Muhsin97233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:NOTHERE, user is on a nationalistic mission rather than improving Wikipedia. The vast majority of their (pov) edits (some direct examples [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]) have been reverted, as seen here [6][ if you Ctrl + F "reverted". They are obsessed with turning everything to anything "Arab", even spamming talk pages with their WP:SOAPBOX nonsense [7] [8] [9] [10]. This has been going on since they first started editing, in February 2022.

Their talk page is also full of warnings I have warned them multiple times, which they only addressed once with this comment (there's more in the diff); "...Conclusion We all know the English Wikipedia, most of them are run by racist Persians who falsify the facts in favor of their Persian nation..." --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HistoryofIran, I won't comment on this as I'm not well versed in the subject, except only to point out that it's pretty misleading of you to say that "Their talk page is full of warnings", when in fact all those warnings come from you yourself. To avoid creating the wrong impression, please use the active voice in such situations, such as "I have warned them many times". Bishonen | tålk 13:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

You're right, my bad. I have fixed it now. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is classic extremely one-sided ethnic POV-pushing. Basically, everyone of any note is Arab, not Persian or Berber [11][12][13]; [14]; [15]; [16]; [17]; [18]; [19][20][21]; [22]; [23]. Don't say 'Persian', say 'Muslim' Even the cookbook is not Arabic (=language), but Arab (=ethnicity)! Any pushback against this must of course be racist [24][25].

Muhsin97233's disruption is sparse but ongoing since July 2022, with little or nothing else in between (diffed above is almost every mainspace edit they made). I think a wp:nothere indef block would be helpful. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I've reviewed the last several edits from this user, and it's a mixed bag; though nothing to me that says they need a block as yet. Maybe a topic ban at best. I mean, most of the edits are to talk pages, which we encourage, and is not really disrupting article text. Some of the edits, such as this one seem fine; the source doesn't seem to mention "Arabian" at all (at least, the little bit available online doesn't). Perhaps a topic ban on adding or removing ethnic or linguistic labels from article text would solve the problem? --Jayron32 17:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Only their most recent edits are to talk pages. In mainspace, it's been almost all disruptive (see the diffs in my comment above; the Camel urine edits are one of the few exceptions). That said, I've encountered this user during patrolling but did not report precisely because their most recent edits did not disrupt mainspace. If that is taken as a sign that they might be willing to reform, then yes, a topic ban on adding or removing ethnic or linguistic labels from article text would certainly also solve the problem. But there clearly is a problem, and I think that now that we're here it would be helpful to do something about it. I therefore also support a topic-ban as an alternative measure. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muhsin97233 hasn't addressed this report yet, and I highly doubt they will. Per the diffs shown by me and Apaugasma, I think that Muhsin97233 should be indeffed, but I wouldn't oppose a topic-ban. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Muhsin97233 doesn't address this report, I think the wp:nothere POV pushing is clear. A topic-ban would help stop wasting more time with this in the future. ParadaJulio (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to report suspicious activity coming from this account @WikiEditor1234567123:. This account has been engaged in very long edit wars edits on several pages such as the Nazran raid page, which is my first encounter with him. He misrepresents his sources and does original research. I have elaborated on this in the talk page. Before I continue I will note that his account on the Russian wikipedia was notorious for edit warring on the very same article I am talking about (Nazran raid) and he was warned multiple times. He eventually got banned entirely on the Russian wikipedia due to him misrepresenting sources, as shown here.

One of the largest issues following my own investigation is suspicious behaviour that can only remind me of tag-teaming/meat-puppeting which I suspect is outright sockpuppeting with notorious accounts that have been banned already such as @Targimhoï:, @Niyskho: @MrMalaga: and @Malhuyataza: all of which are either suspected socks (mrMalaga, Malhuytaza) or confirmed socks (Targimhoi, Niyskho) of Durdzuketi a banned account that has over 10 confirmed banned socks. Targimhoi and mrMalaga were also involved on the Nazran raid article where I got involved with them. They made much of the same edits and the accounts have been subsequently banned for sock-puppeting. This is the long list of over 10 accounts that have been confirmed as sockpuppets for Dzurdzuketi and banned, including user:Targimhoi. I’ve been checking the recent history of these accounts and there are several reasons for my suspicion of @WikiEditor1234567123: being involved in tag-teaming/meat-puppeting/sock-puppeting.

• Incredibly consecutive editing. At several points has Wikieditor along with Targimhoi made edits in a very short time difference from each other. Here are examples of edits between Wikieditor and Targimhoi on articles that barely get 1 view per day. Some of these edits are minutes within each other. Note that there is no mention or tagging of each other. Wikieditor edits something on a 1 view per day article and suddenly 5 minutes after Targimhoi takes over.
  • Ex1, 1 minute difference
  • Ex2, 1 hour
  • Ex3, 7 minute difference
  • Ex4, 25 minute difference

The examples above are all on the same lines as the previous editor which you can see on the revisions, and there’s no explanation for the edits that are being done. This reminds of a joint effort.

• Wikieditor and Targimhoi seems to have been involved in numerous disputes and are seen to be backing each other. In my case on the Nazran raid article, they make the same edits and argue for the same stuff, with Targimhoi backing up Wikieditor only an hour after I edited the first time. On the same day my dispute with them was going on, Wikieditor was involved in a noticeboard incident. Targimhoi then appears out of nowhere to express his support for Wikieditor without having been mentioned or pinged anywhere.
• Editing a sandbox draft for a confirmed sockpuppet @Malhuyataza: of @MrMalaga: that make the same disruptive edits. I have no idea of where he found this sandbox draft or what led him to it. mrMalaga is also suspected to be Dzurdzuketi
• Here Wikieditor is seen editing/expanding on a draft at the same time as user Malhuyataza (confirmed sock of mrMalaga, suspected to be dzurdzuketi) literally under a day after the draft was created. Two other accounts were also seen editing on this draft, @Blasusususu: and @Iask1:. Both accounts have been banned for sockpuppeting.
• What seems like very targeted mass edits on Fyappi article. Wikieditor is seen editing with niyskho(another confirmed sockpuppet in the dzurdzuketi list), later on targimhoi jumps in. Looks like a mass targeting of the same page. Again they are not explaining their edits to each other, which further makes me believe they are connected. Edit warring for at least like 2 months.

More:

• Very long edit wars on articles such as 2004 Nazran raid, Fyappiy, Orstkhoy etc.
• After checking his revision history I also noticed most of the time he doesn’t explain his edits. This is often done when editing along with accounts that have been banned for sockpuppeting.
• Original research/misrepresenting sources. He was banned for this very thing on the Russian wiki. Keeps doing it on the English one.
• Blatant POV-pushing/nationalistic edits, heavy bias. Seems to be insisted on having Ingush written everywhere, evident by the articles I have linked. Very much in style for the 10+ accounts that are socks of Dzurdzuketi

Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had previously made a post about this on WP:AN, but the post was auto-archived. This is a revision of the following comments made by the subject WikiEditor1234567123 on WP:AN and my replies after. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• With respect to the socking accusation, on February 8, 2023, Wikieditor was alleged to be a sock at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dzurdzuketi. Ivanvector made the following comment with respect to the allegation at the SPI: "I did not check WikiEditor1234567123 because I do not see sufficient evidence to warrant a check, but I can report that they did not show up in any of my checks."--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your input. Wikieditor has suspiciously close cooperation with Durdzuketi's socks. I believe enough evidence has been provided to at least warrant a new investigation, especially now that another close account to Wikieditor, Targimhoi (sock of dzurdzuketi) was recently banned. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe I have the right to defend myself here. I don't have any cooperation with Durdzuketi's socks, which you mainly argument because of the diffs that you brought up which showed some time differences. Because I mainly edit on Ingush-themed or Caucasian-themed articles and am very active in Wikipedia for most of the part, when I see that an article in my watchlist is edited by someone - I sometimes go immediately "clean-up" the article or correct them. That's why there's sometimes these time differences that you mentioned. Regarding Russian Wikipedia, I was quickly banned there, due to my big mistakes in not providing a source for my claims, that however doesn't stop me from editing on other wikiprojects to make a good contribution. Also note that I was banned there 5 months ago, during this period people change! I immediately understood my mistakes and learned from them, and now I always provide sources for my claims. The other stuff you attributed to me is false as well, saying that I misrepresent sources and edit nationalistically etc. I hope this gives an answer to everything. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin please take a look at this sock/meatpuppeting case? @Materialscientist:, @Liz:, @Maile66: Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like it would be a better fit at WP:SPI. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should I move it to SPI then? Even if it includes possible meatpuppeting too? Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think SPI deals with meatpuppets, so it could probably just stay here. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any other noticeboard I can post this in? It seems like my post isn't getting any attention despite the heap of evidence provided. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SPI can handle meatpuppetry as well, and given that many cases involve a mix of the two it's worth sending there. I think that the evidence presented here is sufficient to warrant a checkuser investigation, and for that SPI is the place to go. If the results of a checkuser are negative or inconclusive, the behavioral evidence will be evaluated further and either actioned or referred back to ANI for discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case, we should probably close this and open a discussion at SPI. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that User:M.O.X just made a couple dozen consecutive reversions of my most recent edits, pretty much all of which were obviously needed changes. Not sure how to address this, but it seems to be harassment stemming from a reversion he made earlier today concerning Catholic postnominals—which I rejected with an explanation. (He clearly retaliated by just undoing all of my recent edits, including unblanking my talk page before realizing what he did and reverting it.) natemup (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary appears to be the same in all cases: "Unsourced edits". That doesn't apply for purely stylistic changes, for example [28] or [29]. This is a pretty obvious tell that they're reverting your edits without looking at them. Can you two hash this out on your talk pages? It doesn't seem intractable yet. Mackensen (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, the OP shouldn’t need to reason with another user who is clearly hounding them due to a disagreement. The edits M.O.X. performed on the OP’s talk page are clearly way over the line. M.O.X. should have made an attempt to discuss the edits, instead they chose the route of childish vandalism. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:E8D6:4C9:936A:9B63 (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is problematic behavior. @Natemup made the right call by bringing it here. Nemov (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen, I have to agree that this appears to be retaliatory vandalism, pure and simple. I'm not sure it's the kind of thing anyone should be expected to try to deal with themselves?

@Natemup, for clarity can you give us the diff for a reversion he made earlier today concerning Catholic postnominals—which I rejected with an explanation? Valereee (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made the suggestion purely on the basis that M.O.X. is a long-term editor and presumably knows better, though I don't recall encountering them before. Mackensen (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a misuse of the rollback all script to me. And, quite frankly, grounds to consider removing rollback if someone is going to use a script enabled extension of that flag like this. Courcelles (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good catch, all made the same minute. Well, I guess on the plus side it was arguably a single instance of vandalism rather than a spree, but yeah, that makes it not just vandalism but abuse of the tool. Valereee (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1154382811

(In a separate edit, he also deleted the postnominals in the infobox, which were present from long before. I don't think I even put them there.) natemup (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This certainty seems like abuse of rollback. Admins, would removing this user's rollback privileges be an appropriate response? QuicoleJR (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen: Would removing rollback privileges from M.O.X. be appropriate? QuicoleJR (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that would be justifiable, though M.O.X. hasn't edited since before this discussion opened and it would be good to hear from them. Mackensen (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, wait please. The "mass rollback" script has two options: "revert all" and "revert selected". But if you select a few problematic edits, then click "revert all" it will just ignore your selection and revert everything. This could be nothing more than a single misclick. M.O.X. hadn't edited for two months prior to this "incident"; perhaps they were a bit "rusty". That said; I haven't looked at many of their past edits; are there previous instances of clear hounding? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: Apart from today they've only used rollback once since MediaWiki started tagging rollbacks circa 2017. [30]. Only a handful of of uses of "undo". [31]. They've barely edited in the past few years. In any case, I don't see a pattern of abuse, here. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To add on, editing from a mobile has made me accidentally rollback and revert edits. The links are so close together that your phone has a mind of its own. Callmemirela 🍁 20:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The combo of mobile + rollback would seem to be a particularly deadly one. EEng 09:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in a few generations' time humans will evolve slimmer fingers to cope with such things. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And, after a considerably longer period, the overpaid do-nothings at Wikimedia might fix mobile to not be a laughingstock -- if the universe doesn't run cold first. EEng 18:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at M.O.C’s ediring history, you will see that their last 10 edits before this episode go back to October 2021 — so you’ll likely be waiting a very long time for a response. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which is reason enough to remove rollback now imo. nableezy - 18:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree, there seems to be very little down-side. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Natemup, I'm probably being really dense here, but what do you think the mass-rollback was in retaliation for? You've linked to Special:Diff/1154382811 above, but that was at 03:16, 12 May. The mass-rollback took place several hours earlier, at 23:45, 11 May. What interaction did you have with M.O.X before the mass-rollback? He doesn't seem to have edited Saint Boniface at all before you. Again, I've probably missed something obvious, but "retaliation" is a very serious claim (compared with sloppiness) and we need be to be sure to get the timeline right. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the correct diff. He reverted what I presume he thought was an undue edit on my part, and then came the cascade. I don't recall any recent interactions before that. I've had other hounders, though. natemup (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But that's M.O.X reverting you. Again, "retaliation" implies you reverted one of their edits first, and they decided to "get back" at you by blindly reverting all your edits. Seeing one (perceived) problematic edit from an editor, then going to their contribs, and reverting all the other (again, perceived) problematic edits is not retaliation. If he intended to revert all those other unrelated edits, then it is hounding, yes. But do we really know that was intentional? M.O.X should, when they return to editing, apologize, at least. But I don't see any malice here. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above (and the other diffs) makes clear the cascade had nothing to do with my edits being problematic. He blindly reverted everything—including my talk page—with the same edit summary that had nothing to do with the edits. He then undid the talk page edit alone, realizing his mistake, which implies that he intentionally made the other blanket reversions. natemup (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right; I don't know. In the end it was a single click, and without reading M.O.X's mind, we don't know if it was a mis-click. Yes, it was wrong for M.O.X to not clean up the whole mess afterwards; I'm not suggesting he is 100% blameless. At least, M.O.X should be warned about taking responsibility for any edits made with automated tools. To be clear, I am not suggesting you did anything wrong by coming here; there are just some words being thrown around, like "vandalism" that are over the top, IMO. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it was a misclick, editors are still fully responsible for the edits they make with tools, and the lack of correction or comment from User:M.O.X indicates that removal of rollback is probably the best course of action, especially when this is only 1 out of the 2 uses of rollback since 2017. Rollback isn't being used by this editor and aside from this one use, the one time it was used was problematic, so the removal of that right isn't going to be a detriment or cause any change to their editing. - Aoidh (talk) 06:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will make comment here as I was not hounding the user. I used a script and selected two edits. It didn’t revert the edits selected in the script as one was not a live edit: that to the article Pope Francis. The article for St Boniface was the only article I intended to revert. I didn’t notice that the edits reverted went beyond that and I confess I should have checked that, that is my fault and I apologise. When I said unsourced edits for St Boniface, that was perhaps not clear enough. Based on the text within the body of the article, it isn’t clear that he definitely belonged to the Order of St Benedict.

I assure everyone here and the OP that I harbour no vendetta and that it was a sincere mistake which I didn’t catch until being notified by all the pings. Given that, I will refrain from use of scripts (I didn’t use the rollback function as such) unless and until I run tests on a sandbox or test article. I also would like apologise again for any hurt caused by this mistake on my part. I will make sure to check my contributions page clearly as well to ensure that I can remedy or catch any such mistakes in the future.

I reverted the talk page undo as that was the only edit I noticed which was not related to the articles in question. It was an unfortunate lapse in judgment. I apologise for all the distress and trouble it caused. James ^{(T • C)} • 04:07 • 10:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the delay between edits and my reply here, I have been presently occupied with my responsibilities at work which prevented me from replying within a reasonable timeframe. James ^{(T • C)} • 04:07 • 10:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. 👌🏾 natemup (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think given the explanation and apology this can be closed without any further action. - Aoidh (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For more context, this is a continuation of the following discussions:

• December 2019: Talk:2019 United Kingdom general_election/Archive 5#GEUN_Spam
• January 2020: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1029#Persistent addition of promotional content - Globe Elections UN & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2020 Archive Jan 4#Globe Elections UN spam
• February 2020: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2020 Archive Feb 4#Globe Elections UN (again)
• March 2020: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2020 Archive Mar 6#GlobeElections UN, apparently continued

Three years later, this person has been persistently attempting to promote this content in Wikipedia over and over again, in a clear violation of WP:SOAPBOX, WP:USERG and WP:SELFPUBLISH. Today I just removed a number of such links placed in Opinion polling for the 2023 Turkish presidential election, 2023 Czech presidential election, 2023 Paraguayan general election, Opinion polling for the 2022 South Korean presidential election, Opinion polling for the 2022 Brazilian presidential election, 2022 South Korean local elections and Opinion polling for the 2019 Guatemalan general election, though I have occasionally encountered some of these in the last years. Obviously this is a problem in that it is difficult to quickly notice where and when are these links being added to articles (though ongoing & South Korean elections seem to be one their primary preference).

Involved IP accounts in the addition of this content recently are the following (though there can be many more, since they keep changing it):

• 2002:b763:a37::b763:a37 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2002:799d:cc39::799d:cc39 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2002:3b0c:deb9::3b0c:deb9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2001:2d8:eb00:13aa:fd29:c2b4:e360:e122 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2002:799d:cc39::799d:cc39 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2002:799d:ccb2::799d:ccb2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 222.117.248.44 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.11.55.12 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (blocked already in 2020 for spamming the same blog in Wiki articles)
• 210.96.56.162 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 125.132.247.54 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (possible)

I post this here since I'm not sure if there is any way to properly handle this, since this user keeps evading their blocks, reinserting their links and findind a way to keep spamming this even when reverted or blacklisted. Impru20^talk 16:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 210.96.56.162 keeps spamming this content into Opinion polling for the 2023 Turkish presidential election, despite acknowledging themselves that they have been reverted by multiple users. Impru20^talk 08:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We can't indef IPs, but maybe semiprotecting active elections could help? QuicoleJR (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Serial Number 54129 made a false accusation about me, referring to a years-old discussion, off-topic in a discussion that they didn’t otherwise participate in.[32] I challenged it and they “apologized” with another false accusation (yes, things were said in the old, closed discussion, but not what Serial Number 54129 asserted).[33] They also tried to canvas an editor they thought might help pile on.[34]

I also directly asked them to strike,[35] but they ignored and archived my comment.[36]

Although two uninvolved editors did criticize the inappropriate comm ents,[37][38] I consider the false accusations to be misleading and WP:ASPERSIONS, and believe it’s reasonable to ask for the entire comment to be stricken or deleted, either by Serial Number 54129 or by an uninvolved admin.

Thanks.  —Michael Z. 17:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User notified of this request.[39]  —Michael Z. 17:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh for fuck sake, you're taking this to ANI? Move on. EEng 20:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  EEng, there are nicer ways to say that. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But it's warranted. This filing is ridiculous EvergreenFir (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  So editors can just ignore WP:CIVIL, post any shit they want, go about their way, and their targets deserve to get some more profane abuse from administrators? Looking forward to talk pages of the future. Not what one expects, but good to know. Thank you, for fuck’s sake. —Michael Z. 00:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Mzajac The best thing to do in that case is to ignore it and try and de-escalate the situation. One way of doing it is to work out why the editor is being uncivil, take a step back and address that issue on its own merits. Indeed, as WP:CIVIL advises us, "No matter how much you're being provoked, resist the temptation to snap back. It never works; it just makes things worse." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the linked discussion; not familiar with all of the dramatis personae here, so I am sure there are all kinds of illustrious explanations for why this was actually an extremely cool and normal thing to say, but it seems somewhat unwarranted and uncollegial to me. jp×g 09:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no memory of ever interacting with Serial Number 54129 before this personal attack.  —Michael Z. 13:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you've learned your mistake, and won't interact with them again... --Jayron32 14:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, I'm not sure what you mean with this remark. Are you suggesting anyone who interacts with SN makes a mistake? I'm guessing not. I'm guessing you're intending for a message similar to Courcelles below, chiding Michael for something, but as written this seems open to misinterpretation. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Por que no los dos? What I was saying was, when there is an negative interaction (regardless of who is at fault), disengaging and letting the matter drop is generally a useful way to proceed. --Jayron32 14:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

when there is an negative interaction

I take issue with this assessment, because it appears there was no interaction before SerialNo lashed out with accusations, and then merely faux-apologized with more accusations. Dropping the matter seems like poor advice for a direct personal attack out of nowhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand what that means. You mean when they conduct another unprovoked personal attack against me I should suck it up and take it silently? Ignore false accusations and let them accumulate for posterity? There’s no other way to interpret that, given the facts. —Michael Z. 23:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize with you, and I'm disappointed by the responses of several editors above who really should know better. Unless I'm missing something, there was no good reason for SN54129 to make a personal comment about you in the first place, and the 'apology' merely replaced one unsubstantiated accusation with another. So yeah, the so-called apology was nothing of the sort. Ritchie's suggestion to try and work out why someone is being uncivil is good advice in many cases, but not here since the personal attack appears to have been unprompted. That said, although you would have been wiser to file this complaint at that time rather than waiting a week, I doubt anything would have happened. While those comments are quite rude and well below what I would expect from SN54129, they aren't bad enough to warrant sanctions. But while there was nothing much for this board to do, the lack of empathy displayed above is appalling. Not sure what else to tell you, though. Sometimes this board gets it wrong. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well I didn’t wait a week. I waited until it was clear that Serial Number 54129 refused to respond on their talk page and then posted here when I was able.

This board could strike or remove the slanderous comment. That’s all I asked for.  —Michael Z. 02:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make clear, SN was clearly and unambiguously in the wrong here. They should not have done what they did, and there is no possible excuse that could be offered up that would make it okay. Having said that, sometimes the effort spent getting a pound of flesh is better spent doing something else. Retribution is not always worth the effort. --Jayron32 14:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history with a fresh pair of eyes, I see SN54129 made a remark that he realised was factually incorrect, and struck it. That seems to resolve the conduct dispute. Are there any further examples of them being continually disruptive and requiring administrator intervention? If not, I would suggest this is akin to a cumulonimbus in a tea urn. In the interests of full disclosure, I should point out that I've had a drink with SN54129 in real life, though he is most definitely not a hanger-on of mine and is quite happy to criticise my actions if he feels it's necessary. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They struck the original completely false accusation, and then, along with a fake “apology,” added a different accusation that is harder to check, using words that appear in the old conversation referred to: “you were . . . accused of harassment, bigotry and racism by one editor, allegations which seem to have been supported by another editor.” If that were a mistake, their refusal to take responsibility or take it back makes it a lie. You see: you’ve fallen for it. It’s fair to ask for it to be struck or deleted. —Michael Z. 14:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After my own look, at absolute most this needs a gentle reminder to check their facts before speaking to SN54129, which is a general reminder all those of us with long wiki-histories can use. Courcelles (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Related: someone created a new account wikidata:User:CerealNo (“serial no.”) and defaced my talk page there with extremely obscene imagery.[40] Whoever it was evidently wanted me to understand that their harassment is connected to this complaint. —Michael Z. 01:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129, did you do that?  —Michael Z. 01:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably strike that. It looks too much like an accusation, and frankly I can't imagine that SN54129 would do something so foolish. It's almost certainly a troll. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not an accusation. Serial Number 54129 Should be notified and given the opportunity to respond. For all I know it’s somebody wanting to set them up or take advantage of this against me. Anyway you’re naïve to insist someone created an account and targeted me with “CerealNo,” shortly after Serial No conducted an unprovoked attack with falsehoods against me, by coincidence.

I’ve never been targeted with anything close to such hostile obscenity before, despite being in numerous disputes. It’s extremely upsetting. Your unsympathetic response is extremely inappropriate.  —Michael Z. 02:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "CerealNo" account is painfully obvious trolling; there's a dozen different LTAs who might be responsible for that sort of thing. I echo Lepricavark's suggestion that you drop this and not feed the trolls. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That particular brand of vandalism was reported on Wikidata a few days ago; I understand it can be distressing, but it is definitely unrelated to whatever is going on in this thread. –FlyingAce^✈hello 03:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was not insisting that it is a complete coincidence. Obviously whoever targeted your Wikidata page was inspired by this thread. Bearing in mind that this is a very high-visibility page, it is very, very likely that someone other than SN54129 (and it could theoretically be anyone in the world with access to Wikipedia) created that account for the purpose of further provoking you. It was not my intention to be unsympathetic, and I believe I made that very clear in my first comment. While I agree that SN's initial comment and pseudo-apology were both inappropriate, I don't think any admins on this board will strike them. My hope is that SN would be willing to self-reflect, admit that the comments were out of order, and strike them voluntarily. But given that they haven't engaged in this thread at all, I'm not holding my breath. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael, I am sorry to see you go through this. Let me with no qualifications mention that you shouldn't have been thrown such comments. And your filing of a complaint is perfectly okay, as it has the benefit of allowing other editors to understand the context and background of the issue and to keep an eye out so that in the future, if a similar issue arose, we can connect the dots. Having said that, if I may dare to speak on Sn's behalf, he is not a bad guy at all. I have interacted with him occasionally and found him to be extremely congenial and supportive (yes, he does snap sometimes, but that is sometimes... and he almost always comes around to ensuring he corrects his errors in spirit and in actions). An olive branch never hurts, and I would suggest extend to him the same this time... Like I said, he's not a bad guy at all, and would come around. That said, I will reiterate and hope that you don't go through such experiences again. Warmly, Lourdes 08:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a follow-up. Serial Number 54129 hasn't edited since this thread was created. I looked at the second accusation provided by Mzajac, noticed there were no diffs so I could check it for factual accuracy, and so left him a note saying that he should make sure he supplies diffs straightaway when making those sort of accusations. Specifically, the accusation is "You were not suspected of canvassing, I see on a re-read, but accused of harassment, bigotry and racism by one editor, allegations which seem to have been supported by another editor." Where were the accusations made, and which editors supported them? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• this is getting similar to WP:UBA and stuff. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Shahmaran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rojin416 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HistoryofIran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There are constant citation mistakes, anytime I fix them the user HistoryofIran undos all my work. The book itself states it's from Kurdistan. Since this person has been on Wikipedia for along time, they're getting away with blatantly hoarding Kurdish pages and changed history. We tried to talk with this user on Talk multiple times, but they keep gaslighting and ignoring all our citations and books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rojin416 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the info is right or not isn't the point here, it's the fact that you you asked for help off-wiki, which is a blatant violation of the canvassing guideline. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I didn't know that wasn't allowed. My bad. Rojin416 (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you didn't know that removing/altering sourced info, using non-WP:RS, and casting WP:ASPERSIONS isn't allowed either? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was using reliable sources. Infact, I was even using the approved citations and reliables sources, that clearly state it was Yazidi's and Kurds from Kurdistan. Maybe if you took the time to actually read the citated resources, you wouldn't keep undoing "A Story from the Mountains of Kurdistan." to "A Story from the Mountains of Turkey."

The citation is right there. Infront of you. Maybe learn how to read and get rid of that vendetta you have against Kurds. Rojin416 (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the name of the title, that being the only constructive edit done by OP. I suggest that OP gets indeffed for WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:TENDENTIOUS, off-wiki coordination, and so on. This screams WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Rojin416 (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But there's still over 4 mistakes with that page. Rojin416 (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, who is we? Is this account controlled by more than one person? QuicoleJR (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reddit off-wiki coordination at Shahmaran

Rojin416 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Well, Rojin416 beat me to it. Shahmaran is currently being targeted by brand new users and IPs. One of them, Rojin416 was reverted a few times by me and Aintabli [41] [42] [43], which led him to ask for help at Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/kurdistan/comments/13h03b2/i_need_help_with_wikipedia/). Two weeks ago, a similar thread about the same article was created [44]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Reddit, this person has a vendetta against Kurds and is constantly censoring anything related to Kurdistan. The citations itself clearly say "Yazidi kurds", or "from Kurdistan", yet this person constantly undos everything. Rojin416 (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please, at least be creative with your WP:ASPERSIONS. This users activities here and comment on Reddit clearly demonstrates serious WP:BATTLEGROUND issues. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not attacking you. You have a very clear political vendetta. It's very evident from your history regarding Kurds. Rojin416 (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Reddit? Are you kidding me? Reddit is most certainly not a reliable source, and accusations should be made with hard evidence, such as diffs. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a redditor myself, I gotta say: redditors love talking out of their asses. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

but you're an unreliable source for saying that "redditors love talking out of their asses" :) – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 17:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it time for general sanctions on accounts with fewer than 100 edits that bring HistoryofIran to ANI? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ...you're telling me this a thing that keeps happening? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've lost count on how many times I've seen ANI reports on HistoryofIran on my watchlist. Callmemirela 🍁 20:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In the past 12 months? At least 15 times, and that's just a quick look at the archives. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ”Clippy” appears. ‘It looks like you’re a new user trying to report HistoryofIran. Would you like me to help by closing your browser?’ — Trey Maturin™ 20:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And it's always some niche thing that few people are familiar with, so it languishes until three days before the next thread starts. Maybe a general sanction to just partial block any account with fewer than 100 edits that brings HistoryofIran to ANI from any page they're in conflict? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not gonna lie, that would make things way more simple. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Can we vote on this? I agree that HistoryofIran has continuously been the target of many disruptive and libeling newcomers. Aintabli (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It is rather wearying, isn't it? Actually, it would actually be quite a trivial edit filter to stop any new editor from starting a thread here that contained the string "HistoryofIran" ... Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yup, sounds good. I'm new to ANI and this already isn't the first HistoryofIran report I've seen. As for this specific report, I think this could safely be closed as a WP:BOOMERANG against the plaintiff, probably by indeffing them. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  So let me get this straight. You people aren't alarmed by the fact that HistoryOfIran gets reported constantly, but because he's been here a long time, you're all going to give him god level status and going forth ignore every report about him? He has issues with allowing edits, and continues to undo anything related to Kurds or Kurdistan. This isn't my cited source, it's a source that he keeps REVERTING TO. Which he accepts as a cited source:

  ^Nicolaus, Peter (2011). “The Serpent Symbolism in the Yezidi Religious Tradition and the Snake in Yerevan” Iran & Caucasus. 15 (1/2): 59. JSTOR 41430888. “Furthermore, the serpent

  Was, and still is considered a symbol of good fortune and power among Kurdish people and the “image of Shahmaran (the queen of serpents) is depicted on glass or metal work, seen hung on walls even today”.”Accessed 14 May 2023

  However, for some reason, he won't allow me to write "Kurds" nor "Kurdistan" on the page, even though it's our mythology. I'm not here writing war stories, writing a biography, nor essays, I'm just trying to edit the page to reflect my culture and heritage which is being suppressed by HistoryOfIran. Even using THEE cited source that he himself refuses to accept anything but.

  This is ridiculous. It's evident this user has constantly been complained about in the past, but everyone's solution is just to make it so he never gets reported again? Rojin416 (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  He always gets reported by new editors that end up indeffed for severe WP:NPOV violations, so stopping those reports would save time for everyone involved. As for this dispute, the Reddit stuff and allegations of bias do not reflect well on you. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's ridiculous is that Rojin416 is still trying to justify their disruptive editing. That source doesn't say that the Shahmaran is of Kurdish origin, it just says that the Kurds believe in it too. And that's fine, the source is WP:RS (unlike some other ones.. [45]), it can obviously be used, and no one is denying that Kurds believe in the Shahmaran too; it's even mentioned in the article. But how did you use that source? Hmm.. let me see [46] (note: the Nicolaus citation was wrongly used on the Indo-Iranian bit instead of Sartori. Nicolaus should be used somewhere else, which is what Rojin416 should have done; I have fixed it now [47]) - you removed sourced mention of its Armenian, Turkic and Indo-Iranian connections, replacing all of it with "insert something Kurdish here". And thus you got reverted. And I'm not even gonna entertain the rest of stuff you wrote. I do think the Shahmaran article is in a state of mess based on some of the questionable citations, info not even supported by some of the citations, etc, but you did not improve its state. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We've already talked about this in Talk section.

"That source doesn't say that the Shahmaran is of Kurdish origin, it just says that the Kurds believe in it too."

AND YET KURDS/YAZIDI/AND KURDISTAN IS STILL MISSING!

Why are we constantly going in circles? Look at your Armenian citation. It literally states it's the Yazidis that celebrate it.

"note: the Nicolaus citation was wrongly used on the Indo-Iranian bit instead of Sartori. Nicolaus should be used somewhere else, which is what Rojin416 should have done; I have fixed it now"

And the citation that you deleted, literally stated Kurdistan and Kurdish in it. Instead of updating Kurdistan and Kurdish, you delete it. AGAIN, for the millionth time, why you and another user are accused of vandalizing the page and denying Kurds and Kurdistan. Rojin416 (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[48]https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/29354/1/10731449.pdf

Here read for yourself. It constantly mentions Kurdistan and the Yazidi's. It does not state it originated from Armenia. Rojin416 (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This thread isn't for content disputes. That's the whole point of a talk page and other venues if no consensus is reached. This is about your behaviour. You can't spit out the word vandalism when a discussion doesn't steer your way. This is about your behaviour. Per WP:BRD, the next step would have been having a civil discussion and potentially reaching consensus. Callmemirela 🍁 03:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I've indeffed as a WP:BOOMERANG. I would support more general sanctions as well. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose an indefinite block. Both Rojin416 and HistoryofIran need to work on their ability to collaborate, and I would support a two-way interaction ban, but indefinitely blocking a productive contributor does more harm than good.  — Freoh 17:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree. With evidence of canvassing, PA, and edit warring, the indef block could have been warranted. Callmemirela 🍁 17:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, the moment Rojin wrote I'm not attacking you. You have a very clear political vendetta. It's very evident from your history regarding Kurds. was the moment an indef became inevitable because there is no way back from such an egregious attack on an editor. The canvassing and the edit warring – good god, look at their contributions – was enough but that was more than enough. Good block, UtherSRG. Thank you. — Trey Maturin™ 17:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I also believe that the personal attacks and Reddit canvassing warrant the user being indeffed. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Rojin416 said that they were unaware of the canvassing policy and owned up to their mistakes. Their attacks are somewhat problematic, but they seem like a good-faith newcomer with real concerns about HistoryofIran's potentially tendentious editing. Their complaints are in the gray area between personal attack and legitimate conduct dispute. They need time to cool down and learn Wikipedia's culture, not an indefinite block.  — Freoh 14:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't only violate the canvassing policy though, for example they kept attacking me despite being told of WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA (though it goes without saying you don't randomly attack people, it's basic etiquette [49]). It seems you're the only one who consider this user to be a "good-faith editor" and "productive contributor," despite their actions, which is concerning. If you think I am doing tendentious edits, feel free to report me - right now you're just doing the same as Rojin416, accusing me of stuff with no evidence, i.e. WP:ASPERSIONS. Rojin416 has deleted all their comments in that thread now, but right after their block they went on another angry rant on Reddit, calling Wikipedia a cesspool or something alike and protesting over Shahmarans recent expansion by an uninvolved user - they clearly don't regret their actions. Don't expect another reply from me, and please don't ping me in this thread again. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I again disagree. Prior to the Reddit post being deleted, they were demonstrating POV-pushing, including possible in their latest unblock request. Callmemirela 🍁 16:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Rojin416 was a bin-fire in the making. Their edits were terrible, their personal attacks on HistoryofIran were awful in every way, and it's not a huge surprise for anyone anywhere on the internet to know that rounding up your mates on social media in order to bombard somewhere or someone is always unacceptable behaviour.

Also, Freoh: a cool down block for them? Really? Come on. There are good reasons why we don't do that. — Trey Maturin™ 16:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

with real concerns about HistoryofIran's potentially tendentious editing

I'm guessing you've not hung out on ANI much. Because I'll be blunt: HistoryofIran is one of our best resources for fighting against nationalistic POV warriors in these articles. The concerns about HoI invariably come from people trying to push "OUR nation created this, not THOSE people" types of edits. If anything, HoI deserves a medal for putting up with the lengthy battles against these types of accounts, and the number of times they've had to sit waiting on admin action.

Despite the OP's assertion that we're supporting HoI based on the age of their account, the truth is that we're supporting HoI based on the fact they've been right more often than not. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of waiting on admin action...cough cough scroll up cough ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Which thread are you referring to? QuicoleJR (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure where to ask about this, so I will try here. 22spears has added a link to the article Tom O'Carroll. The link goes to O'Carroll's personal blog. O'Carroll is a notorious pedophile who has been jailed multiple times and continues to advocate pedophilic relationships. Old conversations on Talk:Tom O'Carroll show that a different O'Carroll site was removed in the past.

Is this link is allowed on Wikipedia? MrPinkingShears (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MrPinkingShears This is an article content issue that should be discussed on the article talk page. Wikipedia is not censored, but there needs to be an encyclopedic purpose for an external link. I'm not entirely clear on what link is problematic, but the only links I see seem to be used as citations. 331dot (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I've indefffed the OP, an unusual new editor, for repeated personal attacks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor-attracted person (2nd nomination). The OP also failed to notify 22spears.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You can call them personal attacks, but there also some pretty serious accusations that should be addressed. We have an editor adding in an encyclopedia article a blog by a convicted pedophile and relaying this person's view that an 11 year old is "hot". If what the OP wrote is true this is not the block that was needed here. nableezy - 23:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am beginning to believe the wrong new editor might have been indeffed here…. Someone (maybe me, tomorrow when I have my laptop out) needs to take a longer, critical look at 22spears editing. Courcelles (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And their user page. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, but what's wrong with their userpage? GIF of dancing anime-girl? Or quote with d-word? USS Cola!rado🇺🇸 (C⭐T) 06:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not so much "or" as "and". As in, the image and the quote and their choice of articles to edit. The combination is trolling at best. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  About that addition on Tom O'Carroll's article, nableezy, I added it primarily due to my notion surrounding the WP:UNCENSORED policy. I am aware that his comments regarding children were icky, but in my understanding they did merit being added in the article due to the fact that he was once reported on news outlets and social media accounts for making sexualized comments regarding a drag kid in his wordpress blog before it was banned. And if it is true that I added a link to his blog in the WP article, as the OP was saying, I'm almost sure that I did it to source the claims that O'Carroll's did indeed make those comments (this is a BLP after all, so sourcing in those articles is never too much, especially when it comes to potentially criminal/sexual harrassment accusations). 🔥 22spears 🔥 00:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Uncensored does not mean include the personal blog of a pedophile as though that were a usable source. The only source in the Drag kids section you added is O'Carroll's personal blog. We do not advertise a pedophile's views on how hot an eleven year old is sourced to his blog in the name of "NOTCENSORED". I find that justification incredibly weak to the point of questioning why it was even made. And there is no if about it, the internet famously being written in ink and Wikipedia having this nifty diff feature shows that you indeed did add that blog and that sentence. nableezy - 00:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Nableezy is 100% right. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Obviously. Our article was discovered by "pro-MAPs" within days of its creation, and that was followed by signs of canvassing at the AfD. According this academic book: several pro-pedophilia online groups want to make Wikipedia "more neutral" (in their favour), and to push traffic to their sites, which makes the O'Carroll edit look awful, as well as this edit by another SPA involved in the "MAP" article.

  There are also these personal attacks [50] [51], and this BLPvio through an MREL source[52] (see the new section at the end, and contrast with comment below about BLPCRIME). Different diff from GhostofDanGurney. DFlhb (talk) 03:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Then I was on the wrong there, and the reverd by gnu was right. Again, I'm new on Wikipedia, nableezy, be patient with me. Looking up this incident right now, I found this and this souces from online outlets, both of which technically tell the truth but are generally unreliable. This is were I was coming from with those edits, but the decision to source it with a blog post was clearly wrong and was probably made when I wasn't aware of WP's policies regarding reliable sources. 🔥 22spears 🔥 01:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Can't WP:ABOUTSELF be reasonably applied in an "Opinions" section, even for someone we consider despicable? small jars tc 01:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Possibly, but there is also the WP:BLPCRIME policy that should be considered, which says "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured". It is possible that in some jurisdictions what O'Carroll did could be considered sexual harrassment, so it's better to not include anything about that anyway. 🔥 22spears 🔥 01:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You think the reason not to include this is to protect O'Carrroll? nableezy - 05:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please read point #2 of ABOUTSELF. Or the bolded part. DFlhb (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In WP:ABOUTSELF, after the bolded part, is "so long as: (1) the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;" see the last inclusion entry in WP:EXTRAORDINARY: "Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions...". I presume calling ten-year-olds "hot" is 'contradicted by the prevailing view', otherwise we wouldn't set the legal age of consent higher than that. – .Raven  ^.talk 05:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Is it against mainstream opinions that a known pedophile would have the personal opinion that a ten year old is "hot”? 22spears' additions to the section did not at all take O'Carrroll's claims at face value, but only made claims about claims. (And not claims I imagine that any pro-pedophile POV pusher would like to see kept on the article!) I can appreciate that the child protection element seriously complicates things, but still feel that 22spears was acting roughly in line with normal interpretation of policy in these edits, though maybe the juxtaposition of the two contradictory claims in O'Carrroll's blog post, without secondary coverage of this contradiction bordered on WP:SYNTH, and the whole section seems dubiously WP:DUE. small jars tc 10:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As I parse the texts at the two WP pages I cited above, "the material" at O'Carroll's blog was making that "exceptional claim" (="contradicted by the prevailing view") that a ten-year-old was "hot"; thus should not have been linked. But I may have mis-read, mis-parsed, or mis-interpreted those texts, or perhaps missed seeing other text that would result in a different conclusion. This is one reason to seek consensus: more eyes looking into a topic miss fewer things. – .Raven  ^.talk 10:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:BLP also applies to the child here - we need to consider their privacy and wellbeing in this situation as well. WP:AVOIDVICTIM seems particularly relevant - if a child is being creeped on by a 70 year old is it really appropriate for Wikipedia to continue to spread the creepy and inappropriate comments around, based on a citation to a blog run by the person who said the creepy stuff in the first place? 192.76.8.85 (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I strongly agree that the content should not be in the article from this standpoint, as opposed to a WP:V-based argument, but which of the reasons we see as relevant has repercussions on our assessment of 22spears' overall conduct, which I would summarise as “insensitive” rather than “POV-pushing”. small jars tc 11:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block of 22spears. I share MrPinkingShears's concerns about 22spears's editing in the paedophilia topic area. 22spears added a "drag kids" section sourced only to O'Carroll's personal blog; I have removed it. gnu57 00:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Regardless of whether 22spears deserves to be blocked, the "comments" made by MPS are unacceptable. Here are some (without diffs):

"If you actually take the time to go through their contributions, it is clear that this user has been pushing a not very subtle pro-pedophile POV."

"This suggests to me that 22spears personally knows O'Carroll..."

"22spears Your use of someone's first name in your edits gave me the impression that you either know notorious pedophile Tom O'Carroll personally or are very familiar with them. That would explain why you refer to them by their first name, so familiarly. I didn't see you call Allyn Walker "Allyn" or James Cantor "James". It wasn't meant to be an accusation of wrongdoing. Since you seem very open to questions - do you know notorious pedophile Tom O'Carroll?"

---Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bbb23 that these comments were casting aspersions and in effect personal attacks, even if I do have misgivings about 22spears' edits The swarm of SPAs surrounding this topic area more generally (especially at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor-attracted person (2nd nomination) suggests that there may be some off-wiki activity (which maybe includes joe-jobbing). Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you change the OP’s signature in your previous edit? 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:79A5:1681:C818:558E (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume Hemiauchenia was on autopilot or something, considering their editing history on Opilioacaridae. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was a bizarre error. I have no idea it occurred and it was obviously unintentional. My apologies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s ok, it wasn’t my intent to accuse you of wrongdoing. Just couldn’t figure out what happened. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:79A5:1681:C818:558E (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparenrly MrPinkingShears recently showed up here again as this IP, though his reply was erased. 🔥 22spears 🔥 01:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spears22, regarding those diffs you just cited (attacks on Bbb23 calling for de-admining) -- those have been coming from new users and Virginia-based IPs (range: 2601:5c2:200:21bd::/64) for several months - well before any of the controversies here and before you (Spears22) or MrPinkingShears started editing. I don't think that's MrPinkingShears making those edits you just cited. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the nature of that blog, there may be Wikipedia:Child protection considerations if the potential exists for an interaction between a young reader and the blog owner as a result of this link. I’d skip the link if in doubt. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A little creepy that 22spears’ edit refers to “Tom”, not “O’Carroll”. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for this comment. Callmemirela 🍁 02:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now, to be fair, it was brought up by MrPinkingShears earlier. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion that’s a serious enough concern to be brought up again, an editor with a history that seems to imply they have been generally trying to make pedophilia/pedophiles appear more favorably referring to a famous pro-pedophilia activist by first name is quite concerning. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even creepier that it's not even "Tom", but "Thomas" in the edit summary. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I often refer to the people of the biographies I edit by their first name. You can navigate my edits relating to Allyn Walker (who I even referred as Allyson, which is their full (dead)name), and maybe even Tim Ballard if you want to confirm. I don't see how the fact that I refer to them by their first names means that I have a personal connection with them, at least in my mother language that is a common thing to do, even if the person we are talking about is a stranger (admins in this thread can see where I am from by looking at my IP's geolocation, but don't expose where I live). 🔥 22spears 🔥 03:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Using a first name like that is not our style on the English Wikipedia. Also, admins can't see your IP address; only check-users can (for sock puppetry) and they have to show justification. I suppose IP records may be accessible for legal proceedings but that's at the level of the Wikipedia Foundation, not Wikipedia editors. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block The creepy userpage. The creation of "minor-attracted person" over a redirect to Wiktionary and Stigma of pedophilia. The other points raised here by A. B. and Genericusername57 are just too many dots for me. The icing on the cake here for me is that their first edit (made less than two months ago) included BLP-violating wording about the founder of an anti-pedophilia group. This "unusual new editor" does not seem capable of editing from a NPOV in this topic area (which I would believe falls under the GENSEX CTOP). ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out the blog post that started this argument. The content certainly fits within our WP:NOTCENSORED policy. However, per Wikipedia:Child protection, I am concerned about the opportunity for interaction between an underaged reader and one of the many people commenting on the blog post (there are 175 comments). I don't think it's worth the risk to underage readers. Besides, that link is the reference for a comment by O'Carroll that's of minor import - just how important is it that we include his opinion of child drag performer Desmond is Amazing? I say delete the Desmond is Amazing opinion and the blog link together. Dilemma resolved. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying since there are discussions on two different editors going on in here, that this is support of a block for 22spears. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  04:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block of 22spears per my reply above, and per my AfD arguments that Minor attracted person is a POV fork and unacceptably normalizes pedophilia (per Zaathras is right). DFlhb (talk) 03:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Attraction to minors includes more than just pedophilia, so Minor-attracted person cannot possibly be a POV fork of Pedophilia. Casdmo (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the main counterargument to POVFORK, yet it's a technicality.

  This paper, highly-cited (380 citations), says For the sake of simplicity and convention, we refer to both hebephilic and pedophilic men as “pedophilic.” That's common even in scholarship. When papers treat them as interchangeable, it's not vandalism to do so. DFlhb (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In this case "common" conflicts with "precision", an event also found in "Hindu terrorism" vs "Hindutva terrorism", "Islamic terrorism" vs "Islamist terrorism", "Christian terrorism" vs "Christian nationalist terrorism", etc. At a certain point, I think precision should win, otherwise we're helping perpetuate mistakes because they're "common" mistakes. – .Raven  ^.talk 05:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I deny the implicit premise that the topic of a POV-fork must be precisely coterminous with the topic of the forked article. The topic minor-attracted person might indeed be a strict superset of the topic pedophilia (though I do not grant this), yet nonetheless the former may still be a POV-fork of the latter. WP:POVFORK itself gives an example of a POV-fork that does not cover the precise topic area of any existing article. Shells-shells (talk) 05:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To be more precise, minor-attracted person is a subset of the Chronophilia subject (because it emcompasses some chronophilias, such as pedophilia and hebephilia, but not others such as mesophilia and gerontophilia). The reason why I created that page was not for it to be a POV-fork, it was because of the of the recent controversies relating to the usage of this term by public figures and organizations (Project Horizon, Mermaids, etc; you can read about them in the MAP article, if it's still there). Since that term was covered by RS, I believed it would be fine to create a separate article just to address it. I had actually made some edits on the Chronophilia page just to address this term, but it felt a little off-topic, which motivated me to start a draft of an article dedicated just to that word in my userspace, which I then published in the mainspace in the beggining of this month. That article was sort of a WP:SPLIT from the Chronophilia and Allyn Walker ones. 🔥 22spears 🔥 06:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would like to make it clear that @DFlhb has had a personal beef with me for days ever since I made a revert of his edit in the MAP article (I called it a "POV-push", and 2 minutes later he showed up to oppose me in the AfD and then called me uncivil in the talk page), so therefore any claim that he makes about me or I make about him is not coming from an unbiased party. About that edit, DFlhb, I wasn't trying to offend you, I was just being blunt. I understand that it feels shitty when someone dismisses your contribution as bad, especially in a revert, but calling for me to be blocked two days after that happened is in a level of bitterness that I have never had against anyone on WP. Actually, I almost invited you to discuss on the talk page of that article about the edit that you had made, but I felt like I didn't have to because I thought you would already knew how WP:Dispute resolutions usually work on WP. You're not the first person I disagreed with in the article, I have also called Sedan's edit SYNTH in the past and we were able to discuss the issue civilly in the talk page just fine. 🔥 22spears 🔥 06:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The user is now blocked, but for the record, I started typing my AfD reply before that revert ever happened; it had no impact on my vote. DFlhb (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose block of 22spears. The only misstep 22spears has made was the aforementioned citation of O'Carroll. 22spears has admitted fault (see above) regarding the citation. The other stated reasons for supporting a block of 22spears pertain to personal discomfort (such as one editor's use of the word creepy above), which is too subjective to warrant a block. Casdmo (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Since you directly reference my support of a block, I will clarify that my support comes from the totality of reasons I stated, including their first version of Predator Poachers containing BLP-violating material about the founders political views, not just their interpretation of WP:UPYES to include a particular lyric placed beside a particular image. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  04:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose MrPinkingShears block - I disagree with indefinitely blocking MrPinkingShears. His comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor-attracted person (2nd nomination) crossed a line but nobody really warned him of our policies before dropping an indefinite block. I suggest trimming the block. I will also note that he has made some good comments about content. He just needs to understand we argue over content not other editors' intentions. I think a 24-hour block would serve that purpose just as well. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What "line" did MPS cross? From what I just read, the only aspersion he cast was to accuse 22spears of pushing a pro-pedophilia POV. That's pretty harsh, sure, but a number of editors in this thread have made the exact same accusation. Ravenswing 08:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's pretty obvious what's going on here. You're never going to find a smoking gun on this kind of thing, but there really isn't any good-faith justification for the pattern of edits 22spears has made. A well-meaning neutral party with an interest in paraphilias might fall into some of the mistakes observed at the MAP article, but that wouldn't explain the other edits discussed here, which are much more decidedly "pedophile culture war"-y, nor would it explain the insistence on avoiding the word "pedophile". I would indef as NOTHERE, but I happen to have created the original redirect, which isn't actually involvement in this dispute but I suppose could be taken that way, so I'll just leave this as a strong suggestion that some other admin do that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't use the word "pedophile" in the MAP article because reliable sources that cover this term did not do so. They all say pedophilia is a subset of the minor-attracted person umbrella. You can read them yourself. 90% of what I did in that article was put "minor-attracted person" on google and google scholar and transcribe what reliable sources said about the topic to the article. Just to illustrate it, this generally reliable source states that "The concept of Minor-Attracted Persons (MAPs), which is perceived by some as part of the attempt to normalize pedophilia, is an umbrella term used by organizations such as B4U-ACT or The Global Prevention Project, an organization that addresses “risky sexual thoughts, fantasies, and non-contact problematic sexual behavior in adult men and women,” in order to prevent child sexual abuse, as well as some researchers, to define a variety of people attracted to minors. These include nepiophiles (attracted to babies and toddlers), pedophiles (attracted to prepubescent children), hebephiles (attracted to pubescent children and early adolescents), and ephebophiles (attracted to late adolescents)." All other RS's that you find on Google will tell you the same thing. 🔥 22spears 🔥 06:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Indef 22Spears and Unblock MrPinkingShears but give a final warning. Per GhostofDan Gurney, A.B. and Tamzin. The current situation - with the one account blocked and the other not - is really disturbing. DeCausa (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I have indefinitely blocked 22Spears for what appears to be an uncomfortable pattern of pro-pedophilia POV pushing. I realize that these discussions are typically left open for 24 hours, but frankly with this kind of concern, I think we should err on the side of caution. I have deliberately not closed or hatted this discussion; if consensus turns against this block then so be it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  07:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I came to the same conclusion as PMC and Tamzin before seeing this thread, but PMC beat me to the block. It's blinding obvious what 22spears is up to here and I'm astonished that Bbb23's response was to block MrPinkingShears for pointing that out. Anyway, I've started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stigma of pedophilia and I think we need eyes on the rest of 22spears' remaining creations: Predator Poachers, Allyn Walker, primary prevention of child sexual abuse and User:22spears/Todd Nickerson. – Joe (talk) 07:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm convinced that Allyn Walker passes WP:GNG and is a notable topic. The article doesn't seem to have any major POV issues as far as I can tell. No strong opinions on the others. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Agree with a close review of all articles this user has created or significantly contributed to. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Good block of 22spears, but I add my voice to those calling for MrPinkingShears to be unblocked. BilledMammal (talk) 07:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Good block. Enough said. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• It is a Good block (maybe it should be a CBAN). But what abour MrPinkingSheers who got blocked for pointing it out? DeCausa (talk) 07:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Good block, and the block of MrPinkingShears was a bad one. I'm seeing a consensus forming for unblocking the latter. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse block on MrPinkingShears: Having just looked over the discussion in question, unless there are revdel'd comments I couldn't see, MrPinkingShears was indeffed for accusing 22spears of nothing more than several other editors have done in endorsing his block. Seriously? If all the personal attack MPS issued was "this guy is pushing a pro-pedophilia POV," there ought to be multiple indefs handed out to participants in this discussion. Ravenswing 08:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin: this user has been pushing a not very subtle pro-pedophile POV -blocked for aspersions!

Admin: I have indefinitely blocked 22Spears for what appears to be an uncomfortable pattern of pro-pedophilia POV pushing. - not blocked for aspersions!

I'd put a laughing emoji here usually, except this isn't really very funny...  Tewdar  09:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse block of MrPinkingShears – WP:AGF? Those are comments that could certainly be good faith, and they're not clear personal attacks. A warning is probably justified here, as the questions about knowing the pedophile personally are over the line, but a block is excessive.

As for 22spears' block, I'm neutral on it. I haven't done a deep dive into their contributions, but they did seem to be POV-pushing, and they were a single-purpose account over 1100 edits in 2 months – still, I'm not sure this is necessarily grounds for a block over a TBAN, when they have expressed a desire to edit Ancient Greek and Lusophone-related articles in the future. However, I might be taking AGF too far here, and I'm certainly not a regular around here, so I'm not too familiar with the ropes of this area. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CHILDPRO re blocking the 22spears account as a matter of policy. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The MAP AFD is chock full of SPAs that need some attention. Courcelles (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus: I'd say WP:CHILDPRO justifies MrPinkingShears' ban more so than 22spears'. The idea of 22spears supposedly advocating anything is clearly subjective, but MrPinkingShears without a doubt did publish allegations against 22spears on-site rather than via email as the policy requires. --Pokelova (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... the rabbit hole THAT falls into is that lacking a blatant statement such as "I'm a proud pedo!" from an editor or a smoking gun link with a phrase like "Check this out!" to a NAMBLA webpage, an admin could indef an editor for violating CHILDPRO, but be in violation themselves for saying why. Ravenswing 15:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing The policy doesn't even seem to say what Pokelova claims it does. The policy states that Editors seemingly pushing agendas can be referred to any administrator in exactly the same way as any other POV-pushing allegation. Treating it in exactly the same way as any other allegation would surely include the use of WP:AE, WP:ANI, administrator talk pages etc? The bit about using email seems to be related to identifying people as paedophiles, which seems reasonable given the Libel/Outing concerns. Asking if 22spears knew Tom O'Carroll was toeing the line, but they don't seem to have actually made accusations of anything other than POV pushing. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for the ping. I don't believe the 22spears block is subjective. I haven't reviewed MrPinkingShears' block, sorry. Plenty of others have in this thread, so I'm confident it's getting appropriate attention. -- 11:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euryalus (talk • contribs)

a desire to edit Ancient Greek and Lusophone-related articles in the future Without comment on anything else about the justification for either block, an apparent SPA with a history of POV-pushing on paedophilia-related topics wanting to edit on Ancient Greek history is not necessarily reassuring. Homosexuality in ancient Greece, pederasty in ancient Greece and related topics are a known ideological battleground for people with an axe to grind related to paedophilia. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like 86Sedan was just banned too as an AE action, which I support. See the edits apparently whitewashing an org that argues that if a child is "willing", no harm is caused. This edit summary is misleading: "minimize harm" is not an opinion but straight from the cited source, and there's no "controversy" about what the clinical data say, per the sources we cite. See also the insertion the self-description of a controversial group (a group which refuses to take sides pro/contra molestation). And just for fun, peep this other misleading edit summary. DFlhb (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked I have accepted MrPinkingShears' unblock request as I see multiple admins calling for it, and no objections. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blocks of 22spears and 86sedan. Definite POV pushing going here that could have severely damaged Wikipedia. --SouthernNights (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all current blocks (i.e. not MPS). Ugh. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can probably close this section of the thread, as it seems all necessary action has been taken, unless there's anything else. ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 00:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created by 22spears

• Allyn Walker
• Primary prevention of child sexual abuse
• User:22spears/templatedue
• User:22spears/Todd Nickerson

given the inappropriateness of the articles already at afd, the rest of this person's creations require scrutiny. ValarianB (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Call it IAR if you like, but I'm deleting the userspace pages on that list. Courcelles (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Im currently in the process of making some bold edits to "Primary prevention of child sexual abuse", it seems like the purpose it was created for was to push the idea that arresting child abusers is bad, but it also seems notable outside of that so im not going to AFD (right now) Googleguy007 (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might be wasting your time, Googleguy007. That page starts "The primary prevention of sexual abuse consists of a set of measures taken to prevent child sexual abuse before it happens". Given that prevention of something after it happens is relatively unusual, and removing some other clutter, that sentence reduces to "The prevention of [child] sexual abuse is the prevention of child sexual abuse". That's not a promising definition of a topic. I'd consider redirecting it Sexual violence#Prevention or some better target, but AfD looks like a good option too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a good point, thinking about it a little more it doesn’t really have a purpose outside of describing punishing child sexual abusers as somehow worse than attempting to get them help. I do think it ~could~ make a decent article someday but that would have to be after a full rewrite. Googleguy007 (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected it to Child sexual abuse#Prevention as a quick fix. XOR'easter (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would parse that as "preventing even the *first* time someone abuses a child, rather than waiting until then to try preventing *subsequent* times" – the latter being admittedly how the judicial system (imprisonment, parole, abuser-registry) works, as actual criminal acts are what triggers it — merely *potential* criminals don't enter that system. But then all those "first victims" don't get protected. Something that prevents the *first* abuse thus protects those children, yet doesn't require imprisonment etc., works also to the benefit of the pedophiles, true... but in this case, NOT benefitting the pedophiles requires NOT protecting their "first victims". If I misunderstand that, please explain in what way. – .Raven  ^.talk 02:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Allyn Walker is based heavily upon post-2013 Newsweek and other unreliable sources. At best, it needs radical stubbification. XOR'easter (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Underground Railroad was also substantially edited by 22spears, and needs scrutiny. DFlhb (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cut this one back. The talk page has solid, experienced editors so I think it's in good hands. DFlhb (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've cut Allyn Walker back to a point where the sourcing is respectable, at least. I'm somewhat concerned that we have a WP:BLP1E situation; an academic wouldn't likely be notable for a single book, and the controversy seems to have made a splash and then receded as people found the next thing to be angry at. XOR'easter (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having worked on the article and having thought about the sourcing further. I agree there is a convincing argument that this is a WP:BLP1E. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there hadn't been a controversy, we'd have an academic with a single book to their credit, and the standard course of action would be to refactor the article into a page about the book. XOR'easter (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken it to AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allyn Walker. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone speak Portuguese? 22spears was quite busy on ptwiki back in April, and focused on similar subjects. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wish I did. I only speak like 3 words Dronebogus (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly familiar with the subject matter, so I'm a poor judge of fringe-pushing here, but I would draw to people's attention the creation of an article for Danilo Baltieri ([53]) that makes various claims about medical/scholarly topics but is cited solely to journalistic sources, the addition of similarly-cited claims attributed to Baltieri on the pt.wiki page for pedophilia ([54]), the liberal application of citation-needed tags at the same ([55]). I'm going to notify their AN-equivalent of this discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill, Suffusion of Yellow, and Dronebogus: The content added or removed by the account on ptwiki significantly modified the structure of a sensitive article, a fact that already justifies the reversal of edits. In short, the feeling I get is the same as Rosguill. He removed information referenced by academic sources or entities/institutions by content referenced by journalistic interviews.

This subject is quite controversial on ptwiki. In the past, we even had suspicions of accounts practicing apology for pedophilia. I'm not an expert. But that article cannot be left unprotected. Edmond Dantès ^{d'un message?} 18:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Conde Edmon Dantès, for taking action here. Also pinging Isabelle Belato, an enwiki admin who's active on ptwiki, just for a second set of eyes there. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Making a note that I've seen the ping and will take a look later today, thanks. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also regarding 86sedan

Two things that we should consider regarding the now-blocked 86sedan:

1. I just found out that the user was blocked on Wiktionary in September 2021 with the reason "Disruptive edits: advocating illegal activities". Going forward, this can be a reminder to myself and others to check cross-wiki permissions (e.g. [56]). But also: shouldn't the user have been blocked here as well? Is it policy when someone is blocked for such a reason? If not, perhaps it should be?

2. 86sedan claims to be a WP:SOCKLEGIT in the first sentence of their userpage. Personally, I've doubted this, and consider it to be an excuse to explain why they were familiar with Wikipedia and that the original was in fact a blocked account from years past. But given this admission, should we not run a CheckUser on the account to see who, if anyone, the master is, and block them as well? There is off-wiki evidence that they have made contributions on certain non-WMF sites that are extremely concerning, and that's all I'll say for now in case this is considered aspersions or something. If an admin prompts me to reply more here or to send an email I am happy to oblige.

Crossroads ^-talk- 19:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a claim off-wiki (which might or might not be the same one) that connects 86sedan with another user account at a pedophilia-related site, but I didn't see any actual evidence to support the connection (other than the other identity mentioned the 86sedan Wiktionary block). Also, looking at all of 86sedan's Wiktionary contributions, I don't actually see any advocacy of any illegal act (though I guess something might have been deleted). I am disturbed by 86sedan's contributions here, but we need to be careful not to just believe allegations made against them without carefully checking. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we did see the same off-wiki discussion, but personally I found the evidence compelling, and it also fits in with the user's repeated whitewashing regarding that very site, seen in the history here: [57] Crossroads ^-talk- 20:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it sounds like we saw the same thing. And I hadn't checked those edits regarding that site, which does indeed make the connection seem more persuasive. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads: There's more at the same source now, though you may well have already seen it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On point 2, I think a CheckUser check might be warranted here. I think the SOCKLEGIT declaration on 86sedan's userpage satisfies NOTFISHING, as there is a reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry if the other known account(s) are not blocked. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, find the LEGITSOCK claims to be dubious and enough on their own to warrant a CU. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  20:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta agree with you there, seems like a CU check should be done considering the touchy subject and the generally dubious claims. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CU was already run; results are  Inconclusive but indicate someone who is trying to cover their tracks. I actually doubt the account being someone’s actual alt; I believe that’s a cover for trolling. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also Qirtaiba (Jeremy Malcolm) and R alvarez02

Both dormant account Qirtaiba (Jeremy Malcolm of the California-based "charity" Prostasia) and SPA R alvarez02 also indeffed for advocacy in violation of the Wikipedia:Child protection policy. Note: if anyone takes issue with these blocks, please post about it to my talk page as I might not be able to see pings for a few days. Thanks. El_C 05:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth revdelling the AfD's page from revisions 1155011353 to 1155094689, as it includes the same link that was on Qirtaiba's user page as added by R alvarez02. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 16:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replied @User talk:El_C#User:Qirtaiba (diff). El_C 11:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for Bbb23

(Bbb23) Related to this block, and only this block

To start, let me make it clear that I know you believed you were acting in the best interest of Wikipedia. But I'm still concerned that your action is going to have a chilling effect on anyone who wishes to raise similar concerns in the future. So I'd appreciate if you answered a few questions:

1. I can find no public apology directed towards MrPinkingShears. Have you done so, privately?
2. It was 13 minutes from MrPinkingShears's report to your block. To the best of your memory, how much of that time did you spend reviewing 22spears' edits, as opposed to MrPinkingShears' edits?
3. Why did you decide to block, instead of warn, or even offer advice, e.g. direct them to ArbCom?
4. Most importantly, what steps will you take in future, if a similar situation comes up? How will you ensure that users are not scared away from reporting potentially harmful editors, out of fear of a block?

Again, I know you meant well, and simply misjudged the situation. But I think a full reckoning will help you, and others, from making similar mistakes in the future. Thank you for your time. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I explained why I blocked right after, including quotes of the personal attacks by MPS, a brand new user. I thought the attacks were egregious and merited an indefinite block. In hindsight, perhaps I should have focused more on 22spears, but although personal attacks may be understandable, that does not make them acceptable. The user's block was overturned fairly quickly. Given all the positive comments by others about MPS's conduct, I doubt that the block had any kind of "chilling effect"; nor do I imagine any future new user will even know about it. This reponse may not be fully satisfactory to you, but it's all I have to say about the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One isolated bad block won't create a chilling effect. But a pattern of ill-thought-out BOOMERANG-ish behavior will lead people to mind their own business and not speak up. That's not all on you, of course; ANI would still be a toxic stew without your presence. But I think it would go a long way if you just straight out admitted that you were wrong this one time. That sort of apology can't be forced, of course. I still urge you to reflect. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your position is contradictory. On the one hand, you're saying no harm done because the community acted swiftly to reverse you. On the other hand, you don't agree that you were wrong in the first place. The community can't possibly review every block you make; it has to trust that you're exercising good judgement. Here, during a very public discussion with many witnesses, you didn't exercise good judgement, and you're declining to engage. Do you see the problem, and will you reconsider? Mackensen (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 made a reasonable action in the moment, that upon the presentation of further evidence, turned out to be not the correct decision, and it was undone. That further evidence later came out doesn't mean the incorrect decision was made in the moment. --Jayron32 11:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Bbb23) Other related matters

This isn't the first time this has happened; they are not a bad admin but they can be quick on the admin tools at times... I hope they will take your suggestions to heart. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've only once ever reversed blocks over the blocking admin's objection, and it was Bbb23's blocks of Slowcolt and Xvixvi because he'd mistaken a group of fans editing about a YouTuber for a sock farm. The former is maybe barely justifiable if one assumes Bbb somehow didn't know that fans of online content creators frequently work together on (often very low-quality) drafts. The latter editor, though, had literally only fixed the formatting of a number on the draft for said YouTuber's associated publicity stunt. Every admin who blocks a lot will get it wrong from time to time (I know I have), but what stood out to me is that Bbb23 explicitly objected to unblocking either, without presenting any evidence of actual policy violation. That wasn't the first time he's done something like this; this won't be the last. He blocks first, asks questions never, and generally seems indignant that his decisions could even be called into question. Bad blocks are only part of a long-term pattern of assumptions of bad faith and hasty actions, which among other things has led to his loss of the CU tool for out-of-process checks, an adverse ArbCom finding of fact for prematurely closing a discussion of another admin's misuse of rollback, and an adverse XRV close for his own misuse of rollback. At a certain point something needs to be done. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've read this like 3-4 times, and the only word that comes to mind is "catty". Bbb23 is not on trial here, your dredging up piles of 3-4 year-old stuff completely unrelated to the simple question posed (which per WP:ADMINACCT, they answered) is conduct unbecoming. Should we start a sub-section about your missteps since becoming an admin, Tamzin? Zaathras (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin's not the admin who blocked a user shortly after that user reported pedo-advocacy, and if it's part of a pattern of short-sighted use of tools, I don't think it's unbecoming to bring the pattern up. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  01:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like more evidence of a pattern, Zaathras: Bbb23's insistence that "collaborating" with other editors is a problem, seen in the Smallcolt/Xvixvi case, is not a one-time thing, nor something that he's desisted from. In July 2021, he blocked Jebbles and Eswong as sox for working together on content; he was reversed, refusing to ackowledge any error. Last month, he blocked Pharmacystudent000 and IloveDPPH for, as best I can tell, collaborating on a userspace draft. He did not justify the latter blocks in response to inquiry, and both blocks were reversed per AN/I. Want more hasty blocks? TomatoBhutan, blocked for drafting a table in their sandbox. This is a persistent problem of poor judgment in use of the blocking tool, and failing to adequately respond to colleagues when queried about these poor blocks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that this diff from January 2023 re: the TomatoBhutan block also shows a refusal to admit they were wrong. "I do not oppose giving the user a second chance." A second chance??? When all they were doing was making tables for baseball and professional wrestling articles? That lost them a "first chance"? Beyond My Ken is this really "quite good judgement"? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I share some of Tamzin's concerns regarding Bbb23's approach to blocks, this specific example seems frivolous: off-handedly referring to unblocking someone as "giving a second chance" seems like a reasonable, colloquial expression that does not imply a lack of accountability or insistence on always being right. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I just fail to see how anyone could interpret TomatoBhutan's editing as WP:NOTHERE. I very much appreciate your input here. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  18:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: I've reverted your close as "Asked and answered". While Bbb may have responded to SoY's question, there is an ongoing discussion here about whether Bbb23's use of the block tool has been in keeping with WP:ADMIN, which—ironically per the ArbCom finding that faulted Bbb23 in GiantSnowman—should not be closed prematurely. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Related matter, Qirtaiba unblock request

Seeing how this whole apple cart is teetering, may as well point out that User:Qirtaiba has had an as-yet-unanswered unblock request up for around 3 hours now. Zaathras (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined it. – Joe (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! Btw, I find it curious that the unblock request mentions misinformation by the far-right, seeing as the far-right attempted to soften their image, too, supplanting white supremacist → white separatist — similarly to this insidious pedo → MAP effort. And as they say: birds of a feather. El_C 11:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While you're blocking one professional connected with Prostasia, You might also consider amending the block on Qirtaiba's colleague User:James Cantor to include child protection issues. You can see in this diff [[59]] that User:Qirtaiba manipulating the editors of Cantor's BLP into removing a reference to Cantor's tweet advocating that "P" for pedophile be added into the LGB... string of letters in close proximity to a mention of Prostasia as something controversial. Qirtaiba failed to declare his conflict of interest in wanting to remove the reference to his then employers in connnection with such a clumsy attempt at pedophile advocacy. The Media Matters for America article mentioned in the diff is at https://www.mediamatters.org/gays-against-groomers/florida-expert-formerly-slated-testify-favor-trans-health-care-ban-once and the tweet is included there with Media Matters' explanation of exactly what it is referring to. You can see confirmation at [[60]] that User:James Cantor is indeed James Cantor 82.45.168.246 (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, Media Matters for America, a well-known far-right entity! Thanks for the info, IP. It is disturbing. @GeneralNotability: ping blocking admin. El_C 11:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is not a topic I want to go anywhere near. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is about restoring unreferenced and non-MOS-compliant content at a beauty pageant article covered by WP:GS/PAGEANTS. The article is Puteri Indonesia 2023.

There have been several problem editors in the pageants space which I have reported here at ANI. The latest one is HiChrisBoyleHere, who I warned about this issue, and then they deliberately restored unreferenced and non-MOS-compliant content for a second time.

By the way, I asked about the sub-national flags at the MOS talk some time ago, and it was confirmed that there's no exception to the consensus for beauty pageants. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is also an unresolved SPI case that I opened in April concerning accounts that are hyper-active in this same space. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GS/PAGEANT would likely need to be used here I'm thinking. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to mention that HiChrisBoyleHere does not exclusively edit in that topic. A topic ban may be all that is needed here. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I realize, for the reasons I discuss here, that this may very well boomerang on me, and I'm happy to discuss that, but I'd like to discuss ongoing issues I've had with User:Specifico.

For background: @SPECIFICO: and I very much disagreed about a NPOV issue concerning a potential discussion of Carroll v. Trump at Donald Trump. As I've acknowledged on multiple occassions, I got too heated in that discussion and stepped into WP:BLUDGEONING territory—I stepped back from that section, though when a new section was started discussing a related proposal, I did participate there. One thing that repeatedly made me frustrated during the discussion was that SPECIFICO would accuse me of violating Wikipedia policy and then never respond when I asked him to elaborate as to how. This happened on three separate occasions.

I also requested an interaction break from SPECIFICO, which pretty quickly fell apart—he "thanked" me for an edit soon after replying to my request for an interaction break, and, later, after he reverted me, I pinged him in the resulting talk page section to discuss the reversion. After that revert, I also—very explicitly—tried to extend an olive branch. I said:

By the way—since you did revert (hence the ping), I'd, of course, be more than happy to have you participate in the most recent discussion section—even if your take is that the current version is the best and most superior version! (I fully acknowledge that sometimes "awkward" constructions are a personal thing, and if I read something as being a bit awkward and everyone else disagrees—I'm wrong!)--Jerome Frank Disciple 23:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

(In case it wasn't obvious, this is a olive branch! I genuinely think that we would probably agree on 99% of issues, and the fact that we're having a contentious discussion about the 1% shouldn't get in the way of that.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 23:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Here’s how SPECIFICO responded to that message:

Jerome, you seem incapable of understanding straightforward feedback, and it appears to me that you think that your "requests" obligate other editors to accept your misunderstanding of content, policy, and behavioral guidelines. As I've already said, it would have been a good move to stick with your decision to step away from that article and apply your efforts elsewhere for the time being. SPECIFICO talk 13:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I subsequently made quite a few edits to the Trump article. Most of those edits were extremely uncontroversial—objective grammar fixes. ‘’Very’’ occasionally, it’d be a bit more subjective—a language alteration here and there; reordering a sentence, changing present-perfect tense to past tense, etc. SPECIFICO reverted quite a few of these edits, offering little explanation. On one of those reverts, I recognized that the change I was proposing was a very subjective preference, and I did not start a subsequent discussion. But on others, I was pretty confused. The edits I was making seemed like fairly unequivocal improvements—even if an editor disagreed with ‘’part’’ of them, wholesale reverts without follow ups made little sense. As a result of these reverts, I started new sections on the talk page to discuss the changes. I pinged SPECIFICO in these sections, though he never responded to me. Here’s each of the discussions:

• Talk:Donald_Trump#Wording_re:_Rebukes: Made after [63].
  • Reason offered for revert: Completely changes the meaning of this text and is not an improvement
  • Did SPECIFICO engage in the subsequent discussion? No.
  • Result? My edit was reinserted after another edit said: Edit was completely justified. Does not change the content or tone of the text, and is appropriately past tense, as all Wikipedia articles about past events (e.g. when Trump was president) are supposed to be.
• Talk:Donald_Trump#FBI Investigations into Trump: Made after this revert.
  • Reason offered: "not better".
  • Did SPECIFICO engage in the subsequent discussion? No.
  • Result? Reinserted by another editor. "Yes, I also cannot find any evidence in sources for that claim (folded into investigation, not ended) either. I'm going to restore these changes as supported by sourcing, and appropriately removing unsourced material...."
• Talk:Donald_Trump#Wording change re:Greenberg call: Made after this revert.
  • Reason offered: Not an imrovment. Wording and punctuation shapes the meaning and narratives of article text, and such edits should not be marked "minor". This one was much discussed in the past and the change was not an improvement.
  • Did SPECIFICO engage in the subsequent discussion? Eventually, yes, before then discussing with just one user on your talk page.
  • Result? Two other editors agreed that the text as it stood in the article was not clear and needed editing. You eventually responded to disagree with all of the edits the three of us had made. SPECIFICO and one of the editors discussed changes on SPECIFICO's personal talk page, explicitly in order to avoid discussing changes on the article talk page (even though only four users were in that discussion).

SPECIFICO has now told me to stop editing the Trump page multiple times. He's reverted me and accused me of violating policies—both, I think, baselessly, but it's hard to say because he hasn't responded when asked. It's been very difficult to get anything done on the Trump page because of the tone SPECIFICO has set.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest boomerang Andre🚐 15:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm okay with that! I would ask that, assuming there's a boomberang, someone removes the GA nomination for Death of Caylee Anthony and possibly Murder of Laci Peterson—on the former, I've been the only main editor for some time; on the latter, there's been another editor, but I'm not sure if that editor wants to go through the GA process. Having reviewed myself, I don't want to waste a reviewer's time. Thanks!--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Gonna have to agree. I'm surprised we even ended up here. DFlhb (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright, I'm happy to accept the consensus and retire. I would suggest that someone eventually takes a look at the OWNERSHIP issues on that page, because I won't be the last editor SPECIFICO tries to intimidate off the page.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't believe that OP should be removed from the project, as they seem like a good editor. I would support an IBAN, and if we really think Jerome's conduct at Donald Trump is problematic, a page ban. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I think, aside from any issues with JFD, this situation with SPECIFICO is indeed an issue. I can see how interactions with SPECIFICO led to this entire situation and JFD (rightly, unfortunately) getting a 3 month pban.
  The issue is this: SPECIFICO has been warned before by both myself and others ([64][65][66][67] and this gem: SPECIFICO's constant personal attacks and aspersions against other users (e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4], [5])—to say nothing of her systematic POV-pushing and misrepresentation of sources—would surely have resulted in an indefinite site ban years ago if she shared the politics of (insert user). [68])
  We have warned SPECIFICO repeatedly about accusing others of breaking policy without evidence, and it now seems clear, this user has a pattern of doing so as part of attempts to discourage users from contributing to articles that (it seems) SPECIFICO doesn't want to change.

• They provide edit warring warnings to users after 1 revert, without engaging (or only minimally engaging) on the article talk page (see above diffs). They knee-jerk revert to their preferred version, in effect acting as a "filter" on articles until they are overruled on talk page by a consensus of others.
• SPECIFICO has also engaged in numerous instances of critiquing and commenting on other editors' behavior on article talk pages [69] (and has been warned about it at AE: [70]).
• This user (SPECIFICO) also has a history of hounding/harassing editors they disagree with politically/philosophically: including an anti-bludgeoning sanction [71] and specific campaigns/efforts to punish other users repeatedly [72][73]
• Of particular note: [74] (a situation in which SPECIFICO narrowly avoided a site-ban, on the principle that they should be able to show productive editing without these disputes/harassments): the community was already extremely close to implementing a community site-ban, so "pushing the envelope" will not be accepted, and may lead very quickly to a site ban discussion[75] and Please take great care in reading all other warnings provided in the close. You were, indeed, extremely close to a site ban, and this should be a wakeup call [76]

I say all of these things, despite being (ideologically) extremely well-aligned with SPECIFICO, given their user and talk pages. But we cannot tolerate this sort of thing from anyone, even (especially) those we fervently agree with.

Why, as a project, are we putting up with all of this? SPECIFICO appears accustomed to employing the gears of Wikipedia to remove disagreement, enforce their preferred version of articles, and remove ideological "opponents", all of which creates a battleground mentality on the pages they frequent. This is exactly the environment which led JFD to break the BRD requirement(an otherwise very productive user, who has created numerous BRD discussions on the DJT talk after reverts from SPECIFICO, in which SPECIFICO ignores any and all actual discussion). I'm not sure what benefit this behavior provides to the project. I would recommend an AMPOL TBAN for SPECIFICO, if not an outright site ban given the previous warnings re: this behavioral pattern. Edit: 16:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC) clarified with inserted text to finish hanging clause. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? I'm surprised there was a boomerang discussion here with something that bad. I would support a topic ban or siteban of SPECIFICO at this time. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of it is that it has been a long time since some of this disputes flared up (2014, 2017, and 2018). But not much appears to have actually changed about their behavior (particularly ownership and chasing away other editors). They were TBAN'd from a similar dispute involving the Joe Biden page in 2020: [77]. And Julian Assange: [78] (also in 2020). They were also very close to sanctions for simiar knee-jerk reverts at Donald Trump in 2018: [79] As far as I can tell, they have received warnings or short TBANs for a littany of similar situations. I can count nearly 20 similar instances over the years. These are the patterns I would like SPECIFICO to reconsider, and those which I think are disrupting the project. Bans are preventative, not punitive, and so a TBAN for this user is probably more than sufficient. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR:, you reviewed all of Shibbolethink's links in 6 minutes? If you look more deeply at Shibbolethink's evidence, most of it falls apart. The claims of "warnings" are from Shibbolethink and 2 very partisan editors; the quote in green at the top was due to a misunderstanding; the claims of reverting unless there's a consensus are diff-less, and that generally follows BRD anyway unless taken to the extreme; the diff claiming to describe commenting on other editors was a perfectly reasonable comment about the content of someone's BLP-violating comments; the last two bullets, and the quote in green at the bottom, are from 2014.

I don't want to be harsh, but WP is also damaged by (a) someone pulling out 9-year old diffs that they've had in storage to try to eliminate another editor, and (b) drive-by editors taking such claims at face value and jumping to immediately supporting a siteban. Padding a report with tons of borderline accusations in order to make it look overwhelming is really poor form, but it happens a lot here. And I'd recommend taking everything said at ANI with a grain of salt unless you know about it yourself, or research the claims made. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thanks for notifying me of that. It would appear that most of the talk page warnings are from the same people. And, upon further examination, those diffs are not great evidence. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the claims of reverting unless there's a consensus are diff-less
See these reverts which were later over-ruled by consensus, for example: [80][81][82][83] (right about the source but not the content) etc etc. struck 18:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)because it's an example where consensus hasn't yet been established

Padding a report with tons of borderline accusations in order to make it look overwhelming is really poor form - Everything (with perhaps only the exception of the ASPERSIONS comment) in my comment is based upon formal or informal warnings to SPECIFICO from admins. The ASPERSIONS comments are from editors across the spectrum, who SPECIFICO gets into minor disagreements with. Again, over 1 revert in my and other cases! That's the issue that brought me here, someone who templates regulars in an attempt to dissuade them from contributing. SPECIFICO could have said "hey just an FYI, there's a BRD requirement on that page and you should be careful". or "hey that's a really contentious area, are you sure you want to delve into it?" But instead they just drop an accusation of edit warring and go from there. That's also very poor form.

Here, in order, is a list of those warnings/sanctions that I could find which match this behavioral pattern:

Of those, only the last two are from 2014, the rest are much more recent. The majority of these warnings/sanctions are from the last 3 years.

I found all of these just by looking today. Before the recent few days, I have never had any prolonged interactions with SPECIFICO to the best of my knowledge. I'm not here to settle any old scores or eliminate an opponent. Truthfully, I often, in my heart of hearts when I'm staring up at the ceiling all by my lonesome at night, think Wikipedia needs more editors who agree with WP:LUNATICS. So I would dispute your characterization of myself as someone pulling out 9-year old diffs that they've had in storage to try to eliminate another editor. I even agree with SPECIFICO on many of the disputes on that page! I am here only because I think there should be an understanding of everyone at this discussion that JFD's breaking of the BRD rule at Donald Trump is not without preamble. There's been a battleground mentality at that talk page for a long long time, and I think the above shows SPECIFICO is heavily contributing to it.

Personally, I also think WP:AE is a much better venue for things like this, and would never have come here in the first place if JFD hadn't done so first. But I will also say, the above pattern of 9+ AE threads about this user ending in a warning or a short term sanction, shows that that process may be failing the project in the case of this particular user.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those reverts were fine.

Further, this diff you offer is SPECIFICO reverting insertion of Trump as the oldest president thus far to take office, with an edit summary saying that it was "somewhat trivial" and sourced to WP:FORBESCON. It's been discussed plenty on the talk page over several years, and obviously needs consensus for inclusion. You reinserted it, against WP:ONUS, even though there was already a discussion on the talk page with five editors opposing, and two supporting (one support voter advanced no argument whatsoever). But SPECIFICO's the one being disruptive? On the contrary, she's doing great work on that page. She and I have butted heads before, and she was perfectly dignified about it; didn't bludgeon, didn't hold a grudge. I wish more editors were like that (and many are, and I'm grateful for them all).

Also, I didn't know non-admins could hand out warnings. I've been missing out! DFlhb (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You reinserted it, against WP:ONUS, even though there was already a discussion on the talk page with five editors opposing, and two supporting (one support voter advanced no argument whatsoever). But SPECIFICO's the one being disruptive?

I reinserted it, providing actual WP:RSes [100] which support the claim and show it is DUE. I also removed some of the inserted content that appeared to take it farther from consensus [101] And then, when pointed towards that talk page discussion, I happily participated and will accept consensus. As all things should be

Also, I didn't know non-admins could hand out warnings. I've been missing out!

Regular users warn other users about the possibility of hitting 3rr or another such issue all the time. In fact, WP:EWN admins often ask you if you've done it. I think this is quite evidently a discrepancy between the colloquial and official meanings of "warning." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are WP:RS for a billion things we don't mention, and for dozens of things we have affirmative consensus against. You're criticizing SPECIFICO for reverting something that five editors had disputed on the talk page by that point. That's not ownership, and neither are the other diffs. DFlhb (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're criticizing SPECIFICO for reverting something that five editors had disputed on the talk page by that point
Oh I'm sorry, did I include that diff as an example of SPECIFICO reverting only until consensus is established (in effect, acting as a filter) ? That was my mistake, I misunderstood your concern, I will strike it. But I stand by the rest of the diffs in that claim. SPECIFICO was, until today, knee-jerk reverting things at the article from multiple users. That's why I said they were acting with OWNERSHIP tendencies. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as the involved editor, I can only say that it ms incredibly frustrating to be accused of OR multiple times in the same discussion, only for that user to never elaborate on how what you’ve said was OR. It’s incredibly frustrating to extend an olive branch and only be told you just don’t understand Wikipedia policy and you should stay away from a page. It’s incredibly frustrating to, on a contentious page, spell out in the edit summary why you’re making an edit (explaining the grammar issue or the lack to a source), only to have that user revert you with an edit summary that says “not better” or “completely changes the meaning” … and then never follow up, even when you ping them. You keep saying the reverts were fine, can you explain why? Why was the use of the perfect tense called for in the first? Or, if it wasn’t, and you’re saying what was called for was having an unsourced claim (“folded into”)—which, by the way, I spent considerable time trying to source— over a sourced claim, why was the whole edit reverted? Why not just that part? And, same thing with the other edits I’ve mentioned above? And even if you still say “no no the total revert was fine” (whatever fine means in this context), no discussion on the talk page, even after the a ping? Also fine? Is that collaboration? (Ironically SPECIFICO was later upset that I had flooded the talk page with sections asking about her reverts)-—Jerome Frank Disciple 18:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've only edited Talk:Donald Trump occasionally, but even just from having it on my watchlist and reading through the talk page from time to time and occasionally participating a discussion, I have to agree with Shibbolethink's observation that the "breaking of the BRD rule at Donald Trump is not without preamble. There's been a battleground mentality at that talk page for a long long time" [I removed the rest of my comment because forget it, I'm not getting involved in that.] -sche (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, you know what? My earlier comment included this: "I was about to say that I don't know what the best course of action here is, since warnings haven't worked, ... but the fact that an admin already made that very observation last year ("there is no good answer here. A warning is simply insufficient, a topic ban is way overkill. I've blocked SPECIFICO") makes me think we're at a point where, sadly, we should finally be considering an AMPOL topic ban, to let cooler heads handle things." I dropped that because I wasn't completely confident that all 'smaller' options short of topic-banning Specifico had been exhausted. But I want to highlight just how many attempts (warnings, blocks, discussion here, etc) have been made to get Specifico to improve her own behaviour (listed above) in an effort to avoid having to finally escalate to topic-banning her... so when I see a user below suggesting we don't need to do anything but nudge Specifico again but we should jump straight to broadly-topic banning JFD from all American politics for editing a page too much, especially when JFD has so clearly (even in opening this thread, and on his talk page) been eager to improve in response to feedback... 🙄 (That editor doesn't seem to have read or at least understood the edits in question, since she says JFD made a "self-serving edit request in the middle of the thread", but the edit request is the opposite of self-serving, it's bending over backwards to be compliant and notify anyone who thought his wording was problematic that it had been left in the article after the shuffle and "I don't want anyone to think I'm trying to sneak my preferred version of the article by".) -sche (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all :) --Jerome Frank Disciple 18:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find Talk:Donald Trump to be an assault on the senses at the moment, there are numerous, numerous multilevel proposals and votes and options and I just give up trying to wade through it all. the OPs contributions are overwhelming, volume-wise, and I don't think SPECIFICO's past issues have any bearing on the frustration that seems to come with trying to deal with all of this. ValarianB (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OPs contributions are overwhelming, volume-wise While I do understand your frustration with wading through that page, this particular part is entirely due to the interplay of SPECIFICO's reverts and the BRD requirement placed on that page. JFD was making (many quite good, a few less so) edits on that page, and SPECIFICO was reverting many of them with very little explanation. So then JFD goes to the talk, to do BRD as instructed, but then SPECIFICO doesn't participate. So the rest of us talk it out on the page, come to a rough consensus, and move forward. Rinse, repeat, and that's how you get so many multiple talk page sections. I also hate it, but I think it's by virtue of the environment/climate/restrictions on that page. A confluence of factors. Not any one user's fault. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just looking at a cursory check in on the article history, I see JFD making a lot of reverts. I also see them being blocked starting with the section User talk:Jerome Frank Disciple#Violation of 24-hour BRD at Donald Trump and continuing with not understanding why they were edit warring [102] and I would suggest an AP topic ban might be merited Andre🚐 00:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Have I made a lot of reverts? The vast majority of my edits are, certainly, not reverts, and I'm curious about what the comparison for "a lot of reverts" is. Compared to SPECIFICO?

  Just a side comment that isn't a critique and has nothing to do with nothing, so to speak: One thing that's always been fascinating to me is how differently different people can interpret text. You posted that diff of a comment I made as evidence I didn't understand the block. The admin that responded to that comment took it as evidence that I did understand it, and unblocked me. (For the record, I think I understand, but I realize that's not actually evidence that I do understand. My only point is that it's funny how random the process is. Perhaps a different admin would've been like "you clearly don't understand—now your blocked for a month!".)--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:PETARD Hello! I realize, for the reasons I discuss here, that this may very well boomerang on me. I bowed out due to the constant snide, unhelpful remarks and ownership showed by the editor. Thing is, this editor consistently misconstrues posts by other editors, adding imagined motivations behind other editors edits. Late for me. If someone wants diffs, I'll supply. You can start with Bish's disinvitation at her TP.[103] O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Facts and figures JFD's been editing the Trump pages at a staggering pace. In only 7 days, they have made 109 article edits and 269 talk page edits. That's in 7 days.

  If you look at the page statistics, the average rate of the ten most active article editors is less than 1/3 as frequent -- over an average period of roughly 5 years.

  On the talk page, JFD has edited at a rate roughly 5 times more frequently than the ten most active talk page contributors.

  There's not much room for error there. And there's been no willingness to slow down, moderate their tone, etc. etc. In fact, after being blocked for edit-warring, their reaction was to come file this complaint, ignoring this page's clear instruction to notify me of the posting.

  I don't think this editor has the temperament at this stage to collaborate on the American Politics articles.

  SPECIFICO talk 00:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This filing seems hinge on the fact that SPECIFICO happens to edit in a lot of controversial American Politics areas, and thus this is probably a (multiple) content dispute more than anything else. (Although, SPECIFICO shouldn't be telling an editor "to stop editing the Trump page multiple times" [if in fact that occurred; no diffs are provided]; instead he should warn the editor and if that doesn't stop disruptive editing they can be brought to ANI or whatever the next step might be.) I, too, would support an AP Topic Ban on the OP, for behavior in this thread and on wiki, not the least of which is making a blatant self-serving edit request in the middle of the thread [105]. For some further perspective, the editor just got blocked for 72 hours for edit-warring on Donald Trump [106]. An AP TBan, broadly construed, would give the OP an opportunity to demonstrate they can edit constructively and collaboratively and civilly and within WP policies and guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Although, SPECIFICO shouldn't be telling an editor "to stop editing the Trump page multiple times" [if in fact that occurred; no diffs are provided];
  [107][108][109][110][111] These are overall more mild than "stop editing the Trump page". And worded not unkindly. But I think it is a fair summary of the effect these successive comments (and multiple under-explained reverts and personal comments) can have on another user.

  I overall think this situation will be okay, and based on the input of users so far on this thread, my guess is that no sanctions will occur.

  However, I would urge all editors to keep in mind some of what SPECIFICO has said in this thread:

• JFD's been editing the Trump pages at a staggering pace. In only 7 days, they have made 109 article edits and 269 talk page edits. That's in 7 days
  • This comment fails to mention that the average size of those edits is <50 characters, most <20. It seems what SPECIFICO is uncomfortable with in this situation is that the article is changing.
• there's been no willingness to slow down, moderate their tone, etc. etc.
  • From what independent uninvolved users on this thread have said (not me or anyone involved at that talk page), they seem much more concerned with SPECIFICO's tone than with JFD's. JFD appears to be bending over backwards to be civil here and elsewhere.
• In fact, after being blocked for edit-warring, their reaction was to come file this complaint, ignoring this page's clear instruction to notify me of the posting.
  • This is not true and should be retracted. At 15:52 May 17 OP pinged SPECIFICO. At 16:45 May 17, OP posted a templated alert on SPECIFICO's talk.
• I don't think this editor has the temperament at this stage to collaborate on the American Politics articles.
  • Only one of the editors in this thread has been TBAN'd multiple times from AmPol topics, and it is not OP. People in glass houses should not throw stones.

I would overall encourage SPECIFICO to reconsider how they respond to new editors entering an article space, and how aggressively rebuffing that input from multiple editors can create a hostile battleground-like space, which doubtlessly will come back to bite any and all users involved. The goal of this project is not "who can secure their preferred version for the longest" or "who can remove the most ideological opponents" but rather, "who can build an excellent encyclopedia." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have found Jerome Frank Disciple to a be super productive editor and someone who is super easy to work with on topics we have agreed and disagreed. The edit war sanction seemed hasty, but that has been resolved. My limited interaction with SPECIFICO has been less positive or productive, but nothing other than simple content disagreements. I will add that SPECIFICO's argument that JFD doesn't have temperament at this stage to collaborate on the American Politics articles unfounded and honestly SPECIFICO is closer to that standard just based on prior history. That Trump article is a huge headache for obvious reasons so good luck to good editors attempting to wade through all the disputes. Nemov (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from OP: I appreciate all the comments and participation from everyone. I am trying to take to heart the critiques, though I have to admit it's also been very nice to read the complements, so thank you to everyone, but thank you especially to those have been able to talk about their history with me or who have been understanding of my motivations. It's truly heartwarming for me to read.
  I do want to apologize for all the trouble. I realize that, in some ways, I'm the worst messenger for this. The prospect of a boomerang discouraged me from commenting before. But I'm certain that SPECIFICO's actions discourage solid, good-faith editors from approaching the article—I'm certain that they already have done that, and I'm certain that they will do that. I know I sometimes have to fight against my own stubbornness—I try to be conscious of that—but, while that stubbornness is a defect, it's also what's allowed me to keep going on that page. And I think most editors agree that the vast majority of my edits on that page have been minor but objective improvements. In some ways, it's my stubbornness that allowed me to post here, even though it's also what makes posting here risky for me. Because I don't think an editor should have to be stubborn and fight through unjustified barriers in order to improve an article.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've not been monitoring the situation that closely, but I seem to recall a vibe of hostility from SPECIFICO towards JFD at the Trump page, which may deserve a reminder on civility. starship.paint (exalt) 16:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I noticed this edit by Mosebrazas to Barry Manilow, and started keeping an eye on their edits to BLPs. See our interaction timeline. At first, I pointed out the problems in edit summaries, but Mosesbrazas doesn't appear to read those, so I switched to talk page messages: unsourced/poorly, inserting text before ref to imply the ref sources it, unsourced again, not to use NYPOST, inserting before ref again, then a level-4 for using NYPOST on BLP again. Today Whpq also gave them a copyvio warning and deleted those edits.

Mosesbrazas doesn't appear to read their talk page either. Their only edits to their talk page have been to add sandbox-type content. Their talk page is full of warnings back to the start of their editing. They don't usually edit war, they don't argue, they just blithely add unsourced and poorly sourced content (area appears to be primarily New York politics). They seldom return to the articles they edited so perhaps the watching editors didn't notice the problems simply moved to other articles.

After today's level 4 warning for Andrew Cuomo, they returned to David Paterson (which I had reverted) to add back revised content still citing NYPOST. I'm tired of keeping an eye on every BLP they touch to clean up after them, and without any communication in 2 years, I don't know if it's lack of competence or indifference, but I think their contributions have become too problematic to continue. (Just to clarify: it isn't vandalism, just very poor editing on BLPs...tabloid stuff, lack of significance, lack of reliable sourcing...and complete refusal to communicate.) Schazjmd (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refusal to communicate surely is disruptive. If Mozesbrazas doesn't reply here, a block would probably be necessary to force them onto their talk page. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 20:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked them for 24 hours for continuing as they have despite multiple final warnings since they started editing here. They continued as they had before, just 10 minutes after the most recent final warning. If after the block they continue as they have before, the next block should be for considerably longer (if not indefinite, until they agree to abide by our policies and guidelines). --Hammersoft (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this will motivate them to communicate in some way, thanks @Hammersoft. Schazjmd (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there's been a significant issue around User:Comp.arch ignoring the talk page consensus established on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely and then making highly disruptive edits that require combing through the article. (and can't be simply reverted due to conflicts)

The main issue present is at this page they removed the name of the person who did the killing (in the medical sense, not legal) throughout the entire article. [[112]]

A consensus was already established by a 50+ comment length talk page (and another talk section). With consensus both before and after Penny was charged. With the overwhelming consenus to include the name. They had no basis to make these changes.

Right after this they also switched "Penny approached Neely from behind, placing him in a chokehold" To "approached Neely, placing him in a chokehold" [[113]] Removing a key a detail without basis and effectively hiding it behind the large edit that now had to be reverted.

They also broke WP:3RR today. Effectively they've been edit warring while others have been trying improve the article

They've also made repeated edits around the use of "K2" by one of persons in the article that has had to be reverted several times by many different parties over the past week. [[114]] [[115]] [[116]] [[117]]

And this yesterday which was reverted twice, first by User:WikiVirusC and then by me due to NPOV [[118]] (Line 43, begining section & end)

Overall it's an issue of disruptive editing and WP:NPOV

LoomCreek (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm involved as I voted in the RfC on whether to include the name, but I'm not seeing a particularly clear consensus (certainly not "overwhelming consensus") to include the name there. The more recent discussion has more clear support for including the name, but that didn't start until after Comp.arch's edit removing the name.

As for "removing a key detail" that Neely was choked from behind, the article still included that after Comp.arch's edit. Comp.arch removed it from the lead. Whether or not it should be in the lead seems to me a legitimate content question which should be discussed on the talkpage, not a matter for ANI. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And re. 3RR, the edit history of that page is pretty fast-moving at the moment, so it's even more important than usual that you provide diffs! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our policy is very clear: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#People accused of crime

This comment is independent of any opinion on Comp.Arch's behaviour; he/she may need sanctioning.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confuse things, there are now 2 separate sections on the talk page where editors are !voting

• the original 6 May RfC, never closed and still active - Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely#Name inclusion
• a new discussion at the bottom - Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely#Name of killer (again)

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's my fault. In a bit of a rush to defuse what I sensed might become a heated situation, I acted too quickly. If any smarter folks have a good plan for combining or otherwise helping out, I would certainly be all for it. My apologies for the unnecessary confusion. Dumuzid (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I have recused myself from this for a while, since I have been arguing directly with comp.arch and didn't feel as though my opinions would be appropriate, it appears that in this edit, the user struck out another's comment because of, by their own admission, a dispute over policy interpretation. This, IN COMBINATION WITH their persistent inclusion of long swaths of policy/guideline/essay quotes and citations, a meaningful amount of which do not apply to the situation (though admittedly some could easily be misinterpreted) or have repeatedly been addressed and accepted, indicate a potential WP:NOTGETTINGIT situation.

Because of my closeness to the argument, I want to be clear that I am not accusing the editor of intentionally "not getting it" or text-walling to make replying to their posts difficult. I DO believe that they are being bold and adamant about their position, but possibly to the point of disruption. PriusGod (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regretfully, I have opened a section on this page because User:MaranoFan has refused to retract lies they wrote about me and is falsely accusing me of acting in bad faith. I apologize for the length, but I need to clear my name.

23:19, May 14, 2023 MaranoFan opens Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Takin' It Back/archive1.

00:42, May 15, 2023 As I was on WP:FAC at the exact same minute adding comments at 23:19, May 14, 2023 to a different review, I noticed MaranoFan's nomination and made comments. (I wasn't stalking their edit history looking for their next nomination and how I could "derail" it). At the end of the review, I wrote that "Overall I wish the nomination was more prepared. For example, MOS:CONFORMTITLE has been brought up by three different reviewers in four of the nominator's last seven FACs, and yet it is mostly ignored again. I would have expected it to be addressed before nominating at this point." Having reviewed some of MaranoFan's previous nominations, I found it a bit odd for an experienced editor to nominate multiple articles with the same issues and fail to prepare future nominations based on previous feedback. Reviewers have limited time, and pointing out the same things every other nomination is frustrating. I could have written "oppose", but in good faith did not as I believed most of the comments could be addressed quickly.

07:31, May 15, 2023 MaranoFan addresses the comments.

09:59, May 15, 2023 I add two follow-ups.

15:47, May 15, 2023 MaranoFan addresses the follow-ups.

04:35, May 16, 2023 MaranoFan comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/My Man (Tamar Braxton song)/archive1 : "the Spotify/Apple Music refs do not seem to confirm to MOS:CONFORMTITLE. This should probably be fixed before an FAC, lest someone moan about it there, lol."

06:46, May 16, 2023 MaranoFan comments on my talk page: "Since your initial opposition to my nomination was strongly worded, I think it would be good if it was explicitly indicated in the form of a !vote that you are satisfied with the changes, so as to not turn away prospective reviewers. Thank you in advance."

To write on a reviewer's talk page asking them to !vote less than 36 hours after the review began is bizarre. I was about to support, but being basically guilted into making a vote offended me. There was never any indication that I wouldn't support, and I was mostly off Wikipedia at the time, so I really don't understand why MaranoFan felt the need to come to my talk page when the review was less than two days old and the nomination was less than two days old. It's not like my temporary lack of a !vote was "holding up" promotion. Again, there wasn't even an "oppose" to strike, and yet MaranoFan described my original comments as "opposition". I just hadn't written "support" yet because I hadn't come back to the FAC and checked if my follow-up comments were addressed. For that, MaranoFan felt the need to come to my talk page? No other editor has ever done that. This felt very over the top and points to their false belief that I have an agenda against them. I have never even opposed any of their past nominations, so I don't understand where their anxiety is coming from.

16:38, May 16, 2023 I had been tracking progress at Wikipedia:Peer review/My Man (Tamar Braxton song)/archive1 and planned on making comments as I had frequented many of that nominator's projects before (Again, not "stalking" MaranoFan's edit history). But combined with their comment there and the—in my opinion ridiculous—request on my talk page, I felt disrespected and wrote on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Takin' It Back/archive1: "Everything has been addressed, but because the nominator has characterized my indication of MOS:CONFORMTITLE issues as "moaning", I am not in a position to support as this feels disrespectful to my time and the process." Given that the MOS:CONFORMTITLE "moan" comment came less than 24 hours after I noted MOS:CONFORMTITLE issues on their FAC, I logically inferred that MaranoFan was referring to my comments. I took that as a slight because I am simply reviewing to the WP:FACR criteria, which includes following the MOS. I expect others to have respect for the process and not consider noting MOS issues a "moan". Sorry if that sounds corny, but when I spend an hour reviewing an article, I expect a little respect for the process.

16:59, May 16, 2023 MaranoFan moves the entire review to the FAC talk page, writing in the edit summary: "Moved to talk to reduce page loading time as user has expressed wish to withdraw from the review process." Nowhere did I ever "expressed wish to withdraw from the review process". In fact, I said "Everything has been addressed", indicating that the review was complete, not that I withdrew. Just because there isn't a "support" vote doesn't mean the reviewer "withdrew" the review. MaranoFan blatantly lied that I "expressed wish to withdraw from the review process". I never said that explicitly nor implicitly. They moved the review to the talk page under false pretenses.

This is not the first time MaranoFan has lied that I have withdrawn from reviews of their FACs. 16:18, November 8, 2022 they accused me of "Abandoning completed source and prose reviews on my nomination". In fact, I had not come back to it (for one day... the horror) because they never indicated that my follow-up comment at 19:56, November 7, 2022 was addressed. In good faith, I then voted to support promotion and passed the source review after reviewing the nominated article's revision history. But nominators are supposed to indicate when changes have been made; it's not the reviewers job to go into the edit history for every comment and see what happened. Through their multiple lies about my "expressed wish to withdraw from the review process" and "abandoning completed source and prose reviews", MaranoFan has maligned my reputation at WP:FAC. They are implying that I randomly withdraw from reviews in bad faith, which is untrue. Their consistent language of "abandoning" and "withdraw" when I don't provide a !vote indicates that they fundamentally do not understand the WP:FAC review process. Nominations are not entitled to a !vote just because prose comments are addressed.

05:27, May 17, 2023 MaranoFan comments on FAC coordinator Gog the Mild's talk page, stating: "Hi, Gog! I wanted to ask if you could review my new FAC. I liked some of your recent reviews, and it would be a good confidence building measure after someone who seems to be competitive about Four Awards (my nom would be eligible for the same award) tried to derail it by starting political arguments." This is another lie and aspersion that I set out to ruin their nomination. They have a, quite frankly, worrying preconceived notion that I am out to "get them" and that my comments on their FAC are there to intentionally "derail it" because I am apparently in a Four Award rivalry with them and thus don't want it to pass. This is just so absurd. I have one Four Award, which I self-nominated two years after I was eligible (I would actually have two, but chose not to do a DYK for the other one). MaranoFan is casting baseless aspersions. Where is the evidence I am "someone who seems to be competitive about Four Awards" and that that influenced my review? They are apparently irked that I recently created and nominated Clown (Mariah Carey song) for DYK and GA (which they indicated they would review). MaranoFan is reading into things that are not there and are trying to create drama where none exists.

08:01, May 17, 2023 Gog the Mild comments on the FAC talk page.

08:32, May 17, 2023 MaranoFan replies, implying that I stalked them.

11:59, May 17, 2023 I reply, asking MaranoFan to retract their lies and aspersions about my edits and intentions.

13:29, May 17, 2023 MaranoFan responds.

14:47, May 17, 2023 MaranoFan comments on my talk page, saying I should defer to their talk page for comments.

14:50, May 17, 2023 I strike the comments implying a personal attack on me from the FAC review.

14:49, May 17, 2023 I indicate this on MaranoFan's talk page and ask that they reciprocate by retracting their lie about my purported withdrawal from the review and baseless aspersions about why I reviewed the FAC to begin with.

16:42, May 17, 2023 MaranoFan refuses and says that my actions "blatantly indicates malicious intent".

MaranoFan has put words in my mouth and refused to retract when given multiple chances, even when I did the same for them by striking certain comments. They have cast bizarre aspersions about me derailing their FAC nomination to win a Four Award competition to which I have no knowledge of. They seem to have preconceived notions that I continuously act in bad faith toward them as part of some secret agenda, which I find disturbing. Heartfox (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user was not active on this peer review before my comments, and it is considered "too large to display" on WP:PR, there is almost no way they stumbled upon it through anything except going through my contributions. This comment was based on a misunderstanding, I just did not bother striking it since it was made on this user's own talk page. It, under no circumstances, "maligned [their] reputation at WP:FAC", as no one except them saw it. Heartfox, meanwhile, has pursued their outrageous aspersion based on a lie (which explicitly maligns my respect for the FAC process, and I have documented in the section below), at public pages like my nomination at FAC, which is currently transcluded right near the top of WP:FACGO and is amplified to the whole FAC community (pageviews: 312, 198). Pretending that this minimal amount of striking changes anything is ridiculous, since it is still clearly a bad faith comment. Yes, I have taken up a review of their current GAN because I wanted to thank them for their participation on my last few FACs. I took that up in good faith before they cast their aspersion on my nomination, not sure how that means I am "irked"... The above paragraph is just a bunch of random things thrown together to distract from their bad faith comment at my FAC, which they are fighting desperately to get restored for visibility at the main FAC page.--NØ 08:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aspersions and bullying from User:Heartfox

Filing report I had been drafting as a subsection.

User:Heartfox produced a review for an article, slightly over an hour after I nominated it at FAC, which was unusually pessimistically worded and seemed off right away. Within the one hour of me having nominated it, they had self-admittedly gone through seven of my prior successful FACs looking for something that could be used to call my current FAC underprepared, which is an unusual amount of dedication as well. I addressed their decently lengthy review within a few hours. At this point, the nomination was going well and attracted a second review which was more positive. A while later, Heartfox was back and admitted their whole review had been addressed, but instead of supporting the nomination, they picked out a bit from a completely different peer review I had conducted recently (which did not involve or mention them whatsoever), and cast a bad faith WP:ASPERSION that would negatively impact future reviewer participation, that read: "Everything has been addressed, but because the nominator has characterized my indication of MOS:CONFORMTITLE issues as "moaning", I am not in a position to support as this feels disrespectful to my time and the process.". Since this included an admission that 100% of their comments had been addressed, and that they would refuse to further participate by indicating a !vote, I moved it to the talk page, something I had seen coords do before and that seemed relatively uncontroversial to me. They are now campaigning to get the aspersions restored on the main review page, despite it being pointed out again and again that my comment was not about them. They have now struck two words in their comment but it is still worded in a way which discourages reviewer participation on my nomination. They are now leaving passive aggressive messages on my talk page, and are still stalking my contributions and quoting comments I made on other users' talk pages. They have stated a bunch of times that all of their comments have been addressed, but they refuse to support my nomination which I think is indicative of their intentions. I am sorry but this seems like a dedicated campaign to embarrass me, which they concocted within minutes of me nominating this article. This user is an FAC frequenter, and I will not feel safe ever nominating another article if nothing is done about it. I apologize for bringing this to ANI but I have put in blood, sweat and tears developing my reputation at FAC over the years, and I think seeking an IBAN with this user to preserve it is worth it.--NØ 07:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to add, Heartfox seems to have ran to ANI because I had indicated I will start a discussion about them here if their bullying continues. This seems like an effort to beat me in time to add some sort of credibility to their defense. And by bringing up some interaction between us from November 2022, that I had long forgotten about, they seem to have confirmed they were holding a grudge against me during their initial review itself. Given that they have now started a discussion to embarrass me here, after attempting this on my review page and by pinging FAC coords on its talk page multiple times (and now here), I am now formally seeking an IBAN as this has become too much to deal with.--NØ 07:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that a two-way IBAN would be helpful for both of you. @Heartfox: Any thoughts? QuicoleJR (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting crazy. MaranoFan is mad that I had the audacity to refer to their previous nominations and how they are wasting reviewers' time with the same issues. I was involved in those past FACs and was one of the previous reviewers; of course bringing up previous nominations is relevant. I simply did basic research to get the exact number so as to not cast aspersions with no evidence, as MaranoFan has done repeatedly over the past few days. They continue to feel entitled to a support !vote and that its absence somehow indicates I had malicious intent going into the review and "concocted" a plan to embarrass them. MaranoFan has still not retracted the lies they wrote about my edits and intentions, and are now casting new aspersions. An IBAN because this user cannot take basic criticism, which, again, did not even involve an "oppose", seems like an attempt to evade any criticism of their FACs. Heartfox (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one is "evading any criticism of their FACs", all content-related comments at my FAC were met constructively and addressed. The last five paragraphs of essays written on my FAC have involved absolutely nothing related to the article in question. I am not sure why this user came to ANI if they are not seeking an IBAN. Seems to confirm that they are WP:FORUMSHOPPING to embarrass me on different pages and to get someone to validate their hatred for me. Everyone has not died. There are other people who can raise content-related issues on my future FACs. The fact that they are writing essays upon essays about how bad I am yet oppose an IBAN absolutely foreshadows such disruption repeating on my future projects. They had previously stated they would avoid me in the future, but they sought drama at another one of my nominations. This is a repeat habit with this user and they seem to enjoy publically bullying others to apologize. It is also worth noting they started an ANI discussion about me a few hours after I explicitly asked to be left alone. I am not sure how they want me to "retract" something I said in an edit summary... This blatant WP:ASPERSION intended to character-assasinate me to prospective reviewers is disruptive, it is not related to improvement of the article in question. I would be fine if they just did not support, but they left a comment to intentionally dissuade others from reviewing my FAC. If they had a problem with my comments at another PR it should have been brought to my talk page.--NØ 16:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then what would you recommend? QuicoleJR (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That they be blocked for incivility unless they retract/strike their lie about my purported "wish to withdraw from the review process", their aspersion that I am "someone who seems to be competitive about Four Awards", their aspersion that I am "still stalking [their] contributions", their aspersion that "this seems like a dedicated campaign to embarrass [them], which [I] concocted", their aspersion that I am "bullying" them, and their aspersion that I "ran to ANI" because MaranoFan had indicated they might do so (As I said at the top, I did so because they refused to retract lies after being given multiple opportunities). I have now struck the entire "moan" comment. Heartfox (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I will leave this to an admin to make a decision. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Striking seems random. FAC pages get a lot of views so I want the offtopic comment removed entirely. Once that's done, I am ready to hear what the other user wants me to delete.--NØ 17:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not random, I was following WP:RUC. Nonetheless, I have removed the stricken text per your request. Heartfox (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MaranoFan: Is this an improvement? QuicoleJR (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QuicoleJR, thank you so much for following this so closely and talking to me respectfully. I have never needed this more than in the past two days. Anyways, I have the same position about the IBAN.--NØ 20:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, Marano. I know from experience how stressful the site can be at times, so I have been trying to counteract that for others. One question: Do you still support an IBAN? Your comment on that was a bit ambiguous. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for two-sided IBAN between Heartfox and MaranoFan

Starting a separate section to formally propose an IBAN, since above sections are too swarmed by long comments. The issues go further than just a few comments needing to be struck and comments from back in November 2022 have also been highlighted, indicating there are recurring problems with our interactions which are not bound to improve in the future. Voluntary IBAN has been rejected by the other user.

• Support IBAN as proposer.--NØ 17:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for now. This seems warranted, and it does not look like the situation will improve, as they do not seem to be able to come to a compromise. However, the IBAN should exclude this ANI thread. All other ANI threads would be included, just not this one. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Temporarily struck because the situation may be improving. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have supported every FAC MaranoFan has nominated that I made a review for, and was about to for the most recent one until they harassed me at my talk page. If MaranoFan does not want a frequent support vote at their FACs, that's fine with me. They are the one who always comes to my talk page finding something wrong with my reviews. I really do not think about them as much they think I do. Why would I spent an hour reviewing in order to embarrass them. It's because I think the article has merit, not because I have some grudge against them. If I didn't like them I wouldn't have reviewed in the first place -_- They continue to try and drag me into their own muck. Heartfox (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Seems intractable at this point. --Jayron32 18:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this proposal is successful, we will need to G6 this. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah SchneiderCH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, there is much to cover in this so I will try to be concise and summarize the issues into main points. The user Sarah SchneiderCH seems to be pushing an agenda both in regards to the etiquette of Wikipedia and the encyclopedic factor of it. (WP:NOTHERE)

1. Behavior towards other users:

Regarding edit disputes and talk pages users are expected to argue based on contributions not make personal attacks. However, Sarah SchneiderCH does the exact opposite basing their arguments on personal attacks (WP:PA).

For example, [119] my edits on the dabke page are wrong not because of any reason regarding the contributions themselves but because I am "a person belonging to a certain national thought, this is evident from his name and contributions (User Red Phoenician)...and the Lebanese Maronite with phoenicianism ideology)"

Again, this behavior is exhibited [120] where Sarah SchneiderCH, instead of arguing based on contributions, profoundly declares that "Upon investigation, it was found that the majority of the content in the article was contributed by two individuals who belong to the Arabic-speaking Christian communities, specifically the Arameans-Syriacs."...when in reality neither of the aforementioned users were of Aramean Syriac descent...with one of them coming from a Muslim family as they pointed out themselves on the same talk page.

Yet again, Sarah SchneiderCH tried this on me [121] by comparing a simple edit dispute to the Lebanese civil war. I assume this was a failed attempt at baiting an emotional reaction out of me. Regardless, it is still insensitive to make such a remark and takes the violation of not "treating editing as a battleground" to a new level.

These remarks (as well as their confusion between Armenian and Aramean [122]) make me suspicious of Sarah SchneiderCH's own claim of being a Maronite Lebanese/Palestinian (which I notice they have now removed under the claim "sharing the roots often leads to issues with fanatical individuals. When faced with a deadlock, these individuals resort to attacking or using them") and makes me question the credibility of said claims as a possible disguise created in order to get closer to certain topics and to be able to bully and harass other users of Levantine or similar background.

2. Removal of sourced information

Multiple times Sarah SchneiderCH has removed reliable and sourced information by simply slapping the term "original research" on it [123], [124] and replacing scholarly sources they do not agree with with wordpress blogs [125]. I do not know how to describe this other than vandalism. It seems countless pages related to non-Arab or indigenous peoples in the Middle East/North Africa have been edited by Sarah SchneiderCH in order to remove sourced genetic or cultural information. This is obvious POV-pushing and an attempt at turning everything MENA related Arab, erasing other ethnicities such as Maronite, Berber, Assyrian, etc.

3. Other issues

Despite the issues above, both myself and others have tried to communicate with Sarah SchneiderCH [126], [127], [128], [129], but our attempts seem to be fruitless as Sarah SchneiderCH seems either unable or unwilling to take our advice in regards to Wikipedia etiquette and POV-pushing. It became apparent to me that Sarah SchneiderCH was just being disruptive and nothing more when they ignored my responses to them on two talk pages [130], [131]. At first I had assumed that they had simply conceded as this is how many talk pages reach a resolution as they had not replied to me and were editing daily for 4 days straight without giving me a response. Thus, I decided to edit the pages and only then did Sarah SchneiderCH instantly revert and reply to me. (WP:GAME)

I believe that I have exhausted all of my available resources on the matter. I am asking an administrator to please take a look at this situation to help avoid any more pages from being damaged this way and to avoid Wikipedia from becoming a hate speech platform. Red Phoenician (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, yes, this is a problem. There is POV-pushing and disruptive editing here. I am unsure how someone with 4000+ edits can remove a scholarly sourced article claiming that it's OR (or as she says, "original search") [132], but even more concerning is replacing a good piece of writing with this badly sourced (and almost certainly copy-pasted) nonsense [133]. I think we would wait for a response from the editor concerned, but given the sequence of events in the OPs Paragraph 3 I suspect we may be waiting for a while. Black Kite (talk) 09:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Although to be honest, given this re-adding of a BLP violation (admins only, I rev-deleted it), I suggest there's a bigger problem here. Black Kite (talk) 09:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe he has filed a complaint that his motive appears to be removing me from Wikipedia, thereby allowing him to act freely in the future. The editor made numerous attempts to emphasize the Phoenician aspect, yet my response to him in a parallel manner seemed to have provoked his anger, either here or there. In the article, Dabke was adamant about emphasizing the Phoenician aspect and took it upon himself to promote this viewpoint through a specific website. Furthermore, he introduced additional statements that were not originally mentioned on the same site, seemingly drawing personal conclusions. In the article about Lebanon, there were attempts to obfuscate the truth by presenting sources that do not confirm the claims, thereby falsifying the figures .a b c

Sarah, Red Phoenician can no more get you removed from Wikipedia than anybody else. Only you can remove yourself - by editing so tendentiously as to require blocking you to allow orderly editing and management of our articles. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 1 Removing negationism, quoted source does not include said word and here Not all Protestants are Evangelical. He sees things from his perspective Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • About (original search") , Elkamel, Sarra et al. (2021) wrote that: "Considering Tunisian populations as a whole, the majority part of their paternal haplogroups are of autochthonous Berber origin (71.67%) and in the same source (The Arabs from Kairouan revealed 73.47% of E-M81 and close affinities with Berber groups and in the Arabs from Kairouan clearly prevailed a genetic male background of Berber ancestry "Both are not mentioned in the article). I have reviewed the article and attempted to locate similar sources, but, I was unable to find any. There are many sources indicating the genetic diversity of Tunisians. Like in the same article (Tunisians mainly carry E1b1 haplogroup (55%) and J1 haplogroup (34.2%)) so most studies found that Tunisians are distributed between two major genes. Regarding the site, it has a lot of failures, for example here [134] Archaeologic and genetic data support that both Jews and Palestinians came from the ancient Canaanites BUT the source retracted these claims.
  • Regarding the badly sourced nonsense. yes, I did not notice that they were from Bloggers and the editor removed it and I did nothing because he was right about it.
  • Regarding the last question that I have nothing to do with directly, I was just accomplishing my tasks in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BlankPage/RTRC I saw that a piece of content was deleted, so I undoed it.

While I acknowledge that I may have made errors, it is important to clarify that these mistakes should not lead to accusations of vandalizing Wikipedia, as has been claimed. I intended to initiate a discussion regarding the removal of the original search on the discussion page, but I had not yet done so. I had planned to address this matter soon and as for Dabke , I reverted back and provided an explanation of my actions on the page. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I think you did have something to do with restoring an unsourced attack on a living person. If you revert a deletion of content, you are taking responsibility for that content, and a quick scan of what you were restoring should have told a newbie editor straight away that it should not have been restored, let alone someone with 4000+ edits. If you're not doing that, you shouldn't be editing at all per WP:CIR. Black Kite (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Attar: I sadly experienced the negative behavior of the reported editor. Sarah goes straight to attack others and accuses them of what she herself do. In her first contribution to the talk page of the article Syrians, she wrote: "Upon investigation, it was found that the majority of the content in the article was contributed by two individuals who belong to the Arabic-speaking Christian communities, specifically the Arameans-Syriacs." [135]. She then continued to explain that based on this ethnic or religious background, the editors (me and another guy) have no integrity and our edits are POV pushing. I am not Christian, nor Aramean, nor Syriac. I then decided to use her logic against her but not in the same malicious way. I told her to edit the page of the Lebanese People to reflect their Arab identity (which is what she was demanding for the page "Syrians") which made her upset, telling me: "You should not talk to me on the basis that I have Lebanese roots or start comparing this and that" [136]. So, she doesn't like it if her "roots" were used against her, but she has no problem doing it herself.

Secondly: aside from her manners and constant assumption of bad will, she has an ideological purpose. She declared that she is on a mission: "I am working on neutralizing articles that refer to different ethnic and cultural groups, with a focus on avoiding conflating historical civilizations with contemporary societies" [137]. However, looking into her edits, it is mostly about Arabs and their identity. So, the mission is really pushing ethnic ideologies, which will be explained below.

Thirdly: she vandalized the Syrians page by deleting sourced material, re-writing the lead which has a consensus (see here for the consensus on the lead), and attempting to ignore reliable sources for the sake of her own conventions. Her argument was that "Syrian" is a nationality and therefore the article should discuss all ethnic groups of Syria. After I wrote a long sourced paragraph showing that "Syrian" is synonymous with the Arabic speakers of Syria, and therefore, according to academic consensus, the scope of the article should be about the Arabic speakers, she continued to revert to her preferred lead which is against the sources [138].

She finds important to "summarize". By which she means deleting, without consensus, chunks of sourced text that she doesnt like which contributes to the context of the article simply because she consider the mentioning of the word Aramean, the language spoken in Syria before the Islamic conquest, to be a clear attempt to push ideological POV that denies the Arab character of Syrians (which is her main aim: deleting any reference to anything aside from Arab). here, and especially her edit summary.

Sarah is just being disruptive and does not like it that she couldn't have it her way (because she did not have research and reliable sources on her side). Even after all her "concerns" were addressed, she refused to end the discussion, telling me that there is still a lot to be clarified! so vague!!. I asked her: what... and this was like 5 days ago and she hasn't reply yet. [139]

Sarah is no experienced editor. She hasent added any material that improved wiki articles. She mainly argue, attack, "investigate" and revert endlessly (hoping to become an admin I think one day). She is not able to judge the accuracy or reliability of sources. She attacks, vandalize and think her opinions more important than reliable sources. She needs to learn Wiki etiquette (and yes, I was as rude as her after reading her accusations, but I stick to reliability and integrity and none of my edits can be shown to be vandalism or POV pushing), and not edit articles without having reliable sources and achieving consensus on the talk pages first.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The situation has escalated beyond mere sabotage or any other issue. It has become highly personal, resulting in my exclusion from Wikipedia. There is now a large number of votes against me, with some individuals eagerly waiting for an opportunity to exploit the situation against me due to a clash of perspectives. What started as a discussion between us has turned into a theatrical scenario aimed at my removal from Wikipedia. I have been an editor for over six years, even before officially registering on Wikipedia. Suddenly, I find myself entangled in conflicts related to ethnicities and Neo-Shu'ubiyya Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spam posting Iranian state news to Portal:Current events over a prolonged period of time. Multiple warnings and blocks regarding the issue. Latest edit done today,[153] I think it is time for a permanent block. Ecrusized (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Support indef block. He's clearly editing in bad faith. Enough is enough. Dinoz1 (chat?) 12:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Support. Too many warnings, much bad faith when I looked in his contributions, and looks like the 1 week block wasn't enough. About time for an indef. TheCorvetteZR1^{(The Garage)} 12:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest a global/cross-wiki ban or lock? Baratiiman is causing cross-wiki vandalism, specifially on the Persian wiki. Dinoz1 (chat?) 13:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide evidence of this cross-wiki vandalism, so I don't have to take your word for it? Would make commenting on this thread much easier for me and the admins. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I was about to link the block log on the Persian Wiki. https://fa.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D9%88%DB%8C%DA%98%D9%87:%D8%B3%DB%8C%D8%A7%D9%87%D9%87%E2%80%8C%D9%87%D8%A7/block&page=User%3ABaratiiman Dinoz1 (chat?) 15:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As one of his blocks is for abusing multiple accounts, I assume he's clearly WP:NOTHERE. Dinoz1 (chat?) 15:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not good, and the user is certainly being disruptive on the Persian Wikipedia. However, they may still be a good contributor on the English Wikipedia, as they are separate entities. However, if more evidence is provided, they may need to be blocked. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that may not be the case, because ever since Baratiiman's last block, he ranked up over 15 AN/I notices and warnings in total. Dinoz1 (chat?) 16:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• A lot of accusations in this thread so far... and not much in the way of evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and this isn't "Requests for an admin to do the legwork". And given the extent of this editor's block log is one week long partial block for edit warring, I'm very suspicious of this whole thread. Courcelles (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would like to say that the editor appears to be making several productive edits, and does not look like an editor that needs to be indeffed. The only apparent problem seems to be a misunderstanding around Portal:Current events, and even that does not look too bad upon first inspection. I would most certainly oppose a block at this time. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The block on the Persian Wikipedia for abusing multiple accounts may be enough reasonable suspicion to warrant a CheckUser investigation. I do not currently endorse a block, I am just making a statement. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support investigation. Dinoz1 (chat?) 16:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 CheckUser is not for fishing. A block a few years ago on another project, one without checkusers, isn't going to be enough. Courcelles (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, makes sense. I will admit that CheckUser is a blind spot in my knowledge of policy. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If no other reason for not checking applied, there would still be the fact that CU can only see back 90 days. So unless you had reasonable suspicion something untoward was going on on this wiki within the last 3 months, there's nothing to look at. Courcelles (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to remember that. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

User appeared today - I noticed something odd about additions to Adoption and reported a copyright violation. There was also partial duplication of a 'further reading' list added in to the list, breaking formatting. I checked the user's contributions - they consist of unhelpful additions, some of which also look like further copyright violations (and in following one of those, on Intrusion Detection Systems, one source of copy appears on several different web pages starting with a string of random letters [dot] goldensmith [dot] top, which now also appears on a "McAfee anti-virus warning" popup I'm getting - I do not have McAfee installed!) Additions to other pages include 'further reading' which is inserted randomly into existing lists (sometimes breaking templates), additions to essays on how to become an admin (!), etc. This behaviour, for a new user, is odd, to say the least. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing. Given 72 hours off to at least prevent more problems. Courcelles (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, after failing to clean my machine by removing a likely cookie and doing a quick google, I found this at https://www.myantispyware.com/2023/05/18/goldensmith-top-virus-removal-guide/ , so may be a deliberate attempt to spread malware: What is Goldensmith.top? Goldensmith.top is a website that engages in malicious activities. It tricks visitors into enabling spam browser notifications by using a fake CAPTCHA. Moreover, when users visit Goldensmith.top, they may get redirected to other websites that are unreliable and potentially harmful. Most people access these malicious pages through redirects caused by websites that use rogue advertising networks. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (MST) escalated an edit war ([154] [155] [156] [157] [158] straight into a badly justified AfD nomination [159], never discussing on the article's talk page where there have been discussions of notability, which MST ignored altogether. This in itself would not be worthy of mention on ANI. However, this abuse of AfD is a recurring behaviour which has been pointed out here before, see in this proposal for a topic ban of MST in a comment from User:ResonantDistortion

FWIW - there does appear to be a tendency to push articles to AfD as an escalation of edit warring - see for example this nom [160] which happened straight after this diff pointing out her edit warring [161]. Also this AfD nom appears to be an escalated edit war [162] per the talk page [163] and history. ResonantDis_tortion 19:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1119#Proposal_for_topic_ban 19:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

In the past year, MST has been discussed extensively here on ANI, and the frequency seems to have increased: Incident Apr 2023, Incident Feb 2023, Incident Oct 2022, Incident Nov 2021. AncientWalrus (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This report seems a bit backward--escalating to AfD given the lack of consensus regarding notability on the talk page is the appropriate thing to do, not edit warring nor tendentious. By sending it to AfD, it gets a broader community review. It would have been nice to see a more thorough AfD nomination statement, but jumping to recommend a ban seems like an overreaction. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It's not hard to open a new section on the talk page to address the concerns, which all users involved failed to do. If concerns aren't addressed, then AfD could be appropriate; though I believe PROD would have more appropriate. Callmemirela 🍁 16:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at the talk page was stalled for nearly a month, with no clear consensus. I maintain that AfD was a reasonable choice of discussion venue at this time. PROD would be entirely inappropriate so long as anyone is lodging clear disagreement. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the recent AfD discussions opened by MST, I do agree that there may be a problematic pattern of poorly considered nominations (although I would wait until after the discussions have reached their conclusion before trying to analyze them much, and there could be mitigating circumstances on a case-by-case basis). But I want to be quite clear that in general, escalating a stalled talk page notability discussion to AfD is not problematic behavior. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I wasn't quite clear enough, I opened this incident not because of this one AfD nomination itself. It's the disruptive behavioral pattern which involved edit warring over including a "citations needed" tag without giving any concrete sentences. When asked to provide evidence, instead of providing that evidence, MST proposed the article for deletion with poor justification. And this incident is just one in a long line, see all the previous ANI discussions. AncientWalrus (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Callmemirela I don't quite understand your sentence: It's not hard to open a new section on the talk page to address the concerns, which all users involved failed to do. What should I have discussed on the talk page (or did you not include me in the "all users"). MST never substantiated which sentences needed citations. They should have placed in line citation tags or discussed on talk. This is the chronology:

- 1. MST "Added {{More citations needed}} tag"

- 2. Smartse "Undid revision 1155241771 by MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) everything is sourced?!"

- 3. MST "Restoring tag- unfortunately many sentences aren't.

- 4. AncientWalrus (me) "Undid revision 1155378972 by MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk): MrsSnoozyTurtle it would be very helpful if you could discuss the concrete sentences you would like citations for on the talk page"

- 5. MST "Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Bogner." AncientWalrus (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How I see it is that despite edit summaries, a section should have been started to address the issue. Edit summaries are one thing and are the main reason discussions don't occur on talk pages. I see there's one about notability but none about MST's POV. Whether she answers or not is another issue, but at least a discussion was attempted. I see one or two sentences that have no sources, but overall I see no issues with the article. Callmemirela 🍁 16:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the discussion link inside the greenish part above goes directly to comments by me, and I agree with the list of the numerous previous ANI threads at the end of the opening post. The most recent of which was a mere month ago: [164]. It's worth noting this recent comment of hers: [165]. I can AGF that she might avoid commenting in these ANI complaints because of the stress, but there also becomes a point at which it simply becomes the proverbial "ANI flu". There has been, repeatedly, a consensus of giving MST another chance in the hope that there will be improvement. But I think that we are where the WP:ROPE has run out, and we shouldn't keep repeating the same consensus in the hope that something different will happen this time. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You articulate my reasoning for opening this incident well. It's not so much that this particular incident justifies action, it doesn't if it were isolated. Their other AfD nomination from today is similarly low effort and obviously unjustified. Or see this recent comment by an editor to another one of MST's nominations:

Keep. Plentiful sources exist. Please see WP:BEFORE; it is preferred to search for sources before nominating rather than making others do the work. Casinos in most of the U.S. are significant economic actors that attract at least regional media coverage of every chapter of their development. See for example: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] User:Toohool 19:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IP_Casino_Resort_Spa

Full nomination record is here for convenience. It is surprising how someone with more than 30k edits seems to make such mistakes. AncientWalrus (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]