These 3 users have engaged in WP:MEATPUPPETry on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 17#Template:Largest cities of Israel. Additionally, User:Triggerhippie4 engaged in WP:CANVASing behavior in an attempt to WP:HARASS me.

The intent of my nomination was to initiate a discussion about the template and several editors agree that the template needs improvement. However, user:Triggerhippie4 engaged in uncivil behavior stating "You are obviously don't know what you are talking about, can't even open and compare the two."

User:Gidonb continues to make frivolous requests to fish my ip address.Catchpoke (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I raised a concern that I have on the appropriate page, then detailed it a bit following multiple public requests by multiple fellow WP volunteers (not the folks that happen to be with me in this section header). I did nothing different from the previous times that I reported something that concerned me at WP. I expressed my opinion at the discussion that the complainer initiated, disregarding all concerns, even when pressured at this point, and called names by the person who complains here against me. How awkward! In my opinion, the complainer's uncivil behavior[1][2][3] is not acceptable and, of course, one is always free to take a look at my actions. Policies apply to all. gidonb (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for the TfD itself: beyond incivility, there is too much back and forth. I think that everyone should have their say and opinions should be given some space. It's not a good idea to react to everyone's opinions. gidonb (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the SPI you started, you were asked for diffs 3,5 days ago [4]. You have not provided one even today [5]. Also, I cannot follow your logic in here: did you go to SPI because of incivility? -DePiep (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the SPI because of a concern of sockpuppetry that I continue to have (previously I would report a suspected sockpuppet on an admin's page who referred me to that page). I think it is a valid concern. At the very least there are very valid causes for concern. The user decided to attack me on multiple pages, including here, by my interpretation as a sort of defense. That's a strategy I do not approve of but just maybe within the complainer's rights. I hope not. I'm no expert on how these things develop or on all procedures and abbreviations. I'm not going to argue with all that is being said here or with every way my actions are misinterpreted. I do not do that in other discussions either. I mostly edit. All this is extremely time consuming and draining. Even simple discussions where you just want to provide your two cents have become that way. gidonb (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make this incredibally short but if pressed, I can supply any reasoning required: user:Gidonb, I've included you here because user:SoaringLL is clearly a sock. Your request for a background check at WP:SPI was unwarranted however since you did not supply the required information for such an invasion of privacy. I don't want to comment or involve user:Gidonb further.Catchpoke (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I acted in good faith. But is it special? All Wikipedians with a constant record of fighting vandalism, sockpuppetry, POV, and excessive nominations on Wikipedia act in good faith. Once in a while we get a barnstar, after 12 years we receive the PumpkinSky Prize, but far more often our pages are vandalized or we are threatened or even dragged to the WP:ANI or other boards. I'm not a Wikipedian for any of these. I'm here because I like to edit and believe in Wikipedia's mission. If you want to edit constructively, start necessary discussions, and report a case of possible sockpuppetry for honest reasons -- that's great! gidonb (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• What an incredibly horrific and unpleasant TfD discussion we have there. Multiple participants deserve WP:TROUT, if not actual warnings. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding to the report wrt User:Triggerhippie4:

Triggerhippie4 canvassing casting bad faith: [6]. They did not respond but did engage in side-issues [7] 'That's why I notified these users.' (i.e., nothing about the canvassing post).

Triggerhippie4 entring personal attacks in TfD discussion: [8] 'False. You are obviously don't know what you are talking about, can't even ...', [9] 'Nominator is a newbie', [10] 'You are as competent as the nominator', invoking WP:CIR, 'mindful editors please'.

Triggerhippie4 was warned about this behaviour by multiple editors: [11] 'chilling effect of attitudes and comments', [12] 'unhelpful', [13] 'for a second time enters PAs'.

-DePiep (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding to the report wrt User:Gidonb:

Gidonb expressing PA [14] 'unnecessary procedure, ... You'll just keep precious wasting community time' (sic), a warning was added [15] 'I don't think your judgements on this procedure and on an editor's GF are sound or helpful', which was ignored [16] pretending not understanding.

Gidonb initiated SOCK claims [17] on 20 May 2021 against two editors he was involved with at the TfD. On 19:25 21st, extra info (diffs supporting their claim) was asked per CU process. Up until this moment, 3,5 days later, Gidonb has not provided a single diff. Still they continued to post otherwise [18] and elsewhere [19][20][21] in the discussion. Finally (so far) after 3,5 days, they withdrew one accusation [22] as a 'weaker case', and adding verbose meandering thoughts again without a single diff [23].

• All in all, I think Catchpoke has good reason claiming harrassment: here is a list of PAs (in various specific forms) and the spurious still unsourced SOCK accusation. While SPI ideally should be considered independently from other claims, ie by itself, such claims are not free and do have a chilling effect on a discussion. Gidonb must be aware of this, especially since they withdrew one name late (despite being explicitly asked to look at it), and another name is hung in the open still without proof. (I'd expect an earlier throw-out by CU clerck btw). This is gaming the system.

I have not experienced problematic behaviour with SoaringLL. MEATPUPPETtry could be checked for. I think a block for Triggerhippie4 and Gidonb would be useful, both to stop extending unbased SPI accusations and to keep the TfD discussion healthy & fruitful. -DePiep (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In their posts and responses here, both Gidonb and Triggerhippie4 do not show awareness of their problematic behaviour. This implies they are not up for changing their behaviour. -DePiep (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've believe user:Gidonb engaged in good faith behavior since he is in his rights to accuse me of sockpuppetry but I don't want to comment on his behavior further.Catchpoke (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a block on user:Triggerhippie4. In addition to the facts stated by User:DePiep and I, he WP:VOTESTACKed and only notified keep voters on their talk pages of a previous and similar discussions.Catchpoke (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is slander. I notified all active users from previous discussions. Point to an active user whom I should've notified but didn't. It's not my "fault" that previous nominations resulted in 'keep'. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See #report wrt Triggerhippie4 above. The diffs there show that you were WP:CANVASSING, made WP:PERSONAL ATTACKS. Also proofs of WP:NOTGETTINGIT, to which we can add later posts. Your questioning is not negating all that — it is ignoring all that (proving the point). I stand by my proposal. -DePiep (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My conduct is nothing in comparison to yours, apparently. I just looked at your block log, and omg, I don't think I need a lecture on civility from someone who was blocked for PAs and harassment multiple times, including one time indefinitely. You are on WP:EDRC for that. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

O.k. Well I found this. Maybe we can move forward from this ANI and User:DePiep and I can discuss these templates further.Catchpoke (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you hiding behind others to justify you own breach of WP guidelines? Quite a non-defence. -DePiep (talk) 11:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Above, #report wrt Gidonb shows in diffs that there is more to it. Multiple personal attacks, multiple users frivolously accused of being a SOCK (as [admitted by Gidonb] themselves), and not responding to serious requests for many days (i.e., keeping the SPI/accusation needlessly open). Whether knowingly or unknowingly: unacceptable behaviour towards other editors. And don't forget: all this disrupted the TfD to the brink. -DePiep (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

>These 3 users have engaged in WP:MEATPUPPETry on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 17#Template:Largest cities of Israel.
The allegations are baseless, as I don't know those users. I notified Gidonb, because he's major contributor to one of the templates you started the discussion about. And I have nothing to do with SoaringLL.
>User:Triggerhippie4 engaged in WP:CANVASing behavior in an attempt to WP:HARASS me.
I don't consider this ([24]) WP:CANVASS, it was accurate description of your nomination.
>The intent of my nomination was to initiate a discussion about the template and several editors agree that the template needs improvement.
The intent of your nomination was to delete {{Largest cities of Israel}}, and the overwhelming majority voted to keep.
>user:Triggerhippie4 engaged in uncivil behavior stating "You are obviously don't know what you are talking about, can't even open and compare the two."
I said it in response to your astounding claim "all of the cities in {{Largest cities of Israel}} are included in {{Largest Israeli cities}}", because it was obviously false. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't even be making a comment like this when the discussion is ongoing and elsewhere. That certainly was harassment. "all of the cities in {{Largest cities of Israel}} are included in {{Largest Israeli cities}}": Did I do my math wrong? And there were 2 uses until you added it to this article.Catchpoke (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Triggerhippie4, you write: "I don't consider this ... canvas". But IT IS. You are not free to judge yourself, of course. You wrote a personal attack. Now at last, respond to the content, do not ignore it. -DePiep (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I am a bit surprised that this quite simple report on two editors does not gain any traction by ANI regulars. Any rational explanation? -DePiep (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Simple? I can't even tell who the two editors are. EEng 04:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said: nothing rational. (logged as: another trolling post by User:EEng). -DePiep (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thus reminding us why you're under an editing restriction providing for "immediate sanction (including blocks) if [you make] any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, or personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith". You've really gotta stop seeing dark motives all the time. See also WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1018#EEng_agression.

  I was serious: I honestly cannot tell which two editors you're talking about, and this report is certainly not "simple". It's a confused mish-mash of accusations and counter-accusations, with a dollop of side stuff thrown in along the way. EEng 21:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Nice try. You write 'I can't even tell who the two editors are' as if they weren't linked. Now you changed into 'confusing report'. If something is unclear, why not ask clarification? Or, if you are unable to grasp the reoports and follow the talkflow, just walk by is an option. -DePiep (talk) 08:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Apparently no one else can can "follow the talkflow" either. You keep posting but no one takes the slightest notice. EEng 19:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  No, your 'conclusion' by your 'resoning' that others 'cannot follow' this thread is wrong. ANI has more flaws. Anyway, you are still trolling not discussing. Bye. -DePiep (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  At least I notice you. EEng 00:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This user is stalking my edits which is inhibiting my work (WP:FOLLOWING). Can anyone here ask them to stop doing this, please? I don't want to post this on their talk page. Thanks. Störm (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Störm: You're not allowed to report someone here without notifying them. WP:HOUNDING states that the following must not be "for no overridingly constructive reason". User:Praxidicae may have such a reason, so you must notify them so they can provide it. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 15:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not stalking your edits, I rightfully noticed your poor editing of BLPs prior to your autopatrolled being revoked and subsequently looked at newer BLPs and noticed the same problems. BEACHIDICAE🌊 15:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And for those unaware, last week I came across another iteration of Ramzi Najjar and noticed after digging that the sources being used were about an entirely different person than they had written about. This is the second iteration of it, which is different from the original one they started and I would encourage any administrator to look and see what I'm talking about. When I asked them, it was removed and they could not answer for where they got the information in a WP:BLP. Today I came across Tarryn Fisher and noticed similar problems, namely the unreliable sources and lack of sourcing to support information about the individual and when asked was told that they were "being bold". It is completely reasonable to look at an editors history after noting such glaring policy violations. BEACHIDICAE🌊 15:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Close this. It's clearly Storm getting their offensive in first, having driven Praxidicae to consider filing here.

Actually, on consideration, don't close this; Praxidicae can make their case, and the wood that makes their case will also make a boomerang. ——Serial 15:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• And for the uninitiated, the Ramzi Najjar version I'm talking about was not merely a confusion of sources, it was literally written entirely about someone else and each statement was sourced to papers or links that made no mention of the actual content it was being used for. Including using a book published in 1988 - to source the date of college graduation for someone born in 1978, among other things. I can only imagine Storm wrote out the content based on something and then went through newspapers.com and google books and just searched the name and threw whatever they thought would stick and no one would check. I would be glad to point out many of the other issues with their work, including this unanswered COIN thread from a few weeks ago. BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Nothing actionable here. If an experienced editor spots problems with a user's contributions, it's logical and appropriate to review other recent edits to determine if the same problems exist elsewhere. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Pretty obvious to me that there are legitimate editing concerns with Störm that Praxidicae is working on. It's odd that Störm doesn't want to engage productively to address the issues. -- Dane ^talk 16:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This one was created when I had autopatrolled rights and before their notice. I am willing to correct myself and re-read in detail about the WP:BLP policy. Just ask them to stop following me around, if this thing continues with me then I have to leave this place. Störm (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here as I and others noted is that you immediately remove any criticism and are not held accountable for the edits you are making. This is a collaborative environment which also requires you to be accountable for your edits, especially to sensitive subjects like WP:BLPs. Your comments of "noted" among other things while simultaneously still not following policy and adding dubious sources in general to all types of articles is a problem and feeling attacked does not absolve you from one of the core principles of editing Wikipedia, and as long as you insist on creating BLP violations and subpar stubs of dubious notability, any user is free to note as much and expect an answer. BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited and volunteered my time for so long that I don't want to go that in vain. I am willing to correct myself and not insisting to create subpar stubs. But targeting someone is not a way to correct anybody. I will accept the advice and will incorporate that into my editing. Störm (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not targeting you for fun, I looked at your contributions because I noticed glaring policy violations that you don't seem to understand or be willing to fix based on your responses. Further, since we're looking at edits, two of your most edited articles, Erfan-e-Halgheh, Mohammad Ali Taheri are sourced to content from National Council of Resistance of Iran (and not to mention, pretty heavily whitewashed). BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And that doesn't even touch on the use of your use of predatory publishers as what appears to be the sole source for the aforementioned articles. BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what you expect from the Iranian regime that they will write neutrally? I can see you have plenty of time to target people for fun and always trying to make a WP:POINT. I will answer to someone cooperative. For your information, I am still working on the article and it is a notable topic. Störm (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be missing the point here and for that reason, I'd actually propose a topic ban on BLPs until you understand our policies regarding sourcing better. This is a classic case of it's them, not me!. BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I was reported before and I addressed the issue raised. I am willing to do the same here without wasting any time. Störm (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered the idea that responses like this are exactly why we are having this discussion? Or perhaps, when someone brings up an umabiguous policy violation with you, perhaps you should not blow them off and create silly ANI threads but clean up your own mess? Never the less, this does not address the issues of your BLP editing and lack of responsiveness when questioned about it. So what you expect from the Iranian regime that they will write neutrally? you are not making a point that I really think you want to be making with this statement... BEACHIDICAE🌊 17:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• And I'll note that the unsourced content is still in Tarryn Fisher and your explanation makes no sense - occasionally (even often) biographical data is included in jacket covers of books but I don't see any evidence her birth date is included, so the story that it was "in one of her books" doesn't jive since they also all appear to be fiction. BEACHIDICAE🌊 17:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• After seeing the responses above and the obvious unwillingness to collaborate and correct deficiencies, I would also support a topic ban for Störm from editing BLPs. -- Dane ^talk 18:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I have seen things go from benign to extremely complicated, I have witnessed a productive user go from being productive and useful to becoming a banned editor within the span of 72 hours. So @Störm, would you rather accept your faults and be responsible or would you choose to intentionally not hear what is being said to you and face a sanction? Especially one which could easily be avoided? It’s your choice in the end. Celestina007 (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Celestina007 thanks for your comment. I am willing to listen to your advice. I am accepting my faults here and promise that I will not repeat them. In case, if I do any major BLP violation from now onwards then I should be banned. At least give me a chance to correct myself and don't waste my six years' credibility by asking for a ban. Thanks. Störm (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Störm, No one is threatening you with a ban and secondly i did not advise you, Praxidicae and the community did, I merely commented on it. Abide your own promise above and go to Praxidicae's tp and affirm that you have seen your errors and accepted their advice. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Störm created two obviously promotional articles for Maltese websites on the German Wikipedia, today and a few weeks ago (I got here because I wondered why an user with 80k edits on enwiki created such articles). --Icodense (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, I too have had concerns about this exact problem both here and crosswiki, Icodense99. BEACHIDICAE🌊 14:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Störm: As far as I can tell, you never answered the question (perma) where you originally got Tarryn Fisher's birth date from. Could you clarify? Thanks. --Blablubbs|talk 20:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blablubbs, I got help from my friend who shared a copy of her upcoming autobiography. I was unaware of stringent sanctions at that time when I added unsourced information. I have now corrected the information. Thanks. Störm (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Störm, how did your friend get a copy of an unpublished book? --Blablubbs|talk 09:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are in touch with someone who is connected with the author. Störm (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Störm, so a friend of a friend of the author shared a full copy of an unpublished work with you, someone who is known neither to the friend nor the subject, so that you could include the full date of birth in the Wikipedia article? --Blablubbs|talk 13:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My friend is an avid fan of her books, so she needed help in creating Wikipedia page. I added full date of birth to give it a complete look. The person who shared the unpublished work knows the author. Störm (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Störm, I genuinely struggle to believe that someone with your experience thought that it would be OK to put information from an unpublished book into a BLP. The fact that you're collaborating with people who know the author sounds like you may have a conflict of interest as well. This, alongside the suggestions that you have written promotional articles for websites on DeWiki mentioned above, is extremely troubling.

Can I just come out and ask you straight - have you ever edited for pay? Have you ever written other articles for people, or on behalf of people who are connected in any way to the subject of the articles? Girth Summit _(blether) 15:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit I want to make it clear that I never got paid for anything here. Störm (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Störm, thanks, but that isn't quite what I asked. Please would you re-read my post, and answer both of the questions? Girth Summit _(blether) 17:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit This was the only article (here) where we can say I had some sort of conflict of interest (although, I tried to write it neutrally). Next, German Wikipedia ones were the drafts given to me by my relative to publish about their web portals. I published them as it is, which was not successful. I have never edited German Wikipedia before this and accept that such spamming is not an acceptable behavior. Thanks. Störm (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Störm, can I ask you about another on of your recent articles? Eric Kalala has the subject's date of birth, and details about the number of siblings he has. I don't see that information in any of the cited sources - can you explain where this came from please? Girth Summit _(blether) 10:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit, Siblings, Eric Kalala birthdate, Tarryn Fisher birthdate. Thanks. Störm (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Störm, I don't know why you're giving my the Tarryn Fisher link, since you've already said you got that from an unpublished autobiography.

I don't see how the Eric Kalala Facebook page supports the content you wrote in the article about him. You wrote He is the third out of a family of six children. On his Facebook page you just linked to, there are two brothers listed, two cousins, and a brother-in-law.

I also don't see his birthdate there. The page you linked to tells me where he works, where he was educated, where he lives, where is is originally from, and who he is married to - nothing else.

Are you able to explain why you are seeing something different from me? Girth Summit _(blether) 11:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit It is the same on my side currently as what you're seeing now. I just provided the links from where I got the information. It looks like they have changed their privacy policy. My friend shared the link about her birthdate, so I thought I should share it here for verification. Thanks. Störm (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on this subject, I find it curious that Störm created Galaxy Racer eSports shortly after failed attempts to create the same article by a disclosed paid editor and a blocked UPE sockpuppeteer. Spicy (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 171#Paid Page: Sebastien Lepinoy also seems interesting in that context. And those explanations ("I got help from my friend" and "given to me by my relative") sound like poor excuses to me. --Icodense (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Störm, I'm trying to understand what led to these edits: [25][26][27]. Could you explain what happened there? --Blablubbs|talk 12:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Blablubbs I am patient about this. They are continuously attacking me as they think I have damaged their Google Knowledge Panel profile. I think this IP should be blocked as they continuously removing alternate names from the article. Störm (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Störm, why do they think that? And could you link me to the knowledge panel thing? I couldn't immediately see it in the IP's contributions. --Blablubbs|talk 12:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Look at [28], [29], knowledge panel. They are vandalizing and doing nothing useful. Störm (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Störm, sorry, missed the knowledge panel thing somehow. Here's the sequence of events that I can see: It appears that someone is attempting to spam (the living) Ramzi Najjar: On 11 May, Seraphimblade deletes a G11 version of that article. On 18 May, someone recreates the spammy article and it gets draftified. On 26 May, you create an article about him in mainspace. The same day, Praxidicae brings up sourcing concerns on your talk page. You then G7 the page and immediately recreate it; this time, it's about a different Ramzi Najjar. That article gets AfD'd. A Lebanese IP, possibly the subject of the previous iteration, then shows up at the AfD to complain that you hijacked "their" page, referring to the page about the living Ramzi Najjar that had previously existed in mainspace. Am I parsing this correctly? --Blablubbs|talk 12:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blablubbs, correct. I mixed two people because of their extensive paid publishing. As I found out my mistake, I requested the page deletion and created the article on notable one. Störm (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Störm: So what prompted you to write about the living Ramzi Najjar in the first place? The timing here seems rather strange. I also note that something similar has happened in the past; Icodense99 mentioned Sebastien Lepinoy and the associated COIN thread – you created that page after it was put up on upwork, it got taken to AfD by scope creep and you responded with a G7, essentially killing any further discussion about COI issues. --Blablubbs|talk 12:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blablubbs Sorry for late reply. I was at the site busy with my job. Nothing special prompts me to write about any topic. I write about the topic when I consider it notable. I have written and edited many odd topics here and many many with COI notices which doesn't make a paid editor (infact, I am strictly against paid work and ensures quality of work on Wikipedia to best of my abilities, I've nominated and participated in over 2k AfDs, many with COIs). I believe in Wikimedia Foundation mission and regularly donate to support that mission. Wikipedia has added so much to my knowledge and I tried my best to give that back in last six years by spending my hundred of hours here, improving articles. I am in no position to decide whether I should continue or stop here for good. I am open to suggestions how to improve my editing. I want to end it at good note. Thanks. Störm (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Störm your response just above doesn't explain anything, in fact, it makes this even worse. You wrote an entire article about a living person - sourced entirely to publications about someone who was not that person. So where did the information that you originally wrote even come from? BEACHIDICAE🌊 12:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Störm: What is the exact title of this unpublished book? And how is it that you have so many "friends" who just happen to know the subjects you've chosen to write about? BEACHIDICAE🌊 14:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, without dilly-dallying there’s a clear conflict of interest here which they failed to disclose. It is impossible for a 6 year old experienced editor not to know to declare a COI. They simply are not not eligible to hold Autopatrol rights, and (IMO)the perm should not be reinstated indefinitely. It is one thing for an editor with Autopatrol to create an article which is not notable, and it is a whole other thing for an editor with Autopatrol to create promotional articles. I should also add that, generally, any explanation that has any statement along the lines of “a friend of a friend who knew a friend that knew the (add whatever falsehood) to be intentional deceptive and fictional. Celestina007 (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Clarification on an Ambiguous Situation

I will try to clarify one matter of ambiguity, in the Wikipedia sense that it would require disambiguation if they were notable. There are two run-of-the-mill authors with the same name. One is living, and one died last year. In my opinion, and it appears that User:Praxidicae agrees with me, neither of them is biographically notable. User:Störm wrote an article on the late author, and she nominated it for deletion, and I !voted to Delete. There is a draft on the living author, which Prax and I have both declined or rejected; Störm has no involvement with that. Whether the article on the deceased author should be kept is a valid content dispute being handled by AFD, and I concur with Prax's action in nominating it for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae, Störm and Girth Summit, I think störm is trying to attack praxidicae from his ip address see this [[30]].113.21.66.71 (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only edit that 223.223.140.176 has ever made, and reporting it here is the only edit that 113.21.66.71 has ever made. Don't know what's going on there, but it's weird. And the message on Prax's talk page is absolutely loathsome. jp×g 03:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both IPs are Kolkata-based. The message they left doesn't represent what I stand for. Shame they do such cowardly acts. Störm (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, I edited DJ Vlad. All I did was update subscribers and views stats, that were more than a year old. The stats have no references. Even though the updated stats were accurate, they were reverted with the edit summary "unE/unS". I had no idea what that meant. WP:E is editing policy, and WP:S is a help page about searching. Since my edit was constructive and "unE/unS" unclear, I undid the reversion, with the edit summary "What are you doing? What's wrong with my edit? And what does "unE/unS" mean?". My edit was once again reverted, with edit summary "entirely unsourced". This again, made no sense to me, because - yes, it's unsourced, but I'm merely updating unsourced content. Since when is that not allowed? I can now only update unsourced content when I find a source? So, if someone adds "grass is purple" without a source, I change that to "grass is green", then it gets reverted because I must first find a source? Either way, I decided to give in. If - apparently - I'm not allowed to improve unsourced content, let's start by marking it with "citation needed", so we can first get the ref. I marked it as such. Which was accepted! (The article has pending changes.) Although a log of this appears to have disappeared(!), since it was then reverted after all. With edit summary "Ur edit was unExplained and unSourced. Re-adding with cite needed tags is not how it works. Go find some refs". In other words, an editor who uses "Ur", now tells me to "Go find some refs". To add insult to injury, this editor then edited my talk page to first claim I'm making "unconstructive edits", and then immediately after that a second claim that I'm in an "edit war", and that I may get blocked. My opinion is that the behavior of User:Thewolfchild is entirely uncalled for. I did not make unconstructive edits, so I don't deserve that warning. And I'm not in an edit war either. I clearly gave in and refrained from re-adding the content, and decided to add the "citation needed" tags instead. To then have someone write "Go find some refs." really hurts. All I wanted to do is update some stats. To then to get all this poured over me, and the end-result being a Talk page with how bad of an editor I would be. I don't think I deserve this. Unjustified right? --143.176.30.65 (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, don't get your feelings hurt about this. It's nothing personal. When edits are made, especially if they're regarding statistics. Wikipedia requires sourcing when changes are made, and the one making the change is supposed to supply the sourcing. If you can supply inline sourcing at the time you make the changes, maybe they won't get reversed. If not, you could post the information on the article's talk page, rather than in the article, and explain where you got the information from. Also, I think the messages on your talk page were pre-worded templates, which a lot of people use. — Maile (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since these are outdated, inaccurate stats, which means Wikipedia is spreading misinformation, can I mark them as contentious material in an edit summary, with the edit itself removing the stats per WP:BLP + it being unsourced? --143.176.30.65 (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't sufficient to ping TheWolfChild from your talk page, you have to notify them at their talk page. P-K3 (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Already did, they reverted that. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: your input is needed on this issue. Please respond here and engage in the discussion. — Maile (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• To admins and others here. If no response is made by Thewolfchild here, I would suggest we revisit their block log history of disruptive editing and personal attacks. After years of temporary blocks for harassment, personal attacks, and edit warring, @Bishonen: applied an indef block for "Disruptive editing, newbie-biting, frightening people" in April 2019, and @Nosebagbear: unblocked them in October 2020. What is happening now appears to be a repeat of the behavior they were blocked for. — Maile (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. 107.146.244.150 (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@143.176.30.65 - First, you're complaining about the abbreviations I used in my edit summary, when you didn't even bother to add an summary at all with your first edit. Typically, (as per WP:BRD) when you're reverted, if you disagree, you should then start a discussion on the talk page. Had you done so, I would've been more than happy to explain the reasons for the revert, namely the WP:RS policy that you need to follow, and clairfy any abbreviations used, at that point. But you didn't, you instead just reverted again. You were then reverted by a different editor (Chicdat). You then made another edit to that content again, this time with a somewhat hostile summary, and still without any attempt at discussion on the article talk page. (I reverted, but have since self-reverted, as it was only tags being added, and no changes made to actual content.) Yes, I did add a disruptive editing notice, because I felt your editing was disruptive. I also added the edit warring notice because I felt you should be aware of the policy. These are just notices, they're not punitive, and you are free to delete or archive them (as you have done with the many other notices and warnings you've received). And finally, even though I posted to your talk page, you did not respond there, or post a comment on my talk page, or on the article talk page, or try dispute resolution, or contact an available admin... any of the alternatives clearly listed at the top of this page to try before posting an ANI. - wolf 00:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related to WP:Discussion and IMO therefore not WP:TALKOFFTOPIC: you should use a differently styled signature. Per WP:CUSTOMSIG/P, your current way of signing posts is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Its markup (with the "color: black" span) essentially hides the link to your Talk page. The link is only visible to those who hover over the word "wolf" on a desktop computer. You need an easily identified link to aid others in communicating with you; a signature that facilitates discussion by identifying you without the apparent requirement of navigating to the page history. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 07:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You mischaracterize my asking about your edit summary as "complaining about the abbreviations". Then you unjustifiably blame me for not using an edit summary for my first edit. Also, per WP:BRD, when reverting, you need to "be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed", which "unE/unS" - particularly without internal links - is not. As for WP:RS, in this particular context, it does not require me to "go find some refs". I am aware of 'the policy'. My editing was not disruptive. The reason I took this to WP:ANI is because you were steamrolling over me. In two consecutive edits, you added an orange tag and a red triangle warning, claiming I am respectively disruptive and edit warring, which are the first steps towards me getting banned - essentially out of nowhere. Other than the self-reversion, nothing about your response here indicates your willingness to view this experience from my perspective. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 48 hours. I'm quite unimpressed by TWC's demeanour in this conflict, and even more with their defense above. Their statement that in these edits they "reverted, but have since self-reverted, as it was only tags being added, and no changes made to actual content" is technically correct but misleading. It looks more like you hastily/carelessly reverted the addition of tags, having misread it as edit warring. (Your edit summary shows that you misread it: "Re-adding with cite needed tags is not how it works." My italics. The IP had not re-added.) Then you posted an edit warring warning on them, though they had only reverted once to your own twice. Only then, when the IP had gone to ANI, and had (indeed) notified you on your page, and you had read their narrative here, then you self-reverted. I base this reading on the timestamps involved. This is poor treatment of an IP editor, and acknowledging your own mistake would have been more becoming. Your statement that "I also added the edit warring notice because I felt you should be aware of the policy" is also pretty misleading. That notice doesn't just make people aware of the policy, it accuses them of being "engaged in an edit war" and of "repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree". Not true; they changed it once, not repeatedly. By the time you posted the above, you knew this; an apology for your mistake would have been more becoming than evasiveness. Of course you know you take responsibility, as a Twinkle user, for what Twinkle says; that's your business. And I suppose you're aware that Twinkle offers a "softer wording" edit warring notice. As for BRD, please note that it is optional, and that the typical use case it describes could hardly be more different from this case. Note also the section WP:BRD-NOT. Telling the IP that all would have been well if they had only gone to the talkpage to get your personal mystery abbreviations interpreted is again evasive. Next time you're trying to save time with nonce abbreviations, please consider how much time they have the potential to waste for other people.

This is a poor show so far, but hardly rises to a sanction. However, your attempt to poison the well by mentioning the IP's deleting or archiving of "the many other notices and warnings you've received", is just shameless, and pushes me over the edge to a block. The IP has archived their page once, yes. I invite other admins and editors to look for the non-existent "many other notices and warnings" that thereby disappeared from the page. Hint: the only trace of anything like that I found were some polite message from XLinkBot about external links. Barnstars, kittens and constructive discussions do not qualify as "warnings". Did you fall into the trap of thinking there must be something nefarious hidden by the archiving because the user is an IP? I have blocked you for 48 hours for disrespect and lack of candor. And please read WP:IPs are human too. Bishonen | tålk 09:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Thewolfchild I remember speaking out in favour of unblocking you last October, and I'm glad you're back to editing. I just edit conflicted with Bish here - I was going to go with a warning and some advice rather than a block, but I essentially agree with her assessment. I appreciate that, when patrolling recent changes, you see lots of IP editors tinkering about with statistics without touching sources - many of those changes are vandalism, but many of them are just people trying to keep our content up to date. I don't see any reason to revert a change to an unsourced figure unless the new figure is obviously impossible - if it's the sourcing you're worried about, then the version you're reverting to is no better than the new one. On top of the questionable revert, you then went overboard with warning templates; what was really needed was a quick note on talk saying 'where is this info coming from?', or even just checking for a source yourself quickly. And now we're here - we all make mistakes, but when that happens you need to recognise it quickly, and offer an apology. Please take time to reflect on how you could have handled this better, and come back stronger. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad block in my opinion, blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Block duration change. I've been mulling over this, and changed my mind about the 48 hours. Changed to 31 hours (from now). Bishonen | tålk 13:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Since it doesn't seem to have been mentioned by anyone but the IP at least on this page, can I say "unE/unS" is a terrible edit summary? I've been here for many years, and I would have great trouble figuring out what it meant. Nil Einne (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  +1 I hope Thewolfchild stops using it. Schazjmd (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, and I did complain about "your personal mystery abbreviations" above. "Next time you're trying to save time with nonce abbreviations, please consider how much time they have the potential to waste for other people." Bishonen | tålk 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  Out of curiosity, has anyone worked out what "unE/unS" means? Narky Blert (talk) 07:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  from the edit summary: unExplained and unSourced. — Ched (talk) 07:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't have guessed that either. I'd have guessed unEncyclopedic because that's how "E" is often used on nlwiki. For example: Dat er eens per jaar een wielerwedstrijd overheen dendert maakt de wegen niet E. ("just having some cycling competition roll over them once a year doesn't make the roads E.") But on enwiki "E" means nothing. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad block Unsourced additions should be removed straight away. There is no excuse for addition of unsourced material in 2021. The job of the the admins is to protect the content creators. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Good block Unsourced additions should be removed straight away. There is no excuse for addition of unsourced material in 2021. The job of the the admins is to protect the content creators. ——Serial 09:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there an echo in here? Who's on first? EEng 08:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Good block. These aren't "unsourced additions", the source is right there in the infobox, a few lines above these numbers: Youtube. The numbers given by the IP were correct and easily verifiable (the 4.57 million is visible stright from the Youtube link in the infobos, the number of views is one click further away, here). I've reverted the article to the IP version, and added this link for the hard-of-hearing who don't believe the link right above it is sufficient, and who prefer "unsourced" outdated or imprecise figures given by, uh, no idea who, to "unsourced" correct, precise figures given by an IP. And as Bishonen indicates, the block wasn't for the edit war or the obscure abbreviations, but because of the doubling down, the reaction given here. Fram (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Fram, the ref is now added automatically by {{Infobox YouTube personality}}. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks! Fram (talk) 12:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 2003:C0:6F22:6318:8D4D:4AEF:DE89:7EC3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Special:Contributions/2003:C0:6F22:6318::/64
• Special:Contributions/2003:C0:6F31:7E13::/64

The above has repeatedly, despite warnings, tried to use a WP:PRIMARY source to argue for their preferred point of view. Despite multiple warnings about our policies on original research, our preference for academic, peer-reviewed sources, our strict requirements for opinions to be those of reliable sources, not editors, and multiple reliable sources being shown to them that their selective reading of the primary source they write was lacking context and was inaccurate. @Bakkster Man, Hob Gadling, and Terjen: (editors who have made more than one comment about this subject at the relevant section of the talk page). They've been given warnings about GS/COVID (me being thorough, on the current one just to be sure, although I think I've already given it to them previously), and they are not stopping their disruptive, WP:IDHT-style arguments. I think it's time for some sanctions (recognising that this will likely only be a temporary solution before yet another one shows up). Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The notice above refers to a vivid discussion with user RandomCanadian on the talk page (there was no edit on the main article) on whether there is anymore a scientific consensus on the origin of COVID-19, given a recent letter by the topmost scientific authorities at the Science magazine, where the scientists declare that a lab leak is a viable and serious hypothesis that must be investigated. In contrast, the above user decided to entirely ignore this stance of the elite segment of the scientific community, because in his intepretation the Science letter is a primary source, and as such, the opinion of these scientists does not change the consensus of the community they belong to. In other words, according to the user, the community has a consensus on the matter, despite the fact that the most elite segment of the community disagrees publicly on a consensus. For the rest, as you can also read, the impartial stance the user had on denying the lab leak as a viable hypothesis made it hard to communicate with him. I simply provided my polite and correct contribution on the talk page, and avoided insulting the user by not replying to multiple personal accusations, and his "bossy language". 2003:C0:6F22:6318:8D4D:4AEF:DE89:7EC3 (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Science letter is a primary source, that's not controversial (the footnote to WP:PRIMARY is quite clear and common-sense: "Further examples of primary sources include: [...] editorials, op-eds, columns, blogs, and other opinion pieces, [...]") , and it doesn't say anything about what the consensus of the scientific community is (just checked, the words "consensus" or even "majority" do not appear in it), so, yes, as the IP has been told many times, the above is about as clear of a textbook example of WP:OR and POVPUSHING (from an SPA) which is not compatible with what the sources, listed to the IP many times over, say. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would leave to admins decide who is pushing a WP:OR by intepreting the scientific community's consensus as favoring just one hypothesis, despite the public declaration of a major elitary segment of the community that both hypotheses are viable. As you see notice here, too, it is not easy to communicate with the above user as he immediately accuses others of POVPUSHING. 2003:C0:6F22:6318:8D4D:4AEF:DE89:7EC3 (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't require much interpretation when you have sources saying it explicitly, sources which you have deliberately chosen to ignore. AGF isn't a suicide pact, in either case, and all of your edits have been solely to push this POV which is not supported by the sources. I'm done here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

intepreting the scientific community's consensus as favoring just one hypothesis, despite the public declaration of a major elitary segment of the community that both hypotheses are viable. This is the core of the dispute, potentially conflating "viability" with "likelihood". Specifically, can an explanation be "viable, but unlikely" according to mainstream sources, and if so what thresholds do we need to apply to such a determination? The additional policies generally referred to in the discussion include WP:FRINGE/ALT, WP:FRINGELEVEL, and WP:GEVAL, all relating to how we handle mainstream versus minority views.

I'm too close to the discussion (and it's gone on for so long) to know if this is a case of good-faith discussion surrounding a difficult to communicate topic being contentious, or otherwise, and I'll leave my thoughts on the topic itself out of this section. Ping @Stonkaments, Forich, and Horse Eye's Back: as additional editors who can provide additional context and perspective. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I vote that i) we lecture the accused user with the relevant Wikipolicies; ii) he creates an account; iii) Ask him if he has any motivation to push a POV in this topic; iv) If he acts on good faith, watch his edits so that they are not disruptive; and v) if he becomes obnoxious on talk pages, well, those get archived fast its not a big deal. Maybe advise him to take a break from talk pages. Forich (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant information regarding the user and an account.[31] Bakkster Man (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, there are plenty of secondary reliable sources reporting on the letter in Science that is the core of this dispute, such as the May 13 New York Times article by Carl Zimmer et al: "Researchers urge an open mind, saying lack of evidence leaves theories of natural spillover and laboratory leak both viable." Terjen (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The primary discussion thread involved, for those looking for a quicker way to view the dispute, is Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Why declare a "consensus" on the origin, given that all options are still open. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any behavior from IP that I would consider disruptive or worthy of sanctions. Frankly I'm surprised this was brought to ANI; it seems very premature and unnecessary. Until recently, the lab leak hypothesis was being characterized (on WP and elsewhere) as a fringe, racist conspiracy theory. Whether or not the hypothesis turns out to be true, it was clearly wrong to characterize it as a meritless conspiracy theory. I think we should learn from that, and be extra careful not to repeat the same mistake by being too quick to proclaim a scientific consensus. In light of these earlier missteps and premature declarations, some vigorous pushback and defense of the validity of the lab leak theory is understandable, and very welcome in my opinion. It's bound to be a contentious subject, and barring any egregious or blatant disruptive behavior, I believe the discussion will benefit by giving everyone enough WP:ROPE to make their case. Stonkaments (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other

How'd you deal with this kind of aspersion casting? I've been personally harassed on my talk page by sockpuppets, meatpuppets and SPAs; I've been the subject of dubious complaints by the same; now this. I'm considering just fucking off, if this is as bad as it's gotten. That or dragging it upstairs. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Admin should take action on this unacceptable comment linked in the diff. It would be a shame to lose RandomCanadian over this. starship.paint (exalt) 01:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 48 hours. That's flat out not acceptable, and a statement needs to be made against it, irrespective of the recently-filed Arbitration case. I welcome a review of the block by the community; I will be away from my computer over the next 12-18 hours, so any administrator is free to alter the block if they wish. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, this post by Tinybubi is very suspicious. An account, created in 23 March 2021 [32] [33], says We have seen many accounts like yours before, and you almost always end up getting banned and never let back, and Tinybubi uses a diff from 1 March 2021 [34]. Smells like a sockpuppet. starship.paint (exalt) 07:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tinybubi/sandbox is also suspicious, because I've seen that page before (and it's one of their very first edits; showing either that they're the same person; or colluding off-wiki). Now I can't remember (other similar tables pushed by sock-puppets include the first edits of this one) where exactly, but 100% this isn't the first time I've seen this. @Drmies: I might have contacted you previously about something similar (for BEANS reasons). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got nothing for you, but given the likely amount of meating that doesn't mean much. Daniel, thanks for the block. I think it's time for discretionary sanctions. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My two cent opinion here on this matter, although I do not know the user Tinybubi, and I definitely condemn any type of harassment against the user RandomCanadian, despite our heated exchanges on the article above. On the other hand, RandomCanadian, although you seem to be a knowledgeable editor (and I believe a very fine person) I witnessed that you are rigid in accepting opinions or interpretations that differ from yours (or from what you believe to be the right way) and you aggressively attack newcomers who try to reason an opposing argument, by quickly accusing them as POV-pushers, SPAs, or by trying to end an ongoing discussion with ultimatums "do as I want or I sent you to ANI". Definitely, some of the IPs you have to deal with are likely trolls and perhaps quite annoying, but remember behind the IPs you have many proper human beings that are by no standard inferior in reasoning just because they are not senior WP editors. The world does not have only "good" editors and "annoying" trolls, there are billions of clever and proper individuals outside these two categories. I was once an editor at WP and quitted due to time management issues, but, you have to relax a bit and not take discussions with a hot-blooded attitude. 2003:C0:6F1E:B606:A481:48C2:80CC:AF51 (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE and WP:BOOMERANG

While efforts to investigate all hypotheses, and the lab leak hypothesis in particular, are ongoing [35] [36], it is too early to class it as fringe, and Wikipedia's WP:FRINGE policy should not apply here. I recall saying this to Bakkster Man, who I very much respect, in the previous ANI opened by RandomCanadian [37], but he did not respond, and it's not surprising for other editors to bring this up again. As for 2003:C0:6F1E:B606:A481:48C2:80CC:AF51, I haven't read all their posts, but I would encourage them to register an account again in order to be taken more seriously. As for RandomCanadian, I would caution him against filing further ANIs against other editors on the topic of the lab leak hypothesis with spurious claims of misconduct. This is now the third such ANI after [38] and [39] so WP:Boomerang applies. CutePeach (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My position on WP:FRINGE remains much the same, but I don't think ANI is the right venue to resolve a dispute on the topic. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a difference between "unlikely" and "fringe". But no one editor should feel that keeping Wikipedia NPOV depends upon them only , and possibly RandomCanadian may have pushed too hard and too repeatedly and in too many places on this issue. But I can understand that they may well be feeling frustrated by the apparent inability of many editors to realize that consensus both in the scientific community and the general world opinion can change, especially when it leads them to apparently reject both academic and non-academic source that we normally regard as the very highest quality. I do not think a Boomerang is appropriate here, just a reminder. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, DGG. I am indeed, as you describe, frustrated, which is why I went to ArbCom, seeing that there was no appetite for actual serious action elsewhere, nor too much respect for our usual content policies (when you have to repeat, time and time again, that opinion pieces in newspapers are not acceptable sources for much besides the opinion of their authors, and when you even take the time to provide reliable, peer-reviewed papers which methodically refute some of the claims made in newspapers; you'll understand that this gets incredibly frustrating). Couple that with harassment ([40], [41], [42], [43], [44]), aspersion casting ([45], as a recent example), and proven socking (1; 2), you'll understand why I've totally come to the conclusion that an IP, whose sole dubious edits are on one specific talk page, is suspicious.
  • As for the content dispute, note that recent scientific publications don't seem to show a pattern of a changing consensus (this recent review in Lancet Resp Med glances over the subject as though there were no controversy at all) amongst scientists [unlike the wild swing in media coverage], and that while I've been open to using non-scientific sources for non-scientific matters (compare [46] and [47]), these are not appropriate for actual scientific claims. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pending ArbCom case request

It should be noted that the topic of this AN/I thread is also the subject of a WP:ARB case request here (permalink). jp×g 21:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For quick overview see this user interaction report and click on timeline for articles described below. (Stoopid Buddy Stoodios,List of massacres in Bihar,Rathore,Dabhi,Bhati,List of Gurjars)

Ravensfire is constantly following/WP: HOUNDING my edits reverting my edits on content disputes i have with other editors , with clear intention of harassing me and not letting me contribute by constantly reverting me on different articles i have interest in.

• Today I edited List of Gurjars , Raven who usually follows my edits too edited it today.

• I edited Stoopid Buddy Stoodios  here, Raven followed me here only to revert me.

• I edited Dabhi page they followed me here too only to revert me

• My edit on Rathore page [48] Raven followed me here and reverted me to ask me to build Consensus although they were never part of the content dispute  [49] [50]

• I edited List of massacres in Bihar  here  Raven who never edited this page before hounded me here too and reverted my edit for no apparent reason.

• I removed some content on Bhati page due to content dispute  and Ravensfire followed me here too only to revert me for no reason at all

• When i filed SPI for suspicious behaviour against some editor they followed me here too and commented check edit history

This is very serious WP:HOUNDING,admins please take action.Ratnahastin^talk 14:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? Okay, this needs some WP:BOOMERANG attention. I'll put a more detailed response later, but let's look at the first point - the List of Gurjars article. Evidently Ratnahastin isn't aware that people might have edited this article in the past and would rather assume bad faith. Apparently they are also okay with having unsourced caste claims in articles, which every single name I removed was. This isn't accidental, but a pattern with this user. Ravensfire (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing this report given your above response. I believe I had to discuss this issue with you before coming here.Ratnahastin^talk 15:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look good when you try to remove stuff as soon as someone mentions WP:BOOMERANG, I'd suggest just letting it play out since it is already here and there is a discussion happening. zchrykng (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ratnahastin attempted to remove this section after I've responded. I've reverted that removal. Given their attitude they've shown towards editors with opposing views, this is not something for my talk page, but here, so their behavior can also be reviewed. Ravensfire (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ratnahastin, more often than not, you are not being intentionally targeted nor hounded. Think of it like this, @Ravensfire might have included you to their watchlist, which in no means is hounding, or constitutes hounding, but you are merely in their watchlist and every now and again they check their watchlist, your name pops up, they observe you made a mistake, then they revert you, it’s not necessarily hounding, they may just be cleaning up after you. AGF is also pivotal here. Celestina007 (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The core of this dispute is around India caste pushing, specifically Rajputisation. From everything I've read, the Rajput identity is somewhat recent (relative to India's long and rich history), but there is a strong effort to push that timeframe back centuries and cloud any history about the background that doesn't fit a certain narrative. My initial exposure to Ratnahastin was probably this revert that amounted to caste pushing by removing material that notes that some traditional views aren't based on facts (and sometimes are based on British Raj writings). They removed (and were reverted) similar phrasing from other articles. I started to watch their edits, seeing a possible POV caste warrior. This isn't hounding, it's good WP:STEWARDSHIP. It's certainly not ownership (which will probably be the next claim), but trying to keep out POV editing.

• Their edit on Stoopid Buddy Stoodios was reverted because it put back obvious vandalism (that took me about 10 seconds of checking to verify [51]
• List of massacres in Bihar edit was a POV edit on an image caption, as very clearly noted in the edit summary [52]. Ratnahastin ignores WP:BRD and reverts calling it censorship, I reverted again asking for discussion. Nothing. Shows Ratnahastin using loaded language towards those that disagree
• The reverts on Rathore were from Ratnahastin removing the same NPOV language used other places to push Rajput narratives. Note that Ratnahastin has done this on multiple articles [53], [54], [55] - and plenty more.

He's filed multiple SPI baseless and retalitory SPI reports, eventually being warned by Bishonen.

• SPI against Heba Aisha [56], lots of back and forth, ultimately found "Unrelated"
• SPI against Chariotrider555 [57] declined by CU due to lack of evidence

His attitude towards other can be aggressive and hostile - removing warnings from experienced users as "harassment"[58],

• WP:ABF towards other editors - "that's a lie" [59] in response to a comment from an editor falsely accused of being a sock when a simple "I think you are mistaken" would have worked AND kept the overall tone calmer. Instead, they chose incindiary language.

This last series of edits on List of Gurjars, where I've edited it in 2018 and 2019 so it's been on my watchlist for YEARS, I couldn't tell you what Ratnahastin edited on that page, I was focused on the more recent additions and checked those. Probably should double-check all of the names, but honestly was time-constrained. I've pretty much disengaged from them at this point. Way more agressive and hostile than I want to deal with right now, this filing just exemplifies that view. I've asked them to stay off my talk page, I plan on doing the same and will generally ignore them. I think there needs to be some review of their behavior and tone as that makes collaboration in a difficult area nigh-impossible. Anyone wonder why Sitush walked away from caste related articles? Here's an example. Apologies for the disjointed comment, 'tis late, I'm tired and available time sucks. Ravensfire (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its funny that you're accusing me of not assuming good faith when you're constantly refering to my contributions as POV caste pushing and following my edits to revert my contributions.

My initial exposure to Ratnahastin was probably this revert that amounted to caste pushing by removing material that notes that some traditional views aren't based on facts (and sometimes are based on British Raj writings). They removed (and were reverted) similar phrasing from other articles.

Thats not first interaction the first interaction was here when i removed some content with well explained summary  it was reverted by you to build the Consensus although you never participate in the dispute on the talkpage.

I've removed that content on rathore because of the sources dont support the claims the sources were actually WP: SYNTHESIS of multiple non WP:RELEVANT citations I have explained reason for removing almost 3times on the talkpage of talk:Rathore the others who dispute it dont have any answers to issues raised by me, but you never took part in the dispute on the talkpage, my edits were based on wiki guidelines but still You've accused me of POV and caste pushing isn't that lack of WP:ASG on your side from the very first interaction i had with you? 

I started to watch their edits, seeing a possible POV caste warrior.

Thanks for accepting that you follow my edits from the very first interaction i had with you. because you consider my edits as pov pushing without any evidence or participation in those content disputes.

The reverts on Rathore were from Ratnahastin removing the same NPOV language used other places to push Rajput narratives.

Please participate in the relevant discussions about content disputes on the talkpage of Talk:Rathore , i've explained my removal many times as WP: SYNTHESIS of multiple citations if you bother to verify the citations intead of reverting you would have not refered those sources on Rathore as facts. And stop these WP: ASPERSIONS please, and how is that  WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTHESIS of multiple citations WP:NPOV ? Since you have reverted me there the WP:BURDEN falls upon you to prove that those citations are not synthesis or violating any policies,but you haven't participated in those disputes, instead You're following my edits on multiple pages which, you yourself accepted, this proves that im being hounded, it appears that you have content disputes with my edits i request you instead of following my edits you participate in the content disputes please.Ratnahastin^talk 06:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits and attack on established editors by Ratnahastin

This report is frivolous as were other against me and other editors like LukeEmily and Chariotrider555. The reviewing admins please note, Ratnahastin had been involved in attacking caste editors of wikipedia, ever since they have joined in order to do their POV edits on Rajput caste related pages. I have been observing that using loopholes in wiki policies, they have opened various cases against established editors in past. I was drawn into a sockpuppet investigation case, and editors, whom i mentioned above were drawn respectively in WP:UAA and WP:SPI on frivolous ground. Interestingly, all cases were closed as they lacked solid proof. But,the user was successful in making this place unfavorable for us. This report more probably is motivated by same intent. Heba Aisha (talk) 08:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned by Ravensfire above, all such reports were baseless, but were problematic enough to send us to inactivity for some period of time. Recent report against Chariotrider555 also resulted in sending him to inactivity. As those who face it, gets exhausted by it naturally. After doing this Ratnahastin tried to remove this content from Rajput, on the ground that it is repetition. Similar attempt were made to remove, what he considers "derogatory" from all Rajput caste related pages. On the talk page of Rajput, he often showed how non neutral point of view for Rajput caste through this comment. It is better to ban him from editing all Rajput related pages to stop wasting the forums for retaliatory actions against editors who donot share their view. This comment shows that they have some affiliation with Rajput caste and interestingly all the reports and dispute in which he is involved is related to Rajput related pages only. It is an issue of WP:COI, if you tell me to sum up my words explicitly. Heba Aisha (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ratnahastin, formerly known as User:Sikandar khan67, has been filing reports here and there against established editors in the South Asian caste field. Back when the user was called Sikandar khan67, I did begin to worry about this user's caste promotion, but I went on a Wikibreak for unrelated reasons, and now that I've been partially awoken from my break, I see that I was rightly so concerned. From the edits I've seen and interacted with this user, Ratnahastin seems to be trying to promote the Rajput caste through various means, whether it be removing content that the user finds "derogatory", or going after editors with which he has content disputes with. This kind of behavior is common on South Asian caste articles, where users and ips try to promote castes on the daily. whether by hook or crook. This kind of constant aggressive behavior from caste-promoters in general requires daily reverts and constant vigilance. But coming back to User:Ratnahastin, this user seems to be trying to eliminate established editors in the field as well as promote the Rajput caste, and these kinds of frivolous reports are disruptive to an editor's state of mind. (Side note, while User:Ratnahastin has removed information that they find derogatory about Rajputs, they have no problem readding information about other castes that their own caste promoters have deleted on similar grounds as Ratnahastin [60].) I agree that some sort of action is needed by an admin against User:Rantahastin due to their disruptive behavior and attempts at caste promotion. Also I would like to remind ourselves that there is no cabal. Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glorification of Rajput caste by removal of sourced content: I have noticed one thing about edit of Ratnahastin that, they will edit other articles and suddenly jump into any Rajput caste related article to remove that content they found derogatory like here and here This has happened with various castes. They have habit of engaging reverters on talk page with frivolous wiki policies that actually donot apply there and thereafter opening any case page against those editors who held opposite view. It is necessary to apply "topic ban" on them from all Rajput related pages, as serious WP:COI issue is out there. Heba Aisha (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have just checked the OP's most recent article which they created 3 days ago: Jadaun Rajputs. It is full of unreliable Raj-era sources and multiple other unacceptable sources. It also contains extreme claims, e.g. the God "Krishna was born in this clan"! There are a few acceptable sources, but they are mostly misrepresented. It is so bad that it should be TNT'd. If this is how they are contributing to the caste-related articles then we need to stop them. BTW, we use only modern, scholarly sources for history/caste-related articles – see WP:HISTRS and WP:RAJ for the relevant details and discussion links. Note that caste-related articles come under general sanctions: WP:GS/CASTE. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This caste-related edit was made by them today and it also cites the unreliable Raj-era sources from the 19th century. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The use of James Tod as a source, especially without any attribution in the text or NPOV mention about the significant issues and concerns is highly troubling. Ratnahastin's use of him as a source when they know about those issues is beyond troubling.

Admins - there hasn't been a response on this yet. Ratnahastin has bee given notice of the General Sanctions relate to Caste and of the Discretionary sanctions around India. This needs some review and attention from administrators. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Mili (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Alex Mili has made a very large number of reverts recently on Kosovo War. 10 reverts in the last 3 days, including 6 in the last 24 hours. They did edit warring over the same content a month ago. They were blocked some time ago for edit warring, and warned again today by two editors, including admin @EdJohnston:. I could take this to the 3RR noticeboard, but I wonder whether this editor should be sanctioned for POV pushing too. Apart from the POV pushing on the Kosovo War article, other POV pushing edits include [61][62][63][64]. They were alerted some time ago about WP:ARBEE on the Balkans [65]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarification, I am not involved in the content dispute with them. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can someone do sth as the reverting cycle continues [66]? Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The user's been blocked for 72 hours for edit warring. I would think if this continues after a block from the article itself may need to be issued. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• They've been reported to SPI here on suspicion of a duck. dudhhr_Contribs 16:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their very first edit after the expiry of the above block was this, which isn't an improvement and which had been reverted previously. However, the SPI seems dubious, since there's no correlation in edited articles, and username links are not particularly obvious. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

74.221.181.213 (talk · contribs) has resumed disruptive editing after their temporary block expired. They disrupted at numerous articles and would continue to reinstate their edits without any justification despite reversions from myself and other users. Articles included Kim Yo-jong (diff 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), Kim Jung-sook (diff 1, 2), Mamie Eisenhower (diff 1, 2, 3 4, 5, 6), Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis (diff 1, 2, 3, 4) and more (you can see their contribution history is full of reverts). They received multiple warnings on their talk page.

They were blocked for 31 hours on 3 June. (I also suspect them of sockpuppetry and opened an investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/74.221.181.213.) The block has expired and they resumed their disruption at Kim Yo-jong (diff). Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IP was reported by another user at the vandalism noticeboard and blocked for two weeks (diff). Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Dani33Para and I have been working on Alin Stoica in the last couple of days and for the most part collaboration went fine. They seemed to feel the article was overly critical of the footballer which I understand to some extent. I tried to make sure content is in line with our guidelines and policies.

We discussed a few bits at their Talk page, User talk:Dani33Para. Unfortunately, Dani33Para couldn't do without repeated casting of aspersions and baseless accusations:

• Wikipedia is not a gossip website to denigrate a person like this. (3 June)
• I am sorry i cannot let you turnish or minimalize his achievements. (4 June)
• If you want your name to appear last on this article go ahead (5 June)

I've found these parts of our interactions really disappointing and they have made the last couple of days of editing much less enjoyable for me. I'd like an administrator to let Dani33Para know these kind of comments are out of line. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin please deal with this? I tried to keep my report concise and to the point, it shouldn't take long to review. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This would appear to come within the realm of the discretionary sanctions under WP:BALKANS, Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

No comment on the edits in question but this appears to be an WP:SPA, with:

• Strong nationalist opinions e.g [69],[70]
• Revert warring [71], [72]
• Editing other users comments at User talk:Drmies [73]

Requesting an admin look into this to prevent further disruption. WCM_email 11:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by VukMNE: May I just add: "Bravo!". You are actually forbidding Montenegrins to write history about their country. This is going to be an issue, and it is already trending on Twitter...Go ahead, ban me, I regret donating for your website... This is a joke.

[74] I see Black Kite has partially blocked this editor whilst I compiled this report, so immediate problem may have gone away. WCM_email 11:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• VukMNE, any time someone is edit warring admins get wary. Any time someone removes chunks of apparently verified information from an article, admins get wary. Any time someone has a hobby horse, and edits one single article consistently in the same way for as long as they've been here and never seeks the talk page, admins get weary. You did all three--that Black Kite only blocked you from editing the article was an act of mercy AND an invitation to discuss your proposed edits. Black Kite could have simply blocked you indefinitely for edit warring, vandalism, disruptive editing, and just incompetence (since I just had to correct your unblock request). So, if you want to be a Wikipedia editor, this is what you do: you stop cussing at people, you stop accusing people of whatever, you stop making silly and false statements like "you're forbidding Montenegrins etc.", and you start having a rational discussion on the article talk page, with other editors, whom you will treat with respect. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I spoke too soon, I have a feeling this will end in tears - revert warring less than an hour later on a related article. [75] WCM_email 16:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

86.27.177.114

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

IP is pushing massive edit warring since 30 May, insisting to add a list of 'Pashtun' (some of them are not even Pashtun) rulers and generals onto articles which it has no relevance to.

[76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul afghan

Abdul afghan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user, who has a history of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] just restored the IPs edit [97] and even added it to his own userpage [98], same person much? I did previously report the user [99], to no avail however. He has now renewed his previous disruption; [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Another editor just opened a report on Abdul afghan at WP:ANEW. —C.Fred (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Question from an ANI perspective. Since the user is changing content about unrelated areas to refer to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and/or India, would this make their edits IPA-related, broadly construed, for the purposes of discretionary sanctions? —C.Fred (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I just blocked the user for one week based on the report at ANEW. I was tempted to block indefinitely as it appears that all of their edits have been disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 112.206.101.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jurisdrew2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The IP 112.206.101.69 has only been active for a few days. Their edits are, however, following a disruptive pattern that goes back some months. The edits are mostly removals of smaller or often larger chunks of content, often connected to flags, most often with the disingenious edit summary scobedos (which I have not managed to discover the meaning of). Earlier IPs in the same range and with the same edit pattern are:

• 112.206.102.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 112.206.110.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 112.206.107.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

ultimately going back to the named accounts

• Jurisdrew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Juris Drew Del Rosario (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

both of which are globally locked for disruptive editing (as is also one of the IPs). Today, the "new" account Jurisdrew2003 surfaced, completing the circle.

Looking at the history of the latest IP, it seems that they are gradually widening the scope of their disruptions to more articles, even targeting pages in User space. I think this needs to be stopped some way or other.

There is a wider problem beneath this. Looking at the global contributions of both the named accounts and the IPs, I see that they are targeting an increasing number of Wikis in other languages, mostly rather small languages where they may go unnoticed, but they are also trying to disrupt Commons and Wikidata. I am not familiar with the workings of global Wiki, so any help with or advice about how to report this globally would be appreciated. Regards! --T*U (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion all the IPs listed above are the same guy, most likely the same person as User:Jurisdrew. I could not find a rangeblock that would do much. The best plan may be to block individual IPs who are recently active for at least two weeks, maybe longer. A place to request global locks is meta:Steward_requests/Global. You could also get an opinion from one of the stewards who did the other global locks such as m:User:Wiki13 or m:User:Ruslik0. Since User:ToBeFree issued some blocks, he might know something about this case. EdJohnston (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Courtesy link to IP range: 112.206.96.0/20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Notice that most are dominated by the first IP, 112.206.101.69, with most other edits likely being unrelated. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the edits from the IPs mentioned in my report (112.206.101.69 and three older with just a few edits), the 0/20 range seems to contain clean edits, so nothing more to achieve here. I'll try to keep an eye on the range, in case there are more disruptive 'scobedos' edits. --T*U (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was going to leave this until the ongoing RFA was complete but I figured this was quite urgent and needed addressing. The editor Nnadigoodluck was first nabbed by Yunshui in 2019, where Nnadigoodluck was advertising their Wiki-services on Twitter, in a tweet that was swiftly deleted and Yunshui immediately revoked their Autopatrol rights for possible paid editing see here. It was later reinstated by Rosguill who assumed good faith two months after. Fast forward to yesterday when @DGG nominated one of their most recent articles for deletion see here. I was pinged to the discussion by Alexandermcnabb as a nudge to investigate possible undisclosed paid editing and whilst I found the ping to be mischievous, it turned out to be of great help to the collaborative project. Immediately digging into the history of this editor, i immediately discovered this article: Alex Nwankwo which had the image in it as his “own work” After leaving UPE template warnings on their userpage, which I should not have done since they were an experienced editor here. I decided to sort this out by discussing this with them not as a robot but as person to person, i went to their tp to ask how they obtained the image, they implied that it was in an award ceremony and by chance they took a picture of him see here, I found it to be too convenient but was fairly okay with the response, but then again I came across the article on a non notable businessman; Godwin Maduka with the image in it as it’s “own work” this time it was a major red flag as the picture was shot/taken up close, they again implied that it was a “by chance photo” at this point, I know this is covert upe. I do a thorough digging and I uncovered a mixture of creating good articles and including UPE articles every now and again. I unearthed a plethora of articles on very non notable “businessmen” “Entrepreneurs” “Philanthropists” most of which are currently at AFD with delete !votes. See here, here here and here for example, there are a plethora I’m still unearthing. Their two most recent articles where so dubious, @DGG had to come confirm the notability status of the articles of which I frankly told them that both articles were non notable possible covert UPE written by a brilliant editor who knew the art of WP:ADMASQ'ing. For full transparency I have suspected them of UPE in the past and shared my concerns with Drmies and MER-C but chiefly hadn’t acted because I have been in and out of hospitals. It is either they are not competent enough as per notability(GNG) policy wise, to hold Autopatrol rights or they are engaging in undisclosed paid editing of which they should be indefinitely blocked for either way they aren’t eligible to hold Autopatrol and by extension should not hold NPR rights. During our discussion they made a blunder by going “off topic”(classic deflection technique) and said I had an agenda to chase away Nigerian editors, which wasn’t true because I am a Nigerian and secondly is a brazen lie. This is me yesterday literally begging an editor to join WP:NIGERIA. Nnadigoodluck has asked me not to ping them ever again and I have respected that. Lastly perhaps a lexical error on their part, here they say they have “tolerated me all these years” which I find rather strange, perhaps just an error or an indication of a prior account. Should a Checkuser be optimized? Perhaps unnecessary, why I think they can’t hold the Autopatrol rights and should be removed is not necessarily because they create articles on non notable persons but because they are Promotional in nature, so what we have here is an editor with Autopatrol who creates articles for non notable “businessmen” and “entrepreneurs” had DGG not put it upon himself to patrol the works of editors with Autopatrol we would have a covert UPE editor roaming free. I am hereby proposing both the immediate removal of their Autopatrol rights and NPR rights, because if you can’t yourself tell “promotional non notable” from “notable” you shouldn’t be patrolling the works of others, or in the very least, an indefinite T-BAN from creating BLP’s. Celestina007 (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, you are proposing to have User:Nnadigoodluck's Autopatrol/NPR rights removed? Why isn't this a WP:COIN matter? BD2412 T 23:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412, yes indeed I am proposing that, I’m sorry if this is wrong venue, I was unsure of what venue and had that discussion here, is it possible for me to still move it to COIN at this juncture? I am willing to. Celestina007 (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that this is a wrong venue per se, just that COIN is specialized to deal with this sort of thing. BD2412 T 02:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412, thank you, I haven’t much experience in the appropriate venue when it comes to reporting an “established editor” engaging in UPE, but now that I know better I would be keeping that in mind moving forward. Thanks for the clarification. Celestina007 (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• To be clear I am proposing that both Autopatrol and NPR rights be revoked until they can demonstrate they understand WP:GNG and are competent enough to tell notable from non notable, allow me also say once more that if they were just creating articles on non notable individuals I wouldn’t be too bothered, but what is happening here is they are creating promotional articles for non notable businessmen and entrepreneurs which is the archetypal modus operandi of an undisclosed paid editor thus I am bothered they aren’t eligible to hold both aforementioned perms. Celestina007 (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Per the comment that SamHolt6 dropped here. In my early days of editing i.e from August 2019 when I joined Wikipedia for the first time, every article I create, I'll announce it on Twitter. See this Archive link. That was how Yunshui removed my autopatrolled rights because he saw the Twitter posts and assumed I was advertising, but instead I was elated for finding out that someone can really edit Wikipedia even from Nigeria, while also sharing my Wikipedia experiences on both Facebook and Twitter. I created for Alex Nwankwo whom I have met prior in an event even without knowing what Conflict of Interest was and also announced on my Twitter page as usual. He commented on the Twitter post and suggested some names that might be notable. Among the 5 names that he suggested, it was Krystal Okeke that looks like she was notable and I created the article three months after. I'm just seeing the Modern Ghana post for the first time today. If he claimed that he was the one that got the article to be setup, it might be because he was the one who suggested the names for me. I didn't receive any payment or compensation for the article on Krystal Okeke or have I ever received any payment for all the articles I've created. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 04:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn’t explain a whole lot of concerns raised, you have not explained in a plausible manner how you have an up close photo of Godwin Maduka as your “own work” neither have you explained the reason for creating promotional articles for non notable entities? as recent as 7 days ago, What part of GNG or what part of what Wikipedia is WP:NOT do you not understand? Of course, you understand GNG because I have seen you create very decent articles, showing a clear grasp of GNG, making covert UPE the only plausible reason for creating promotional articles on non notable businessmen, that you are intentionally being deceptive and insulting our intelligence here isn’t doing you any favors. Celestina007 (talk) 04:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've already answered the question as regards taking Godwin Maduka's photo in an award ceremony here. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 06:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nnadigoodluck: Out of curiosity, do you have an uncropped version of that photo? jp×g 21:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JPxG, Thanks for asking. It's been quite long I took the picture and sadly, I don't have the uncropped version anymore. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 22:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the answers appear to be too convenient. You haven’t still explained how two of your last four articles are promotional articles do you not understand what is written in WP:NOT? and for one with Autopatrol it is a serous concern. Celestina007 (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JPxG There's a less cropped version of the image available at www.nairaland.com/5266349/phil-robert-juliet-ekehs-wedding, but it's from an event several months before the date on Nnadigoodluck's picture so there must be some mistake. Pack My Box (talk) 04:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any relation between the OP of this thread and Nnadigoodluck? jp×g 05:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pack My Box That was the event in Abuja, Nigeria I was talking about. I was the one that took most of the pictures in the occasion. As I said above, I've known Alex Nwankwo prior to joining Wikipedia and didn't really know what conflict of interest was at that time, since I created the article just around 4 months after joining Wikipedia. And the date on the picture was the date I uploaded the picture and also the date I cropped it. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 06:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nnadigoodluck: I'm confused here. Above you said "I created for Alex Nwankwo whom I have met prior in an event". So you first met Alex Nwankwo at this wedding? How come you were also the one who took the photos at the wedding which Alexreports aka Alex Nwankwo used in the PR post? Did Alex Nwankwo pay you so they could use your photos in their PR piece after this chance meeting? Finally, you say you "didn't really know what conflict of interest was at that time". But you should have known COI for a while by now. When did you first declare your conflict of interest? Because from what I see only ~2 days ago a bit before this ANI, in the discussion you linked above [111] that all you said was "Celestina007, Of course, I took the photo in an event I attended and he was present too" which doesn't seem to make clear you became friends after this chance meeting at that event, sufficient that you let them use your photos in their PR piece and he suggested articles for you to create via Twitter. Nil Einne (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne, Thanks for asking. I've known Alex Nwankwo for a while, before the event and the meeting was not by chance and yes, I sent some of the pictures I took to them. And of course, I didn't really know what COI was at that time and didn't declare any. My mistake was I didn't declare the connection later when I knew. The prior in an event was a wrong English, what I meant to say was I've known him before the event and not just on that event, which is prior to an event and I did clarify above when I said I've known Alex Nwankwo prior to joining Wikipedia. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 09:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nnadigoodluck I'm sorry but I am very confused by this. The picture of Alex Nwanko was taken at a wedding in June 2019 and posted to nairaland.com on 26 June 2019. The picture you uploaded to Commons (File:Alex Nwankwo 156907.jpg) has metadata which says it was taken 12 December 2019. How could your photo be taken 6 months after the event? Pack My Box (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pack My Box, I cropped the photo before posting it. It's possible it recorded the date of the cropping. I don't really know how it works. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 17:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pack My Box: I think your looking for the wrong image. AFAICT, User:JPxG was asking for less cropped version of File:Godwin Maduka in 2019.jpg, but I don't see that image anywhere on the page you linked to. There is another version of File:Alex Nwankwo 156907.jpg. Nil Einne (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne, Yes, you're right. The picture in question, is that of Godwin Maduka. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 08:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne Whilst there explanations seem to be contradictory and improbable & even if they were able to explain “away” how they got the images as their own work (they definitely have not thus far), how come they have been creating articles (very recently) on non notable persons, for example the one on Jennifer Etito which DGG nominated of deletion on June 3) I have asked that them that question and they seem to be evasive about it. To say it’s failure of comprehending WP:GNG is also improbable as Xtools show they know very much how to create good articles, the only plausible rationale appears to be covert upe. Which i can’t decide and only the community can. Celestina007 (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• While Jennifer Etito's article should likely be deleted for failing WP:GNG, I don't actually see it as a particularly egregious article to have started - she has been written about by major Nigerian publications, there may even be a single article there that passes WP:GNG, someone who would think interviews count towards WP:GNG may have thought the subject notable, and it's not so bad to be WP:G11 eligible. The biggest red flag to me is the tweet, but that's long since been dealt with. Basically, it's possible, but I can't support this at the moment. SportingFlyer T·C 18:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer — A prerogative I very much respect, in fact precisely why I created WP:DBY. The problem is it’s Not so much the Jennifer Etito article, but in entirety, it’s the history of the article creator, and their articles, Yunshui made a case of possible UPE in 2019 and in 2021, the edit pattern is still a major concern. Mixing shady articles with very decent ones, is bad faith gaming and the most problematic is creating promotional articles for non notable businessmen a subject area flooded with undisclosed paid editing in Nigeria. Thank you for your concern and input. Celestina007 (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: I think one of the biggest issues here has to do with the reliability of Nigerian sources. For instance I've used Vanguard a lot in the past to support football articles, where reliability really shouldn't be an issue. The Vanguard article cited at Olakunle Jamiu Azeez is clearly promotional as it's reprinted word for word in other papers - that's probably the clearest "worst" article I've reviewed listed here. My concern really stems from the fact that some Nigerian businesspeople will be notable - Etito's actually a very interesting example, because she's not notable, but I also like to view notability as a sliding scale, and she's not clearly non-notable, not to a point where sanctions would be necessary. She's an example because I thin she'd be similarly sourced to a notable businessperson. That being said, the fact there have been some recent notability misses do demonstrate a need to remove auto-patrol, even without needing to make a determination on UPE. SportingFlyer T·C 20:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm concerned about the editing without regard to discrepancies in the dates of the photos. It can be difficult to distinguish at first between a UPE and a non-coi volunteer who writes promotional articles because that's what they see here and assume is our general style, and because of personal interests writes on borderline subjects. Usually the good faith editor improves once their errors in style are pointed out to them, and they are guided towards more clearly notable subjects. Usually the UPE does not improve much, because they have to work on the topics they are being paid for, most people who are willing to pay for articles are. at best of borderline notability, and the type of article they are willing to pay for is invariably promotional. I cannot by myself easily distinguish in many fields between people from Nigeria who are or are not notable, because I am only beginning to become familiar with the reliability of the sources there. It is very important that we have skilled editors from that country, such as Celestina007 who do know the fields of interest and do know the sources, and are willing to work here on the endless task of keeping spam out of the encyclopedia. The indications of promotional editing by Nnadigoodluck are so great that I would normally unhesitatingly remove autopatrolled and NPR, and also page mover, pending changes reviewer, and rollbacker, except that other admins have removed and then restored the rights before. A number --perhaps most--of that editor's articles have been listed at AfD, and it seems from the !votes there, that they are going to be deleted. It is not just a question of the article on Jennifer Etito. Unless there's objections from another admin, I'm going to remove those rights, on the basis of low quality promotional editing. Possibly the user should also be blocked as a UPE. but that's just a little harder to determine. If another admin thinks the evidence sufficient, I certainly have no objections. DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than an objection, I support DGG's planned course of action. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I'm willing to accept the admins decision on this matter and thank you for your worthy input. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 20:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal on TBAN for User:Nnadigoodluck on creating BLPs, removal of my Autopatrolled, Page Movers, New Page Reviewers, Pending Changes Reviewers and Rollbackers rights

I don't know if this proposal will be accepted by the general community, but I'll give it a try. I've accepted my mistakes in my early editing days, creating an article for Alex Nwankwo that I'm close with and not declaring a COI and even failing to disclose the COI after I have known what it means, for creating promotional articles on some subjects. From henceforth, I'm proposing a TBAN upon myself from creating BLPs broadly construed, subject to review after a period of one year. My Autopatrolled, Page Movers, New Page Reviewers, Pending Changes Reviewers and Rollbackers rights should be removed as I don't need it to demonstrate that I can be trusted again. I don't need to leave Wikipedia as my experience over the years will really be needed in Nigerian related contents which still need lots of work. Pinging Celestina007, BD2412, SportingFlyer, Nil Einne, JPxG, 78.26, DGG, Nil Einne and Pack My Box who previously commented on this thread. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 23:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support As proposer. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 23:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This seems like a reasonable solution that addresses the primary concerns brought up (the advanced rights and questionable notability of BLPs), while allowing Nnadigoodluck to edit in other areas to demonstrate over time that community concerns have been taken onboard. Schazjmd (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if the TBAN is extended to editing BLPs. Whether this editor is engaged in COIN editing is unclear on the evidence presented, but a total ban on BLP editing for a year would prevent shenanigans in that area. BD2412 T 23:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Possessing Autopatrol and creating promotional articles for non notable entities is a major red flag. Furthermore, and for clarity purposes, let the record reflect that, this is not about Nnadigoodluck’s “early days” of editing as they are trying to put the narrative as such neither is it because of the Alex Nwankwo article, this is about their very recent articles being promotional and on non notable entities. Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support provided it is also broadened to include articles on organizations, andf provided w do not rule out the possibility of further action if it becomes possible to show they are in fact a UPE, or engaged in sockpuppetttry. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with the restrictions mentioned by BD2412 and DGG above. While the voluntary ban is likely being requested to avoid scrutiny, the editor seems nonetheless capable of positive contribution outside of the COI issues mentioned here. jp×g 05:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I do not think a full ban on editing BLPs or organisations is necessary. Even if you take a cynical view, this proposal shows self-awareness and Nnadigoodluck will certainly know that any promotional editing will end up back here. SportingFlyer T·C 08:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shencypeter (talk) has begun stalking my edits and also repeatedly restored a vandal's post that I deleted from my talk page. We've had many conflicts on Boeing 737 MAX groundings, but he is now engaging in stalking behavior on unrelated articles that I edit where he has no previous history of edits.

An IP vandal posted on my talk page: Special:Diff/1020635400

I deleted the post, but User:Shencypeter (talk) restored it, twice:

Special:Diff/1022580414

Special:Diff/1022609989

The IP vandal was blocked: Special:Diff/1020835243

I made an edit to Rent-seeking: Special:Diff/1024818249

User:Shencypeter (talk) reverted it: Special:Diff/1025509978

I made an edit to Space Shuttle Challenger: Special:Diff/1027111131

User:Shencypeter (talk) reverted it: Special:Diff/1027115593

He has no previous history of editing those articles. Our history at the Groundings article is poor, but this kind of stalking behavior must stop. DonFB (talk) 08:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, DonFB rejects my changes using the same editing summary. [[112]]Shencypeter (Special:Diff/1025512140) (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DonFB's messages on my Talk hasn't been the friendliest either. [[113]] (Special:Diff/1025742883) Shencypeter (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before the conflicts, I had little interest in checking his contribs, [114], which to me clearly shows a pattern of habitually reverting work by other editors with smug editing remarks, or forcing discussion for an article that has not been edited in several months. His contribution puts undue weight of the Challenger's demise, where it is already discussed in detail in paragraph 4 and has its own article. Its this kind of judgement DonFB imposes on others, particularly for lead sections. Now he is calling me out as edit-stalking when he is unable to cope with his work being undone on Wikipedia. Shencypeter (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shencypeter's talk page comment to DonFB's ANI notification ("Doesn't feel good to have your painstaking keystrokes, actual contributions so brutally invalidated and revered, does it. I mirrored your judgements of my contributions and you're obviously not taking it well.") seems to admit making retaliatory reverts. And there is no justification for Shencypeter reverting DonFB's removal of a post from DonFB's own talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retracted. I will refrain from making changes to his Talk page, but the editing disputes remain valid.Shencypeter (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient. Your remarks make it clear what was already obvious: you made childish tit-for-tat reverts. This is both hounding and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and it needs to stop immediately and permanently if you wish to remain welcome to edit here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A revdel is needed under RD2: [1]. lomrjyo^{(talk•contrib•Ping with {{u|Lomrjyo}})} 00:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also: [115]. lomrjyo^{(talk•contrib•Ping with {{u|Lomrjyo}})} 00:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even see what this is, sorry, due to the giant red text. I've reverted in the interim. Daniel (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a long list of places in Taiwan, without any spaces between them. It's extremely disruptive (and makes it nearly impossible to view the revision history) because it's enclosed in one hundred and sixty <big> tags, but the content itself doesn't seem that bad. jp×g 06:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah don't see how this fall's under RD2. Unattributed internal copying maybe. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 07:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 2600:1004:B039:8C09:CDDF:95D0:2AB5:BDFE (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2603:6080:2C05:DBD6:318C:7837:9B6:D354 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2603:6080:2C05:DBD6:811A:604C:6CB7:930C (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Above IPs most likely evading a block of one or more of these accounts: JilleeLean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Janjakim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), or LilleeJeanCloutChasingFraud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs: [116] [117] [118]

Context: Wikipedia:Teahouse#Harassed

Background: Recently there was a dispute at Nicholas L. Bissell Jr. regarding whether certain content should or should not be included in that article. Since it seemed that a number of users had registered accounts just to participate, I had them checked at SPI. The check revealed that they were different users, although still engaging in meatpuppetry rather than sockpuppetry.

However, the users continued to harass the editor(s) on the opposite side of the dispute, and were blocked for that reason.

The new users seem to have learned that they can just edit unregistered and not be subject to an account block. They are most likely evading an account block by not logging in but continuing to harass.

A block is requested on each of these IPs for the harassment and likely block evasion. A range block may be needed since some of the IPs may be the same user.

✌️ The owner of all 🗸 04:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional context: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MasDeku/Archive - the three accounts are unrelated from a technical point of view (although that might likely be MEAT, if their claims about off-wiki activities have even a remote basis in reality). This, however, is not acceptable (both as WP:ASPERSIONS and as, maybe technically, WP:OUTING), and combined with the previous harassment by Special:Contributions/Janjakim and Special:Contributions/JilleeLean, is rather obvious who they are. I'll go do some clean-up at the thread if it hasn't been archived yet, while I suggest an admin range-block the IPs for continued harassment and likely block evasion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's even more context: During a botched jewelry store robbery 25 years ago, a woman was shot and killed by her own husband while he was scuffling with one of the robbers and she was trying to intervene. Some relatives think the husband murdered his wife but the legal authorities concluded that it was accidental. The district attorney was corrupt and killed himself shortly afterwards. The two sides have been feuding ever since and the dispute has spilled over onto Wikipedia. I have blocked User: Cha20raca from editing Nicholas L. Bissell Jr., the current locus of the dispute, and I hope that will bring the dispute to an end, on Wikipedia at least. Hope springs eternal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No actually this is not a relative. This is a woman from twitter, who has nothing to do with my sister's murder. She has stalked my then 17 year old daughter for 3 years. We don't know how she tracks us, but anything we do on any platform she starts problems. This is an example. She has nothing to do with us, she doesn't know us, she is a troll that one day we woke up to and has ever since attempted to ruin my daughters name and reputation. This was not a fight spilled over. She literally came in and continued on purpose making edits. On two other cites she has vandalized and put up disgusting content. It has gone beyond a troll, she is a full on fatal attraction. On the other end, I do apologize, I read some more on your rules, and I meant nobody to get upset. I did not realize someone else has to write the wiki. It is a notable case, and one even to this day quite written about. I appreciate all your help and I apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused you. Cha20raca (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up, there's an edit war looming at De Berardinis; not quite three reverts yet but expected imminently. The page is (was) a surname dab, which someone (*) insists on turning into a family history, calling efforts to prevent that vandalism, etc. Moreover, the family history is at best poorly sourced, and likely POV OR. I've reverted the latest such addition, and issued warnings RE article ownership and harassment, but don't really want to wade deeper into the matter in case I've got this wrong somehow.

(*) There are two registered editors with similar names (De Berardinis M and Mark de Berardinis) involved, and two similar IPs; all are SPAs involved in only this article. How many humans are behind these, I've no idea, but my guess is fewer than four. (I'm not saying there's necessarily any puppetry involved, though; could be just account issues.)

Not quite sure what I'm asking for here, or whether this even warrants an ANI, but here I am all the same. Any advice or suggestions? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be the same person. The time period between the edits are two years off which could mean they lost their password and created a new account or something like that. VV 07:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The De Berardinis M account has retaliated by reverting 4 of my recent edits on unrelated articles, seemingly at random. Wire723 (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've blocked De Berardinis M for 48 hours for their retaliatory editing. Bishonen | tålk 08:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I have done a fair bit of work beefing up the history of various Hong Kong immigration control points. User:S 0524 merging the articles on the Hong Kong border facilities into those in mainland China, example. The problem is that all the content (e.g. the history) is written with the context in mind. The article doesn't make much sense after the Hong Kong historical content has been plopped into an article about a Chinese subject. I have asked them to discuss first before making such mass changes but they have refused. Lastly, this mass merging campaign seems to be motivated by a political agenda (e.g. merging Hong Kong into China). This user's other recent edits revolve around asserting Chinese soverignty over Hong Kong (example), while they also maintain a bizarre user page in which they list the British as "colonizers that all learned their lessons or disappeared by 2000", China as a "tech innovator", and the USA as having a "dominance syndrome". WP:NOTHERE. Citobun (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not pushing for anything! This user has misunderstood! I asked the user to look into WP:MERGE and WP:CONTENTFORKING. It doesn't make sense to have 2 different pages for the same border checkpoint. Many such pages have already been merged between other jurisdictions. And I asked the used to discuss before reverting my constructive edits! My personal sandbox has nothing to do with it! Please also look at my talk page. Thank you. S 0524 (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can't have multiple articles for the same facility. Each border crossing should have one article with information about two jurisdictions sharing it. A border crossing is A BORDER CROSSING, not two to have two pages. A border crossing has a history, not two histories. Look at List of Mexico–United States border crossings, San Ysidro Port of Entry, Malaysia–Singapore border, Johor–Singapore Causeway, Malaysia–Singapore Second Link, etc. This is why I merged Lo Wu Control Point into Luohu Port as one article for example. and similarly I have merged all mainland China-Hong Kong SAR checkpoints to one article for each border crossing. And not to have two separate articles for each side of the border crossing. My edits are indeed constructive and by WP:MERGE and WP:CONTENTFORKING, Thank you. S 0524 (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Hong Kong and mainland Chinese facilities have different histories and completely different names from one another. They are not synonymous. And as I mentioned, the "merging" has been done in a very sloppy manner that has created a huge mess with tons of factual errors (e.g. the statement that "Huanggang Port" was built as part of the "New Territories Circular Road project"). All I have asked is that you discuss first (e.g. at WikiProject Hong Kong) before making such a dramatic change. And preferably not use Wikipedia to push a political agenda. Citobun (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you start discussing and help edit/enhance these articles? Instead of wasting time here on admin-noticeboards? Please stard discussing and editing. However like I've repeated it a thousand times, look at all other border crossing articles - each border crossing has one article, not two. The same goes for mainland China-Hong Kong border crossings - one crossing = once article. In the article the contents would include the official names from both sides and each border crossing has A HISTORY, not two histories = so one article for one border crossing. Please check WP:MERGE and WP:CONTENTFORKING. Goog luck, looking forward to editing with you in a constructive manner. S 0524 (talk) 05:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, A weird pattern in recent changes caught my eyes. An IP-switching user has been vandalizing pages related to hurricanes (mainly Hurricane Dean) and persistently undoing reverts made by other users (see here). Examples: [119], [120], [121]. Necctaylor (chat) 17:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP's in your examples, including the /64 range 2600:1700:eff0:61f0::/64, for a few days, but I'm afraid that'll hardly cover all the bases. Hoping there's a smarter admin out there, who can do something smarter. Bishonen | tålk 19:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

These two edits — [122], [123] — appear to have been made only to promote an email address in their edit summaries.--NapoliRoma (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may have mispasted, as your diffs are both to the same edit. I think I found the other one, though. I've revision deleted the edit summaries. Thank you, NapoliRoma. Bishonen | tålk 19:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Oops -- thanks for sorting out my goof.--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had a message left on my talk page left by User Rocknrollmancer and it was as quoted:

"Echoing some of the sentiment above, please read this and try to understand what is explained in the second paragraph. You crossed the line here (in the third sentence) - I saw this a few days ago but hung-back to see if anyone would pick you up on it. I had that Talk page on my watchlist but will take off. There is a piped-link already provided there (in the second paragraph) which in turn links to the same aspect as I quoted above. You've already been soft-warned for disruptive editing when you went after Joe Roe, and I see you also went after Nick Moyes, so just hope no admin sees this .--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)"

Now I do admit I did feel personally attacked by users Joe Roe and Nick Moyes for their views and contributions on the Heavy Woollen District and discussion on using the song It's Grim Up North by KLF to reference places in the song mentioned. Although they have apologized for what they said and I did too when I knew I was in the wrong. I felt this was unnecessary to be put on my talk page by user Template:Ping:Rocknrollmancer. User Template:Ping:PamD already explained what I was doing wrong and I have done my best to improve my editing but I have never personally attacked anyone and I feel this is WP:Hounding me on Rocknrollmancer's behalf as stated. He has had my page on his watchlist expecting someone to pick me up on it but he has not responded to me when I responded to him. So I did remove it but remembered wanting to ask for Admin to look. I do agree I have been sort of Canvass on Wiki a few times I am not innocent and pretending to be. But I feel this was uncalled for and my other edits have helped to add content to wiki with new station pages on the Brecon and Merthyr Junction Railway, Merthyr, Tredegar and Abergavenny Railway and Borough of Middlesbrough.

I admit my disability does sometimes hinder my ability to be accurate in my editing but if I mess up. I always ask for help...I also want to add my reply to Rocknrollmancer below:

":@Rocknrollmancer: I have to be honest, I have no idea about the part you mention about Joe Roe and Nick Moyes...I did not go after any of them...I only mentioned to admin that I felt Joe Roe was misinterpreting my discussion on the Heavy Wollen District talk and assuming I was trying to make it my favour when that is far from the truth. Nick Moyes on the otherhand, spoke out of line in terms of accusing me of being on wiki for disruptiveness over me mentioning the KLF song, Grim up North in music tabs for each town and city mentioned in it. He fairplay to him admitted he got a little over annoyed and apologised and I said I accepted it. He and me have not had any issues. Joe Roe apologised as well and I accepted it. Rocknrollmancer as I echoed to PamD."

"I don't come on here to disrupt or anger offend troll anything. I want to help create articles for stations, boroughs and anything to do with north england. Wales and Midlands, South england every so often. I do make sometimes errors like I did with Talgarth station and I agreed to make sure to follow PamD advise on the rules. Also me and Crouch aren't in cahoots or trying to overrule things but Crouch is an experienced wikipedian and has like Eopsid, you and other more insight. I ask him as he has helped me and I ask for his input. My whole hopefully comment was in regards to the Borough of Middlesbrough had been nominated for deletion and we discussed it on the Wikigeography page to keep it. But a AfD went ahead because of no improvements."

"I am sorry but the article can't be more improved on if it passes wikiscope and other checks. I make articles with sources. They pass they stay, they merge or get deleted. I accept the concensus but the one for recent AfD was keep and one merge. So to finish your points you mention were resolved civilly and without disruption. Nick Moyes and Joe Roe are valid editors and have helped me when I asked them to. So we all want to improve Wiki so lets not pick faults with past things. I have accepted my faults and won't do them again. But I am far from a disruptive editor you and me have spoken a few times and agreed to disagreed civilly...its perks of facts, questions and opinions...regards RailwayJG (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)"

Now I want to link my posts to both Joe Roe and Nick Moyes below too:

Joe Roe on the Heavy Wollen District Deletion Category Discussion:

"Where did i say it doesn't exist? You need to re-read the whole comment. I said and I quote "why do we need a category for Heavy Woollen when the towns and villages are already categorised. I seriously think Wikipedia is in danger of misleading readers into believing it's a district like a city or town when it is in fact not and that is a true fact. It is a coined local term. Not a government recognised district of towns or villages". It is a local term not a government one and so the categories aren't needed. It isn't being denied to be existent and I never said it doesn't so your misinformed on that one and two the term applies to a cloth making district. Its not a district like Wakefield or Selby district. That's my point a district is two things. Either a government recognised district like Selby Wakefield Hambleton etc or a part of a town or district like Meadowhall in Sheffield or Batley Carr in Kirklees. That's is a district term for UK use and this was for a cloth that was made with some towns. As I've said which you missed I'm not against the district article being kept but it shouldn't have categories too and it says North Kirklees area in it then actually mentioning Wakefield and Leeds so that is misinformed and the article up until now was lazily written and half dead links.

I think editors like you and a few others have gotten personal towards me by calling my comments vile condescending and someone with bad geography and history. I find those comments offensive but don't say nothing for fear of being banned for being personal towards editors so I bite my tongue and as someone who is disabled I feel vulnerable when people attack me for my edits articles and the challenges I bring up like I had with the whole Built up areas and Middlesbrough Borough authentications. They were challenged and still are being. So I don't know. I'm contributing but it seems I'm not needed to be even though I fix mistakes made or ask for reliability on things. Sorry I'm offensive and a terrible editor. As a Batley lad I'll take my cloth and leave this discussion...RailwayJG (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Got nothing to add (talk)? Exactly don't misinterpret my comments as your own assumption and use falseness because you clearly did."

"I don't have anything personal against you. I appreciate the work you are doing on the geography of Yorkshire and elsewhere. But please remember that when you propose that an article, category, etc. should be deleted, that is someone's work too. There's a fair expectation that you do some research before suggesting that another editor's contributions be undone. In the case of the AfD, that's looking for sources; for this CfD, it's familiarising yourself with our categorisation guidelines. At the AfD and elsewhere, many have people have pointed out to you that this is a notable concept (I quoted the part of your comment I was responding to before—"if it exists"—so apologies if I misunderstood that but I don't think it needs repeating). Here and elsewhere, many people have told you that our categories don't have to follow official classifications, and that there is no problem with parallel, overlapping categorisation schemes. When someone repeats the same points after being made aware that they're not accurate or relevant, it can be seen as disruptive behaviour. I understand that it's not pleasant to hear that, or generally have people opposing your nominations, but please understand that it is motivated by a good faith instinct to preserve other editor's work, not any malice directed at you personally. – Joe (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)"

I did not respond but hold no grudge with Joe Roe or anything nor does he...

Nick Moyes on my talk page:

"Just following up on your post at the Teahouse. You were right - my amazement and sarcasm - having seen the edits your were asking about - did lead me to to go too far and I'd like to repeat my apology for coming across as rude and/or insulting to you. We all of us make bigger and smaller contributions here (I hadn't checked your other contributions, either). Some of our edits others inevitably regard as valuable - and 'thankworthy', whilst others are deemed quite unnecessary. My view on the pointlessness and irrelevancy of those particular edit still stands, but it was not fair of me to denigrate your contributions or how you spend your time. Sorry again, Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Apology accepted...thank you...RailwayJG (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)"

So I do admit my wording can look a bit insulting but there was no personal attacks to these two editors...I just question reliability and ask for help. Something gets deleted, merged, kept or discussed. I always take part and have helped with all due respect to complete many of the missing Great Central Main Line, South Yorkshire Junction Railway and Swansea Vale Railway stations and halts. I also have helped make the articles for Aliens: Fireteam, Almighty: Kill Your Gods, Override Mech City Brawl, M.A.S.S Builder and Borough of Chesterfield to name a few more...I am not asking for recognition god no...just that I want to prove I am far from a troll or disruptive editor. I have made mistakes since being on here and crossed swords with some editors and developed a working editorship with some...I just want to ask Admin on here to have a look at Rocknrollmancer text above and tell me if this is hounding? RailwayJG (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not WP:HOUNDING, but a civil-enough expression of opinion that you are welcome to engage with (or not) to whatever extent you wish, on your or their talk page. I suggest not trying to drama-monger this up. BTW, you are required to notify Rocknrollmancer as per the fat red message on top of the page; please do so. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: with all due respect, there was no just cause reason for them to put this on my page and accuse me of personal attacking two editors...surely Wikipedia does not allow Intimidating of editors? Also I have put it on their talk page the link to here. RailwayJG (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As always, it's better if editors focus the discussions with other WPedians on specific issues, rather than on their general pattern of behavior. It helps both maintain good relations, and make progress in resolving problems. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I have tried those steps but I still get accused of being disruptive and i guess cynical. It is hard as one of many with a disability to tell the difference between good and bad intentions...it felt intimidating in the term "hope no admin see this". It makes me feel one admin sees it and instant ban or block...I am sure you can see my pov? RailwayJG (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting DrKay (talk · contribs) for harassment. They commented on my talk page after I made it clear I didn't want them to and had even told them that I viewed them continuing to as harassment. Brief context is that we disagreed whether their comments on my talk page are misrepresentations (I say they are, they say they aren't). It was just going back and forth and became clear we weren't going to agree and I wanted to end the conversation, so I told them if they continued I would revert (at the end of my comment, diff). They replied (diff), I reverted (diff), they replied (diff), I reverted and made explicitly clear that I didn't want them to reply and viewed it as harassment by this point (diff), and they replied again (diff). (In that final diff, their reply ends with "If you do not wish me to respond here, do not ping me in edit summaries or make comments that require a response", 1) I was not pinging them (since when does reverting someone without removing their username (which is automatically generated) ping them? I have never received a ping alert when I've been reverted), and 2) "do not [...] make comments that require a response" speaks for itself.

I see this as harassment per WP:NOBAN. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped posting to your talk page after you asked me not to. Since then, it's been you posting to my talk page[124][125] and pinging me to discussions at noticeboards.[126] As I said to you, if you want me to stop responding, don't ping me to discussions and make comments that require a response.[127] DrKay (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you replied again after I made it clear I didn't want you to and regarded it as harassment, as I have shown in the diffs above. The last diff I linked above was your last reply on my page. I reverted that (diff) and, because you were accusing me of pinging you, I responded at your talk page (as you linked, diff) instead of in the edit summary to explicitly ask you to leave me alone (to which you replied with more misrepresentations, just as you are doing here). When reporting a user here, you are required to notify them on their talk page, and I was under the impression you are supposed to link to them in your report. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I was just about to say that this was a tempest in a teacup, and that I was confident DrKay wouldn't post to Abby's talk page anymore, but this response by DrKay is disingenuous. Abby, it's poor form to revert people with parting shots in the edit summaries like that. DrKay, it's poor form to post on someone's talk page when you know you're not welcome, whether or not they're taking parting shots at you, and misrepresenting it as "requiring a response". It's also misrepresentation to say you stopped posting to their talk page when they asked you to; "I'll revert you if you post to my talk page" is telling you not to post there. It's also misrepresentation to equate your posts with their posts to your talk page, one of which actually is required by policy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Struck. DrKay (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. In that case, I'd say this is resolved; both users are highly unlikely to post to each others' talk pages now, or ping each other. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is all that happens when you harass someone? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't DrKay an admin? I find that concerning given that they also repeatedly made misrepresentations. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look, "harass" is a strong word for something that is (IMHO) 60% DrKay's fault and 40% yours. They posted 2-3 times to your talk page after you said not to in a rude way. That's not really harassment. They won't post there anymore. Are you looking to not have to deal with them on this issue anymore, or are you looking for them to get in trouble? And I'll pay you 43 quatloos not to use the word "misrepresentation" for the next 24 hours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOBAN links to WP:HARASSMENT. I have never reported a user for harassment before, and am discouraged that the response is just 'okay, you won't do it anymore? All is well then!', especially given they repeatedly gaslit me with their denials on my talk page. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, it says "Still, repeatedly posting on a user's page after being asked not to, without good reason, may be seen as harassment or similar kind of disruptive behavior." The repeatedly part isn't there, but I would still push for an "I shouldn'ta done that" for the one post. I don't think most experienced users polled would feel that the automatic ping that happens when someone uses the Undo button is an invitation to further discussion, despite clear evidence to the contrary. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note: there is no "automatic ping" with the use of the undo button unless the editor has checked that box in the "Notifications" section of "Preferences". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I can't remember checking that box and just assumed it was the default. My bad. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Binary0101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On User talk:Binary0101 (diff): actions indicate an account trying to evade effects of a ban. This is a blocked sock that appears to be engaging in canvassing relating to Azov Battalion on their talk page by pinging editors who seem to have similar interest in the Azov group, and its representation on this website. The editor also made a veiled allegation that a living person is a "neo-nazi" and that certain editors are editing from a neo-nazi POV. The account seem to be trying to avoid their ban by using their talk page to talk with editors that they feel may be sympathetic towards them. In light of all of this, I'd request that their talk page access be removed. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, there's no reason for them to use that talk page for obviously inappropriate stuff like that... @ST47:: blocking admin - mind doing the second half of the work? Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Daniel (talk) 04:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please close the discussion at Talk:Azov Battalion#POV pushing edit-a-thon by Azov members as WP:NOTAFORUM, before it gets completely out of hand? Not discussing the article, just acting as an attractor to get editors worked up while an RFC is in progress. Thanks. —Michael Z. 06:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Happy Shoes is posting long diatribes on how The Sun and Daily Mail should be used for sourcing pedophilia accusations. In his latest post he has attacked me ("your prejudice", "your sordid mind") and Wikipedia editors at large ("amorphous blob that is the Wikipedia editors"). Can someone stop this please?VikingDrummer (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]