's clear these are all the same person. Even ignoring the IPs, we have at least three accounts that have been used by this person to edit-war over many years. --Jayron32 18:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
    Wow. Opened pandora's box here. Is this enough to get Danes's page protected and fixed up? SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
    I'd like a second opinion from other admins. But if there if others are reading this situation the same way I am (and I am not familiar with this at all before about an hour ago, when I started investigating your claim), then I can imagine some combination of blocks and/or protection are coming. --Jayron32 18:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Jayron32: I wholly reject your misleading and hasty analysis.
    I was a new editor that time when I did those comments in 2020. Bringing up my tone (which I modified) regarding my initial comments from more than 2 years ago has no relevance here. You should not ignore that the RfC clearly supported my version.[82]
    Before throwing baseless allegations of sock puppetry, you can take a look at my contribution history and you will know better. It is way broader than what you are thinking and you would understand how baseless it is to compare a policy abiding editor like me with SPAs you have cited.
    The content in question has existed since 2010,[83] however that would make no sense in saying that I am socking since 2010. Not to mention that I have been 100% honest about which accounts I have used per my own userpage.[84]
    You need to better talk about the issues with this editor and take a look at BLP where he is exhibiting his incompetence to push his WP:BLOATED version without gaining consensus.
    To claim that I am not allowed to maintain WP:STATUSQUO to enforce RfC result against POV pushing does not make any sense. TolWol56 (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
    Please stop insulting me. Also, the previous paragraph you referenced is more accurate, better sourced, and more neutral than the one you have written. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
    @TolWol56: Please stop reverting my edits for no good reason. Other people are allowed to constructively contribute to Claire Danes. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
    Do you understand that false allegations of personal attacks ("stop insulting me") are themselves personal attacks? If you want to talk about the content then use article talk page. This noticeboard is only meant for the discussion of user conduct. TolWol56 (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
    @TolWol56: You just called me incompetent, and you violating WP:3RR is a discussion about your conduct. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
    @TolWol56: Re the 2020 RfC, consensus can change and while that particular close does say the material should be kept, it also says it should be re-worded. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
    If you want to keep denying even after being told that the RfC concluded on 9 March 2020,[85] and the 14th March version 2020[86] had the consensus wording which remains the same to this day, then you are being unfavorable towards your own cause. TolWol56 (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
    @TolWol56 The consensus was to keep the description of the events and to remove the word "racist". There was no discussion of the sourcing, nor its accuracy. This is the discussion we are having now. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
To claim that "there was no discussion of the source" is simply false. There was a discussion about sourcing within the RfC and the wording remained the same since 9 February[87] about 1 month before RfC was closed.[88] The word "apology" was disputed by an editor who's misunderstanding was quickly resolved and there has been no dispute against the wording since March 2020[89] to this month when you started editing here after 2 years and 3 months. TolWol56 (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Look TolWol56: I am going to make this abundantly clear: You are plainly stonewalling here, and even accepting the possibility that you're explanation of starting editing only in 2020 is true, the March 2020 discussion is not binding on having future discussions nor on making future improvements to the paragraph in question. People are quite allowed to come by later, and they don't need your, or anyone else's, approval to make improvements to wording, sourcing, or anything else. If you have any objections to the actual changes beyond "this is what was already written" or similar, then make them on the article talk page. If a new discussion is needed, and if consensus is that further changes are an improvement, then there will be further changes. Your behavior runs in clear violation of WP:OWN at this point, and you will change how you are approaching this, or you will be prevented from further disruptions. Do I make myself clear? --Jayron32 12:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
  • You are seemingly misreading the issue. First of all, we need to agree that this report is frivolous and was filed by the OP just for winning a content dispute by citing non-existing "BLP issues" and "3RR" most likely because these terms attract more attention. Secondly, I don't think anybody, at least not in this world would endorse this version by the OP that treats the one side to be largely innocent and defensible but treats another side to be oversensitive and arrogant. This is being done through cherrypicked quotations and with words like "f***ing" which runs contrary to the principle that "Wikipedia is not censored". These unconstructive edits were reverted for good. I see no case of page ownership or stonewalling by Tolwol56 (editing since November 2019, not 2020) because editors are free to revert what they sensibly deem as unconstructive while the editor who has been reverted is supposed to gain WP:CON. The talk page shows no consensus for the edits of the OP, it only shows wall of text by them. What do you think about this edit summary? To me, it is a clear failure of WP:AGF, and is concerning since it is coming from the same user who complains that another user is being "extremely disrespectful toward me", without citing any diffs (see WP:ASPERSIONS). GenuineArt (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
  • TolWol likes to call good-faith edits by users trolling, even when he has never previously interacted with said users, unless they are habitually editing the article while logged out, a situation contraindicated by policy; there are numerous examples of Ip editors edit-warring to maintain the content over the years, where edit summaries make it clear that all of the various IP editors and TolWol are the same person. All I would like to see if a stop to edit warring, though. I would rather everyone just went to the talk page, started a new RFC, and let consensus develop. --Jayron32 15:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
That was more than 2 years ago and soon these false accusations were also debunked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ by an actual CheckUser and Arbitrator admin, who concluded that I was never engaging in sock-puppetry. TolWol56 (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
There was no CheckUser run on that incident. They said that there was no cause to because the IP ban was for a different reason, and it did not appear you were trying to evade a ban. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
No one said it was run. Now look up strawman instead of finding ways to keep your bogus complaint active. TolWol56 (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
@TolWol56: I'm just saying, there was no conclusion about sockpuppetry because there was no investigation at all. I understood from you bringing up a CheckUser admin and claiming it was "debunked" that you were implying it was investigated with a CheckUser when it wasn't. It was determined that it was not necessary to investigate the issue because the ban on the IP was unrelated to you as a specific user. I reported your behavior in good faith, it's not bogus, nor am I "trying to keep it active".
@GenuineArt: The censorship was in the Independent article source, it was not done by me. I did not "cherry-pick" quotations, either. I took the misquotation and added all of the actual sentences that were part of a single quote, and because of how they were split between different articles, left them independently quoted, despite the fact that they were actually from a single paragraph in the Preimiere article. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
It was concluded otherwise the report would indicate otherwise. Checkusers are certainly more experienced than rest of the users when it comes to the understanding sockpuppetry and if they saw no violation of WP:SOCK and rejected the false allegations then you are supposed to abide by them instead of falsely claiming that "there was no conclusion".
You were absolutely cherrypicking the quotations in order to give more weight to create imbalance between the perspectives and picked up quotation from a publication that you thought will suit your POV as already cleared on talk page.
To think that everyone is wrong but you are correct shows you are just being a WP:1AMER. I would recommend you to back off before WP:BOOMERANG hits you. TolWol56 (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
1) I didn't say "there was no conclusion". I said the conclusion was that no investigation into the report was necessary.
2) The quote I took was from the article she did the interview in. It was her actual words from the actual source, which was what all of the articles were referring to. That is not cherry-picking. That is seeking actual facts so that what is written is accurate. I found every single source close to the subject at the time of the incident and shared it, along with multiple others over the years which discussed it in detail. I am only interested in what is on Wikipedia being accurate, neutral, and properly sourced.
3) You keep saying no one agrees with me. That's not true. Others are agreeing with me. It's why the content is changing. The content doesn't need to be my creation. I don't care who writes it. It needs to meet Wikipedia's standards.
4) I also think editors should treat each other with respect, and assume good faith. You've not done that with me, and your talk page history shows a pattern of similar behavior, as do the other account/IPs you've edited as. It's unfortunate that I didn't do a great job of reporting your conduct, but you've made me want to stop editing on Wikipedia completely. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  • TolWol called me incompetent in this thread. Referred to my edits as rambling. Reverted all of my edits repeatedly for no real reason, other than a disingenuous claim that I was "whitewashing" (no WP:AGF for them??). Their behavior toward me started out hostile and clearly served the purpose of not allowing me to contribute to the page. Danes's talk page shows that they have done this to others regarding this information in particular, and the user instructed me specifically not to modify their edits. Their talk page shows they have a history of being hostile toward users, engaging in flame wars, and edit wars. Danes's page has inaccurate information in it, which is using poorly sourced material. How is any of that frivolous? I made this report in good faith, and I'm not trying to "win a content dispute". I'm trying to get help on a page where a single editor won't let anyone else contribute. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
If you are going to repeatedly state that "white" person can engage in "whitewashing", claim the false existence of "BLP" violation and falsely accuse me of personal attacks then I was fine with saying that you are exhibiting incompetence. You may not know but WP:COMPETENCE is a requirement. TolWol56 (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
It does not mean we should label people as incompetent. Calling someone incompetent is a personal attack and is not helpful. Always refer to the contributions and not the contributor, and find ways to phrase things that do not put people on the defensive or attack their character or person. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I also think Jayron is misreading the situation. Both editors have reached the point where they can not clearly communicate with each other so I have started an attempt to get consensus for a compromise version on the talk page. Both Square and Tol need to stop talking past each other and go back to concentrating on the content, there is a way to resolve this and that is not here. Aircorn (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
  • This is a pure content dispute and both editors are behaving poorly. A RFC was conducted and a result reached. Someone is now trying to change that result (it was about Undue as much as a single word so doubling the wording to an already short section does impact the dueness) and another editor is trying to keep the result of the RFC. This just needs another RFC or even just other editors opining on the talk page. As for the edit warring I only see two editors arguing over this currently so the current page protection fixes that. Aircorn (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
    The RFC was about whether it was due, and the word "racist". This has nothing to do with what I changed. My issue is with the sources and the accuracy. Period. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Obviously COI user needs to be dealt withEdit

Somebody please take a look at the new user Mtvlaw, who has started editing the article Michael van der Veen. Mtvlaw is the website of Mr. van der Veen’s law office, so it seems likely that this user works in the subject’s office. The user has been posting nothing but puffery, including things like this and this which are cited to the Mtvlaw website. Many of their earliest edits were revdel’ed for copyright violations. I don’t have time right now to deal with this, but I hope someone will. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Massive anti-semitic vandalism: 2a00:1370:81a6::/48 rangeEdit

Tons of anonymous anti-semitic hate speech both in Russian and English.
Please impose a full range block for a long term (3-6 months or even 1 year), but please don't block account creation. I've been watching this problem, the vandal is always anonymous, he never creates any accounts (the same behavior in Russian Wikipedia, Russian Wikiquote, etc.). This vandal has been active for many years, previously in these ranges:

Thanks in advance. — (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  Blocked – for a period of 6 months. El_C 21:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Mass deletion of Tuvalu footballers (violation of WP:BEFORE)Edit

Moving a discussion from the village pump here. User:Sportsfan 1234 has nominated every Tuvaluan footballer except three (50+ in total, two of the remaining are also runners) for deletion in quick succession. Based on the speed of the nominations, it seems very clear WP:BEFORE was not done, and this is a bad faith attempt to remove good content on tenuous technical grounds (I'm speaking of Mau Penisula, Alopua Petoa, and Vaisua Liva especially). It also seems the same handful people are voting Delete on every AfD discussion in rapid succession, which cannot possibly be in good faith (and raises concerns of sockpuppetry). This is especially dangerous because we are setting a precedent of essentially wiping out a whole nation's sporting history just because they are small and underdeveloped and so don't have much internet presence. (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  • The purpose of Wikipedia is not to serve as a promotional site for Tuvalan sport. Based on the speed of your objections to the nominations, it seems very clear that you did not trouble with WP:BEFORE yourself. Indeed, considering that you have only made a single mainspace edit to Wikipedia, there certainly appears to be a good bit more upon which to question your good faith than the other way around. (And beyond that, good grief: to claim that removing a handful of sub-stubs without independent sourcing is "essentially wiping out a whole nation's sporting history" isn't productive; it's hysteria.) Ravenswing 00:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
    A handful of sub-stubs? I just provided three articles with lots of good, well-sourced content. What you are saying is factually not even true. (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
    Cleary you do not have an understanding of WP:GNG. NONE of those three remotely come close to passing what's listed on WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
    Well, I'm looking at the contribution lists for the anon IP addresses you're using, and seeing nothing. So if you are claiming to have added any content whatsoever, provide us with the diffs right here (and if they are under an actual registered account, perhaps you'll be so kind as to use that account in this discussion). Ravenswing 10:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Per the notice at the top of this page, you have to notify editors you start discussions about, which I have done for you. Anyway, the issue seems to stem from the IP's viewpoint that a proper WP:BEFORE would be to go to Tuvalu’s museums, libraries, etc.[90], which has no backing in the actual text of WP:BEFORE (The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects; it doesn't really take much time to click those four links and see that there's more or less nothing) Also, "raising concerns of" two long-standing administrators being sockpuppets just for !voting the same way in a set of very similar AfDs is patently silly. eviolite (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Anyone who actually wants to write about the whole nation's sporting history is free to edit the Sport in Tuvalu article, which is very unlikely to be nominated for deletion. CMD (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Moving this over here: I do my research on a MASS basis first (if I know a lot of articles in a particular topic are leaning towards delete), then proceed with the nominations. With the BOTS doing most of the work, its no surprise 10 AFD's were done in 17 minutes. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Note that mass nominations are not always good for the community. Sure, it might make your life easier to get the noms done in one go, but look at this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Polynesia/Article alerts#AfD. Each AfD has a time frame on it, and you are are now asking the community to weigh in on 52 separate discussions in a seven-day window (not all 52 are in the same 7-day window, but the nominations came over the course of five days). If someone actually has access to some print sources, you have just buried them under a mountain with a time-limit to get out from under it... If someone looks at all that, they might throw their hands up in the air thinking it's hopeless. It's probably better practice to nominate as you find each article to better space them out. Also, an attempt at constructive criticism, a simple "Fails GNG" statement doesn't give very a lot of information to help others that might not want to duplicate your efforts. -2pou (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Honestly, that's the same excuse the inclusionists usually drag out upon seeing a mass nomination, and I'd be more sympathetic to it if their reaction to it wasn't invariably paired with an utter lack of any attempt to find adequate sourcing for ANY entries on it. (Or, come to that, if they had had any objection to the mass creation of such articles, often in very short timeframes and without critical examination as to whether each one could stand as an independent article.)

And it's much the same here. So rather than the mass "redirect" responses you put into the AfDs, one after another, would you be amenable to sourcing some of the articles properly? Some of them? Any of them? Ravenswing 21:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be an issue here. The nominations appear to be appropriate, and they spread them out over a few days. If they had prodded the articles first, then I wouldn't even expect them to spread the nominations out - the issue in those circumstances would be editors removing the WP:PROD without demonstrating notability, rather than with a large number of nominations on the same day. BilledMammal (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
  • If you want to accuse people of sock puppetry, sockpuppet investigations is the place to go. Note though that it isn't for unfounded fishing expeditions. Reyk YO! 05:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to raise my own concerns on this user. I am aware that a lot of the deletion nominations may be "fair" by Wikipedia standards, but I find the pattern of these nominations to be rather sinister. Having gone through their recent activity, a lot of the deletion nominations have been for athletes from smaller, "less-developed" nations, including a couple of women footballers (who meet GNG), who we struggle to get representation for on Wikipedia in the first place.

This, this and this edit are page blanking with no discussion beforehand. I don't know what Wikipedia says about this exactly, but I am certain this goes against standards somewhere.

Also, as a side note, there was a situation in 2007 whereby Tuvalu could have technically qualified for the FIFA World Cup. They even had a goalscorer in World Cup qualification, Viliamu Sekifu, whose page is currently nominated for deletion. Sekifu is probably the most notable Tuvaluan footballer for the goal scored, and undoubtedly received coverage at the time in local Tuvaluan news sources. I just find it very frustrating that, just because the information is not readily available, common sense isn't used. If they had qualified for the World Cup, there would have of course been notability garnered internationally - but would there have been any local Tuvaluan sources covering individuals? I highly doubt it. Some nations just do not have much, if any, online news. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 04:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Please remain WP:CIVIL and assume good faith. These articles were all nominated because they do not meet GNG. As for the three articles I redirected, they all fail WP:GNG and I redirected them to the article discussing their participation at the Olympics (all three were the only participants for their country. Wikipedia is also not a speculation device. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
  • If you think that there are sources for that footballer, divulge them. But c'mon. A key facet of notability guidelines is that they set forth criteria that subjects actually meet, not that they might have met. (Not that this was possible to happen, because whatever the local federation's take on things was, Tuvalu was not then and is not now a FIFA member, and as such, could not have taken part in actual World Cup matches.)

    I recognize that there is a longstanding fringe theory that if there is some putative excuse for a subject not to have received the significant coverage in independent, reliable third-party sources the GNG requires -- and so very many excuses have been proffered, over the years -- then the GNG, WP:V, WP:N and any other applicable criteria are waived in its favor. This curious theory, however, has no factual basis in Wikipedia policy or guideline. To claim there is something "sinister" in seeking to correctly apply extant notability criteria is an unwarranted, unfounded and reprehensible personal attack. You would be far better off turning your energies to finding sources for these articles you are so invested in saving than in taking swings at those who feel that those criteria apply to all subjects across the board ... or, as we see below, descending into hyperbole-choked hysteria. Ravenswing 15:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

    "This curious theory, however, has no factual basis in Wikipedia policy or guideline." This simply isn't true. As fellow user John Pack Lambert stated in this edit: "We have a long precedent of keeping articles on every member of a state legislature we can verrify [sic] existed.". The bar for politicians is so low that the only thing required is verification that they existed? Yet for people who have represented their nation in international sporting events, we need 50 independent biographies written, 100 newspaper articles from 20 separate countries and access to the personal diary they kept as a child? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
    Oh, and here's another from notorious delete voter John Pack Lambert, in which he states that "Those who hold cabinet level in a first level subdivision in a federal government (that is states in the US, Germany, Mexico, Brazil, India, and a few other countries) are default notable.". Default notable??? So we just throw GNG out the window when it comes to politicians, but not for international sporting representatives?
    This website has articles on obscure lakes from Lithuania, but people who represent their nation are clearly not notable, right? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
    In addition to WP:GNG, there are specific additional ways a subject can be presumed notable. WP:NPOL addresses first-level subdivisions in federal governments as mentioned by John Pack Lambert. There are specific additional ways an athlete can be notable. See WP:NSPORT. Do any of those criteria apply? If not, then WP:GNG must be applied. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
    I was also under the impression that there are specific additional ways an athlete can be notable. I know that the criteria for football has changed recently, but I cannot see anything specific on WP:NSPORT regarding association football. One of WP:SPORTBASIC's criteria is that "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources.", which some (but not all) of the nominated articles do. Yet they are still being flagged for deletion as they are athletes from a nation seemingly deemed not worthy of articles. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Davidlofgren1996 which articles have SIGCOV? JoelleJay (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
    And there are no additional ways an athlete can be notable. This has been the case for a very long time now. JoelleJay (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
    From the masses that SportsFan 1234 has nominated, I found Sumithra Kamaraj, Anju Tamang, Indrit Cullhaj and Leah Parry. There may be more, there probably are, they have nominated a lot of articles.
    And I believe presumed notability still applies to athletes who competed before the internet existed, as it applies to non-athletes in the same boat. Please correct me if I am wrong. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
    Ok, what is the SIGCOV source in each of those articles? Kamaraj has a handful of sentences on her by an anonymous author in what seems to be a clear non-RS. Tamang received routine transaction news and coverage by SPS, non-independent (e.g. the KHELNOW article written by the AIFF), and other unreliable sources. Cullhaj has some interviews and routine transaction news. Leah Parry has coverage in some anonymous wikimirror-like content farm.
    When has NSPORT ever presumed notability for pre-internet athletes? At most it has suggested more temporal leeway be given for finding sources on very old subjects, which doesn't apply here. JoelleJay (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
    Also note the solutions mentioned in WP:FAILN, such as Topics that do not meet this criterion are not retained as separate articles. Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles or lists are often merged into those pages.. See, for example, Tuvalu_national_football_team. This is a way to retain information about the players without them having to meet individual notability requirements. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
    Davidlofgren1996 is certainly jacking the hysteria up to 11. No, we don't require 50 biographies or personal diaries. We require multiple (=2) independent, third-party reliable sources which provide significant coverage to the subjects involved, and which in the case of athletes doesn't involve casual mentions in routine match coverage. And you can't bring yourself to do even that much work for a single one of the AfDs you're complaining about. You are being routinely wrong about your assumptions, routinely wrong in these AfDs, and it's well past time that someone who's created as many articles as you have has a handle on the damn notability criteria that governs your work. What the hell, man? We shouldn't need "correct me if I'm wrong" answers. For all the football sub-stubs you're creating, you need to be right in the first place. Ravenswing 22:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
    Stop pinging me. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Israel article pending changes mistakeEdit

This is just to bring awareness that administrator @Ymblanter: seems to have fully protected the Israel article but then also applied pending changes, causing the article to revert to the last pending edit in 2010 for logged out users. It has been over an hour.

This is in no way to blame Ymblanter for anything, and is just to bring attention to the administrators. Seloloving (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Seloloving thanks for bringing this up! In general, I'd prefer to get rid of pending changes altogether. As an experienced editor, I find them incredibly confusing, especially when there are multiple pending changes as is, or 6,000+ in this case. The concept of it is decent, but the implementation is horrendously confusing as is. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 08:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
When an article on my watchlist is put on pending changes, I click "unwatch". (I can't stand the attention-grabbing of the extra watchlist message). Would support any initiative to turn this off. —Kusma (talk) 08:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I couldn't "accept" the page as it was already accepted, but then reloading still told me of the 2010 revision as the newest accepted one. Purging didn't help either, but a dummy edit seems to have solved it?? —Kusma (talk) 08:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Yep thanks. It seems it just needed another edit by someone to make it the latest revision. Problem is now solved.
Just would like to reiterate that my post was not to blame Ymblanter for anything, and I was just seeking an admin to help solve the problem while Ymblanter is offline. Thank you. Seloloving (talk) 08:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this to our attention! We really shouldn't display 10+ year old info about a major country to the majority of our readers. —Kusma (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for solving this. I applied pending changes as an insurance, since after a week the protection expires and the article automatically becomes unprotected. At that point, someone must restore extensed confirmed protection and turn the pending changes off. --Ymblanter (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
🦝 Racoons! 🦝 El_C 11:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


Over at Talk:Azov Battalion this wp:spa has taken to what looks like outing [[91]] [[92]] and PA's [[93]] against volunteer marek. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Not sure bringing this to a massively read noticeboard is a great idea when the edits still remain there for all to see. Shouldn't they be removed? PRAXIDICAE💕 15:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
As I see this as a continuing issue, yes. I think it does need to be raised here, as I am unsure they are not wp:nothere, and that this will continue unless someone with more authority than me tells them to stop. Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I mean of course they're WP:NOTHERE but my point is maybe we should remove the doxing first. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Ahh I see, yes. Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I can hat and and delete it, but do not have access to the tools to totally wipe it form the record. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
A brand new account would not know what "RS"
"WP:Activist" or "rfc" is -->[94],[95],[96] This is not a new user. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Other examples [[97]] [[98]]. Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Levivich and personal attacksEdit

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

Yesterday, I gave Levivich a ds alert about the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. He reacted in a way I can only descibe as hysterical, claiming because he had been sanctioned in the case he is perpetually aware and so should not be notified. However, his sanction is stricken from the log, so as far as I understand it he does not have any sanction issued in the case and further requests for enforcement require a ds/alert within a year to establish awareness. Levivich has since made a series of personal attacks against me, repeatedly calling me a weirdo. After having banned me from his talk page (and for the record one cannot ban others from placing required administrative notices) he comes to my talk page to to call me a weirdo, follows that up in the MFD about the page collecting diffs of his repeated attacks by calling me again a weirdo and a stalker and then ups the ante by then calling me psychotic. I have not once attacked Levivich, and this level of hysteria for posting a required administrative notice is just unreal. As he is continuing to attack me and making absurd claims about my mental state I request he be blocked. nableezy - 17:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

And since Ive now filed the DR case, I will tag for deletion my subpage. nableezy - 17:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Everything I have to say about this is at User talk:Levivich#Yearly reminder and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nableezy/LV‎ (with diffs/links). TLDR: Nableezy is harassing me, and he needs to stop. Levivich 17:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
The claim of harassment for giving a required administrative notice is specious, and the repeated attacks are entirely uncalled for. Making claims of psychosis, besides being well outside of ones possible competence as any trained psychiatrist would never make such a diagnosis on such a bs basis and anybody who is not a trained psychiatrist lacks the competence to determine that, is a straightforward personal attack and until it is withdrawn Levivich should be blocked. nableezy - 17:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Templating a long standing editor over something they are obviously aware of is rather redundant. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 17:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Thats a required notice that is required to use that template. DTTR does not apply. Even if obviously aware, one needs to be formally aware. See WP:AC/DS#aware.alert where it says Any editor may advise any other editor that discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict. However, these only count as the formal notifications required by this procedure if the standard template message – currently {{Ds/alert}} – is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted. Or read the end of the lead of that essay, A very small number of templates, such as the Arbitration Committee's {{Alert}} template, are mandatory and must be "placed unmodified" for an alert to be valid. As a result, these templates are not covered by this essay. nableezy - 17:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Stop being so bureaucratic. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 17:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
So I show you that our policy requires some bureaucracy and your response is to stop being bureaucratic? The template is required to be used unmodified, if you have a problem with that take it up with ArbCom. nableezy - 17:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
If you don't like the bureaucracy of the discretionary sanctions system, you have the Arbitration Committee to blame, not nableezy. Endwise (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
@ActivelyDisinterested You are wrong - No editor may be sanctioned unless --> in the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict.[99] Arbitration Committee's template, are mandatory and must be placed for an alert to be valid. To avoid yearly reminders Ds/aware has to be placed on editors talk page. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
nableezy is 100% right here. There's no option for DS notices other than using the template, and "obvious awareness" is not one of the ways to be WP:AWARE. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
My point is that dropping a template on a user, certainly a user who you are in disagreement with, is unlikely to have a good outcome. It in this way is only fanning the flames. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 18:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I wasnt in a disagreement with him. nableezy - 18:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Calling someone a "weirdo" is unacceptable, provocation or not. Some of the other comments are off-color as well. Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

"Psychotic" is what brought me here, would like that struck or the user blocked. nableezy - 17:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree that calling someone "psychotic" isn't okay. A lot of people don't know the history of the term, but it's still offensive, and Levivich should apologize. Even if someone does experience psychosis, that's not what defines them as a human being. I don't know enough about ArbCom discretionary sanctions to comment on them. Clovermoss (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC); edited 18:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
A block on either one of these editors would be an overwhelming net loss to the project. I hope to see the community tailor a response that minimizes disruption caused by their interactions. I think some parts of that could be:
  • Levivich adds Template:Ds/aware to their user talk page to indicate awareness in PIA and any other topic areas they are active(-ish) in.
  • Both users abstain from posting on each others' user talk pages, including for required notices. There is no lack of less-involved editors, including me, that would gladly post anything required if requested.
  • Both users abstain from collecting on-wiki diffs of the others' activity.
  • Levivich strikes the "psychotic" comment.
Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
  1. I'm not adding DS/aware because I don't want that to be the first thing an editor sees when they come to my talk page. There's enough banner blindness on this website as it is.
  2. I have never posted to Nableezy's talk page before today's posts asking him to delete User:Nableezy/LV and notifying him of the MFD of it.
  3. I have never collected on-wiki diffs of Nableezy's activity, at least not that I can remember.
  4. OK I've struck "psychotic"; it's true, that's a slander against people with psychosis and I apologize for using that word as an emphasizer, which is inappropriate. To be clear, I do not think Nableezy suffers from psychosis or that people who do suffer from psychosis harass other people as a result.
Nableezy is harassing me. Contrary to Nableezy's repeated claims, there is no requirement that an editor post annual DS notices on another editor's user talk page. But the reason Nableezy doing so is harassment is because if the goal was to make me "WP:AWARE", my saying that I'm perpetually aware would accomplish that goal, and Nableezy would move on. But Nableezy's repeated vows to template me every year explicitly to make sure that awareness would not prevent me from being blocked in the future, make it clear that Nableezy's goal is something other than making me aware: i.e., reminding me of the time I was blocked, and/or making it easier for me to be blocked in the future. I checked Nableezy's contribs to see if he posted these annual notices to anyone else's talk page, and he hasn't. (That's how I found the "dossier".)
With 149 edits to my UTP since I joined in 2018, Nalbeezy is the #3 editor of my UTP (both by edits and text added) and my UTP is the #3 UTP he's ever edited in 15 years here (links in the MFD). He will literally will come to my UTP just to argue with me: I've tried ignoring it (example from Oct 2021 where I don't respond), engaging with it (different thread, also Oct 2021, making jokes/hints about it (example from Jan 2022, see the second reply in that diff). So far it hasn't worked. I don't edit in this topic area, nor do I edit the same articles as Nableezy. There is no reason for us to interact; there's no reason for him to be making 149 edits to my talk page. Yesterday I asked him to stay off my talk page. He posted again. I reverted him. He started editing that "dossier" he's been keeping apparently since January. I asked him to file a case or delete it; he refused. I MFD'd it. He came here. This isn't a "both sides" thing. I've been trying to avoid him for like years and he just pursues me. It's harassment. Levivich 18:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
You are rewriting history here. The conversation in January certainly seemed welcome on your end. See for example you saying I appreciate you sharing your view or I appreciate your honest feedback. And then nothing between us until yesterday. So you can pretend these 149 edits demonstrate anything other than we had previously had a cordial exchange of ideas, an exchange you said you appreciated, but that is simply revisionist history. nableezy - 18:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
We previously had a cordial relationship, so months later you decided to post a DS notice on my talk page to make it easier for me to be sanctioned in the future, which you freely admitted was your intention? Look at my first response to you after the DS notice: it was cordial. But you insisted that you would do this every year? And when I asked you not to post again on my talk page, you respond by compiling a dossier on me that suggested I was an LTA? This is "cordial"? I am not here to play a PVP game against you. Because you couldn't keep it cordial, I asked you not to post to my talk page again. It's not a rewriting of history. Levivich 18:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I dont think any of that bears even a passing resemblance to what occurred here. I documented the most recent set of personal attacks on a page started a few months ago (and yes it should have been deleted or blanked then when it was dormant, but not when it was actively being used). Not compile a dossier to show you are a LTA. But since you repeatedly claimed that I was "harassing" you, and since I find that to be gaslighting, I documented where the attacks were coming from. Id be happy to respond to the rest of that comment elsewhere, but alas Ive been told to stay off your talk page. nableezy - 18:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
You started the dossier page months before posting the DS notice and thus before I said you were harassing me, etc. The page is now deleted so I can't look at it but I distinctly remember the beginning -- posted in January -- had my diffs and "Nocal". Why did you start the page in January? What is it you think you're investigating? Levivich 19:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I answered that below, that was initially created to document repeated effective meatpuppeting for banned users. That was after you restored comments by editors you said you knew were obviously sockpuppets. I was trying to collate examples of you running interference for socks of banned users. nableezy - 19:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
effective meatpuppeting for banned users? running interference for socks? You mean because I expressed an opinion that was also expressed by a banned user/sock, you started a sub-page in your userspace to collect my diffs? Have you made this kind of page for any other editor who expressed the same opinions? Do you understand why it's not right to attack editors in this way? You're trying to shut me up for expressing "wrongthink"? I am flabbergasted that you really, really don't want me to participate in discussions, so much so that you're willing to call my participation "effective meatpuppeting" and "interference". Does it really bother you that much that I !vote in a different way than you do? I struck my use of "weirdo" and "obsessive" but I hope someday you can understand why I view it that way. I've never had anyone behave this way around me or "about me" before. The weirdest part for me is that we don't have a long history of conflict. The editors with whom I do have a long history of conflict (some of whom are here--hi!) don't even behave this way: to my knowledge, they've never dedicated a sub page to me, never posted DS notices out of the blue, never even really "started" fights. It's weird that you're treating me this way. Levivich 19:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
No, I do not mean anything I did not say. I am not, nor have I ever, claiming that expressing the same views as banned editors is meatpuppeting. I was more thinking of things like you restoring an edit by an editor you say is no doubt a sock. Or things like passive aggresiveness in faulting me for asking an editor if they had a prior account, when they indeed had a prior account. That is what I am referring to in effective meatpuppeting and running interference. nableezy - 19:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
So, basically, disagreeing with you is why you started a sub-page about me. And then when you later read the disagreement (the Counterpunch RFC), you decided to give me a DS notice to make sure I could more easily be sanctioned in the future.
How is this OK with you? I really don't get it. Everything that makes Wikipedia a "toxic atmosphere" is what you're freely admitting to in this dispute. Even if I restore a sock's edit, even if I don't think you should ask editors who disagree with you if they've had a prior account (even if you're right about that!), you still shouldn't be actively trying to get me kicked off this website! Don't you think?? I guess you don't. You think that trying to get me sanctioned is like a good use of your time and something that's helpful for Wikipedia? Wow, man. Wow. Levivich 19:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Again, no, your disagreement with me had nothing to do with it. I did not give half a shit about that your position in that RFC was opposed to mine, or any RFC to be honest. I generally think your positions are well thought out even when I disagree with them, and I would not think of restricting your ability to advance your positions. It was the restoring edits you knew were banned that caused me to start it, and then look for further examples. Do I think getting you kicked off of Wikipedia is a good thing? Honestly, no. Do I think youre a net negative? No. I do however think it would be a good thing if you didnt do the things I documented in that page. Do I think you have in the past run effective interference for socks of banned editors? Yes. Do I think that should stop? Yes. I abandoned that page and should have deleted it then. Most recently it was to document repeated personal attacks. Do I think that should stop? Shocker, yes. nableezy - 19:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
The two odd things here for an experienced editor are reacting at all to DS notices, and chasing anyone back to their talk page to make personal attacks. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Let's try to stop this before it turns into something huge and nasty. Nableezy - you have made your point about the notification and we can ALL see that Levivich is aware of the DS now. Levivich, you shouldn't call someone a weirdo or any other names that can reflect on their mental state. The best thing going forward is for both of you to ignore the other. There, can we all go back to editing the encyclopedia in an adult manner that recognizes that others can be different and just let things go occasionally? Ealdgyth (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
When an editor repeatedly calls somebody mentally ill, obsessive and psychotic, things have already turned nasty. I would like those things struck. Those go way beyond weirdo, they are actual attacks and he should strike them, apologize, or be blocked. nableezy - 18:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
(ec)Regardless of possible joint sanctions, Nableezy should be prohibited from notifying Levivich of DS as they are doing it with bad-faith. This is bureaucracy for the sake of antagonizing an editor and to ensure should the other editor slip up that they can point to the required notice to seek DS, rather than community discussion. Further, given Levivich productivity, a community discussion is all but guaranteed should an administrator invoke DS upon them.Slywriter (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Any editor is perfectly free to add the DS Aware template to the top of their talk page to avoid routine DS alerts - which are just that: routine. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Look, no one looks great here. Nableezy was clearly and unambiguously poking Levivich. Yes the DS system requires notification, but it does not require blanket notification absent actual editing in the conflict area; Levivich made no such antecedent edits, so randomly dropping a DS notice on a users talk page, apropros of nothing, is antagonizing and uncalled for. There's no need for a "yearly reminder" for someone who shows no recent editing in the conflict area. The DS rules don't say "go around and drop DS notices on random people so you can play "gotcha" later". So that was clearly bullshit. Nableezy is also not required to engage with a user on their own talk page where it is clear they are not welcome. Levivich does not look good for their name-calling, but this was in no way a "mandatory" action. If Levivich were just recently engaged in editing articles in the targeted sanction area, then fine, but this was clearly apropros of nothing. --Jayron32 18:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
It was not clear that I was not welcome on his talk page until after the alert and he banned me from his talk page while personally attacking me. Levivich has edited in the topic area in the Counterpunch RSN RFC, and that was on my mind when I gave the notice as I recently re-read it. I checked if he had an up to date notification and he did not, so I gave one. No poking involved. nableezy - 18:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
So, presumably it is now clear that you're not welcome on Levivich's talk page, and that you know not to post there again, especially not for spurious DS notices, yes? Writ Keeper  18:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I dont believe there was anything spurious in what I did. Do you have anything to say about the repeated personal attacks? nableezy - 18:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
How can a DS notice be spurious? As covered above, they are explicitly necessary on a 12 monthly basis to enforce DS. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
They are spurious when the editor is already aware. You should check for that before issuing new alerts. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Yesterday: "And absent that, yes, I will be along every year so that when you again violate an arbitration decision the wikilawyers wont be able to deny or deflect away from that issue."
Today: "You were aware then, and the sanction should have stood, but some user was able to wikilawyer it away. And so that does not occur again I notify you to ensure that you are aware in the future. Yes, I am giving the notification so that the next time you edit-war in the topic area you can be more easily sanctioned."
"the next time you edit-war in the topic area" - that happened once, it was a 1RR violation, for which I was partially blocked. So, because one time I did 2RR, Nableezy is going to give me annual notifications so I can be blocked more easily.
Please tell me the rest of you agree this is unhealthy behavior? Is it just me? Levivich 18:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Has Nableezy queried your mental state? As you just did, again. Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
"Unhealthy behavior" is not a query of mental state. It's unhealthy for me, not for him. Levivich 18:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
By the way, maybe this should be said: the point of WP:AWARE is to make people aware of DS sanctions so that they can comply with them and avoid being blocked or sanctioned. So telling someone that you're makign them WP:AWARE in order to make it easier for them to be sanctioned is, the textbook definition of abusing or "weaponizing" DS. Levivich 18:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
And the Jewish Chronicle RSN in December, so actually plenty of weighing in on sourcing that might affect the conflict area. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, also that dispute was in the conflict topic area. It is simply a fiction that Levivich has not been involved in the topic area and did not merit a notification to ensure awareness. And in that instance he made veiled accusations of racism against others, accusations that could have been reported to AE if he had been formally aware. nableezy - 18:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
So wait Levivich was wrong once so you're going to keep a yearly reminder going to post ds alerts, and your not being overly bureaucratic? - LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 18:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
No, he was wrong again recently. And again, your issue with the bureaucracy of the DS regime has nothing to do with me. nableezy - 18:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You mean from January?!?. Did you seriously wait 4 1/2 months, as well as carefully research when their last such notice was, just to make sure you put the notice on their talk page for the "yearly reminder"? You're not doing yourself any favors; that level of stalking is clearly much worse than I had pictured before you mentioned it. Holy cow. No wonder they reacted angrily. No, Levivich should not have called you names, but that in no way is an appropriate thing for you to do, Nableezy. Incomprehensible. --Jayron32 18:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. Nableezy, let me be clearer: do not post on Levivich's talk page again, including the posting of DS notices. Writ Keeper  18:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for saying that. For me, this clear statement concludes the matter (recognizing of course that others may want to discuss my behavior further). Levivich 18:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
One of us went to the others talk page and made a personal attack. And then made further personal attacks in the WP namespace. And you think the other person posting an administrative notice that doesnt even make any claim of wrongdoing to be the problem? nableezy - 18:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Correct. Writ Keeper  18:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Kinda why I like AE more, less of a chance of straightforward policy violations like calling somebody psychotic being waved away in a more structured format. nableezy - 18:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the structure does give people a lot more cover to harrass their fellow editors with impunity. Writ Keeper  18:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
That's a bit left field but since we're there, the structure also takes a dim view of personal attacks.Selfstudier (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
You have a curious understanding of the word harass. Reporting misconduct is not harassment. nableezy - 19:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Reporting what misconduct? Levivich 19:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Thats a response to the structure does give people a lot more cover to harrass their fellow editors with impunity with the structure being AE. Writ Keeper is apparently saying that just making a report at AE gives one impunity to harass somebody. An argument that I find, obviously, silly. nableezy - 19:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
That's not what I meant, no; I was speaking about structure more generally. My intent was to say that you are currently exploiting the rules about DS alerts to harass Levivich; nothing to do with AE at all. I was imprecise in my wording, though (an errant "the"), so I see how you would read it as a comment on AE. Please accept my heartfelt apologies for the confusion. Writ Keeper  19:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Placing a ds/alert notification is likewise not harassment, and the repeated usage of that word is debasing it of any meaning whatsoever. nableezy - 19:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
If that blanket statement were true, then there would be no need for the sentence Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned in Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Alerts. But it is. Writ Keeper  19:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Would you mind if I quoted the sentence immediately preceding that so that others are aware of the selective framing of your quote? It is Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. That is the disruptive tagging it is referring to. nableezy - 19:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes from January. There isnt any careful research here, you press save page when placing the template, a warning pops up with links to the talk page history to search. I click those links. And I see nothing in the last year. It is bullshit to call that stalking, and you are excusing somebody making outright personal attacks because I placed an alert template on their talk page? nableezy - 18:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
If he needed the awareness template in January, he should have been notified in January. If he was already under the "1 year limit" back in January then if he hasn't edited in the area since January, he doesn't need another such notification until he started editing in the area again. We don't just routinely drop such notices on the user talk pages of every person to ever make a comment or edit in the area since the beginning of time. If recent (and over 4 months ago is not a reasonable definition of recent) activity shows they were active in the area, then fine. But that's not what happened here. Don't notify people if they aren't active in the area. And Levivich was not active in the area when you notified them. --Jayron32 18:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I should have notified him back in January. I did not think of it then. Seeing some of the crap on display in the thread, with an editor cough cough restoring edits by people he says he knows are sockpuppets, there more recently reminded me. If the view is that somebody needs to have edited in the topic area in the last week or month or whatever to be notified then sure I can abide by that. But that isnt what the policy says, what it says is that any editor can notify any other editor at any time with the caveat that it is their responsibility to check that no notification had occurred in the last twelve months. nableezy - 18:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
The awareness thing is a pia, something should be done about that. Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
There is some pretty out-of-control false equivalence going on here. Personal attacks are personal attacks. Taking offense at DS alerts is subjective. This is not tit for tat. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
The standard/human response to being called out for personal attacks is an expression of contrition and retractions. I see no sign of contrition here. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
There are 6 different ways an editor is "aware." One of those is "In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement." Levivich participated at an AE request in the ARBPIA space in October, and is aware as of the time Nableezy placed the talk page alert. It took me less than 30 seconds to find that Levivich was aware. Ironically enough Nableezy was also active at that AE request. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
The alert template specifies searching for alerts in the user talk page, not trawling through AE requests to see if they had commented on one in the topic area. nableezy - 18:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
You both participated at that AE request. He commented before you. No trawling required. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I dont typically search AE for evidence of awareness and that isnt required. nableezy - 18:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Then search your memory. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Smoke entirely too much weed to remember all the AE threads Ive been involved in. Sorry. nableezy - 19:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Interaction ban proposalEdit

Look, let's end this right now. I propose the following:

Levivich and nableezy are indefinitely banned from interacting with one another. This includes all standard interactions as noted at WP:IBAN.

That should stop nip this in the bud. I see no benefit for the encyclopedia by allowing this sort of silliness to go on one minute longer. --Jayron32 18:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. --Jayron32 18:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Oppose as one of the parties. I do not interact with Nableezy and should not have to be subject to a sanction just because he comes to my talk page. I have never edited his talk page, we rarely participate in the same discussions, and very rarely edit the same articles. See my comment above with the details, links, etc. Levivich 18:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
BTW FWIW I would also oppose a 1-way iban against Nableezy. I highly doubt he will bother me again after this. He might call for me to be sanctioned here or in the future at some noticeboards, but he won't come to my talk page, I'm sure of it. Levivich 18:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I have no intention of going on Levivich's talk page except to post required notices. If people actually think posting a ds/alert, which our policy says any editor may place and the only restriction being that they not be placed more than once a year, then sure I can ask somebody else to do that. But it is a hysteric overreaction and does not address the actual policy violation of repeated personal attacks by Levivich. nableezy - 18:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
    You are not required to post an alert if the editor is already "aware." You should check for that beforehand. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Um, I did, he was not. nableezy - 18:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Unnecessary, but if we must. Personally, I'm fully prepared to block Nableezy again if they pull shenanigans like this again as a regular admin action. And all of this could be avoided if Nableezy just committed to not going to Levivich's talk page again, without wikilawyering about DS notices and proxy editing. But alas, here we are. Writ Keeper  18:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
    The personal attacks don't bother you at all then? Shenanigans vs attacks and you call out the shenanigans? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
    When the personal attacks are responses to provocation, no, they don't bother me as much. I don't think I've said or implied anywhere that what Levivich said was okay, but it didn't happen in a vacuum, and the context is important. This comes to mind. Writ Keeper  18:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Writ Keeper - WP:NPA does not authorize personal attacks if provoked. See - Responding to personal attacks section. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
    Again, I neither said nor implied otherwise, and I know where the NPA policy is, thanks. But the root cause of this issue (IMO, apparently) is not the personal attacks, but the harrassment that led to them. Writ Keeper  19:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
    An alternative root cause is people not posting DS Aware templates to their talk page. In this case, as noted above, apparently for aesthetic reasons. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose: There is only one issue here, and that is of personal attacks. If people have complaints about the DS system, they should take them to ARBCOM. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Levivich, on my talk page you can see an example of how to use the {{Ds/aware}} template. I recommend using it if you don’t want to get bothersome notices. Please just do that, and also strike out any heated remarks you may have made. Nableezy, would you consider the matter resolved if such action is taken? Jehochman Talk 18:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I will consider the matter resolved when the various claims of mental illness against me are struck. Psychotic was, obsessive has not been. It would be great if a regular admin action could deal with that straightforward NPA violation. As far as awareness, yes of course, an editor with an awareness template is not somebody I would ever notify. nableezy - 18:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I've already struck something; did you want to strike anything? We can sit here and play a game where we each strike things the other doesn't like... or we can move on? I suggest the latter, but feel free to provide me a list and I'll strike whatever you want. Levivich 18:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I would like you to strike obsessive and ideally weirdo. Harassment too but whatever you can keep that one even if I find it to be absurd. nableezy - 18:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - Posting the notice (little significance, agree) did not violate any rules but the reaction to it by calling names infringed WP:NPA. Warn Levivich and give both editors some time to cool off. All will be okay in a few days. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I would support that. Even if provoked, the pa's cannot stand. Selfstudier (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
The notices should not be posted inappropriately; I think posting a notice for a topic area that an editor has not been involved in for several months is inappropriate. In general: Levivich should be more careful with the words they use in the future, and Nableezy should avoid tracking Levivich's edits collecting diffs of Levivich's activity for any purpose, as well as refraining from notifying them of discretionary sanctions. I don't think formal warnings are needed at this point, if both editors can agree to this. BilledMammal (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I have never once tracked his edits at all. I dispute notifying him of the sanctions is disruptive. If there is agreement that his past sanction should still be considered a logged sanction despite being struck in the log then sure, perpetually aware and I should not notify him. nableezy - 19:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
What then was the subpage if not "tracking edits"? Dumuzid (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
When it was first created was to demonstrate repeated instances of effectively meatpuppeting for banned users. Most recently to collate diffs of personal attacks against myself for use in DR. But no tracking involved, those were mostly disputes with me. nableezy - 19:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Apologies, corrected. I assumed that the collection of diffs was obtained by tracking his edits, and I hope you can understand why I assumed that - and why the editor it was targeting might assume that and react negatively. BilledMammal (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Levivich and Nableezy both commented in an AE request in the topic area back in October. This means Levivich is aware at least until October 2022. Nableezy needs to re-read this so they know all forms of awareness. I don't like getting these templates either for topics I'm obviously aware of. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPA --> Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Someone, please remove Levivich's bursts, warn or remind them about the requirement of being civil and close this. There is no need to waste time on it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

He's stricken everything I care to notice, so as far as I am concerned this is resolved. nableezy - 19:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
👍 Shake hands now. Someone please close it, and let's get back to editing. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • I know that the issue has been marked resolved, but I think some general clarification of the DS alert system is needed; more clarity could have avoided all of this mess. Anyone interested in commenting can do so at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. I did not name any parties in this case, as I don't think it substantially affects any of the above decision, nor do I think any party is at fault; this is a systems problem not a personal issue, and needs a systems-minded solution. --Jayron32 13:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Copyright violationsEdit

Makov Borislav (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Greetings. User Makov Borislav is persistently adding WP:COPYVIO material to Fédération Internationale de Sambo. S Philbrick and I have both had to remove the copyright violations/restore the article. The user has now broke WP:3RR by continuing to add copied material and has disregarded/deleted all warnings on their talk page. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

If this is not harassment, what is its name? I explained to him both in my edit and in three other places. The copyright content was removed by myself (with the first warning from another user) 3 hours before he interfered with my work. The user himself has caused a disturbance and is now claiming.--Makov Borislav (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC) This user has repeatedly complained to me in 5 different places, even though I linked to him to see that the content containing the copyright was completely removed before he was harassed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makov Borislav (talkcontribs) 19:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I deleted all the copyrighted content more than ten times in the edits and explained it in the discussion page: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makov Borislav (talkcontribs) 19:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
And in a few other places I explained that the content of the copy and paste containing the text from the European site has been completely removed. But this user does not pay attention and repeatedly deletes the rest of the content (which is not a copy) and I spent several hours on it, and he constantly complains to me in several places, claiming that I have broken the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makov Borislav (talkcontribs) 19:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
More: : I did not know about this law, but I have read it now. It is interesting that if someone has broken the rules, it is him.
He deleted my edit three times. Although I explained to him that the content including the copyright had been removed by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makov Borislav (talkcontribs) 19:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by myself. Long before this user enters the edit.
copy from: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makov Borislav (talkcontribs) 19:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't quite follow. The history section had major copy paste issues (now deleted by another user) and the revert by Philbrick was proper, but I am not sure how this revert is for copyvio. It deletes a lot of headers and a table of a World Cup. The headers are not a copyvio and I have not found anything suggesting the tables are. Also the obvious copyvio (the history) was left after the revert. There are still issues with formatting, context and obviously there were some Copyviolations. The above response and edit summaries don't do Makov any favours, but neither do edit summaries like rvt disruptionsand talk page warnings when I am not seeing major disruptions. Aircorn (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing block evasionEdit (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

This ip was identified as a sock of PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log· investigate · cuwiki) at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PlainAndSimpleTailor/Archive#21 April 2021. At the time they were evading to edit one article, and they were IP-hopping, so the page itself was shrewdly semi-protected rather than play "whack-a-mole". Since then, the user has continued to evade their block using this IP, sometimes returning to make the same edits but more recently other articles within the same general subject area (British legal articles; Brexit; regulatory bodies). The habits remain the same, references to "nationalists" and adding fringe opinions to legal articles. Pinging @El C: and @RoySmith: as the blocking admin and CU respectively. Cambial foliar❧ 19:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Suspected case of block bypassEdit

Hello, I think I'm on the right page, but please let me know if my inquiry would be better suited somewhere else.

This concerns the globally-locked and known sockpuppeteer Biantez (see block summary on meta). We are investigating on the french wikipedia the possible reappearance of the user who very likely still edits his favorite topics (samba schools and brazilean TV shows) by editing anonymously. Here is the ongoing administrator request, in french. Our administrators blocked an IP address who was confirmed to have been used by at least two now-blocked accounts acting on very similar topics as Biantez (see CU request in french). It was also shown that the IP range was not shared between multiple users.

So, I am bringing to your attention that the same IP that vandalized and disturbed the french wikipedia, 2804:14D:5C65:82BE (contribs on frwiki), has also been quite active on english wikipedia. I don't know whether you consider this enough to act upon, though. If you do, then perhaps a Check User between the above-mentioned IP and the users Bozeco and Boeco (the latter being globally locked) may be a start, as these accounts are known on french wikipedia to be related.

Sincerely, --ElMagyar (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@ElMagyar:: Have you asked on Meta to get another global lock on the new accounts? Whoever instituted the global lock on the Biantez account should be able to investigate and institute a global lock on the new account as well... The reason we have global locks is so we don't have to play whack-a-mole to deal with cross-project disruption. --Jayron32 14:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Skippo10 and NPOVEdit

Skippo10 (talk · contribs), a user since 2006, doesn't seem to understand WP:NPOV.

Recently I have been cleaning up after them at Ben Stephens (footballer), which included toning down language after they added (completely unsupported by the sources!) "a surprise move", "a debut to remember", "in fine form", "very impressive campaign" and "ability came to the forefront", "an impressive 20 goals in 39 appearances", "impressive goal return".

I warned him about this - he responded by (just 3 minutes later) writing "wasn't a match to remember", "beaten heavily".

He has expressed confusion that what he is doing is wrong - this shows a clear competency issue, especially for an editor with over 15 years experience.

Please can somebody else review and try and help this editor understand? GiantSnowman 21:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I really don't understand the issue, I have seen similar language used on other articles, you can just follow all the edits I make and clean them up so you are happy with them, also you have removed information added that had references to back it up like the 29 appearances and 3 goals scored in the spell at Kettering Town between 2016-2017. The Aylesbury reference backed up this information. Skippo10 (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Skippo10, please be aware that the Neutral point of view is a core content policy and compliance is mandatory. All of those quotes above are non-neutral, and cannot be added to Wikipedia unless they are direct quotes attributed to a reliable source. Do not write that way. Do you understand now? Cullen328 (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I remain concerned by Skippo's repeated "I don't understand" comments. Here they claim to have never known about it (despite being an editor for 16 years!) and they think it applies to admins only... GiantSnowman 06:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I think there is a bit of a fine line to walk regards neutral in tone wording and expressive writing. Articles (sports in particular) can become a bit boring if it just descriptions of score after score and things like "beaten heavily" can be fine if well supported. Some of the other quotes mentioned do go well beyond encylopaedic tone though. Aircorn (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


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

User has been making unusual content forks of UK radio station pages, conducting other vandalism, and even slapped an insult on me. Has received two 4im warnings in the last 30 days but no block has followed. Took this to AIV and was told it belonged at ANI.

Examples of their work:

  • Moved Dream 100 FM to Greatest Hits Radio Essex without explanation, in contravention of a 2020 RM/RfC on this and other similar stations, and made it an odd fork of Greatest Hits Radio East.
  • Other UK content forks have been deleted. In one case, I got a message from an IP about a CSD I made (see below)
  • Created redirects including Rebeib nutsuj (CSD R3)
  • Vandalized Liam Butcher, reverted here
  • Vandalized Capital Cymru including a page move to claim it had been moved to the Heart radio network, see this diff of cleanup

This may also be an SPI case, as I suspect by their edits Special:Contributions/ and especially Special:Contributions/2A00:23C8:4307:3400:A913:F9CD:D921:D995 who told me to "stop ruining my life" on Rhiabethmas's talk page when all I did was send one of their content forks to CSD. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 21:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I will add to Sammi Brie's report above that yesterday I declined a speedy (A1 and A7) on a page Rhiabethmas created - Hexham Radio. I moved it to draft as it was not suitable for mainspace. I left a talk page message explaining what needed to change for it to return to mainspace. They have moved it back to mainspace with no changes except for removing the cleanup tags and changing some capitalization. Note their edit summary in that move diff - it seems to be the same whenever they move a page. They also don't seem to use talk pages. I wonder if a competence block is in order? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I would support this. Clearly, Rhia does not know quite what they are doing. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 18:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Textbook WP:IDHT. casualdejekyll 18:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and personal attacks by IP user (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

First edit adding a blatant unsourced opinion to a BLP

Restoring edit after reversion and accusing me of being a "neoconservative fundamentalist".

WP:BATTLEGROUND and bad faith response to my warning and two further personal attacks on my talk page: 1 2 3

THE DIAZ userpagetalkcontribs 22:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I have pageblocked the IP editor from Salvatore Cordileone and warned them about the personal attacks. Please let me know if the misconduct continues. Cullen328 (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Mrbeastmodeallday and AthleteEdit

Ben Wallace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Athlete (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Bringing this because it involves a mixture of continued edit warring after an edit warring warning, continued personal attacks after a warning, and continued posting to my talk page after being asked to stop posting there. User has asked me to stop posting to his talk page so I am unable to continue any further warnings.

Mrbeastmodeallday (talk · contribs) is attempting to change the lead image of Athlete. This is simply a content dispute, and is being discussed on the article's talk page, as it should be. I'm content to allow that discussion to reach whatever consensus it reaches (currently five editors have commented, including user:X750 who has asked to be pinged to this report) but the article should remain in the status quo until the discussion reaches a conclusion.

Mrbeastmodeallday has continued to restore desired content after being warned for edit warring [100], has broken WP:3RR with 5 attempts in less than 24 hours [101] [102] [103] [104] [105], and has continued after talk page discussion Talk:Athlete#Which image is better suited for the lead? has started.

Mrbeastmodeallday harassed me by making 11 posts to my talk page in the space of less than 20 minutes. Several of the edits included mild personal attacks in the text or summaries. I was offline, and User:Malcolmxl5 cleaned up for me [106] (thanks). Mrbeastmodeallday then posted again, this time with a mild personal attack aimed at Malcolmxl5 [107]. When I came online again I removed the latest post, warned Mrbeastmodeallday, asked him not to post on my page again, and commented in the article talk page discussion. Mrbeastmodeallday then posted three more times to my talk page, including falsely accusing me of not having participated in the article talk page discussion [108] when I had done so more than 40 minutes earlier [109].

Other personal attacks in summaries: [110] [111] [112].

Editors can parse the recent WP:Bludgeoning on Talk:Athlete and Talk:Ben Wallace for themselves. Meters (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment - Mrbeastmodeallday has exceeded 3RR, and the diffs have shown that he often fails to maintain civility. He has overloaded the Talk:Athlete page, by posting short sentences in quick succession without proper formatting & structure. Whilst I have no problem with questions, he seems to like to overload the talk page with incessant comments, giving me difficulty in choosing which one to answer in order to satisfy what he wants. A find & replace search on Talk:Ben Wallace brings up seventy-seven results for his signature, all within the last three to four days. I would at the very least expect a short duration block, considering his inability to effectively implement BRD at Athlete, lack of civility, bludgeoning, and in general not being a very pleasant editor to deal with. X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 23:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I have blocked Mrbeastmodeallday for one week for edit warring, personal attacks and harassment, tendentious editing, and bludgeoning discussions. Cullen328 (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
  Like that's what I was gonna recommend. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

CIR and short descriptionsEdit

User has been warned multiple times about not adding unnecessary long short descriptions; but they don't seem to be reacting to such warnings; and their latest edits on their talk page are garbled gibberish. Seems like both a WP:DE (due to persistently putting overly long descriptions, sometimes in slow-mo edit wards) combined with a WP:CIR issue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I blocked HuiYongChin independent of this ANI discussion being opened. -- ferret (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for blocking both accounts. (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Yongchinhui has some edits that may require reversion. (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Eh! Eh! Aah! possibly BKFIPEdit

I was looking through the edit filter log and came across this user, reverting Alexander Davronov with the edit summary "not an improvement." I'm suspecting that this is BKFIP, as his targeting of Alexander Davrnov, his edit summaries, and the immediate knowledge of Wikipedia. Can anyone else give their input about this, can any admins who know how BKFIP typically reacts confirm my suspicions? Thanks, CutlassCiera 17:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Why not file at WP:SPI? Chris Troutman (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I would like others' input if this user is indeed BKFIP or not. CutlassCiera 17:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
How do we know whether it's the same person without an SPI if you don't? 2601:2C3:57F:3F80:2CF6:872A:911D:531B (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
As I had said previously, I pointed out some indicators of a possible BKFIP sock. I wanted input here because I had done so before and it worked out well. CutlassCiera 18:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

User keeps undeleting articleEdit

The user Xerxes Arkan keeps recreating their article Qevinz, even after it was nominated for speedy deletion 3 times. Lizardcreator (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I've already blocked and taken care of the article recreations (as well as the rest of their edits).-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Inserting unfitted image montageEdit

Here, this user want playing with WP:3RR by reverting previous disproportionate image collage that is not fitted with another, and blatantly rejected without good reason explained here. This user has history of warring previously with this article, and again revitalizing now. The Supermind (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@The Supermind Your edit did something else than what your vague edit summary said, one revert and you resort to ANI? This is inapporiate but since you made this move, and are making accusations, please provide the diffs for your claim of me 'edit warring', so that they can be scrutinized.
Editors have pointed out The Supermind lack of comptence [113] in Ethiopia related articles other than Gondar article. We had a discussion about the different forms of romanized spelling of Gondar a while back Talk:Gondar, so i don't think this editor issue is what on Gondar article, but elsewhere such as Talk:Ethiopia where i (among others) called this editor out for disruptive behaviour and factual errors. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
@Dawit S Gondaria: Please seriously stop editing warring and irrelevant accusations of my incompetence which is out of topic to current affair. The question is why you're preferring disproportionate unequal image collage to Gondar article infobox?, without good reason in edit summary. This user is seriously preventing me to contribute the article, in photomontage issue. The Supermind (talk) 05:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I would like to note that there has been a variety of views about the images in the Infobox of the article since January without a discussion being started on the talk page at Talk:Gondar. I have just created a new section for this purpose and would encourage anyone to comment there in an attempt to generate a consensus. If required we can then go through a formal RfC process. Gusfriend (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I have to decline the goodwill suggestion by Gusfriend, i refuse to entertain The Supermind any longer with my time, going back what was said earlier, the user made some accusations of edit warring, i asked for the diffs. In absence of proof, user need to be apologize.
@Gusfriend In January there was largely disagreement about romanization of Gondar, for which i started the discussion on the talkpage. There was back then one disagreement of using the same pictures in the article more than once [114], that hardly warranted a talkpage discussion. The Supermind didn't press for this issue either. We already had a discussion going in the talkpage, if there was a lingering disagreement, it would have been appropriate for The Supermind to bring it up then and there.
I maintain the view, that The Supermind issue with me lies elsewhere Ethiopia article. We had a content dispute there, and i openend an ANI [115] here, when it should have been in an content dispute board. We both got slapped [116] with a wet trout on our talkpages. After this i stopped pursuing the matter, but since then, other editors took notice of The Supermind edits, lack of competence and factual errors in Talk:Ethiopia.
I leave it to ANI to decide what to do with this, i refuse to engage this user. Now The Supermind wants to engage on the talkpage after these accusations, i'm not up for it. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Xubuli1993 and spam linksEdit

Almost all of Xubuli1993's edits have been to add links to "" to the External links sections of various articles. I warned them about this two days ago, after having reverted a bunch, but they are back at it today. DanCherek (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocked, indefinite. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

SPA Mass-EditEdit

On April 28, 2022, between 18:42 and 19:12, an anonymous user with the IP address 2a00:23c6:b106:ee01:7836:aa7d:271:70cd edited the pages of 11 companies with nearly identical inaccurate statements violating WP:Verify, WP:NPOV, WP: OR and WP:DUE. Disclosure: I work for Cloudflare, one of the 11 companies

This IP account is a SPA – the IP user has not made any other edits on Wikipedia. Here are the difs: Mondi dif, Aimbridge Hospitality dif, Align Technology dif, Amdocs dif, Amgen dif, Avaya dif, Cloudflare dif, Donaldson Company dif, Fleetcor dif, Flowserve dif, Hard Rock Cafe dif

I believe the repetition of these policy violations on 11 pages in 30 minutes constitute a user behavior issue that ANI should address.

The IP user inserted a nearly identical version of this paragraph (changing only the company name):

During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Mondi refused to join the international community and withdraw from the Russian market. Research from Yale University updated on April 28, 2022 identifying how companies were reacting to Russia's invasion identified Mondi in the worst category of "Digging In", meaning Defying Demands for Exit: companies defying demands for exit/reduction of activities. [1]

While a company’s reaction to the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a legitimate topic for articles about companies, given the unique context in which any company makes its decision, where possible each statement should be researched and written separately.

See, for example, the pending Talk:Cloudflare#Request Edit May 2022, which proposes a balanced summary regarding Cloudflare and the Ukraine with several RS, to replace the mass pasted paragraph of the SPA.

Ryanknight24 (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


IJBall’s passive aggressive comments and edit warringEdit

It is ludicrous how quick IJBall is willing to reframe themselves as a hero in confrontations. I was updating references and links on two pages following the template renaming of Template:The WB which had finally dropped “Television Network”, including on Family Affair (2002 TV series) and Living with Fran. I even gave uniformity to the dating of the sources, which was in two different formats for date and access date. I come to find my work completely reverted by IJBall, despite my work being called good. It was the whole thing, not just the dates. I’m told my work was good, but if it was so good, why was it completely reverted and not just the stuff that was targeted. Turns out the compliment was a blatant attempt at a false sense of security, or as they put it “a courtesy”. Barely one revert later, and they’re calling my behavior “disruptive", when I’m restoring constructive content. All because I reverted reversions they had no business making. How was I supposed to know mixed dating formats were wholly accepted? It’s not citation styles being varied here, which they kept citing to justify their reversions. They have repeatedly called me disruptive for making edits they didn’t like. If anything, they disrupted. At this point, it’s a grudge and I’m not going to stand for it. It is blatant abuse.--CreecregofLife (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

And I quoted WP:CITEVAR to you, which you then ignored, and reverted, picking up your repeated pattern of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:Edit warring (see any of the multiple previous ANI reports on CreecregofLife, who has been brought to ANI multiple times recently, by different editors). And then you did it elsewhere as well. The revert was so that you were clearly aware of the guidelines on the matter. You chose to ignore that. That's on you, not on me. Then I fixed your edits anyway, without a revert. Which is what you should have done in the first place. There is no "abuse". --IJBall (contribstalk) 02:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
BTW, FTR, CreecregofLife also failed to properly (promptly) inform me of this ANI filing, as editors are required to do. Just sayin'. --IJBall (contribstalk) 02:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
All I see here is a retaliatory report for the number of times they've genuinely been brought here, particularly by Magitroopa, but plenty of editors shared Magitroopa's concerns, including IJBall and myself. It's obvious this editor is never going to see how and why they're wrong, and an indefinite block seems like the only solution at this point for them. Amaury • 02:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
To add on: their BATTLEGROUND/WP:IDHT doesn't seem to have ended since the previous ANIs where other editors have voiced concern over that same behavior. Other than this, I think the discussions at Talk:Star Trek: Picard#Mentioning RedLetterMedia's Review and Negative Fan Reception, Talk:Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers (film)#Bobby Driscoll, and Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power#Is that Article a joke?. (mostly within the 'Break' section) are worth looking at as well. Also of note, Creecreg was also brought to WP:AN3 since the last ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive451#User:CreecregofLife reported by User:Amadeus1999 (Result:CreecregofLife and U-Mos both warned )).
Honestly, it's a miracle they made it out of the previous ANI alive, due to a technicality. Knowing how all the previous ANIs ended, it wouldn't surprise me that they somehow get out of this one as well.
Somewhat unrelated, but I'm also confused by their editing/behavior at WP:RPP/D- seems like they comment on most requests as if they have been involved in said articles, or as if they have page protection rights/their say is what ultimately matters (and has even needed to be told by an admin that their input is not needed). Magitroopa (talk) 10:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't have considered the date formatting within the scope of WP:CITEVAR (I'm not saying it's not, I'm just saying that's new to me). Mackensen (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

As there don't seem to be any diffs anywhere in this thread, I'm not going to comment on whether WP:CITEVAR is applicable in this case. In general, I would expect CITEVAR to apply to dates where they are used in citations. For more general date formatting issues, MOS:DATEVAR and MOS:ERA are relevant, and for variant styles more broadly, there is MOS:VAR. All broadly say the same thing: don't just change styles for the sake of it without obtaining consensus. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, possibly with the aim of starting edit warsEdit

Gawelsky has engaged in disruptive editing, replacing sourced information with strange statements based on their own POV and baseless speculation with zero citations. They also seem to specifically target areas related to Polish ethnicity and history.

Examples: 1 (claiming that "Poland has never been under colonial rule" - a controversial and untruthful statement, perhaps with the aim of provoking Polish users); 2 (erasure of a person's Polish origin and identity, possibly politically motivated); 3 (adding speculation with no basis in fact, to my knowledge soldiers of the 1st Belorussian Front did not engage in any fighting against Polish units, in fact Poles fought within these ranks, and Soviet/Polish troops fought the German 41st Panzer Corps, 3rd Panzer Army, etc.); 4 (stating that the native language of a Polish-Jewish woman was "yiddish [sic]" based solely on her ethnicity without basing their position on any sources, in spite of the woman's own view of the language).

As there is a link to Soviet Military Cemetery, Warsaw on my user page, since it is an article I heavily contributed to, I believe Gawelsky simply clicked on this link after encountering opposition from me and Merangs at the Rosa Luxemburg article and tried to provoke me into action elsewhere. Given more time I believe that they will make more attempts like this. If not on pages where I or Merangs made contributions then surely elsewhere.

--Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

An example of WP:NOTHERE. --2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:402F:47C2:49F:3D03 (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the speedy response and swift action, The Blade of the Northern Lights! This is much appreciated and puts my mind at ease that I won't have someone following me around to vandalise my contributions to Wikipedia. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive user continuing to be disruptiveEdit

As shown by their talk page, User:TRHmTivl is a known disruptive user (specifically an edit warrior), and recently they were vandalizing the Semen article. Their contributions is littered with “reverted” tags, including for what looks like vandalism, and this draft shows some WP:CIR issues. They also appear to have been engaging in vandalism (or at least unexplained removal of sourced content here and here. Should they be blocked as WP:NOTHERE or just more trouble than they’re worth? Dronebogus (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

see also Dronebogus (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Viewed through WP:AGF they do not look like a definite vandal. Has ceased to use the talk pages. My suggestion is an indefinite block until the user can(on the talk page) credibly show an adminstrator that they can understand what they did wrong, why it was wrong, and that they will not do it again.Lurking shadow (talk) 09:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive IPEdit has not only been engaging in edit wars but also making disruptive POV-related edits like 1 2 3 (essentially requesting a section dedicated to negative quote mining for a BLP) 4 5 6 7 8 Dronebogus (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Dawn PScLim's continuing template disruption.Edit

Dawn PScLim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1099#Disruptive template edits by Dawn PScLim

There was a discussion about Dawn PScLim's template space disruption a few days ago which was allowed to archive with no action. This editor does not appear to have listened to any of the comments in the previous discussion and the are continuing to disrupt template space with pointless and disruptive wording tweaks to cleanup and policy templates. Since they are unwilling or unable to address the issues themselves I feel that the proposed partial block from the template namespace is required.

A few examples of more disruption from after the prior ANI thread was started:

  • Meaningless addition to a cleanup template [117]. What on earth is "and shows the intended information clearly" supposed to mean when applied to citations? The extra addition to the list is also ungrammatical.
  • Changing the wording of a template to be plural for no explained reason [118].
  • In the words of Spicy Unnecessary and ungrammatical addition to a template [119]
  • Innapropriate addition of "unreliable sources" to a template about partisan sources [120]
  • Incomprehensible addition a template's documentation page [121]

Their remaining edits mainly consist of bloating up the wording of templates with unnecessary and redundant words that add nothing of value to the message. Instead of "talk page discussion" Dawn PScLim insists we write "relevant talk page discussion". instead of "verifiable information" they insist we write "verifiable and relevant information" etc. [122] [123] [124].

A newbie with 300 total edits and a not very good grasp of either wikipedia policy or the English language should not be attempting to re-write major policy and cleanup templates. Their continuing contributions in this namespace are simply a timesink for everyone else. (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

CutePeach disrupting COVID-19 discussionsEdit

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive291 states CutePeach is indefinitely topic banned from the Origins of COVID-19, broadly construed. If the disruption moves to another sub-topic of COVID-19, this topic ban can be extended to the full topic area by any univolved administrator.

CutePeach is disrupting (and has been for a while) COVID-19 topics in a number of ways. Most notably, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/COVID-19_vaccine_side_effects. I'd give you diffs if it were hard to find it, but as you see much of the discussion is CutePeach bludgeoning and sealioning. Also, note that CutePeach was specifically warned about this not only in the deletion thread but also at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive343#Requesting_admin_close_of_COVID-19_vaccine_side_effects_AFD where CutePeach was reminded of the TBan.

Note also that CutePeach has written WP:MEDRSNOT, which seems to be an attempt to disrupt the guidance given in WP:MEDRS. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I've nominated the essay for G5 as a violation (or at least, skirting way too close on the edge of it, see WP:SANCTIONGAMING no. 3) of the topic ban. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Looking at CutePeach talk page as of 2022-5-27T17:57 I see a number of COVID-19 related edit warnings: edit warring and other issues. I propose extending the topic ban to stop this disruption. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
And now Special:Contributions/Gimiv (already previously warned for personal attacks in this area) has taken the opportunity to engage in more WP:ASPERSIONS on the talk page of the essay... colour me surprised. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
As the original AN/E submitter resulting in the TBAN, I do believe the pattern of behavior that resulted in sanctions is continuing outside the narrow TBAN, for both other COVID topics and editing on medical/political topics overall. I had hoped the result would an ability to collaborate effectively, but the diffs below suggest this isn't the case. Rather, I'd suggest it looks a lot less like learning to collaborate effectively, and lot more like WP:IDHT, with an inability to stay away from other highly contentious areas.
Existing sanctions haven't resolved the problematic editing by now, with continued WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that has appeared to result in admins being hesitant to increase sanctions despite the evidence of continued problem behavior. Behavior has not improved, it will continue if action isn't taken. User can not drop the WP:STICK, it's up to Admins to enforce. Bakkster Man (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh look, a report without diffs. This is (yet another) attempt to discredit and delete CutePeach's WP:MEDRSNOT essay and lobby administrators to ban a longtime critic of WP:MEDRS abuse on Wikipedia. It sure didn't take long for RandomCanadian, CP's longtime adversary and avid MEDRS deletionist, to show up here to pile it on and "speedily delete" the essay, and now he's accusing me of engaging in WP:ASPERSIONS for contesting his deletion on the basis of MEDRS abuse. CP posted her MEDRS essay on VPP to get feedback [130], just like MarshallKe did about the abuse of WP:FRINGE last year [131], and its always these same editors showing up to pour acid on complaints about their own malfeasance. In the VPP discussion, Alexbrn is intransigently claiming that Havana syndrome is a "conspiracy theory" [132], deleting political allegations as if they are biomedical claims [133], and claiming the CIA-convened panel isn't a WP:MEDORG [134] when WaPo says it is made up of an independent panel of experts [135]. This is an abuse of MEDRS.

CP's TBAN was very narrowly focused on COVID-19 origins and she was given the chance to contribute in the wider COVID-19 topic area, which was pointed the last time the MEDRS crew tried stringing her up [136]. Rsjaffe doesn't seem to be part of that group, but he was dared into it by two editors who most certainly are [137] [138], and I wouldn't be surprised if this has to do with skeptic coordinated editing [139]. RoySmith's warning of CP [140], like EvergreenFir's January block, was a mistake [141]. I have been watching the Chinese government COVID-19 undercounting dispute since January, waiting for it to blow up into a full ArbCom case to expose the hypocrisy. Alexbrn is insisting there that only medical sources can be used for his POV [142], but doesn't seem to care that preprints are being used for the CCP's POV [143] [144]. This is a blatant abuse of MEDRS and WP:PREPRINT.

On the content dispute. CP created an article on COVID-19 vaccine side effects, and Bakkster Man accused her of WP:GAMING for allegedly using a MEDRS source as cover for a BMI claim. She provided him with a WHO source listing tinnitus as a COVID-19 vaccine side-effect, but fails to reply. What WhatamIdoing is doing in the AfD is classic WP:SEALIONING, making ten different arguments about why the claim is UNDUE there. CP changed her !vote to delete the side-effects article and asked WAID how to move it to the vaccine article, providing several review articles to answer the WP:NOTEVERYTHING concerns, but WAID just comes back at her with irrelevant philosophical ideas. I don't believe these editors even knew these sources existed when they decided to pick on CP. They dared not file this frivolous report themselves. Gimiv (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't post a diff of the talk page edit cause it was a page creation. As for the rest, the above has such a strong stench of WP:BATTLEGROUND, including wide-ranging accusations of misbehaviour which are exactly WP:ASPERSIONS (including but not limited to blatant lack of good faith - I haven't interacted with CP in months [in fact I've stayed mostly away from COVID, being kept busy with other matters], and I wasn't even the one that reported this here; accusations that an AfD is sealioning, ...); I'm going to ignore it. If somebody else wants to propose sanctions on Gimiv, be my guest.
I'm just going to note that CP's edit outside of the narrow origins area don't seem that much more productive, unless one willfully ignores such evidence as the litany of additional edit warring notices on their talk page since, the block for edit warring back at the end of March (on a COVID-related topic); and now the creation of an essay which is very borderline WP:SANCTIONGAMING; as well as the creation of an obvious WP:POVFORK, which thankfully looks like it's headed for deletion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Shifu 8964Edit

Ban evasion. Edit summaries are exactly the same as that of globally locked account User:Shih Ming-teh. The dog2 (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Racism, flaming, edit warring, disruptive editing, vandalism, etc.Edit

I hate to be back here so soon, but I guess it's just my luck. The user Turaids has for a long time now (since last year at least, if I recall correctly) been lurking at the kvass article and engaging in disruptive editing. Generally it boils down to their gradual erasure of sources and text mentioning the beverage's apparent Slavonic (particularly Kievan Rus') origins. In the past, they have actively vandalised and/or deleted portions of the article dealing with kvass in Slavic countries in favour of the sections that speak about kvass in other regions, especially their own home country of Latvia. To bring up examples from this would require me to dedicate way more time and effort than I am willing to give this person, but for those who assess this report I recommend looking at their contributions in the kvass article. More recently, they have been more careful with how they try to manoeuvre their way around Wikipedia guidelines on the actual kvass page, but way more aggressive and racist in their edit summaries and the comments they have left aimed at me on the kvass talk page.

Here are some recent examples: 1 - using the edit summary to goad me and singling out my ethnic group; 2 - bitter and baseless removal of new content that adds to the article, simply due to the fact that it expands the Polish section that Turaids seems to be on a mission against; 3 - seemingly racist comments and flaming another user, along with baseless and nonsensical accusations (see the Make kvass... Polish "again"? section for details) such as accusing me and Poles in general of "staking their claim" on kvass... apparently by using sources which say that kvass was invented in the Kievan Rus' (lands and nations corresponding to present-day Ukraine, Belarus, Russia - not Poland)? I don't know how one makes this illogical leap in conclusion, but it is in cases like this where you can clearly see the vehemently anti-Polish and anti-Slavic sentiment of Turaids. On this talk page you can also see Turaids calling me "hysterical", "incompetent", and "stubborn". The edit history for the kvass page itself also shows numerous attempts to start and continue edit wars made by Turaids over the course of the past few months.

If the edit warring, disruptive editing motivated by some kind of misplaced national pride, clear POV-pushing and OR, attempts to divide Wikipedians along ethnic lines, as well as personal attacks fuelled by a hatred towards another ethnic group are not basis enough for a ban then I don't know what is... --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The only disruption here is the personal attacks made by Samotny Wędrowiec: your little snarky racist comments in the edit summaries of the article will NOT be tolerated .. Unlike you, I have no ulterior motive here [145] you are, in fact, a racist. [146]. ethnic groups you seem to despise. [147] Recommend a WP:BOOMERANG. - MrOllie (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't know what your game here is, but my comments in response to Turaids are very much available for all to see in the pages I linked to. Quoting me here is therefore quite redundant, since I quite literally invited whoever will assess this report to read through the conversation Turaids and I had, though I see that by removing the context of the attacks on my person you are trying to paint a more favourable view of Turaids and a very unfavourable one of me. This sensationalism is uncalled for. Let people have a look at the entire conversation, which I have already linked to (again, there is no need to link to the same pages, but with only my contributions highlighted and that of Turaids omitted).
Also, I still very much stand by what I said there and here. I do believe that Turaids is at least partially motivated by racist beliefs about my ethnicity. If I did not believe that and if their provocations were not so effective then I wouldn't be here and I would not be making such serious accusations. Usually, when someone is accused of racism, a civilised investigation occurs to assess the situation instead of just calling the accusation a personal attack itself in an effort to silence the party that feels they have been offended. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)