Shorter version - editor involved in disruptive editing, edit warring, and clear POV edits.

Longer version - H2ppyme (talk · contribs) is involved in edits like this, removing reference to the historical Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, and this, adding in clear POV of 'Soviet-occupied Estonia' and very concerning POV edit summaries like "Estonia was illegally occupied at the time". A quick look at their contribs shows that myself and many other editors have been reverted, sometimes multiple times. We need a topic ban or block to prevent ongoing disruption. GiantSnowman 16:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He also insists on adding information with an Estonian source that doesn't contain the purported information, see [1], [2] and [3]. This is an editor who has been around since 2006, long enough to know about WP policy.--Berig (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They do appear to have a POV, but their edits based on that POV aren't entirely wrong; there appears to be a lack of consensus on whether we should use "Estonia" or "Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic" for place of birth/death (the only source in that article which provides a place of death uses "Estonia"), while 1940 in art shouldn't use "Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic" or "Soviet-Occupied Estonia" as both are undue in that article - it should just use "Estonia", in line with the use of "United Kingdom", "United States", and "France". BilledMammal (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of which version should be used (and I am firmly in the 'use the historically accurate name' camp, but this is not really what this issue is about), this editor has a clear POV and has engaged in significant disruptive editing to push the same. GiantSnowman 17:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very familiar with this editor, my first encounter with them was yesterday when I undid their edit on Geats because it had added content about the Estonian language that did not appear notable enough to warrant being in the article, which I can see that they reverted this morning. Berig then discovered that the source does not even contain what is being added to the article and H2ppy conducted some minor edit warring to keep the content, that in combination with taking a look at the contribution history makes it pretty clear to me there's at least some level of Estonian POV pushing at play here. --TylerBurden (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be one thing if H2ppyme were involved just in content disputes about Estonia v. Estonian SSR. However, they are also accusing other editors of "pushing age-old Kremlin propaganda", [4][5] and that crosses a different line in my book. —C.Fred (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The tone used here is clearly unhelpful. --Soman (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with having a "POV" that adheres to facts instead of age-old Kremlin propaganda? Why are you pushing the narrative of a systematically lying dictatorship instead of the narrative accepted in mainstream interpretation of historiography and international law? H2ppyme (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note this editor in question has repeated his nonsensical "pro-Kremlin propaganda" accusations agains other editors in his response here. Very telling. GiantSnowman 18:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, how are they non-sensical if your argument is to copy-paste the narrative of the once Soviet Union and that of modern Russia instead of the mainstream international view and the view of legal scholars and historians? H2ppyme (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia is a collaborative environmental, and accusing editors you disagree with of being somehow in cahoots with/supporting a foreign Government you dislike is a) ridiculous and b) WP:UNCIVIL. Are you going to withdraw your accusations and stop your disruptive editing or are we going to have to block you from editing to prevent further disruption? GiantSnowman 10:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanna mention that the editor in question has been engaging in this behavior for years and was already warned and blocked for exactly the same actions. --BlameRuiner (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

State continuity of the Baltic states, please have a read. I'm pretty sure H2ppyme acts in good faith, unless the user broke the 3RR. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I find it very hard to assume good faith from editors who provide sources that don't back up their assertions (see [6], [7] and [8]). If I weren't involved in the article, I would be very tempted to enforce a ban.--Berig (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pelmeen10: - Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, please have a read. GiantSnowman 18:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't covered what's been going on at non-ice hockey articles. But, I do know it's frustrating for us WP:HOCKEY members, to have to continue to revert such PoV edits on ice hockey (particularly player bios) articles, from time to time. Regrettably, if such PoV edits continue to be pushed on those articles-in-question? I fear that eventually, Arbcom may have to step in. This is no longer an issue of content dispute, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously ice hockey was especially important for Soviets, and is now for Putin (to alleviate the inferiority complex). Should his troll factory ever target wiki-topics, then hockey would be a logical one to start with. Of course, hopefully there are no paid trolls participating in the incident here. Nevertheless, in case there are some, let's have some human empathy for them – it's better to work, work hard, and hang on to a nice warm office job instead of being treated as cheap cannon fodder and sent to some seriously snowy, muddy and bloody battle in Ukraine, for example.80.26.203.48 (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on that, WP:HOCKEY has been very consistent on how to list place of birth. This looked, at first glance, like a similar case of not understanding the rules. While there is a muddier situation that Pelmeen10 refers to with the Baltic states, that is a content issue, and I don't think that matter should be resolved at ANI. The matter at hand here is the conduct of H2ppyme and the accusations against other editors. —C.Fred (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - and this is conduct which they have been warned about/blocked for before (please see diffs above) - although they have not edited in 2 days so the disruption has technically stopped. I suggest their edits are reverted and we monitor from there? GiantSnowman 09:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Long standing edit consensus on Baltic States related articles have been to use only short name, not full political name, as is standard in WP as also noted above by BilledMammal. Even the hockey does it China is listed as just China, not People's Republic of China. He Xin (ice hockey), Ying Rudi etc. I noticed that a user with administrator privileges was reverting the edits. So i went to their page and asked few questions, but all I got was smirky sarcastic FO by WP admininistrator saying that Estonia should be removed and just Soviet Union be left. No explanation, no arguments. That's the level of administration in Wikipedia. what about WP:ADMINCOND? Administrators should lead by example and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. --Klõps (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is because our article is just on China, not People's Republic of China. This is not, despite what you think, a political decision - it is merely reflecting the historical name of the country as confirmed by WP:MOSGEO. GiantSnowman 09:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to tell me? China is the common name, People's Republic of China is full political name of the state. China covers all the culture and history of China, same as Estonia covers all about Estonia including the Soviet period. --Klõps (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian SSR was commonly known as Estonia btw. --Klõps (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People's Republic of China and China are the same article, whereas we have separate articles on Estonia and Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic (and Governorate of Estonia) to reflect the changing political nature of the country over time. GiantSnowman 16:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Per Infobox person Countries should generally not be linked.That's why opening random Chinese hockey players most are China unlinked He Xin (ice hockey), and even Xi Jinping article has Beijing, China (unlinked). That's not a factor, and besides that Article Estonia has section about Estonian SSR. This is not really convincing argument from you. --Klõps (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Klõps: Perceived incivility does not justify obvious incivility. —C.Fred (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. You have higher authority here as a moderator, but instead of moderating you just answered with a sarcastic insult. Nothing to Percieve here. As a moderator you should lead by example and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. WP:ADMINCOND, what you did was WP:ADMINACCT failure to communicate.

It's clear whats is going on here. User H2ppyme (talk · contribs) made some good faith edits restoring the articles with what has been a long standing edit consensus of having only Estonia listed as birth/death place in infobox. As seen it is standard to use common name even in WP:HOCKEY biographies (eg China instead of People's Republic of China) He Xin (ice hockey), Ying Rudi etc to take some random articles. What followed is really toxic, he got attacked by a couple of moderators with highly opinionated opposite POV as you and GiantSnowman have clearly stated to support the opposite POV. WP:ADMINCOND if an administrator cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem with poor conduct. administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith. You have both misused the moral highground that you have been given. --Klõps (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yea no, I don't think it's that simple at all. As was noted above H2ppyme synthesized ″information″ from a source to include content about Estonia on Geats and then participated in some minor edit warring once that was pointed out, that doesn't seem like good faith editing to me, that seems more like shoehorning Estonian content into where it doesn't belong. --TylerBurden (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So now @Klõps: is engaged in the exact same edits as H2ppyme was (same article as well!). Disruptive edits, meat puppetry. GiantSnowman 15:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it time for a sockpuppet investigation?--Berig (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I restored it to the state before the edit war. I do not know H2ppyme. This is my only account. --Klõps (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If so you would not mind a sockpuppet investigation. It would only prove that you are not the same user.--Berig (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, what do I have to do? --Klõps (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't anything; requests to prove you are not the same user are not accepted. If Berig believes they have sufficient behavioural evidence, they should submit a request at WP:SPI. BilledMammal (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is sock puppetry, but definitely a small group of editors closing ranks and covering each other's backs. Offline collusion? I couldn't possibly say. GiantSnowman 17:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Klõps, why are you removing in-line citations and valid parameters from infoboxes? GiantSnowman 17:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, given the comments here that removing reference to Estonian SSR is disruptive, please can somebody restore the previous version on Friedrich Karm? GiantSnowman 12:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In agreement, that it should be restored. But, if I restore it? members from WP:ESTONIA might disrupt the ice hockey bios again, particularly Leo Komarov. There's a kinda truce between both WikiProjects. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: feel free to post at Talk:Friedrich Karm and see if you can persuade @BilledMammal: to change it back... GiantSnowman 18:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall ever seeing BilledMammal involved in this topic-in-question, in the past. Would suggest that he back away from it. He seems to have taken the side of the Estonian-POV argument. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Topic bans for Estonian POV

There is a very long-standing issue with Estonian editors doing this sort of thing, and when challenged, several of them will turn up to the same discussion to back each other up (exactly as has happened here). Personally I would strongly support a topic ban for anything related to pre-1991 Estonia for these editors, as this has been going on for over a decade. Number 57 17:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds serious, indeed.--Berig (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban, broadly construed, for all pre-1991 Estonia related edits for Klõps and H2ppyme (I am personally unaware of any other editors involved in this behaviour). GiantSnowman 17:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. While this is edit warring, the example provided includes edit warring by both "sides" (four reverts by GiantSnowman, three by H2ppyme, two by Klõps, with the status quo being the one supported by H2ppyme and Klõps), and it is not sufficient to warrant a full topic ban, particularly as such a sanction would go far beyond the issues discussed here. Give warnings to all parties, reminding them of WP:BRD and MOS:RETAIN, and if any party attempts to implement a change to the format through edit warring in the future we can return to ANI and consider actual sanctions. BilledMammal (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would also note that so far the only evidence of Klõps "misbehaving" is two reverts to restore the status quo at a single article - it is not clear why they are grouped with this proposal. BilledMammal (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are engaged in the exact same disruptive editing and have been for some time (i.e. removing all mention of Estonian SSR/Soviet Union from appropriate historical context - see this and this and this and many, many more). GiantSnowman 18:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How are those changes disruptive? You obviously are on one "side" of this content dispute, but as there is no global consensus (attempts to find one have always ended in "no consensus") it is appropriate to find local consensuses, and that can include finding such consensuses by editing as it appears they are doing in those examples. BilledMammal (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you look at something like Leo Komarov, you will see that H2ppyme was making the same edit (changing Estonian SSR to Estonia) multiple times between 2014 and yesterday, calling their opponents "Kremlin trolls", every time they were reverted back, and they have, as far as I see, zero edits at the talk page, where the topic has been extensively discussed (and there is either no consensus, or possibly even consensus against H2ppyme). This is massive edit-warring for 8 years, mixed with personal attacks. Irrespectively of who is right and who is wrong.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but that doesn't answer why Klõps is being grouped with H2ppyme - I am not seeing any basis for them being brought here, except for the fact that they are on the same side of the content dispute as H2ppyme.

H2ppyme does have a case to answer beyond edit warring, but I don't believe that a topic ban is appropriate for them at this point; they've only been blocked once, eight years ago, and aside from this recent discussion no one has attempted to discuss WP:CIVIL with them, or WP:EW since that block eight years ago. In other words, I've seen no evidence that a warning won't work, and I believe we should give it a chance. Specifically, give GiantSnowman, H2ppyme, and maybe Klõps a warning for edit warring, and H2ppyme a warning for personal attacks, and if any of them continue the behaviour we can return here and implement topic bans. BilledMammal (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Klops has retired. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question of "why Klõps is being grouped with H2ppyme", it's because they have been part of the small group of editors doing this for years – see the history of Toivo Suursoo, where they made these edits repeatedly. Number 57 22:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. However, that appears to minor (three reverts over a couple of months) and stale (three years ago) edit warring. It would add weight to the notion that we should warn them alongside GiantSnowman and H2ppyme, but I don't see any reason why we need to jump straight to topic bans, or what the issue would be with trying a warning first.BilledMammal (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great another one who has always has had very strong one sided POV on this question. Yes add random diffs without any discussions that were had then. The pattern has been always like it's with Friedrich Karm, for ten years since 2013 it was one way, then in January 2022 some random user changes it and then you guys appear to defend the change. 90% of Estonian biographies are it the way Friedrich Karm was for a decade, it's a small group of editors who for years have been trying to change it. Always the same, some random user changes ca 10 articles, and then your gang appears to defend them, But yeah having a strong POV on this question won't stop you for demanding a ban for someone who isn not supporting your POV. Klõps 46.131.25.212 (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're retired, stop editing while logged out. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, per above.--Berig (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There's something kinda odd here, concerning whether one chooses to accept or not, that the Baltic states were a part of the Soviet Union. Why would he or she concentrate on only Estonia? What about Latvia & Lithuania? Are those country names also being pushed in bios, where there's "Latvian SSR" & "Lithuanian SSR"? GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's odd? We had this discussion already at WP Estonia I said to You that I'm an Estonian, I mostly edit Estonian related content, fix, add sources, update, remove vandalism. Estonian community here is small, there's a lot of really outdated articles, old vandalism from years ago. As I'm a football fan I have created Estonian football league season articles, given them prose content so that their not just tables etc. I have created Kaja Kallas' cabinet, Jüri Ratas' second cabinet, Jüri Ratas' first cabinet, Taavi Rõivas' second cabinet etc all of the existing ones. And as I said, Lithuanian and Latvian community here is much smaller even than Estonian, I have worked on many Latvian articles also if I have seen really low quality articles there that scream for attention, one liners not updated since 2008. --Klõps (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Objection I have tried to have a civil argument and to find a solution, like here, but got slapped without even a hint of effort to give argumented replay, I tried to make sense at the discussion at WP:Estonia, here, but got insulted that I'm nationalist doing historical revisionism. All I have tried to say is that isn't black and white as Gigantsnowman, C.Fred, Soman are taking the problem. There's a huge gray area. I'm saying everywhere that both are right Estonian SSR existed and Republic of Estonia existed as Soviet occupation was never recognized by the international community. For heavens sake there's loads of articles about it State continuity of the Baltic states read about it get to know the backstory and facts. The solution has been to use just Estonia (without political additions ), As is standard with other modern states. As noted above by BilledMammal, as I have noted about only China being used instead of full political state name People's Republic Of China.

Per WP:ADMINCOND GiantSnowman and C.Fred shouldn't even be judging here as they are very heatedly having really strong one sided POV on this question taking part of the edits. As seen in edits and talk like here Talk:Friedrich Karm. They should leave this for impartial admins. This is really low to hand out bans just because someone has different opinion than you do. --Klõps (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic-ban for both of them, a long-standing issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I remember having long discussions about it with you before, you supported really strongly the soviet naming. The long standing issue is that you and I had different opinion. Go on ban my dead account . Thats just bulling to demand someone to be punished because you have different POV. Klõps 46.131.25.212 (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you retired? now you're posting signed out. BTW, you messed up BM's above post. GoodDay (talk) 06:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Topic ban for H2ppyme as this appears to be a long term issue, the misrepresentaton of a source seemingly in an attempt to shoehorn Estonian content into where it doesn't belong, edit warring and personal attacks makes this seem warranted. --TylerBurden (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose topic ban, support warning given how both sides have engaged in edit-warring and Klops in particular does not seem to have done enough to warrant a topic ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BurritoQuesadilla (talk • contribs) 01:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Do you people not understand how you are defending the age-old systematic propaganda of a fundamentally sick warmonger?! To hell with all Russian propagandists on Wikipedia! This is not a neutral encyclopaedia anymore! H2ppyme (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban, broadly construed, for all pre-1991 Estonia related edits, especially since this is a discretionary sanctions area, especially with me just reverting an edit of H2ppyme's where his edit summary was "No to Kremlin propaganda, to hell with Russian propagandists!" Obviously this is going to be an especially touchy subject for quite some time to come given Putin's aggression, but we don't need the war played out on Wikipedia: it is plain that H2ppyme is NOTHERE. Enough is bloody enough, and this is coming from someone whose great-grandfather was from Lithuania. Ravenswing 14:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sick Kremlin propagandists should be the ones who get banned. You are the lowest of all human forms, you warmonger apologists! Disgraceful that people like you are even allowed to exist on Wikipedia! This is an encyclopaedia, it should be based on facts, not on the fundamentally sick propaganda of systematically lying hostile dictatorship like Russia! You people make me sick for defending their sick crimes! H2ppyme (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... whereupon H2ppyme immediately reverted [9], with the edit summary "Leave fundamentally sick Russian propaganda out of Wikipedia and stick to international law and mainstream interpretation of history!" At this point, while he isn't (yet) in 3RR territory, given the viciousness of his personal attacks and his plain intent to editwar these changes Wikipedia-wide, I think an immediate block for H2ppyme's in order, and I would willingly support any proposal to indef. Ravenswing 14:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will make a new account, don't worry. Our fight against sick Kremlin propagandists will never end! You are the lowest of all human forms and the entire democratic and developed world is against your sick positions! Facts will win, your propaganda will die, your memory will be disgraced. H2ppyme (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rather than simply a topic ban, I think a block is now necessary. Mellk (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • All you Russian propagandists should be banned and never allowed to return! Wikipedia is no longer neutral, it has been overtaken by sick Kremlin propagandists! H2ppyme (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has gone beyond blocking territory, I think. I'm proposing an outright community ban on H2ppyme; it's plain that he's declared war here, and given his long history it doesn't seem likely that he'll ever be an asset to the encyclopedia. Ravenswing 14:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Russia is literally invading peaceful European countries, you keep defending age-old Russian systematic lies, and I am the one who has declared war, lol? H2ppyme (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ravenswing: "Declared war"? slightly unfortunate choice of words, old chap SN54129 15:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not particularly contrite. We none of us can do anything about Putin right now, and I called it exactly as H2ppyme is acting. I have this tight-lipped feeling that we're about to see a tidal wave of such disrupters from all sides, and we'd better be prepared for the onslaught. Ravenswing 15:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse community ban or at least a topic ban from all topics related to Estonia, Russia, and the former Soviet Union, broadly construed. They have demonstrated that their personal opinions about Russia have overpowered their ability to constructively and collegially edit the project. (I have no particular love for Russia. No country is perfect, but they've got some pretty atrocious things on their track record, and...they aren't exactly on a PR and goodwill tour right now. But I am able to compartmentalize my opinions and not let them cloud my judgment while editing. If there were a topic where I couldn't maintain neutral point of view, I'd step away from the topic.) —C.Fred (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I've blocked for 1 week due to the above aspersions, which have also spread to other threads on this page. This is a stopgap measure to halt current disruption, and can be superseded by whatever outcome this thread arrives at. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Incidentally, for anyone who is interested in examining the extent to which Wikipedia has a bias related to Russia, check the relative ratings of Russian state media at WP:RSP and WP:NPPSG, as compared to both independent Russian media and media from other countries. (Spoiler: as a community we don't consider Russian state media to be reliable on anything controversial, and there currently isn't a single Russian source, state-backed or otherwise, that has unequivocally been judged as "generally reliable" by the English Wikipedia community). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering their latest comments, I support an indef block. Isabelle ^🔔 15:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Coming here to post this diff and edit summary to one of the disputed articles - please can somebody revert this editor's disruption? Given this response to their block I think we need an indef? GiantSnowman 15:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Austet H2ppyme, Klõps and all honourable wikipedians, make no mistake, during putinist rule the Russian govt and intel agencies have been putting great many technical and human resources into propaganda and modern "hybrid warfare", including aggressive disinformation campaigns on social media channels. What you may have noticed here is just the tip of the iceberg, not only an odd Wikipedia editor or two with a pro-Kremlin-Stalin-USSR-etc-trolling hobby but a whole network of hundreds of editor and admin accounts, in concerted action and manned 24-7-365 by professional staff. For these operatives, inserting "SSR" somewhere, deleting "Estonia" in another article, or reverting another edit somewhere else once every 2-3 minutes is nothing but routine paid work (with getting an honest anti-Soviet editor blocked or banned sometimes as an additional bonus). Just my two kopeks' worth.37.143.124.39 (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Half-genuine suggestion - indef ban for any editor who comes here to accuse other good faith editors of being Kremlin/Putin stooges etc. IP should also be blocked. GiantSnowman 16:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, but tensions are understandably very very high right now. Let's not completely bite the heads off people for it at the current time unless there is genuinely a lot of disruption. We can ignore the odd comment and focus on making sure articles aren't disrupted. Canterbury Tail talk 16:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except articles are being disrupted, with editors such as H2ppyme and Klõps having engaged in long-standing whitewashing (by removing reference to Estonia SSR). GiantSnowman 16:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we ignore the comment? It is hate speech.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, tensions are elevated in a number of quarters, but that doesn't mean that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA have been suspended for the duration. For a Ukrainian IP address, I'd cut some slack ... presuming, of course, that your average Ukrainian had nothing better to think of today than editing Wikipedia. 37.143.124.39, by contrast, is geolocated in Spain. Ravenswing 16:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Today is also the Estonian Independence Day - I wonder if that is what has inspired the recent outburst... GiantSnowman 16:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Am I reading things clearly? Has H2ppyme promised to create sock(s), if banned? GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, he sure did. Ravenswing 16:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban Perhaps could be along the lines of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. Accusing other editors of "pro-Kremlin bias" is a personal attack and should be discouraged. TFD (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef ban - on the basis that the reported editor has promised to evade any topic ban handed out, via creating socks. I realise, H2ppyme emotions have been charged up, since Putin's latest actions & well, he can & should be upset. But, that doesn't give him the 'green light' to be disruptive across several articles & make personal attacks, let alone promise to continue to do so after he's blocked or possibly banned. He's definitely not here to contribute constructively, anymore. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic or infef ban unsupported accusations of pro-Kremlin propaganda must not be accepted. (t · c) buidhe 23:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• (non-admin comment), Support topic ban per GiantSnowman. This is protracted edit warring with inflammatory rhetoric, seemingly without any willingness to find compromise solutions. --Soman (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Klõps appears to have retired to restrictions against them probably not needed; can an uninvolved admin therefore please review consensus against H2ppyme? GiantSnowman 07:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise against closure. What's going on in Ukraine, can still create a potential for attempts at revisionism in the Baltics. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erm ... and what does that have to do with whether there is consensus on a ban for H2ppyme? (It's plain there's no consensus for action against Klõps.) The way to deal with further nonsense from H2ppyme is to indef him. The way to deal with nonsense from any other editor is to open a separate complaint, when and as necessary. Ravenswing 21:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Out of my hands. We'll follow your advise. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Ravenswing - let's indef H2ppyme and deal with Klõps if/when they return... GiantSnowman 18:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--Berig (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was recently blocked from all of Wikipedia by User:Geschichte. On February 19, 2022, I only did 3 reverts to Template:Morgana Lefay. WP:3R states that "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page — whether involving the same or different material — within a 24-hour period". I made a mistake with one of my reverts, but the overall impact came out in essence to only 3 reverts within the 24 hour period. Additionally, I feel that it is a conflict of interest for the person who reverted my edits to institute the block. Furthermore, Geschichte who reverted my edits did so in violation of WP:BRD. The reversions that I did were "16:54, 19 February 2022", "17:00, 19 February 2022" and "17:55, 19 February 2022" [the reversions at "17:54, 19 February 2022" were in error, and "rm * Symphony of the Damned (1990) * Sanctified (1995)" was done because I added those back by mistake]. My block was reduced to restrict me from only editing Template:Morgana Lefay, which would serve the purpose of a 48 hour cooling off period involving editing that very template. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this does look like a rather clear WP:INVOLVED violation. Jax0677 creates a template, Geschichte edits it, Jax0677 doesn't agree with those edits, back and forth, and after Jax's 3rd revert, and without any warning (or template talk page discussion), Geschichte blocks them? That is textbook admin tool abuse, unless there is something I miss. Fram (talk) 09:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that 331dot downgraded the block to just the template, thus taking ownership of the block and reducing it to something simple. I agree with Fram that this is a textbook case of WP:INVOLVED. I would like an explanation from Geschichte per WP:ADMINACCT. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping; I would also be interested in an explanation(I didn't have the time to pursue one earlier). 331dot (talk) 10:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation is as follows, the reverts done by Jax were very swift and without a specific reason, other than implied WP:OWNERSHIP. That the block was instituted after three reverts and not more than three reverts can be considered an error on my part. While also noting that the block was not laid down so one party could benefit in the edit-revert cycle, as I laid down a self-abstention on the template in question. Thus the situation cooled down. As for BRD, Jax had attempted to prod certain pages (music albums) and seemingly mask other music albums by the same artist from a navbox. I was actively editing this group of albums and at the time I considered the removal of material from the template as being clearly disruptive. In hindsight, though, it is crystal clear that this should have been solved through a discussion. Geschichte (talk) 09:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So no comment at all about the WP:INVOLVED part? Never mind that blocking one side from the whole of enwiki, while you takign a voluntarly break from one article, is not equal in any way of course. So no, the block after 3 instead of 4 reverts is the least of the issues here. If you had been uninvolved, that would just have been a minor error (you are actually allowed to stop an edit war even before the 4th revert, though preferably not without warnings); that you were heavily involved here is the main issue and is what makes it admin tool abuse. Fram (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so they remained quiet until pushed by Ritchie333 on their talk page to come here and comment, and they again become silent when it is pointe out that their "explanation" above neatly sidesteps the main issue with their action. Not a good look at all when a simple acknowledgment would initially have been sufficient. Not sure how to deal with this, while it doesn't seem to be part of a pattern of such issues, it gives no confidence that they actually see the issue with their actions (and if they don't see the issue with it, then it's hard to trust their judgment as an admin). Fram (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. WP:INVOLVED + ADMINACCT is the subject of a current Arbcom case. SN54129 14:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - @Serial Number 54129:, which Arbcom case would that be? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - The reverts performed were in accordance with WP:BRD, WP:NAV and WP:WTAF, not WP:OWN. I was restricted from editing almost ALL of Wikipedia while Geschichte chose not to edit Template:Morgana Lefay. "WP:NAV" indicates that a navbox should link existing articles. "WP:BRD" states that if a bold move is reverted, it should then be discussed. I should have been brought to WP:ANI so that an uninvolved administrator can make the decision. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of key answers I'd like from Geschichte. I'm not into witch hunts, and Geschichte has already said "it is crystal clear that this should have been solved through a discussion", resolving most of my concerns, so if the answer is "I'm sorry, I didn't realise that was policy, I'll remember that from now on" then I think the matter can be closed.

1. Why did you block a user you were edit-warring with?
2. Why did you use rollback on a good faith edit? (Sorry, I know this is a pet bugbear of mine so you can ignore this one if you want)
3. If you thought you could voluntarily step back from edit-warring, why didn't you think Jax 0677 could?
4. If you think Jax 0677 was trying to take ownership, do you think Jax 0677 would have reasonable grounds to think you were too?
5. Why did you block Jax 0677 from the entire site, preventing him from editing several million articles he has never been disruptive on?

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that we can close the matter if the answer is "I'm sorry, I didn't realise that was policy, I'll remember that from now on". I can't in good conscience believe that an Admin doesn't know not to block someone that they're involved in an edit-war with. I also think Geschicte's problem with Jax0677's WP:PRODding articles is a laughable. If anything, PROD is the least disruptive form of deletion! -- Mike 🗩 16:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the mechanics of the process, but I guess the next step is Arbcom if Geschichte is non-responsive, per a very recent (and similar) case on the AN board? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Geschicte's silence is disquieting. And heck, I think dePRODding is seriously abused generally, but it's also unrestricted and unregulated. Getting mad about how another editor uses them is one thing; administrative action over it is another matter altogether. Ravenswing 10:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could someone please look at the contributions of this account, especially their attempts at getting involved in administrative areas and their interactions with blocked users? There's a distinct pattern of disruption and general lack of WP:COMPETENCE that is causing a lot of time wasting.

Going through some potentially problematic edits in reverse chronological order

• 18th Feb - They show up at the talk page of a user that was CU blocked for joe jobbing, demanding to see the SPI that lead to the CU block [10]. There is of course no requirement for an SPI to be held for the use of checkuser tools. They follow this up with the ridiculous statment Remember, the duck test is not grounds for a CU-block. [11].
• 15th Feb - They show up at the ANI discussion regarding a user who was blocked for genocide denialism POV pushing saying that they hope they get a second chance to edit here [12]. Drmies points out that the user isn't listening [13], which obviously means they are not a candidate for an unblock.
• 8th Feb - They start a poorly thought out RFC proposing that we bulk delete all userboxes related to DS topic areas [14]. This is naturally heading towards a snow oppose [15]
• 7th Feb - A user brings a case to ANI regarding misuse and misrepresentation of sources. Plutonical jumps in incorrectly declaring this to be a content dispute [16] then gives out two completley innapropriate trouts [17] [18].
• 6th Feb - A poorly thought out bot proposal that would have spammed users with warnings about battleground behaviour if they used certain words [19].
• 3rd Feb - They show up at the talk page of an obviously upset user that had just lost some user rights at ANI (and received a short block for being uncivil in response) to warn them that content on their talk page may be inappropriate [20]. The warning itself isn't wrong, but it was completely unnecessary "pouring fuel onto the fire" when dealing with an already obviously upset and annoyed user.
• 31st Jan - they show up at the talk page of a user banned for copyvios, advising them to use synonyms and swap the order of words around (i.e. engage in WP:Close paraphrasing, a form of copyvio). They also state that they should use earwig to ensure they've moved the text around just enough to avoid detection. [21]. They return a few days later to state that they had "No idea" that using automated tools in this manner was not a good idea [22].
• 31st Jan - an attempt to join a community ban discussion after the discussion had already been closed with a largely unhelpful comment that was mostly unrelated to their editing on Wikipedia [23].
• 28th Jan - During this MFD [24] Plutonical decides that they like the page, and they attempt to unilaterally move it to their userspace - this predictably makes a mess. Once the page is put back where it's supposed to be they perform a cut and paste move of the content, resulting in a copyvio [25].

Having gone through their last 200 edits I'm going to stop, Hopefully this demonstrates the recurring problem. They do seem to have their heart in the right place and their article space work seems to be fine, but their involvement in administrative areas, especially their interactions with blocked editors, is problematic. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no dispute with this. If an administrator sees it right to issue sanctions and it's best for the encyclopedia, then so be it. It's unfortunate, but I can see that I have made many mistakes over the course of my editing career and that I might have WP:CIR issues. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 20:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Plutonical: I don't think that a complete ban is required, as I said your article space editing looks to be mostly fine. The issue is that you're trying to "run before you can walk" as they say, and are getting involved in behind the scenes areas that I don't think you have the experience or knowledge to be in. A more refined restriction should be possible here, but I'm not sure what form that might take. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There are plenty of other forms my punishpreventionment could take. Topic bans or partial blocks or anything else in that vein. Even a Topic ban from WP-space in general. It's all up to the administrator and what they see fit. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 20:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We don’t do punishment here, under any circumstances. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 20:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Dream on. EEng 18:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that the user already acknowledges that have room to improve, would a Wikipedia mentor be helpful in terms of navigating the more administrative areas in a way that isn't disruptive? If the work in the article space is good and the only issue is the more arcane areas, I feel like this would be more narrowly tailored towards prevention than a block. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the best navigation advice that can be given at this time is to steer clear for a while. Plutonical has been extraordinarily active in projectspace, and especially at ANI, for someone with their level of experience (as I write this comment, 37% of their undeleted edits were to the Wikipedia namespace, and about 10% of their undeleted edits – 84 out of 830 – were to this board). I don't think venturing into the internal workings of the project early in an editing career is a bad thing per se, but it can lead to friction when it's too much too early, and I agree with the OP that that unfortunately seems to be the case here. However, the fact that they seem to be open to working on the issue makes me hopeful that this can be resolved without severe sanctions. Plutonical, regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I would strongly recommend that you focus on mainspace editing for a few months and steer clear of policy debates, unblock requests, ANI and similar areas, unless you absolutely must comment because an issue directly involves you. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had previously given a friendly warning to Plutonical about high activity in ANI-space and attempting to reach conclusions in ANI discussions that aren't warranted by the evidence, precedence or policy on Wikipedia. Such ill-directed contributions, although made in good faith, can inflame tempers of already-degrading situations and further drag out the conflict in a manner that requires more time and effort for an admin to clean up. As I said before, I'm not going to be throwing stones on this since I also have a high level of project and Wiki-space contributions. I think Plutonical generally means well and that they ought to focus on other areas of Wikipedia that don't require a very high level of experience and understanding of Wiki-culture. --WaltCip-(talk) 14:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plutonical seems to be looking for negative attention, given they just nom'd Main Page for deletion. This needs a clear CIR/NOTHERE block. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not seeking negative attention, and I have been working on reverting vandalism and staying out of wiki-space (save for UAA and AIV reports) per the advice I have been given. If you see this is still needing a block, I'm okay with that, and it was my mistake. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 19:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seriously, stop screwing around. I know you're having fun, but it's a bit of a pain for the rest of us having to clean up your mess. Take the project seriously or find something else to do. No one is amused. --Jayron32 19:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) I have clearly warned them on their talk page that one more occurrence of something like this will result in a sitewide indef block. If another admin thinks this is too lenient and blocks them now, they shouldn't feel like they need to talk to me first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gebagebo is a user formerly editing under the name Dabaqabad.

Gebagebo received a one-week AE block for violating the March 4 prohibition in August 2021. From his comment to me in December 2021, Gebagebo seems to think this block was "because edited without indicating the source."

And in October 2021, Gebagebo's editorial policy was criticized by several people at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive295#Dabaqabad, including myself, but no particular conclusion was reached at that time.

There are a number of problems between Gebagebo and me. Most of them involve Gebagebo reverting my edits and pushing his own policy on the grounds of WP:NOCONSENSUS. I try not to force my edits until we reach an agreement, not just in dialogue with Gebagebo. Gebagebo probably knows this, and thinks that if he (she) shows a "no agreement" attitude, he can settle for editing to his liking.

Some of the pages that Gebagebo and I have discussed include the following:

• Talk:Badhan, Sanaag
• Category talk:Disputed territory between Somaliland and Puntland
• Talk:Khatumo State
• Talk:El Afweyn

Although Gebagebo's argument seems plausible at first glance, I think he actually has the intention to write in favor of Somaliland and is searching for rules or sources to do so, rather than having the attitude of writing based on Wikipedia's rules and sources. Otherwise, it would be hard to explain why Gebagebo only writes in favor of Somaliland in his editing of this complex situation in the region.

The latest trouble is occurring in Talk:El Afweyn. I have tried to include information about El Afweyn in this article, but Gebagebo won't let me post it as it is "irrelevant". When I asked why it was irrelevant, Gebagebo would not respond. (Except to explain that it is "irrelevant" and "no agreement.")

I expect Gebagebo to edit neutrally, and to adopt an editorial attitude that aims for consensus rather than mere argument.--Freetrashbox (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried my absolute best to reach a consensus with Freetrashbox, however it is very hard to do so when they are being uncooperative, including threatening to re-add disputed content on two occasions despite that not being allowed by WP:NOCONSENSUS ([26], [27]). His accusation is completely unfounded and uncalled for.

Another interesting thing to note is the timing of this report. This report was filed just days after my report on Heesxiisolehh was concluded ([28]) and almost five hours after I informed the admin in charge of the case of his continuing addition of OR ([29]). Both users are in regular contact ([30], [31], [32], [33]) including just 15 minutes after his report was filed ([34]). On the AfD about Diiriye Guure Freetrashbox first voted delete ([35]) and then after that suddenly changing his vote to keep ([36]) after a poor explanation made by Heesxiisolehh that another editor refuted (Freetrashbox didn't even bother changing his original explanation for his previous delete vote, instead just changing the vote itself) . This indicates to me that this report was not filed in good-faith and kinda feels like tag-teaming.

Then is the fact that this would fit better as an RfC or WP:DRN given that this is a content dispute and a Third Opinion has previously failed to solve it due to no one showing up. Gebagebo (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If this is linked to the same topic area as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1091#Long running original research in Dervish-related content then this needs a wider review at a dedicated venue, such as RFC/DRN. GiantSnowman 15:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is my point exactly; this is a content dispute that has so far not been resolved. Therefore it should be discussed in the right venue, like RFC and DRN. Gebagebo (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I wrote in User talk:Heesxiisolehh are requests for improvement in Heesxiisolehh's editing attitude. Heesxiisolehh has not answered my questions many times and I think there is some problems with his attitude. And I have more stringent requirements in User talk:Heesxiisolehh#Your uploaded figure. If I were to defend Heesxiisolehh, I would defend it directly on the discussion page where Heesxiisolehh is being criticized, not in this roundabout way.--Freetrashbox (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the thing; you have a history of contacting the user on multiple occasions, and the criticism you give him is lackluster. In addition you changed your vote on an AfD concerning an article he added massive amounts of original research to to "keep" due to his rather lackluster and unconvincing explanation that was refuted by another edit, not even bothering to change the reasoning behind your original vote to reflect you changing your stance, in addition to using WP:WHATABOUTX to argue for the deletion of Deria Arale (which is backed up by reliable sources).

That and the timing is too close (I mean really, five hours after I contacted GiantSnowman regarding Heesxiisolehh's continued OR?) to be a coincidence. Either way I proposed a compromise on the El Afweyn talk page, I'd suggest you take a look at it. Gebagebo (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote about Gebagebo on this noticeboard because of two successive insincere answers from Gebagebo on Talk:El Afweyn. [37][38] Gebagebo was dishonest in his dialogue with me at Talk:El Afweyn, even though he could afford to contribute elsewhere on Wikipedia. The time between Gebagebo's second response and my posting on this noticeboard is two hours.

I have only interacted with Heesxiisolehh within Wikipedia, and that relationship is available for anyone to see. I don't know why Gebagebo thought that there was a special relationship between me and Heesxiisolehh. Gebagebo seems to think that they and Heesxiisolehh are opposites, but from my point of view, both attitudes are very similar. It's just that the subject who want to argue for is different.

I thought that by talking to Gebagebo, he would realize the true appeal of Wikipedia, but as it turns out, Gebagebo is only interested in describing the wonders of Somaliland on Wikipedia, and for him Wikipedia's rules and sources are just a means to that end. I think everyone can see that from his short description above.--Freetrashbox (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gebagebo: I accepted your suggestion in Talk:El Afweyn. Next time, I hope you will be in good faith even if we don't use the Administrators' noticeboard.--Freetrashbox (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how Heesxiisolehh mentions this ANI and uses it as rationale for removing a user's post warning about his original research from his talk page ([39], keep in mind this was almost 12 hours before he was pinged by Freetrashbox, not to mention the very similar opinion). There is also no evidence of communication between the two on any talk page regarding this.

This seems to make it more clear to me that this is a retaliatory filing, and might suggest some form of meatpuppery going on. Gebagebo (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have given notice that I will remove the description by Heesxiisolehh. Why is it that Gebagebo interprets that as me deleting Heesxiisolehh's opponents' opinions?--Freetrashbox (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The description I posted in El Afweyn is statements of the role Puntland and Somaliland played in El Afweyn. I tried to be impartial, but the result is a description that shows that Somaliland put a lot of effort into the administration of this town, while Puntland was just a nuisance for sending militia troops. In contrast, Gebagebo says that the expression "Puntland influence" is "implying that Puntland has influence and some sort of control of the town (which it does not claim), which is POV pushing". In other words, Gebagebo considers any representation of Puntland's activities in the region, no matter what the content, to be distasteful. Honestly, I am annoyed that Gebagebo called this statement a violation of POV. Nevertheless, I have continued to discuss whether the description could be changed to something Gebagebo would find acceptable, in order to make the post more fair. I agreed to change the headline of the article from "Puntland influence" to "Security". I also moved the description from El Afweyn to El Afweyn District, accepting Gebagebo's assertion that the Puntland Constitution is about the District and not the Town. However, as the dialogue progressed, I noticed that Gebagebo did not concede his opinion at all until the other party was bored with the discussion. I think this is a enough reason to report it to the Administrators' noticeboard. (To add to that, it is also very disconcerting that Gebagebo suggests I am Heesxiisolehh's meatpuppet without any evidence. I think Gebagebo is familiar with Wikipedia discussions and knows that the community does not like private connections between POV users.)--Freetrashbox (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't accused you of deleting anything on Heesxiisolehh's page. I merely pointed out the fact that this ANI was used as a reason in the edit summary of an edit by him where he deletes a user's warning about original research (this despite the fact that there is no evidence of communication between the both of you regarding this ANI on any talk page). That, along with other things I pointed out points to this being a retaliatory filing with no purpose but to derail my attempts at ridding Somali-related Wikipedia articles of original research. Gebagebo (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been active on English Wikipedia for a short time, but I've been editing Japanese Wikipedia, my home wiki, for more than 10 years. Why would I need to defend a beginner who is suspected of having original research tendencies? On the other hand, my editing in El Afweyn was more about the achievements of the Somaliland government. Nonetheless, you say that my description is a POV-violating description that tries to make the Puntland government look great. From your description above, you are not remorseful about this at all. --Freetrashbox (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Did my explanation above clear up your "linked to the same topic area" doubt?--Freetrashbox (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is following me about. It is relation to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_warring, canvassing, filibustering, and personal attacks from Onel5969, the same behaviour from the same group. Editor User:NemesisAT seems to be following me about and is reflective of that groups efforts to try and subvert the WP:NPP and WP:AFC process. The article J. Albert "Tripp" Smith was reviewed at NPP several weeks ago and reverted to a redirect. There is not a single reference there that supports a BLP. Another editor reverted it, I had a conversation with then they reverted again today. I think they are likely a UPE but a seperate issue. User:NemesisAT came along an reverted it back to the article, even though is a pile of junk, they is no other way to describe. The whole thing is this one group, desperate to get articles into Afd so they can be saved via a pile on. It is the same group that hassling onel above and me. I can't work as a NPP reviewer with editor following me about. The worst of it, the editor doesn't about the quality of the article, which is the most egregious aspect this problem. They've written any kind of high quality article that I can say for sure that they have level of judgements. It is all political with an agenda. scope_creep^Talk 14:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure how the ANI thread shared relates to this issue.

As we've spoken before, I have Scope creep's talk page on my watchlist and that's how I came across this article. I find the issue of stealth redirecting frustrating, which is why I also got involved in the Hong Kong housing redirects involving Onel above. I find it funny that Scope creep accuses me of following them when they have retalliated against me after I removed their PRODs in the past.

The redirect should not have been restored per WP:BLAR. NemesisAT (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic that we got rid of the Scientology discretionary sanctions as unnecessary, but I note that the page protections remain. Doug Weller talk 17:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But what connection does User:NemesisAT have with scientology? As far as I can tell neither that editor nor User:Scope creep edited that section or the talk page section in question, so why was it brought up? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is the wrong link. I will fix it. scope_creep^Talk 17:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the link. scope_creep^Talk 17:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thinking @Scope creep: may have meant Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit warring, canvassing, filibustering, and personal attacks from Onel5969 given it's also about redirects. I don't think Nemesis' !votes are always made in policy (worthy of an article, routine doesn't apply to biographies, Young player at the start of this career so likely to receive more coverage in the future.), but nor do I think they're in bad faith. There's definitely an issue with AfD wars back lately, but at least in the ones I've closed, Nemesis is more indicative of a the symptom of the issue and not the problem. Star Mississippi 17:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmmmm. Seven minutes after writing here, Scope creep commented on an AfD that appears in the first page of my recent contributions. Talk about following people around. NemesisAT (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like to hear NemesisAT's good faith explanation as to how the J. Albert "Tripp" Smith article they restored meets our policies and guidelines (like NOTRESUME and NBIO). Levivich 18:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The Sky News article and the Wall Street Journal article both have WP:SIGCOV on the subject and as searching brought up further coverage, I thought there was a good chance the subject could pass notability guidelines. However, no matter how non-notable you believe a subject to be, the last thing you should do is revert again with an unhelpful edit summary. NemesisAT (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the quick answer. I don't have access to WSJ. Personally I wouldn't consider the Sky Sports article to be SIGCOV, but that's a debate for AFD. In my view, there's at least enough in the Sky Sports article such that an editor could argue it's SIGCOV without that argument being totally frivolous or in bad faith--I wouldn't agree with it, but that doesn't make it a completely BS argument, it's still a good-faith argument in my view. (And if the WSJ article has similar or more content about Smith, which I AGF it does, then that would strengthen the argument further.) I might have voted to delete it, but it doesn't strike me, for example, as a CSD candidate. So I don't think it was disruptive to expand the redirect into an article with those sources. Anyone wanting to can take it to AFD, but re-redirecting it strikes me as edit warring. NPP and AFC have no special standing -- I for one don't think twice before "overruling" those content review processes (pulling a rejected draft out of draftspace, or nominating an approved draft for deletion, for example) if I think the reviewer got it wrong. We have processes for resolving these sorts of disputes, and those processes should be followed, as long as they're followed in good faith (which seems to be the case here). Bottom line: there's nothing wrong with expanding a redirect into an article, but there is something wrong with edit warring to re-redirect an article instead of taking it to AFD. And "It is all political with an agenda", without evidence, strikes me as an aspersion. Levivich 21:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No problem. The article has now been nominated for deletion by scope creep. I'm not going to vote, as I don't feel strongly about this particular article. I'm happy though that there is now discussion and sources being raised that would not have happened otherwise. NemesisAT (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It not an aspersion. The editor can't seem explain what WP:BIO, WP:BEFORE WP:SIGCOV are, core biographical policies when asked him about it, in conversation of my talk page, but magiclly knows about WP:BLAR. He simply doesn't care about quality at any level.scope_creep^Talk 22:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have found myself frustrated at times with NemesisAT's less than policy compliant votes at AfD, a few examples of which were provided by Star Mississippi. I am also dismayed at how often NemesisAT responds to their article creations being draftified by NPPers for being extremely short and not ready for mainspace by simply moving the articles back into mainspace with zero improvements (or reverting redirects), with edit summaries like "railway stations generally presumed notable". Such a rationale is not a valid excuse to shove barebones stubs into mainspace such as Taipingqiao station (Beijing Subway), Xinfeng railway station (Jiangxi) (which was much more barebones before being AfD'd), Fenglingdu railway station, Dianjiang railway station, and Yuncheng railway station (Shanxi), just to name a few. These are largely sourced to databases and would utterly fail WP:THREE in their current states. If memory serves, NemesisAT also restored To the Beat! Back 2 School from a redirect, which was subsequently deleted by a clear margin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/To the Beat! Back 2 School. I believe they need to better take note of policies about notability going forward, sometimes NemesisAT acts to keep things (be it through AfD participation or reverting redirects) based more on "I like it and don't want things to be deleted" than any genuine argument towards possible notability.
  With that said, I don't think NemesisAT is following scope_creep around. scope_creep is active at NPP, and NemesisAT creates a fairly large number of articles, it is no surprise their paths cross fairly often. NemesisAT is certainly following a political agenda, if you could call being a radical inclusionist a political agenda (and I make it no secret I lean exclusionist). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We all have different interpretations of policy, I'll try and explain my thinking better but I'm not going to pretend I'm not an inclusionist. For example in the case of NSPORTS, our policieis contradict each other and while I've had some opposition to my views that either GNG or NSPORTS can be used for presumed notability, I think my interpretation of the guidelines is valid. The guidelines are just contradictory. As for railway atations, stations where verifiable information exists are almost always kept at AfD, here's a few:

  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kahi railway station
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Changxing railway station
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xinfeng railway station (Jiangxi)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Llandinam railway station

  So personally I don't feel that creating railway station stubs is a problem. NemesisAT (talk) 10:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not to needlessly add to the pile on or whatever, but you saying in the AfD for List of hospitals in Algeria that the article should be kept because it's likely that over time many of the hospitals on the list will have articles created for them isn't just having a "different interpretation of policy", it's utterly disregarding them. There's zero way to interpret WP:LISTN as saying that it's OK to create or keep a list article because it might be notable at some theoretical point in the future. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not to needlessly split hairs, but there's a difference between not having an article and not being notable. If it seems like a subject has the right coverage to qualify as notable, but no one's gotten around to actually creating an article (if even a stub), it's perfectly appropriate to include the red link on a list (and to have the list, even if most of the links are red). It's part of how we encourage article creation. EEng 00:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but NemesisAT specifically brought up the theoretical future creation of articles as a reason why for the list article should be kept. Which ultimately has nothing to do with notability. Nor is it a valid reason to keep an article. Anymore then it would be to argue that a normal article should be kept because maybe someone will write about the topic someday. While I'm aware that it's perfectly appropriate to include red links in list articles, I disagree that most of the links can be red. WP:LISTPURP makes it clear lists that only or mainly serve development purposes should be in either the project or user space, not the main space. In this case there's no reason the person who created the list couldn't have put in the project space for hospitals. While aware the guideline uses the term "entirely", I don't think the intention behind it is to allow lists with hundreds of items where only 2 of them are blue linked to stay in the main article space indefinitely just because someone might eventually get around to creating the articles. Otherwise there would be zero point in having the notability guidelines for lists in the first place. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just under a month ago, I left a message on the above user's talk page due the editor following me around the website (WP:HOUND) (sometimes their only edit of the day is to revert or edit something I've recently done). I've just posted, at the above link, a snapshot of eight recent examples of such occurrences, most of which have occurred within six hours of my creating the article. Not sure what else I can do, having given them two warnings before posting this. Seasider53 (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems that a more correct statement of this is that a New Pages Patroller has several times pointed a new pages creator to Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image galleries and disputed whether the map pin for Craigie (Perth, Scotland) should be in the area where the Craigie school, Craigie post-office, and Craigie church all are (where the Ordnance Survey map on Bing Maps puts Craigie, I observe) or over by Upper Craigie. Uncle G (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coordinates edit was two days after the article was created. How many pages of "new" articles would that be, roughly? Seasider53 (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Likely one, as the current extent of Special:NewPages is 500 entries in one and a bit days right now, and back then was Christmas Day when things are slower. Special:NewPagesFeed is of course infinite scroll and doesn't come in pages. Uncle G (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree; it seems highly unlikely. Seasider53 (talk) 06:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Seasider53: This is what new page patrollers do; they review new articles to see whether anything's obviously wrong with them. They're instructed to look at the older pages as well as the newer ones, in case there's something lurking there and it drops off the back end of the queue. It isn't just Tagishsimon; I looked at the history of your talk page to see whether they'd been leaving you a lot of notifications, and I only see 3 in the first page, which goes back to 22 January, but that led me to this snide edit summary by you, and then to Ari T. Benchaim, who says on his user page that he's a recent changes patroller, PROD'ding Wetter House 9 minutes after creation (I note you are now starting articles with "in use", and I agree that was a bit fast, but the article was very unprepossessing when you first saved it). I didn't see Tagishsimon anywhere in the history of that article, so I looked at it. It had an enormous gallery, no Commons category; and I started seeing other things, beginning with the huge biographical section, and wound up checking most of the references on the house and discovering you'd misunderstood/misrepresented what the books said. So then I looked at an article where Tagishsimon had flagged the gallery issue to you, St Serf's Church, Dunning (I got it from your list at Tagishsimon's talk page, since checking a page 24 hours after creation didn't seem offensive in itself), and not only had you reverted their edit removing the gallery without giving a policy-based reason (and as my edit summary shows, I consider only one of those images useful; and again, you hadn't added the Commons category), but the Dupplin Cross is mentioned twice, and there was more info about the church in one of the sources. You're giving us articles on some good topics, and I know what it's like to create an article and have somebody come along and carp about it, especially if I've had to do a hurried save (I created some articles on down-time at work, living dangerously), and some of the MOS rules are very picky (and many of them there's disagreement about), but throwing in a bunch of pictures isn't a substitute for actually writing up the information that's there in the sources (and it's important to get it right!), especially when the Commons category is available to send the reader who wants lots of pictures to a collection of all the ones we have, viewable at full size. That isn't one of the guidelines that's worth fighting, especially not for Historic American Buildings Survey shots from every angle. (I reduced the gallery for the Wetter House to 3 different views, but someone's probably going to come along and replace it with one captioned pic of the balcony ironwork.) If you were doing a great job with your articles, I'd recommend you apply for the autopatrolled right, which removes your articles from the unreviewed category, but based on those two, your work still needs checking. And remember, new page reviewers—and recent changes patrollers—have no idea what they're going to see when they open a new article. It could be an attack page, it could be copyvio, it could be written in a foreign language; we need those folks, they do a hard and necessary job. And your edit summary that I've linked above was uncivil and uncalled-for; as I've shown, not just Tagishsimon, others are checking your work too, this is a collaborative project. This edit summary that they complained about on your talk page is assaholic, too. I think you owe them an apology, actually; they've linked to the policy in question and have not picked apart your articles, as I wound up doing. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I mostly just wanted to document his/her following me around. I will add to the list of examples as necessary, but I think their feathers have been sufficiently ruffled, for he/she hasn't responded to my communications before now. Progress, at least. As for apologising, you'll note that he/she gives as good as he/she gets. (I know, I know: "That was ten years ago. Let's assume good faith," etc., etc.) Seasider53 (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Seasider53: if you want to keep documentation of someone allegedly following you around, do so privately. Doing so on-wiki unless it's only a short term thing for a case your about to bring isn't acceptable and will lead you to being blocked for personal attacks. If you're digging up something Tagihsimon did 10 years ago, this shows you have absolutely zero legitimate complaint. Also I have no idea why you said "I agree" above since you're clearly not agreeing with Uncle G said. Nil Einne (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'll do it as I have been doing? Don't know why you're implying otherwise. Seasider53 (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Seasider53: Because you opened this nonsense thread, after writing a nonsense complaint on Tagihsimon's talk page, and said it's because you wanted to "document his/her following me around". You then said you "add to the list of examples as necessary". Where you planned to do this was never stated, but since nothing else so far has been private, you can forgive my concerns you planned to continue to do this on-wiki. If you do keep a list privately, well that's none of our concern. But just note that once you bring threads like this, or post on Tagihsimon's talk page, or on your user page, or your talk page or otherwise post it on Wikipedia, it does become our concern. And it's important you understand if do keep up with this nonsense, you should eventually expect to be blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It was a legitimate concern, which has been skewed by assumptions that it's all just a coincidence. What's the point of this page if investigations are basically "there's a Special:NewPages that people watch", even though, as I stated, out of the hundreds of new pages per day, mine just happen to the one Tagishsimon has a concern with? I'll communicate via the user's talk page, as I have been doing. Thank you for the threats, though. Seasider53 (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm. I was looking at Ammi Ruhamah Cutter (physician) and saw it was marked as checked automatically; it turns out Muboshgu gave Seasider53 the autopatrolled right on 22 January, at the request of I dream of horses. Perhaps the fact that some of their articles are still being checked is the source of some of the animosity? Yngvadottir (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, because I created 504 articles (plus a couple thousand more under old accounts) without feeling the need to apply for autopatrolling, nor did I partake in my nomination. It means that much to me. (Your hounding of my edits in a thread about the hounding of my edits is not an endorsement of the WMF, though, correct?) Seasider53 (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing I do here is an endorsement of the WMF, and I hope I remember to note that in my summary for this edit; thank you for reminding me, I sometimes forget since the primary purpose of edit summaries is information for the rest of the community. But by using the term "hounding" for my looking at your edits and seeking to understand your incivility, I'm afraid you're justifying Nil Einne's use of the word "nonsense". I had wondered from the first version of your user page whether you were a returning editor, and therefore I guess we owe you our gratitude for even more articles? (I used to create articles, too. I miss doing that.) As I wrote above, you're giving us articles on some good topics (and that was why I didn't tag Ammi Ruhamah Cutter (physician) as "one source". But from my work and your work in response, Wetter House has gone from inaccurate, uninformative, and crammed with little pictures showing very little to acceptable. That's how Wikipedia works; we collaborate. By participating on the project, you accept that other editors will scrutinise your work. I won't be the last to do so; I gave an example above of a recent changes patroller PROD'ding an article because your first save wasn't fit for mainspace. If you can't distinguish between that feature of the project and hounding, which seeks to discourage your participation, and as a result you sling insults at someone politely advising you, you devalue the concept of hounding. I'll leave it to others to determine whether that attitude, plus the defects in your articles, make it inadvisable for you to retain autopatrolled, but yes, I think you should be doing a better job given that most NPPers will now not be checking your articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at the history of my userpage in an attempt to understand my incivility. This is amazing. We should probably take "This should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight" out of WP:HOUND at the same time we add "Hounding is permitted because there's a Special:NewPages that people watch" to this page, to make things more accurate. Seasider53 (talk) 13:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seasider, you really need to dial back the rhetoric. When you open an ANI, your own edits will be scrutinized as part of the discussion. That means Yngvadottir is not "hounding" you, the people here are doing their due diligence to investigate your claims. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to appeal against Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1090#Emir of Wikipedia's disruptive behaviour. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Emir of Wikipedia: Just to let you know, you now have a nice clean table for you to lay out your appeal  :) SN54129 16:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for hatting. :) --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion re fora

{{unblock|reason=your reason here}} ~~~~

CLOSED

Closing this simply because it keeps attracting content discussion. No objection to anyone else reopening to address behavior issues you don't feel I've dealt with sufficiently. valereee (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

I'd like to ask the administrators to appropriately sanction User:Jonny84 in order to prevent further disruptions, as the user continues to add disputed material to the Zabierzewo (a small village in Poland) article. This includes statements such as: "Before 1945 the area was part of Germany." [40], "Polish population brought in from the Soviet Western Ukraine and Belarus, where Poles had to leave following the previous aggressions in wars against Ukraine and Soviet Russia in the 1920s." [41], and "Till 1871 it belonged to different German States and was Part of Prussia." [42]. What makes this behavior paritaulariy problematic is that this village has a population of only 150 and apparently the only thing that matters to user Jonny84 is the need to highlight that this area belonged Germany at some point in the past. This is a clear POV push to add all this to an article which originally just looked like this: [43]

Also, when I informed the user of that this type of controversial subject matter is under discretionary sanctions he removed my message form his talk page writing: "What is the sense of this? I will not deal with a nationalist like you." [44]. --E-960 (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@E-960, you didn't open a talk page section at the article in question? valereee (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, he wants sanction me, for putting in informations, which are facts.. That's funny as f***.. While he deletes German place names, which were sourced... While he puts in informations in nummerous articles without ANY SOURCE. I guess he lives in another reality.. --Jonny84 (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope E-960 will get consequences for his vandalism and his POVish edits. He tries to block me, because I'm trying to stop his vandalism. Dear Admins please think about it. Thanks. --Jonny84 (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

valereee, from what I understand the person proposing the new and disputed text should be the one who initiates the discussion and argues their case, the burden is ultimately on them to gain consensus for inclusion (Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle). Also, this does not address the personal attack for which I'm mainly filing this notice. --E-960 (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@E-960, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to discuss at article talk before going straight to ANI. And this editor doesn't have a lot of experience, so opening a talk page section would be possibly a way to help them learn to contribute productively.

@Jonny84, you are not making me confident that a talk page section would have been productive. Take it down several large notches. valereee (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very active on English Wikipedia, because it's not much in my interest to work on its articles. But im observing since years, how polish wikipedians are trying to delete sentences about Germany in many Place Articles.. And I'm observing E-960's Edits since 4 years.. It's always the same, he deletes in hundred of articles German place names, even with source, statements about German history, even if it's a fact, and even more.. This is no coincidence. This is a really big planned vandalism since years and nobody works on stopping that. I can't ignore this mass manipulation. --Jonny84 (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny84, at this point the village has been under Poland longer then under Germany, so instead of adding stuff about Prussia, and the Germanic tribes, perhaps write something about the place now, like if it has a post office, as school, etc. Otherwise this POV push to show how "German" the place was a one point creates problems with historical context. --E-960 (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• BTW, I would like to note that the statement made by user Jonny84 stating: "he deletes in hundred of articles German place names" is false. I do not go around removing "German place" names. However, recently I revised a number of stub articles, which included the problematic sentence: "Before 1945 it was Germany". So, I'd like to highlight and emphasize this misrepresentation, which was made by user Jonny84. It is simply not correct. --E-960 (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't like getting into content here, but for purposes of better understanding what the asserted behavioral issue is, what is the misrepresentation? valereee (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh he still "plays his game" (everybody here can see that this is a planned provocation), trying to act innocent and ignoring everything, while giving nationalist and POVish statements like "the village has been under Poland longer then under Germany"... Totally blending out the historical fact, that it belonged to the Holy Roman Empire from 12th to 19th century. Communism is over E-960 and it will not come back and its fake history will also not come back. --Jonny84 (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1)Everybody please read slowly his statement:"which included the problematic sentence: "Before 1945 it was Germany"" He just stated that history is problematic.. I know.. Because some want to create fake history instead, so thats why history is "problematic". 2) Don't tell me to contribute to articles, while you are mass deleting sentences, instead of contributing and expanding articles. Maybe to start first with expanding.. Deleting facts is not expanding, it's just the opposite. It's a reduction of articles. --Jonny84 (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny84, this is the second time you are personally attacking me by throwing around the "nationalist" label. --E-960 (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@E-960: I always say someone needs to initiate discussion, it might as well be you. Just to further emphasise what Valereee has said, BRD doesn't actually say anything about who has to initiate discussion. You're thinking WP:ONUS but even that doesn't actually say who has to initiate discussion, just that the onus is on the party seeking inclusion to achieve consensus when there is dispute. In fact if you read the supplement WP:BRD, it specificially notes in the revert part "Look at the article's history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one." The whole point of BRD is that the next part of the cycle after being bold and reverting is there needs to be discussion, so whichever side your on, it's generally unhelpful to demand the other party initiates it. Noting also that since you generally shouldn't revert simply because the edit wasn't discussed first, you must have a reason for disagreeing with the proposed changed. So unless the edit is so bad you couldn't understand it, even with out longer edit summaries you can probably offer some more detailed explanation on the talk page why you disagree with the proposed change. The end result of all this is that most of the time, it's a bad idea IMO to open an ANI thread which relates to content dispute when there's been no discussion on the article talk and you're involved in that dispute. To some extent it will depend on the specific case, while we don't rule on content issues here, in reality if someone was trying to add that Trump said Putin was smart to the lead of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, we'd probably not care that people reverting them didn't start a talk page discussion. On the flip side, if it was well supported in reliable sources that the invasion had ended after Russia and Ukraine signed a peace treaty, and someone kept revert this from the lead demanding that the people seeking to include initiate a discussion, their actions are unlikely to be viewed with sympathy. But generally, just start a discussion and don't worry about who should. Nil Einne (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Content about the history of West Pomerania belongs in an article about that subject, not in an article about a small village in West Pomerania. Having said that (and acted on it) I see nothing wrong with including the German name. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the former German place name was not a problem, and I have no issue with having it in the article.--E-960 (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is primarily a content dispute. "Nationalist" may be an insult, or it may be descriptive. It rather depends on whether one's editing intimates it. In any case, this is all good stuff... for the article(s') take page(s). SN54129 18:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  54129, when someone says to me "What is the sense of this? I will not deal with a nationalist like you." [45] I take it as an insult, I am not a "nationalist" and I do not wish to be labeled as one. --E-960 (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure you are not a nationalist lol, when it's important to you to claim multiple times, that the village belonged longer to Poland when to Germany, even if it's falsifying. You are a really good joker. --Jonny84 (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonny84. Me a joker... a nationalist??? No, just a mathematician I guess, please consider... Germany form 1871 to 1945 (74 years), Poland form 1945 to 2022 (77 years). --E-960 (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you forget about the German Confederation and Prussia and so on... You're really bad at mathematics.. And there are some maps missing like these for example... But I'm a good guy, and I'm helping you at that ;) --Jonny84 (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 
• 
• 
• 

Facepalm... seriously, the Holy Roman Empire and the German Confederation, were not Germany, look it up, Germany was created in 1871. You only prove my point that the original statement was out of place, and you have a vague and mixed up understanding of history. Btw, interesting touch by including the 19th century map of the Germanic tries form 2000 years ago. hmmm... this talk about the ancient Germanic peoples and their claim to the land strikes an uncomfortable tone. --E-960 (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) Funny, so how comes the word Deutschland (Germany) existed before 1871 if there was nothing like that... The word Germany wasn't invented for the German Empire of 1871.. They even called it the "Unification of Germany", so how could they unifite Germany, if it didn't exist before? Ha? 2) You are trying to divide German states into parts without connection, while stating Polish Peoples Republic, modern-day Polish Republic, Poland-Lithuania, Piast Poland "as one" at the same time..(I would called it DOUBLE STANDARD = not neutral) I feel very amused. Your POV is not going to anywhere... This is blatant POV-pushing.. and creating and invention of fiction.. And hopefully it gets you banned one day.. --Jonny84 (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am engaging on the point on when the region was part of Germany. The region under discussion was part of HRR in 1181, termporarily, then finally, from 1227.

1) Germany is NOT a creation of 1871. I have noted that the Polish like to claim this everywhere. The northern part of the Holy Roman Empire was the Kingdom of Germany - please consult wikipedia: Kingdom_of_Germany! Please look up some books from google books from say the 17th century that even have today's Slovenia classified as a "region of Germany".

2) As Jonny84 pointed out the unification of 1871 persupposes that there was "Germany" before - actually, since the Middle Ages. From when on can the Holy Roman Empire be called "Germany"? German historians are actually careful and do not take 920 AD as starting point of "Germany" - but rather the 12th century: "Besonders seit dem 12. Jahrhundert kann jedoch kein Zweifel mehr daran bestehen, dass die Zeitgenossen dieses karolonigsch-antike und christlich-kirchliche Reich als Lebensform, Eigentum und Stolz des heanwachsenden und weiterhin heranwachsenden deutschen Volkes verstanden haben. [...] Daher kann die moderne Wissenschaft spätestens seit dem 12. Jahrhundert unbesorgt von Deutschland sprechen [...]" (please use linguee translate, citation from "Norbert Conradis: Schlesien" p. 43on Silesia, but same for Pomerania)

3) Please compare that Polish sources employ "Poland" even to the early state of Mieszko even round 1000 AD, which is HUGELY debatable as Norbert Conradis points out! There were no modern states around 1000. By this (weaker) standard of historians, "Germany" was created in 920 AD.

Oh sure, all people think: there was this Holy Roman Empire - but not Germany. The Polish like to tell that the Holy Roman Empire was not Germany but some other strange realm. No!, the HRR was Germany at the time - at least the northern part truly was the Kingdom of Germany. It came from the East Francian Empire. The rulers had the titles German king and Holy Roman Empire.

The term "Holy Roman Empire" relates to the claim that the realm was not ONLY the German kingdom but also a claimed hegemon to all European states. The term "Holy Roman Empire" relates to the claim of being something more than the other kingdoms but DOES NOT mean that the realm was less of a kingdom of Germany. Yes, the Holy Roman Empire was a multinational state- but so were all European states of the time.

The term "Holy Roman Empire" rather is a title Germans used themselves, like they now use "Bundesrepublik" or like all people use "United states". The term hence even must NOT BE USED when taking of Holy Roman Empire as compared with Poland - but here "Germany" should be used

Summing up: the Polish seem to DELIBERATELY misunderstand the term "Holy Roman Empire" to point away from the facts that the regions Pomerania (today's Polish Western Pomerania) and Silesia were part of "Germany" since the Middle Ages.

As for the edit "Before 1945 the area was part of Germany" - it is fully justified by facts. Was German since the Middle Ages.

The sentence "from 1871 to 1945 it was part of Germany" is bad because it implies that it was German only from 1871 which is blatantly false. Its is a joke that the Polish claim that it was German only in 1871. I guess that Polish historians are a bit more careful in sweeping history under the rug, but "German only in 1871" seems to be the implication that successfully transpired. By this standard the Polish should also say that, say, Cracow was "Polish from 1919 to 1939" and then since 1945. Nonsense.

--Tino Cannst (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tino Cannst, so the "kingdom of the Germans"... officially called Kingdom of the East Franks (a.k.a. East Francia), which lasted form 843–962 and was superseded by the Holy Roman Empire form 962–1806 (notice how the sourced dates match nicely), no separate "kingdom of Germany" existed between that. Latin: regnum Teutonicorum "kingdom of the Germans", regnum Teutonicum "German kingdom", regnum Alamanie "kingdom of Germany" were just informal names thrown around to refer collectively to the Germanic Stem Duchies. More importantly, please note that Pomerania was never a Stem Duchy, as it was Slavic at this time and later during the early middle ages became part of Poland. Also Pomerania-Stolp was part of the the Kingdom of Poland during the late middle ages (you probably forgot this part). So, apparently these facts did not stop you form trying to muddy the waters and confuse people, who may not be familiar with the facts, by only highlights the germaneness of the territory. Finally, please just READ the Germany article, Germany was founded in 1871 (and for a reason, because the Austrian Hapsburg emperors were Holy Roman emperors in the past, and Prussia who unified the German speaking states and took over some which were not, did not have that lineage), the article and reference sources say this not me or some "Polish claims". --E-960 (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - whilst not having looked into the dispute in question, on Wikipedia we do not rewrite history. If a Polish village was part of Germany between 1871 and 1945, we record that fact. If said village was part of Prussia before 1871, we record that fact also. Mjroots (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mjroots, sure and if it was part of of the Duchy of Poland we record that fact, and if it was part of the Kingdom of Denmark we record that fact, and if it was part of the Kingdom of Sweden we record that fact. Not "before 1945 it was Germany." since the last ice age up to 1945, I guess. --E-960 (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, pleasse address the name calling by Jonny84, this is my main complaint here. --E-960 (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny84, stop talking about editors (nationalist, joker) and start talking about edits. E-960, removing any reference to a area's history of having been part of another country does very much look like POV pushing, which is a behavioral issue. Stop that. The two of you should now be able to take this to talk. valereee (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

valereee, please consider the earlier comment by user Phil Bridger, the issue here is not removing history, but article balance, and full context. --E-960 (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing "Before 1945 it was Germany" from multiple articles because it's "problematic" instead of correcting the statement to something like "from 1871 to 1945 it was part of Germany" does appear to be POV pushing IMO and a behavior issue. Phil Bridger is free to discuss that as a content issue with you and Jonny84 at the article talk, but what I am seeing is a behavioral issue on your part w/re that removal. valereee (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the edit removed (this one) does suggest that the area had always been German before 1945, which is of course misleading (not to mention that it was unsourced). A sourced edit showing the correct history would have been fine, of course. Black Kite (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, in this point you are right. But deleting it DON'T solve this. Now it's even worser, it suggests it was always Poland and never anything else. Misleading anyway. The only solution would be expanding. And i don't mean the addings of E-960, they are misleading even more. And last but not least, most of the villages didn't existed in 960, becuase they were founded by German settlers in the 13th century and were first mentioned in 13th century, so what is the sense in writing of Poland in 960? --Jonny84 (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite, but add what, more historical and unsourced POV nonsense like this which user Jonny84 added: "Polish population brought in from the Soviet Western Ukraine and Belarus, where Poles had to leave following the previous aggressions in wars against Ukraine and Soviet Russia in the 1920s." [46]. Lets try, because of the Yalta Conference. I ask the admins to carefully look at what user Jonny84 actually added, none of its sourced, and like user Phil Bridger stated: "Content about the history of West Pomerania belongs in an article about that subject, not in an article about a small village in West Pomerania." It's all about context, accuracy, balance and due weight. --E-960 (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This should be a brief article about a small village. Couldn't there be a statement that refers to the history of pomerania or western pomerania and just states that the village has been part of many different countries over its history? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid I can't agree with some of the statements above supporting retention of this content. There are many thousands of villages in the world that are located in places that have been part of different countries over the last few centuries. Should we be repeating the history in every one of them, even when no source has been provided about the particular village in question, and admonishing people who remove such content? Of course not: that belongs in articles about the wider region that has changed hands, rather than in each one of the village articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And that is a fine discussion for the talk page. Unless someone thinks there's still a behavioral issue to deal with, I think we can close this. valereee (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Which brings me to my main complaint when Jonny84 wrote this in response to me "What is the sense of this? I will not deal with a nationalist like you." [47]. I think at least a formal warning is in place, personal attacks and name calling are not ok. --E-960 (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Which has been dealt with. The user has been asked not to talk about editors but instead about edits. Please go discuss your content dispute at the article talk. valereee (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You accused E-960 (who I am no friend of) of POV-pushing for removing material that is not sourced to anything mentioning this village. That is a behavioural issue. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So, when I see information in an article that isn't sourced, but doesn't seem actually dubious, but I don't know enough about that information to know where/how to find a source, I usually tag it or open a talk section or both. E-960 on multiple articles is apparently instead removing information that isn't dubious (but simply partially imprecise) and that it seems like they do know where to find sources for, and calling the actually-not-dubious but simply not-precise information "problematic". I'm trying to be open-minded, here. But, okay then. If you think this is a behavior issue on my part, I'll excuse myself from this discussion and someone else can take over. valereee (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I meant that you were accusing E-960 of a behavioural issue, not that there was one on your part. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, sorry, Phil Bridger. The reason I said "Unless someone thinks there's still a behavioral issue to deal with, I think we can close this" was that when I earlier had said "Jonny84, stop talking about editors (nationalist, joker) and start talking about edits. E-960, removing any reference to a area's history of having been part of another country does very much look like POV pushing, which is a behavioral issue. Stop that", I thought that adequately addressed the behavior issues, which to me seemed not to require anything more than a simple "Please both of you stop, and start talking productively." I know that E-960 has still been asking for further action about Jonny84's calling them a nationalist and a joker (which I agree Jonny84 needs to stop doing, and have told them that), but at this point I don't really see the need for further action, myself. Do you? valereee (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

I regret to inform the Wikipedia community that User:Calton has passed away after a short illness. I've known Calton online for almost 30 years; the worst one could say about him is that he didn't tolerate fools well. He was an honest seeker of truth, and I'll miss him. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 04:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting us know, Jpgordon. I've added the various templates, protected his userpage and added his name to Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians, and have also arranged to have his account locked. Risker (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What. Oh no. Calton was an idiosyncratic editor with a passion for getting things right. I am going to miss him very much. User:Jpgordon, thank you for letting us know, and I am sorry for your loss also. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough one, and he'll be greatly missed. Calton was always willing to do the hardest things on Wikipedia, even when what was right wasn't what was popular. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Millions Miller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has, I'm sure, made some constructive contributions but their talk page shows a clear pattern of concern. They have had 6 (six!) level 4 final warnings for various disruptive edits just this month. One of the main issues is persistence in adding WP:NOTDIRECTORY violations and generally unsourced content to Bucksburn. I reverted some unsourced edits to Graham Leggat claiming that he was born in Bucksburn and have just done the same at Tunji Kasim. In spite of all these final warnings, they also felt it appropriate to create a blatant hoax Bucksburn Republic. On top of this, they also haven't communicated once on their talk page in response to any of the guidance/questions/warnings and only very rarely use edit summaries so it's impossible to see inside their head. It would be nice to understand why this person keeps persisting in the same behaviour despite being asked not to. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming here to flag up the same, but @Spiderone beat me to it. FWIW, my gut feel is this user probably means well, but they're not going about it in the most constructive way. What's worse, they don't seem to take any notice of their talk page warnings, but as their edits are all done on a mobile, I'm wondering if this is just a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU? If there's any way of getting their attention, this could still be resolved amicably... because otherwise I reckon they're headed for an imminent block. Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they show some willingness to change, I imagine a temporary block is the only thing that might help them to get the message. Constant reverting just doesn't seem to stop them. You'd have thought that if your edits kept getting reverted that you'd know that that means that you're doing something wrong? In fact, have any of this user's edits actually not been reverted/deleted? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some edits haven't been reverted (yet), but that's partly because I didn't want to start hounding too much...

Their talk page does look pretty scary for someone who's only been registered for c. 5 weeks.

Funnily enough, they deleted AfC and maintenance templates from an article I had draftified, and when I rolled this back, they thanked me. Which I thought was nice. :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Going to agree with the temporary block. Multiple level 4 warnings defeats the purpose of them. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - DoubleGrazing it looks like they are able to access their talk page after all - see this edit. Also they wrote the comment If you see no evidence of something search for it on google instead of perfuming it’s something unsourced. at User:Millions Miller so clearly they are aware that they are getting warnings for making unsourced edits but they just don't see that it's a problem. Millions Miller, please read WP:V. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Spiderone — yeah, it does look that way... maybe I was foolishly assuming goodwill where there wasn't any. Then again, that talk page edit was made only recently. Anyhoo, I'll crawl back into my box now. Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tbh it was only really when they started posting stuff like Bucksburn Republic that I started to consider that they might not be acting in good faith. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Millions Miller I’ve now stated correcting thing am doing them properly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.239.191 (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Note: The above IP (31.185.239.191) has made similar edits to the Bucksburn article and is by far among the top two editors of the article along with @Millions Miller:. This is why I posted a less urgent warning re adding lists of shops, facilities, etc. to city/town articles. About a month ago, I posted there about heeding feedback. They seem to be two different editors who share an interest in the article, but it could be one editor acting both logged-in and not. Anyway, from a behaviour perspective, you might consider them both to be the subject of editing concerns expressed here. _signed, Willondon (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user is taking the Michael now. 3 more final warnings at User talk:Millions Miller today. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DWC LR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user is moving Bertrand of Orléans-Braganza against sources, since the guy is not a prince, as you can see in pt-wp: pt:Bertrand de Orléans e Bragança. Monarchists are allways trying to push the "prince", but our brave Awikimate stops them in pt-wp. The en-wp page was stable since 2020, but was moved by a sockpuppet and was corrected recently. Now DWC LR start moves with nonsense summaries:

1. unexplained & undiscussed move

2. Revert undiscussed POV move

3. This is controversial, if you think this should be moved please initiate a Wikipedia:Requested moves and present supporting evidence. Thanks.

After the discussion starts, the civil-push-pov without RS is presented in plain form: [48]. DWC LC states in his user page that he is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, then we can suppose that he knows the sources about the subject, but he not presents them. Please, stop this disruptive behaviour because trying to engage in discussion with this type of user is very tiresome and not productive. Thanks! Ixocactus (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean Monarchism (or possibly Monorchism, though I don't have a source for that...). AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AndyTheGrump for correction of my bad english. I changed it. Cheers! Ixocactus (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... the Monarchists! --JBL (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(No one born in 1941 is a Brazilian prince, for obvious reasons.) --JBL (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Explain this page, then: Prince of Brazil (Brazil) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the lead section correctly identifies "Prince of Brazil" as a title that existed (please note the past tense) during the Empire of Brazil. Then (as is common for our articles about royal titles) ridiculous monarchists have larded the body with an uncited list of people who definitely were not princes or princesses of the Empire of Brazil, since they were born after the Empire of Brazil had ceased to exist. Does that help? --JBL (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody monarchists! — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like, the article about "an imperial title" has a list labeled "post-monarchy" -- that doesn't raise any red flags for you? --JBL (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes—I was calling it out for having misinformation. Hard to convey sarcasm in text. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for missing the point! I've gone ahead and removed the uncited list of "post-monarchy" princes from that page. --JBL (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles which misrepresent living individuals as 'royalty' due to descent from a defunct monarchy are quite probably a WP:BLP violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there are lots of these on WP since the media does like calling such people princes and princesses. As they are pretty much absent in other type of sources, and we have no policy regarding claimants (most of which are AfD material, IMHO) you get stuck with the royal claims.Anonimu (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should delete the bio's as fancruft... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JayBeeEll: can you give us your wisdom to this question. A Hungarian living in Hungary born female then today said they were male. Legally in Hungary you can’t change gender. So Male or Female? Applying the same logic as you have for this “Prince”, female correct? - dwc lr (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I bet this discussion will totally benefit from dragging in a totally unrelated, much more inflammatory topic :eyeroll:. What I can very confidently assure you is that if the person in question was born in 1920 or later, they are not a prince or princess of the Austro-Hungarian empire. —JBL (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good politicians answer your obviously good law abiding citizen ;) but your statement is dangerous and could have far reaching unforeseen consequences on Wikipedia if we are guided by National laws only, as I have highlighted with my example. But really I have nothing else to add to this spurious noticeboard posting you’ll no doubt be pleased here. - dwc lr (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He does have a point though: he is reverting a previous undiscussed page move and suggested an RM to resolve, so why not take that option? I don't see why this needs to be at ANI which shouldn't be used for a run-of-the-mill page name dispute. Spike 'em (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the page was not stable without Prince since 2020: it was moved there March 2020 but then moved back in May 2020, having previously had Prince in the title since 2006. Spike 'em (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the latest page move and created an RM on this. As above and below, the page has had "Prince" in the title for all but 2 months of its history. It was moved as Ixocactus states above in March 2020, but that was reverted 6 weeks later. The current move warring started a week ago with a move away from the previous stable name. Spike 'em (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this serious? @Ixocactus: if you think the page title should be moved open a WP:RM, present your Reliable Sources where a discussion and consensus can be reached rather than start a war, this article isn’t the country of Ukraine and there many reliable sources with an alternative views to yours which I assume are still allowed in Wikipedia. The article title has had “Prince” in it since 2005 when it was created. - dwc lr (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“this article isn’t the country of Ukraine” Wow, that makes two grossly inappropriate analogies in the length of two short posts —- wtf? —JBL (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am moving away from the discussion. Civil-push-pov/wikilawering is not my beach and english wiriting is very time consuming. Brazil expelled royalty in 1889 and no one takes monarchists seriously. Thanks to fellow wikipedians for the support. To monarchists, enjoy your "prince" because en-wp is your last bastion. Ixocactus (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are just as guilty of POV pushing as the person you are accusing. You were also clearly wrong about the stability of the page name. What happens on pt-wp does not override what is decided here. Spike 'em (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"POV-pushing" is not really the problem here: there is (1) the move-war, in which both parties were equally culpable (and that had ended, but that you (Spike 'em) have now extended for no good reason) and (2) the substantive question of what is the right title (and Ixocactus is obviously correct about what the answer is, but now you (Spike 'em) have moved it back to the definitely wrong title). --JBL (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for kind words, Spike 'em. You are invited to rename pt:Bertrand de Orléans e Bragança and fr:Bertrand d'Orléans-Bragance. Ixocactus (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page title was stable for most of its 16 year history, and the approved way to resolve any disputes over the name is the RM process, not move warring : Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. Ixocactus created this farago by making the second move to the princeless title, in contravention of these instructions. If they really are "obviously correct" then someone should state the reasons, including with how it fits into WP:AT at the RM created. (Though I have no idea what this has to do with gender politics in Hungary or the war in Ukraine, so if this is part of some other dispute then it is going over my head). Spike 'em (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what the guidelines are for article titles on other language wikis so I will not be getting involved in either of those. If you want to change article titles on en.wiki then you need to follow the guidelines here. I've started the process off, so make your representations on the move request. Spike 'em (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JayBeeEll this is not new behavior. DWL CR has been making grossly inappropriate comparisons to transgender recognition for years. He even uses the same offensive "example"... JoelleJay (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay: ugh gross; "thanks" I guess :-/. Anyhow hopefully people will mosey on over to the RM that Spike 'em started at Talk:Bertrand of Orléans-Braganza. --JBL (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs

• Special:diff/1074430056
• Special:diff/1074431086
• Special:diff/1074409433
• Special:diff/1074432336

This user is currently removing multiple references to various articles, without providing edit summaries. Please take action on this, as the articles he edits are BLPs. —Ctrlwiki (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Supergenius22 (talk · contribs) to stop changing articles until this discussion is complete. Johnuniq (talk) 09:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supergenius22 resumed making significant and unexplained changes with no response on a talk page or here. I have accordingly indefinitely blocked them and explained on their talk that the block will be removed as soon as they engage with other editors and agree to not edit against consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 06:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this user has been vandalizing Kamila Valieva. Endwise (talk) 10:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: You should warn him first, to be able to track his mistakes, and if action is really needed. —Ctrlwiki (talk) 10:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Action's certainly needed; Bellayu's been deleting content and replacing sections with "She's a DOPER" with the repeated edit summary of "The truth." I'll toodle over to AIV. Ravenswing 16:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support for Endwise request for corrective action. The edits from Bellayu are making accusations of doping against a 15 year old skater, before investigations are assigned and completed. Bellaya Talk page has already been notified by another editor for edit misconduct. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could Kamila Valieva be protected? Valieva is a controversial figure and there has been a lot of disruption and vandalism on her article as a result. Endwise (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested it here. Maybe it'll be faster there. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 01:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Belayu stopped after the edit warring notice. I gave them a BLP DS alert as they had a previous reversion of an edit to a BLP. I don't recall seeing an ANI notice. I'll check on that. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nang Nandini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Priya Ragini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rajen Sharma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajen Sharma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

AfD tag removed at Special:Diff/1074461824 and article then renamed at Special:Diff/1074463419. Suggest indef both for disruption and ask question afterwards. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Priya Ragini.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I'm starting to suspect some poor attempt at digital propaganda by the terrorist group that these AfD's are related to. There certainly seems to be meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry combined and the article subjects are very obscure. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is some sort of meatpuppetry between Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Priya Ragini, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NeverTry4Me, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GeezGod, I think the early guess of GeezGod joe-jobbing NT4M may have been off the mark. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well Priya Ragini has continued to make unsummarised edits "Rajen Sharma" Special:Diff/1074479307 and ignoring this without giving any explanation for a move that could be designed to disrupt AfD. I'm beginning to wonder for my sanity if I need to !vote to keep the article. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Priya Ragini:, I have reverted all of your changes to this article for similar reason to my previous reversal. You are continuing to add information that is either uncited, cited to a non-WP:RS (a poetry and fiction hosting site), or you cite a source that does not actually support the claims you added to the article. These are serious violations of the Core Content Policies. If you continue editing in this manner, I will ask for the article to be protected until the discussion ends. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keeps replacing "Persian" with "Afsharid" [83] [84] [85], even when it is sourced [86] [87]

This is apparently his reasoning behind this; "It is ridiculous to say that the afsharid empire is a Persian empire.. This is a falsification and contrary to reality." "the reliable sources called it afsharid empire... Stop rewriting history for chauvinistic nationalist goals"

In other words, WP:JDLI and seemingly WP:TENDENTIOUS as well. Moreover, because I reverted him earlier, he made a clear WP:HARRASS edit by randomly reverting one of my edits [88].

--HistoryofIran (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will warn the user and post a WP:AC/DS notice. I'll also encourage the user to use RS when making claims. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For the record, user Σύμμαχος has a long history of making disruptive edits.[89]-[90]-[91]-[92] Due to their habit of making occasional edits every now and then however (50 edits in 7 years) they have managed to jump the gun. Their latest persistent WP:TENDENTIOUS attempts at Nader Shah's invasion of India, aimed at labeling WP:RS written by historians and published by I.B. Tauris and ABC-CLIO as "falsifications" and "chauvinistic nationalist goals", attests yet again to the fact that they are not a net worth to this project. Take a careful look at the contributions of said user and tell me otherwise. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Now blocked temporarily for their unacceptable comment on that article talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Дејан2021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user Дејан2021 has repeatedly recreated European Supercentenarian Organisation, an article speedily deleted and now salted for lack of notability. It seems clear user Дејан2021 is pushing the European Supercentenarian Organisation, a breakaway organization from the Gerontology Research Group, which was part of its own ArbCom case here years ago, and is also creating reams of disruptive content.

• diff 1 Pointlessly added this self-published organization as a source to an existing description it has nothing to do with at List of supercentenarians by continent.
• diff 2 Warned by an administrator against adding copyrighted material copied from other websites.
• diff 3 Admitted they used material copied from gerontology.fandom.com to create articles and used another fan forum the110club as a source.
• Created (via copying information at gerontology.fandom.com) List of oldest people from Serbia, List of oldest people from Croatia, List of Montenegrian centenarians, List of oldest people from Bosnia and Herzegovina, and many individual biographies like Jelisaveta Veljkovic.

All of the list articles created were riddled with largely overlapping issues, from not following the agreed-upon standard of only age 110+ for country age lists, added WP:OR designations of "Pending" and "Unvalidated" for entries, included long-agreed-discarded by country "emigrant" sections, added WP:OR sections of "Chronological list of the oldest living person in country x since xxxx", and violated both MOS:COLOR and MOS:FLAG. Articles like Jelisaveta Veljkovic also include WP:OR "Successor" and "Predecessor" listings for the title "oldest x" in the infobox.

While all of the list articles were made re-directs to List of supercentenarians by continent by @🐔dat, in a good faith effort to combat the flood of WP:NOTHERE, none of their dubious content is even mentioned in the article. An indef block of Дејан2021 for their flagrant abuse of Wikipedia is warranted, before their disruption metastasizes into another ArbCom case. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what the problem is. Every change I made was cited by the source. I don't understand what the problem is.Дејан2021 (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • Дејан2021, I’m sorry what is it exactly that you do not understand? The report? What I’m deducing is you have been engaging in disruptive like editing, violating policy on original research and engaging in copyright violations which aren’t so good, do you see the problem now? Celestina007 (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand the gist, I hope the problem is solved now. I did not cite any original research, but only what is available in the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Дејан2021 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[This personal attack directed against me by @Nweil: was, I thought, fairly egregious. I warned the user and directed him to remove the comment per our policy. That does not seem to be forthcoming and the user Nweil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been active since then. I would appreciate it if an admin would remove the attack from the page since it seems he will not be doing it. jps (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Will respect any admin decision. Please note that I was calling for civility given that the person I was responding to was WP:OUTING. If I need to create an incident for that as well, let me know. Nweil (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see evidence of outing, only obvious on-Wiki information was used. —PaleoNeonate – 23:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where is " noted white supremacist...who is a colleague Woodley's" revealed on-wiki by the accused user? Schazjmd (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calling for civility by attacking another editor is a pretty bold strategy, I will give you that. jps (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that jps has been suspended multiple times is also on-wiki for what it's worth. This was petty Nweil (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pity that's not the wording you chose (although you might have a hard time explaining the relevance of this on-wiki fact to that particular conversation). jps (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a hard time following this. Nweil, where's the outing? I see that Cullen328 already warned you. This kind of comment is very disappointing. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the comment about B Pesta? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't familiar with this user, but it didn't take me long to find Bpesta22 stating explicitly that they are Bryan J. Pesta: [98]. So there's clearly no outing going on here. Whether publishing articles like "Does IQ Cause Race Differences in Well-being?" in Mankind Quarterly [99] qualifies someone as a white supremacist I will leave to others to judge, but he is clearly a member of the same small race-and-intelligence circle as Woodley. Generalrelative (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind there's already been Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence, which Bpesta was a party to all the way back in 2010. If editors want to get involved in that shitshow they can but should likely be aware that arguing over whether people in the race and intelligence area are white supremacists is practically a WP:PERENNIAL proposal at this point. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the PA. I never like to remove these things — I prefer they stay and embarrass the poster — but since the target requests it, I will. Sorry if I'm thereby making your warning less apropos, Cullen328. Bishonen | tålk 08:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

No problem, Bishonen. Cullen328 (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The image of the PA system used by rock group Os Mutantes seems somehow quite fitting? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed another Wiki-campaign similar to that of #WPWP that is causing a lot of problems. There are thousands of edits to hundreds of articles under the guise of #W4HRNG that I'm sure are well intended but wholly against our norms and policies. This includes utterly poor sourcing to BLPs to the likes of websites like this and similar "celebrity net worth, height, weight, husband, wife" mirror style variety, to blatant adverts for products, unrelated content that shares a name among other things. Then we have issues with excessive overlinking which can't be fixed easily as well as inserts of plainlinks, urls in the body, and often completely nonsensical dead links. I'm at a loss for what to do since this is to the tune of thousands and thousands of edits. Here's a small sample:

• An example of overlinking, nonsensical additions, poor sourcing
• linking to essay depot
• replacing citation needed tags with completely dead links
• I'm honestly not even sure how to dive into this one, which includes overlinking via a basic dictionary definition, off site with plainlinks, actual overlinking (this imo is one of the most ridiculous and egregious)
• more poor sourcing to mirrors, plainlinks, overlinking
• copyvios, overlinking
• copyvios, overlinking

Again this is a very small selection of a very large problem.

I have also asked one of the editors that has been adding particularly problematic stuff to please stop and familiarize themselves but my request has been met with silence and they've continued editing, though it's not limited to just that user and the scope of this problem is beyond my ability to go to every editor participating and explain how to identify sources, properly format, not overlink etc... Not all of the edits are bad, some are useful but there are far too many inherently problematic edits to fix.

I want to say I appreciate the idea but the follow-through and education for these new editors is severely lacking and actually damaging articles that already don't have a lot of eyes on them. CUPIDICAE💕 16:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Ptinphusmia and James Moore200, who are listed as organizers at Wikipedia:Meetup/WikiForHumanRights_2022_in_Nigeria, could give their input? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Just a quick note, it looks like filter 1073 was set up to track #WPWP edits from a previous editing campaign, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive335##WPWP #WPWPARK and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive336##WPWP is back. Perhaps that edit filter can be either duplicated or redesigned for help track these edits. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking isn't going to be an issue, today is the last day. Cleaning up and engaging the organizers and editors imo is the feat here to prevent it from happening again. A lot of this should be restored back to the last good version because I don't think anyone has the time or energy to go through each of the thousand+ edits. CUPIDICAE💕 16:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed this and removed extensive copyvio from over a dozen articles related to this event a few days ago. I brought this up to the organizers at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/WikiForHumanRights 2022 in Nigeria but it seems like the issues are persisting. DanCherek (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you CUPIDICAE💕 and DanCherek for bringing this to my notice. I can imagine the pain of cleaning up the problematic edits and I totally understand. The campaign is set to have physical events in Ilorin and Owerri; online events with participants from Lagos and later online Edit-a-thon for all participants. Currently, the ilorin event is happening in the moment which is facilitated by the ilorin based coordinator, James Moore200 and his team. I have quickly reached out to James Moore200 to halt participation in the moment. And I'm hoping the advice will be heeded to as soon as possible. It might interest you to know that a good number of the participants are not new editors and that's why its disheartening to learn about these mistakes. But I also understand that not being new is not a guarantee of experience. We have seen cases of new editors who showed diligence and understanding after being taught. I am currently taking measures to limit participants to simple tasks to avoid a repetition of such mistakes. I truly appreciate the work you are doing. I plead for your patience to enable us work to correct this. Ptinphusmia (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No legal threats says, "Legal threats should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents". Please forgive me if this isn't the correct place to report this edit by 82.41.120.210 (talk · contribs) at Talk:Atla. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, he's going to set Santander on us!  :) Flee! Although the email address should probably be scrubbed. SN54129 18:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was garden-variety vandalism, and given that it occurred previously from the same IP address, I just blocked them. --Jayron32 18:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scrubbed, but not sanitized --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now, that's clean! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 98.18.209.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2022 in archosaur paleontology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A week ago, an anonymous editor added a seemingly fictional dinosaur taxon to the page 2022 in archosaur paleontology, without adding a source. Obviously, I reverted it, but then they re-added it, with an edit summary that indicates they are "punishing the lazy paleontologists" who have not made an expedition to the rock formation where the fake dinosaur in question was reportedly found, which I believe to be a broad personal attack and advocacy; they later posted on the talk page of the formation itself demanding that we "need" and expedition there "RIGHT NOW" (caps not mine), which proves the latter point. Despite this, they have continued to add the fake taxon and even invented several others to go along with it.

As I was writing this, I noticed they have written on the talk page of another editor who warned him, saying that it's a "crime against humanity" that there are no paleontological expeditions to said formation, which makes me believe they are WP:NOTHERE to contribute meaningfully to the encyclopedia.

On a tangentially-related note, two other IP addresses geolocating to the same city have edit-warred WP:Original research about the relationships of an unnamed armored dinosaur on the Allen Formation page. However, unless strong evidence can be found linking them to the expedition advocate, I will refrain from formally including them in this report, only mentioning them here for convenience. Atlantis536 (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked them all for a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• James Reston Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Restonj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• James Reston, Jr. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 96.241.71.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.191.91.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1003:b100::/40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

James Reston Jr. himself has edited this page twice through an IP account that is now blocked by User:Yamla for as yet unknown reasons. He has identified himself as the subject of this page in two edit summaries here and here. He has also edited the page through at least four other accounts User:Restonj and User:James Reston, Jr., User:12.108.114.67 and User:71.191.91.244 each time identifying himself in the edit summaries. The article is full of puffery, but I honestly don't think he's doing this maliciously. I just think that an administrator needs to warn him somehow about neutrality and sockpuppet policies. And please review my own edits on the talk page summary to justify the neutrality tag I added. I added four "connected contributor" templates towards the top of the talk page, but I don't think I did that properly. Advice is sought. Thank you. Kire1975 (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I extended the block on 2600:1003:b100::/40 but that range has been blocked by five separate admins. My block extension was not related to James Reston Jr. but instead, to continued trolling of unblock requests, including possibly via UTRS. I'm not totally sure about UTRS. There's been other bad behaviour, too, but I can't reveal that due to WP:CHECKUSER. None of that is relevant to the topic at hand, though. Here, we have an editor unrelated to the target of the range blocks and unrelated to the bad behaviour I talk about. If there's a way to get this particular editor to understand our policies, we should take it. Looks to be primarily WP:AUTOBIO, WP:RS, WP:CITE, and WP:SOCK here, which is a lot to spring on someone at once. --Yamla (talk) 11:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reston appears to be currently editing the page from this account 96.241.71.32 now. He appears to identify himself as "James Reston Jr. himself" in this edit summary on a related page Elliot Cowan. I don't see a talk page on that account, so I don't know how to warn him about this discussion. Kire1975 (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've WP:PBLOCKed 96.241.71.32 permanently from editing the James Reston Jr article. Mjroots (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have just edited Russia–Switzerland relations with reliable Swissinfo sources and I would like to ask some good-trusted editors/WP-Admins to review them for neutrality as it seems 2 editors want to suppress this public info from view (see WP:censorship). Given the situation in Russia at the moment, it is somewhat worrisome some editors with WP sys-op privileges like this are roaming free (see recent article edit history for info).

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.236.36 (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You could try starting a discussion at Talk:Russia–Switzerland relations, see WP:BRD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Sounds like WP:CANVASSING to me. Additionally, you neglected to inform the users in question of the ANI thread. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 17:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• For clarification, all I did was put repeated citations in a reused ref format. I'm not sure what the IP is talking about when he says we "want to suppress this public info from view" when it's still on the article. ― Tuna ^No_SurprisesPlease 18:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am guessing Special:Diff/1074866416 and Special:Diff/1074848842, both of which remove paragraphs, and are Twinkle and Huggle edits with no explanatory edit summary. Uncle G (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Only one of the people is an administrator, and replied at Special:Diff/1074860729. The non-administrator did Special:Diff/1074866756. Uncle G (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• What happened was one of the edits was a helpful one. The next one was some commentary about why Russians visit Switzerland “for ski vacations and shopping” which was rather unhelpful. Twinkle automatically reverts all the edits by a user in a row. Cutlass^Ciera 23:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• BouwMaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Markuss86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Andrzej95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The disruption has been going on for some time. All three editors have been changing logo sizes in many pages and in some instances they were undoing each other's edits. The number of same pages edited by all three editors is astonishing per Editor Interaction Analyser. I thought about opening an SPI, but I cannot start connecting the dots if it is the same person. Therefore, I decided to report them here and hope someone will take some action. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh they have to be the same person. Exact same interest and edit patterns in US basketball, British football, men's handball, volleyball, North American soccer AND Indian cricket teams? Canterbury Tail talk 20:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Six distinct highly specific shared interests is highly unlikely and a competent sockpuppet detective should get to work. Cullen328 (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DavidESpeed has been looking through decades of past publications to supply interesting links and useful references, but in some cases, DavidESpeed uploads copyrighted pages to the web host mediafire.com to serve as a reference or link. I think some admin action is needed, to revdel the links to copyrighted works.

There might be a good reason to host pages from defunct publications, but DavidESpeed has uploaded copyrighted pages from active publications such as Variety magazine,[104] the Los Angeles Sentinel newspaper,[105] The Hollywood Reporter magazine, Down Beat magazine[106] and The New York Times.[107] There's also a page of album liner notes copyrighted by Verve Records, the screenshot showing that it was scanned from archive.org before DavidESpeed uploaded it to mediafire.com.[108]

Otherwise, DavidESpeed has been perusing past publications at newspapers.com and archive.org, along with various other archives. These hosted pages are not the problem. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that User:Rebroad, who was previously banned for disruptive recently made a very questionable edit. Normally this would not be sufficient justification for an ANI report, however I notice that this uses has had multiple blocks and also has a habit of blanking their talk page which makes it harder for a casual investigator to get an impression of the interactions they have been having with the rest of Wikipedia. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I just reverted this edit which is complete weasel words frequently seen in less reputable sources to try and dismiss things. Canterbury Tail talk 21:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that Rebroad has reverted a warning and also an ANI notification that I put on their talk page. While I think we all agree that users should have the right to remove anything they like from their talk page, I think on this occasion it shows that this user has shown themselves unwilling to take part in any kind of corrective discussion related to their editing activity. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This single edit linked to by Salimfadhley appears to be to be questionable and looks like an attempt to whitewash a conspiracy theorist. But the edit was made 3-1/2 weeks ago and was reverted. The editor has been blocked (not banned which is different), but the last block was 12-1/2 years ago. So, I think that the best outcome is a warning: Rebroad, do not try to whitewash well-referenced articles about conspiracy theorists. Cullen328 (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Salimfadhley, since the removal of a post on an editor's talk page is evidence that they have read that post, and is permitted as you admit yourself, why are you bothering to mention it here? Cullen328 (talk) 03:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what is going on here, but it bears some investigation by those with better tools.

• 11:46, March 2, 2022 a new user account for Uyuyioiop is created automatically
• 11:51, March 2, 2022 their "first" edit is to my talk page accusing me of creating sock puppet accounts to harass them
• 22:21, March 2, 2022 their "second" edit is to repeat the accusation

These are the account's only global contributions. If I am harassing them, then they are using a sockpuppet to be terminally ironic. I have zero idea who they are or what my supposed socks are or what I am supposed to be doing to harass them but I'd appreciate it if a passing admin could take a look. Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked. This is harassment and seems like obvious block evasion to me. Cullen328 (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cullen328. That was commendably fast. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eggishorn, occasionally, I drop in at this noticeboard when prompt action is obviously needed. Happy to be of assistance. Cullen328 (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty confident that it's GeezGod messing about again. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Both accounts (presumably the same person) continue to be adding completely made-up information regarding The Loud House, specifically regarding a character named 'James Aohn'- which is entirely made up. The editor first began trying to add the bogus information onto The Loud House and List of The Loud House characters from account 'MrBoldBald', and now is continuing to try on Draft:A Loud House Christmas and newly-created draft Draft:James Aohn from account 'DohnKapow'.

All 'sources' the editor continues to try using are all entirely fake URLs that lead to error/404 pages, including [119], [120], and [121].

Whether the same (which I believe is the case) or different people behind the accounts, both should be blocked for WP:NOTHERE- Wikipedia is not a place for blatant hoaxes or to store made-up information. Magitroopa (talk) 04:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the vandalism is sneaky.
  • Special:Diff/1072090503 — inamongst the apparently real set of executive producers, an extra one is snuck in
  • Special:Diff/1074556227 — the name from the source is replaced by a different name, both in the article text and the source title in the citation
  • Special:Diff/1060111297 — quite a lot of falsehood, but there's that name again
  • Special:Diff/1060299213 — and again
• I also notice that fandom.com has been suffering from the same hoax vandalism

  Uncle G (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That same vandalism on Nickelodeon Fandom appears to be coming from user accounts 'PepsiCoke379' and 'AshlanKhan', so don't be surprised if those accounts (or similarly named accounts) are here in the near future. Magitroopa (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked the accounts. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A persistent editor which has violated the manual of style many times, mostly on spaceflight articles. The editor has also been warned many times but did not respond to them promptly. Recently, the editor is blocked and apologize for the mistakes, however it seems like the editor is not learning from that. Notifying User:Leijurv because he has dealt with the editor many times. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My general input on their talk. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think another admin needs to take a look at the talk page, and current unblock request, of User:PlanespotterA320. They were indeffed after this discussion and all of their unblock requests to date (bar the current one that's been open for several days) have been declined. They don't seem to get what they did wrong and are not particularly interested in addressing it in the unblock requests. However the requests are now mostly about why they, they in particular, NEED to edit Wikipedia to prevent vandalism and false information. They're currently now claiming that they'll be forced to resort to meatpuppetry and socking to protect the article's they've edited. There's a huge disconnection going on here, and I've already declined one of their requests so I think another admin needs to take a look. Oh and I didn't notify PlanespotterA320 because they cannot participate in this discussion due to their blocked status. Canterbury Tail talk 16:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an FYI, this is their comment directed at me for opening this section to draw some attention to their non-reviewed block request. No comment. Canterbury Tail talk 17:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The user @Jafaz: has falsely stated here that :

• I am guided by [my] Russophilia and I was disruptive since I constantly delete files from the article with unfounded accusations of their unjustified use in this article
• I am part of Russophiles who want to hide the existence of this kind of fascism. Due to recent events, they probably do not want to cover their position.

On my talk page, the user has made the following threat: I can also undo your edits by unreasonably requiring sources.

Furthermore the user has been POV-pushing: