Joseph Ladapo vandalism[edit]

telegra.ph[edit]

I've seen a couple of attempts to use this domain in the past couple of days to create hoaxes, based on legitimate-appearing hoax content hosted there. See [2] and [3] both blocked. I am uncertain if this is more widespread than this, but it probably deserves blacklist attention if it is. Acroterion (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can make this request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. I mention it here first for a broader audience to see if anybody else has seen this trend. I've blocked a named account and an IP already. Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this domain is not expected to host RS content, though now, when pretty much all independent Russian media have been blocked, sometimes people use it to repost there publications from blocked media. Anyway, probably should be blacklisted.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Even though it could be used to rehost RS content, there's no reason why we should use a mirror over the original RS in the first place. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 13:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Makes sense to me, if the original is available. 2603:7000:2143:8500:454C:4914:BC97:487F (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous Disruptive Edits by User:NishaRawal 31[edit]

NishaRawal 31 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log): The User is repeatedly using excessive cheap, abusive and fandom language on Ghum Hai Kisikey Pyaar Meiin just to show one character as the "only good character" and the rest other characters as negative. Also she's creating negative image for Neil Bhatt and his wife Aishwarya Sharma Bhatt who plays Virat and Patralekha in the series respectively by combining their personal as well as reel lives. And the point to be noted is that she's using exactly same language which an IP used soon before pages semi-protection today. The User has been warned several times still she isn't stopping herself. I'm providing links to those edits[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. See after I reverted her edits she did it again and used exactly same language which she used with another fellow editor Manali Jain. It's more than evident that she's here just to make "Wikipedia Article a Fan Page of Ayesha Singh playing Sai" and she isn't following wikipedia rules and ignoring all warnings just to show one particular character in good light and rest all in negative light. Administrators please look into this matter Pri2000 (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I am regular viewer of Ghum Hai Kisikey Pyaar Meiin and updated its plot on Wikipedia. However, some non-regular viewer are having a problem with plot. Request you to speak with serial makers and writers instead of reporting account on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NishaRawal 31 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administrators can see what she's saying. I mentioned in edit summary also that wikipedia runs over some rules not on personal views even after someone is regular viewer or not. And after experiencing wikipedia editing for over 9 months I understood that it isn't fan page but an encyclopedia where fan language can't be used and plot can't be updated daily. The User even removed her warning messages.Pri2000 (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I am unsure what is going on here. They claim they do not know how to reply (but have done so here), but then they also constantly (including here (now removed)) use massage instead of message (hard to see how that is in any way possible). And in a way that dos make some grammatical sense (if it was meant as a joke). Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Translation: The editor is repeatedly deleting a {{Long plot|section|date=March 2022}} notice and adding huge amounts of text that is full of editorization and unsourced analysis (example: "Terrorist"), which is not plot summary, in broken English (example: "Sai gets hurt while grinding but Pakhi enjoy it and makes her fun."), to an article that already has an overlong plot summary section full of broken English (example: "Sai convince Samrat to return home and Samrat gets agree."). The "Is this thing on?" discussion on the user talk page is probably peripheral. The best edit to happen to that article recently is Special:Diff/1079723040. That really is a pile of junk, nearly incomprehensible to readers. I think the best action here is to request: please stop adding more of this barely comprehensible junk to Wikipedia, NishaRawal 31. What you are adding to is already bad. Uncle G (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KingsofLondon's disruptive editing[edit]

• KingsofLondon (talk · contribs)

Please have a look to this user's disruptive edits. He'd arleady been given a 4im warn but he's still disruptive. We've tried to explain him what he'd done wrong but doesn't want to listen to us. Dr Salvus 08:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some diffs for disruptive behaviour? I went through some of the edits that triggered warnings on his talk page... seriously? Given a warning for inserting the word "former" in front of "racing driver" on Kimi Räikkönen (who retired in 2021)? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catfish Jim and the soapdish, there are unsourced info 1, 2, 3, 4. There are also other unsourced edits. The last uncostructive edit is 5 (updated the infobox but didn't the table) Dr Salvus 10:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first diff he added information to state that Hayden Mullins was no longer manager of Colchester United. He was correct. Has anyone actually tried working with him rather than biting? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Warren, Andy (January 19, 2022), "Colchester sack Mullins as ex-Town defender takes interim charge of U's", East Anglian Daily Times, retrieved March 27, 2022

It does not appear the user has any intention of communicating having never posted on any talk page or even used an edit summary. SK2242 (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Don't claim they have no intention when they probably have no indication at all that anyone is trying to communicate with them. Fram (talk) 08:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are we supposed to do then? How do we try and get them to communicate? SK2242 (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We usually block them, but with a note that gently indicates why they were blocked, not something that makes them feel like a deliberate vandal. And if it were up to me, any time we have to block someone for the "theycanthearyou" reason, we should also block one of the people from the company actually responsible for this already long known major issue, i.e. someone with a (WMF) account. Perhaps by the time all of them are blocked from enwiki, they'll start to realise that this is a serious issue, much more so than the things they usually spend their time on. Would that be blocking people over something they personally perhaps can't solve? Well, right, but that's exactly what we have to do with these mobile editors... Fram (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be that it is necessary to issue a block to Kingsoflondon, but as things stand we'll probably lose them as an editor as the talk page is plastered with templates that can look threatening to a new user. KingsofLondon looks to be attempting to edit in good faith and could turn out to be a net positive to the encyclopedia if gently nudged. If a block is needed to that end then it would be helpful if it is clear that the block is being placed as blocks are meant to be placed, i.e. preventatively rather than punitively. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The templating at the KingsofLondon's talk page is a textbook example of how to not treat new users. The initial level one template made by Egghead06 (talk · contribs) was unnecessary. It related to an addition that didn't appear controversial in the slightest and took seconds to verify. Still, as per WP:UWLS, no major problem as it assumes good faith. The edit that "earned" them a level 3 warning from TylerBurden (talk · contribs) was to place the word "former" in front of "racing driver" on retired F1 driver, Kimi Räikkönen's article. Bear in mind that a level 3 warning assumes bad faith and that the warning states "content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy." Is it?

Further to this KingsofLondon was given a level 4 warning by SK2242 (talk · contribs) "Final Warning-Assumes bad faith, strong cease and desist, last warning" for updating Mark Goldbridge's article with his birthdate in the infobox and lead. "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Mark Goldbridge". His date of birth is in the article and it is sourced. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I trusted too much to the users who've given the warns and so I hadn't had a look to the user's edits Dr Salvus 10:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just look at a bunch of warnings and report someone to ANI, you need to actually investigate their behaviour yourself and provide diffs. TylerBurden (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Catfish Jim and the soapdish: Kimi Räikkönen isn't a retired racing driver as a whole, he retired from Formula One. There are other motorsports than Formula One, and he has participated in them. Changing the article with no sources provided to imply that he would be fully retired is a BLP violation, and I don't see why you take such issue with giving a level three warning for that since they had already recieved a level two earlier that month for inserting unsourced content. I have no idea why this user has ended up here, can't say I'm shocked to see someone violating BLP did though. TylerBurden (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it wasn't remotely a violation of BLP, should not have been viewed as bad faith, and was not defamatory or in violation of Wikipedia policy. We have behavioral guidelines to inform how we treat newcomers. Please read WP:BITE. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is inserting unsourced material into a BLP article not a BLP violation? TylerBurden (talk) 11:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a valid interpretation of "retired". Whether it fits in terms of nuance would be up for discussion... which you finally did with another editor after getting involved in an edit war. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Writing him as retired in the lead makes it look as if he's retired from racing, him retiring from Formula One is well sourced, him retiring from motorsport as a whole is not. It should not be up to our "interpretation" as editors to determine if a man has retired from his job, it should be reliable sources. Either way that issue is solved, they did not make an edit again and consensus was reached on the talk page. To be pinged months later here and have an admin seemingly not be able to grasp the concept of BLP is almost absurd. Either way I have no interest in this discussion, I'll have a look at WP:BITE but I doubt it will change my mind about this particular warning. Adios and good luck. TylerBurden (talk) 12:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"His date of birth is in the article and it is sourced" - Blatantly untrue, and you would have known that by actually clicking on the source to see it doesn't mention a birthdate of 7 April. SK2242 (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• So let's get this straight. In Special:Diff/1074845641 someone else adds to the birth date, and all that KingsofLondon does in Special:Diff/1077868990 is transfer that from the "Personal life" section to the infobox and introduction — and rather than the person who added the information getting the warning (User talk:42.2.113.108 does not even exist right now.), the person who merely transferred what was already in the article to an infobox gets a warning. Uncle G (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Was it a bad faith edit on the part of KingsofLondon? A level 3 warning assumes bad faith. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Posts in a RFC moved around and deleted by the OP[edit]

User:Iskandar323 started a RFC about removing a quote from the lead of an article, but when the majority of editors started to suggest that the quote could be replaced with content from multiple sources instead, Iskandar323 started to change the format of the RFC and order of the comments[18][19], also deleting one of my posts [20]. I asked Iskandar323 to self-revert, but he did not and is saying he did this because editors are not understanding the RFC [21](but to me the RFC now is not neutral as it doesn’t reflect what the majority support). Another editor also said Iskandar shouldn’t be doing this[22], and from the start another editor was already saying that Iskandar had not posed the RFC in a neutral way [23]. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Special:Diff/1077701669 is where the opener addressed that by moving xyr opinion out of the question, ten days ago, noting that xe had never done an RFC before. And Special:Diff/1079164565 is where xe collapsed the metadiscussion now that xyr own opinion is not part of the question, and added separate sections for Support/Oppose statements and discussion (not deleting anyone's comments) per Project:Requests for comment/Example formatting#Separate votes from discussion. It looks like Iskandar323 took the original criticism on board, went and found out about RFCs, refactored to be more neutral, tried to follow the example given for how RFCs are structured, and collapsed the now moot metadiscussion so that you could all get on with the actual question at hand.

  No, this is not a "shambles" as Hogo-2020 put it. This actually looks more like a normally stuctured RFC. And if Hogo-2020 wants to support/oppose a simple question of whether a quote should be in the lead, then xe needs to state something definitive, one way or the other, not "If Abrahamian’s quote is removed …".

  Quite honestly, if you are going to sneak extra things into a revert like you did at Special:Diff/1079183864 you should be prepared in good grace for other people to miss them.

  Uncle G (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Uncle G: I'm impressed by how quickly you untangled that. I was scratching my head over where to even begin explaining, but you've summed it up very well. As you say, I had completely missed the added comments bound up in Special:Diff/1079183864 because it looked like a revert, and the edit comment read like a revert explanation, and I didn't reckon on new material being interpolated into the mix. I added in the separate votes/discussion subheads because the RFC was rapidly growing in complexity, with comments bouncing around all over the place, and it needed some structure. Neither @Fad Ariff or @Hogo-2020 have spent much time outside of this one talk page and I don't think they've ever seen an RFC before, so I wanted to make what was required in terms of response format etc. more clear. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this required simple clerking, which I have now done. The filer of an RfC should not be clerking that RfC, as they are as involved as it gets. And they certainly should avoid using terms like "vandalism" needlessly. Anyway, hope it'll be smooth sailing from this point on, but it's the MEK page, so shenanigans are sort of expected. El_C 13:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @El C: Yes, in hindsight, clerking your own RFC probably isn't a good idea! But there didn't seem to be anyone else around. I had been pondering what outside clerking options might be available ... is there a process for requesting help with clerking? Apologies for the 'vandalism' comment - it was made in ire and I regretted it, but edit comments being the irreversible things they are... Iskandar323 (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar323, you can report problems with an RfC here, or use {{admin help}}. Not only is this a page subject to WP:ACDS, but it's the page that led to WP:GS/IRANPOL and later WP:ARBIRP. No one but admins should be clerking the MEK talk page, pretty much ever. El_C 13:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I had no idea the page has such an illustrious history. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @El C: thank you for fixing this. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another range block needed; LTA IP hopper[edit]

LTA IP[edit]

Attention seeking Sock disrupting pages[edit]

More mid-Michigan vandalism[edit]

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1050#Lansing Michigan rapper rangeblock.
• 2601:405:4600:5F80:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

There's a vandal in the area of Lansing, Michigan, US, who was previously rangeblocked for three months as Special:Contributions/2601:405:4600:DFC0:0:0:0:0/64, after discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1050#Lansing Michigan rapper rangeblock. They are now using the /64 of 2601:405:4600:5F80, doing the same stuff, for instance changing a mixtape to a studio album,[25] adding non-notable names to a record label,[26] and adding unsupported "associated acts" to the infobox.[27]

Can we get a suitable rangeblock?

Who is this? How can I find out who the OP is? Help me please! Erm: Blocked – for a period of 3 months. El_C 03:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the fast work. Binksternet (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I was channeling James Randal (help me, please!), you know, as I do (nobody cares!). El_C 08:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discospinster history of miss truths Bulling and violates copy writes[edit]

Truth3v3r[edit]

Editor continuing to add unsourced BLP info including WP:DOB after 2 final warnings[edit]

Paddington (film series)[edit]

Repetitive long-term addition of unsourced political candidacy[edit]

Edits on Babymetal and Suzuka Nakamoto[edit]

JPL topic ban violation[edit]

Something related to the incident at Murder of Jeanne Clery[edit]

promotion of 86.26.234.66[edit]

Thebrakeman2 fresh off a block, back to name-calling and belittling[edit]

Sendtoanthony - Personal attacks and polemics[edit]

BESmith2022 - disruption/promotion[edit]

Question[edit]

promotion of User:Xgen college of visual art[edit]

BilledMammal is unnecessarily hostile and rude[edit]

Please look out cross-wiki abuse and LTA User:米記123 sock DE and spam 8[edit]

IP user 112.198.97.45 disrupt pages on some major airports[edit]

This IP user 112.198.97.45 (talk) (contributions) had been disrupt the pages like Ninoy Aquino International Airport and Tan Son Nhat International Airport. I already warned the user to stop the disrupt edit if they still continue to disrupt edit. Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FelicityWiki reported by Comedymod[edit]

• FelicityWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Comedymod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• John Gordillo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a request to restore Special:Diff/1068022507 to the last edit on 26th January 2022.

User FelicityWiki has made edits that subtly defames John Gordillo as you can tell by

unlinking his website removing links to his "Podcast for Kel" podcast editing the main content to make it seem less favourable about his achievements and editing to seem he's generally an unfavorable character I know John Gordillo personally and have given my attention to this so I created an account to appeal to administrators to have the page restored to the last version before FelicityWiki edited the page who we both believe it's someone who has continually engaged in online harassment against John on every social media platform and now seeks to defame him further.

John and I have decided to directly appeal to administrators instead of engaging FelicityWiki as, historically she has been hostile and we both believe this would be a waste of time. We are appealing for swift action on these defamatory edits which can clearly be differentiated by reading the current Vs previous versions.

This page also has had a history of malicious edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comedymod (talk • contribs) 16:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comedymod,

• If clearly problematic content is currently present in the article, please go ahead and remove it. If WP:PAID applies to you, please provide the required disclosure in your edit summary when doing so.
• If there is currently no problematic content present in the article, and your concern is purely about the lack of content you'd like to see included, please do not edit the article directly. Instead, click "Talk" above the article, then "request corrections or suggest content" in the orange box at the top of the talk page.

That's pretty much it. Remove factually incorrect statements if there are factually incorrect statements. Discuss any other kinds of desired changes on the article's talk page. See WP:FAQ/Article subjects for details. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing defamatory at all, but simply the removal of clear advertising. The only defamatory content I see is your post above, which defames User:FelicityWiki. Are we really supposed to find someone with such a pompous friend funny? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed some content in revision 1079425700, which may have been the main concern (undue weight; potential verifiability / source reliability issues). I can't read minds, though, and if there is truly problematic content currently in the article, we do allow its removal even by closely connected editors as described in WP:BLP, even before discussing the material. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the edits FelicityWiki made as well; they did not remove any podcast link that I could see, nor did they touch the website (which appears to be dead anyhow; it's a Wix parking page). Other edits certainly looked to be reasonable and aimed at making the article neutral and factual. There's a distinct lack of WP:AGF in the claims made. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a full rebuttal on the talk page. I use the citations already in the article to demonstrate why the edits seem biased. The page has been under attack before. Perhaps I should not have gone all guns blazing, but anyone who is supposed to check the information could read the citations in their entirety to see that the edits walk a line.

I do however thank you all for correcting my approach, of course I don't expect you to read minds but I hope you give my reasonings the same weight as you did these other edits. Comedymod (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Comedymod. Editing of this page attempts to: establish a neutral tone and a factual oversight of a career. In my research I looked for notable reviews to justify their inclusion and used other comedian's profiles as a template. FelicityWiki (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ban after a single revert[edit]

User:Ohnoitsjamie initiated a ban after I reverted someone's revert. This was not done with malicious intent. The administrator did not follow the guidelines of Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing linked by the administrator. They left a title of ban evasion though this was my one action that I have done on wikipedia in two or three years and did not follow "attempts to evade detection" guidelines. It appears as though the administrator did no due diligence and just did what was most convenient for them by choosing them only area in disruptive editing that would give them leeway to ban people. If nothing else I hope to establish a pattern of behavior. If needed I can show that this is my router's IP address and not a VPN. 174.52.89.222 (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to review the edit history here. Your IP was temporarily blocked for block evasion after whoever was using it at the time restored the edit of this recently blocked user, per WP:DUCK. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did that. It wasn't inflammatory and I thought it was a good faith edit. So why am I "block evading"? That was the first edit for this IP address and my only edit in years.174.52.89.222 (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that you're continuing to evade this block of Baxter329, or you just happened to make the same edit a month after that user did? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"my only edit in years" seems to answer the question you posed to editor. Hope that helps! 107.115.147.102 (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Their "only edit in years", yet they want to establish a pattern of behaviour. Don't you think that's odd? M.Bitton (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Wikipedia has been around a long time, and lots of people have taken multi year breaks. It is more odd not to really. 107.202.75.102 (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The pattern of behavior is meant to reference the moderator. Meaning if nothing else I want to note this happened in case this becomes a reoccurring issue. 174.52.89.222 (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The binary you give is false. I looked through a revert and undid that revert because I thought the content should be there. I am not that Baxter and didn't know they were banned.174.52.89.222 (talk) 04:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baxter329 is a sock puppet of Grundle2600 and had a few other accounts active, which I blocked. This IP looks to be some random, unrelated person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the talk page archives for that article, there have been dozens of people who wanted to include mention of the "trained Marxist" thing the IP added (and dozens, including the majority of editors in the 2020 RfC, who wanted not to include it). I doesn't really appear to me that the IP agreeing with Baxter329/other such users who wanted to include the comment is particularly good evidence they are evading a block. Endwise (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Baxter and the admin didn't follow the criteria in disruptive behavior for ban evading. I reverted the the revert because I thought the item should be in the article. I would not have been banned had the criteria been followed. 174.52.89.222 (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur that this is possibly not the same person. Per WP:AGF (and I use that term as loosely as possible), there is a certain political persuasion in the U.S. that has been pushing this "trained Marxist" narrative against the broader Black Lives Matter movement, and this edit is in line with that false narrative, it is quite likely that 174.52 is not actually Baxter/Grundle. To be clear, the text about her being a Marxist should not be in the article, but just because 174.52 tried to put it there doesn't mean they are the same person as was blocked previously. --Jayron32 16:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Reodorant[edit]

I already reported this user back in July 2021 so I will just copypaste my report.

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

Reodorant (talk · contribs) keeps on relating the concept of Transylvanianism to the marginal Transylvanian autonomist or independentist movement. The person behind has used way more (IP) accounts for doing these changes continously, recurring to fake edit summaries and additional changes to add Transylvanianism once again in unrelated articles. But first of all, I need to define Transylvanianism.

Transylvanianism is nothing but the promotal of good interethnic relations between the Romanians and Hungarians in Transylvania (a multiethnic region). It is not independentist, autonomist and, by definition, it is not regionalist as well as this user claims. The page of the latter says this: "Regionalism is a political ideology which seeks to increase the political power, influence and/or self-determination of the people of one or more subnational regions." Not the case of Transylvanianism. I explained further, with links to reliable sources, the concept at User talk:2A04:2413:8003:B380:E458:C1D5:38C9:2419 (one of the IPs of Reodorant). At first we discussed (months ago already), but then they stopped replying to me.

Here are the fake edit summaries I mentioned: [44] [45] (this one is quite obvious). And that's it from this account but there are way more. They are not in chronological or any particular order, because I am not willing in wasting more time with this issue.

• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:B909:B054:CB9D:97DE (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [46]
• 2a04:2413:8003:b380:b54a:99e2:5b5f:61e1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [47] [48]
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:E458:C1D5:38C9:2419 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] (this is the IP I discussed with and stopped getting replies from)
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:D8B:A350:B112:1D74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [55]
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:7032:7AB9:62C5:53F6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [56] (fake edit summary)
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:794C:C6E6:860C:FFDD (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [57]
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:5D72:A717:297A:F4D9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [58]
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:E402:1151:5613:79DE (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [59]
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:1CBE:E342:7BD0:1A38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [60]
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:2430:F681:D7A2:8477 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [61]
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:F591:9066:CBE2:F780 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [62]

This is not an easy to track issue, it's very tiring and time consuming, and it has been going on since FEBRUARY [2021, noting now in this new report]! I want it to stop so I don't have to check the histories of those pages every once in a while anymore. By the way, I didn't specify it earlier, but the pages where this conflict has been happening are these: Regionalism (politics), Template:Stateless nationalism in Europe, List of active separatist movements in Europe#Romania.

I also note I already reported this here before, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1066#IP [and before, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1072#User Reodorant]

I please ask any administrator to take the measures they see necessary so this doesn't happen anymore. By the way, out of this, I see Reodorant is a good contributor to Wikipedia, so perhaps blocking them from editing those three pages might do it.

That was my July 2021 report. After it they were blocked for 5 days (it appears 5 days is way too much time, so they requested an unblock, which was rejected, while attempting to portray me in a bad light). You can see this all here [63], as the user has deleted those messages from their talk page. Afterwards they requested a third opinion at Talk:List of active separatist movements in Europe#Transylvanianism again trying to blame the issue on me, but they were basically told that they were wrong.

Seemingly they still haven't accepted this as today I've found these edits [64] [65], done by IP 2a04:2413:8002:1680:8dae:ca60:c477:3059 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This follows their old original method.

I've wasted enough time with this issue. Reodorant has clear bad faith and seems to be here only to push their rebated viewpoint. I ask for the indefinite block of this user and the permanent protection of the pages Transylvanianism, Regionalism (politics), Template:Stateless nationalism in Europe and List of active separatist movements in Europe. I think 3 reports, 12 IPs, two blocks and a third opinion request are ENOUGH for this issue to be ended forever. Super Ψ Dro 14:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I was just reverted [66] by the thirteenth IP, 2a04:2413:8002:1680:7943:cbde:49d1:7bae (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Super Ψ Dro 14:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You just can't let this go, can you? As I've said before, any movement/ideology/whatever named after a region is self-evidently regionalist by nature. Why do you oppose this so vehemently?

You accuse me of trying to push a particular viewpoint, but looking at your userpage you state that you are a proud Romanian nationalist. I don't know how else to put it, but you have an active conflict of interest when it comes to this topic. Checco has correctly pointed out that you're the only one who is against linking these two articles. You still have not addressed this point.

I respectfully disagree with Seraphimblade's assessment, as I don't think it was thorough enough. If he were willing to provide a more detailed explanation of how he came to his decision (or if anyone else were to provide a third opinion), I would be more than happy to let the matter go, but as it stands I am stuck in a dumb semantics debate with someone I thought was acting in good faith.

I don't expect the Wikipedia admins to agree with me since your account has seniority over mine, but I have openly accepted the previous reprimand and ban. The vast majority of my edits to Transylvania-related pages amount to nothing more than adding names in German, Romanian and Hungarian. The rest are edits that you and you alone oppose. I would hardly call that disruptive. Reodorant (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is no the page to discuss article content. The OP has said you are editing while logged out to make it appear that your edits are not able to be traced to you... that's a serious behavioral issue. You have not yet responded to that. --Jayron32 14:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have admitted to editing while logged out. I am forced to do it because the nature of these edits have attracted this user's continued harassment of me and I would rather not have my username attached to them. I have never abused IP editing to pretend I am multiple people and I have no sockpuppets. My ISP assigns me dynamic IP addresses. This is not something I can control. Reodorant (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that, despite Super Dromaeosaurus' flagrant lack of NPOV regarding this WP:ARBEE topic, I was the only one to receive a warning about my edits. Why? Reodorant (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wading into the deep end of this content dispute, but I will direct you to Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry, which states "it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. This includes editing while logged out. Whether or not you believe you are in the right, you may not log out merely to make it look like you are not the one making the edits. Furthermore, it doesn't appear to be working all that well. If you can agree to stop doing that going forward, especially when editing in the area of dispute, we can start to look at wider issues here. --Jayron32 15:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that it was very dumb of me to edit while logged out. I am willing to only contribute to Wikipedia from this account going forward, but if you think it's too late and ban me permanently, so be it. All I want is proper closure on the Transylvanianism issue. Reodorant (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Checco, sorry for pinging you a second time, but this user has often used your 2021 comments as arguments in disputes between them and me. I'd be interested in hearing from you if you have anything to add on this issue. Super Ψ Dro 15:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Dromaeosaurus:. You're running into WP:TLDR territory here; you made your initial post, now it is time for others to comment. The more you comment on this thread, the less likely anyone else will want to deal with it. Maybe the reason nothing gets dealt with is that you tend to bludgeon the discussion, and no one wants to deal with it. Be succinct, provide diffs, answer questions when asked, and let the process work itself out. If you keep responding as part of the ongoing conflict, you're going to get ignored. No one wants to deal with someone like that. --Jayron32 15:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The other reports were less lenghty, but sure, you're right. I've deleted the comment, here's it in case anyone wants to read it [67]. I've kept Checco's ping above, as I'd be interested in a reply from them. Super Ψ Dro 15:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reodorant, I would hope that any decision made by the admins is based on the facts of the matter as they see it, rather than any notion of seniority. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it sounds very believable from me, but I also want a solution like that. I have always been against such treatments on Wikipedia, which once affected myself negatively. So I am also for impartiality here. Super Ψ Dro 17:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The underlying content issue should be resolved by discussing how independent reliable sources define this concept. Has this discussion happened on any article talk page? Talk:Transylvanianism has no discussion of anything whatsoever. On the behavioural issue Reodorant has agreed not to edit logged out, and I'm sure Super Dromaeosaurus will try not to be so verbose. Is there any more that needs to be done here? Shouldn't we just close this? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I see now that there has been some discussion at Talk:List of active separatist movements in Europe#Transylvanianism. Please just continue that, with a bit more good faith on both sides. It's the sources that determine what a Wikipedia article should contain, not any editor's personal opinion. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm with Phil on this, I'd be willing to close this down, if the two parties agree to asking for some outside help in working through the source material to arrive at a consensus. WP:3O and WP:DRN may be good places to go to get that help. --Jayron32 16:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A dispute resolution mechanism has already been followed: a third opinion was requested, and given. I provided several sources (6 or 7) when it was necessary (the other side, if I remember correctly, just 1 or 2, which I commented on and attempted to rebate; the other side did not do this on my sources), and the ruling out was given. And later, the user disrespected the result without noticing me or anyone else. Nothing has changed regarding the content dispute, it's all behavioural problems. I'm sorry but I don't have much faith in this outcome where the user will seemingly go unsanctioned, not even with a formal warning. I am open to another third opinion and I will respond if requested, but one has already been done and I really do not see the need for another, and I would not ask for it if it was on me. And WP:DRN is a lenghty process, which is exactly the opposite of what I want. My intention with this report was to end this issue once and for all. How can I know that this user will respect the following result and that I will not be forced to open a fourth report in the future? I still feel compelled to keep these pages on my watchlist. So I am not satisfied with where this is going and want more discussion. I would like at least some kind of guarantee that requesting another third opinion or filing a case at DRN will be the last things I'll ever have to do regarding this. Because I remind you, this is an issue that started in February 2021, and which has ended already on 3 reports. If it continues today it's because of the insistency of this user, not because I did not follow rules and recommendations when it was needed. Super Ψ Dro 17:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that anyone has looked at the totality of easily available sources, such as these and these, to come to a conclusion about what is the meaning of this according to the consensus of independent reliable sources. This needs plenty of work on reading the sources rather than a quick third opinion. My initial view, based on a very quick look at some of the sources, is that this is a term for something that has changed over time, like many other things have, such as Scottish nationalism that has changed from being a very narrow anti-English thing to an ideology of the centre-left that claims to represent anyone living in Scotland, regardless of racial background. I haven't spent enough time with the sources to determine whether there is a common thread in the coverage of Transylvanianism that means that it is all one topic. These things take time to resolve, and it's best done by continuing to work at it without accusations of bad faith. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am clearly seeing that many of the sources in those results pages, especially in Google Books, talk about interethnic relations between Hungarians and Romanians, incorporation of Hungarian elements in Romanian historiography, Hungarian and Romanian literary phenomena, etc. (the position that I defend); nothing about autonomy (the position that this user defends). I insist that this is not a content dispute (bolding in desperation that the administrators do not rate this report as such in the end), what had to be discussed was discussed in its time. Although this was discussed on several talk pages, the most important thing happened here [68], at the 3O request. Reodorant opened the request providing ONE single source talking about Transylvanian autonomism titled "A strange Transylvanism" (that title in itself says something). I discussed the contents of that source there, and showed that it doesn't actually refer Transylvanism as an autonomist movement. In the end I said that their source was too imprecise and that it did not address what Transylvanism is exactly, Reodorant did not make further comment (including objection) on this and we did not talk anymore about that source. The rest of the discussion is debate about the sources I provided, and it ended with Reodorant saying they would search for more sources. They didn't give any afterwards, that is, that single source which doesn't actually talk about Transylvanism in depth was their only backing. This is a more or less complete summary but I recommend users interested in having more context in reading the discussion.

I have realized that users here are trying to give equal treatment to both of us. Good faith is appreciated but I think my effort is being underestimated while Reodorant's is being overestimated. I did search for 7 sources, commented mine and Reodorant's and wrote a single message with 7 paragraphs developing my viewpoints. Reodorant only looked for a source that they didn't try to defend anymore once I tried to refute it, also commented on my sources (which was followed by another message of mine, which did not receive further discussion on the matter), and they promised to look for more sources, which they didn't. Then an uninvolved user gave their own judgment and determined that my position was correct. The content dispute resolution has been undertaken already. I will also note the fact that Reodorant has been blocked twice due to this dispute (the first was on one of their IPs) and that they today violated the result of a dispute resolution method and have arguably done sockpuppetry. The treatment here is being "equal" but not fair in my opinion, sending us both to another dispute resolution mechanism does not change anything. It is something that has already been done and that would theorically not require repetition, and it is effectively allowing a user to breach the rules of Wikipedia, having a history of having already done it, without consequence. Again I express myself open to another third opinion but the fact is that this has already been done and that the result was not respected by one of the sides. This should not go unpunished and the third opinion should not be repeated only because one of the sides decided to overrule it. Super Ψ Dro 19:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I was being over-optimistic when I thought that Super Dromaeosaurus would try to be less verbose. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You stated that "I'm not sure that anyone has looked at the totality of easily available sources", and I stated that this has been done already. I've also attempted to summarize the 3O where this was done and express my views on where this report is going. I don't know what is the reply that you expected me to do, you proposed more discussion into the content dispute and I explained why I considered it unnecessary. I don't think it would have been better if I just outright rejected your proposal. Super Ψ Dro 13:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure why I am getting pinged to a months-old argument, but will note that 3O is a nonbinding process, so anyone involved can take it or leave it. I will stand by what I said in that "See also" sections should not be used for controversial material, but other than that have no intent to read through the text walls here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going into details, but, surely, I support including Transylvanianism in the "See also" section, as I have argued before. --Checco (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring across many pages[edit]

Bears247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Bears247 has engaged in prolonged edit warring, even after being partially blocked on two separate articles recently. They were blocked for three months from editing Eric Berry on March 21 (see article history) for edit warring and then blocked from editing Tim Tebow the next day (article history) by a second administrator.

The article Bryan Scott (quarterback) has been plagued with undisclosed paid editing by at least seven accounts (see Talk:Bryan Scott (quarterback) and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BigBoyzz1006/Archive). I had upgraded the page protection to extended-confirmed to combat the sockpuppetry/UPE, because Mr. Scott has been paying editors to make specific edits to his page for the past 12+ months. Bears247 added back one of the edits that I've repeatedly removed from sockpuppet edits on February 23 (without edit summary), which I removed again (with edit summary). On February 26, Bears247 re-added the content (no edit summary) and posted on my talk page ([69]) about the edit. I responded there and, after pointing out my rationale for the removal, asked if they are a paid editor like the rest of the socks I've encountered on that page. I did not receive a response for a month, and in the meantime, Bears247 has been blocked from editing two pages for edit warring. Bears247 finally responded on my talk page denying that they are a paid editor but ignoring the rest of my response about the actual content dispute on March 23 ([70]). Another user removed the edit on the page later that day (here). Bears247 posted on the article talk page asking about the content (here), but then ignored my response there and just re-added the content to the page again today with no explanation ([71]).

Bears247 does not seem to understand why edit warring is a problem, or why their behavior specifically is disruptive (diff). I am an involved editor, so I would like to see if there are opinions from other administrators on this user's conduct. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have page blocked Bears247 from Bryan Scott (quarterback) and all three page blocks are now set at six months. Cullen328 (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Thank you for handling this matter. At what point do you think a full mainspace block would be in order here, after three partial blocks for edit warring in the past week? The user says here, right after your third partial block, that they were "in the right" during one of the edit wars that resulting in their block. Eagles 24/7 (C) 12:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eagles247, I just responded to that comment on their talk page, and warned them that they are on the brink of an indefinite block. Since you both edit American football articles, please let me know if you observe any more edit warring behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eagles247, I believe that Bears247 should already be blocked from all edits on mainspace wikipedia. He did it thrice and has shown no sign of stopping. He has cluttered my talk page, he threatened to bring another user into this, and has repeatedly shown himself to have no sensibility. This sums up how aggressive he is: He is so unable to listen to another view that he'd edit Mirabel Madrigal to say she's a conspiracy theorist if he believed it (And cite the "open your eyes" in Waiting on a Miracle). This is quite a long post so I will stop here, but he seriously should be banned from all Wikipedia. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I edit nutrition articles and volunteer as a Teahouse host. NO IDEA why my name mentioned here. David notMD (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I was a bit suspicious when I saw you on my talk page. It was an honest mistake of mine. Sorry about that, Now I know you're innocent. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 05:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted your name from my post, I am extremely sorry about disturbing you. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i’d like to get some more clarification for what this block would be for? If your referring to my recent addition to the eric berry talk page, the whole purpose of a talk page is to discuss issues and try and resolve them… as for cluttering your talk page, i’m sorry and i will stop from adding anything else there for the future. I’ve been a productive and unproblematic editor on here for almost 3 years. This and my recent Tim Tebow issue are the only two times I have had any sort of conflict, both of which were relatively minor infractions. Bears247 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bears247 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP harassing user and other NOTHERE behavior[edit]

2600:8804:6600:45:2918:2AB7:9BF0:437B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Problematic & WP:NOTHERE behavior:

• This user has been harassing/vandalising the user space of @Novem Linguae [72][73] [74], despite multiple requests that they not edit NL's user space or user talk space [75] [76]. They repeatedly describe NL's essay as written by a cabal of other users.
• WP:SEALIONing: [77] [78] [79]
• Given the nature of one of the edits [80] (and other aspects of their contributions [81]), it is possible this anon may be a WP:LOGGEDOUT situation for a user sharing the same POV: [82] [83] [84] [85] [86]
• Other problematic edits: [87] [88] [89] (and on /40, may or may not be same user: [90] [91]) (non-MEDRS altmed [92] [93]) (Almost DEFINITELY related: [94] [95] [96]) and more, I would suggest a look through their contribs to see what I mean.

Recommend either A) /40 one-way WP:IBAN (with Novem Linguae) vs B) /40 block from NL's user and user talk space. If the behavior continues elsewhere, or more apparent SOCK-like stuff goes on, either SPI or a TBAN may be in order. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shibbolethink. Your above theory about logged-out editing is unlikely to be true though possibly this could be someone else not mentioned in the current thread. The topic is covered by WP:COVIDDS. The IP is editing from a range used in the past by other socks but he has no overlap in interest or behavior with those socks. An SPI would probably not find anything interesting but I could semiprotect User:Novem Linguae/Essays/There was no lab leak if requested by User:Novem Linguae. I could not see anything wrong with the IP's edits of Edward Rubin. EdJohnston (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @EdJohnston thank you for the reminder re: COVIDDS and the cogent analysis. I have alerted the IP as likely should have been done a long time ago. I understand your assessment re: IP vs SPI, and you are probably right, the evidence was thin and regardless, I understand it is prohibited to CU link IPs to users. Re protection: I will of course leave any such considerations to NL's good judgment for his own user space. Regards, — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind some kind of action being taken against this IP, such as an admin warning or partial block. They have only edited the essay one time as an IP so protection may not be necessary. But they are causing drama on the essay talk page and have ignored multiple polite requests not to post in my userspace, so that part may be actionable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was attempting to defend other users that were being bullied by the cabal. As someone who has been attacked in the past, it bothers me to see it continue. 2600:8804:6600:45:505A:8E83:9C97:7BC8 (talk) 05:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP User 72.229.242.36[edit]

Original header: IP User 72.229.242.36 Created Feb 22 Removing own talk page notifications [1], undoing article revisions after talk page discussed changes [3], Mutiple other violations. El_C 16:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is over 500 edits of which a large majority have been undoing revisions, deleting talk page posts and removing warnings or messages to their own talk page. [History]

1. [one example of deleting warnings towards self on talk page to hide history of edit-war revisions]
2. [Bias]This one here shows deleting some sources despite keeping other equally as reliable sources to convey a narrative or perspective, one of the five fundamental pillars here.  Neutrality.
3. [despite talk page.]

This is just a small sample of the disruptive editing doing by this IP address which started edits the very day of the 2022 Russian-Ukraine conflict.. Considering the creation date, edit history, deceptive measures to hide history, non-responsiveness on talk or edit pages and excessive "undo" actions without any explanation this is a user who requires admin attention. They have shown no discourse nor discussion on any of the over 500 edits. I have not posted a new notice to the IP editor's talk page since they are just deleting them The Impartial Truth (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's also just countless "Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits" I am not going to waste time going through since none of these have remained current edits. The Impartial Truth (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Impartial Truth if you had looked at them you would have seen that they were just reverting the edits of 174.251.64.220 now blocked for their actions. So they were just rapidly fixing the issues caused by that editor. KylieTastic (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page, per WP:UP#CMT. Curbon7 (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've WP:ECP'd this page independently (unaware) of this complaint (RfPP, AEL). Also noting that I had recently blocked this IP, mainly for the reasons stated in the original block. However, upon closer review, I did notice an improvement, so I opted to lift it (block log). I think there are still some issues, but they appear to be more borderline (although possibly there's important items my sample overlooked). As Curbon7 correctly notes, the IP is not obliged to retain any material on their user talk page, the removal of which was not factored in my analysis.

Ultimately, this report fails to bring any recent diffs of that are of an egregious nature. One of the three diffs they cite is even my own aforementioned ECP protection. What The Impartial Truth fails to realize, however, is that it was set at that higher protection level also to possibly to safeguard the article from them. Had the protection been targeting that IP, specifically (or IPs, generally), I'd have just gone with the usual WP:SEMI. That the protection coincides with their version being displayed is not an endorsement of that version, and saying that the IP's edit "is bordering on vandalism" (diff) is bordering too much (WP:NOTVAND). If anything, it'd be disruptive editing to which vandalism is a narrow subset of. El_C 16:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doubling down on an accusation of bad-faith/personal attack after being warned against it[edit]

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

Above has made this egregious post, and when explained to politely on their talk page that such things are not OK, instead of apologising, doubled down and re-inserted it with even more oil on the fire. For the record, while there is a disagreement at another page, my comment at the AfD was simply a result of me seeing what looked like a rather obvious case of Wikipedia:Relist bias. That Charlie happened to make a non-policy commpliant post previously, and now thinks I'm stalking them, is nothing more but an unfortunate coincidence. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above user, RandomCanadian, is doing just what he accuses others of doing by bringing it up on ANI (adding gas to the fire). People should cooperate and discuss. I've already done my part because I am slowly withdrawing from an airplane crash article that RandomCanadian seems to be fighting over. I also am not following her/him/zir around even though he/her/ze is following me around.

This matter should be ignored and closed and see if RandomCanadian just calms down. I will and am. Charliestalnaker (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. I politely asked you to not make unfounded accusations about me (including the one you've made again just above), and yet you are here and again, like at the article, failing to get the point. WP:NPA and WP:AGF are not negotiable, but here you have violated it not once (the initial link in my post), not twice (the next one), but thrice (your post just above). If you refuse to get the point, then it becomes a matter for the community to resolve, since I've tried with no success. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, if you don't know someone else's pronouns, you can just use "they." Schierbecker (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• An AfD vote doesn't become "bad faith" just because someone disagrees with it. If I had a dollar for every time someone screamed HOW DARE YOU at a delete !voter, I could afford to host my own encyclopedia on my own servers. Reyk _YO! 23:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Just to needlessly add to this, Charliestalnaker's vote rational in the Raja Dashrath Medical College AfD was rather nonsensical and semi-insulting. "Strong Keep, let's act normal!. High schools are deemed notable in Wikipedia so a medical college definitely is. Let's be reasonable, folks." I, and I'm sure others, don't really appreciate the insinuation that it's abnormal or unreasonable to nominate a college for deletion. It happens all the time. It's also patently false that high schools are deemed notable in Wikipedia. In the least their comment an utter lack of knowledge about the AfD process, at the most it's an extremely bad faithed dig at the nominator/delete voters. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gombe editors[edit]

We regularly get complaints here about contests, editathons, education efforts gone wrong, ... Recently, I have seen a lot of "Gombe" related new articles from a couple of editors; while there is no indication that these officially belong to any group effort, they have the same kind of issues.

• User:Abdulghonniy has after just one month quite a long list of warnings about many issues, and new pages getting deleted, draftified, nominated left and right. This includes things like Nysc Gombe State, draftified but then recreated as Nysc Orientation Camp Gombe State, which I draftified before finding out about the previous one. Other articles: Kalare Guys in Gombe State, Sports Centre in Gombe State (at AfD)
• User:Abdulazeez Taufeeq, who had over the last few days 7 very recent articles nominated at AfD, and one moved to draft space: examples are List of Primary Health Care Center (PHCC) in Gombe State, Nigeria (at AfD) or Pindiga Town (which seems to be a copyvio translation or a very close paraphrasing of [97]). Something like Jekadefari Area of Gombe State, Nigeria doesn't belong in mainspace either (and all sources, for what they are worth, call it Jekadafari), and what's with the very weird categories like Category:Place infobox templates? Also random refs[98].
• User:Salihidris450, only a few edits so far
• User:Ibjaja055, so far three articles moved to draftspace, and two copyright violations warnings
• User:Usmanagm, creating multiple drafts, all rejected
• User:Umar2z, adding seemingly unrelated references at random places[99][100]
• User:Abdulrahman0044, providing low-quality "improvements"[101][102][103] that get reverted anyway

And probably others...

It looks as if User:Semmy1960 and User:Odomero2711, who were previously active on a similar project for Lagos, are somehow connected to this, as is User:Atibrarian.

I don't know if any socking is involved, this probably is more like some undisclosed, poorly lead editathon or education project, but it causes quite a lot of disruption and extra work. is there a way to deal with this to make it less disruptive? Fram (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Abdulghonniy name does look strangely similar to a previous sock that was banned, I think to do with Bangladeshi sports articles. Govvy (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fram, thanks for your meticulous work on Wikipedia. In as much as we do projects to be able to document the history and notable events in Nigeria, there is still a big challenge getting online sources for referencing. The third world countries have a lot of issues with references because there were no online documentation until recently and many of these articles are very notable which should be documented. What do you advise to do in situations like this? We want to bridge the knowledge gap, at the same time not disrupt the use of Wikipedia and not frustrate the effort and good work you Editors are doing.Semmy1960 (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, are you aware if there is any coordinator, central page, ... about this project? Having to reach out to many individual editors is a lot harder than having some central page where issues can be raised, and having one or two more experienced editors who can keep an eye on things and guide the new editors through the many pitfalls also eases the burden on other volunteers here. Fram (talk) 10:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Special:Diff/1074532528 and m:The WikiVibrance Project? Uncle G (talk) 10:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I have deleted Kalare Guys in Gombe State as a WP:CSD#G10. Not only did it call a group "thugs" but it suggested those thugs were organised by a named living person. (It was also written in only vaguely comprehensible English - This thug group was cheese away from the main city to jekada fari then but now the jekada fari has turn to big place in Gombe - so I don't think much of value has been lost). Black Kite (talk) 10:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Fram (talk) 11:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources did not in any way match the content, either. Uncle G (talk) 11:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Found it: meta:Wikipedia Awareness and Training in Gombe. Aimed directly at enwiki, but not discussed, linked, ... here. Recipe for problems. No idea why Semmy1960, who is a participant, couldn't inform us of this in his reply above... Fram (talk) 11:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And of course there is also a grant for this: meta:Grants:Project/Rapid/Atibrarian/Building Wikipedia Awareness and Community in Gombe State. Fram (talk) 11:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• T

@Fram The project is aimed at creating awareness about the Wikimedia projects and introduction to Wikipedia.

The participants consisted mainly of newbies and yet to fully grasp the scrupulous rudiments of contributing content to Wikipedia. To guide them and ensure they avoid contentious topics, an "Article Suggestions List" was created to serve as a guide. Unfortunately, a few have strayed from the list to work on areas that might not meet WP:GNG, and a dearth of reference.

Consequently, discussions are currently ongoing on the project WhatsApp group to tackle the issues and modalities to prevent the futuristic occurrence.

Kind regards Atibrarian (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• To further expatiate on Fram's point this was me in November 2021 see this, asking Atibrarian if they had a COI, they didn’t respond, I furthermore note what seems to be UPE & I ask them about it here of which they gave a shabby response to. I’m quite sure I have asked them about a possible COI overt & stylishly If they are engaging in any unethical practices and their response were either no response at all or a convoluting response. It is good Fram brings the “grant” part of this up as Timtrent, Deb & myself discussed this and this time it was a bunch of editors focused on creating non notable articles on Lagos State (a state in Nigeria) just as Gombe state is as well, see this. Furthermore In this extensive discussion on my TP, which DGG, TheAafi, Timtrent (all of us work at anti-spam) we discussed how it’s nigh impossible for anyone to engage in unethical practices on en.wp without being snuffed out. My thinking of their thought process is rather than engage in undeclared paid editing, where they’d likely not succeed they could make “legal money” it’s no coincidence that a supermajority of the contestants in the history of whatever it they are doing are largely spearheaded by editors currently facing sanctions. I note this trend became exponentially increased after this occurred. I’m not against making money from Wikipedia in a legal manner I have never received a dime and do not ever intent to, but if editors are doing so, then fine, but The problem is they are causing a vey serious problem on mainspace publishing sheer non notable articles. whilst the front is “building an encyclopedia” “shedding more light on Nigeria” or “closing the knowledge gap) or whatever it is they say to themselves, It is my opinion that the article creations are financially motivated $2000 is seriously close to a million. Whatever sanctions are evoked by Fram or anyone else I’d gladly support it. Wikipedia isn’t in the business of making its editors rich. Celestina007 (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately, you have persistently tried to force a claim on me. How would you want me to accept an untrue claim just because you "thínk" it is?

  If not that you have mentioned paid editing I wouldn't have known what it is. The idea of volunteering efforts to making Wikipedia articles more reliable and making information accessible has been my driving force. Atibrarian (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Atibrarian, please retract your aspersions, immediately, no one expressly said you were engaging in unethical practices, that is gaslighting and it isn’t an acceptable behavior, rather, a question was asked about COI here & you didn’t respond which gives probable cause for a valid reason to be suspicious, please see WP:APPARENTCOI & Lastly As for what i “think” all I literally need to do is “think” an article is dubious in order for me to send an article back to Draftspace, did you read all this before coming to cast aspersions against me? Literally all I need is a “suspicion” see WP:DRAFTIFY. Please Do well to listen to Timtrent's advice who is more laid back than I am, because if I see more shabby looking articles from you or anyone else i would unilaterally remove them from mainstream. Furthermore If Fram proposes a harsh sanction I would support it. I’m not responding to this anymore. Celestina007 (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Celestina007: I can't say I agree. You've accused editors of being motivated by a $2000 cash prize. However it's unclear to me that there's any prizes let alone cash prizes involved. As another editor pointed out, you seem to have confused the grant funding with a cash prizes. Regardless of whether the grant was a good idea, it seems unlikely to me even if some of it is going to be used for a cash prize that all of it will be. There's a reasonable chance none of it will be. I've ask Atibrarian to clarify but until they do, the fact remains you've made such a claim without any real evidence I can see. If you are going to make such accusations, you either need to provide evidence or withdraw your claims, and preferably apologise. Defending Wikipedia doesn't excuse you unfairly attacking other editors by making false claims about their motivations and what they are doing. If you have problems with the WMF or Jimbo Wales or whatever else, then attack the WMF or Jimbo Wales or whatever. It's simply unacceptable for you to attack other apparently well meaning editors because of your disagreements with other parties. This isn't to say that the way Atibrarian has handled this is perfect but frankly from my POV there's one editor's behaviour here in this whole mess which seems particularly bad and it's yours not Atibrarian. While true the grant recipients as recipients even though I assume they're not spending the money on themselves, have a responsibility above and beyond what you have to engage with the community properly this still isn't an excuse for what you've said IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne, yes you are right, and I do apologize. when Fram mentioned a grant I mistook it to mean a cash prize & No I have no issues with WMF or Jimbo Wales and why would you even say that Nil Einne? I do not even insinuate that. I think in the end well meaning or not they are causing real disruption on mainspace and nebulous or otherwise there is Infact an incentive for creating this articles, definitely not $2000 which is the grant not cash prize but an incentive is an incentive. When I make mention of disruption, yes! The disruption is exponential getting worse Fram just discovered that of Gombe State, myself and Timtrent discovered that of Lagos state some weeks back, how many of these exist? Do we condone these sort of binge creation of non notable articles directly to mainspace because it is done in good faith? Celestina007 (talk) 12:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually it's worse than the grant document simply mentioning $2000 is the grant. In fact the grant document has details on the budget and the only reward in the budget there seems to be for participants seems to be "Certificate of participation for participants: $40" and I guess "Hand Sanitizers for facilitator and participants during the training= $25", "Branded Nose masks for facilitators and participants= $120", "Branded T-Shirt for facilitators and active participants: $120", and "Refreshments for participants: USD10×35 = 350 for 2days = $700". Or at a real stretch "Training venue: USD130 for 2days = $260" and "Alternate power supply during the training:$40". There is additional funding for the two facilitators travel etc and I guess you could consider these facilitators and/or the flyers are somehow a reward to the participants but that seems a real stretch. I'd also note they are two other editors not Atibrarian. Again I make no comment on the wisdom of any of this funding, I don't think it's the right place but as there seems to be no indication I can find of any cash prize let alone a $2000 one. Nil Einne (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Atibrarian The simplest and most effective, is for the participants to use WP:AFC, to create drafts, and to work on them when declined.

In that way the major disappointment of having articles deleted will be much ameliorated. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind response and suggestions will be implemented. Atibrarian (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent, Theres no way they are submitting via AFC, not only would it be declined, it would be sheer wasting of their time, I’m not sure how this competitions work but I bet it time bound, so that isn’t even an option I think they’d consider, $2000 (close to a million Nigerian naira is up for grabs) I don’t believe anyone is waiting for that long, but as for Atibrarian there’s serious issues here such as COI or WP:MEAT, I honestly haven’t got the time else I’d have presented an air tight report and opened an SPI, something very decisive has to be done here. Celestina007 (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007 I am in a charitable frame of mind. I believe, at least for now, that this pool of enthusiastic editors can be guided. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007 however, I had not noticed the $2000 prize. It was hiding somewhere in this swathe of text. That does not change my mind. They just need a longer deadline. Wait they will have to, or deleted their work will be 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007 unless I am mistaken, the $2000 is not a prize, but a budget for the event that created and trained the group. This seems to be a small cost and relevant to WMF's charitable status.@Celestina007 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent there are certain aspects of Wikipedia I’d rather not speak about On mainspace or even via mail or if at all it would strictly be between myself, Arbcom or Jimbo Wales directly. But for now We shall put that aside, the crux of this report by Fram is the rather disruptive manner in which this is morphing into. Everything else can be out on hold for now. I don’t think I want to speak on this anymore hadn’t it been you (people I actually respect) I wouldn't have bothered to reply, but seeing you a friend, I respect you so much that I must reply no matter what . Celestina007 (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Atibrarian Make sure the participants understand that we applaud their enthusiasm, but that they need to be pragmatic. Wikipedians wield a scalpel to remove articles that are below quality. The skill with which that scalpel is wielded can feel intimidating to the new user who does not, perhaps will not, understand quality.

Please make it very clear to the WhatsApp group participants that we welcome good work, will educate work that is not up to standard, and that we will excise work that is placed incorrectly in main space. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words to the participants. A crisis talk and or meeting has been initiated to address all concerns raised. I have equally arranged to emphasise the need for meticulous and thorough research on any article intended for creation and must be submitted through the AFC process going forward.

Kind regards Atibrarian (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Atibrarian: since it's an issue raised above, can you clarify whether there's prize/s involved and if there is, what these prizes are? I don't see any mention on the meta page, OTOH it mentions a competition but only gives judging info etc but doesn't discuss anything about what, if anything winners receive. Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

.Nil Einne: thanks for the question. For clarity, there is no 'monetary' prize(s) attached to the editathon other than what was stated in the grant proposal: a certificate of participation, branded T-Shirts for active participants, etc. Atibrarian (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like us to get back onto the fact that the submissions are generally unworthy of article space. This editing drive has escaped from the control of the proposers, and is creating work for others. This quality control shoudl be internal to the drive, competition, call it what you will. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. I don't think that we can tar all of the people here with the same brush. I actually went through the contributions histories of the editors listed, and there's a vast difference between the simple minor copyediting at Special:Contributions/Abdulrahman0044 (Yes, xe doesn't know the byzantine date style rules of Wikipedia. That's not exactly unusual.), the attempts to clean up after one of the other participants in Special:Contributions/Salihidris450, and the egregious misrepresentations in Special:DeletedContributions/Abdulghonniy. I disagree that the drive is creating work. Clearly a few of the individual participants are, but quite a few of them are not as well, and would be regarded as largely unproblematic and on a par with many other editors if encountered without this context. Uncle G (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Uncle G: thank you for your time and efforts taken to meticulously scrutinise the contributions of the listed users to arrive at this conclusion.

    Steps have been taken to control all activities relating to the editathon. Atibrarian (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed at Veracrypt[edit]

Full protection at Veracrypt expires on 31 March 2022.

At Talk:VeraCrypt#Licensing of VeraCrypt there has been zero progress in reaching an agreement, and it is likely that the previous edit war will start up again as soon as the protection ends. Could someone please look into this and see what you can do?

I edit with a IP, but I will abide by any restrictions I am given even if my IP shifts. 22:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:C43A:7A9A:3A68:225A (talk)

There's been zero progress because everyone is arguing with their own original research (reading the license terms) instead of providing sources and starting an RfC to get wider community input. Indifferent on protection, might even be a novel use of WP:ROPE to let it expire Slywriter (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion isn't going well and this ANI thread is suboptimal, but nobody in that discussion came so low as to use original research. And while I appreciate the input neutral parties, I don't appreciate them casting aspersions. Waysidesc (talk) 05:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Waysidesc: say what? That discussion is full of original research with people citing the licence terms, US law, OSI guidelines, our article on open source etc. I mean to be blunt, this is a direct quote of an editor who turns out to be you "To decide whether an app is free: We look at the app's license agreement. Here is a copy of license agreement that comes with VeraCrypt:" Um no we don't analyse a licence and decide whether the app is free. That is clearly original research. We report what sources have said about an app. Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, stalker. I'll bear that in mind, as in, I'll keep doing it. I'm not ashamed of citing, comparing, and contrasting published sources, even if a stalker mislabels it as ... original what-not.

By the way, please take care that your stalking doesn't become WP:HOUND. Waysidesc (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Waysidesc for 48h for personal attacks, not just the one above, but at least one other that was egregious. Frankly, their whole attitude is WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given this comment on their talk page, I'd say Waysidesc needs an indef as WP:NOTHERE & talk page access revoked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on the talk page, you're free to do what you want in your private life. You cannot of course use your original research to edit articles. If you want to call it something else that's your choice provided you don't generate confusion by doing so, just don't do original research or whatever you want in articles, that's my main concern here. Nil Einne (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another useless ANI thread that should've been resolved in an RfC ages ago lmao. So I'm going to start one myself. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved. [104] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undue polemics[edit]

Heat>light. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Dimadick: has been insulting Christians, Christian scriptures and Christian theologians on a talk page where such polemics positively do not belong. Here are the relevant diffs --65.94.99.221 (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] Oh really. A book that is full of violence and incest is compared to porn. What an insult. See the article on Dinah (a rape and revenge story), Tamar (daughter of David) (raped by her half-brother Amnon), the Levite's concubine (a gang rape), Lot's daughters (impregnated by their father), or Absalom (where the article summarizes a public sex scene involving multiple partners as "slept with his father's concubines". Dimadick (talk) 06:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] @Dimadick: Wikipedia is not a counter apologetics website. It’s mission is to be welcoming to all people, not just non-Christians. And again, you keep breaking the rules. --65.94.99.221 (talk) 07:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] And which rules require me to lie about the lack of holiness in the Bible? Dimadick (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] WP:NOTFORUM is the relevant guidance here, for the both of you. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] Having read all of that diff, I'm also gonna add that reading WP:DENY would be helpful for future reference, as not engaging with the obviously bad-faith 2402 IP would've prevent the situation from escalating. Curbon7 (talk) 08:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] How does writing "I do not pretend to be holy" Well, the Bible is not remotely holy either. I still remember (almost 30 years later) its description by a bookshop owner who was speaking to my mother: "It's like porn, but a lot more violent". With all the scenes of rape and murder in the anthology, the description was very accurate. help improve the encyclopedia? It's inflammatory and does not seem particularly relevant to the content of the article in question. And I say that as an atheist, for the record. Endwise (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] "does not seem particularly relevant to the content of the article in question." An article where there is a long-standing edit war whether Christian apologists are a reliable source for stating that there is no contradiction between two different narratives on who killed Goliath. And where minimalist scholars have been directly accused of "lying for anti-theism", just because they oppose the historicity of the Bible. Dimadick (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] ITT: bloke accused of inappropriate polemics responds with an inappropriate polemic.—S Marshall T/C 09:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] The bloke in question argues that the Bible is essentially a pornographic text, and that we should not treat it is as some example of holiness. Where do you find the polemic? Dimadick (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] Right there, mate. Don't get me wrong: I'm as atheist as you are, but this isn't the place to get out your views on the Bible and wave them about. On Wikipedia what's appropriate is to talk about what the reliable sources say about the Bible. Do that in a collegial manner, which means robustly and forthrightly but without creating needless drama.—S Marshall T/C 11:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] Having lots of sex and violence doesn't make something 'essentially a pornographic text', unless you're inclined towards Mary Whitehouse's line of reasoning. You don't need to believe in the truth of the bible, or even think it is a particularly moral book, but calling it porn is just silly, and needlessly provocative. Girth Summit (blether) 13:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] I'm no wiser about what remedy the OP is seeking. That aside, Dimedick isn't insulting Christians in that quoted passage (he doesn't mention them), and accusing him of insulting the Bible is coming very close to an accusation of heresy. Now let's move on.Achar Sva (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] I am sorry @Achar Sva: that you don't think the rules apply to the people who believe like you, but Wikipedia does not think so. 65.94.99.221 (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] Quite the contrary, Wikipedia doesn't punish people simply for saying bad thing about a religion, which is what you're demanding here. 2A01:388:3F5:161:0:0:1:1 (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia has rules against polemics and undue insulting of, among other things, religious views. See, WP:POLEMIC and WP:FORUM. 65.94.99.221 (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please revoke TPA for Sola8273[edit]

Battleground behavior by user Jacona[edit]

Any admin willing to check this death threat (?)[edit]

[105] - LouisAragon (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's a death threat or just nonsense, but I'm leaning towards the latter. Either way, should be revdel'd. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. Revdel'd. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported it to emergency(AT)wikimedia.org, out of an abundance of caution, and as mentioned in the red edit notice here. sorry if someone else already did that. I've spoken with them about similar threats before, and they always tell me they'd rather have you report threats to them that you think are probably nonsense; they have people trained to make that call. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse decision. Deb (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP checks out to some of the information in the edit. Likely to have been written in a state of mental crisis or in a state of psychedelic intoxication... either way endorse Floqs' decision. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC) zzuuzz (and/or other admins, but pinging zzuuzz because it was they who revdelled), what possible good reason is there for revdelling a death threat? Concealing the fact that it was made does not make the recipient(s) of the threat any safer. If a person (gods forbid) were ever to try to make good on such a threat, hiding the fact that they made the threat would not hinder them in any way! I understand the desire to not have the appearance of such a thing being unacted upon, but I fail to see ho covering it up is of any benefit. It would be better to red flag it with some kind of administrators' statement saying such is unacceptable and edit &/or summary has been reported to WMF; but for transparency's sake, you all should not be hiding it! (Unless there's personally identifying information, &c..) 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:25D7:83BA:434:F008 (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, we do not allow grossly offensive content like threats of violence to remain visible to our readers anywhere on this project. It is removed from general public view but still available for use by editors who are administrators or who possess other advanced permissions. Cullen328 (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The IP raises a good point that removing a threat doesn't prevent anything. But then Cullen328 raises a good response that relevant people can still see it. Speaking for myself only, as 'first on the scene', it wan't (and still isn't) clear to me whether this was a threat or not, but what was clear is that the message contained potentially troubling information which didn't belong on Wikipedia, and that it was appropriate to revdel it soon after being publicised here. My lack of summary was because I really couldn't understand it, but knew that this was going to be subject to peer review and that people would follow it up if they thought appropriate. Think of it as a sticking plaster. It has now been taken as far as it reasonably can be, which is not unexpected and not a wrong result. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who the possible threat was directed at if anyone, but it's also worth remembering that readers can include the editor concerned. Depending on where the threat was made, the target etc, revdeleting it fast enough can ensure that the editor concerned may never have to read it. They may know something happened and if a more detailed revdeletion is left and they read it they may know what it was, but not having to read such things can definitely help reduce the harm. If for some reason they need to know what it said, well that's why report such things to the WMF so they can judge what needs to happen. Nil Einne (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Thank you for proving your bigotry against the White race"[edit]

Tsans2 adding FICTREFs, refusing to BRD, implies I have an AGENDA[edit]

POV pushing edit warrior making bogus claims of vandalism[edit]

2A00:23C6:889A:8D01:DD24:2BC7:835E:422F / The fate of User:JalenFolf[edit]

• 2A00:23C6:889A:8D01:DD24:2BC7:835E:422F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

From looking at this anonymous user's contributions, I see a lot of edits that claim the edits are "on the grounds of" other articles, a serious violation of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for claims to make edits that, for example, violate MOS:TVNOW. Multiple warnings have not helped; the user continues to make these kinds of edits regardless. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This feels less OSE, more WP:CIR; the argument might read in an OSE manner, but they're just throwing in random television show titles to try to argue for their preferred tense, and no one would say a television show 'ceased operations'. Nate • (chatter) 20:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to contribute that the applicant jalen folf also systematically deletes contributions from some unregistered users sometimes obviously without any improvement of the article by the revert. Contributions can also be well-intentioned and made. This can also be seen in the changes of the complained user or in the applicant's history. it mainly leads to edit wars with users who are not familiar with the rules. I assume that he intends to do so here. this contradicts the procedure that one should assume good intentions of the user, and has a demotivating effect.91.41.254.22 (talk) 04:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, may I request that a separate section be made for this very issue? This accusation is not what this thread is about. Second, in regards to Ben O'Toole, I had simply moved it into draftspace to allow you to improve the attempt without any intrusion from page reviewers. Now that the article has been accepted in Articles for creation, I have no reason to bother the page anymore. Thank you for your time. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, any other neutral page reviewer would have made similar redirect restorations if they had seen what I had seen: at the time of draftification here there were very few sources present on that version of the article to establish notability. WP:THREE was followed, but with two sources from the same vendor. Additionally, I suspect AllFamous is an unreliable source; the About Us page on the website suggests it runs on WP:UGC. Luckily, this is no longer a problem thanks to improvements since draftification and Cabrils accepting the improved version of the article. I still do not see why this separate issue needs to be brought up in a case where now I feel another anonymous user is borderline WP:HOUNDing me. Jalen Folf (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made my article to the topic at all, neither i wanted to change the topic. But you just did. Anyway, reverts with a reason of advertising or promoting with tag RW included should be used carefully in my eyes, which made me drew attention. This and a systematical deteletion of contributions for the timespan.

So back to the topic - Outspoken warnings should be treated carefully. Systematic reverts too. Reverts to all contributions with the justification last good version is restored indicates that all contributions made were bad. in the present case you made these reverts within seconds. that this leads to displeasure is pretty obvious.

Also as far as i know, three reverts a day can be considered as an edit war. Please check your contributions history on that, especially if a users history can also be considered as a page. Polite pointers and suggestions for improvement are often much more appropriate than a warning, and a basis for collaboration. Please check your history on that and as already mentioned, reverts and warnings about my contributions are not the topic at all. 91.41.246.95 (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think may have been an overreaction to a comment by a single anon editor, and have addressed it on the user's talk page. Singularity42 (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Proposed community ban of User:JalenFolf[edit] I propose that the user JalenFolf be community banned from the English Wikipedia on grounds of a large history of edit warring, hounding, editing while logged out, and incivility towards anonymous users. Fine! I give up! This anonymous user is not letting me respond civilly to these accusations. If this is how it has to be, let’s see what the community says! Jalen Folf (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, anon! You just drove a long-term editor to leave the community! I'm done! For anyone else reading this, I don't care what happens to my fate; all that matters is I'm no longer comfortable editing on this encyclopedia. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to make an addendum to this thread that this matter just became worse with an IP owned by blocked user Glam-girlz targeting my Talk page for vandalism. This whole situation needs action, and FAST!!! I cannot stand this website anymore! Jalen Folf (talk) 06:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:WikiLinuz[edit]

Hi, can an administrator please help me? User:WikiLinuz created a section on my talk page earlier today and accusing me of posting incorrect stuff on the Honorary Aryan article. The user then threatened me with, “If you continue this disruptive POV editing on other articles, you will be reported at WP:ANI”. The user is now hounding my edits and reverting every edit I make as WP:OR which is not true and ignoring my attempts at a civilised discussion on the talk pages of Talk:Honorary Aryan and Talk:Aryan race. I have checked the user’s talk page archive and I can see that the user has a history of making false accusations against people, engaging in edit wars and reverting other people’s edits. I have contributed to many articles on Wikipedia and I wish to be able to do so freely without someone reverting my edits and making false accusations.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 06:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FriendlyFerret9854 (talk · contribs) seems to have trouble abiding by (and understanding) our original research guidelines. Let me provide diffs of such conduct:

• Here, they didn't bother to look into the cited source prior to (incorrectly) removing the text and distorting facts.
• When I reverted that edit requesting them to re-read the cited material, they opened a thread asking me to quote the source, which I did here and explained our policies concerning the usage of WP:PRIMARY of subjects related to the article here.
• However, they were skeptical and asked if the author himself provided a source for his claims, which is clearly exhibiting unfamiliarity with WP:SECONDARY and WP:SCHOLARSHIP - something which I literally asked them to get familiar with on my very previous reply.
• They further accused me of not verifying that scholarly material here. On these diffs (here, here and here), they relentlessly engaged in disruptive behavior (holding on to their WP:OR) and didn't care to WP:LISTEN, even if another editor stepped in and tried to explain our policies (here, here and here).
• This behaviour continued at a related article. At our talk page discussions, they continue to cling on to their WP:OR (here, here) and accused me of being disingenuous and difficult to comprehend here. They continue to disruptively remove sourced text here, following their original research.
• I tried to explain to them about our WP:OR policies here and here, which they ignored.
• This disruptive behaviour and edit warring was continued on other articles, see this, this and this.

I tried to explain our policies (about 3 times), but I think it's best to sanction FriendlyFerret9854 on these topics to avoid further disruption. Thanks, WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 07:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with citing sources. I am well within my rights to ask if an author has provided a source for his claim. Just because something is in a book does not mean it is true. I gave my reason for asking and someone else responds with a personal attack. All you have done is stalk my edits and continue to revert my edits e.g. using a quote from a book is not original research yet you seem to think it is! You have engaged in this type of behaviour before (admin take a look at the user’s archive) so this isn’t a new thing. The disruptive behaviour is on your behalf when you were so disingenuous to think the Aryan article and the Aryan race article are referring to the same meaning of the term ‘Aryan’. Also, I have shown on the Talk:Honorary Aryan page that a lot of what is on the Honorary Aryan article doesn’t even belong on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyFerret9854 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Just because something is in a book does not mean it is true - See, you're doing it again. You seem to lack the understanding of how scholarly peer review works.
• I gave my reason for asking and someone else responds with a personal attack - They were referring to Generalrelative's reply when they claimed of knowing more than the scholar himself. This is not how our guideline defines a personal attack. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 07:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don’t need to patronise me. You don’t need to stalk me. You don’t need to be asking other people to keep articles on their watchlists. Etc, etc. It’s all just so weird. With regard to questioning Anthony’s claim in his book, see WP:TRUTH - “If it’s written in a book, it must be true!” “In many cases, if something appears in a reliable source, it may be used and attributed where needed, but reliable sources are not infallible.” “Even the most reliable sources commit mistakes from time to time, such as misspelling a name or getting some detail wrong. Such mistakes, when found, should be ignored, and not be employed to describe a non-existent dispute.” And so forth. I have every right to question Anthony’s claim when “Czechs” is not mentioned in the Grant’s book in relation to Germans mixing with other peoples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyFerret9854 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is very clearly a content dispute, and I suggest hashing it out on the talk page (especially @FriendlyFerret9854, before a BOOMERANG hits them square in the face). MiasmaEternal☎ 10:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MiasmaEternal: I see this as more of a WP:CIR issue (and failing to WP:LISTEN) than a mere content dispute, especially if you look into their shenanigans at Talk:Aryan_race#Poles,_Czechs_and_Italians. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 12:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, you're right. MiasmaEternal☎ 20:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It just doesn't stop... so for example, I checked the sources that were used to support a claim and none of them supported it so I removed it and he now has reverted it back [[116]] with the reason, "No consensus at talk page. Stop your disruptive editing until there's a result at WP:ANI." This is getting ridiculous now. I am quite capable of checking sources and removing unsourced text. Just for the sake of it I have created a section on the talk page here showing that the sources don't support the claim so the text doesn't belong in the article and should be removed. Why this user is behaving like a moderator on here is beyond me, but it's actually very odd.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And again, the stalking begins... I added text with a secondary source and he has decided to remove it on the Nazi racial theories article. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PERSON? WHY IS HE FOLLOWING ME AND UNDOING ALL OF MY EDITS? IT NEEDS TO STOP!--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its not stalking when you are editing in a narrow range of overlapping articles and including basically the same challenged information across several pages.Slywriter (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Challenged? Please see Talk:Honorary_Aryan#Turks_and_Iranians_-_Part_2 - do you think that unsourced material belongs in the article? I've checked the sources and they do not support the claim because it's an erroneous claim. I don't need to wait for this to be resolved to remove unsourced material.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I said challenged and no you are not the final authority on what is correct or erroneous. If you can not arrive at a consensus, you should be using WP:3O to get a 3rd opinion or wider community input through WP:RFC.Slywriter (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also given sources are listed, the material is not unsourced. You seem to disagree with what the sources purport to say, which is different.Slywriter (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FriendlyFerret9854: WP:SHOUTING is unhelpful and unconstructive. Also, I have Nazi racial theories on my watchlist; when someone makes a change, I get notified. So I wasn't stalking you. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 21:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also when you're in a dispute, FriendlyFerret9854, edit-warring with other editors without arriving at a consensus on the talk page is disruptive. I suggest that we revert back to the stable version, discuss the dispute, then make the edit. Not on the reverse order. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 21:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know best... I created three separate sections on the talk page and you didn't reply so I've created "Part 2", so you can check the sources yourself and quite clearly see that I'm in the right.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Slywriter: Sourced information about Greeks and Turks has nothing to do with Finns and Hungarians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyFerret9854 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Negativity created against me again by IP user 2409:4063:2309:89E2:1554:4974:27D8:1185[edit]

2409:4063:2309:89E2:1554:4974:27D8:1185 (talk · contribs) is blocked User Princepratap1234 who brutually stalked and harassed me in past. After I reported him he got blocked. Since then he's trying to create Negativity against me by using my real name everywhere about which he came to know about by sensing e-mail after which I blocked his 4 mail ids also. Few days back I removed a contribution by PriyaMishra0121 on Anupamaa because it was unconstructive and lacking source also. I also mentioned the reason for reverting the edit. But after that Princepratap1234 through his new IP created negativity against me on her talk page. Yesterday I removed that negativity part against me as it'll create negative image of me in wikipedia editors eyes. But he reverted it again. I request administrators to permanently block his IP on wikipedia and please remove that discussion from Priya's talk page. I'm providing links to it. [117]Pri2000 (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked: 2409:4063:2000:0:0:0:0:0/36 (talk · contribs) blocked by Primefac. El_C 11:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Julienor94[edit]

Suspected Block Evasion by 107.218.228.92 via 96.74.200.230[edit]

I suspect that 96.74.200.230 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is actually 107.218.228.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) – an anonymous user who is a long-term vandal that is currently blocked for two years for persistent vandalism. Both editors seem to edit National Football League and World Wrestling Entertainment-related articles, often adding a false information that is spelled incorrectly or not formatted appropriately. For example:

• 107.218.228.92's edit on Eddie Kennison from 11/25/2020
• 96.74.200.230's edit on Warren Moon from 3/11/2022

In both examples, the city name is misspelled and formatted in all-lowercase.

Both IPs are also based in the Chicago area. 96.74.200.230 presently does not have enough warning to merit a report to WP:AIV. I apologize if this should be filed under a sock puppet investigation, but it seems more like block evasion to me. Thanks, --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  22:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A MAC address user posts an inappropriate discussion on an article's talk page[edit]

To be fair, although it wasn't mentioned in the report, an admin was needed in order to revdel something.  Done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting Users Globally on the Ukraine-Russia Pages[edit]

Pakistan crisis[edit]

There is an constitutional crisis is going in Pakistan, between Government and Opposition parties and there is no clear status of Parliament and national assembly, I request to wikipedia admistators please protect & not allowed any edits at Parliament of Pakistan and National Assembly of Pakistan pages until situation clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.141.159.74 (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks (both), after which the page will be automatically unprotected. No-confidence motion against Imran Khan -related. El_C 11:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHERE editing by user:Turkic Perfect[edit]

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

1. Tried to blanket remove WP:RS sources from the Safavid order page, and tried to swap "Kurdish" with "Turkish". No edit summary/explanation.[118]
2. Tried to blanket remove WP:RS sources from the Safi-ad-din Ardabili page, and tried to swap "Kurdish" with "Turkish". No edit summary/explanation.[119]
3. Tried to swap "Iranian" with "Turkish" at the Abbas the Great article. No edit summary/explanation.[120]
4. Tried to swap "Iranian" with "Azerbaijan" at the Afsharid dynasty article. No edit summary/explanation.[121]
5. Tried to swap "Safavid Iran" with "Safavid Azerbaijan" at the History of Azerbaijan article. No edit summary/explanation.[122]
6. Warned on several occassions.[123]

Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that this "user" is not here to build this encyclopaedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:Turkic_Perfect#Indefinite_block. El_C 11:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Egregious personal attacks[edit]

User: 604editor making religious and personal attacks on a talk page [124] and disruptive edits on Sikhs where he removed sourced content without any explanation [125]. Granted the IP was definitely disruptive as well and deserves to be reprimanded but it doesn't allow a user to make bigoted statements like that. IIBxtrerII (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what about this is a threat? i told him stop making disruptive edits or he'll be reported, he already has several warnings on his talk page, this is ridiculous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 604editor (talk • contribs) 19:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary was a personal attack. However, no warning had been given to 604editor before this report. —C.Fred (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User has been warned about personal attacks.[126] —C.Fred (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you C.Fred, glad this could be resolved immediately. Hope to see less disruptive editing and bigoted statements on wikipedia. IIBxtrerII (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was definitely unacceptable and justified a warning. If there is any repetition I would support a block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There definitely won't be repetition so no need for a block, but let's focus on the fact that you IIBxtrerII reverted my edits on the Page Sikhs, talking about "sourced content removed without any explanation" except everything I removed was already unsourced, Guru Nanak was born into a Buddhist not Hindu family(there's a BIG difference), this is well recorded in multiple sources. Furthermore, you reverted my edits and even reported my efforts against vandalism as "attacks" which yes some were(only on his talk page), within MINUTES, yet you let the Hindu extremist disruptive edits stay unchecked on the page Sikhs since the 31st of March, that is FOUR days, hmmm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 604editor (talk • contribs) 19:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend that you move this comment and discussion on the talk page of Sikhs, this page isn't really appropriate for content disputes. I would be happy to engage with you there. IIBxtrerII (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're really pushing your luck here, adopting a belligerent battleground attitude in a thread where you've already been warned about personal attacks really isn't helping your cause. At this point I'd strongly suggest you find another unrelated topic to quietly work on. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive addition of uncited content and attacks on editors by IP[edit]

86.87.191.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been disruptively adding uncited content and insists that the content will be continuously re added to the Sri Lankan economic crisis (2019–present). Editors have been called "propagandists", amateurs and self-important novice editors""

• 1, 2 , 3
• Also this golden statement "Clearly there are people monitoring this article very desperate to maintain a propagandist approach and using this as a vehicle for spreading their incoherent economic ignorance. I don't expect much on Wikipedia, with all the amateurs and self-important novice editors flying around adding their little tags randomly. I tell you now though I will republish the facts on this article as much as you try to remove it"

-UtoD 05:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Warned: User_talk:86.87.191.180#Warning, Talk:2019–present_Sri_Lankan_economic_crisis#Propaganda. El_C 11:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In light also of today's edit by different IP's, semi 10 days. El_C 12:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further thought, probably excessive at this point. Sure, the Civil War ended in 2009, but this seems like a good faith edit, whose contents were at least partially retained (and notwithstanding the original reported IP's threats, which they have not carried out thus far). El_C 12:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El_C Nope its back and also trolling in the talk page. -UtoD 19:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours: User_talk:86.87.191.180#Block. El_C 19:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive IP returns on century articles[edit]

2601:146:4100:AC60:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) was blocked for three months in May 2021 for persistent MOS:CENTURY violations, including things like The term is often used to refer to the 1800s, the century between January 1, 1800, and December 31, 1899. They also evaded that block as 2601:147:300:EDE0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log).

Now they have returned as 2601:14D:4581:4370:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) and 2601:14D:4581:6710:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) adding the same The term is often used to refer to “the 1800s”, the century between 1 January 1800 and 31 December 1899 nonsense as before. FDW777 (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Billh07882[edit]

• Billh07882 (talk · contribs)

This user has made the same unhelpful edit to Pork roll eleven times in the past couple weeks and has been reverted by five users. The latest was after I gave a uw-vandalism4 on User talk:Billh07882. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Reywas92^Talk 02:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• On the contrary, clearly here to make an article better, albeit ineptly. Why not write the sentence better to avoid this problem? It reads as if somehow there's permission granted to do this, especially as it immediately follows a discussion of legal requirements. If you want to say that even though it's actually named pork roll, is not a ham, and is not necessarily a Taylor product, people still call it "Taylor's Ham", then there must be a way of saying this that doesn't get people wanting to add-in the missing counterpoint. Yes, this is bad writing and slow-motion (less than 1 edit per day on average) edit warring by Billh07882, but it's being triggered by existing writing that could be better too. ISBN 9780811746274 and ISBN 9781467139267 (Arcadia Publishing again) seem to be places to start on this. Bryson and Haynie even make the "I'm looking at [the wrapper] right now." argument. ISBN 9781614237273 (yet more Arcadia) talks about genericization. So it's not that this is some personal observation by Billh07882. It's actually a genuine point to be made, better than the article is making it; and the editor is actually trying to address a failing in the article, and simply doing so not very well. Fix the article with good writing to explain, and I predict that the problem with Billh07882's bad writing will go away of its own accord.

  The north calls it “Taylor ham” and eats it with mustard; the south calls it “pork roll” and eats it with ketchup.

  — Bryson and Haynie, op cit., p. 109

  Uncle G (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a routine content dispute that should be discussed at Talk:Pork roll which has been silent for nearly a year. The goal of that discussion should be to build consensus. Any editor who edit wars against consensus is, of course, at a very high risk of a block. Cullen328 (talk) 04:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And since I made this post, Billh07882 made the edit again, which was reverted, and Drmies made a reasonable edit rewording that section. Billh07882 for a thirteenth time made his change, this time saying it's "also wrong" to eat it with mustard, here inputting a personal observation. This has been appropriately reverted, and I will again say that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia, even without a talk page discussion that obviously inappropriate and disruptive wording is inappropriate. Being reverted by now six users (and warned on his own talk page by three) is an implicit consensus and it's not our onus to bring his inept editing to the talk page. Reywas92^Talk 00:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uncle G, perhaps you know what to do here. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps a page block to force communication on the talk page, hopefully get them experienced in consensus building and develop them into a good editor? They'll end up proving, one way or another, if they're WP:HERE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought about this a bit more, and there's a pork roll SPA, which I find amazing. It really takes all kinds, eh? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not one person. It's an entire state. Uncle G (talk) 06:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well there I was poised to tackle South Atlantic Quarterly and now I find myself having to bloody write about pork roll instead. The entire state of New Jersey owes me some articles. Uncle G (talk) 06:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hamilton, William Baskerville, ed. (1953). Fifty Years of the South Atlantic Quarterly. Durham.
        • Durden, Robert F. (1988). "Hamilton, William Baskerville (7 Mar. 1908–17 July 1972)". In Powell, William S. (ed.). Dictionary of North Carolina Biography. University of North Carolina Press.
        • Mott, Frank Luther (2002). "The South Atlantic Quarterly". A History of American Magazines: 1905–1930. Vol. 5. Harvard University Press. pp. 273–285. ISBN 9780674395541.
        • Fredrickson, George M. (1987). The Black Image in the White Mind: The Debate on Afro-American Character and Destiny, 1817–1914. Wesleyan University Press. p. 291. ISBN 9780819561886.
        • Hart, James D. (1986). "South Atlantic Quarterly". The Concise Oxford Companion to American Literature. Oxford University Press. p. 377. ISBN 9780195047714.
        • MacLeod, Kirsten (2018). American Little Magazines of the Fin de Siecle: Art, Protest, and Cultural Transformation. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 9781442643161.
        • Hart, James D. (1995). "Bassett, John Spencer". In Leininger, Phillip (ed.). The Oxford Companion to American Literature. Oxford University Press. p. 52. ISBN 9780195065480.
      • Right. Some 5KiB later and I'm still annoyed. New Jersey definitely owes me those articles. ScottishFinnishRadish is right. If the editor comes back after this, xe isn't contributing in good faith. Clearly a Southerner, too. Block the bloody nuisance if that happens. Uncle G (talk) 10:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The edit wars on Dyson (company)[edit]

I'm here to report a lot of edit wars on Dyson (company). I reverted a edit on that page considering it was just a single vandalism, but then I found that there were terrible edit wars on it. Could any sysop take a look at the edit history of that page?Pavlov2 (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected Dyson (company) for two weeks. Let me know if the disruption resumes at that time. Cullen328 (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks a lot. By the way, the IPv6 vandal even tried to make a false report against you on 3rr noticeboard. Pavlov2 (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the Gary0987 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is another sock based on this[127] — Czello 22:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More disruptive behaviour[128] — Czello 22:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars at Dyson? Sucks to be them. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Get out. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add Sola8273 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) to the list of socks that require blocking. — Czello 14:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion Needed.[edit]

Disruptive and abusive IP editor[edit]

• Syro-Malabar Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Liturgy of Addai and Mari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Suriyani Malayalam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

IP editor 2402:8100:3903:1960:355B:C14E:5CD3:2EDC, who also appears to edit as 2402:8100:390C:CF8B:92D7:F55F:6220:A38 and 2402:8100:390B:EB54:5088:8C3F:4E40:860C, has repeatedly edited in an abusive, vandalizing, and self-admitted POV manner. Besides using crass language when asked about their edits, the editor proceeded to accuse me of "arrogance and ignorance" twice and has refused to address a request for sources on their edits, particularly this one. Another editor has attempted intervention, not receiving any response. If I need to do anything else, let me know. ~ Pbritti 14:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2001:F40:910:83C:9906:7198:2565:37D9[edit]

Hello, This user has made extremely unconstructive and disruptive edits to wikipedia within the last hour. User claims to be "Hacked", which is impossible as this is an I.P User. Edits include major content removal, Block requested. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Report to ARV is more faster.. Pavlov2 (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

/64 blocked for a few days (via a report at AIV). Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest?[edit]

Eyetie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I are involved in a content dispute on Taron Egerton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) involving praise for Egerton's performance in a play. Eyetie proposed adding a review from Londonist's Franco Milazzo, which I found unsuitable. I then saw that they added a separate review by Milazzo in another article. A quick Google search I did on Milazzo to learn whether their (and Londonist's) reviews merit attention presented something interesting. I'm not going to state my findings per WP:OUTING, but I believe this needs administrator action. KyleJoan^talk 04:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In fairness, not needing Outing, they mention on their user page they're an "award winning critic", so there's already room there to question things. Canterbury Tail talk 12:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Wouldn't it simply be better to ask the editor on their User talk page whether there is a conflict of interest before coming here? As the editor clearly identifies as an award-winning (a horrible phrase that can mean anything from a certificate for swimming ten metres to a Nobel prize) critic there is a fair chance that they will also be prepared to say which award-winning critic. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds quite fair to raise the potential COI discussion with them directly first. Canterbury Tail talk 13:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this discussion, Eyetie called Milazzo the Londonist critic and Londonist verifiable ... for WP purposes, which reads like an attempt by Eyetie to maintain objectivity or conceal any external relationship. You'll also see that they had never answered the questions I had asked them, so I thought it would be futile to ask another one. KyleJoan^talk 14:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Futile or not, I have asked the direct question here, as you seem to be be too shy to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• For what it's worth if the only other edit that I can find of that nature going all of the way back to 2006 is Special:Diff/1043100629, this isn't even in the same class as the normal sort of conflict of interest case. If someone with just an account name on a WWW site said of your job "What is Londonist and how known are they for theatre reviews?" whilst erasing mention of it, what would you think? Egerton received praise, but the SF Chronicle's Mick LaSalle positively panned xem. Uncle G (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I would add that some people may find the user name "Eyetie" to be offensive, although its intent is probably not. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What's wrong with an eyetie? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:NIAOF[edit]

Seattle hoaxer, BLP violations from blocked HappyTreeFriendsYesCuriousGeorgeNo[edit]

• User:HappyTreeFriendsYesCuriousGeorgeNo
• 2601:0603:4b00:0:0:0:0:0/40 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• User:BellaYesCaylieNo

User:HappyTreeFriendsYesCuriousGeorgeNo in Seattle has been using a range of IP6 addresses for hoaxing, date vandalism and violating BLP since September 2020.[129] (Before that, they were using the IP Special:Contributions/71.212.194.148 from July 2019.) One persistent hoax theme they keep adding is the word "Amadeus" or "Amadaeus", for instance in the false film The Bella & Amadaeus Movie[130] or the false TV show The Adventures of Amadaeus.[131] They often add the surname "Gammons".[132][133]

Perhaps a long-term rangeblock would help to keep them away from frequently visited articles. I listed the /40 but maybe it could be tightened for less collateral damage. Binksternet (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding User:BellaYesCaylieNo as an obvious sock, repeating the vandalism of blocked IP Special:Contributions/168.212.100.64. Binksternet (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Looks like a mix of both vandalism and tendentious editing. Definitely SPA terrority. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have called it anything but vandalism. Binksternet (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Belovedeagle / User:JayBeeEll[edit]

JayBeeEll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has accused me of disruptive editing in Strategy-stealing argument. Specifically, the accusation was in this edit summary and on the talk page. It relates to an underlying content dispute (which also involves David Eppstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), but I feel this accusation stands over my head preventing me from editing the article or working with content dispute resolution, and I don't agree that I've engaged in WP:DE.

I will attempt to explain the underlying content dispute, to establish whether I have engaged in WP:DE: JBL stated on the talk page that "Once your changes have been objected to, the onus is on you to find a consensus. So far, you have yet to convince anyone that there is anything wrong with the section you've been editing, which is about as far from establishing a consensus to make changes as is possible." I believe this is not an accurate statement of policy, and begins to lean toward status quo stonewalling. After my initial ill-advised reversion of User:David Eppstein's first revert, all of my subsequent changes to the article were different attempts to find WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Every attempt was reverted in its entirety by JBL or DE prior to any discussion on the talk page 1 2 3 4. Only some of the reversions were accompanied by useful explanations of what could be improved, and those only when I pressed for them in the talk page. For example, "bizarre formatting" in the edit description was not actionable; after I begged on the talk page I got a more detailed explanation of what was wrong, but by then I couldn't restore the change with better formatting because then I would be edit-warring instead of BOLDing. I believe the process which should have been followed would be for JBL to just make the formatting fix themselves, or to discuss on the talk page first instead of reverting to the status quo ante. I acknowledge that JBL expressed entirely new reasons for disagreeing with my change once discussion happened on the talk page, which would explain why a simple fix was not made. However, none of those reasons appear to be good WP:ONLYREVERT reasons. I believe that in my 4-5 attempts at improving the article, there is something that JBL could have found useful and kept.

I also feel that JBL has used language in describing my contributions which, taken together, is excessive enough to be inflammatory: "analysis hinges on a strange and unnatural reading", "a sign of a poor decision-making process", "your use of emphasis was bizarre", "the fact that your edits don't make things better is not terribly surprising given that you have yet to articulate a convincing basis to believe that there is something here that could be improved" (from talk), "bizarre formatting", "Your inability to communicate" (edit summary). I feel that an experienced editor such as JBL could have chosen less inflammatory language even when communicating my lack of competence, or at the very least, just less of it. I got the point that I lack the required competence the very first time, actually; the next five were unnecessary.

In summary, I believe my edits to the article constitute a search for WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, and they are not WP:DE or WP:TE. I'm seeking confirmation of this so that the underlying content dispute can be treated as such, without the threat of WP:DE. If my changes are in fact not WP:DE, then I am further seeking mediation for JBL's stonewalling behavior which their accusation of WP:DE is part of, and for the inflammatory language used to communicate their disapproval. Otherwise if I really am unintentionally engaged in WP:DE then hearing it from uninvolved editors will be a learning experience, and I will at minimum sit down and shut up.

To be clear, I haven't behaved well myself in the talk space, especially by venting my growing frustration by accusing JBL of bad faith. I should have left that bit out and just proceeded by assuming good faith. (Unfortunately I had not yet discovered the suggestions for what to do when one feels stonewalled.) I recognize this is probably the most pressing matter when considering the dispute so far, as I may be the only one who made it directly personal. Likewise I expressed my frustration with User:David Eppstein inappropriately. This is as good a reason to be here as any. Belovedeagle (talk) 04:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is I think mostly a content dispute, but over what content I am not entirely sure, because of Belovedeagle's prolixity. After some incivility on my talk page I warned them, perhaps too obliquely, of further drama; instead, after a second clearer warning on Talk:Strategy-stealing argument by JBL re WP:AGF they have rushed headlong into it here. I doubt their behavior has yet risen to the point of being block-worthy, though, so my suggestion would be an early close. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The diff links I have provided should be more than adequate to identify the content being disputed. I trust you realize that an early close would mean settling the content dispute in your favor. Belovedeagle (talk) 06:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sad to point out that you're not assuming good faith, again. I was not trying to win an argument, here, but actually to help you. The intent of my suggestion was to close this discussion quickly before it turns (as so many discussions here do) against its instigator. As to the content dispute, I am more interested in having the article reflect the scholarly consensus, and secondarily in getting agreement on whatever that might be in the discussions at the article talk page, than I am in getting my way (whatever "my way" might be when I still don't even have a clear picture of the point you are trying to make, and so far have mainly been trying to keep the article intelligible rather than to push any particular mathematical philosophy). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely lost at this fresh accusation as I find my previous comment does AGF.

In this case I wish you would not attempt to help me by closing the discussion early, and I explained why I felt that was not in my best interests overall. During the whole encounter your attempts at assistance have felt condescending rather than collegiate. Since I do assume this is unintentional, I ask you now to stop taking up this position in your interactions with me. Belovedeagle (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be explicit: You falsely accused me of trying to win a content dispute by shutting down the discussion here. Neither the presumption that I am here to win disputes nor the accusation that I would use underhanded means to do so are assumptions of good faith. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did no such thing. I see now how it could be taken that way, but I was just trying to be less verbose as you have requested. This leaves me feeling I cannot do anything right in your eyes: if I explain myself, I am too verbose; if I do not, I am not AGF.

We should back up and both assume good faith from here on out. I'm really trying to do so. Belovedeagle (talk) 07:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Belovedeagle, but this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. Further, administrators have no special powers when it comes to content disputes, except possibly from the credibility thst comes from more experience. So, take a look at the options available to you at Dispute resolution instead. Cullen328 (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this is not the place for content disputes. But I thought this was the place for resolving the WP:DE accusation, and I want to resolve it before it festers. (Content dispute resolution won't be fruitful if I can't make any edits due to having been informed by JPL that further edits are WP:DE.) Please direct me to a more appropriate forum if not, and sorry for the confusion. Belovedeagle (talk) 06:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the past month of watching ANI I can pass along what I have seen to be excellent advice when it comes to content disputes, submit a Rfc using Template:Rfc. The first step is to figure out exactly what you want to have included on the page and then add it to the Talk page. If you want help drafting the Rfc I would suggest reaching out at the Teahouse. Gusfriend (talk) 07:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiography[edit]

Md Sunnat Ali Mollik has created Md Sunnat Ali Mollik multiple times. This clearly does not belong in main space, yet they persist in putting it back and have paid no attention to the messages on their TP. After my last draftification, they have blanked my user page. MB 07:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted again and create-protected. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The user has subsequently been indefinitely blocked by another admin. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guntapaki[edit]

Guntapaki has been Changing match times in various Wrestling Matches in a lot of Pay per views from WWE and WCW like Crown Jewel (2021), Survivor Series (2021), WWE Day 1, Royal Rumble (2022), Elimination Chamber (2022), Mayhem (1999), Halloween Havoc (1999), Survivor Series (2021), Armageddon (1999) and WrestleMania 38. This is has been going on since September 2021 and i think that Guntapaki is WP:NotHere. This is the only thing that this user does.

1. [134]
2. [135]
3. [136]
4. [137]
5. [138]
6. [139]
7. [140]
8. [141]
9. [142]

Chip3004 (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully to the OP, this ANI was not written well, and the difs are not actually difs. Since such poorly formed reports often get ignored, I'm going to try to help out.

First things first. All of Guntapaki's edits are changing the duration time for matches on pro wrestling PPVs without leaving an edit summary or any other commentary. A lot of the "not-difs" are months old, although a review of Guntapaki's contributions shows that the edits are ongoing. On the page for Starrcade (1999), the match duration times were sourced to 411mania, a site of "limited reliability" per WP:PW/RS. Guntapaki changes several times without adding a new source, and Chip3004 reverted.

Which brings us to communication. Guntapaki has not posted on any talk pages - not his user page, not article talk pages, not on Chip3004's talk pages. Meanwhile, Chip3004 has posted a rudely phrased query that was overwritten with a vandalism template an hour later, another vandalism template 8 minutes later, one month later, another attempt at communication consisting mainly of threats, another template 3 months later, and two months after that one last template and an ANI notification. No other users aside from the one that originally welcomed Guntapaki to Wikipedia have ever posted there. I'm including all this not to throw shade at Chip3004 but to help illustrate the situation - repeated threats from a single user may easily be ignored if no consequences are forthcoming.

So, is what Guntapaki doing vandalism or an attempt at good faith contributions? Well, I think he is vandalizing and I'm using this edit as the reason. In it he removes a source, and changes the access date of another source - I think this is evidence that he knows what he's doing. Guntapaki has, by the way, reinstated information he added that was reverted (once, twice) and has been reverted by editors other than Chip3004.

Guntapaki should be blocked, preferably by an administrator with the patience to discuss WP:RS with him if it does turn out that he's interested in being a legitimate contributor. 184.15.47.224 (talk) 06:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Problem is when Guntapaki changed the Match Time for Match #7 it didn't match the source [143] Chip3004 (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guntapaki is still changing the match times for WrestleMania 38, he continues to change match times for WrestleMania 38, he always leaves the edit summary blank and does not use his talk page at all and it is ongoing. Chip3004 (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think admin action is needed here. Chip3004 (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Indefinitely blocked as WP:VOA. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sparkle1[edit]

Can I please bring, yet again, User:Sparkle1 to the attention of this board?

We have their attitude on their talk page:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sparkle1&oldid=1080506106 ("Not even bothered reading")
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sparkle1&oldid=1080200568 ("Not interested in the ramblings")

We also have a borderline edit war :

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2021_Saudi_Arabian_Grand_Prix&oldid=1080201226

I understand they have been reported before and I wonder if we can discuss their tone, their behaviour, and their attitude problem.

Thanks doktorb _words^deeds 19:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring would probably have been a more appropriate place for a thread like this, not that it can't be discussed here as well, but edit warring does have it's own separate board. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional note User:Sparkle1 was notified of this ANI (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sparkle1&oldid=1080210382) and reverted it with a dismissive and uncivil edit summary (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sparkle1&direction=next&oldid=1080210382 "Not even bothered reading."

doktorb _words^deeds 05:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I see no issue with Sparkle1's user talk edits or the correlated edit summaries. A user can remove messages from their own user talk page because they're not interested and can say as such in the edit summary. Nothing of substance here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equivamp (talk • contribs) 08:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This report is vexatious in my opinion. Sparkle1 (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not consider administrative action warranted here. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring the 2010s and 2020s-present section[edit]

Every user who has committed each and every ban evasion has kept asking me to restore the 2010s and 2020s-present section of the Horror film page. They have been doing this to me time and again, every chance they got. So could you please do something about this before another ban-evading user starts bothering me again? AdamDeanHall (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may need to report this to WP:SPI Pavlov2 (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please file a report containing all these socks to there, which may be helpful.By the way, you can try to request a protect for your user talk page. Pavlov2 (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is about Jinnifer (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jinnifer). Jinnifer commonly uses sock puppets to harass on user talk pages both here and on other Wikimedia projects. MrOllie (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also found his socks on wikiquote, seemingly he is cross-wiki vandalizing. Pavlov2 (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve gotten this nonsense too. Dronebogus (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A rangeblock on 166.205.141.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) would be helpful, Jinnifer has been editing from there the last few days. See for example their trademark deuteragonist nonsense. - MrOllie (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See CrakerLaers (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) for a real time example. - MrOllie (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]