• Omegatron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Djm-leighpark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1087#Personal attack by Achezet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Disclosing ANI discussion involving Djm-leighpark not Omegatron with regard to article/talk overlaying discussion)

Omegatron is an admin who notes "people are frustrating", at least at this version of their tlak page, which is a worrying trait for an admin; though no admin tools have been exercised in this event. I will suggest their contributions over a desire to move the article Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination to Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia have been disruptive and problematic, not of the standard to be expected of an experienced user let alone an admin where a higher standard is expected. A BOLD move of what might reasonably be expected be controversial at Special:Diff/1060932429, let alone issues because a move had previously been slightly discussed at Talk:Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination/Archive 1#Adenoviruses only?, though the entire content of the talk and archive should have been. Following a somewhat assertive exchange correctly in my opinion raised a Special:Diff/1060938802 requested move on 18 December 2021. However per my comment at Special:Diff/1061542226 Omegatron had indulged in disruptive undated modifications and additions to discussion and a Canvas, which while I can AGF he intended to be "fair", was, I would say, ultimately biased. Plus per WP:CANVAS good practice would have been to "leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users." Ultimately the CANVAS issue is minor, change talk discussions, especially a nomination to which responses have been made, is a serious matter. Whether Omegatron's timing to challenge this today was to do with RL, which I can accept, although doing a CANVAS and then disappearing is not really great practice, but it can happen. However responding today a few days after the Special:Diff/1065055859 discussion was closed, half questioning my concern about discussion irregularities (and not owning the major part or the problems) at Special:Diff/1065826060 brings this here, plus Omegatron seems not to have respected closer Mike Cline's request to discuss a move review on his page as requested, but rather to continue on the article talk page dragging me into it first. This seems like behaviour that is unbecoming or any user, let alone an admin. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't want to prejudice any serious discussion here, but, to be brutally honest, it is starting to look a bit like either no-one cares about this complaint, or they are all going WP:TLDR. I make no comment on the validity of the complaint. As an aside, this may be better suited to WP:AN. Just a few peanuts from the comment gallery. Cheerio. Mako001 (C)  (T)  15:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mako001: @Omegatron has 48 hours to respond here, and I'd be encouraged to suggest 72 hours. And yes, course no one cares, and usually coming to ANI costs the raiser. Though at at this rate I'm frankly expecting to see a voluntary de-sysop, or alternatively I'm likely to get the old block if I get frustrated and give the short form. Anyway at some point I'll consider perhaps wasting my time and doing something or other or nothing. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to make a summarised version of the above, to avoid the TLDR issues? Again, I'll be brutally honest and say that, since no-one else has really responded here, it could be that no-one else thinks that your complaint has any merit? Again, no comment from myself on whether it does or not. Has omegatron been active in the last few days? If not you may want to email them politely and ask them to respond to this thread. Anyways, I'll leave this thread for now, I don't have any other reason to contribute to it. Mako001 (C)  (T)  23:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mako001 So you wish to suggest me to out and expose my email address to Omegatron? I think not sunshine. I'll make it simple. Omegatron has initiated discussions. I have responded, at great time expense, and RL cost, here and on the closers talk page. It is generally expected users, let alone admins, would be expected to keep pace on initiated discussions. Yes, there can always be RL reasons, there might be personal or weather events suddenly come up. But equally well this admin may be teaching a behaviour not to respond when its been reasonably alleged your, let says "playing dirty". Now if admins are condoning altering of making undated alterations of talk page discussions after people have replied then perhaps they should stay away from commenting here. But its a sad examplebad example to set. Thankyou. 01:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC) -- Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the summarised version, I'm sure it will help. With the email, I'm referring to the "Email this user" function. It goes via the WMF servers, and neither of your email addresses are actually visible to each other. Generally, users don't directly email each other, and references to "email" generally refer to the "email this user" function. I'm sorry if I caused some confusion by my lack of clarity earlier on that. Mako001 (C)  (T)  12:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Reading through the discussion, I see some bludgeoning by Omegatron. It would also have been better for them to have put their comments citing various sources beneath a discussion section header to separate it from the opening statement more. The canvassing concerns seem hyperbolic, particularly given the balance of the !votes in that discussion against Omegatron. I don't think there's anything sanctionable here at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rosguill: Thankyou for taking time to analyze. With respect I think you've been a little soft to the unsigned significant changes in the discussion/nomination when people have responded to that nomination. So it's gone above a little bludgeoning. In terms of the canvas not affecting the !voting, that not really the point. Per Special:Diff/1061321198 the criteria was one of the top 10 contributors to this article - actually I've pretty sure on the edit count metric was not top ten prior to the canvas but useful contributions post canvas brought this user into a top ten edit count. A "top-ten" contributor who had been strident in attempting to ensure the article was not promoted was omitted. It is actually pretty easy to accept that Omegatron would believe they were doing an unbiased canvas ... though in practice it is very difficult to avoid concerns of systemic bias from particular angle and the obvious thing per recommendation is to declare the canvas on the discussion. But ion all events the canvas was secondary to the bludgeoning and talk interference and I again put as a very poor example for admins to show. Thankyou. 12:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Ultimately this will likely fail due to a dialog failure here, I have to AGF this is not simply so Omegatron can cling to their adminship badge. With regards to Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination considerations bludgeoning if it hints at restarting Dispute resolution processes will be needed or a more review etc. discussed with the closer ... if that sort of dialog fails there would seem reason for Wikipedia:Administrators#Review and removal of adminship under Disputes or complaints; that's not really a punishment angle its that privileges should not be left with those who don't really need them; on the counter side removal of said rights might cause Omegatron to go inactive. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Aydın memmedov2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. Added "We are not iranian, This is nothing but fascism, we are not iranians (persian), we are a modern Turks people. You are carrying out the policy of assimilation of Azerbaijanis here." on the Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis page.[1]
2. Added a link published by the government of the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, a country without media freedom, in order to press a historic 15th-century Turkic woman as "the first diplomant woman of Azerbaijan"[2] (See also; Historical_negationism#Azerbaijan)
3. Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 14th century Turkic figure.[3]
4. Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 14th/15th century Turkic figure.[4]
5. Added a fictitious flag (per the file description and Commons) to the Meskhetian Turks article.[5]
6. Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 15th century Turkic figure.[6]
7. Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 18t century Turkic figure.[7]
8. Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 18t century Turkic figure.[8]
9. Warned on numerous occassions.[9]-[10]-[11]-[12]

Looking at the compelling evidence, it appears that said user is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• from what I've seen personally, I agree that the reported user is a NOTHERE nationalist editor. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• this kind of behaviour is hard to treat, a topic ban with an option of applying for a ban lift in 6 months if behaves in other areas perhaps could treat the problem. --Armatura (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The forum comment at Iranian Azerbaijanis is quite bad form. I'd be able to AGF about most of the other edits in this report, but am much more concerned by edits like Special:Diff/1061922934, where it appears that they attempted to pass off a source as saying something it did not. I think Armatura's suggestion of a medium-length tban is sensible, and think that having it apply to "origins of the ethnic groups of the Caucasus and their languages, broadly construed" would address the scope of articles where they've exhibited battleground attitudes. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban proposal

As per aforementioned discussion, I propose a 3-month topic ban for user "Aydın memmedov2000" on origins of the ethnic groups of the Caucasus and their languages, broadly construed. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following text added by Nunuxxx (talk · contribs · count) to Armenia–Georgia relations [13] is taken word-for-word from pages 185 and 186 of "Armenia: Secrets of a Christian Terrorist State" by Samuel Weems, an infamous genocide denier, historical negationist, and criminal:

• The sufferings of the people of Akhalkalak dwarfed the tribulations of all other Armenians in Georgia. Thirty thousand had perished as the result of the Turkish occupation, and those who survived were starving. Some mothers attempted to save their daughters by offering them as wives to Georgian militiamen and soldiers. Russian, Jewish, and Georgian entrepreneurs were reportedly buying young girls for 100 to 300 rubles and sending them to brothels; eight- to twelve-year-old orphan boys were being sold for a pittance at Bakuriani; hundreds of women and children were pressed into servitude in the adjacent Muslim districts. All roads leading away from Akhalkalak were strewn with the bodies of fleeing Armenians.

Links to the pages [14][15]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That extract is from Richard G. Hovannisian's “The Republic of Armenia Volume II: From Versailles to London, 1919-1920”, in the second paragraph of page 151, as was cited in the Armenia-Georgia relations article. I'd like to add that if you were concerned about a copyright violation, you could have reached out to me directly instead of escalating to ANI (which is a last-resort avenue). In any case, I did not read about or hear of Samuel Weems or his book before. I believe what may have occurred is that Weems copied the extract from Hovannisian's book to validate his own publication. - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 13:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nunuxxx, could you expand on this a bit, I don't seem to understand: are you saying that this has been copied verbatim from a source, just not the source that ZaniGiovanni thought it had? Is there any reason why that is not WP:COPYVIO? (Also, are those curly apostrophes?!?) Girth Summit _(blether) 15:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Essentially yes, I mistakenly forgot to place the extract in a quote block as I had intended, however, I did remember to cite the source of the extract so as to indicate its origin. I will correct this shortly, or paraphrase it, whichever is more suitable. - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 15:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nunuxxx: this doesn't seem like a reliable source, shouldn't it just be removed? Levivich 15:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As someone who has studied the subject in great depth, I can attest to the fact that Richard G. Hovannisian is considered in English academia the foremost expert on the First Republic of Armenia which is reflected by the detailed 4 volume series on its existence which he has published through the University of California press. He is acknowledged and cited by numerous authors, Armenian and Azerbaijani alike for his reliable and thorough academic contributions to the subject, therefore, I believe his publications can with certainty be considered as reliable. - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 15:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, my mistake, I misread and thought you were quoting Weems not Hovannisian. Levivich 15:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I find it hard to credit the idea that you could have mistakenly forgotten to put text like that in a quote block. This isn't just about missing some tags: when you are going to quote someone, you have to write attribution stuff around it (e.g. "Armenian American historian Richard G. Hovannisian, writing in his history on the period The Republic of Armenia (Volume II), wrote..."). You didn't bother with any of that, you just presented it as your own words, and put it inappropriately into Wikipedia's voice. That's completely inappropriate on several levels: putting the obvious COPYVIO issues to one side, historians don't write encyclopedically, the are often making an argument and writing persuasively. Their views are their own, whereas we have to attempt to represent scholarly consensus. I don't have a view on whether the source is unreliable, as Levivich suggests, but certainly inserting without attribution as you did is massively inappropriate, and it makes me worried about whether your other contributions need to be checked over. Have you ever added text from a historical work in a similar manner before? Girth Summit _(blether) 15:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I have used Hovannisian's work in other articles, yes. After familiarising myself with WP:COPYVIO, I deleted one paragraph that I used from the source here. I also created this article with that source and I can nominate it for deletion for COPYVIO or you could delete it yourself. I'm a relatively new editor, I only recently became active on Wikipedia some months ago starting with adding statistical data into tables, so I'm still rather inexperienced in regards to copyright policies of Wikipedia. I'm sorry if it seemed like I was trying to pass it off as my own, that was not at all my intention and I will certainly try to be more careful in future to ensure my edits are made in accordance with WP:COPYVIO and WP:MOS. - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 16:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you copy any content from the source into the article? Our automated copyvio detection tools don't pick up anything on that article, but they are not foolproof - if the stuff comes from an offline source like a hardcopy book, or it's an online source that the tool can't access, the copyvio won't be detected. If it only contains a few sentences that were copied, they could be removed/rewritten, then I could revdel the old versions. If most of the text of the article has been copied from the book, it would be simpler just to delete the article and start again from scratch.

  Copyright is a complex, but important part of editing here. You can start by read WP:COPYRIGHT, the overarching policy, then following the links in there to find out more. But to understand it in a nutshell, take this on board: you must not copy text from any source. Ideally, you shouldn't be basing content off of a single source - you should try to collect two or three sources covering the material you want to write about, then try to summarise what they each have to say in your own words. Occasionally, there will be particular phrases that are almost impossible to express in different words - that's OK, but keep it to an absolute minimum. If you get the the point that you have copied a whole sentence, you have gone much too far. Changing the odd word here and there is known as WP:Close paraphrasing, and it's also not permissible - if your sentence presents the same ideas in the same order as the source, just using the occasional synonym to make them different, then it is too close to the original. Even in cases where the source is out of copyright, or in the public domain, there are tags that you need to apply to provide attribution if you copy from it in order to be compliant with our policy here. Oh, and in case you were thinking about copying content from one article to another: WP:CWW. Even if you wrote the original text yourself, you need to provide attribution when copying it into a new article.

  Going further than that, there are issues with the text quoted above which make in unsuitable for an article here. One group of people's suffering dwarfing that of another group of people: that's a subjective judgment, whcih can be mentioned, but the person who wrote that needs to be attributed; Wikipedia doesn't make judgments of that sort in its own voice. The rest of it should have been summarised into a sentence or two about people being sold into servitude and prostitution in order to survive - to fit with our house style, it shouldn't be written as emotively as it currently is. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I did copy and cite some paragraphs (with minor adjustments to grammar and geographical terms) in that article, however, it's from an offline PDF so it may not have been detected. Alternatively, perhaps the article could be moved to a "draft" and rewritten to conform to WP, or I can rewrite it from my sandbox, whichever you think is more appropriate. Thank you for explaining the policy in-detail, I will definitely acquaint myself with WP:COPYRIGHT to make my edits more original, and also more objective in accordance to WP:NPOV, as I understand the purpose is to present an objective collection of information and facts and let the reader form their own conclusion. - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 04:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for being frank about that. I've deleted the page, and its associated talk page, as a copyright infringement - copyright violations aren't permitted anywhere, including in draft space or user space I'm afraid. If you are going to copy content from a source, you need to do that offline on your own device, and ensure that it is re-written in your own words before uploading here. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Pinging Moneytrees, as an admin with more familiarity with copyvio issues than I have - if you could skim through the thread above, and comment on whether you think any further investigation/action is required, I'd be grateful. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Girth Summit You asked if they copy-pasted text to other articles. Not sure if these violate COPYVIO, but here: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @ZaniGiovanni I believe those are acceptable block quotes. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 20:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Wanted to also add that it's interesting how Nunuxxx, being a self-proclaimed person who studied the subject in great depth, misrepresents historian and their quotes, ignoring conclusions in the book and passages he cites, just to defend his tendentious edit. Please see reply and explanation regarding that edit here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Girth Summit I've done some spot checking now and I don't see anything that hasn't now been removed, although I cannot access the main source copied from. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 20:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you're slightly mistaken on one point; WP:NOATT says If the re-user is the sole contributor of the text at the other page, attribution is not necessary, so if they wrote the original text and it has not been altered by other editors, copying without attribution is permissible. BilledMammal (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I may some changes to the article on Samuel Weems where the material from the obit tracks with the source content, though probably in an acceptable manner. That biography raises some neutrality concerns and makes me wonder if the book mentioned at the start of this thread is actually a RS for use on WP for anything but Weems' own views. I wondered about a talk page-discussion, but figure there are few eyes on that page. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aramaram159 has been adding SYNTH and OR to Aramaic original New Testament theory (see the recent history of the article). The user has so far no communicated, and has ignored my three warnings. @Ymblanter: has masked 8 revisions of the user on this page for copyright infringement. The user needs to be blocked, and for good measure I think Aramaic original New Testament theory should be protected. Veverve (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked a week for copy vio. Feel free to discuss the other issues here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Ymblanter: Is what is left at Aramaic original New Testament theory#Mistranslations a copyright infringement? The writer died 66 years ago. Veverve (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The book was published in the US in 1936, so, yes, assuming it was copyrighted, and the copyright was property renewed, it will be copyrighted until 1 January 2032--Ymblanter (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: I guess you should remove it and mask all revisions until now, then. Veverve (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but it might be a misunderstanding. I was talking about the book by Torey, but there is no text from it in the current version. Ig you mean Norton, who is extensively ciyed, that book was published in the UK, and then we need the death date - which I could not easily locate.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: I was also talking about the book of Torrey, whose very long quote begins with "Exhibit XIX. Wrong Vocalization of the Aramaic" and is currently in the article. Veverve (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks.  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 06:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DiploCult (talk · contribs) This editor contacted me via email sent through WP. This in an effort to get me to make Paolo Petrocelli back into an article. It is currently a redirect per this AFD[63]. There was nothing wrong with the email, it was a plea, providing many sources,in order to prove Diplocult's notability. Yes, in the email Diplocult admitted being Petrocelli.

This is just a notification of this off wiki contact. I thought it may be necessary because-

• Diplocult has a COI. He made four edits to the article but back in 2020.
• Diplocult may have contacted other editors or may still do so.

I have no plans to edit the article (Which I have never edited at all) which was last edited 3 months ago. Any administrator who would like to see the email, I'll be happy to provide a copy....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I received the same email via WP. I have no idea why he contacted me. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 22:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• My God, why do people insist on embarrassing themselves this way? The relentless self-promotion is absolutely nauseating. See https://www.paolopetrocelli.com/ (or any number of other websites endlessly repeating that Paolo Petrocelli, PhD-EMBA-FRSA, is a senior cultural manager driven by the belief that culture, arts and education are a major force for growth, development and change globally. A passionate, innovative and dynamic manager with an extensive experience in leadership positions in a variety of organizational settings, he is an international relations and global cultural affairs expert and so on and so forth). EEng 02:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC) I haven't been able to determine whether FRSA is the Federal Railroad Safety Act, Free Radical Scavenging Activity, or the Florida Roofing, Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Contractors Association.[reply]
• I was also contacted on 14 January, and the most annoying thing was the flattery towards me written in the e-mail. At this point, it is possible that every Italian who contributes here has received an email from him. Alex2006 (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not Italian! rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 00:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not that there's anything wrong with that. EEng 05:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I was not contacted! EEng 05:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You're not worthy. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 17:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have also received the same email with accompanying flattery. I left a message on his talk page to the effect that for the sake of transparency, I will only discuss the issues he raised in the email on his talk page and left it to him to initiate the discussion there. Note that he appears to have a second account Musicdiplomacy (talk · contribs). See here. Of interest also is Draft:Stauffer Center for Strings, a new conservatory of which Mr. Petrocelli is the director. The draft has been created by a paid editor, who after being challenged subsequently disclosed this. Voceditenore (talk) 09:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • DiploCult replied[64] to you at his talk page. I saw Musicdiplomacy too but didn't investigate too deeply....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I noticed. I have since left him some advice there. Voceditenore (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Voceditenore: DiploCult is Paolo Petrocelli, They admitted so at the very beginning of their email to me. So WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:COI should apply....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @WilliamJE: Yes I know who he is, he said so in his email to me and on-wiki. He also knows that I know. That's why I told him that if he tries to write a draft, he must declare his conflict of interest. Ditto adding to EMMA for Peace. He's already been warned multiple times by others about WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. All of that is implicit in my advice to him. But I'll add a link to that guideline in my message just in case. Voceditenore (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

          Maybe the Cato the Elder anecdote will sink in. EEng 05:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had edited an article drafted by User:TrangaBellam with good faith a couple of hours ago but they were not content with these edits and left an unpleasant message on my talk page. They then started to nitpick several of my recent article translations from Bengali to English, mass deleting chunks of information, removing relevant citations, despite being told by other users that there is nothing wrong. I suggest looking through his recent contributions since editing my talk page and you will see majority of them are not focused on contributing to and benefiting our encyclopaedia but trying to criticise each and everything. It's totally fine to add "citation needed" comments, but their attitude is not sensible and it seems they are actively targeting me by specifically going through my recent article translations. SalamAlayka (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I scanned your contributions because of your misplaced belief that translating content from other wikis excuses you from providing citations etc. A summary of my relevant edits:

• I redirected one of your articles and was thanked by a very longstanding editor.
• I came across Zobeda Khanom Chowdhury mis-citing sources and using circular sources, and nominated it for an AfD. This is a borderline case and might go either way depending on who shows up.
• I tagged Habibullah Qurayshi—which was already tagged for depending on a single source by some other reviewer—for potentially failing WP:N, which you are free to undo.
• I tagged Ismail Alam for using unreliable sources from fringe publishing houses.
• I discussed issues about your latest article (Nur Qutb Alam) at a talk-page section and provided some suggestions. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise I'm only human. If you want me to address all of this it will take time. I just created the Nur Qutb Alam article and you've already criticised it... just give some time and it will improve. Be patient, don't be aggressive when addressing, and we can go through it eventually bit by bit. SalamAlayka (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving a note at talk-page is not criticism, per se. I pointed out what is allowed as a source (and what is not) about articles concerning S. Asian History.

The articles which were tagged by me were written by you weeks ago. Tags stay for months, before being actioned: you have no worries. But, please do not write unsourced controversial statements (like at Syeda Shahar Banu) or delete sourced content (like at Titumir). Go through the articles, you have translated and cite every line to a decent RS. Else, remove them. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• SalamAlayka, it looks to me like Tranga Bellam is trying to help you rather than "nitpicking" or "trying to criticise each and everything". You'd do yourself a favour if you listened better to their comments. Also, I don't see anything "unpleasant" about their messages on your talkpage. Bishonen | tålk 21:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

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

I recently removed and moved some pictures in Ainu people per WP:Gallery, when suddenly a user reverted my and three others edits. I should note that I did not remove any outstanding pictures, but two paintings and one rather bad quality one. The other pictures simply got moved. Not sure what can trigger such an outburst. The edit summary is quite horrifying babbling about "pseudo white Caucasians" and "mixed breeds".^[1] I seriously doubt that such terminology is acceptable, and the worldviews of an user using these terms should not be spreaded in an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. Last but not least, the removal of content seems disruptive and was not explained in his/her "edit summary". As such I think reporting this incident for racist terminology is a good reaction. I have also pinged the user on the talk page. A comment or sanctions should be enforced if further disruptive and racist eruptions come out of this user.-193.107.22.36 (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vamlos (talk · contribs) editing habits and focus on race and Asia looks awfully like that of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/WorldCreaterFighter. His 30,000 byte addition to Talk:Interracial marriage in September 2020 is truly something to behold. I think a WP:NOTHERE block is in order. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Without comment on the DE/NOTHERE aspect, noting that Dreamy Jazz found Vamlos  Unrelated to WCF at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WorldCreaterFighter/Archive § 22 December 2021. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. There is a clear, uncomfortable focus on racial purity in Valmos's editing, as can be seen in this recent edit they made to Orang Asil. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Such a fascination with race and purity, expressed in these and other edits, bespeaks a basic mindset that has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. I have blocked per NOTHERE. Perhaps the user is unrelated to previous race-obsessed editors, perhaps not. At the very least we can say that a talk page full of warnings for all kinds of disruption (lack of proper edit summaries, unverified edits, poor writing, racist language in article space) have not helped. Drmies (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Curbon7, my apologies for (temporarily?) removing your close: the editor has placed an unblock request. That they argue that a term used by "colonial officials in the British Empire during their classification of indigenous populations" could still be used today in this encyclopedia is not the strongest argument, but hey, YMMV. I hope one of my fellow admins will look at the unblock request and take into account comments made here at ANI. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: suggested on my talkpage that this user is likely to be a sock of DerekHistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who they contend has incorrectly been conflated with WCF. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I applied revdel to the edit summary as well. The Utari (the Ainu name for themselves, it does tell you something that Ainu is written in katakana...) are still viciously discriminated against, any disruption there needs to be tamped down fast. I won't handle the unblock request, since I know I'm too close to that subject to be objective about it (hell, I wrote a lot of the article on inau and I play the mukkuri), but to me it at least looks to be reasonably sincere. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see how someone with such an archaic, 19th century scientific racism-esque view of race and ethnicity can ever appropriately edit anything related to ethnic groups, nevermind just the Ainu. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:Curtis Yarvin#WP:BLPGOSSIP This article is Defamatory and Places wikipedia in legal jeopardy. sbelknap (talk · contribs) has cited the "Hulk Hogan-Gawker-Peter Thiel" events (Bollea v. Gawker) as justification for removing content from the Curtis Yarvin article on BLP grounds. This information includes a direct quote from Yarvin's blog which has been cited by two reliable sources. Yarvin and Thiel have worked together in the past, so per sbelknap, including this information is "an existential threat to wikipedia" because Yarvin's buddy might come for Wikipedia like he did for Gawker. The chilling effect issue is obvious.

Per most reliable independent sources, Yarvin's fringe political views are the primary reason he is notable. Without those views, and sources about them, it's unlikely he would warrent an article in the first place. Failing to summarize these sources would damage the neutrality of the article.

Previously on that talk page, sbelknap has also argued that Yarvin's father's Jewish ancestry should be mentioned via obscure primary sources. This was, apparently, intended to be an indirect counterpoint to sourced comments that he is associated with the alt-right, which is associated with antisemitism. For this, sbelknap, bizarrely, compares Yarvin to Werner Goldberg, a Nazi soldier who also had a Jewish father. Yarvin's own blog is the closest thing we have to a reliable source for his paternal grandparent's religion/ethnicity. sbelknap also cites a Daily Mail blurb about Larry Sanger as a reason to include primary sources in BLP articles.

I consider all of these to be serious red flags.

There are obvious BLP issues here. I have tried to explain these issues and have gotten nowhere. Considering the "existential threat" comment, I would appreciate it if someone with more knowledge of WP:NLT looks at this situation.

Grayfell (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my very much non-admin opinion, this is the kind of legal threat that deserves an immediate block, for at least some time. To my mind, there is a big difference between, "this is defamatory," and "unless this article reflects my preferences, I will bankrupt Wikipedia as an associate of the article's subject famously did to a media company." People who wander into WP:NLT territory should be warned. This is not a wander; this is jumping in with both feet. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something but... Where exactly is the threat here? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, sbelknap described this as an "existential threat" to Wikipedia. The idea being proposed is that Wikipedia itself will be sued into oblivion by Yarvin's patron. This threat was supported by a totally unrelated legal case brought up by someone who is chummy with Yarvin. As far as legal threats go, that's pretty direct, but even without that, it still introduces a chilling effect to suppress sourced content. Grayfell (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is none. :: Per Wikipedia:No legal threats quoting from section on Defamation "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to delete libelous material as soon as it is identified." sbelknap (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have failed to explain why a direct quote of something he said, as supported by multiple reliable sources, is "defamatory". Yarvin said the quit part loud, on a blog he published himself, and reliable sources noticed that. That's not defamatory. Since you claimed that legal action was plausible, and used that threat to remove content from the article, you have made this into a much wider and more serious issue. Grayfell (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, see the diff: "This article defames Curtis Yarvin and is an existential threat to wikipedia. Interested editors can review the Hulk Hogan-Gawker-Peter Thiel events to understand the legal consequences of defamation to a media entity. The Curtis Yarvin article notes Yarvin's association with Peter Thiel. Being an anonymous wikipedia editor may protect that editor but that is not going to protect wikipedia itself from legal jeopardy. As one example, ... Yarvin writes, 'It should be obvious that, although I am not a white nationalist, I am not exactly allergic to the stuff (as should be the case with any intellectual—anyone who takes this as an endorsement of white nationalism is an idiot).' ... This is grossly distorted by a journalist, and by the time it gets to this wikipedia page, it means precisely the opposite of what Yarvin intended." In addition to it being original research on Sbelknap's part to examine Yarvin's blog in search of potentially exculpatory ways to parse the latter's language—based on the transparently false premise that either Wikipedia or the reliable secondary source labelled Yarvin a "white nationalist" in the first place (they did not)—the above comment seems intended to create a "chilling effect" by raising the implication that Wikipedia itself (if not "anonymous wikipedia editor[s]" individually) will likely face "legal jeopardy" of an "existential" nature if the quote from Yarvin's blog is retained.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Independent of the question of whether this actually is defamatory, that is not remotely a legal threat. It's hyperbolic and overkill, but it's not a legal threat. For it to be a legal threat he would have to, well, threaten legal action. Flagging potentially defamatory content is a basic part of maintaining the encyclopedia. We have a whole series of templates for it. People should take care to not point out potential defamation in an alarmist manner, as that can be disruptive. And they should not do it as an excuse to cover up encyclopedic content, as may or may not be happening here. But it's still not a threat. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of those templates. That is a useful resource. Thanks. sbelknap (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As one example, see the diff "Yarvin has written in support of slavery" This is not what the cited secondary source asserts and the secondary source cherry picks text from Yarvin's writings. This and other examples in the article seem to me to be clearly libelous. For BLP, it is essential that wikipedia articles be scrupulously fair. sbelknap (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The legitimacy of the defamation claim is extremely important to whether or not this is a threat. sbelknap is essentially saying "it's a nice website you've got here. It would be a pity of anyone sued it for defamation". This is still a threat. In this context it can only be an attempt to preemptively derail the discussion with the veiled threat of a ruinous lawsuit. Why else would any editor of that article find background information about Hulk Hogan and a defunct gossip site relevant or helpful? If not as a "warning", why even mention it? Grayfell (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the user in question has refused to explain their objections to certain material, instead simply asserting The burden is on each wikipedia editor to avoid libel. I provided links to the primary source - this is decidedly unhelpful and creates a pointless game of twenty questions. If there is material which is libelous, we should change it, but if a user is unwilling to identify their objections, they are not acting in good faith. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by my interpretation, Sbelknap had not yet crossed the line of WP:NLT, but they are skating very close to the line of the very thin ice and that rarely ends well. Threatening to call out the "billionaire dogs" is not an effective debating technique. Efforts to bring the article more correctly into line with what reliable sources say is commendable. Threatening and intimidating other editors, and whitewashing article conten, is utterly unacceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think much of sbelknap's hyperbole, but I'm with Tamzin -- that wasn't a legal threat, and interpreting it as such suggests an overactive imagination. Especially given that breaching NFT tends to bring down no-warning indef blocks on the culprits, I feel strongly that the tocsin should never be sounded for the same on the basis of inferences, interpretations, impressions, or purported "chilling effects." "If you edit against the way I like I will sue you/call the police on you," that is a NFT-level legal threat. This? No. Ravenswing 13:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have previously been sued over editing I have done on Wikipedia, and I know many other editors have as well, so this isn't an overactive imagination. This kind of thing absolutely does have a chilling effect. It drives away editors, because it should drive away editors. Good-faith volunteers to this project should not feel obligated to have to deal with that kind of thing, which is why we have a policy on legal threats. People who have experience with lawsuits know they are not always a joke or an empty threat, and that's exactly the purpose of these threats.

What is an "NFT-level" legal threat. Do you mean NLT? Grayfell (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sbelknap has a long history of repeated instances of edit wars and not good faith. He targets political and philosophy posts. See his talk page for a summary. This looks like a case for WP:BLOCKDETERRENT based on "#3 encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms." Boromeliad (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just have to say, I find the interpretation that this is not a legal threat gobsmacking, but as noted, I am not an admin and will leave the subtleties to wiser heads. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are mostly of medical articles, particularly for pharmacology and medicine. I have consistently acted in good faith for my edits. In 2018 I was one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. If you look through my edits, you will find that I have made some useful contributions and also that I have learned from my experiences on wikipedia, as I will endeavor to do in this case. What I have learned here is that there are templates for addressing problems of defamation and libel, and I expect I will use those in the future to communicate these problems to my fellow editors. sbelknap (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that what you have learned is that you may freely chill speech on Wikipedia so long as your threats are veiled in the mode of "nice website you've got here, it would be a shame if something happened to it." Dumuzid (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rlink2 appears to be Rotlink, who was blocked in 2013 indefinitely for unauthorized botting, both on and off his account. The site he has been adding as an archive URL appears to trace to the websites he added on Wikipedia before he was blocked, and there's some concern in discussion with a few other administrators that he owns the website in question. (Editors may also be interested in reviewing the earlier account's global contributions, where there are about dozen blocks on several wikis.)

Currently, he operates AWB on his main account (clearly using some script to fill in website titles) as well as an authorized bot account Rlink2 Bot (contrast the declined RotlinkBot).

My first inclination was to block for the seeming evasion, but the editor's talk page is largely without issue so far and the bot account was approved. However, given the potential COI and his main account being used for high-speed editing itself, I am left in a bit of a quandry. (A few of the other admins I discussed with seem to lean more strongly toward blocking immediately, though I'm sure they can speak for themselves.)

Opinions sought/welcomed (or bold action if someone feels more strongly on the point). Izno (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Revoke AWB access from account for flooding. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How am I flodding? I go at 10 edits a minute, which is consistent with other editors. Let me know how I am supposed to use the tool and what rates are acceptable. Rlink2 (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way you are verifying all your edits at that rate, you are obviously blindly accepting software suggestions. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, sometimes there are times I do take shortcuts. However, 99% of my edits are verified, and I revert errnonous edits all the time. Now, I'll just make sure its 100% instead of 99%. Rlink2 (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Revoke AWB access including the bot. I am fairly convinced these are the same individuals, and I believe they have some sort of stake in the archive sites (archive.today and ghostarchive.org) they are performing automated work in regards to, if not being the outright owners. I believe the main account's current AWB activity looks to be the unapproved activity proposed as a second bot activity here. Activity on eswiki should also be noted. The four RFCs on archive.is should be reviewed for historical content, including admission of Rotlink of either owning or being heavily involved in the development of Archive.is and the 2013 botting issue that resulted in over 30 cross wiki blocks. More action may be required. -- ferret (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "relationship", if anything, I have been in talks with Mark Graham of the Wayback machine in terms of possible collaboration, and we have many editors on here already working with the Internet Archive. Supposing I was related to archive.today (or otherwise), I don't think "getting" at me for that aspect alone is helpful because we have people working for archive.org as well. I have a metheology for picking archive sites to use, we have a limited amount of archive sites, and some of them do stuff that the others can't. If Wayback can't archive a site, but something else can, I don't think it's right to say I'm connected when there is a clear explanation for why I do what I do. For example, archive.today can bypass paywalls, archive.org can't. And ghostarchive.org can do Youtube videos, which up until very recently archive.org could not. And you seem to be missing my bare ref fixes that also use web.archive.org. You omit that part of the argument as well.

Regardless, I have spent a lot of time on non archiving matters, such as fixing bare refs. There are clear differences between my and Rotlink's account (such as the fact Rotlink doesn't appear to be a native English speaker). Rotlink only added archive links, from the look of it. If the community realizes that my time spent archiving refs is not appreciated, I will stop doing it. Maybe even revoking AWB access is the right choice, even though I do review every edit I make with it. But I do not think a full on block is required. Rlink2 (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlink2: Well, the difference between other editors with the Internet Archive and you with Archive.Today would be disclosure. If what ferret is saying is true (idk maybe it is; maybe not), then you should definitely be transparent about it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: Thanks. I know it sounds maybe a bit hard to believe, but I have no relation to Rotlink or any other past editor. For those that want to believe other wise, all I can really say is that I am willing to stop any work with alternative archive sites if that is what you all want. I didn't have any plans with alternate archive link repair for a while, since my editing plans involved filling bare refs, and then filling in the titles for "Archived Copy" (see Category:CS1_maint:_archived_copy_as_title) when that was done. Both of these efforts have nothing to do with any of the alternate archive sites, and would/is taking months of my time. If using other archive sites results in COI accusations and stressful ANI threads, it is not worth the time and effort for me to keep using them, to be honest. Rlink2 (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: when you say that Rlink2 appears to be Rotlink, are you speaking with your checkuser hat on? Firefangledfeathers 02:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, solely based on naming, behavior, and strongly overlapping interests. Izno (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Firefangledfeathers 02:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All this seems to be based on the fact that you think I am Rotlink, which is not the case. Yes, the username might be similar (unfortunate coicidence when picking my username) but I have no affiliation with Rotlink whatsoever. I read the archive.today RFC before creating an account and I thought the name "Rotlink" sounded cool, so maybe it had an subconsious effect on my username. I knew someone would think that this was the case sooner rather than later, so for that reason I kinda regret choosing that username. Rlink2 (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Immediately revoke AWB access and block: This user is using their account to operate an undisclosed bot. Their edits indicate that they are a meatbot. Furthermore, there is no possible chance that they are properly analysing the truly absurd number of edits that they are making. All of this is incredibly problematic, even ignoring the probable ban evasion and conflict of interest. Considering the sheer amount of disruption and other questionable actions, a block is warranted in this situation. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 00:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except, I am looking at all of my edits with AWB. I explain that I revert my errnouns edits all the time, and I also just recently maintained a list of broken pages of my script https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rlink2/Problem_cite_titles. If i waasn't looking at all those edits, I wouldn't have started maintaining that page and also reverting errors in the script, like I did in the example on my talk page. Rlink2 (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday you made 3316 edits non-stop across 7 hours at a rate of 8-11 a minute. During that rate of editing, you saved edits ranging from small minor single citation fills of under 100 bytes, to huge 2000+ (and even a few 10K+) byte changes that touched dozens of citations. Even for the large ones, you spent less than 10 seconds before your next edit. It's difficult to believe you're reviewing these edits. -- ferret (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, sometimes I do sacafice quality for speed, especially before the new database dumps come out. This is the exception though, not the rule. And sometimes I have days off, yesterday was MLK Day, so I have more time to edit. It wasn't non stop, there were clear breaks however. I don't edit when I'm sleeping, and I don't edit when I'm at my workplace. If I was running a "bot" I wouldn't have a list of bad links, I wuoldn't be constantly reverting mistakes. Also note that everytime someone leaves me a message on my talk page, I respond instantly. If I was running a "bot" I wouldn't be able to respond that quickly to messages since I would be away from the computer. Rlink2 (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've noticed this user prolifically across my watchlist recently. The sheer number of edits is astounding, and indicates either a meatbot or a literal unauthorized bot. Either way, it is clear these edits are done with little or no care for their accuracy or helpfulness. To give just one example, I've noticed the addition of a template [65] which, if we go to its template page, appears to do nothing and was created on January 12th by Rlink2. I am not a template expert, but I can't see the point of adding this template which appears to do nothing to thousands of articles. And even if it does serve some sort of purpose, the total lack of documentation is wrong and must be corrected so we have some clue as to what the hell the template does. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings: The purpose of that template is to mark bare PDFs, since the title of those are not so easy to extract. I should have added some documentation, but didn't, sorry. The purpose is for me and other editors to categorize and then go through the PDFs that are bare. I really did (and still do) like your train articles. Rlink2 (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm glad to see it does serve a purpose (and that you like my articles), please add some documentation though. I am not convinced you are related to Rotlink, particularly considering the difference in English proficiency. Fighting linkrot is important, but I think I speak for many when I say you need to be more careful with your mass edits. I have compared AWB use to a B-52 bombing run: it can be very powerful, but if you call in the bombing run in the wrong place, the cleanup is massive. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Trainsandotherthings:. I am just stressed right now and your feedback made my day.

If the issue is with my choice of archive site, just say so. If the result of the ANI thread is that I shall no longer do link work with any archive site that isn't archive.org I will happily follow that. I do way way more than just archive stuff. Wayback is the gold standard of archive sites, and it is always the one I prefer the first. My work will not be seriously impacted if I am prevented from using any site that isn't archive.org, it just means longer do anything with preventing linkrot with sites that do not work with the Wayback machine, which, thanks to the amazing team at Archive.org, is rapidly becoming fewer and fewer. In the mean time, however, those links will unfortunately have to rot. The Wayback team is amazing and I am sure they will get to fixing all the issues, but in the mean time we should not prevent the usage of other archive sites until the Wayback team can fix the sites not working properly. But this is up to the community to decide. I was and have been taking a break from archiving "no-Wayback" sites anyway.

If the issue is that I go too fast, I will make sure to slow down. Yes, I have been faster in recent days, but usually I go at 10 edits or less which I think is OK.

If the issue is that I don't review my edits all the time, I will begin reviewing my edits all the time (which i already do for the most part).

If the issue is that I need to be more careful, I will be more careful. Yes, I have made mistakes with AWB before. Just look at the Citevar situation. I responded by cleaning it all up. We are all humans, imperfect. I propose that if my AWB access is revoked, it is revoked for a limited amount of time (maybe a week? month?) because I think I do important work with it. My edits have been a net good, based on community feedback. And keep in note that even Izno said editor's talk page is largely without issue so far meaning that there is some level of support and consensus for my work. I respect each and every one of the editors in this thread, and I hate to see misconception burn bridges. Rlink2 (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was myself dragged over the coals at ANI for the better part of a month in November 2021. It was an experience I would not wish upon anyone but the most disruptive editors or vandals. It is why I usually refrain from commenting here at all, but as I said earlier I've seen your name pop up a lot on my watchlist so I felt the need to comment here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm currently leaning towards revoke access per the issues brought up by trainsandotherthings. Adding {{Bare URL PDF}} to enough pages that it got semi-protected seems a bit irresponsible. This is the type of thing that should've been brought up at {{Bare URL inline}}'s talk page or WikiProject Inline Templates before it got added to 1,532 different pages.
  This user certainly has potential though, so I am a bit torn. If access is revoked, I do think there should be a clear path for them to regain access. For the record, I have also not looked into the Rotlink connection at all. My comment is just a reflection on the AWB usage rather than socking accusations. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @MJL: I see nothing at all irresposnible about Rlink2's creation of {{Bare URL PDF}}. It is analogous to {{Bare URL inline}}, but helpfully provides a distinctive designator for PDF bare URLs, which pose a particular problem because there is no reliable way for tools to extract metadata from PDFs. It would have been better to complete the template before deploying it, but that oversight is a very minor issue, and easily remedied.

  If you or any other editor actually discussed this with Rlink2, you would them open, attentive, and well-seized of the issues. This issue would have been resolved promptly.

  It is very sad to see something like this used as "evidence for the prosecution", when no effort has been made to have the usual discussions about whether it is actually a problem. (Hint: it's not a problem. It's a productive addition). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  PS: I have completed and documented {{Bare URL PDF}}. It may not be the perfect solution for PDF format WP:Bare URLs, but I thank @Rlink2 for taking this useful step forward.

  If editors want further discussion of how we can make progress on identifying and fixing the backlog of 47,887 untagged PDF-format bare URL refs (as he 20220101 database dump), this is not the appropriate venue. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As an editor who fired a rocket at Rlink2 at an early stage (for an error that turned out have been made by WorldCat), I too began by being suspicious of their motives. I also had a sharp intake of breath to see so many of the pages I watch come up with bare URL flags. It was annoying that I missed them being added in the first place but we should not shoot the messenger. Some editors have complained at talk:Rlink2 that just to add title= is inadequate and want to see a full set of metadata: it seems that they would rather have a bare URL than a basic one. Personally I have found it a useful prompt to go get the metadata since invariably the site needs to be deconstructed by human eye. "The perfect is the enemy of the good". Blocking their AWB access is being an enemy of the good. Maybe they should be admonished for employing 'almost a bot' but let's not get on our high horse about it. Does Counsel for the Prosecution propose that CitationBot be shut down too? If not, why not? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Revoke AWB access as above, and launch SPI into possible sock puppetry/block evasion. GiantSnowman 19:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If Rotlink was blocked in 2013, it seems unlikely there would be any technical evidence left for a CU inquiry. A gap of 7 years between Rotlink's last edit and Rlink2's first edit would also seem to make any other attempt at proving socking/block evasion pretty well impossible too. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 20:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Congratulate Rlink2 for excellent work improving articles at a steady rate. Any bot-like process will leave imperfections behind due often to pre-existing and unpredictable errors in articles. Oculi (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Oculi, I agree. Rlink2 is doing great work, and should be congratulated, not hounded.

  This thread is an depressingly good illustration of the principle that no good deed should go unpunished. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Woah there! This discussion is deeply unpleasant to read. It seems like a pile-on.

The complaint is based on a supposition that @Rlink2 is a) a block-evading sock, and b) somehow in cahoots with archive sites. No actual evidence has been offered for either assertion other than a similarity of usernames. Rlink2 denies both, and nobody has added any further evidence.

The choice of this venue for a socking allegation is very quite strange, because Izno is a checkuser, so should know that suspected sock cases should be brought to WP:SPI. Why has that not been done here?

As to the alleged "collusion" with archive sites, no evidence has been offered of any such collusion. And what harm could be done by any such collaboration? Archive.is is an acceptable archive site, so why this rush to monster an editor who archives some pages there? If some editors want to re-open the debate about whether to use Archive.is, they should open an RFC rather than monstering an editor who archives refs.

As the OP notes, Rlink2's AWB work is mostly uncontroversial, accurate filling of bare links, and issues which arise out of that being discussed openly and amicably on their talk page. Their edits have made a huge contribution to clearing the backlog of bare URL refs, and I am shocked to see that valuable work being brought to a halt on the basis of a set of wild accusations.

Nobody seems to have identified any actual harm being done by Rlink2. So what is this drama actually about? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My only note was regarding to flooding watchlists and recent changes with fairly high speed AWB use, when they have an open BRFA for this already - but instead of completing that they are just slamming the edits through the unflagged account. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a lot of sympathy for anyone who doesn't pay too much attention to BRFA. My recent experiences there have been of very poor communication speed, poor assessment and being subjected to gratuitous personal attack and insults which no BAG member was wiling to challenge.

Until BAG can reform itself by make it less of a hazing exercise and showing the maturity to genuinely review its bad decisions, editors are well-advised to stay clear. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with BHG. I would like to see any sockpuppetry accusations handled at WP:SPI in accordance with the burden of evidence there, as it's usually done. As for the bot use, that's a separate issue. While personally I'm not too happy about meatbots, this noticeboard has time and time again failed to revoke AWB access for editors running actual meatbots. While I'd like to see a consistently harder stance on that, I do find it difficult to believe the tally above for revoking access is solely due to the editing behaviour. archive.today is a perfectly acceptable and popular archive site.

All the OP has said is that and there's some concern in discussion with a few other administrators that he owns the website in question -- there is no evidence presented for the assertion, and I'm not going to go digging around for evidence myself. I'd like to see some evidence presented here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux and ProcrastinatingReader took the words right out of my mouth, honestly. All this infighting could instead be used to advance progress on Rlink Bot Task 2. The description and the goals have been slightly changed (for example, the bot will find bare refs itself, it won't need submissions), but for the most part I think it is best for everyone if we focus on advancing the bot task. The goal was always to get the bot task approved. Rlink2 (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: it seems to me that unless Izno can present some actual evidence to support their allegation that Rlink2 is the owner of an archive site, they should strike the allegation and apologise.

Same with the allegation of sockpuppetry: Izno should take their case to SPI and accept the outcome of that established process, or strike it and apologise.

Editors should not be subjected to unsupported allegations which are the taken by other editors as grounds for sanctions, which is what has happened here.

And given that Ser Amantio di Nicolao remains unsanctioned for about 4 million edits with a very badly-run unauthorised bot (he's too lazy to even use meaningful edit summaries, and that's the least of the problems), it would be grossly unjust to sanction Rlink2 for a well-run AWB task on a scale several orders of magnitude smaller. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The archive wars/RFCs are long behind us and I think I speak for all of us that we don't need to restart those. The issue of if we should use archive.today is completely seperate from me, if that is a discussion you want to entertain that is fine, don't take it out on me like BHG said. Like I've said before, I will happily accept not being able to work with any archive site that isn't archive.org, if your issue is that I somehow own these archival websites, and the community says they do not value my work with those alternate archive sites. If I was the owner of any of these sites I would not be making that offer. So that alone invalidates the supposed allegation of ownership.

Regarding name similarity and sockpuppetry, see Wikipedia:Editors_who_may_be_confused. I should note that some of these users with similar usernames also share the same interests (for example, two of the usernames just so happen to be 'crats, and two of other similar usernames belong to two different amazing admins who both are intrested in sports topics). It's not some crazy, out of the world, one time thing, for someone to have a similar name to another, and for them to have similar interests. I think that if you want to say I someone else, you should have more evidence than just a similar username and having similar interests. Rlink2 (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I am a checkuser is irrelevant to where a user chooses to bring a discussion (see ad hominem).

I am however willing to answer the question: I chose to bring this discussion here because I was prepared to block without consultation and wanted to give the party of interest and broader community an opportunity to respond to the issues presented before issuing the block, because a) SPI does not work that way these days (generally), and b) issues other than whether or not the user is block-evading were presented, namely, the user is clearly editing at high speed without review on his non-bot account, some edits of which cross into territory on their bot's unclosed BRFA.

As for collusion:

1. The previous account Rotlink was in fact in cahoots with the archive sites he chose to add: he owned them. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC.
2. The current websites being added today are all in fact the same website as in the RFC in question.

As for behavior:

1. Same exact topic area in which the former account was blocked: namely, archive URLs added by bot
   1. Same behavior of running at high speed on his own user account without the BRFA to go with it.
   2. The Rlink2 account hasn't edited in any other area, which usually indicates a returning editor from the get go.
   3. Has exclusively focused on the archive.is family of websites (to wit, several replacements of .is to .today in the early editing history of the Rlink2 account, something I believe the Rotlink account also was interested in)
2. Basically the same name
3. A CU I trust has checked the data from the last time Rotlink edited (there was some) versus Rlink 2 today (without my prompting) and while he didn't find that they matched, he did find that Rlink 2 is on a proxy that changes its IP address more than daily. (Likely similar in behavior to the case listed in the RFC, though I haven't checked myself.)
4. There is at least one item of offwiki material that links Rlink 2 to the website directly, which I am happy to send to my colleagues on ArbCom (it is not particularly damning, but it is yet another piece of a "this is a sock" puzzle).

Now, you are free to argue that this is a returning editor doing good work such that "time-served" is the appropriate response (NB our sockpuppetry and block evasion policies do not allow this when it was in the same area as the previous sanctions, but you may argue it), or you may argue that there is insufficient evidence to believe this is the same editor (I am convinced, but you may not be), both of which are part of the reason I invited discussion at ANI rather than at SPI. But even ignoring the socking angle:

1. The editor has clearly edited in a high speed fashion without review of his changes and which cross over into an unapproved BRFA's scope.

So at the very least, I would expect a followup on that aspect from this forum, which is the appropriate forum regardless. Izno (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The previous account Rotlink was in fact in cahoots with the archive sites he chose to add: he owned them We have people paid by the Internet Archive on Wikipedia. Why is that necessarily a problem?

The current websites being added today are all in fact the same website as in the RFC in question.. Archive.today was approved for use on enwiki in RFC #4. If the site is approved by the community, I don't see the problem with doing link maintenance.

The Rlink2 account hasn't edited in any other subject area This is not true. I have done stuff like recent change patrol, and I am working on bare ref fixing. I have partcipated in village pump and citation bot discussions, multiple times. You have even tagged me in some of them. I have even done some small article work, which I plan on continuing. I can link to diffs of each of these.

Has exclusively focused on the archive.is family of websites is not true. I've done work with more than one archive website. For example, all the bare ref fixing was using web.archive.org. I did some edits that were related to filling in Trappist's "archived copy" category that had web.archive.org as an archive link. Even the BRFA that was approved has archive.org stuff in there in there.

The archive.is to today thing was one thing I've done earlier in my edit history, but I've moved on from that since almost all the links have already been converted to ".today". If I was here only for converting the archive.today links why would I be still editing?

Regarding Same behavior of running at high speed on his own user account without the BRFA to go with it. I didn't think that 10 edits a minute was high speed. And I was going "high speed" because I was using AWB, there was an explination for that. There is a difference between AWB and unauthorized bot. And I did have a BRFA filed.

Basically the same name I have addressed a rebuttal above. There are many Wikipedians with the same name and work in the same topic area. I don't think that means anything.

and while he didn't find that they matched I'm glad we've cleared that up, so technically I am not Rotlink. he did find that Rlink 2 is on a proxy that changes its IP address more than daily yes I do use a VPN/proxy, its not some uncommon thing these days, the climate back then in 2013 and now are very different. People are more worried about their privacy. DuckDuckGo, Protonmail, etc.. are all doing well because there is a large section of the population who is becoming more aware of privacy in the digital world. An IP address is like a social security number. I wouldn't want to give out my SSN to everyone I meet, would you? IP privacy is become very important these days, the WMF is hiding unregistered IP addresses for a reason. The existance and usage of VPNs in 2021 is way bigger than the existence of VPNs in 2013, there are alot of people using them. So I don't think that's a big deal.

high speed fashion without review of his changes I admitted that sometimes I don't review all of them (particualy, there were times where I didn't scroll down in the AWB window), but I never said I never reviewed any of the changes. I did, bascially almost all the time. And while the bare ref BRFA was unapproved, the very act of fixing bare refs had consensus.

same area as the previous sanctions All this seems to be predicated on the fact that I supposedly only do work with one archive site, which is not the case like exlpained before. And I've already offered to drop any work with non archive.org sites, if that is what you and community want. Also, you seem to miss the fact that there can be a difference between owner and fan. Archive.today is a popular site, one of the top 100 sites on the internet, of course they will have fans. Any popular band, musician, thing etc. has fans that are overly interested in them and are fans of what they do. It is not implausible that there are other people that like archive.today.

Like I said, my usage of an alternate archive site for just a few "non-Wayback" sites is not worth all the attention. I say this with honesty, that I am not Rotlink. The primary causes of all these "reasons" you give are simply due to overlapping intrests. For example, if I am intrested in fixing archive links, of which there are many, how else am I supposed to do it? Of course semi-automated or a bot approval tools are necessary. Note that other editors who are intrested in internet archival, and someone else also had a bot to convert .is to .today. However, some people, like you, may permanently think that I am Rotlink. Given the cirmustances, I would completely understand, and I respect your opinion and I see where you come from and why people would think I am Rotlink. I personally don't think it even matters if I'm the owner of archive.today (I'm not), seeing how archive.today is an approved archive website. To that, I can really only say if people are somehow convinced I own archive.today, I'll happily stop any linkwork with the site. I have other stuff to do here. Other than that, I really don't have much else to say.

Here is some reasons to believe that I am not Rotlink.

1. Different English proficiency - someone else also pointed this out. Don't CU's have some language tool that allows them to analyze people's tone and voice? Why don't you use it now?
2. Engaging in other tasks - explained above, I do other stuff than just archiving. I did recent change patrol, and I have an article I'm intrested in developing in my draft space. Rotlink only did archived links, he seemingly shown no interest in content creation. I think the conerstone of ANY wiki is content. All of the archiving stuff, just supports the content creation. If there was some sort of community decision that said I couldn't do work with AWB or archiving until I have at least one GA article for nomination, I would follow that happily.
3. Offered to stop work with archive.today - If i was the owner of archive.today, which is an approved site, why am I giving up my ability to work with it so easily? The owner of archive.today would instead push and probably still be sucessful in being able to work with his site, given the status of RFC 4.
4. Ability to listen to the community - this ties in to what I was saying before, I am always open to consensus. If we did an archive.today RFC 5 and the result was to ban the site, I would still be around. When archive.today was banned the first time Rotlink left the WP communnity IIRC.
5. Experimentation with way more than 2 or 3 archive sites - Early on in my tenure here you'll also notice I tried other archive sites then what I used, such as "etched.page" and "archive.st". However, I did not find those sites particularly helpful for my use case. If I am banned from doing archive.today work, may have to look into these sites, but seeing how "etched.page" is some cryptocurrency thing, and you need to pay to archive a webpage there, I think it would be even more controversial given the talk of crypto in the news recently. The point is, I have no real bias towards any of the archive sites. I just use what I think is right of the job.
6. Do not edit 24/7 or exhbit the hallmarks of an unapproved bot Looking at Rotlinks time card, the account was editing 24/7. I was always exhibiting some sort of supervision with my edits, and it shows because I don't edit 24/7. No one can be awake for that long. With AWB, I always responded to people basically the instant they left a message on my talk page. That wouldn't be possible with an unapproved bot running unsupervised. I reverted erroneous edits all the time, meaning that there was some sort of supervision. The level of supervision is debatable. But it was certainly there in some sort.
7. Failure to look at how the archving may benefit my wiki status - It could be argued that my work with archive sites actually has nothing to do with the sites, but to increase my position on enwiki. For example, converting all the links from .is to .today is a great way to get to 500/30 (EC protection) and inrease your edit count in general. Adding and fixing archive links is a simple and easy is a good way to get "reputation points", increase your edit count, gain trust and permissions at any wiki. It's equivelent to fixing spelling mistakes. It is then easy to branch out into other more pressing matters (like editng protected articles, creating new ones, etc.) You didn't consider this aspect of it though.
8. I am not placing archive.today or any archive site other than archive.org on a higher pedestal. Here is this example: There are many fans of Olivia Rodrigo editing the Olivia Rodrigo article. There are people obseesed with Olivia Rodrigo, they wear her merch, buy all her music ticket concerts. However, it becomes a problem when they push biased points of views, or prefer their own opinion over others (POV). We have rules for that WP:NPOV. Why are COI editors asked to make a request on the talk page? Because if they edit directly, there is a high chance of POV pushing. Similarly, I am a fan of all the archive sites. I am not putting archive.today on a higher pedestal however. I don't treat it any higher than I do with archive.org. Archive.today is for sites where archive.org does not work. You have not addressed the issue of archive.org not dealing with certain sites.

If you go ahead with a block, I'm not the one to beg and beg. I'll ask for WP:SO and maybe a community review of the block, and I hope it'll be offered to me, but if not, I'll just have to accept my unlucky fate. I wouldn't want to work in a community where everyone thinks I'm evil and bad just because I supposdedly own an approved archive website, which many enjoy and use. I did enjoy my work here, was wonderful to meet many new people. As Arthur Morgan in Red Dead Redemption 2 said, I tried. In the end, I did. Rlink2 (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be placing a block now given the contention here and the fact I was the original person bring the concern, but that does not mean you should not continue to be involved in this discussion, as another admin may do so without further warning. Izno (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no plans to leave this discussion. I think it's good we keep everything in one place. And I'm glad you chose ANI to voice your concerns where everyone can speak. That way people can see the evidence and the whole story. Rlink2 (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: thank you for finally presenting some assertions of evidence in support of your claim. It's a pity that several of them are demonstrably false (such as "has exclusively focused on the archive.is family of websites" and "hasn't edited in any other area"), but at least you made your case as you saw it. That is what you should have done at the outset.

However, this comment by you is shameful: Whether I am a checkuser is irrelevant to where a user chooses to bring a discussion (see ad hominem).. As a checkuser, you should be very well aware that WP:SPI is the forum for examining claims of sockpuppetry. This explicitly stated as policy at WP:HSOCK:

If you believe someone is using sockpuppets or meat puppets, you should create a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations.

Note that the policy does not offer ANI (or any other forum) as alternative venue. So tell me: did you, as a checkuser, consciously choose to ignore the policy which you are entrusted to uphold? Or were you not even aware of the policy? Or is there some other reason for your breach policy? Given the tools available to a checkuser, I am very alarmed at the possibility that you may have been unaware of policy.

This matters because a) WP:SPI has a structure for assessing claims of sockpuppetry, and b) WP:SPI is a centralised venue which is monitored by editors who have experience of assessing such claims. I cannot know your intentions in bringing the claim here, but it is clear that the effect of bringing your claims here is to evade proper scrutiny.

Your dismissal as an ad hominem of my complaint about your misuse of procedure and breach of policy is disgraceful. WP:ADMINACCT applies here: you wanted an editor sanctioned, and in doing so you have a responsibility to follow policy and justify your actions. Here is the relevant section in full:

Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards or during Arbitration Committee proceedings. Administrators should justify their actions when requested.

Instead of justifying or revising your policy-defiant choice to making an SPI complaint in the wrong venue and without any evidence, you chose to hide behind the shield of a wholly bogus allegation that criticism of your admin/checkuser actions is an ad hominem. That is not just an evasion of your responsibility to justify your actions; it is a nasty attempt to smear me for making legitimate, policy-based criticism. Such smear tactics are deeply uncivil in any editor, and unacceptable in an admin. Please behave much better.

As to the substance of the evidence you have belatedly presented, some parts of it are demonstrably false, and most of it seems to me to be weak and circumstantial. I am particularly troubled that use of a VPN proxy is being held against an editor, because it seems to me to be a common and wholly reasonable practice. You may disagree about that, but if you want to pursue this complaint, then for goodness sake: follow policy, and take it to SPI, where it can be properly scrutinised.

And are you really sure that publicly disclosing at ANI that fact of VPN proxy usage, without going through SPI processes, is compatible with the procedural policy Wikipedia:CheckUser? It seems to me to be a possible breach of WP:CUPRIVACY.

I AGF that you honestly believe you have a reasonable complaint against Rlink2. But the way you have pursued that complaint is most unreasonable. I am minded to open an ANI thread about your own misconduct here, but I hope that you will reconsider and make that unnecessary. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I actually discussed with multiple other administrators before bringing it here, so, no, I was decidedly not attempting to avoid scrutiny, never mind that ANI reaches more watchers than SPI, not fewer. I could as easily have filed at SPI (well, would have had to add the set of behaviors at the open rather than the close as you suggest) which, if I were a betting man, would have had to settle it on the merits of the behavior (the technical evidence was likely to be useless for making a direct connection to a decade-blocked account), and the usual SPI admins probably would have taken my connection and run with it. All of this even if should were language that indicates a requirement rather than (strong, as it is policy) suggestion. (must is such requiring language.)

An ad hominem is the fallacy basing an argument on something about the person you are discussing with rather than on the statements provided by that person or the facts of the situation. A statement Our policy says you should have taken this to SPI is fine, a statement You are a checkuser and you should have taken it to SPI as a result is not. Hence, your comment was an ad hominem as a factual statement (rather than some attempt to smear you; I have no interest in such a thing). Now, I continued on to discuss why I had done it, so I actually fully answered your question rather than dismissed it out of hand, since the root question was reasonable.

I believe it was not a breach of CUPRIVACY as the statement was in sufficiently broad terms: nothing identifying the user and nothing about the specific IP addresses used (the details of which I have not seen in fact). Separately, the CU who ran the check verified that he thought this was an reasonable statement to make public. (Regardless, this generality is routinely seen in the context of SPI, so if there is an issue here, it is a broad rather than specific one.)

Thanks for your comments. Izno (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: thanks for the tone of most of your reply. But it is sad that you still sticking by your false claim that I made an ad hominem attack.

Your policy error was that a) you offered no evidence in your initial post; b) you brought your complaint to ANI rather than SPI, as required by policy. That is a criticism of your actions, to which you should have responded in good grace rather. Your checkuser privileges are highly relevant, because as a holder of those privileges you are required to work within checkuser policies, so you have a duty to know and apply the policy. If noting the specific responsibilities of someone who has special privileges is labeled as an ad hominem attack, then accountability is impossible.

I ask you again to withdraw that claim.

As to the rest ... well if a bunch of weak circumstantial claims which include at least three demonstrable falsehoods would have led to a block at SPI, then gawd 'elp us. I had assumed that SPI worked to much higher standards than that.

What I see in Rlink2 is a highly productive editor who is doing excellent work helping to resolve a long-standing problem of WP:Bare URLs, but is being hounded for it. Why on earth have you and that undisclosed group of other admins had these secret discussions to try to stop that good work? Why did you not attempt to discuss these issues with Rlink2 before coming to ANI, as requested at the top of this page?

The only part of your complaint of misconduct (other than the tenuous claims of sockpuppetry) which has any substance is the complaint that Rlink2 has done a lot of edits without a bot flag. But if you really concerned about that issue, why on earth pick on Rlink2 rather than Ser Amantio di Nicolao's vastly greater use of an unauthorised bot, with huge and long-standing quality problems? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding some of the other accusations, you could also claim I have a “direct link” (as in, lines of communication or “diplomatic cables”) to archive.org, there is on and off wiki evidence of this. One possibility that might come out of this ANI is that people are convinced I am "linked" to both archive.today (through your evidence) and archive.org (through my evidence) in terms of communication (not ownership). Which would basically prove that I am not the owner of any of them and that I do not prefer one archive site over the other.

Keep in mind owning a site versus merely talking with the owner or submitting feature and bug reports are two completely separate things. I know about Amazon and buy stuff from there all the time, and if there is an issue I call their support. Contacting AMZN support over a missing package doesn’t mean I own Amazon, nor does it mean I have a relationship with them, or I’m putting it over eBay or some other ecommerce website. Are you trying to claim I own an archive site, or you trying to claim I have merely communicated with employees/owner(s) of an archive site? Two very different things.

And furthermore regarding the ".is" to ".today" changes, not only is IABot and GreenC bot converting all the .is to .today links, many of the people who voted support in RFC #4 were also involved in changing the links to ".today". They used AWB to do it, and they said that their relation to archive.today was that we are just frequent visitors of the site. Again, this supports the "fan theory", when you are popular enough, people will do stuff for you, give money to you, etc... It can be hard to tell the difference between overzelous fan and owner/strong COI in this case. Don't believe me? Go to any boy band's Wikipedia page and look at the edit history, both of the article itself, and the editors who wrote a huge chunk or maintain the article/keep it up to date. That's why WP:NPOV exists.

Anyway, you ignored my work with archive.org links, and you ignored the part in my first response I said I may have been working/communicatting with the Internet Archive, I think we all agree (even the starters of the thread) that the Internet Archive is a trusted and reputable organization. When making ANI decisions, aren’t we supposed to know all the information that is possible about the case and just not one side?

the complaint that Rlink2 has done a lot of edits without a bot flag. This is a perfectly valid complaint, I have already admitted there are times I go too fast. I can work to change my behavior on that. Rlink2 (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rlink2: move to close

I think it's time to close this discussion. No evidence has presented to support the allegations of sockpuppetry and that Rlink2 is the owner of some archive site, and it is disappointing that those unevidenced claims have not been withdrawn.

The only other complaints are that a) Rlink2 created {{Bare URL PDF}} without prior discussion, which is in no way an ANI matter, and b) that their highly productive edits would be better done as a bot task (on which there seems to be complete agreement).

There is no ANI issue here, so all we need to do here is to ask WP:BAG and @Rlink2 to speed up WP:BRFA/Rlink2 Bot 2. There is no need for ongoing drama about that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i agree. Since the starters of the thread seem to be intrested in video games, let me use an analogy they can understand. Without any further evidence, mulling any more on this ANI thread is like when the AI controls USA and Japan and they go to war in Hearts of Iron 4. Anyone who has played that game knows that the AI doesn't make any headway. Or maybe it can be compared to the Far Harbor puzzle mission in Fallout 4- that mission is so much trouble, and there was literally no point to that one. I don't even know why Bethesda put it in the game.

Jokes and video game comparisions aside, all the drama is truly unnecessary, and any possible (mis)use of AWB could have been discussed on my talk page before taking it to ANI. Let's get back to building a encylopedia. Rlink2 (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree this should be closed. There are some minor issues, but it is entirely unfair to hang the specter of a sock allegation against Rlink2 without hard evidence. I am strongly opposed to any block of Rlink2 based solely on circumstantial evidence. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricaneinfomation. is repeatedly creating articles that are not notable, from articles Tropical Storm Helene 2012, Hurricane Isaac 2018, and Tropical Storm Ana 2021. IMO, this has got to stop, especially creating the Hurricane Isaac 2021 hoax article, even though this user has edited 2-3 days ago. This user has also been repeatedly warned, one was a final warning. Any thoughts/comments on this? Severestorm28 02:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I left a final warning as I'm about to go to bed and don't like to block and run. No objection to someone taking it further, but concur with @Severestorm28: that we're long past patience, especially with the recreation of Isaac. Star Mississippi 03:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Huh. I was about to mention that he'd only created three articles ever, but the talk page does look daunting, with all the warnings and pleas to engage in actual conversation over these edits. I also see some serious WP:OWN behavior with requests for page protection [66] [67] which run "I need Semi Protection because I don't want anyone want for anyone to vandalize/destroy my wikipedia page. Since I go to college and when I'm not here people can vandalize my page all they want to and I don't want for anyone to do that." I'd support a NOTHERE block. Ravenswing 04:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd support with Ravenswing about the WP:NOTHERE block, because now, he's just asking me whoever deleted the Helene article. This user is taking it too far, especially with too many talk page warnings. Severestorm28 13:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Further information, User talk:VocalIndia#Speedy deletion of Chen Jinggu

Hi, as according to my two year over experience on Wiki, i can't accept that was copyright violation , it was only one sentence with a few general words. Firstly, I started Chen Jinggu article with one sentence then i added "Legend" section that was copied from Guanyin article. I've explained in the page's edit history for attribution (WP:CWW). I don't know that was original editor's copyvio. Violently admin removed the whole article. Really need to delete the whole article? They should only remove copyvio contents that came from Guanyin's article. Clearly that is not my violation. However, admin Justlettersandnumbers says the original stub version is also a copyright violation. I've shocked and that was only one sentence describe "Chen is a historical shaman priestess. She is one of the most important Fujian goddesses and chief deity of the Lüshan Sect. " That tiny sentence was also edited by several editors. See below. Really?

. What a bullying! Sorry, I was angry and fiercely responded. Pls kindly teach me out and want to restore original stub. Tia VocalIndia (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's not bullying every time someone disagrees with you. And I don't know how "violently remove" is--but what I really don't understand is the problem. If you, as you claim, copied something from some article, and it turns out to be a copyvio, then what's the problem? The copyvio is removed, and we move on. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

but admin deleted the whole article with accusing of my stub is also a copyvio "Chen Jinggu is blah blah". I dont think it is copyvio. VocalIndia (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The personal attacks need to stop. In the past few hours you've repeatedly called other editors "dogs" [69][70][71], "jealous [dogs]" [72], having a "poor mind" [73][74], "useless" [75], and "disgusting" [76]. DanCherek (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, As i said above I cant't control my anger. I've removed some PA words before this ANI. VocalIndia (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot control your anger, then you do not belong on Wikipedia. Period. You are required to control your anger here, no matter the provocation, real or imagined. Ravenswing 04:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As I frequently have to tell editors, you need to write Wikipedia in your own words. We don't need you (or anyone) just loosely transcribing what's already out there. That can be read at its original location. No one has "bullied" you, and hyperbole like "violently" removing your edits is so silly it's distracting to your whole point. Please just stop all this and take the constructive criticism to heart. Learn from it instead. Sergecross73 msg me 03:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sergecross73 I can't accept that -- is a historical shaman priestess who became one of the most important Fujian goddessesand chief deity of the Lüshan Sect was copyvio. not eligible for vio criteria. Everyone have to right this writing method. VocalIndia (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I have no opinion on the issue at hand as I am not familiar with it at all, but just noting that there's a big language barrier, it seems, which further complicates things. For example, they may be using the word "violent" for something else, but I don't know. Having said that, as a language barrier obviously doesn't excuse behavior like this, I otherwise agree, broadly speaking, that the aggressive behavior and personal attacks need to stop. Amaury • 03:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As someone who has some experience with copyright violations, I do agree that stating basic facts aren't serious copyright violations, however I do believe that sentence could have been worded better. It is impossible to reword phrases such as "one of the most important ... goddesses" without making the sentence confusing, so it would have been better to reword the structure of the sentence instead, probably something like "Chen Jinggu is regarded as one of the most important Fujian goddesses. Once a shaman priestess, she became the Lushan sect's chief deity" to make it less similar to the source text. If there are any more people who are more experienced with copyvio than I am, please try to make things more clear or correct any errors I may have made. Akbermamps 04:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Akbermamps. I've also noted that "the basic facts aren't serious copyright violations." according per my experience. That's why I strongly against admin's action. Thank you for pointing me to the right direction. VocalIndia (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• OP has thrown up a ragequit statement on his user page: "This user is no longer active on Wikipedia as of January 18, 2022, Some finding my minor mistake for their grudge and covert to a big mistake. Time to say Bye Bye. Be happy. Wikipedia is a bullying school for guys who has poor English. (His/Her mood is very disgusting." The degree to which we can take this seriously, mind, is that they made 14 edits so far after posting the Retired notice. VocalIndia isn't a newbie, mind, with nearly 5000 edits, but I question whether they're more than a liability with that kind of attitude. Ravenswing 04:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) This very much is a WP:CIR issue. Even some of his most recent edits show a fundamental lack of understanding of copyright in previous occasions, as well as lack of understanding for proper sourcing (re:this edit from 30 mins ago). That's not even getting into this user's conduct at AfDs, which has been less than admirable. The thing that makes this sad is that this user has some genuinely great actions, for example with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hold Nickar. However, even with that AfD, his anger issues clouds over the good edits he does. Like this AfD was successfully litigated between me and the nominator to the point the nominator decided to withdraw, but that didn't stop VocalIndia from getting angry for no reason. This editor has the potential to be good, but consistently falls short of the line with no indication that he will cross it. Curbon7 (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is it that so often the people who engage in bullying behavior are the same ones who complain that others are bullying them? Anyway, the ability to control one's anger is a non-negotiable essential for participation here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The diffs by DanCherek are damning enough—I've blocked VocalIndia for 1 week for personal attacks. Civility is required from all editors on Wikipedia. -- TNT (talk • she/her) 04:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a copyright investigation needs to be started? I see e.g. Huang Tianhua, which they created in January, vs. this

Opening a WP:CCI may be necessary. Fram (talk) 08:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the bullying admin, and for all I know also the "Montha fackka!!!". For those who can't see the history: at Chen Jinggu, VocalIndia copied a big chunk of text, with correct attribution, from Guanyin, and can't be blamed for that. Both Primefac and I tried to remove the copyvio before deleting (I'd restored it in the hope of saving it), but found that that wasn't possible. VocalIndia became agitated and fairly incoherent. To the extent that I can follow the user's talk-page posts, he/she seems to show a worrying lack of understanding of what is meant by copyright, both in general and in this project.

I agree that it may be necessary, Fram, but I'm not yet sure – I looked some contribs yesterday and saw many that seem fine, but found and removed copyvio from Prince Euneon. I think more investigation is needed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Princess Tatiana Alexandrovna Yusupova is an unattributed and poor machine translation of the Russian article (leading to stuff like "This novel was actively discussed in the world" when no novel is being discussed at all), Hong Guk-yeong has text copied without attribution from Royal Noble Consort Wonbin Hong. Heifeng Guai unexplicably has text taken from a 2014 Facebook post about a (Dota2?) game character[78]? Whatever the original source, not new writing but copyvio. Fram (talk) 10:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the editor correctly pointed out that the "princess" article is not an unattributed translation: I only checked the edit summaries, but the translation is noted on the talk page. Still a very poor machine translation, but not a reason to add incorrect accusations of course. Fram (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't agree that their edits to Hold Nickar are good.

("Hold Nickar is the king of the sea nymphs" is also copied from a source, but a different one).

In addition, the first of those sources is shaky to say the least, and so are some of the other sources they proposed in the AfD – but that is a content issue, so not the important point here. --bonadea contributions talk 09:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I just meant that it was originally soft deleted and he brought it to a !keep. I didn't actually look at the article. Curbon7 (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does not look like this editor is capable of editing productively here. Paul August ☎ 17:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Hold Nickar, I have asked Bloodofox for an evaluation of the sources, since they know more about folklore than I do, but the article as it currently is, after reduction almost entirely by VocalIndia themself, looks like a straightforward candidate for redirecting to Nixie (folklore). However, after originally being closed as soft delete, with only one !vote, delete on exactly those grounds but without mention of redirecting as an option, the AfD was ultimately closed as keep, so I hesitate to boldly override that decision all on my lonesome. After cutting out the non-waterspirit material, VocalIndia made mention at the AfD of foreign-language Wikipedia material; that led me to look at es:Hold Nickar, and I realized that it was similar in spirit to the long version of our article, and found that a passage only loosely supported by the cited source, this archived pagan essay (mainly the weird translation of the names of Thor's goats), was a close translation of the corresponding Spanish passage, which cites the same source. I then found that VocalIndia added a translation attribution template on the talk page back in May, although I can't see any attribution in the history of the article itself, including the April edits creating it. I think VocalIndia has been misled by trusting other Wikipedians too much to have done a good job on topics they themself are unfamiliar with, and has failed to check the sources to see whether they are reliable and support the statements being made (or hasn't known enough about the field to check what reliable sources say). This may relate to their over-close paraphrasing noted above; I think a root cause may be that they are working on topics where they lack the necessary knowledge to make good editorial choices. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indef This kind of uncollaborative behavior even after the block show this editor is not capable to be productive here. TolWol56 (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address 70.66.130.107 has been making some problematic edits. Particularly pertaining to global warming misinformation, and other political based misinformations. This user also seems to engage inn editing in complete non facts such as how spires affect the height of buildings. Profile seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.66.130.107 " There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 70.66.130.107"}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyMcEvoy (talk • contribs) 04:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyMcEvoy: You didn't notify the IP user as required, so I have now done that for you.
Either way, I am guessing Timothy found this user via this edit and started digging. This is the diff for the global warning skepticism. This series of edits are some of what I imagine are the other political based misinformations. A block may be appropriate here if they edit again (which they might idk). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked Nimmmad (talk · contribs) last year for disruptive editing - in effect editing footballer statistics incorrectly. He has popped back up and is doing the exact same thing. I think an indef is required. GiantSnowman 10:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Previously raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1057#Nimmmad. GiantSnowman 10:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And this editor still has never edited a talk page, including their own. Did I see somewhere that we'd partially fixed the 'no way to warn mobile users' problem? valereee (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed a 1-week from article space with a block message I hope they'll be able to see. Maybe that'll help them find their user talk. valereee (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - if they re-appear doing the same afterwards we'll let you know. GiantSnowman 19:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serious WP:COI, WP:CIR, and WP:FRINGE issues. The editor has today created Astrology Beliefs By Ankit Sharma, Astrology Beliefs, Facts About Astrology, and Ankit Sharma (Astrologer). The latter one lived from 1931 until 2020, but looks alive and kicking in the many identical interviews he gave in 2021... Editor already created Pt. Ankit Sharma in 2018, and got advert and coi warnings at the time. I think we can do without them. Fram (talk) 12:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pages have already been deleted? Would you suggest an indef or topic ban? SoyokoAnis - talk 15:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The last article is still live (it was created today).Nigel Ish (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigel Ish Article was just deleted.

@Fram A topic ban from astrology topics would be ideal. But I seriously think this user needs help on those issues you stated. Especially 5 articles deleted already. So maybe a 2w or month block. SoyokoAnis - talk 17:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with an indef, but no problem if people want to try a more limited block (topic, namespace or duration) first. Fram (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted Draft:Ankit Sharma (Astrologer), which was in article space but was moved to draft space by MickyShy. My summary said "promotional language, self-promotion, A7, improperly verified BLP, NOTWEBHOST violation, duplicate also posted as Ankit Sharma - Indian Astrologer"--and they created the latter after Fram started this discussion. In addition, there's Astrology Beliefs By Ankit Sharma, which is an unattributed copy of Astrology with some changes, and Astrology Beliefs and the other are pretty much the same. All this (promotional writing, unsourced BLPs, unattributed copying to create fringe articles, thumbing one's nose at the community by creating another version of a promotional article while the first is being discussed, coupled with incompetence and copyright violations in their earlier edits, mixed with a possible COI for those universities) adds up to a NOTHERE block. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies I guess it does. So a topic ban is out of the question? SoyokoAnis - talk 18:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SoyokoAnis, if a user has been blocked, it means they cannot edit at all. A topic ban is not needed until/unless the person requests unblock, which they would do on their user talk page. I'm going to suggest you try to avoid ANI for now, as you really aren't experienced enough to be helping out here. valereee (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 170.51.104.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone from the outskirts of Buenos Aires has been busy genre warring in pop music articles, and leaving abusive edit summaries such as "DON'T ADD GENRES WITHOUT SOURCE, BITCH", "fuck the unsourced", "Put yo ass in a chair" and "Block me if you dare, Dog". I don't sense a positive net worth to the project. Binksternet (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fully support blocking. I'm not well-verses in range blocks though, so I'd rather have someone else take care of that. Sergecross73 msg me 22:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I don't like this edit, either: Eminem is a shit, lol. Not that the edit itself is problematic, but I think insulting a BLP is unacceptable. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a WP:GWARrior from Argentina, but this does not appear to be the same editor. That editor made no use of the edit summary, but was an active block evader. Their SPI page is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/190.16.216.10. The block was two years ago and was only for six months. Different genres. Different ISP. Slightly different area. Not likely the same editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WG, your IP gwarrior showed up just a few hours later: Special:Contributions/190.191.147.178. Funny you should mention it. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First thing that comes to mind when it comes to Argentinian (sorry, that's the Spanish pronunciation) music editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for three months. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Damien Linnane (talk · contribs) called an editor liar. Unfortunately, I deleted a bit too much of the URL when I changed it to a diff and added it to Damien Linnane's talk page. It was only later that I saw a second instance. I was called out for the poor edit and the interaction did not improve. While that transpired, the other editor, L32007 (talk · contribs), wrote that they felt attacked by Damien Linnane on that original talk page, and made it clear that they were discussing a separate topic. Back on Damien Linnane's talk page, the editor wrote, "Of course I called an editor a liar" and continued to explain why that was perfectly acceptable to have done so.

This is, unfortunately, a mess. L32007 is most clearly a WP:SPA and has edited primarily on the topic of Hillsong Church and associated articles. Do I expect the editor to attempt to minimize the church's (more like a denominiation's) problems? Of course! Do I think the editor is intentionally lying? No, I WP:AGF and assume an error. Do I think that there may be political spin? Probably.

Damien Linnane, on the other hand, is attacking, unrepentant, aggressive and treating editing like a battleground, at least with this subject, and two separate editors.

Am I perfect? Look at my block log, but I have attempted to stay cool on this topic. If no administrative action is taken on either of these editors, at least a nice discussion about WP:CIVILITY with Damien Linnane would be worthwhile and one about WP:COI with L32007, since my earlier comments on their talk page did not seem to help. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand how you could see me as WP:SPA, I have limited interests haha. I understand the COI re: Hillsong Church, but the closest COI I have is that I am a pentecostal Christian. I am not paid, endorsed or otherwise instructed to edit by any church. I appreciate your pushback on some of my edits Walter and your efforts to ensure balance when you have felt my edit has gone too far, as that is also my goal. I will try to broaden my contributions to other topics in future, Cheers. L32007 (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to note Walter Görlitz only started this conversation after I informed him I was drafting a topic at ANI regarding this incident myself [83]. Why he felt the need to get in first when he knew somethign was currently being drafted, is up for you to decide.

I came across the Hillsong Church article for the first time in July 2021. As I pointed out in my debut contribution to the article's talk page, there are some very biased editors deliberately manipulating sources in favour of the church: [84]. The main one was Adammoore1982, an SPA who was blocked from editing the article for over a year after someone else raised concerns about their behaviour here at ANI last November. However, as my talk page comment pointed out, L32007 has also made similar behaviour. In July 2018, with this edit they used a primary source to make original research comments that a letter from a minister was an apology and refuted any allegations against the church: [85]. As L32007 has just admitted today [86], the letter was not an apology. Nor did it refute the allegations in question, though anyone who actually reads the letter can determine this for themselves. This incident was not isolated.

L32007 edits infrequently. Prior to today, their last series of edits to the page was in December 2020, when they used a primary source to add original research to the article regarding childhood sexual assault: [87]. The edit was reverted by Zazpot, who clearly explained that the edit was being reverted as it did not back up what L32007 claimed it did: [88]. L32007 then proceeded to reinstate his own original research back into the article the very next day, where he again presented a Hillsong pastor's reasoning for not reporting crimes as a hard fact, whereas the new sources he included only state this is the pastor's interpretation of the law (regardless of whether he was indeed correct, the sources did not say that) [89]. Thankfully, their edit was partially reverted and worded in an appropriate manner by Avatar317 [90]. If that isn't enough evidence for you of their editing behaviour, please let me know as I'm happy to go through more of L32007's edits.

In addition to their original research, I obviously agree with Walter Görlitz that L32007 is an SPA. The ANI topic I was in the process of drafting was, and still is, going to ask you to take action against them on the grounds they are an SPA making extremely biased original research edits. Walter Görlitz just commented above that they expect L32007 "to attempt to minimize the church's problems", and (correct me if I'm wrong Walter) appears to have no problem with an SPA doing that. I, however, do not think a single purpose account who is only here to defend the church's reputation should be acceptable. I ask ANI administrators to take whatever action they think is appropriate.

Walter Görlitz is the top contributor to the Hillsong Church article. Despite this, when I pointed out the biased edits from Adammoore1982 and L32007 last year with detailed evidence, also pinging Walter to essentially thank him for reverting one biased edit, Walter made no comment. That's fine, but it's interesting to note, especially considering what has happened since then.

Yesterday, L32007 made a terse and very late reply to my talk page comment, ignoring the majority of my criticisms and instead claiming the letter I said he was using for original research was a different one that what he had originally used. I went through snapshots of the letter on the Internet Archive, and responded by providing hard evidence that the letter has not changed at all since it was uploaded to the Hillsong Church website in 2012, and is the same version that appeared when L32007 falsely claimed it was a letter of apology in July 2018. My post was 143 words long. 137 words was evidence that L32007 was not being truthful. Six of my words essentially concluded that he was lying. Regardless of this, Walter left this confusing message on the Hillsong Church talk page, saying I should "focus on the content rather than the contributor" [91]. Regardless of whether or not I made a personal attack, I did indeed primarily focus on the content. Walter, however, consistently ignores complaints against anyone accused of protecting the church's reputation, and instead attacks anyone who points out their bias.

Walter did not respond to my evidence against L32007, and instead his only action was to leave a generic template message on my talk page accusing me of being uncivil for pointing out another editor was not telling the truth. He explicitly stated it is uncivil of me to say another editor is lying "even if [the allegation] were true". If Wikipedia does indeed have a policy against pointing out lying, I haven't heard of it. I don't think there was anything inappropriate about my actions. L32007 has a history of spinning sources with his own original research. Eventually, you have to reach a point where you can only presume someone is intentionally being dishonest.

Walter Görlitz has also responded to my perceived personal attacks with personal attack of his own. In this message on my talk page [92], he states, completely without evidence, "I suspect that you call so many editors liars, whether calmly or not, and whether you feel justified and have supposed proof". In his post above, he accuses me of "attacking, unrepentant [and being] aggressive" against two editors. Firstly, I didn't even start the ANI complaint against the first editor, Adammoore1982, though I note ANI agreed with my opinion that he was an SPA, and took appropriate action in banning him. Walter seems to have a serious problem with me pointing out biased editing at the Hillsong Church, and I'll leave it up to you to decide why. I only came across the Hillsong Church article in passing and clearly spend the majority of my editing time working on completely different topics. I simply left a comment on the talk page pointing out what I saw as biased editing from two editors, and according to Walter, pointing out biased editing is unrepentant aggression. I suggest appropriate action be taken against him as well. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have had no previous interactions with me prior to today, so the idea that "Eventually, you have to reach a point where you can only presume someone is intentionally being dishonest." is absurd. I don't really want to defend edits made years ago, but I will say that any edits I've made were NOT done with original research and were made in good faith. From memory the section being talked about here predates my contributions to the article, but I could be wrong. I have contributed lots of good encyclopedic content about the Church, including the majority of Hillsong Conference and TBN Inspire -- yes, I have a special interest. No that isn't WP:SPA. But, if the administrators wish I can 'sequester' myself from making edits on the Controversy section of the page in question. I would prefer not to do that, I like to think I'm acting in good faith to make the page better and more accurate. I do have a view about that page that it's a bit WP:INDISCRIMINATE (it's a lot better than it used to be though, thanks to cooperation between editors), but editors are allowed to disagree. And I'm not engaging in any edit wars on the page. Walter and I have disagreed about my edits, and that's fine, I am committed to respectful discussion in the effort to make any page we're working on better. Cheers L32007 (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact I haven't interacted with you is neither here nor there. I've gone through many of your edits, therefore I feel very justified in saying (and have irrefutable proof) that you have a history of adding original research to the article. Also as you've pointed out yourself, the overwhelming majority of the articles you edit are related to the Hillsong Church, including TBN Inspire. Maybe you're confused about the definition, but an SPA isn't an account who edits only one article, an SPA is an account that edits a "very narrow area or set of articles". You're editing history clearly matches that description. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote, If you want to continue this discussion, WP:ANI may be the correct place to point out that other editor's behaviour. That was before you continued to attack. Other than that, I let my analysis stand, and you made no apologies for your behaviour. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never attacked anyone, nor did I "continued to attack" anyone after you mentioned ANI discussion as the appropriate place to bring this up, which I responded to by saying that I would indeed do that. Why you didn't tell me you were drafting something yourself, I do not understand, though it's easy to guess. I have nothing to apologise for. L32007 has a history of adding original research which goes back several years. Already knowing this, after he said something else that was clearly untrue, I said he lied. It's that simple. Why you're focusing on me saying he lied in passing, instead of years of his biased editing, is up for admins to decide.

In closing I would like to note something that appears to have been lost along the way. This all started not because of L32007's original research, but rather because he was adding original research AND then complaining about edits from others that he perceived were biased on the article's talk page, citing several guidelines in the process he is clearly familiar with [93]. It should be noted that he appeared well-versed at recognising bias when it was made by others, which is evidence he was at least aware on some level (if not completely aware) of the biased edits he had made previously, and continued to make afterwards. I have nothing more to add, and await a response from admins. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calling an editor a liar is a personal attack. The reason I started this ANI is that it was clear to me, from our brief interaction on your talk page, that you did not understand that, and you still do not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal attack if there is irrefutable proof they are lying, it's simply a statement of fact. I understand you disagree, however, as you've already stated on my talk page it's uncivil to call someone a liar even if they are lying, which is an absurd belief to hold. But that's my opinion, and unlike you, as I've already mentioned I'm happy to agree to disagree. I still can't believe you've felt the need to make a mountain out of a molehill with something I said in passing that was clearly true. Please just drop the stick and let the admins make a decision. I won't reply to anything further you add. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about we both stop writing and let an uninvolved editor or an admin weigh-in? And for the record, I'm happy to agree to disagree, but not when WP:NPA is being violated with no end to that behaviour in sight. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved (occasional) editor here. Damien you need to cool your jets - one of the basic principles here is "assume good faith" - so even if you're sure someone is lying, don't just go around calling them a liar. You're better off working with Walter to improve the article. It doesn't need to have the minutiae of every little scandal gone into in great depth. Walter - it would probably be good for experienced editors and/or admins to keep an eye on this article for the next few months - Hillsong have got themselves involved in Australian politics at very high levels (e.g. https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2019/09/23/hillsong-brian-houston-scott-morrison/) and there's an election coming up in the next few months, so no doubt there will be occasional bursts of politically-motivated editor-initiated shenanigans. Daveosaurus (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Daveosaurus: I did ping Walter to the talk page last year for the purpose of addressing concerns at the article, but he didn't reply. Nobody wanted to help fix the issue, which was a shame.

I put a lot of effort into uncovering the lengths at which SPA editors had manipulated the article, and when one of them finally replied, they ignored all the criticism against them, and instead made a false claim. In retrospect, yes, I was quite triggered that the only reply I got to all my hard work was someone commenting directly underneath my evidence regarding a letter from a minister that I had quoted the wrong letter, which I can clearly prove I did not. Yes, I was very angry. If that person didn't have a several-year history of adding original research to the article, I would have assumed good faith, but considering their history, I could not.

I completely agree the article should be watched by others, and would happily recuse myself if this happens as I actually have no interest in the Hillsong Church. The sole purpose of my talk page post in the first place was pointing out bias in the hopes others would get involved. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The root issue, however, is not the article but you calling an editor a liar. I do not expect that to change if you go to another article. You keep blaming other editors and refuse to acknowledge the issue at hand. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walamba.kana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[94] [95] [96] - Removed 1,500 text, replacing the Arab background of the figure with that of an Afghan/Pashtun

[97] [98] Removed 6,472 text, added unsourced claim that the dynasty was Afghan/Pashtun

[99] Removed the probable Tajik background of the dynasty

Right after his block expired, he removed the Persian/Dari spelling of this article and replaced with Pashtun [100]

Moreover, he also earlier wrote this rather nasty comment to me in his edit summary because I reverted him; HistoryofIran koss madar Irani khar = HistoryofIran your mothers pussy you Iranian donkey

I think it's clear to say that this user is WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HistoryofIran - I haven't looked at the diffs, because that insult alone should immediately lead to an indef. However, I haven't been able to verify your translation. You don't indicate what language it's written in, and Google Translate is giving me meaningless nonsense when set to 'detect language'. Can you point me at something that would confirm your translation? (Sorry for being a pain on this; I hope you can appreciate that I need to be certain about what somebody said before I indef an account.) Girth Summit _(blether) 19:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit I understand. It's Persian (and perhaps used in Pashto as well?), but as far as I'm aware Google Translate only translates Persian written in the Persian script. There are sites which show Persian insults, such as this one [101], which has the words "kos" and "khar". --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's seems clear enough - I've blocked for personal attacks/harassment. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrsten Sinema was just the target of page move vandalism. I think I got all of the logs but one is still visible to me as if not revdel'd on my watchlist. Please make sure I got it all. It may need to be suppressed by someone at a higher pay grade than me. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think logs have been properly revision deleted. I was able to find the target but I think iy is only because I can see deleted edits, and this is fine, we do not need an oversight here.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being continuously harassed on my talk page by a Denver, Colorado-based IP hopper. They're on the range 2607:FB91:1100:0:0:0:0:0/43 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and the IP 174.16.104.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I'd appreciate it if an admin could watch my talk page for any inappropriate behavior at the least or semi-lock my talk page at the best. wizzito | say hello! 05:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP has been blocked and talk has been semi-protected. Thanks! wizzito | say hello! 06:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have another IP harassing me through edit summaries, 119.111.181.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) wizzito | say hello! 06:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin please revdel this edit summary? wizzito | say hello! 11:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This IP has made unsourced edits to Afghanistan-related articles. [102][103][104][105][106] Please do something. Thanks. --Firestar464 (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They continued after your warning that they must use sources, so I have blocked for 31 hours. It's possible they're trying to be helpful, but haven't seen the warning. If that's the case, the block should help them find their page. Thanks for reporting, Firestar464. Bishonen | tålk 08:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

51.6.138.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - [ANI NOTICE]
51.6.138.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Alexander Davronov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Is it WP:BKFIP having fun again by going after my edits? Can someone take a look?

IGES

21:20, January 19, 2022 - «fixed style errors, removed badly-written recent addition»

19:53, January 17, 2022 - «tidy-up; source»

↑ Removed my small, but well sourced contribution under a pretext of minor issues

ANGLE (software)

17:31, January 19, 2022 - «restored older text which was in good English»

17:27, January 19, 2022 - «Undid revision 1066555004 by Alexander Davronov talk) riddled with errors»

23:05, January 18, 2022 - «‎top: OpenGL ES»

↑ The same

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, that's them. Blocked for 3 months. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, for the past few days on the Adamawa State page, the users 2.25.21.231 (talk · contribs), 208.127.196.42 (talk · contribs), and 208.127.199.28 (talk · contribs) have continuously changed statistics without citing a source, contesting that the current source supports the edits, or even explaining the edits. There appears to be a concerted effort by these accounts to remove or diminish notes of the Fulani ethnic group and their language, Fulfulde along with unsourced religious "statistics" that literally do not add up. Their efforts seem to be focused on three parts of the page:

• The accounts are deleting mentions of the Fulani from the demographics paragraph in the page's summary: a credible source—that these accounts are not contesting or removing—states that between 10%-20% of the state population are Fulani, thus easily making the group one of the largest in the state and notable enough to be in the demographics paragraph. Before recently the users did not delete the entire group from the sentence, instead editing that the group is confined to certain LGAs; however, due to some Fulanis nomadic lifestyle and the groups long history in the area, they also live throughout the entire state as no single region encompasses the ethnicity's area.
• The accounts are changing religious statistics without explanation by dramatically reducing Muslim and traditionalist percentages: religious data in Nigeria is extremely hard to come by (I used a Afrobarometer survey from a few years ago along with recent maps that looked at additional data) but there is nowhere that comes close to suggesting that all Muslims are of the Izala sect or that Christians make up nearly 70% of the population. There could be arguments made that any one of the main religious groups have a higher or lower percentage than the 55-30-15 split I wrote but 25-67-7-1 is literally made up (especially considering their earlier edits had the numbers at a math-defying 30-67-7 split). I look forward to working with others to find better demographic data but the IPs "data" is absurd.
• Lastly, the accounts are deleting mentions of Fulfulde from the language section: I cannot access the current language source, however, the users have refused to cite a new source or say that the current source supports the edits. Just going based off my ok knowledge of the state, it would make logical sense for Fulfulde to be spoken in most LGAs, Fulanis live throughout the entire state and Fulfulde is a regional language that many non-Fulanis learn as a second or third language. There was even a study that I found that states that all Adamawa state LGAs have Fulfulde (and Hausa) speakers leading me to question the deletions.
• I'd appreciate admins looking into the issues—especially as all three IP address seem to have made disruptive edits on other pages before—and look forward to the response, thank you Watercheetah99 (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I protected the page for a week--Ymblanter (talk) 08:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alirwez061 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user seems to be on a mission to Arabicize certain Iran-related articles (mainly the ones to do with Khuzestan) with his own POV or/and non-WP:RS sources, rather than attempting to improve them. In fact, he has a long history of that.

17 April 2021 - Changed the name of "White Bridge (Iran)" to "Ahwaz White Bridge". "Ahwaz" is the Arabic variant of the city of Ahvaz, often used in a nationalistic/irredentist sense. It has no official status whatsoever.

25 April 2021 - Added the name "Arabian Gulf" to the Persian Gulf article, a politically motivated name used by a few Arab states.

5 September 2021 - Removed sourced mention of Persians being indigenous to Khuzestan, claiming that they are not "are not indigenous to this area"

6 December 2021 - Add his own personal POV into articles. As you can see, the cited reference makes no mention of what he added about this 'Persianization' section.

20 January 2022 - Add his own personal POV into articles. As you can see, the cited reference makes no mention of what he added. The cited page is literally a map of Iran and its provinces.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear HistoryofIran, first of all thanks a lot for naming a few of my contributions to wikipedia, and secondly, I may have made a few unsourced edits back when I started my activity on wikipedia, but my recent edits on Emirate_of_Arabistan are all sourced and verified, and I request admin support as some accounts (probably of the same person) tried to damage the quality and completeness of the article by continuously deleting resources, preventing the improvement of the article. thanks and regards Alirwez061 (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "I may have made a few unsourced edits back when I started my activity on wikipedia"

Strongly disagree. Its apparent from the many diffs that were issued as warnings on your talk page[107]-[108]-[109]-[110] or through edit summaries that you are on a campaign in Wikipedia. That campaign is to promote an irredentist pro-Arab POV in Khuzestan-related articles of Iran, by deliberately misinterpreting sources and cherry-picking material. We call that WP:TENDENTIOUS editing to the point where its WP:NOTHERE. I can add many more diffs that attest to this, in addition to the ones posted by user:HistoryofIran. No, this campaign has never stopped and it is in fact the sole reason why are you being reported to ANI. The feigned assertion that it was somehow only when you "started your activity" is easily disproven by the fact that many disruptive diffs dating to December and September 2021 and Januari 2022 can be found. You've barely made 50 edits within the past 6 months, yet they are drenched in disruption. Here are two more:

1. Tried to turn the non-Semitic Elamite Empire into a Semitic one, using a Biblical quote. Date September 2021.[111]
2. Changed "Khuzestan Province" into "Emirate of Arabistan". Edit summary "Ahwaz is not part of the peninsula" (the WP:COMMONNAME is "Ahvaz"). Dated December 2021[112]

- LouisAragon (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The edits to White Bridge (Iran) and Persian Gulf don't appear to be inappropriate. Arabian Gulf shows enough use that it should be considered as an WP:ALTTITLE, while there is some reason to believe that "Ahwaz" is the common name for Ahvaz. BilledMammal (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Ahwaz' is often used in sources about medieval Caliphate Iran or by some Arabic news sites yes, but certainly not (neutral) sources related to modern Iran. How is suddenly making such page move appropriate? With no discussion whatsoever? Likewise, the bit about Arabian Gulf (a politically motivated word with no historical basis) should be discussed first. Moreover, you did not address the other, more problematic behaviours of this user as well, curious. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at recent news, while Ahvaz is slightly more common, there is significant use of Ahwaz, such as in The Australian - I've added it as an altname to that article. And the move was appropriate under WP:BOLD; while a more experienced editor would have understood that it was likely to be controversial and opened an RM, this was only their 30th edit. As for adding "Arabian Gulf" as a WP:ALTTITLE, I think most editors would follow WP:BRD. I haven't reviewed the other behaviours in depth as I don't intend to become too involved in this discussion, although I note that there is coverage of persianization in Khuzestan in reliable scholarly sources, possibly enough to warrant a mention in the relevant articles - and issues understanding sourcing requirements are not uncommon among new editors. BilledMammal (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How was it appropriate under WP:BOLD? Ahwaz is still a far cry from WP:COMMON NAME. If you don't want to become too involved, then why are you still here? You ignored the most blatant parts of his behaviour, and are now making excuses for him which he didn't even make himself - this is concerning. Sure, there might have been done Persianization in Khuzestan, but that is still not mentioned in the 'source' he cited, which he keeps claiming there is. The user literally admits on his userpage that he 'Supports the independence of Ahwaz' - something which he clearly projects into his edits. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editors can make mistakes, as long as they don't amount to a WP:CIR issue, and Ahwaz is close enough to the common name that it is a reasonable mistake. And you're right, I don't want to become involved, so I will leave the discussion now. BilledMammal (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine using retroactive WP:CRUSH to justify long-term disruptive editing. What about the attempt at labeling the Elamite Empire as Semitic, as demonstrated above?[113] Is that related to supposed Persianization in Khuzestan, or irredentism related to the Persian Gulf, i.e. the internationally recognized name of the body of water? - LouisAragon (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) SPI CU comment: Alirwez061 filed a SPI saying HistoryofIran and LouisAragon are the same person. The evidence presented did not lead me to see these users as the same person and I did not find any evidence to suggest this either. This was probably made in good faith, but wanted to provide this context. The SPI page is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HistoryofIran. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (Non-administrator comment) Alirwez061 just tried to start an SPI against LouisAragon and HistoryofIran which was dismissed with prejudice: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HistoryofIran. Singularity42 (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban / indefinite block proposal

Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that said user is not here to build this encyclopaedia. I propose either an indefinite topic ban from all Arab and Iran-related topics, broadly construed. OR, an indefinite block. The community has wasted enough time with this disruption--time which could be used more fruitfully. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear user LouisAragon, I really appreciate your time with us, but your recent edit at Emirate of Arabistan is obviously unconstructive as you are continuously deleting resources and edit-warring and I recommend you to refrain from vandalizing the article furthermore. Thanks and regards. Alirwez061 (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An accusation of vandalism without supporting evidence is a personal attack. I see you have made the same accusation in an edit summary at the article you reference. You would be well-advised to withdraw both of those accusations in your next edit. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the edits in question, that's not vandalism. That's a content dispute, and furthermore it certainly seems to be POV-pushing on Alirwez061's part. New regimes make name changes all the time, and there's nothing unusual, sinister or particularly noteworthy about these century-old changes. Ravenswing 22:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear wikipedians, first of all, resource removal is obvious vandalism and itself is an evidence, and secondly, dear user Ravenswing, I don't think it is neceasary for us to get in particular details of the content inself. Content/Resource removal is as obvious as it is. I immediately request admin assistance. Thanks and regards Alirwez061 (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that you prefer we don't examine it too closely, so that others see it as simply another content dispute that may also run against WP:UNDUE. Sorry to puncture your bubble, but as it happens, we make such value judgments all the time, which is why such reversions do not constitute prima facie vandalism. Seek consensus on the appropriate talk pages for such edits, and if consensus doesn't go your way, accept the result. Ravenswing 06:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a topic ban. There are millions of topics in the encyclopedia that a given editor can work on without running into this kind of issue. If this editor can contribute productively in other areas for a year or so without problems arising, the community can decide at that time let them work in their preferred area again. BD2412 T 07:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Millions of topics, how tropical! Anyway, I'm fine with rescinding the block in favour of a TBAN, though I have reservations even about that. But I'll go with da flow. El_C 07:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I said what I said. I'm not categorically opposed to a block, but I believe in last chances. BD2412 T 07:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tautology is a topic! I also believe in final chances, but there's been multiple warnings (though they've been removing em from their talk page). El_C 07:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alirwez061 blocked indef

User_talk:Alirwez061#Indefinite_block. El_C 07:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This user is attempting to force text into Vietnamese language while ignoring attempts to direct him/her to the relevant discussion on the talk page. Could someone have a word? Kanguole 15:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The editor name's with diacritics is "tao là bố mày". My suggestion is to redirect him to Vietnamese Wikipedia. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taolabomay was blocked from viwiki last June because of the user name.[114] In any case, this editor does not respond to any communication. It is very frustrating. Kanguole 08:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The editor User:Kbrose is edit warring and showing aggressive displays of wp:own over the Original North American area codes page, claims "I wrote the whole article to begin with". They have been repeatedly adding a factually inaccurate edit which was reverted numerous times by more than one editor. They refuse to use the talk page on the issue despite countless requests. Refused other editors attempts to communicate through editors talk page. A proposal to have a third party review was also refused and the conversation deleted by kbrose. This is a clear example of edit warring, article ownership, and general aggressive/rude treatment of other editors. When I went to report them for their confrontational edits and refusal to use talk page, I was mysteriously reported for my reverts of their bold edits. The page was then semi protected and the User:Kbrose immediately returned to edit warring. I'm not sure if this suspicious and timely semi-protect was a simple case of WP:IPHUMAN, or if this is WP:TAGTEAM behaviour.

1. [115] 16:42, 11 January 2022
2. [116] 17:43, 14 January 2022
3. [117] 15:56, 17 January 2022
4. [118] 17:54, 17 January 2022
5. [119] 19:17, 19 January 2022
6. [120] 23:48, 19 January 2022

As you can see above User:Kbrose bold edit was reverted and they continuously reinstated it, refused to use the talk page, refused a third party review, acted in a hostile manner towards other editors, and claimed ownership of the article. 76.69.7.202 (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All that needs to be pointed out is that this is just retaliatory behavior based on the previous rejections of the user's unfounded accusations. This all started when I reverted his modification on the page that was contradictory (impossible) in itself at DIFF. Not being able to swallow that and correct his edit, he just latched onto another editor's concern, and started reverting wholesale new content I added later, which is duly referenced and well developed. He never cited specific concerns (or anything else) on the talk page, as noted by the reviewing administrator. Then the other user fell into the same habit of wholesale reverting content that had nothing to do with the original concern and has since been discussed on the talk page. kbrose (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, everyone is wrong but you. Even the administrator who requested that you revert your edits yet you still refuse. Such a blatant disregard for wikipedia policies, respect of follow editors, and opposition to wikipedia administrators. It is baffling why there is such a reluctancy to discuss the proposed bold edits and come to a consensus. 76.69.7.202 (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You get respect when you do respectful things. You don't demand it. Writing good articles can generate that. You have not even once engaged and raised any kind of specific concern about the article. You made a change once, that was objectively wrong, impossible, and you couldn't stand being reverted. The same happened on other of the few articles you ever worked on in WP under this IP address, and you were warned about it by admins on your talk page. You have only obstructed here. Not a single contribution, not a single objection, not a single issue discussed on the talk page. Nada. Nothing but accusations. Don't lecture others. You have probably edited previously with other IP addresses, what happened? kbrose (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the opposite. You're doing a lot of projecting here. Please refrain from personal attacks here as you are now also doing on the articles page. It won't help your case and proves my point of your very uncivil behaviour. 76.69.7.202 (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have some concerns about competency with regards to Vitopavlovivit's edits, namely on List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network. They have repeatedly made edits that broke the formatting for tables used in the article:

• [121]
• [122]
• [123]
• [124]
• [125]

No attempt has been made to learn about proper table formatting. I have also noticed some poor grammar within the user's talk page messages, such as not using apostrophes in words like "don't", as well as some odd messages like "have you watched it last night" and "i edited for reliable source and go watch cartoon network commercials from 10-2-1992 on youtube". Is a block in order? The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 18:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looking at this user's talkpage I don't see much chance of improvement here. Blocked, hard to believe it took this long. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I want to argue WP:BITE in support of our more inexperienced users, this sadly looks like a good block. Four years of editing, not a single reply on their own talk page, and I can't find a single contribution that survived to the current revision on any article. My only concern is that gross incompetence strikes me as unnecessarily uncivil, The Blade of the Northern Lights. We're here to improve and maintain the encyclopedia, but we don't need to insult people to accomplish those aims. It is surely upsetting enough just to be blocked without also being told that you've exhibited gross incompetence. AlexEng^(TALK) 10:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solidarityandfreedom created their account with their first edits attempting to make a Wikipedia page for the chairman of the American Solidarity Party, Draft:Patrick Harris (Party Leader). They then used their account to spam the article for the American Solidarity Party with Twitter links to the American Solidarity Party's "Liberation Caucus". Solidarityandfreedom has been cautioned and reverted by many veteran Wikipedia editors for promotion and the deletion of cited material as can be seen here by Avatar317, here by Rediculizer42, here by Goodone121, and here by Anupam. Solidarityandfreedom's conflict of interest agenda is clear here and their misrepresentation of citations has been noted. They have done the same at related political and religious articles too, with others such as Litawor reversing their edits here and Pbritti reverting their edits here where Solidarityandfreedom is citing primary citations. Solidarityandfreedom's talk page is plastered with warnings from users such as ValtteriLahti12 and others who are tired of wasting their time with this editor who clearly does not have the competence to edit here. Goodone121 has noted that they use misleading edit summaries to blank large amounts of content from articles [126][127]. A topic ban from all articles related to religion and politics is the next best step here, but since these are the only topics that they edit, a site ban could only help him now. TolWol56 (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having monitored Solidarityandfreedom's edits from time to time, I agree with TolWol56 insofar as action appears necessary but disagree with a site ban, as the edits are innocuous enough. A topic ban, even a temporary one, seems proportional. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've only seen Solidarityandfreedom's edits on the American Solidarity Party article, but I would classify EVERY edit I saw by that editor as promotional and poorly sourced, with a clear bias of trying to write what they want and then finding "sources" to stick behind their statement (often SELF-sourced to the party itsself - As an easy extreme example, we don't allow white-supremecist groups to characterize their own organizations, we use Independent Sources WP:IS.) Addditionally, Solidarityandfreedom often deleted SOURCED info that doesn't align with what they want the article to say.

The username seemed to me like a redflag for a potential COI on at least the ASP article, and because of their repeated tendentious editing on that article, I support a topic ban for the ASP article. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solidarityandfreedom has started to sock as 72.28.3.68 and is pushing their same POV COI cruft.[128][129] Would anyone oppose a site ban at this point? --1990'sguy (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have indefinitely pageblocked Solidarityandfreedom from American Solidarity Party, although the editor is still able to make their case at Talk: American Solidarity Party. I have warned the editor that taking their disruptive style of editing to other parts of the encyclopedia may result in a broader block. Cullen328 (talk)

In response to the IP editing, I have semi-protected the article for one week. Please inform me if the disruption resumes, and I will semi-protect for a longer period. Cullen328 (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cullen328, but they are now socking with an IP.[130][131] Perhaps an indefinite block and protecting the article would be the next step? --1990'sguy (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, 1990'sguy, I have already semi-protected the article. I am not going to completely block the editor unless they continue their disruption after my page block. Cullen328 (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban for Solidarityandfreedom on politics and religion articles, broadly construed

• Support: This editor is only here to promote their COI views and they have dug a hole for themselves by not taking warnings seriously. Instead, they are still edit warring to push their POV across a range of articles. After this ANI discussion was made, Solidarityandfreedom has resorted to socking under 72.28.3.68.[132][133] --1990'sguy (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (other comment) In my opinion there doesn’t necessarily need to be an entire ban, however I would support a block on the Girolamo Savonarola article as he constantly adds information that contradicts the sources that were already used, seemingly to go against the common claim that he was a proto-Protestant (like Philip Schaff and even Britannica 1911 mentioned). ValtteriLahti12 (talk)
• Support topic ban per my original post and the proposal. TolWol56 (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:LouisaCatherineAdams. WP:BLP violations and other edits putting statements into articles that are not supported by the refs given. As in: Special:Diff/1066244586 and Special:Diff/1066809492. Editor has been blocked before. - Special-T (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Special-T: IMO, the next block should be indefinite, reviewing the edits that this editor has made, regardless of any good edits. This user has been blocked two times and the third?– Indefinite. Severestorm28 22:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Between the blocks and the number of different editors telling them to slow down, use WP:RS etc., an indef is warranted and I've done so. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sock account. Now tagged and a couple of sleepers blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For some who don't know, I copied information about the original French voice cast that gave life to the characters of such a French or Canadian Quebecois series on the French Wikipedia and pasted them here, I've had more or less several incidents of two users because I received more than four warnings that I allegedly removed the blank content of some articles that I have recently edited if my edits are constructive and I surely left three edit summaries reasons for correctly adding the cast information in infoboxes, so no I know, suddenly two users, including a bot, reverted all my edits without leaving edit summaries. See: [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143]. 152.0.138.36 (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The translation to french, makes it difficult for the project's english-only readers to understand. This being english-language Wikipedia, it's like many of our readers are english-only readers. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You see, the user just did it, my edit was just reverted on Mark Ronson's article having reported through the protection page requests saying in the summary here non-constructive imagine. The same thing happened with Manuel Tadros, he or she reverted my edit just before I added the categories below the section. 152.0.138.36 (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@152.0.138.36: your edits are very difficult to parse, so I'm going to respond to a couple of the several edits that I read. In your first example, you have not just copied information about the original French voice cast as you said. In fact, you deleted the entire Italian and English cast and replaced it with only the French cast. That is presumably why ClueBotNG, which is an automated process, automatically flagged your edit as suspected "vandalism". Moving on to your Mark Ronson example... my assumption is that there is something weird going on with whatever device you are using to edit Wikipedia. The Wikimedia software has generated a nearly incomprehensible diff that took me a few minutes to visually process. You appear to have done three things:

1. Changed the subject's (Ronson's) nationality information from "English-American" to merely "British," which does not comply with Wikipedia policy for biographies of living persons.
2. Reordered some of the categories, for some reason. It looks like you alphabetized some of them, but at least one was moved out of the correct order and into an incorrect order by your edit, so I don't understand the point of this action.
3. Modified the subject's occupational information from "DJ, songwriter, record producer, and record executive" to merely "musician" in the short description block for the article. In the lead sentence, you also removed "singer" from the list of occupations. This is an unwarranted correction and requires discussion.

In all cases, your edits are causing disruption from multiple angles. Even if this is not intentional, you must take great care not to continue to degrade the quality of articles with the changes that you make. Please consider your subsequent edits more carefully and try to start off with making extremely simple changes one revision at a time, rather than large changes that affect markup and drastically change the meaning of the text. If you need assistance with ensuring that your edits are helpful, you will be welcomed at the WP:Teahouse, and you can additionally ask technical questions at the WP:Help desk. Best of luck. AlexEng^(TALK) 10:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reported problems with citations made by User:Cltjames and their response was to delete the report without comment. This is the first interaction we have had. Given the scale of the problem, it took a fair amount of bot programming to clean up - it impacted nearly a thousand articles all to the same commercial website https://debretts.com/ which is not an appropriate URL for a {{cite book}} dated 1921 with a page number, much less double loading an Internet Archive book into the archive-url field, or using the quote field for the publisher name (whew). It is part of a pattern of citation oddities, some worse than others, such as embedding a google book template inside a cite book template for two different books. I'm happy to work with User:Cltjames to educate about citations, if that's the problem, but the deletion of the user page post leaves no option but to ask for help to reach them. -- GreenC 06:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cordial discussions have resumed so I am withdrawing this as an open issue. -- GreenC 22:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The user Reaver55 has repeatedly engaged in disruptive editing. They are quick to assume bad faith and seem to be generally uncivil with most people they engage with. They make generous use of "you" when addressing the actions of editors, and otherwise try to personally engage in one form or another with the editors they're taking issue with (as can be seen here and elsewhere). They are drawn towards controversial subjects and use talk pages as a means of airing their own rants related to the subjects. (Just check their contribs to see.) They have disruptively edited their own talk page as well, which is currently almost entirely struck through (and many topics have been deleted from the page, including notices of discretionary sanctions). I could go on but I don't care to. Mewnst (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You "don't care to go" on yet you made this report, this just seems out spite and anger that your edits are being removed for being irrelevant to the topic Cracker (term). I could say the same thing for your own editing history and you even have a notice for "Transgenderism" which is a controversial topic which you were corrected on due to Transgender being the correct term versus Transgenderism, not to mention you have a habit of NOT using the talk page and forcing blanks like you did with the bored apes yacht club article which you were given a notice about, The Notices are old and I could of deleted them but I prefer to keep it? Is there something wrong with that? Regarding my opinion(s) I was hoping to bring further clarification on why Chadwick Seagraves was important to include so I did some research outside of wikipedia since theres no information on him here which I was why I specified it was my opinion, just like it was their opinion that that paragraph was relevant so to keep the article as it was BEFORE the editing by Mewnst and encouraged Mewnst via the edit summary to use the talk page, they then decided to blank the entire story, which I then wrote a reminder to use the talk page, I never put that story there I just kept it how it was before the disruptive edits by Mewnst without using the talk pages to discuss its relevancy to the article about the term. Cracker I could go on but I don't care to.Reaver55 (talk) 07:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not going to take a side in this particular content dispute, but Reaver calling other editors "biased" is concerning. MiasmaEternal☎ 10:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again who are you, are you relating to ANY of these incidents/pages about this discussion? Its the same situation as Sly. Another commentary from an editor which seems to me adding further to the "dog pile" to put me in a "negative light" Reaver55 (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reaver55 wasn't at all involved in the matter regarding my updating of some of the language used in gender-related pages. This is a toxic attempt to smear me as a biased and unworthy editor by digging into my edit history over something that was never an issue or edit war. I don't care about having my edits stick in the Seagraves stuff either, I am here because of this needless confrontation from this person. They continue to behave uncivilly here. Mewnst (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Toxic attempt to smear me as a biased and unworthy editor by digging into my edit history" You did the EXACT same thing, its a sign of repeated disruptive editing behaviors that editors such as myself did not report, but I'm beginning to rethink that decision as a possible vandalism attempt and not a mere mistake of what agreed upon consensus is. Reaver55 (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Reaver55's discussion style is rather too confrontational and personalised, and it is a general pattern.

They have about 80 edits in total. Back in May 2021 there's this edit summary, this user TP section, this TP post, this edit summary, and several other similar edits leading to a short block for disruption and personal attacks, and then to a longer block for edit warring. In June, there's this. In November, this. On 1 December this, later in December this, and in January this and this... and it's not like these are isolated incidents, either.

They have had warnings about personal attacks and posting inappropriate warning templates, and gave this response; that was right before this block. The second block in May, for edit warring, came with a note that further edit warring might lead to an indef block, so their revert warring a couple of days ago, seen in this edit history, is not impressive. (In addition, they have returned to a couple of other articles where their preferred wording had previously been challenged, and reverted back to "their" version without discussing it first, but that hasn't led to actual edit wars.) --bonadea contributions talk 10:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So what your saying is you know these disputes are old yet you bring it up to I guess add fuel to your argument? Reaver55 (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a clear case of WP:NOTHERE: treating editing as a battleground, little or no interest in working collaboratively, a general pattern of disruptive behaviour and (based on their numerous accusations of bias) a long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopaedia. Theknightwho (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mewnst seems to be a clear case of WP:NOTHERE: treating editing as a battleground, little or no interest in working collaboratively, such as blanking a bored apes yacht club article, changing Transgender terms to non-scholarly accepted terms, adding massive unrelated stories to unrelated articles then blanking the entire story because theyre edit was undid, an act of vandalism. All without notice or even a thought of starting a discussion on the talk page. Reaver55 (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He is clearly WP:NOTHERE to write an encyclopedia imho. Talk:Not_Fucking_Around_Coalition#"We_are_a_Black_militia... shows just one example of bad faith assumptions and personal attacks then claiming others are editors are biased. MartinezMD (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, not good at all. Taking on everyone and anyone. Concur with WP:NOTHERE.Slywriter (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Useless commentary giving their opinion about a dispute/page theyre not involved in.

You were constantly going AGAINST the agreed upon consensus and kept injecting your own opinion, it wasn't until you saw the American Militia movement with NFAC listed as #2 did you finally accept that it was part of the American militia movement and its a talk page specifically about how you are not maintaining a level of neutrality for NFAC since you constantly disagreeing on it 1. being a BLACK militia and 2. That it is a militia. So by asking you to remain unbiased and maintain a level of neutrality is not a overstep but rather apart of the Wikipedia rules on neutrality.

And if you really wanna go on about rules Mewnst, didn't you blank two sections of two different articles without using the talk pages then getting two notices about how you should utilize the talk page, could be considered "Treating editing as a battleground" or "Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention" such as Trying to put a whole paragraph about a proud boy member AFTER the misidentification incident, his story was not important only that he was a proud boy member, it would be more appropriate to put his story after that misidentification on the proud boys page. Again if you wanna talk about disruptive behaviour how about not utilizing the talk page and having to receive two notices for it or just complete blanking of certain stories without even making a single comment about if it should. Reaver55 (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all trying to invoke a resolution in my favor regarding that page or the discussion, there are merits to keeping it as you prefer and it's not worth arguing like a lawyer over. I am here because of how you've behaved through it all. Mewnst (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like a lawyer? Like defending myself? How dare I defend myself indeed. Reaver55 (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if Reaver55 should be blocked as NOTHERE or maybe for TEND instead, but they clearly lack the temperament for consensus building. I saw this removal of Slywriter's comment which drew me to this thread. I figured the removal was a mistake, but after seeing diffs of removing other comments on article Talk pages and using del tags at their own User Talk page, I don't think it was. The full thread at Talk:Not Fucking Around Coalition#"We are a Black militia... is what makes me support a block. That's a checklist of tendentious editing: refusing to listen, assuming bad faith, and getting so upset that they're nearly incomprehensible—not to mention forgetting to indent and sign their comments. I also see plenty of that here, in this very thread. Woodroar (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to see your evidence on how my edits on wikipedia articles are NOT from a neutral point of view, do you care to say China uncensored is an "right wing" organization like the vandal earlier today? That I reverted, or that NFAC isn't a black militia part of the Militia movement in the United States? Please provide some evidence. His comment should of been removed so I instead crossed it out and specified why. user is not involved and is giving their opinion "imho" which urban dictionary defines as "In my humble opinion", so it's an opinion, unrelated to a page or dispute that person is involved in. So why should it stay Woodroar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reaver55 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieMD, the user in dispute about NFAC being apart of the Militia undid my revision despite it being the Agreed upon consensus of the American militia page, so I started a discussion page on why it's a miltia based on the definition of a militia from Wikipedia and since they are based in the US it was part of the American Militia movement not to mention they are listed on that page by someone else a long time ago but the edit has remained since, but I believe the disagreement was a misunderstanding of including the word "movement" instead of militia linking to the "American Militia Movement", but either way it was resolved. However we ran into another misunderstanding

regarding the "We are a black militia' it seemed to me the user was trying to advocate deleting the Black Nationalist part of the initial sentence.

Regarding the "getting so upset that they're nearly incomprehensible—not" please provide that edit! And regarding the indents and signing before, I was new and just figuring it all out. Regarding the indenting... your comment about indenting isn't indented... So maybe cut some people some slack or maybe be a good editor and fix it. along with a note on what they did wrong and how to fix it, like the person who told me how to sign comments. Reaver55 (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a block for tendentious editing, personal attacks, and/or edit warring. Continuing the reported behaviour in this thread isn't a good sign. --bonadea contributions talk 17:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just like to point out The user reporting me that constantly like to bring up past reports, has two notices for blanking without using the discussion page, a form of edit waring. Continuing the reported behavior wikipedia isn't a good sign for the site as a whole on maintaining an informative neutral Wikipedia. Also kind of odd how we just run into a minor dispute and here you are advocating for a blockage suddenly, but I didn't delete your comment because you are relating to page/edit dispute I'm involved in. Sly was not. It was nothing more than an opinion/commentary unrelated to any of the disputes. Reaver55 (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of unrelated commentary is not against the rules. For the NFAC, take it up with the America Militia editors, its labeled as part of the American militia and I had to defend tooth and nail to ensure the agreed upon consensus that NFAC is a Militia, (Some mild debates about it being a black only/predominately black militia which primary sources contradicted that.), I did listen and I did debate their specific points, MelanieMD even agreed with me after much debate, even though I'm not the one who put them on The American militia movement page. It's the agreed upon consensus. I've even dealt with a staff member "Asartea" (The notice striked out in December 2020 because its over and done with) who agreed with me on maintaining a level of neutrality and that The American militia page has listed NFAC as a active militia in the United States, if you look on their page around the same time youll see my edits about disputing their notice, which they agreed and let the edit remain. Mewnst edits regarding Seagraves will have to remain on the talk page until we can get more opinions on whether or not we should add that specific paragraph and if it adds information relating to the pejorative usage of the racial epithet "Cracker", nor should you be randomly deleting and "blanks" stories without even so much of a notice or starting a discussion on the talk page. "Like a lawyer" You mean defending myself...? How dare I indeed. Regarding Sly's deletion, he is completely 100% uninvolved in any of the pages listed here, such as "China Uncensored" "Not Fucking Around Coalition" "Cracker(Term)" I didn't delete Bonadea, because they are involved in a minor dispute about grammatical correction vs "Stylistic choice" but because theres a dispute going on with Mewnst and seems like a bunch of people out of the wood works coming to "dog pile" on this report because they are mad at me for undoing/disagreeing with their points along with bringing counter evidence usually primary evidence, to dispute these points.

But as my profile says I'm trying to maintain a level of neutrality and blocking disruptive editors, without mentioning specific users since that enrages them, from destroying that neutrality. My edits are far more constructive and add to this Wikipedia than a certain user blanking numerous articles without warning or discussion.

As for my "behaviour" what? How dare I defend myself? How dare I delete random commentary from editors not even relating to this specific incident or any of the pages I have edited ever on Wikipedia. Just useless comment to further and seems to me trying to put me into a "negative light" Reaver55 (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - could an admin please assist? This user has added so many edits in so many different places that the section is becoming impossible to parse. Theknightwho (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean my edits are constructive and I spend a significant amount of time writing on Wikipedia maintaing a level of neutrality, almost like I'm not actually a troll/Vandal which seems to me like you are all trying to paint me out to be? Shocker. Reaver55 (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m too tired to do anything tonight but to say the personal attacks at Talk:Cracker (term)#Issues, incomplete data regarding the North Carolina vandalism/"cracker" use and the edit summary here reverting a final warning by User:Bonadea do strongly suggest a block is appropriate. Doug Weller talk 21:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that only people marked as administrator were allowed to give out warnings as you can tell from my notice board I was given a notice about "improper usage" yet my warnings were very much valid. Not even to mention editors have problems with me lining it out and now theres a problem with me deleting it. Please make up your minds on this. Regarding Unfair undids if my threads are to be removed because they're not "commenting on content not editors" then so should the others, essentially wiping out/removing those specific sentences/sections in the "Cracker(Term)" talk page and maintain neutrality Reaver55 (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Doug Weller and Bonadea: you both reference personal attacks, but I don't know what these are because... walls of text. So, maybe quote the thing...? Just throwing it out there. Also, this thread is long yo! El_C 00:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]