Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

  • Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • If you encounter a threat of physical violence, suicide, etc., click here.
  • If you need help on editing or help with your account, please ask the Teahouse.
  • To report persistent vandalism or spamming, click here.
  • To challenge deletion, click here.
  • To request page protection, click here.
  • To report edit warring, click here.
  • To report suspected sockpuppetry, click here.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user on this page:
  • Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses.
  • If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, click here.

Sign your post by adding 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Closed discussions should not usually be archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. (archives, search)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

HK unregistered ip cult again

Please read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1058#Please instruct how to deal with ip hopping, meat and suspected offsite canvassing from a lot of ip ranges from HK first.

  • I think i stumbled them again by leaving this stuff in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dgtdddsx123#11 October 2021 as well as Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings (the rfc)
  • Suddenly, the ip range 210.6.10.X that related to the above IncidentArchive1058
  • despite the ip range is from Hong Kong, suddenly claiming i am offsite canvassing them (the ip user(s)) from Mainland Chinese forum (which i never did), which seem they mistook i am one of the "blue" political spectrum because i cannot agree on the "deep yellow" political spectrum wiki editing cult, so that trying to black mudding me
    210.6.10.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests Special:Diff/1050888402
    210.6.10.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings Special:Diff/1050889100
  • And then this guy, Dgtdddsx123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), which i has stumbled in the SPI, unsure is genuine believe the ips , or WP:GHBH to try to enforce the controversy. Special:Diff/1051012890
  • A more generic issue. Evidence in the LIHKG forum there is recruitment thread https://lihkg.com/thread/2168907/page/1, and indication of channel and bot for Telegram existed, for off site discussion of wiki matter and offsite canvassing. The link to the channel is dead so that it seems went underground by renaming the channel, but i can still screenshot the bot https://imgur.com/L7qmaSa The forum do have other thread that warn them do not sock , but seems more people still unregistered and summoned to wiki by offsite canvassing. This just mini scale of off site recruiting, just not escalated to those Mainland Chinese level yet, which led to this meta:Office actions/September 2021 statement.
  • Just like @Ymblanter: said in ANI "[he] do not know what the best solution would be." The "ip union" coined by @Atsme: in the last ANI, just readily observable in Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings that i never saw a RFC has so many ips as SPA. So, what wikipedia should do on this off-site canvassing from the "deep-yellow" wiki editing cult? Matthew hk (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Also, Dgtdddsx123 just missed a block due to using sock, so that @Tamzin: should also leave the comment here that should give every new Hong Kong user an assumed good faith on they may not aware Sockpuppet policy of wiki, or not. Matthew hk (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Simple solution - the IPs need to register their accounts. They do not lose anonymity, they simply validate that they are not socking and are here to help build the encyclopedia. I'm of the mind that in the beginning, the advantage to IP editing was so passerbys could perform some quick copy editing on the fly without having to register but we're at a point in our history that it has become too much drama, and the ill-intentioned have made it an incredible time sink, not to mention what it is costing the project relative to credibility. Just my 2¢ worth, not calculating growing inflation. Atsme 💬 📧 11:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
      This is not at all a solution. One just got to respect the many different ways people follow to protect themselves. In compact metropolitans it's easy to have access to free internet connections, from coffee shops to shopping centres, and from train stations to buses. If people create their accounts it would be much easier to track down all their edits. 219.76.24.196 (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
      Do you mean IPs editing from Hong Kong or China with this edit summary - [1]? Would you please clarify? 118.140.125.85 (talk) 10:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    • The orgiginal problem (discussed in the link in OP) was meatpuppetry at Talk:List of lighthouses in China and several related articles dealing with HK. Because these POV-pushing IP-hopping editors are anti-registration due to privacy concerns w/re the Chinese gov't, we managed to protect the article by semi'ing, but because of the unbelievable level of disruptive meatpuppetry at the talk I eventually ended up having to semi the talk page too. Honestly I think semi'ing one by one these articles, and if necessary their talks, is the only way to solve this problem. I truly hate to semi a talk, but it was just unbelievable. —valereee (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
      • @Valereee: Actually not registered and expose ip is the opposite side of concerning privacy. Apart from the off-site recruitment thread, the same forum do have people to warn people that registered and building reputation is key (and then yet lots of gossip of getting more Hong Kong people to selected as admin in zh-wiki). Just clearly the same ip range from the last ANI's meatpuppetry , now try to black mudding me off-site canvassing which i clearly haven't , and trace record at all Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hong Kong i participated, there is no trace of any (pro-China) canvassing. And this accusation black mud me on my own political spectrum as well (I have one motive in wiki. Give me WP:RS; i am very supportive to use WSJ, FT to cite the Hong Kong protests, but pretty against to add POV bull shit that without RS or just propaganda. For the sake of Hong Kong democracy, not that way) . So, just leave the ip keep bad mud me, and the registered user as well that just escape the SPI block? Hong Kong people has the best thing to do as 惡人先告狀 (meaning), which over more than 10 years, I don't remember i was involved in any confirm canvassing, meat sock, and sock case, and the registered user just caught black handed. Note that the article 2019-20 Hong Kong protests was keep on WP:RM by different person that relatively new (~1000 edits), to try to POV-pushing that the protest is still live. Registered is still partially solving the problem. They will still act as a mob to try to POV pushing in rotation anyway. Matthew hk (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
        @Matthew hk, I think you're saying these IPs who are refusing to register an account are actually making themselves more vulnerable to goverment surveillance, and that registering would make them safer? I agree. But it is hard to convince them of that. They seem to think we are either in on the conspiracy or are simply naive. —valereee (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
        Valereee that's just because people are coming from very different places and have very different life experiences towards censorship and privacy protection. 219.76.24.196 (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
        I don't think that was a Mainland China forum and I thought that was you, Matthew. It's fine if that wasn't you and dude I do understand the reason why you simply cannot confirm or deny whether that was be you. My possition remains and is clear: I agree with what was said here on Wiki and over there in the private forum and I thank that person for he brought this up. 210.6.10.78 (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
        • And yes I agree with Matthew and Valareee and Atsme that people should really listen to their leaders, obey them and abide by the law. Say no to political POV pushing. 210.6.10.78 (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
          With comments like the above, I get the feeling that Matthew is being trolled here. @Valereee: Thoughts? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
          • Tamzin we are indeed trolled by those people who are self-identitied “yellow” or the “umbrela” camp in the Hong Kong spectrum, as evident in the links Matthew quotes above. They do so in the name of so-called free speech, universal values and democracy. They just want to break law and politicizing all things. They don't know the public order and peace. 210.6.10.127 (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
          • @Tamzin, quite honestly it's hard to decipher. I think some of these IPs are basically well-intentioned, but the vast majority are here to push a POV, and at least some of them are trolling Matthew and the rest of us. I do wish at least the well-intentioned ones would create an account, but for some reason there's huge paranoia about that w/re creating an account somehow making them vulnerable to discovery by the Chinest government. They don't believe anyone who tries to tell them creating an account will actually help prevent that rather than the other way around. —valereee (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
            @Valereee: Yeah, this seems to me like a case where a probably-valid filing is made a lot harder to parse by lack of clarity (which, before someone misinterprets me, I don't think is an EAL thing, just a matter of keeping things to-the-point). And then made worse by some of the responses being in less than good faith. Having booted this from SPI, I feel some duty to make sense out of things here, so, if I may, an analysis of the ranges in play here. We start off with the assumption that anyone accusing Matthew of off-wiki canvassing is trolling and is themself engaged in off-wiki coördination (or is one person hopping networks), which I think is a pretty justifiable assumption, but I'm happy to make the case for if you feel it's non-obvious.
            • 210.6.0.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)): The main one in Matthew's complaint, and in my opinion outright trolling, including in this thread. Could be given a few weeks off with limited (maybe no) collateral.
            • 219.76.0.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)): Appears to be involved in this based on this edit, but (assuming that it's not the same person as 210.6) I don't think has done anything blockable (but maybe worth warning).
            • 124.217.189.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)): Part of the trolling, and the overlap with 219.76 at Enping ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) makes me think still at least partly operated by the same person, while these edits suggest that the football edits on the same range may be coming from that person as well... But maybe better to wait and see.
            I see you've already protected Talk:List of lighthouses in Macau. I could also see a case for semi'ing
            Anyways, hope this is helpful. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
            N.B. I linked 210.6.0.0/18 because it's the ASN range. Matthew is correct that all of the issues are coming from 210.6.10.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), so perhaps that's a better range, if a block is to be made. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
            Hi Tamzin. Since Matthew hk has called me troll I don't think I want to be involve with him any more . I just don't understand why Hong Kongers (presumably Matthew is) can just walked away like this. I will focus on my own area of interests and expertees and I will relieve myself from the talk page of China border crossings and Hong Kong 2019/20 protests. I have not followed the lighthouse things and I am not interested. Please remove me from the bullet dots above. Thanks. 210.6.10.90 (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
            My observation is that what's happening around Talk:Hong Kong protests 2019–2020 has had little connection with Talk:List of lighthouses in China, except that Matthew hk took part in both of them. It may not be reasonable to treat them as the same case. On the other hand don't think semi'ing any talk pages would be a helpful solution to the actual problem. It'd be just a way to pretend the problem don't exist (just because there'd be no way for it to be known). 219.76.24.196 (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
            Meanwhile would CU re Matthew hk be the way forward to look into whether those are people who Matthew hk recruited (and denied), Matthew hk's socks or meatpuppets, unrelated at all, or some people "blackmudding" him? 219.76.24.196 (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
            Hello Tamzin would you please help take a look at this edit request? 219.76.24.212 (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
            Two cents from just another passer-by: You gotta look into their global contributions, not just en-wiki. The account Matthew hk for example is actually more active elsewhere (not to mention his IPs, and sock and meatpuppet handles). 118.140.125.85 (talk) 08:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Commenting from the SPI side here, I don't currently see persuasive evidence that Dgtdddsx123 is the IP-hopper. I've marked the filing as {{moreinfo}}; if anyone sees good evidence, please do let me know at the SPI. I do think there's a decent chance of meatpuppetry or canvassing here, although I'm not sure I have the subject-matter expertise to opine, which is part of why I referred Matthew to ANI. This is the kind of meatpuppetry allegation that is hard to handle at SPI, since you may have legitimate editors who stumbled on something independently, or who were made aware of something from an off-site post but aren't actively colluding; easier for ANI to look at it as primarily a conduct issue. (As an aside, I'm not sure "Let's just ban IP editing" is a helpful take here; VPR is thataway.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 16:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
    Oh and as to the warning I gave Dgtdddsx123, standard practice for first-offense non-innocent sockpuppetry by a newbie is either a warning or a short tempblock. Since they hadn't actually !vote-stacked (just used one account on the article and another on talk), I elected to warn. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
    It just policy that i can't request CU to check the relation of IP and Dgtdddsx123 . Time will tell. Matthew hk (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
    That's too bad. 210.6.10.127 (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Any admin can just block the range 210.6.10.X from edit and account creation (and block account that used that ip range recently) I don't think there is any need to assume good faith of that ip range anymore. It just vandalism . Matthew hk (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
    • What are you doing? You requested for our help , but as soon as you were spotted , you want to get me banned? It was not just me who came to your assistance on your request. One other forum friend has done so too. Are you just trying to get us all blocked? Are you actually siding with the LIHKG and TeleGram people? 210.6.10.90 (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
      210.6.10.90 before you go can you please tell us more about what had happened between Matthew hk and you? 118.140.125.85 (talk) 10:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • An interesting yet important point to note is that while Matthew hk, Atsme and Valereee believe that they have been doing the right thing the participants at Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings think quite the contrary. The same is true at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lighthouses. 219.76.24.196 (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Now that the RfC discussion at Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings which Matthew hk started has been concluded not in his favour. With precedence cases like Talk:List of tallest buildings and Talk:List of Singapore Airlines destinations and now this one on border crossings I do hope that these people who act like in a way that they were behind the great firewall would back down and observe how the rest of the world function, and that there should be no need to bring anything like this again to WP:AN/I. 219.76.24.213 (talk) 10:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Matthew hk has so far never demonstrated how the non-English off-site canvassing he mentioned and referred to as "pro-Hong Kong" or "deep yellow" is related to the three talk pages identified. It is not even known if that was targeted at the English version of Wikipedia, or if there had ever been any canvassing effort in general which is relevant to this version of Wikipedia. Chinese involvement (or in words of their statement in September, "infiltration") in the Wikipedia project, in comparison, had been something investigated and publicly acknowledged by the Wikimedia Foundation[2] and reported in the press.[3] [4][5][6] In that statement Maggie Dennis of the foundation had called what had happened "security risks" and concluded there were "potential persecutions"; the foundation had noted the problem as early as mid-2020.[7] 219.76.18.201 (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
    None of that is directly relevant to this discussion. What exactly are you asking to be done here, 219? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite
    @HandThatFeeds: The ip just show up to request a block too as self confession as one of the not constructive underground / offwiki mob. Matthew hk (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks 219.76.18.201. I didn't know Maggie Dennis' recent statement nor the one from the Wikipedia Foundation a year ago. 118.140.125.85 (talk) 08:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    Such threats are a genuine matter of concern that Tamzin, Valereee, Atsme and other administrators here cannot simply disregard. 118.140.125.85 (talk) 09:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. 219.76.18.202 (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Matthew hk can you please translate the screenshot you provided? Or at least copy and paste the text here so that it can be submitted to Bing or Google Translator? I just found it funny for anyone to suppose others can read in whatever languages. 118.140.125.85 (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    • The Lihkg.com one appears to be just another message to encourage people to contribute in a certain topic/area. If you found anything problematic please elaborate and be specific. 118.140.125.85 (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
      The thread literally teach people how to use a mobilization bot, which this ANI thread and all the rest of the IP SPAs show there must be one place that can summon all of you as off wiki canvassing. You guys just boomerang yourself so hard. And if you able to point out which ip or account are my sock, please open a SPI, but if you are trolling again (just like the User:mathew_hk in the past), beware of a harder block. Matthew hk (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
      Please be specific. Quote the post number and the specific sentence. Translate it. Spell out in what way that's relevant to the Wikipedia articles in question on this version of Wikipedia. Prove that that's relevant and that indeed happened. 219.76.18.204 (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
    • To 118.140.125.85, nice try on another black mudding. You just show the ips in this threads, almost all of them are SPA/ip hopper if counting in the same ip range, that without any edit in en-wiki except directly involve in the issues and articles in this ANI thread. Which clearly you just boomeranged all of your ip mob for a block. Matthew hk (talk) 07:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
      • What Matthew hk did above is precisely what's described in this BBC story.[8] (Jimbo weighed in in BBC Click's follow-up story.[9]) 219.76.18.202 (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
        Are you paranoid that every single admins or editor that report your cult is from China? Then you should have that ban for not constructive off site cult parallel universe or just mentally not stable? Matthew hk (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
        I repeat my stance. Your ip cult is ip hopping to vote stacking or try to vote move or try to populate a "discussion" thread with yourself and may be one or two more people. That is not due to admin are from China, if you got blocked , it is your behaviour is not acceptable. Also trolling for accuse me off site canvassing is another reason for a block. I dig out prove you guys organize offsite wiki activity and you guys have no prove on me, which i always a lone wolf in en-wiki (Find me in POE wiki discord BTW for my other wiki edit in poewiki.net). Matthew hk (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
        "...From China": No. Certainly not. It's always reasonable to believe everyone is they themself and acting on their very own behalf - unless and if and only if such people are working for somebody else when they edit. It was you who labelled people for being "(deep) yellow" and associate whoever editing without registered accounts to the Lihkg.com and Telegram posts you mentioned - with no evidence or proof whatsoever. You simply assert. (On a side note: Is it a "blockable" act for suggesting any editor is "mentally not stable?") 219.76.18.204 (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
        Just seek medical advice if you (the ip hopper(s)) have persecutory delusion that Tamzin called 210.6.10.X as troll is because Tamzin is Chinese. Or Atsme ask you (the ips) registered an account because he/she (whatever non-binary) is a Chinese. You guy delusional really bad, for example, 210.6.10.X (or 219.76.18.X) has only 256 ips so that registered an account is a right choice, ip hopping and then vote stacking is not and blockable as illegitimate use of socking. Matthew hk (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Tamzin: Please consider to add 219.76.18.X to the block list suggestion due to this edit that claim i am off site canvassing (which does not exist) Special:Diff/1052291298. Matthew hk (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Matthew hk you don't seem to be familiar with Hong Kong although you claimed yourself to be originated from there. The IP range which I have been editing from belongs to the largest ISP in the territory. It's a service open for use by subscription at many restaurants, coffee shops, railway stations, buses, telephone booths, some retail shops, and so on. The diff you quoted was apparently done by someone else in a similar range. There are probably many other edits in the range and neighbouring ranges across global wikis. As for off-site canvassing which you alleged (yet all appear to be your staunch supporters, self-motivated or otherwise) from what I know they are across at least three ranges of different ISPs. Maybe more. Are you suggesting that all these ISPs should be blocked? 219.76.18.202 (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Okay, @Matthew hk:, back down. You're crossing some personal attack lines here. I get that you're frustrated, but Just seek medical advice if you (the ip hopper(s)) have persecutory delusion is over the line.
That said, the IP hoppers do appear to be stirring the pot here, and not legitimately attempting to improve the Wiki. A temporary block on some of these IP groups may be in order. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the reference to NPA. Meanwhile I myself don't actually hop. It's the network which asssigns random IPs to me (and many many others). As for "stirring the pot", one gotta understand what's actually happening in this territory and the extent that has spilled over all across Wikipedia and other wikis. What Matthew and some of the pushers (say, S 0524, Walter Grassroot) have been doing may or may not be coordinated but that undisputably serves the same outcome (as mentioned above). That's the background or backdrop against which the events happened. Editors from the territory are probably tired of defending fact and truth against these people, and blocks simply aren't the solution and would work quite the opposite way. 219.76.18.202 (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @HandThatFeeds: Clearly Tamzin suggested a larger ip block range and then i suggested a smaller one and then there is no block actually issued. Ips from 219.76.18.X still spamming this thread. If you are an admin. Just do it instead of claiming there may be a block already in force. Matthew hk (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think HandThatFeeds had ever suggested so in his or her comment at 16:17, 5 November 2021. 219.76.18.203 (talk) 11:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Also, it is a genuine suggestion on seek medical advice. The ips still have zero understanding what going on and then blame the articles are protected (or potentially, blaming anyone that block them from editing) because wikipedia is corrupted and admin are Chinese spy, or anyone not agree them are enemy and anyone agree them are friend. They (most of them) still have zero idea on what is WP:V or WP:RS and still thinking not using talk page and then just spam for unprotection on List of lighthouses in Macau (just read above on begging someone to read their demand in this thread as off topic) and don't even read the talk page of Talk:List of lighthouses in China that what is the potential way to get what they want on splitting List of lighthouses in Hong Kong as child article. Zh-wiki do have infested so that no one has CU right, but it is delusional so bad that they truly believe trolling me by spamming joke that I am the one canvassing that a low-key /stupid way to think it would made me / the "stumbling block" of rock to get blocked. This is no difference than the Mainland China wiki cult that doxing other Mainlander and force them to join. They just really need to learn to use talk page and solve the matter in civil way. (Still WP:WPHK is a deserted place and no one ever open a meaningful real discussion thread for a long time). It is deranged so bad that a few days before posting trolling comment in talk pages as 219.76.18.X and 210.6.10.X and then totally act like they are angel and innocent in here the ANI. Matthew hk (talk) 05:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
If you are talking about my request at 12:21, 3 November 2021, that's an edit request, a request to edit.. hm.. a talk page. Are you suggesting me to go to a talk page of a talk page? Meanwhile apparently it wasn't me who first referred to that talk page. It probably wasn't me who first gone off-topic if that indeed were off-topic. Medical advice, huh? 219.76.24.213 (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
On "medical advice" and "delusional": HandThatFeeds had asked Matthew to back down but he carried on. Would any admin evaluate and see what action(s) ought to be taken? 219.76.18.75 (talk) 11:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Babydoll9799

This editor Babydoll9799 (talk · contribs) is disruptively removing valid categories from articles and edit warring to keep them out, see edit history at Billy Balmer as an example. They are removing Category:People from District, on the basis that the bio is already categorised by both Category:Profession from City, but these categories are not mutually exclusive - if everybody was classified only by Category:Profession from City (footballer, actor etc.), there would be nobody in the Category:People from District category, and the category would be empty and pointless. But, it's not, which shows that it is a valid category.

Furthermore, edits like this violate WP:SUBCAT, and I am concerned why this user is trying to place articles in less precise categories!

A quick look at their talk page shows other users have raised similar concerns (regarding disruptive editing and edit warring) for a number of years now, and they have refused to discuss the matter with me, simply reverting and edit warring. Can somebody please take a further look? GiantSnowman 12:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Above person is missing my point. Please don't try to make this about myself being some kind of problem. My point is the birthplace and "People from" category. People are not actually from a district the are born in the city, IE Liverpool. The district can be noted on the individual's page and also the person can be noted on the district page.Babydoll9799 (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
The category overlap with "Footballers from Liverpool" is taken out of context. This can co-exist with "People from Liverpool". If you wish. I don't have a problem with that. Babydoll9799 (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

The other user is the one choosing to edit war. The point is, the person is from (city) Liverpool. Not West Derby. You can see by my edits that this is exactly what I have been clearing up. Babydoll9799 (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Also to say I have "refused" to discuss with him is a lie. I have not "refused". In fact you can argue that the above user has refused to understand what I have been trying to do. In view of "I am concerned why this user is trying to place articles in less precise categories! ".
The the place of birth is the city, not the district a person is from. Also I have been checking where these people are from that I have corrected and a handful are not even from the places they are supposed to be. Babydoll9799 (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
User GiantSnowman stated to me on my talk page "Please do not remove categories - a player can be in both Category:Footballers from City and Category:People from District, they are not mutually exclusive.". When stating 'People from District' this should be clarified, as the general view I get is this means the city or town; and not the inner district within the city or town. I can assure you I understand the above point from GiantSnowman and this is reflected the person is both a 'Footballer from Liverpool' and 'People from Liverpool'. West Derby is an historical township but it has been within Liverpool for some time. Babydoll9799 (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
You need to be more succinct in your comments, I don't actually have a clue what your position is - especially with edits like this (removing category) followed by this (restoring the same category 2 mins later). If Burnham can be in both Category:Politicians from Liverpool and Category:People from Aintree, why can't Billy Balmer be in both Category:Footballers from Liverpool and Category:People from West Derby? You have contradicted yourself there.
If you are saying that people can't be 'from' a district, then why do we have a long established category tree of that nature? Doesn't that tell you anything?
You did refuse to discuss, you ignored WP:BRD, you continued to remove the category despite my revert, and ignored my talk page posts. GiantSnowman 13:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Also no, a person cannot be in both Category:People from Liverpool and Category:Footballers from Liverpool per WP:SUBCAT. People get categorised into district and profession. I am growing increasingly concerned about your editing and competence. GiantSnowman 13:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you from Liverpool? Aintree is outside the city boundary but West Derby is within the city boundary, so a person from West Derby is from Liverpool a person from Aintree is technically, not from Liverpool. There is a wider consensus to promote Liverpool which is why I added politicians from Liverpool. But to call me wrong on another matter is just poor judgement on your part. You seem to be point scoring. Good for you. I am arguing that in the first two pages you chose to revert were a person from Toxteth and from West Derby. Their birthplace will still be Liverpool. Therefore they are from Liverpool. What more can I add? When you look at People by Districts it is Liverpool that is named not any inner district from the city. Whereas Aintree, is outside the city boundary. Babydoll9799 (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

When did I refuse to discuss this matter? I have had diaglogue with you but again and again you are not listening to what I am saying. Stop talking down to me. Listen to what I am saying. West Derby is not classified the same as Aintree. West Derby is a part of Liverpool, Aintree is just outside the boundary. Just outside, technically a person will still say they are from Liverpool but for the purpose of this the city (or district) is Liverpool not West Derby. Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

As you can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_by_district_in_England Liverpool is noted so to Knowsley, just like Luton. The district is the city for the purposes of this the person is from Liverpool. Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

As you quoted "No, you are just plain wrong - the issue is we do get as specific as Category:People from District, hence why those categories exist!". You are pointing something out to me but you're not understanding why I made the corrections. Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

As stated on the header: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_by_district_in_England This category groups people by the 326 local government districts of England (32 London boroughs, 36 metropolitan boroughs, 201 non-metropolitan districts, 55 unitary authorities, the Isles of Scilly and the City of London). (See Category:People by city or town in England for people in cities and towns.) Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

You state "People get categorised into district and profession" and yet immediately prior you say no, so what is it to be? Also "I am growing increasingly concerned about your editing and competence". You again make this a personal attack on myself. When all through this I have continually imformed you what my point is. Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Your point, as expressed here, seems to be that "we don't need to be too specific like people from West Derby. The city is Liverpool". However, that completely ignores the long standing and well established categories of the Category:People from District series. This is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument and is therefore not valid. Like it or not, the categories exist and are in use. So, again, why have you repeatedly removed the Category:People from West Derby category when it is entirely valid? I really need a third party here to step in please, because this editor is disruptively removing valid categories from articles purely based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. GiantSnowman 14:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
My partner's family always said they were from West Derby. They were also proud Liverpudlians. Both can be simultaneously true. If I was to create an article for my partner's grandfather, it could happily be placed in both "People from West Derby" and "Bakers from Liverpool" and still be correct. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 16:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it matters what Babydoll9799 or any other editor thinks about whether a person is "from Liverpool" or "from West Derby". The only thing that matters is what reliable sources (RS) say. If the RSes say "from West Derby", then we say "Category:People from West Derby". End of discussion. If the RSes say "from West Derby" and someone is changing "Category:People from West Derby" to "Category:People from Liverpool", that's disruptive editing and should stop. However, if the RSes say "from Liverpool" and someone is changing "Category:People from West Derby" to "Category:People from Liverpool", then that's productive editing and thank you for fixing that. I'm not sure which one this is but it should be pretty straightforward to figure that out. Levivich 17:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
@Levivich: - reliable sources confirming that Balmer was from West Derby include this and this and this. Therefore, in the absence of a Category:Footballers from West Derby (which would likely be OVERCAT in any event), the correct categories are Category:Footballers from Liverpool and Category:People from West Derby. Therefore, as you say, Babydoll9799's editing in removing Category:People from West Derby has been disruptive, has it not? GiantSnowman 18:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah this is just classic WP:RGW editing ignoring WP:V (and our category policy and what it says about categories being supported by the body, i.e. cats must meet V)... not the first editor to take the position I know the truth, sources be damned! If this disruption continues, a sanction may be necessary to stop it. And it should be mentioned that when it comes to the birthplaces and similar biographical details of pro athletes, entertainers, and others whose professions involve advertising biographical statistics such as birthplace, there will be an "official", advertised birthplace (or height, weight, age, name, etc.) that will be easy to source (because it was advertised, e.g. footballer stats websites), and since our articles are summaries of those sources, we would list the "official", whatever it was. Even if it's actually incorrect! If someone is known for being born in West Derby then we say that, regardless of whether they were born there or not. If their birth certificate conflicted with what RSes say, we'd go with RSes, not the birth certificate. This is an issue (truth v verifiably) as old as Wikipedia, and almost all our core content policies are aimed at addressing this. Levivich 18:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
@Levivich: perhaps therefore you would be kind enough to undo their edits at the Balmer article, given that they are unwilling to do it themselves despite admitting that they were wrong (although not for the right reasons). GiantSnowman 19:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
No need, helpfully @Orangemike: has restored the correct edit. Many thanks both. GiantSnowman 19:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
@Levivich: I don't have an opinion on the main subject of this dispute, but it seems quite unlikely to me that it'd ever be correct to insist an article contain information that is known for a fact to be untrue. At the very least, it ought to be omitted -- especially in a biography. and especially especially in a BLP. jp×g 10:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I find it quite laughable and insulting the way I am being talked down to by GiantSnowman.
In addition, Levivich. You are 100% disregarding the fact that West Derby in this example, is simply just a part of Liverpool. It is NOT I repeat NOT, a place where someone comes from as the place where they come from in this example is Liverpool. Of course like Trey Maturin has put it, we can come from places like West Derby. I was born in Everton. But my page would not say "People from Everton" it would say "People from Liverpool". Because the city is Liverpool my birthplace is Liverpool it is Liverpool in People by district in England.
I often find (as in response from Levivich here) that when someone starts kicking up a fuss then there is someone else that will tell you the claim must be sourced or show what a source says. But remember, West Derby, Toxteth, Everton, unlike say Aintree or Bootle, are part of Liverpool since the 1800's. Therefore it does not matter what you say about the source, the fact is the person is born in the late 1800's or in the 1900's then if they are from West Derby their place of birth is Liverpool. It's a fact. It's not me being disruptive or petty. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

So from minding my own business and correcting categories to show where people are from, based on city, rather than a locality within the city, I am now being accused of being disruptive and changing articles because "WP:IDONTLIKEIT". Please stop behaving like a dead behind the eyes robot and understand it is not always black and white. And, as Trey Maturin said both can be simultaneously true. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

To that end I admit that West Derby did not become absorbed in to Liverpool until 1895 so technically, the page in question (Billy Balmer) would be born in West Derby, Lancashire. (Now Liverpool). Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
No, you do not get it. Here on Wikipedia we do categorise by locality within the city. The sources say Balmer was from West Derby, so we categorise accordingly. You repeatedly removing the precise category for a more general category, for no reason other than you do not like it, is disruptive, and the fact that you still cannot understand that (and that you have also clearly misunderstood what Trey Maturin says), is concerning. Competency is required and you do not seem to have any. GiantSnowman 18:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I find your attitude stinks. You disregard anything I have stated, insult me and insult my editing. Calling in to question competency is very low indeed. I have given several pointers to where I am editing from. I even have the humility to admit that I got it wrong with this because in 1875 West Derby was not yet absorbed in to Liverpool. But you continually offer insults and point scoring. How very admirable. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I have not insulted you; I have criticised your editing, as have others. You now admit you are wrong - so the criticism was appropriate - but why have you not self-reverted and restored the correct edit/information? Also you seem completely unwilling to listen or learn... GiantSnowman 19:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
@Babydoll9799, please take some time and review our verifiability policy and category guidelines. While you're at it, you should also read up on BOLD, revert, discuss and how to use Talk pages. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so there's no such thing as minding my own business when you're being disruptive. Woodroar (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Woodroar now on the bandwagon. So I am being disruptive am I? Rubbish. I had a point and someone disagreed we've spent the day back and forth but guess what? I am not the one crying to other people to rat me out. I admitted my error on this specific edit but that does not mean I am either wrong or disruptive. I made my points quite clear the that my point was about the city as opposed to the district within the city. I have not been disruptive I have stood my ground as someone that knows Liverpool perhaps less so Wiki. So less of the insults please. Babydoll9799 (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, you are being disruptive. Your argument boils down to "I'm from here, so I get to decide how everyone else from here is described", which is not how Wikipedia or anywhere else works. And you're edit warring to get your way. Your replies here aren't formatted correctly and others are cleaning up after you. Look, I don't know you and I'm reading about this dispute for the first time, so I'm trying to be neutral here. Please take my advice to step back and read our policies and guidelines. Woodroar (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Bingo. Babydoll9799, this is not a "bandwagon", this is consensus - multiple editors agreeing, and advising you how to edit. However, you are ignoring everyone and our policies/the sources, and viewing it as being personally targeted against you, which it is not. Please just listen to us and take on board our comments. GiantSnowman 20:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't know anything about UK geography but I was wondering why we're seeing so many empty "People from..." categories at Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion and I guess this is why, at least for some of the categories. Right now, it looks like 24 categories have been emptied (which is not how editors are supposed to empty categories, they should be nominating them for deletion at WP:CFD). And there's a bit of edit-warring over at the Billy Balmer article. Liz Read! Talk! 20:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
@Liz: - yes, this editor has made lots of these kind of edits over the last few days, removing valid categories from articles, resulting in an empty category (see this and this and this as some examples beyond the ones already detailed above - I think there have been over 100 in the east 48 hours) - as well as the disruptive editing/edit warring when editors like me have challenged the behaviour. GiantSnowman 20:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I am very angry at the accusations being made by GiantSnowman. Making me out to be disruptive. Bringing my edits in to question. Witch hunt comes to mind. All I have tried to do is correct the pages for where people are from in the Liverpool area as they are from Liverpool (city) not district. I have given examples and yet you're getting on my back about this. Babydoll9799 (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

But everybody here is saying that your edits were wrong and that your editing was disruptive. Do you not understand that? do you still think, after all these comments, that removing the categories is correct? GiantSnowman 08:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


I have just noticed that this user has been canvassing, see this and this and this. They clearly do not get it and are not willing ti listen/change - their disruption will simply con tinge because they are so convinced that they are in the right and that all criticism is personal. GiantSnowman 09:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  • My view on this is that if Babydoll continues to make these changes going forward, they ought to be blocked. The canvassing linked above is definitely poor form, but also quite obviously ineffective so it doesn't really concern me. What does concern me is these 350 edits over the past year (although about 300 of them are from the past three days) that all seem to either remove categories, or otherwise change geographical details (e.g. in infoboxes), and many are still the current revision. What are we doing about those: leaving them? Reverting them? Anyone want to go through them all and check? (I don't, and also I don't have the knowledge of UK geography to know if they're good or bad.) Personally I'd support mass reversion because about 300 of them are from the past three days. Levivich 15:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
    Given the clear issues raised here and shared by the community, I suggest a mass revert. GiantSnowman 17:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
    +1 on the mass revert. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 17:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    @Levivich and Trey Maturin: is one of you able/willing to mass revert? GiantSnowman 11:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry, I no longer have the script and long ago asked for the perm to be removed. Levivich 13:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    I started doing a mass revert, but am now reverting some of my own edits in cases where the change by Babydoll9799 was fine. – Fayenatic London 14:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    thank you @Fayenatic london: - if you are unsure if the Babydoll edit was 'good' please let me know. GiantSnowman 14:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    Well, that was more fiddly than I expected, but is now done. The repopulated categories are now in Category:People from Liverpool by locality. – Fayenatic London 17:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, the disruption has continued. I pointed Babydoll9799 to WP:CANVASS at my Talk page (in response to their message) and reverted several of their inappropriate notifications. I thought that was it, but then I saw that they canvassed again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merseyside, and left a followup message specifically mentioning GiantSnowman. I left a more formal warning for canvassing and then reverted their canvassing at a user Talk page and at WikiProject Merseyside. They've now left me another message, displaying a significant amount of IDHT), reinstated their message at WikiProject Merseyside, and canvassed again at Category talk:People from Liverpool. Woodroar (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: topic ban for Babydoll9799

Because of the disruption mentioned above, I propose an indefinite topic ban for Babydoll9799 from categories and people from the UK, broadly construed, until they can demonstrate an understanding of our policies and guidelines.

  • Support as proposer. Woodroar (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
How can you say this when I was correcting articles? Is Wikipedia not available for people who have only a passing interest in certain pages and wish to correct articles and information? Because another user has chose to disagree I am hung drawn and quartered? I spent time correcting articles and repeatedly explained why but I have been cast as a trouble causer, edit warrer being called disruptive, and also "canvassing" when I am asking for help. Seems you're all interested in calling out people rather than focusing on the articles themselves. Surely correct information is desired? When a person is from a city their birthplace it the city and not a district within; this is the entire basis of my arguement. However I am not even allowed to speak because people like the above user are whipping my ass. Amongst the other users Woodroar and GiantSnowman have refused to listen to my point of view and instead dismissed it. Instead making accusations.

I don't accept this. I edit in good faith if I make mistakes I will accept that. However I will not back down if I know that I am right. (You will have already castigated me about this but yes I know my city do you?). I can say what edi is right and why but all I have is blanket faceless jobsworths telling me that I am in the wrong.

I have stated several times that people from Liverpool should be categorised as the city not the district, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_by_district_in_England and that the numerous pages I have edited all (but a handful) have contained incorrect information about their birthplace and the category of where they are from. But those edits have all been reverted. Babydoll9799 (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
I'd recommend reading WP:DROPTHESTICK and WP:CANVASS and agreeing to heed their advice going forward. Levivich 17:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I would add three things and then I will break:

This is about the [Category:People from Liverpool by locality] page which were set up by user Rathfelder in March 2020. Those pages seemed error strewn and I had attempted to restore them to [Category:People from Liverpool]. After all, the city (here Liverpool) is the primary place where the person is from, not the district within. As per [Category:People by district in England] This category groups people by the 326 local government districts of England (32 London boroughs, 36 metropolitan boroughs, 201 non-metropolitan districts, 55 unitary authorities, the Isles of Scilly and the City of London). (See Category:People by city or town in England for people in cities and towns.) .

1 When making these changes there were a number of errors in the birthplace of various people. The birthplace is not an inner district it is the city of Liverpool. 2 When making these changes I found a handful of the pages were not in the correct category anyway. Either from the wrong district or not even from Liverpool. 3 When making these changes I tried to establish when those known people had a specific occupation I recategorised them from [Category:People from Liverpool] to occupation such as [Category:Footballers from Liverpool]. A person can be both categories but most pages are by occupation when it is a more specific occupation.

The above edits were all correct. However some consternation arose because some of the edits were unsual. Taking in to account what (districts) were within Liverpool and also when they were absorbed in to Liverpool (mostly in the 1800's). It is a question of both correcting the birthplace of someone and identifying where they are from. I gave an example Ibou Touray the page said he was born in Toxteth and the category was [Category:People from Toxteth] yet Toxteth is part of Liverpool and has been for some time. Which means this person's birthplace is Liverpool, and should be categorised as [Category:People from Liverpool]. Equally [Category:Footballers from Liverpool]. Finally as the page currently states "Born in Toxteth,[3] Liverpool, " ... However since GiantSnowman objected to this incorrectly I might add, and chose to air his grivences here, I am portrayed in a very negative light by both GiantSnowman, and others including Woodroar. Because I am not playing the game they want.

Above I provide reasons why I have edited. I don't think I should have had to jusitfy this but because of being called amongst other things "disruptive" because I have tried to stand my ground, I have had to do this. Perhaps I do need to understand Wiki more but I am not a professional editor, and that does not justify being hounded like this. I have not had any one wanting to discuss this with me; to ask just complete disregard. I assume you have read the above and will consider the reasoning for my edits. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Further points (regarding WP:DROPTHESTICK ) Quote from an earlier comment " Yes, you are being disruptive. Your argument boils down to "I'm from here, so I get to decide how everyone else from here is described", which is not how Wikipedia or anywhere else works. ".

Surely instead of telling me off for portraying "I'm from here, I know best" point of view, that you verify that I am wrong? Surely the article needs to be right? Right? I refer to my earlier examples of both the Categories and the person pages that I had edited/correct. I stand by that. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - These lengthy and multiple responses from Babydoll9799 make it very clear that they do not see what is wrong what their behavior, and that they intend to continue their disruptive behavior. A topic ban is warranted. - Aoidh (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I support this idea, whilst also knowing that it's not going to gain traction. The problem here is that Babydoll is not wrong, per se, but also not right. They do have a point - to the outside observer (which is the majority of our readership and the majority of our editors) it does look weird. How can someone be both from West Derby and from Liverpool? But that's how much of European society is organised, with our towns and cities growing organically over 1000+ years, swallowing up neighbouring towns and villages. It's hard for most readers to see that someone can - happily - enthusiastically - fully sourced - be both from Acklam and Middlesbrough, or, conversely, from Rainhill but not from Liverpool.
Nevertheless, the main issue here is that Babydoll clearly doesn't grasp how we work here. We work on the basis of consensus. We work on the basis of verifiability not The Truth. They have their own opinion on what the articles should say, and the people who disagree are wrong, as are the sources they quote. We're being ignorant about something that is obvious to them. It must be intensely frustrating and I really do understand. It sucks. But it's how things are done here, and until they can demonstrate that they understand, and stop posting huge screeds explaining how everybody else volunteering here is a fool for not grasping their point, they need to stay away from the articles in question. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 19:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban for all category-related edits, broadly construed, with the exception of talk page posts. It is clear that Babydoll, for whatever reason, cannot see or understand the relevant policies and lacks competence in this area. If a topic ban does not work, then extend to indef block. (NB I've only just seen this discussion on my watchlist; would have appreciated a ping!) GiantSnowman 19:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry about that, @GiantSnowman! Woodroar (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
@Woodroar: not an issue! GiantSnowman 22:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Two requests regarding Emigré55

First request: WP:IBAN between myself and him

Hi! Over the past few weeks the interactions between him and I have been of contentious, personal, and aggressive character so I am seeking an IBAN. Another possibility that might be suitable here is a topic ban for both of us. I cordially invite JBchrch to pitch in, they have been invaluable in mediating between us two and helped me realized when I had crossed the line when interacting with Emigre55. I know you wanted to avoid an IBAN but I just want to forget about Emigre and be done with this.

On my side

I have been disrespectful to him in multiple cases:

On his side

He has been disruptive while responding to my edits in this case:

The following diffs refer to either his general conduct in the talk page or main page of the Article on Eric Zemmour, which should be taken into context when dealing on this matter. Aggresive wikilawyering: Perhaps this characterization is not the most accurate for all the diffs and another way of qualifying the disruptiveness (as I see it) of his edits listed below, but I leave that up to others to comment.

WP:Hounding:

Second request:

I don't have a specific request, I just would like for editors reading my submission here to take into account other instances of his disruptive editing to either other users or other pages. Munci,Hemiauchenia feel free to contribute if you see it necessary. Other ANI-related discussions in the past: October of last year, October of last year, this month, August last year, September last year, Discussion in his appeal to the block given to him mentioned in previous diffs, July of this year.

Final comment:

I might have not followed the WP procedure for creating this page discussing the incident, in that case I apologize in advance as my only previous experience in ANI was with this unresolved incident (which I think got resolved after I asked for the relevant pages to be semi-protected). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 20:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

As to the first request:

1/ On accusation: “He has been disruptive while responding to my edits in this case:
Contrary to what is claimed with this diff, where it can also be seen that I announce it in the commentary of the diff ("→‎International relations: see following sentence and ref"), I have provided 3 citations and a source immediately after this revert, here.
Contrary to what is claimed with this diff, I have not refused to seek consensus:
I have first answered her question, and stated, as precisely as I could, the reasons why I thought/think that there is “undue weight” in the § in discussions.
Furthermore, I have then, with the last sentence of my edit, asked a question: “Please, explain if you see another way to improve neutrality and also undue weight of the whole section relative to the whole article”. Question which remained unanswered by Santacruz. She then only answered: “Well, I disagree Emigré55".
It appears to me that, by only answering then that she disagreed, and not answering my questions and/or suggestions on how to reduce undue weight, she decided to leave the debate on that particular point, which was hence closed “de facto” by her without the search of a further consensus on her side.
2/ On accusation of “Aggressive wikilawyering":
  • I have always tried to explain precisely what I understand from the rules, citing them and mentioning what and how is pertinent to the case or the point in discussion. E.g., here, and here again:
Particularly on « undue weight », « So, rephrasing my question could be: What to do to correct the "depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements" of the first sub section, which is presently given an "undue weight", because of them ? », I do not understand why this can be qualified as «aggressive wikilawyering», having patiently rephrased my question and further asked how to make the article better in her opinion, following the rule as explained. Here again, I also received no answer to my question.
I have also never been «aggressive» , no example is even given on this point.
3/ On WP:HOUNDING:
I have never "joined discussions on multiple pages or topics (she) may have edit(ed) or multiple debates where (she) contribute(d), to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work". Since September, I ONLY contribute to the Eric Zemmour article, which can be easily verified.
Furthermore, the rule states that "the contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in incidents and arbitration cases".
In my opinion, the first request is hence based on accusations against me lacking all merits.
Reading WP:HOUNDING, I noticed that it also states that "Using dispute resolution can itself constitute hounding if it involves persistently making frivolous or meritless complaints about another editor."--Emigré55 (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

As to the second request:

  • WP:NPA states : « It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user. »
  • Also, I do not understand what is the request, with several diff given “to be characterised” or assessed by others, what appears to me, for lack of a better word, as “cherry-picking”, or approaching this practice.
  • If a request is not characterised, I think that this “claim” should be dismissed, as being unduly brought.
Emigré55 (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

As to the Final Comment:

Finally, I would like to add that I have introduced the sections on Zemmour's political ideas at the end of September, somewhat reorganised them, waiting for others to bring input, which did not happen. I started then, slowly, carefully, to improve and substantiate them, as they should be more important than controversies, as was and still is the case now in this article.
Since September, on an article which was/still is to a large extent (before I started patiently editing it) heavily biased, breaching neutrality as well as balance and BLP rules, not to mention lack of content on the real substance of his political and economic ideas, I have contributed 261 edits, 57,4% of all edits, or 31,4% of the article by added text.
Becoming, to my surprise, the first contributor to this article.
By contrast, A.C.Santacruz appears to have made 3 edits, and appears to rank n°36 among all 266 editors.
See statistics of the article, here:
Top 10 by edits:
Emigré55 · 261 (57.4%)
ActiveContributor2020 · 45 (9.9%)
Hemiauchenia · 36 (7.9%)
Philip Cross · 24 (5.3%)
JBchrch · 20 (4.4%)
Steve Smith · 18 (4%)
Causteau · 16 (3.5%)
MB · 15 (3.3%)
Munci · 11 (2.4%)
Xiaopo · 9 (2%)
Top 10 by added text (approximate):
Emigré55 · 45,979 (31.4%)
BrownHairedGirl · 37,083 (25.3%)
Xiaopo · 27,324 (18.7%)
ActiveContributor2020 · 10,791 (7.4%)
Munci · 7,033 (4.8%)
Steve Smith · 6,899 (4.7%)
Malaria28 · 5,513 (3.8%)
Hemiauchenia · 2,246 (1.5%)
Causteau · 1,852 (1.3%)
JBchrch · 1,656 (1.1%)
--Emigré55 (talk) 07:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Response to Emigré55's retorts

1. Disruptive also means to disregard other editors' explanations for their edits, such as you did here. On refusing to build consensus, such is your endless arguing ad nauseam that other editors have told you to stop WP:BLUDGEON.
2. On wikilawyering, i especially refer to the section describing it as "brandishing Wikipedia policies as a tool for defeating other Wikipedians rather than resolving a conflict or finding a mutually agreeable solution". You frequently wave the name of NPOV around to back your own claims while forgetting that we are all biased and thus need consensus to find the best way to show information on this project. In the discussion I linked about Zemmour's trials section, I proposed here to change the section from a he said/she said type structure to a chronological one in order to encourage less bias. You not only disagreed, but then disregarded my proposed solution. I realized that anything short of exactly whatever you were asking (perfect partiality suiting your bias) would not be enough for you and just left the discussion. You were, in my opinion, not suggesting solutions as much as brandishing WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE to shut down other editors in the discussion from proposing solutions and finding common ground.
3. You justify your watching my contribution log as being useful to "dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in incidents and arbitration cases". However, what dispute resolution or arbitration case are you referring to where you needed to gather evidence on my actions? Why was it necessary for you to complain against me asking for a neutral editor to judge the discussion?
4. Why are you trying to use statistics on the contribution of the article here? What does that have to do with anything? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 09:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
You presented your arguments in your initial 2requests/complaint. I presented then mine in response to your accusations, which, as I have shown with diffs, have no merit in my opinion.
I think there are enough arguments for an admin to make a decision, if needed.
You seem to further want to argue, with this "response" to my previous statement. I don’t think it is necessary to further argue here:
  • Either on your side as you just did above, because you seem to be willing to extend the dispute to new grounds, thus escalating the dispute you started before.
  • Or on my side, although I would have precise arguments to answer you, because I do not wish to fuel such escalation.
I will therefore not answer you, unless an admin finds it useful and/or asks me to do so.
Thank you for your understanding.--Emigré55 (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
A._C._Santacruz, it's inappropriate for you to link to editorial processes on the article talk page in a footnote! Those are only intended for sources and/or explanatory notes about the content. El_C 15:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Also, it's inappropriate to invoke that RfC for anything, seeing as it's still ongoing. You need to wait till it concludes before consensus or lack thereof can be asserted in connection to it. El_C 15:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Wait, I just noticed this. Your edit summary says: Edited page based on closed RfC (diff) — but it hasn't been closed. Okay, now I'm confused. El_C 15:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
El_C See [10] and subsequent [11]. JBchrch talk 15:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Eep. El_C 16:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I thought that since no one had talked in the RfC in 3 days, and with it being open for over a week with only one editor disagreeing w consensus on far-right it was safe enough for me to close, my bad on that. JBchrch instructed me on how to do it properly and I thus filed the closure request. I'll take into account in the future not to link talk pages on efns. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 19:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Survey

  • Oppose. As A._C._Santacruz noted, I sort of attempted to moderate the disputes between the two editors. I have ostensibly failed, but that's beyond the point. In my view, there's nothing here that reaches the intensity required for administrative action. As Arb Dennis Brown recently said at WP:AE "some heat is expected in contentious areas, and is tolerated by the community". Both editors just need to take a chill pill, and either drop the WP:STICK in relation to the disputes they are involved in, or seek WP:DR. They should both be trouted upside the head for their agressive demeanor over the last week and their consistent failure to de-escalate (maybe A._C._Santacruz should be trouted a second time for this ANI request), given some Tylenol, and sent on their way. JBchrch talk 15:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
    JBchrch, Dennis Brown is not an arbitrator. El_C 16:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks El_C. Calling every admin an arb is my way of networking with the admins. JBchrch talk 17:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Appears unnecessary. Granted, I've only taken a cursory look, but if you were rude, but have the good sense to apologize, and the other party doesn't want a iban, and both have been rude to each other.... then go do something different for a while. I'm not trying to be overly simplistic, but maybe that should be tried first. Wikipedia has no deadline. We will get by if you don't edit in that area for a time. You have the power, use it. I say this because I do not like ibans, and my history of using the admin bit has been filled with TOPIC bans and extended mutual blocks instead, refusing to support ibans in virtually all circumstances. As an admin, my goal isn't "justice", it's about finding a solution that benefits everyone, not just you two. There are plenty of other areas that can benefit from your efforts, just go do something else for a while, will you guys? Chill out, and figure out how to get along, because an iban isn't something I'm likely to support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • JBchrch, El_C, Dennis Brown After seeing this was going nowhere and I had removed the relevant pages from my watchlist I took some time off to reflect on my and Emigre's actions and wrote a humorous essay on it. I added a section based on the insanely long ARS thread above. I'm still somewhat wilded out by him watchlisting my contributions (or however he found out about my closure request), but I don't see any action happening there and I'd much rather focus my time and stress on fixing the article on the First Carlist War in my sandbox. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 00:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, obviously. Seems like a heated content dispute, which could have easily been resolved at the talk page if either user just took a moment to cool down. As an aside, I seriously believe something needs to be done with the essay project at this point. Even if they're labelled "humorous", I find it quite derisive of our entire volunteer experience – and counter-intuitive to our policies – that someone can passive aggressively vent their frustrations at another user in that manner. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment from proposer

Admins feel free to close without action. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 19:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

DinosaursLoveExistence

Hi Folks!!. I would like, if possible, that the articles created by User:DinosaursLoveExistence could go through Afc in a similar manner to FloridaArmy's. These article of which there is reams of them have barely any references, often in format that you can't tell what they are, and often only one or two. They are lowest type of junk. I've reviewed several of them in the last hour, some were redirected, other sent to draft, as part of the NPP review process. This is the 2nd editor I see in the last couple of months, and I was planning to post the editor but they have started adding much better references. This article Mike Short is an example. This is a BLP. It has three links, nor refs, the 1st is a companies house profile page, the 2nd is another profile, the 3rd is the front page of some website. I've sure User:DinosaursLoveExistence is more than capable of adding properly formatted reference of the correct type, as they have been here since 2005. Quality must be better than quantity in every instance. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 14:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

That article clearly needs help from project ARS. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 16:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@Roxy the dog: Well, if you're interested, you can sign up on their project page; I'm sure they would appreciate the help! jp×g 21:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Looking through their ten most-recent page creations (out of 1,000+ total), I agree. Most don't seem to meet notability guidelines and the referencing seems questionable. Levivich 16:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I wonder if a conversation with this editor could be productive? Their talk page is almost entirely template messages, which doesn't help them understand what they did wrong with the articles in question. While many of their articles are low quality, particularly when it comes to sourcing, I don't think they're a lost cause. Mlb96 (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I do agree that limiting them to AfC might be a good idea in the meantime, though. Mlb96 (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
FloridaArmy's creations go to AfC because they often do demonstrate notability, albeit not always on the first attempt, and generally relying on fairly obscure conditions of notability. In contrast, the complaint here is that DinosaursLoveExistence's creations are never or barely ever showing notability. We should first be talking to DinosaursLoveExistence to tell them very clearly that standards are much higher than they were in 2005, and they need to spend much more time on much fewer creations.
I would guess that they simply pick a topic and go for it in writing what they can—this won't work. You need to have a research phase before typing a single word in the edit box where you find all the sources you can and very carefully read the relevant notability policies, and assessments of source reliability (e.g. WP:RSP, or searching for mentions of the source in discussion pages). Only if you are convinced that the topic is notable can you proceed. This has worked for me in my 130+ article creations, but it also has led me to discard maybe 20–50 potential topics as non-starters, because I was surprised to find the sources were simply not there.
(If escalation is needed, limiting DinosaursLoveExistence to AfC will not be the right move, as this would not really change the amount of volunteer time needed to reviewing their creations.) — Bilorv (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
SportsOlympic
This is another editor who doesn't reference articles, User:SportsOlympic. This is an example of one of their articles Viktoriia Yaroshenko. The references are two database generated profile pages, with no secondary sources. The editor complain incessantly when their articles are sent to draft. It would be ideal if both these editors were sent through AFC for six months to upgrade the quality, as its trash. scope_creepTalk 02:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
The sentence is started with "This is another editor who doesn't reference articles", adding one example saying "Here is one example, all his other articles are the same". I don't like you complain about me at ANI, while you never came to my talk page to talk. If you blame someone of something serious, do a bit of research (I asked you before), especially if it could be a false accusation. Your example of Viktoriia Yaroshenko, probably a deliberate choice but not mentioned before, was created by me during a few days I started creating cyclists who competed at the World Championships. Between 23 and 26 October I created about 50 articles on cyclists who participated at the UCI Track Cycling World Championships or UCI Road World Championships.
Cyclists created by SportsOlympic between 23-26 October
If you check the list, if's actually hard to find articles without secondary sources, so it looks like you well selected your "example"; but it doesn't show "all other articles are the same".
But nevertheless, all these articles are meeting notability guidelines of WP:NCYCLING under WP:NSPORTS. Please read Wikipedia:Drafts#During new page review. Draftification during page review is "an alternative to deletion". People meeting the notability guidelines are likely to survive an AFD; so those created articles shoult not be moved to the drafst space.
I already told you that when I came to your talk page in June User talk:Scope creep#Please stop moving to draft space and the other time last September User talk:Scope creep#Please stop moving to draft space. Your response last time to that was inappropriate in my opinion, with a personal attack and threat with words like "No, dude. I'm not... ...What I will do, is take you to Ani, and suggest..". I looks personal, while you never came to me to talk about the problems you have with my articles.
In addition other users didn't agree with you to move my content to draft space (for instance here, and here)
To reply to your request, I created over 2250 articles in the last 1,5 years. And they have all been reviewed by PageReviewers. To save time of the reviewers at AFC it would be better, in my opinion, that you start talking with me; instead of going straight to ANI with only a few sentences of complaints requesting for AFC. SportsOlympic (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
@Scope creep: please do not make personal attacks against other editors. Rude and abrasive behaviour, such as that which SportsOlympics evidences, only ever entrenches disagreements and makes it almost certain that the other editor will not improve their quality of content creation. Referring to another person's hard work as "trash" is disgraceful. Additionally, it is short-sighted to propose that editors be limited to AFC when this will do nothing to reduce the amount of reviewer time that will have to be invested. — Bilorv (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
What personal attack exactly? Ok, got you, that was probably a bit out of order. Sorry, that was crass. SportsOlympic, I've spent the last month or two trying to get you to up the quality of your references. You can't even accept maintenance tags. I know you can create great articles, I've seen them, but there is reams of article which have 1 and 2 references, that are barely there. They often don't have the correct website name on them, just the shortened domain name. They're is generally no authors, publishers, page numbers, dates, access dates times, language versions or locations. All it is doing is creating masses amount of work for the future, when those links disappear. Here is an another example, with a link on it: Toros Toranyan. Even domains change. They're a reason that all the guidance asks for a many fields as possible to be filled in, because it's to stop the article aging. It's storing up trouble for the future. In the argument above you stating the review time is problem, but FloridaArmy's draft articles are not much better in terms of quality than they were a years, otherwise they don't get through. The reality that in 5-10 years time, most of these references that SportsOlympic are adding, are going to be dead and invisible. They break every convention of referenced publishing. The review time is nothing compared to amount of work that will be required in the future to fix these profile articles. scope_creepTalk 18:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
It's best to start a new section for SportsOlympic, with a lot of diffs or links to recent creations, the issues with them, and to discussions already had with them on their user talk page. Sadly, there are plenty of issues, see e.g. his latest creation from today, Hubert Sevenich, where two of the three sources are to a Wordpress blog and the third is a statistics database: all three sources have very little information, which is turned into a somewhat fanciful narrative in the article. So yes, there clearly are issues, but it's best to start this section from scratch (and separately) if they are ripe for an ANI discussion. Fram (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
You know, this sounds like what Sander.v.Ginkel was doing a few years ago. Creation of many marginally-notable or non-notable athletes. Not saying that the user here is SvG, just noting the similarities. Discussion from 2018. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks folks, @Fram: That is heartening. I'll get information together in the next couple of days. scope_creepTalk 14:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Note that SportsOlympic is now blocked after Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel. Perhaps some massive G5 operation is needed now... Fram (talk) 09:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, came here to note my block. I haven't G5d yet because a) I don't have the time to go through all their creations right now and b) I imagine that there will be some community input regarding both the block and G5s, and I'd rather have the discussion now as opposed to having to circle back later and undelete 2000 articles. I'm happy to go through and do it if it's clear that that is the way forward here. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Philip Cross and his topic ban

Philip has been blocked for a topic ban violation and this block is being appealed at WP:AE. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 03:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

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

The editor Philip Cross is indefinitely banned from post-1978 British politics, broadly construed. Yet he has admitted to making 184 edits to the David Miller page, all of which appears to be after his ban was implemented. The article is strongly related to contemporary British Politics because of the following reasons:

Miller held the position of Professor of Political Sociology at Bristol University, and was recently dismissed from this post, and before that the Labour Party. This was due to pressure from UK parliamentarians and organisations with close ties to Israel for his work attempting to expose Zionist power structures (a political ideology). This is a major political event, widely covered by political journalists in mainstream political publications and media. It has significant consequences for freedom of speech, and is part of the sustained purge of anti-Zionists from positions of political influence in the UK. Zionism is a political ideology.

I have discussed this with Philip Cross on his user page and the David Miller talk page, and asked him to refrain from editing the main article. However, he seems content to keep editing the page because in his own words, he hasn't had any warnings from administrators despite 184 edits.

However, WP:BMB states

'If there is any doubt whether a limited ban prohibits any specific edit, the banned editor should assume that it does, unless whoever imposed the ban expressly clarifies that it does not. If clarification is not sought before making the edit, the banned editor assumes the risk that an administrator takes a broader view of the scope of the ban and enforces it with a block or other sanction.'

Philip Cross is a highly experience editor who will be fully aware of these rules, but has continued to breach them even after my request to stop editing the David Miller page.

--Andromedean (talk) 08:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Meh, even within "broadly construed" so far as I'm aware the Miller controversy was about academic freedom of expression and concerned such issues as global antisemitism and the role of the UN. As for "attempting to expose Zionist power structures" - such concepts speaks more of a problem with the poster here than with Philip Cross. (Full disclosure: I wouldn't normally comment on such a topic but notice this at ANI and am aware of the Miller controversy because my wife got listed[12] in Miller's "Powerbase"). Alexbrn (talk) 08:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
For reference, the diff for the currently applicable ARCA is here. Reading the article, it mentions subjects like: Israel, Palestine, Noam Chomsky, Judith Butler, allegations of political censorship, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, et cetera. These seem to me like not only political subjects, but highly contentious ones. jp×g 09:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Looking at the page, it is not obvious to me that this page falls into what is meant by broadly construed. This person was a philsophy professor, and while sometimes things they say are used in politics that doesn't mean that their page on a whole is covered by the topic ban. This doesn't mean that there aren't parts of the page that would be covered by the ban, but we need a dif of them editing that specific portion. --76.113.153.79 (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Actually, Miller was a Professor of Political Sociology and almost every portion of that BLP is drenched with contemporary British politics. This editing is a clear violation of the topic ban. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
As an example, this edit is about two UK NGOs being accused of Islamist connections. Hard to see how that’s not “post-1978 British politics”. DeCausa (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Miller is also caught up with the ongoing Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, it's very difficult to see how any editing of his article isn't "politics broadly construed". not quite being ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
What initially raised my concern wasn't a technical infringement, but the removal of quotes from several letters, and a lack of reply to my points regarding their reliability (in the David Miller article) detailed above. Additionally, I've searched through Philip Cross' history just for 2 weeks and found these politically related edits.
[Hedges&diff=prev&oldid=1052839774| A change on the 31st October] 'Dore asked [the political journalist Chris] Hedges if Bernie Sanders had rolled over'. This was removed for being a YouTube source. There were also 6 more changes on this topic around that time.
[11 changes] within the topic ban period, on the Editing Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, the latest being the 28th October about the Camera Campaign. The stated purpose of the group was "help[ing] us keep Israel-related entries on Wikipedia from becoming tainted by anti-Israel editors.
[5 changes] on the Israel lobby in the United Kingdom, within the topic ban period, the latest being on the 28th October.
[Holocaust Industry&diff=prev&oldid=1051554106| Removal] of a Noam Chomsky quote about the book 'The Holocaust Industry' due to him having 'a dubious record in his field'. --Andromedean (talk) 11:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
There's a difference between being banned from "politics" generally and being banned from "British politics". Philip Cross is banned from the latter and edits to "Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America" don't seem relevant. I'd say it's pretty clear this is "British politics" just from reading the article and the topic ban applies here to Philip Cross. The diffs linked of Philip Cross' edits about UK NGOs is quite clearly "British politics".
Alexbrn hit on something interesting though about your behaviour. You've mostly edited Wikipedia in the past few years to add information of sometimes questionable sourcing that portray Zionists in a negative light or including information on anti-Semitism in the UK that advances the position that it isn't that bad. You shouldn't interpret a consensus here as taking "your side" in the underlying content dispute. The editors here aren't agreeing with you that David Miller's speech is "exposing Zionist power structures" and that David Miller's position is anti-Zionist and not anti-Semitic. Given that you've made a point of emphasizing your beliefs about the underlying situation to the AN/I thread I believe this is relevant. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 13:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Regardless of motivation, David Miller is certainly well within the area of British Politics post-1978. The only way you could argue it wasnt is if any editing was solely related to his activities prior to 1978. AND if you are doing that, you probably shouldnt be editing the article anyway, as someone can make a good case that the subject of the article is broadly within current politics regardless of their past actions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
PC's topic ban should be expanded from post-1978 UK politics to include politics in general, based on items detailed above and a BLP violation that put his talk page on my watchlist:

"The Anti-Defamation League described Escobar as a "anti-Israeli journalist". Escobar was among those attending the New Horizon Conference in Tehran, Iran in Fall 2014 along with others the ADL described as antisemites and Holocaust deniers."

The only reference PC gave for this contentious SYNTH material was a press release whose title was "Iranian Hatefest Promotes Anti-Semitism, Draws Holocaust Deniers and U.S. Anti-Israel Activists." (He was quite unrepentant when I approached him.) HouseOfChange (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

We appear to have several violations here, and Philip Cross has been repeatedly editing Richard Desmond today, who is in the news today but very much a figure in post-1978 British politics (broadly construed or otherwise). As such, I've blocked him for a month given that these are quite flagrant violations and he has a previous block for violating the topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  • This is why such limited-scope topic bans dont work when it comes to people - as by their nature they span a wide number of years. Either Cross needs to be banned from politics outright (per HouseOfChange) and/or additionally he needs to be banned from BLP's. Richard Desmond for the vast majority of his life is unrelated to British Politics (post 1978 or otherwise) - except for recently the shenanigans involving Jenrick (and then thats more Jenrick's fault). Essentially you put Cross in the position where he has to argue every edit is unrelated to the topic of post-1978 politics (Desmond's property dealings would be, Desmond being upset because he still gets called a Pornographer wouldnt). Either give him clear boundaries or lift the ban (my option is for the former). Anything else is just making more work in the future for other editors to have to deal with. Its disrespectful of their, and Cross' time. Its certainly not going to be healthy for Phillip Cross wellbeing in the long term. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Philipp Cross's edits are for the most part very positive. His opponents, such as the infrequently Andromedean, are far worse than he is, and seek to promote fringe viewpoints. I think the topic ban should be lifted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that there can be any serious dispute that the article of political sociologist David Miller falls within the area of Philips t-ban. I'd like to add that, in addition to the t-ban, Philip was warned to "avoid editing topics with which he has a conflict of interest." Various BLP's & articles were flagged up during the ArbCom case as being problematic in this regard, including numerous members of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media. Miller is also a member of this small group. I raised this with Philip (along with other concerns about his editing of Miller's article) and you can see how that panned out here. Imo Philips t-ban should be extended to cover politics in general. I also believe it should cover BLP's, bar those of actors/musicians where his contributions are overwhelmingly positive. --DSQ (talk) 09:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Just want to note that people sympathetic to (and possibly related to) Miller, including the people from The Grayzone are encouraging people to add comments here, clearly trying to influence things against Cross. It may also have been noted previously, that it's by no means the first time that circle has actively pushed to get Cross banned. (e.g https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/10/wikipedia-formally-censors-the-grayzone-as-regime-change-advocates-monopolize-editing/) Øln (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The "Philip Cross" project is one of the main reasons for loss of confidence in Wikipedia. ggatin (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Gating (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

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

JusticeForce101

JohnWiki159 (talk · contribs) remove edits. See here. I invite to talk, but he sensor my edits. --JusticeForce101 (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I assume you mean another user, not JusticeForce101 (yourself), but please read WP:BRD if you make a change that multiple other editors disagree with; you should discuss it on the talk page. Rather than throwing around words like 'censorship', you should try to find a consensus with the other editors JeffUK (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Comment I'm actually going to throw around a boomerang here. JusticeForce101 can I ask under what accounts you've edited before as your editing patterns suggest some familiarity with Wikipedia procedures? I find it odd that they found ANI on their 9th edit. It seems to me like JusticeForce101 is an SPA who is acting in bad faith towards other users. They keep trying to add them same content in repeatedly, and appear to be nominating articles in bad faith. They have started two active sections on this board right now, and it all seems connected. Canterbury Tail talk 13:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
JeffUK, I changed. I try to talk. but people just ignore and they do what they like to keep in wikipedia. User:Canterbury Tail do you want me to guess on me or the issues that i rose? Why don't to look at those articles and issues in neutral point of view? --JusticeForce101 (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Yet you just tried to push your edit again in violation of WP:BLP policies, pushing a WP:POV to create "criticism" by dragging guilt by association to the limit. - UmdP 17:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

User Wtyuy WP:NOTHERE

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

Account's edit history consists of politically motivated section blanking [13][14], unexplained content removal [15][16][17] and the requisite nasty comment about CNN [18]. They're only here to disrupt. –dlthewave ☎ 01:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely by Bbb23. clpo13(talk) 06:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I’d like to make an article but it is black listed (notify me if this isn’t the correct noticeboard

I’d like to make an article about the web series ‘Battle for Dream Island’ but it is blacklisted. Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coco the Dawg (talk • contribs) 02:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

This article was deleted by the community due to not meeting our inclusion criteria.. See: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Battle for Dream Island. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 02:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about the one that is blacklisted, but Draft:Battle for Dream Island: The Power of Two has been unfinished since January. The draft's creator ChannelSpider is currently an active editor. — Maile (talk) 02:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
BFDI is correctly salted, there's no reliable coverage whatsoever, yet people keep recreating it. I could see an article for the creator, Kary Huang in the future of he gets more coverage, as he has done other notable things like Scale of the Universe Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Battle for Dream Island is currently salted, and the Draft:Battle for Dream Island: The Power of Two is clearly just a salt evasion. It should be salted as well if the original salting was the consensus. --Kbabej (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Wow, someone is trying really, really hard to get this show on WP. Draft:Battle for Dream Island is salted, as is Battle for Dream Island. Then there's the twice-declined Draft:Battle_for_BFB. Then there's the Draft:Object show, which is clearly just a coatrack for Battle for Dream Island. There are also the drafts Draft:List of BFDI:TPOT episodes, Draft:List of Battle for BFDI episodes, and Draft:List_of_BFDIA_episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbabej (talk • contribs) 23:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits on Myanmar National Airlines

This IP user User:103.144.225.75 (talk) (contributions) has been seriously disruptive edit behavior at the page of Myanmar National Airlines with this contributions are all unsourced [19]. I tried to warn this IP but it also get repeatedly adding an unsourced edits. I hope this IP user will ban for like 1 day and the Myanmar National Airlines will also be protected. Thank you! Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 05:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


I've blocked them for 2 weeks along with a warning that if they continue after the block they'll be blocked completely from the Myanmar National Airlines article. Canterbury Tail talk 14:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Hdepayns

User:Hdepayns has made persistent copyright violations and made an attempted disclosure of others' personal information. - since deleted.

On 28 October, Hdepayns uploaded and added a copyrighted image to Donhead Preparatory School. That day, Hdepayns was warned and the image deleted. As per the user's commons talk page.

Much later that day, 12 hours later, Hdepayns added text from the website of Donhead Preparatory School to the article. The next day, admin deleted and warned that those who persist in copyright violations must be blocked. This is on User talk:Hdepayns.

On 3 November, Hdepayns uploaded a Google Street View image onto Collingham College. The next day, it was deleted and Hdepayns was warned again. Again, it's on the talk pages.

The user responded by an attempted outing, since deleted by oversight, and after this outing was deleted, Hdepayns threatened Wikipedia sanctions on User talk:Hdepayns and my talk page.

Efforts (on the talk page) were made by myself and admin not to bite the newcomer after the first and second copyright violations respectively. However after the third copyvio, and now the latest message, and to deter the continuation of this and get to something less disruptive, can Hdepayns be put on timeout or something? Cardofk (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely. WP:CIR (or otherwise WP:PACT) -driven WP:COPYVIO and WP:OUTING — a bad mix. El_C 10:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you El_C for acting so quickly on this. It was just a relief to see it resolved. However, sorry, but a sockpuppet User:MajorTom52 has just appeared and uploaded the same copyvio photo from before: File:17QueensGatePlace.png. Cardofk (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome. I blocked from ground control and sprotected the page. El_C 15:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Love the Bowie reference, cheers! Cardofk (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Both now CU blocked. Doug Weller talk 15:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Potential sock creation of article

An IP created an article on Simple Wikipedia about the person above (simple:Jean-François Ott) which Elijahgraham26 contributed to and uploaded a portrait of the person, adding it to that article. They had been blocked about 6 months earlier on this Wikipedia for promotion and suspected sockpuppetry. And just recently, Valentina Bussi created the article above on this Wikipedia after contributing to the simple Wikipedia article 3 months earlier. You can see that the article is both an exact copy of the simple Wikpiedia one and also originally doesn't have a proper title; the now-proper title had been previously deleted as G11 and later G12. There may have been some rampant interwiki sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry going on here. —twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 12:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Sockness can't be proven, but editor is blocked for UPE (and I CU-blocked a clearly related account). Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

User Zedzedz123 Making legal Threats

User Zedzedz123 has made legal threats with their edit summary here and here, he was warned here and still the another threat.--VVikingTalkEdits 13:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that that sort of language seems intended to have a chilling effect, but I'm not sure those comments quite cross the line into direct legal threats. I've asked that they make stop doing that though, and make a statement to the effect that they do not intend to pursue any such action themselves.
As ever, this isn't the place to discuss content, but what the hell: I'm not sure that the content and source belong in a BLP. The text you reinstated was 'He is one of several top military officers implicated in the $2.1 billion arms scam involving the former National Security Adviser...'. What the source actually says that an estate he owns was raided. There's a bit more coverage of it here, which suggest that he was earmarked for investigation, and I assume the raid was part of that, but I'm not seeing anything to say that charges were ever brought, or any evidence presented that would 'implicate' him in the scandal. Certainly, he seems still to be active in public life in Nigeria, so I'm guessing there was never a prosecution. A better phrasing might be something along the lines of '...an estate owned by him was raided as part of investigations into...', but if there is no source suggesting that charges were ever brought, one might make the argument that any mention of it is undue. Something to thrash out on talk, without any legal threats, of course. Girth Summit (blether) 15:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I have have a few issues but I put them as 2 issues.

 – –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Issue one: I was improving the page below with reliable sources from another link from Wikipedia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(given_name)

My edits were reverted. I changed it back and wrote on the article’s talk page. They reverted it back and added a link on the article’s talk page. that only support me. I then reverted it back but improved what it said with links from reliable sources on the article’s talk page as the one Wikipedia guide said. They did not look and came to my talk page to give me a warning about original research and nothing I put was original research. It was real facts. I think my links were overlooked. They did not talk to me or even trying to discuss this. This was almost 3 reverts in 24 hours from them. It was 3 in like 48 hours. I think this matter needs to be looked into.

My solution: Maybe you can look at the page and maybe lock it. Maybe look into that user which can be found on that page and my talk page. It has stop now because I have not reverted it back. I am now asking on those animated shows for information and looking into Wikipedia articles for guidance. Can I remove the unnecessary and misused warning from my page?

Issue 2: I approached someone I have talked to in the past for advice but the conversation went to a personal attack on me. They even brought in past editors I had arguments with in the conversation which was unwarranted and bizarre but they did that about me and their misunderstanding on those topics and nothing to do with why I came to them. Now they are deleting anything I post to standing up to the false accusations they are telling. I tried to do what is best for Wikipedia and tried to follow the guides. There is so much it is overwhelming. I am a new user. I just don’t like it when I follow the guidelines on reliable sources and editors telling me different but when I showed them I am wrong and it is turned into a person attack insulting me. I would restore my comment because it is not only to them and it is standing you for myself but it would be only removed again.

My solution: Maybe this user needs to be looked into which can be found in my contributions and they did make an edit to the link above. I am already avoiding this user because they were trying to intimidated me and insult me instead of having a real conversation with me. I just wished they would leave my comment that stands up for myself there instead of removing it. Which brings me to my next question. I have looked but found nothing on the subject. Can I remove my topic thread I started on that users page? It is not a topic thread to improve Wikipedia as I hoped but just a thread to bash me on for standing up what I believe in and my good reliable edits from following Wikipedia guidelines. I feel uncomfortable with it being there and especially if I can’t defend my self to the attacks. They may not did anything to violate the person attacks policy but they are close. I feel threatened and feel personally attacked over me asking for guidance. This user instead of saying they shared their opinion and i can go here if I want to fight it, they wanted to insult me and criticize all my past actions in the wrong interpretation. I feel uncomfortable on Wikipedia. FedualJapan (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@FedualJapan: This is mostly a content dispute. I'll explain more on the article's talk page. However, JesseRafe, try to maybe be less WP:BITE-y?[20][21] –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Also, I notified this user for you as is required. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • User:JesseRafe has shown FeudalJapan as much good faith as they deserve. I note in FJ's compliant here they singularly fail to mention how they basically trolled Drmies—to the extent that FJ was effectively dismissed from Drmies' talk. Provoking this from one of the mildest mannered admins we have is certainly an achievement, and one that FJ is doubtless leery of publicizing here. Boomerang may apply. ——Serial 15:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
    User:MJL Thank you for looking into the first matter. I wished User:JesseRafe would had talked to me about this more on the talk page of the article as Wikipedia has requested. It would had made things better. There needs to be good faith on here. About the matter with Drmies I didn’t troll Drmies. If anything they trolled me. I was trying to have a real conversation while they only could personally attack me and bring in others to attack me which had no reason to be there. I tried sharing what I have been using from Wikipedia but they could only blame, criticize, and insult me. Now when I stand up to the bullying Drmies removes the comment. I have NOT trying to provoke anything just standing up to personal attacks on me. I only went to them in seeking advice but it was handled wrong. It needed to be about the subject not attacks on me. I will only state the truth and I am sorry there are lies being told to you. There really needs to be more good faith here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FedualJapan (talk • contribs) 15:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
    So, on the one hand, you're calling editors liars and trolls, but on the other hand, there needs to be more good faith? An interesting approach. ——Serial 15:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
    Ah, well, then this really might just be a WP:CIR issue and WP:IDHT. I didn't see that talk discussion.
    A lot of editorial time seems to have been spent on this user. I have explained one last time what FJ needs to do in order to add a character to the list. If FJ follows that advice and stops trying to add the Maya's from Sailor Moon, then I have at least some hope.
    WP:INDISCRIMINATE is a well regarded policy, and FedualJapan needs to understand that if they want to continue editing here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
    That seems an excellent summary of the situation... ——Serial 16:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • User:MJL I had already did some of that about 24 hours and will continue to go forward. I am editing in good faith and proactive. Yesterday, I took the right actions and not adding them back unless they are added to Wikipedia. I already posted the on talk page and I wished I received a reply like yours instead. I went to someone with more experience to ask but I wished I went to you or someone like you instead because you actually explained it. Thank you. Also, I have not talk to this other editor called Serial at all but to the warning they issue me. I have not called anyone lairs or trolls. I will reread the comments but I felt bullied and just stood up for myself. If I remember correctly I only asked and I said there are lies which is not calling them lairs. I only used trolled because Serial said I was trolling Drmies but I feel it is the other way around and I feel my words are twisted around. I am easily to get along with but I will defend myself when mistreated. Can you issue the same warning to Serial as he gave me? He did assume bad faith with me with his first reply in saying I was trolling Drmies when I wasn’t. I went to Drmies for advice but it stop being about advice. I wanted a real conversation with Drmies. And I feel Serial continues to do by his actions. I am trying to solve issues not be disruptive. His warning to me: “Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, as you did at (link to here), you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Thank you so much if he said I trolled Drmies that is assuming I am here to harm rather to improve. I was not trolling. I am sorry they have that view. I am not here to troll, harass, or to be disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FedualJapan (talk • contribs) 16:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

JustANameInUse repeated block evasion

JustANameInUse who was indef blocked on Wikipedia returns to Wikipedia every 5 or 6 months after his blocks expire. He is now using the IP [22]. His agenda is to always push a POV related to the carnivore diet, saturated fat, Atkins diet and now Ancel Keys. One of the last IPs he was blocked on was in July [23]. The same user also has a history of leaving homophobic comments [24]

If you check the history of the Atkins diet talk-page you can see his disruption in the past [25]. This user uses the IP range 93.141 and always leaves long edit summaries. There is no doubt it is him. He has been reported several times to this board in the past.

Previous discussions at ANI about his user and his IPs [26] and [27], there have been others about his disruption. The consensus has been to block his IPs per WP:EVADE. CaptainEek who has blocked this users IPs before said he will extend the block if any new ones are found. Can an admin please extend the block on his latest IP 93.141.114.41? Thanks. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Honest-Critique adding non-WP:RS/WP:FRINGE, edit warring and insults, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith.

User:Honest-Critique (their personal Talk page here: [[28]]) initially removed sourced information from the Ashkenazi Jews page and changed a direct quote from a scientific source (initially here [[29]]) seemingly to fit their personal opinion regarding the topic. I explained that it was a quote from the study and quoted it for them in an edit note. They then added material to the article from a non-expert with a fringe position to two places in the article. I reverted them with explanations in the edit notes (one of them here: [[30]]). They then reverted me, reinstating their additions, this time with several edit messages containing extremely personal comments with insulting accusations and assumptions of bad faith.

Here they reinstated their material, having ignored my explanations, and simply accused me of having removed it because it hurt me (writing: "That's the genetic study, like it or not (and be Ashkenazi or not - which the various studies doubt), u r not entitled to remove sources because they "hurt" u.") [[31]]

Here in another edit note accused me of having "an obsession with falsehoods" with other personal comments, wroting: "Let's take a DNA test together, and see who between us is a direct descendant of the Ashkenazim? I bet that's the only way ur obsession with falsehoods will end." [[32]]

And another inappropriate and unsulting comment here: [[33]]

I reverted them again, again explaining my reasons were based on policies, asked them not to make accusations and personal attacks, and warned that I would report them if they continued to edit war. But given, their extremely inapropriate an personal comments and disregard for policy, it seems likely that they will continue, as they do not seem to be willing to discuss or be responsive to explanations.

I believe that this is the same person as a user who recently made similar POV edits (and also edit warred) on the Hebrew-language Wikipedia and was blocked, here [[34]], and whose name (which is in English there also) is the same as that of the present user ("Honest-Critique"). On the Hebrew Wikipedia, this user edit warred on the Ashkenazi Jews page while making innapropriately personal and uncivil comments in the edit notes (as can be seen using Google Translate. It translates automatically on some mobile devices). The user's name, as mentioned, is in English not Hebrew, and seems to be the same user as the subject of this report. See [[35]] And here [[36]]

(This user also reminds me of IP users who have made edits to this page in the past, pushing a similar POV and then resorting to flippant personal attacks when engaged with, challenged, or reverted and I suspect they may be the same person as well.) Here is the Ashkenazi Jews page's edit history for referrence. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Ashkenazi_Jews

Any attention is appreciated. Skllagyook (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned and indef partial blocked from Ashkenazi Jews. OMG, I hate mobile diffs so much! 😾 Anyway, Skllagyook, maybe worth having the regulars at WP:RSN or possibly WP:FTN review those sources...? I'm afraid this isn't an area with which I am especially familiar. The shenanigans at .he (whose links I overlooked on the first read) do not inspire confidence unfortunately that this is heading anywhere but a sitewide indef. El_C 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
I've blocked the user as a sock of Wolfman12405 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The behavior fits, and I believe the block at he.wiki was for that reason, and that the use of Wolfman1245 was a typo (there is no user named Wolfman1245).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Problematic editing from Chinese account

INDEFINITE BLOCK

羊瑞克 has been indefinitely blocked by El_C because they are not here to build an encyclopedia, and instead promoting Chinese ultranationalism. (Non-admin closure) -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 04:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

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

I recently encountered a Chinese account by the name of 羊瑞克, which has made questionable edits. The first questionable edit made was to the List of massacres in China article, which the user edited to remove mention of the 1959 Tibetan uprising without explanation. The second questionable edit was made to the Ideology of the Chinese Communist Party article, which the user edited to seemingly whitewash the CCP's Stance on Chinese traditions by changing The CCP is historically notorious for attempting to destroy aspects of Chinese culture, mainly folk Confucianism in the form of Four Olds under Mao. to The CCP was accused of attempting to destroy aspects of Chinese culture, mainly folk Confucianism in the form of Four Olds under Mao., again without explanation. The third and fourth questionable edits made were to the International reactions to the 2021 United States Capitol attack article, which the user edited to remove any mention of the Taiwanese response to the attack, once again without explanation. This looks like a pro-CCP account attempting to whitewash and even entirely remove certain information about China and Taiwan. Thoughts? X-Editor (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

NOTHERE indef. Maybe a bit Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale, but might as well nip this in the bud. El_C 22:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
@El C: Thanks for taking care of it! X-Editor (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Tepkunset

I apologize if this is not in the right forum, but I have concerns regarding recent edits made by Tepkunset. This editor has gone through dozens of articles removing links. Most of these links are to countries. In all of the instances that I have seen, these countries have not previously been mentioned in the articles and they are relevant to the articles and should be linked. I am willing to assume that the edits are in good faith, and I don't support any sanctions, but I do believe that they should most likely be reverted and that the editor should be asked to cease such4 behavior in the future. Display name 99 (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks to me like he's just applying WP:OLINK. If you have examples where the user is going overboard, please provide diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
[37] This diff from an article about a language spoken in a part of France. Because France is so closely related to the language, it should clearly be linked. He removed the links of some countries but left others behind here, here, and here which in my view is totally nonsensical. In an article entitled "Economy of Botswana," he removed a link to the country of Botswana. [38] In an article entitled "Geography of Kuwait", he removed a link to the country of Kuwait, as well as to neighboring countries, which for obvious reasons are of high importance to the article. [39] Does this meet your definition of going overboard? Display name 99 (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
All of those look reasonable to me as they are all well-known geographical terms. Generally, countries do not need to be wikilinked. I certainly don't see any misbehavior in this area on the part of the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Botswana is not especially well-known. Countries should definitely linked in articles about those countries. It's inconceivable to me to have an article about the geography of Kuwait and not link to the articles about countries that surround it, and most especially to Kuwait itself. When countries are mentioned in passing, true, they generally do not need to be linked. But when discussing something that is relevant and connected specifically to one particular country, it is important to link to it just as it is to anything else. Display name 99 (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
(1) Can you identify Botswana on a map of the world? (2) What was its name before it gained independence, and when did it do so? (3) Who was the colonial power, and why did that power take it over? (The reason was unusual, and possibly unique.) Answer those questions, and I might begin to be persuaded that linking Botswana is WP:OVERLINKing. (I sometimes despair at the unnecessary links to countries and cities everyone knows about.) Narky Blert (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:OL asks "does reading the article you're about to link to help someone understand the article you are linking from?" I would think anyone reading Economy of Botswana already knows enough about Botswana to understand the article. Regardless, I know editors disagree on this but it is clearly a content dispute to be discussed elsewhere. MB 23:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
The purpose of such links is not just to identify the country. It also helps the reader go the the main page for the country if they want background. If I were reading the article mentioned, I maight, for example, want a quick way of finding the history of Botswana. I know it's in the Navbox, but how many general readers will realize that? Even for countries like the United States. If I were reading Housing discrimination in the United States, I might quickly want to find some demographics. Thee's not even a Navbox to help. -

I think the principle invovled is that nobody should make wide=reaching edits enforcing MOS [points of style acrosss a very large number of articles without being quite sure of consensus. They're too much work to undo. - DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)``

Zamuel2000m

Zamuel2000m (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It seems that Zamuel2000m user is on mission to Azerbaijanify articles rather than improve them here in Wikipedia. This is obviously not constructive and screams WP:NOTHERE. I did already report him/her back in August but to no avail [40]. Some examples;

23 August 2021 - Why is it not written Shaki Khanate in Azerbaijani Turkic

23 August 2021 - Added 'Azerbaijani' without a source

23 August 2021 - Added 'Azerbaijani' without a source

28 August 2021 - Aq qoyunlu and qara qoyunlu are Azerbaijani Turks

5 November 2021 - He is not persian but Azeri turkic

5 November 2021 - this dynasty is of Azeri origin

5 November 2021 - The army language and the dynastic language of the Safavid dynasty were Turkic (Azerbaijani), but why was it not specified?

Blocked indef. Fairly routine ethno-national fare. El_C 00:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by IP 86.27.177.114

  1. Added an extensive list of non-Pashtun kings of the Ghurid dynasty to the List of Pashtun empires and dynasties in order to press them as Pashtuns. No edit summary/source.[41]
  2. Re-added the same extensive list. No source. Edit summary: "Ghurid dynasty is not Tajik or Persian khar". With "khar" being the Persian word for donkey.[42]]
  3. Swapped a map at the Hotak dynasty page that had been created through WP:CON[43] with a map that shows supposedly greater territorial extent of a historically Pashtun Empire. No proper explanation, nor (counter)source against the original map, nor consensus.[44]
  4. Tried to reinstate the same map by reverting an editor. No edit summary/explanation nor source.[45]
  5. Tried to change, at the History of Iran page, the sentence "Iran is home to one of the world's oldest continuous major civilizations, with historical and urban settlements dating back to 7000 BC." into "Iran is home to one of the world's oldest continuous major civilizations which majority of it was looted from other countries"[46] Edit summary: "content". No source.

Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that this IP is WP:NOTHERE to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment I looked at the history of both articles and this case could be block evasion and long-term POV-pushing. Disabling anonymous editing for 86.27.177.114 (if it's a shared/dynamic address) and semi-protection would be helpful. Mann Mann (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 6 months. Ethno-national nonsense about sums it up. El_C 15:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Mr. Punk Pirate

User is constantly making disruptive edits at Don't Change; edit violates WP:SONGCOVER which was also done previously by anonymous IPs (which I am inclined to believe were used by the same user) which prompted the page to be put into semi-protection. Still doing so after protection was enabled and responded with vulgar language when their edit was reverted.[47][48][49] Magatta (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Yes, quite vile. I'd suggest an immediate indef block and RevDel for these extreme attacks. Jusdafax (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Blocked initially for 31 hours to stop the comments; managing reverts now. Happy to see a longer block if needed, including indef, but I'll look into that shortly - or someone else can make it as required. - Bilby (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
The editor has made contributions for some time and I don't think one dust-up should lead to an indefinite block. I think that requires a pattern of misconduct that I don't see. Let's see if this block changes his approach before levying an indefinite block on an editor. Everyone should be allowed to have one bad night. Liz Read! Talk! 04:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Makes sense. I checked for prior good edits, and while these comments were definitely warranting a block, their editing has been sensible in the past with no prior blocks, so I'm happy with the 31 hours. - Bilby (talk) 04:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • May I suggest a deeper look? For example, this still-existing edit summary which in my view also merits a RevDel? And as OP Magatta points out, several other highly similar IP edits were made, the origin and nature of which have yet to be addressed. I submit that an indef block will require an unblock request that indicates Punk Pirate fully understands the issues, renounces these disgusting accusatory actions against other editors, and makes clear that they, Punk Pirate, will not repeat them, before they are brought back into the community. Jusdafax (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
My thanks for the speedy RevDel, and as a preventive measure I'd suggest a block on the IP. To return to the question of strikingly similar edits, the first was made by User:MrAnderson5 on October 30, followed by five different IP editors making the same or highly similar edits in the next four days, the latest being the IP just RevDeled. Since the same type of wording attack was made by Mr. Punk Pirate, it seems likely that this editor is using tactics of a questionable type. Jusdafax (talk) 06:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I think you may be correct on your reading, but to be safe I'll go on the principal of enough rope - I'll keep an eye on the relevant pages for a few days and see if things start up again. If they get a message this time around it would be nice, if not I'll have to go for indef. - Bilby (talk) 06:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I see the IP, whose egregious and identical attack was also deleted, remains unblocked and not even warned, despite his edit being RevDeled. Given the highly similar edits to Mr. Punk Pirate's by one account and five IP's, would you be okay with a case being filed at WP:SPI? In my view this matter warrants further action. Jusdafax (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

User:BeingRealMan

On Dharmendra, BeingRealMan has been repeatedly inserting that the article subject was "the most handsome man in the world" over a twenty year period in the 20th century. These edits have been occurring since at least October 31 (1, 2, 3). In addition, the user has uploaded several pictures of the Indian actor without providing a source or license for the materials (File 1 and File 2). The individual had been warned multiple times about this.

The individual has also been adding the unsourced and unlicensed images to Dharmendra filmography, as well as unsourced text material praising Dharmendra's works. I don't think this is a clear case of WP:AIV at this point, so I'm taking it here, but I believe that some preventative action could be taken to help protect Wikipedia from future fancruft would be a good thing. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeffed as NOTHERE EvergreenFir (talk) 06:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Adammoore1982

Adammoore1982 is a COI Wikipedia:Single-purpose account who used this platform for 11 years to edit articles related to the Hillsong Church, and most of the edits are focused around defending the church's reputation. 119.193.23.15 (talk) 10:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

IP 119, why did you try to alter the IP address in your above post, per this? Also, as required by the big red notice at the top of this page, you should have notified Adammoore1982 of this thread. I’ve done it for you. DeCausa (talk) 10:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
@DeCausa: Can you block the IP? I think this is some class of trolling, along with, as you point out, personation of another IP. ——Serial 10:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I’m not an admin. I noticed when posting the ANI notice that User:Damien Linnane had left a similar COI query with Adammoore1982 so it may be a legitimate issue. I don’t know. DeCausa (talk) 10:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
@DeCausa: Apologies! How soon can you stand? ——Serial 10:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, about then… DeCausa (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129 You are old enough for this platform and yet you have mistaken him as an admin? My man is losing some brain cells. 119.193.23.15 (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
did you really just attempt to take a shot at Serial Number 54129? well, apparently the joke is on you. Celestina007 (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

119.193.23.15 (re-)blocked as a proxy. Incidentally, the IP they tried to imitate has previously been CheckUser blocked. Favonian (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

For the life of me I can't understand what's going on with whoever is running the IP address that started this thread, but irrespective of that, yes, the complaint itself is very valid. Adammoore1982 is a SPA who for 11 years has solely edited articles related to Hillsong, and often violates guidelines in doing so. As early as 2012, he was making false statements to defend Hillsong, such as with this edit: [50] In this edit, Adammoore1982 removes a source that confirms Hillsong paid their staff with grant money, then instead claims they did not. He then falsely states there is proof they did not pay their staff with grant money in a letter hosted on the Hillsong webpage, but if you read the letter he cited, it makes no such claims. As per his talk page, he has been warned about adding unreferenced info to a Hillsong-related article in 2013, and warned again in 2016 for removing content from the Hillsong page without explanation. I'm sure if you go through his edits manually, you will find many more instances of this behaviour, and if requested I would be happy to do so myself if there isn't enough evidence already to take any form of action. As per the comment I left on his talk page, I wasn't going to escalate this myself, but now that it has been by someone else (and a third-party has also pinged me here) I feel like I should comment. Also on websites outside Wikipedia I've also uncovered strong evidence Adammoore1982 has a conflict of interest with Hillsong Church (if that wasn't obvious already from his editing history), though I'm hesitant to post that information here as it's my understanding it would constitute as WP:OUTING. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Such evidence is very easy to find. Narky Blert (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I have blocked Adammoore1982 from editing Hillsong Church for one year. Favonian (talk) 13:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

AFD WAR with Ten Pound Hammer

Bob's war on hammer ended with boomerang. Levivich 03:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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

user user:TenPoundHammer removed my AFD from the article Vito Trause and closed it. I added it again after I left a message on his talk page and nominated again this article for deletion . TenPound Hammer needs to be disciplined. I am waiting for him to be disciplined and then it can be nominated again. No need for AFD war. Thanks Bobbybob2021 (talk) 02:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Looking over the situation, I endorse the closure of the first AfD by TenPoundHammer as a speedy keep. No actions necessary against Ten Pound Hammer. I invite Bobbybob2021 to let this issue go and move on to find another area of the project to contribute to. —C.Fred (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Make that a 3rd admin endorsing along with C.Fred above and Muboshgu at the AfD. Bobbybob2021, please stop. Your present lack of competence (which is required) in this matter constitutes disruptive editing. El_C 02:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I did say "regular keep", but I'm not against a speedy keep either. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
    • **type Vito Trause in on google and see how he only comes up as his obituary two times on the first page and Wikipedia. Plus a local news thing he does not meet you GNG. However, I support leaving him on here as he is a veteran. Just as a memorial. Bobbybob2021 (talk) 02:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Considering the age of the person and the fact they fought in World War II, Google not pulling up sources for him is completely and utterly understandable (much of it's likely going to be in print media, not online). And not being on the front page of search results doesn't disqualify a source from being used if it's reliable all the same. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 03:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
    • He does not have any great metals any of the 400k killed in Ww2 would have those metals. So I doubt he much coverage if any at all at the time. Bobbybob2021 (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Every single one of Bobbybob2021's 11 edits so far has been related to the deletion of Vito Trause. Their first interaction with TenPoundHammer was to call their close "incompetent". Some kind of WP:BOOMERANG might be in order. Isabelle 🔔 02:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
    If they don't deserve a boomerang for being an obvious bad-faith SPA, then they at least deserve one for mis-spelling "lose" in a comment accusing someone else of incompetence. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I edit with my IP address in good faith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbybob2021 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
      Fair enough. Considering that most here seem to endorse the close, there is nothing more to be done. Take El_C's warning in earnest and consider this matter resolved. In the future, consider politely discussing with the closer why you disagree with them, and, if they refuse from withdrawing it, go to WP:DRV (also, don't forget to WP:SIGN). Isabelle 🔔 03:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Bobbybob21 - "You gotta be sh-ting me". -- GoodDay (talk) 02:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I would have done it all with my iP addresss it did not let me create the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbybob2021 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The Vito was from metro nyc. He is not in any normal publication of the area, Bobbybob2021 (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

A significant number of the citations used (more than enough to pass GNG, for what it's worth) are from the New Jersey area he was from (The Passaic Herald-News, Bergen Record, Asbury Park News). How are those not "normal publications"? There genuinely does not seem to be any clear policy grounds for deletion here and I would suggest dropping the stick. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 03:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Boomerang bans on Bobbybob2021

OP is an account that seems to have one purpose: to delete the Vito Trause article. The editor has engaged in tendentious editing in this regard, made personal attacks, and has otherwise shown that they are unable to be productive in this area. A set of boomerang sanctions seems in order. I propose that the editor be topic banned from Vito Trause and topic banned from deletion, broadly construed, indefinitely. Additionally, I propose that they be given a two-month one-way interaction ban prohibiting the editor from interacting with TenPoundHammer, so as to stop personal attacks against TenPoundHammer in the near future. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. I believe that this is more narrowly tailored than an indef block (the editor hasn't been disrupting other areas of the project) and, if the editor has been editing mostly on IPs until now, then we need to have an enforceable mechanism for any future sanctions relating to block/ban evasion. A community ban can be appealed to the community at a later date should the editor prove that they are here to build an encyclopedia, which they could do by continuing to make productive edits from their account. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as target. The user got extremely aggressive out of nowhere, automatically assuming bad faith in my closure of an AFD. Other editors have already determined my actions to be in good faith, and Bobbybob2021's actions suggest nothing but a tendentious attempt to get their way. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The OP has been indeffed by Bbb23. Nothing more to see here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

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

It has not stopped me! IP editing still works! I think you guys are being unreasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:196:4B00:2F40:CDDF:90CB:DFA9:1F7E (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know you're evading your block & can't be trusted. GoodDay (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Just for future reference this account was  Confirmed as a sockpuppet of Rrmmll22. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rrmmll22. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 00:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Heavy OWN, TENDENTIOUS and PA behaviour by The Pollster

So, The Pollster has engaged in a fairly egregious uncollaborative behaviour at Opinion polling for the next Austrian legislative election. TP made a series of edits that were contested by myself and another user, Jeppiz, who went on to point this fact in the article's talk page. I then reverted the article to the version previous to such edits until a consensus could be reached, as per WP:BRD. From there, TP has gone into an ownership-like behaviour over the article's contents, coupled with tendentious editing and personal attacks on both myself and Jeppiz, with claims such as:

The Pollster is unwilling to come to terms to the fact that their edits are contested, and has gone to reinstate their own preferred version without re-engaging into the discussion (this despite having been warned earlier on to adopt a much calmer demeanor and to stop the edit warring) with this edit summary: "vandalism by people with no knowledge of the situation".

So far, consensus-building attempts have utterly failed since this user is basically prohibiting anyone aside of themselves from contesting their edits and seems unwilling to work collaboratively at all. Thus, a solution of another kind is required.

PS. Note that while I was writing this report, TP has made a further comment in the talk page, claiming that "There are not many people editing this page. It’s mostly me (who does the most in making this look modern, while a few others only added the fraudulent RA polls in the past. Then there are you 2 (impru and jeppiz) who only serve as querulants and who do nothing to contribute to this article and only come once a year to complain, without actually being from Austria" and "My version is correct and hopefully a few other members come here to say so". I have added WP:PA to the list of spotted policy violations as a result. Impru20talk 12:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  • This edit, which says in Wikipedia's voice (and in a somewhat informal tone) that Research Affairs is under investigation, with no sourcing, is unacceptable. I'm surprised that there's disagreement about that. Revert-warring to keep it in place, while making aspersions about the nationality of other editors, is unimpressive at best. It may well be that including Research Affairs polling is inappropriate, but this is not how to go about excluding them. Mackensen (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I have long contributed to the polling sections of Austrian polls and know what I am doing. I was only advising the 2 writers to mind their own business by editing Spanish or Swedish polls, but not Austrian ones where they have no clue what is going on here. Besides, the dubious Research Affairs polls are not removed in my edits - just collapsed and hidden in „old polls“ sections. This is used and done so on the German Wikipedia too without any complaint. Why there should be a massive table of old polling is beyond my comprehension. There should only be visible polling of the last quarter or so, every older poll archived under old collapsed polling. Also, I included a recent poll chart that was missing, using main polling instead of alternative polling incl. MFG. This would be removed if my edits are removed. I advocate that my edits (modernized !) remain in place. --The Pollster (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Firstly, you have no right nor power to unilaterally exclude anyone from editing any article. Arguing that what you did was "advising the 2 writers to mind their own business by editing Spanish or Swedish polls" is basically a reiteration of the behavioural issues reported above. If your edits are contested, you must accept that you are not the holder of the universal truth and that you must work collaboratively to reach a compromise. Secondly, you may be well aware and/or more experienced in the knowledge of a country's politics than other users, but that does not waive the verifiability, be bold nor civility policies for you, which btw happen to be three of Wikipedia's five pillars. Thirdly, this discussion is not on the merits of the content added/removed, but on your behaviour. This notwithstanding, it should be mentioned that this issue was already discussed several weeks ago with no final reply on your part, then you waited a couple weeks to game the system by applying your version of how to "remove" or "hide" those polls, despite knowing there was not a consensus for it. You had ample opportunity to press and source the claims for your edits at Talk:Opinion polling for the next Austrian legislative election, and what you did was to demonstrate that you cannot work collabotively in a Wikipedia as of currently. Impru20talk 13:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
        • I have now removed the controversial disclaimer notice, as it is no longer needed (the Research Affairs polls who were faked are hidden in the older polls sections which are collapsed, but still visible for those who want to see them). I also added a source from the official Austria broadcaster ORF about the OGM controversy in the quality criteria on top of the article. Every major concern is now removed and the article is modernized. --The Pollster (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
          • You still fail to get the point at all. Article content was not the motivator of this thread. Plus, edits like this in which you again insist on the whole "fake poll" issue without any source, while vindicating previous edits that you leave no one to contest, only serve as further evidence of the problem at hand. Impru20talk
            • I have now included 2 additional (!) sources in the VdMI section on top of the article, which explains how Research Affairs polls were deliberately faked between 2016 and 2021 (emphasis until this year ! - not just their old polls) - therefore making the article even more up to date. I know that this evaluation here is about my controversy about „mind your Spanish or Swedish business“. Ok I apologize, it wasn’t a personal attack, just a reminder to let me edit this article because I know what’s best. And it now looks pretty modernized and reflects all sources needed. --The Pollster (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
              • Yet again, this is not the place for content dispute resolution. Anyway, I checked the edit and the sources and those support the "inadequate metholody" claim (which was there already), not the polls being "faked", which is the claim you insist on both in here and in your edit summaries. They are also no justification for distorting the article the way you did. Using a source to back up a statement that is not contained in the source is original research; further, using a combination of sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly backed by any of them is synthesis. I would suggest you to stop touching the article and instead explain yourself on the behavioural concerns raised above and the remedies you are willing to take to address those. So far, with each new edit you only deepen on these issues while keeping raising new ones. I cannot help you any further. Cheers. Impru20talk 13:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
                • The Fake Poll accusations are part of my sources/newspaper articles, but if you want a better source it’s here, directly from the investigation act of the Corruption Prosecution Office (whole act, via Falter newspaper): https://www.falter.at/media/downloads/kurz_akt_blacked.pdf I can include this Prosecutors document too as an official source in the poll article. The point is that, as a compromise, I still let the fake polls remain in the article- but collapsed in the old polls sections. That is a really good compromise in my opinion. On the accusations of my behavior to you and the Swede, I already apologized. The case should be clear ... and closed. Article let as it is right now. --The Pollster (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
                  The Pollster - you can explain to people why you disagree with the edits they want to make, but you need to keep that based on sourcing and the content itself - you can't say 'I know more about this than you, leave it to me, don't edit it'. You've gone way beyond that though: you absolutely, definitely must never tell someone that they can't edit an article because of the country they are from. That is non-negotiable, and it shouldn't need explaining. 'Go back to your country' is a hateful phrase that nobody should ever have to see here. I have no idea who is right with regards to the disagreement about content, but your conduct has been unacceptable. I note a half-hearted apology above - that does not convey to me that appreciate the gravity of how offensive your comments have been. I suggest you try harder. Girth Summit (blether) 14:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
                  • (edit conflict) You still fail to get the point, TP. Your behavioural issues are not solved merely with an empty apology when you keep demonstrating with your unilateral edits and with each new comment that you will be behaving the same now and in the future, over and over again. Also, claiming apology while referring to the other user as "the Swede" shows the emptiness of your apology and how much contempt you have towards those that disagree with you. I'll be letting others opine now. Cheers. Impru20talk 14:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
                    • I have apologized fully for my comments, if you like it or accept it or not, is up to you. I cannot do more than that. I also do not have any contempt. The thing is that I think the article as it is right now is just fine, all is sourced and as a compromise, even the fake polls are still in the article under the collapsed sections if someone somehow wants to read these results. But there is no need to have a wall of old (sometimes faked) polls in the article. Better to archive them after a quarter and have a good up to date overview of polling and 2 nice charts showing the results in a historically interesting manner.--The Pollster (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
                      You have not apologised fully. I'd like to see a statement from you to the effect that you understand that you are in no position to tell someone else not to edit an article, and also that you understand that telling someone to edit an article because of where they are from will result in your account being blocked from editing. Girth Summit (blether) 15:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
                      • Ok, I apologize to them and I understand that I am in no position to tell someone else not to edit an article, and also that I understand that telling someone to edit an article because of where they are from will result in my account being blocked from editing.--The Pollster (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The Pollster, when you parrot back the exact words of an administrator's warning, that can be interpreted as grudging rather than sincere. I truly hope that you were sincere. As an American, I intended to let you know that you would be welcome to contribute regarding American elections and then I took a look at your contributions and discovered that you have edited articles about American elections since at least 2008. To me, it appears quite hypocrital for an Austrian who edits articles about American elections to tell a Swede and a Spaniard that they are not welcome to edit articles about Austrian elections. Let me be crystal clear: editors from any country on earth are completely welcome to edit articles related to any other country on earth, as long as they comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. So please never use that tactic again, because it is unacceptable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposing indefinite block for ThePollster

Based on their multiple personal attacks against any user who doesn't share their opinion, as outlined above, I propose that The Pollster be indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. Whatever positive contribution The Pollster might add is dwarfed by their WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, frequent personal attacks, edit warring, and WP:OWN issues. When a user says things like "This article will remain as I edited" [51] or "leave this article alone!" [52], it's the most obvious case of WP:OWN I've seen in over a decade here. And when the same user repeatedly use other users' nationalities to attack them, as in "Go back to Spain" [53], "go back to editing your Spanish articles" [54], "go back to Sweden and mind your business there" [55], "go back to your own countries and articles and mind your own business and let me do the job here" [56], well, once again, I can recall personal rants at this scale. What make it even worse is that the only action that set off this tirade of racist abuse was merely disagreeing with ThePollster on one article. Again, in over a decade here, I never came across a user behaving so badly over so little. I hope the community agrees that WP would be better off without this kind of behavior. Jeppiz (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose This only recapitulates the evidence already presented above, with a lot of bolding and angry language added for emphasis. The editor has apologized and we should now see whether the apology was sincere by observing their behavior going forward. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Sure, it's a summary of the problems mentioned. And yes, I admit I'm a bit angry when a user with whom I never had any interaction launches multiple unprovoked personal attacks on me (and others). What I said about rarely seeing so bad behaviour here in over a decade is not really 'angry', it's a matter of fact. And as others say below, their "apology" does not come across as sincere and does little to acknowledge their behavioral issues.Jeppiz (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
@Cullen328: The issue is that I cannot see it as sincere considering how they have not even acknowledged their own misdeeds, have been performing further unilateral edits in the article with both the talk page discussion and this ANI thread still ongoing in an effort to preserve their own preferred version (not acknowledging that the issue is that such version has no consensus and that no one else has supported their claims), and their apologies here seem more like an excuse to keep on their OWN behaviour, specially when they have shown no effort at easening their grip over that article. I have refrained from reverting them any further out of fear that it would result in even more disruption. That their aspersions were as strong as to judge on others' nationalities only made this worse, but that's a symptom, not the disease. Impru20talk 18:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Support a time-limited block, but not indeff (yet) I am sorry about this, but what I have seen in this discussion so far leaves me no other choice. I see an indeff as just too much yet, as blocks are not meant as punitive, but I see it as clear that the user has not gotten the point and, if left unchecked, they will just continue with their WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour by preventing anyone else to edit that article (or any else within their "influence") against their wishes. To sum the whole situation up: The Pollster was warned several times about their unilateralism, was called several times to abide to WP:BRD and to stop enforcing controversial edits, and their response was to just reiterate their alleged ownership of the article and to cast aspersions on those who disagreed with them. They were required to reach a consensus for their edits (which, as of currently, does not exist), yet they still continued on their egregious behaviour. They were brought here to ANI, where the concerns on their behaviour were brought and the opportunity was given to them to explain themselves and the remedies they would bring to change this situation, and their response has been to, basically, reiterate some of their aspersions while keeping conducting unilateral edits on the article. They then suddenly claimed to "apologize" (with no other action) while continuing to mock Jeppiz as "the Swede", and when a stronger commitment was demanded from them, they limited themselves to parrot back the administrator's words. I am starting to question whether there is a competence issue here, but as of now it is obvious that this user is unable to work collaboratively and has shown a total disregard to some of Wikipedia's most basic principles and guidelines even after being repeteadly warned by a number of users, so a block is due to preserve the article's integrity and to show them that this is not the way to act in WP. Just my two cents. Impru20talk 18:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Support time-limited block. Unconvincing apology - i don’t think the user gets it or takes it that seriously. The behaviour is serious and a block may get their attention. DeCausa (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Support block. There behavior, as indicated above, has been egregious. Paul August ☎ 00:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet / IP hopper engaging in disruptive edits

Artaxius58 34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

ArtaXerxes58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mihrdat21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

As for proof of the sockpuppetry, please see [57]. 46.2.90.73 is obviously the same person, as they attempted to reinstate the edit of one of the other IPs [58] [59].

Majority of this persons edits have been disruptive or simply not an improvement, and as a result have been reverted. They are clearly WP:NOTHERE. I hope this will be taken seriously, here are some examples;

Changed Turks and Türkler to 'T*rks' and 'T*rkler' Adding * in the name of a ethnic group is something you do on the internet when you want to be xenophobic or hostile towards a certain ethnic group. Or memeing for that matter.

Randomly replaced the map of the infobox with a worse one and removed its caption, no edit summary whatsoever¨

Replaced the English map of the article with a Spanish one, no edit summary

Added unsourced flag in the infobox, no edit summary and then proceeded to edit war

Randomly added Armenia as part of this rulers dominion, even though he never ruled it. Again no edit summary

Replaced Iranian with Talysh. No edit summary

Removed Iranian

Altered sourced quote, replacing a dynasty with another

[60] [61] Messed up the infobox of the article with two of his different accounts

Replaced formatted cited citations in a GA article with a bunch of non-formatted random citations, proceeded to edit war on his different accounts

[62] [63] Attempted to add unsourced flag twice in one of his accounts, no edit summary. Attempted to do the same on another account, once again no edit summary [64]

Randomly removed useful link, no edit summary

Removed the symbols shown in the infobox, replacing them with a fictional flag. No edit summary

--HistoryofIran (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

All blocked, indef or one month respectively. If they return, might be good to compile a protection request list of the most affected pages. El_C 16:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat

No action necessary. Seddon talk 15:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Francis1864 has made a legal threat at WP:Articles for deletion/Augean software; see the last sentence of [65]. It may be considered ambiguous but given the "Please be formally advised", the intent is clearly to scare people. Danstronger (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Adding on to the above

I've viewed the relevant AfD, and since the section was closed by Seddon, the user who was the original subject of this section repeatedly stated that the !votes for delete are "illegal in the USA". The user has also made an not-so-implicit threat to sue under the Americans with Disabilities act, saying that I feel this is grounds for claiming discrimination, and the American disabilities act would provide protection. While I think the legal argument is garbage, this is still a pretty obvious legal threat. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

And he makes these arguments while formatting his message in such a way to hamper people using disability-access software. Hyprocrisy is one thing, hypocrisy with pointless legal thuggery is blockworthy. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Agree that User:Francis1864 should just be blocked. Legal threats, self-promotion, and a lack of competence regarding formatting their comments. Mlb96 (talk) 08:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
While they may be falling slightly short of violating our NLT policy they are engaging in intimidation to get their way and are certainly being disruptive. I have placed their talk page and the AfD on my watchlist. If they keep up the disruption then I will block them from the AfD until it is over, they have had their say already. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 08:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Engaging in intimidation or otherwise trying to invoke a chilling effect should be grounds for a block, full stop. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

User:178.221.117.185 continually WP:EGG'ing links

IP editor 178.221.117.185 (talk · contribs) keeps on adding easteregg links to articles on historical European biographies including linking parts of names to image files [66] [67] [68] [69] and linking parts of names to articles that are not biographies [70] [71] [72]. Ignores talk.

By edit style editor seems to also be IPs 93.86.199.202 (talk · contribs), 93.86.158.38 (talk · contribs), 93.86.144.120 (talk · contribs), 93.87.163.221 (talk · contribs). Last IP seems to have been continually warned and blocked. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  • User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr, block issued. I tried to see if there was a real account for this longterm disruptor (whose hobby is nobility--pretty sad, IMO), but was unable to identify one. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Repeatedly reverting this User talk:110.148.184.127

Within revoking talk page access (TPA) and may caused of Phonk.

Editors are allowed to remove warnings from their talk pages. Doing so is an acknowledgement that they have read the warning. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Ali Fadhul

Eyeballs? From my viewpoint, it looks like the intersection of WP:OWN and WP:CIR; the disinterested party might mutter something about WP:EW.Qwirkle (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

This basically appears to be a dispute over whether the Daily Monitor is reliable, correct? Why did you bring it here instead of WP:RSN? Mlb96 (talk) 08:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Probable sock- or meat-puppetry at Minneapolis and similar articles

A number of new editors have taken an interest in the Minneapolis article, including User:JesseeV3, User:Gooob, User:Marshens, and User:V3393s. JesseeV3 and Gooob have both deleted the photo montage from the infobox; all four seem to be intent on giving mention of the city's milling history greater prominence in the lead.

Gooob has claimed on the talk page and in a hidden comment to have a consensus, and to have consulted with other editors, but there is no sign of any such discussion anywhere in the user's contributions. This makes me suspect off-wiki coordination with the persons behind the other accounts. Interestingly, V3393s' first edit in this situation was to give a notice to Gooob about unconstructive editing. Subsequently, they posted on the talk page about having gotten a "notification" about it and agreed that the edits were undue weight, but then proceeded to add back in some of Gooob's changes while falsely claiming to be undoing them, and later re-added them again with an incomprehensible edit summary. Another interesting correlation between the two is having made the same edit about a day and a half apart on another article: [73], [74].

Gooob has been more prolific than the other accounts, making largely disruptive edits; deleting infobox images from articles on other municipalities as well as adding unsourced erroneous qualifiers to the leads of others ([75], [76], [77]), in one case falsifying a reference to do so ([78]).

Extended-confirmed protection would help on Minneapolis but that may merely shift the problem elsewhere. I don't have a particularly strong opinion on the content itself (yet) but I had the article on my watchlist previously, and the editing is clearly disruptive and there are strong signs of meatpuppetry. --Sable232 (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello Sable232. I have communicated with user:JesseeV3 via email off of Wikipedia that is all. I do not know the other editors you have mentioned. I will stop communicating with him off of wiki and will work to become a constructive editor. Thank you~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gooob (talk • contribs) 01:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
How and why did you come to communicate with another editor off-wiki about edits to this article? BD2412 T 05:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Frequent edit conflicts on 'List of Baby Einstein videos'

I'm about at the end of my rope dealing with this user, and am unsure of what to do by this point.

Basically, there's this IP-hopping editor in Michigan editing in the topics of Baby Einstein and U.S. Supreme Court justices and opinions (quite a weird combination, indeed) and they're kind of starting to annoy me, especially with their behavior, which is mainly contradicting the dates on List of Baby Einstein videos sourced to press releases to say that IMDb is more right, which, as I'm sure most editors should know, is editable just like Wikipedia.

They use the following IPs:

2601:40A:8480:1750:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

2600:6C48:427F:F84E:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

73.144.168.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

162.82.155.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

See some diffs here (2601 IPv6), here (2600 IPv6), here (73.144.168.60, haven't reverted this one yet as it may be legitimate), and here (162.82.155.169)

What to do? It's never gotten to the point of 3RR/more than 3 reverts in one day (hence why I reported here instead of AN3), but it's been happening for a while now and it's starting to really get on me, as they keep reinstating the information despite constant reverts and the literal sources cited for the dates saying otherwise. wizzito | say hello! 03:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, looks like 2601:40A:8480:1750:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) was blocked for disruptive editing for 3 months in July. Maybe another block and a block on all of the other IP addresses this person uses is needed? wizzito | say hello! 03:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Whitewashing B. P. Acharya

B. P. Acharya [79].
User:Basanthjain, a promotional editor who is almost a SPA for the subject, is repeatedly whitewashing this article, removing properly sourced information. They have made no attempt to engage on the talk page Talk:B. P. Acharya. Has made a vague claim of "removing factually incorrect data" [80] but has not backed this up with any evidence. Warnings [81], [82], [83], [84], [85] and information [86]. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Duffbeerforme, the edit they have been reverting includes the text "for his involvement in the Emaar township scam". Has this event been proven, and do reliable sources refer to it as a "scam"? If not, this may be a BLP violation. – bradv🍁 04:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
@User:Bradv. The NDTV source states "prime accused in the Emaar township scam". duffbeerforme (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
There are ample sources on his arrest and the context of the charges, but the latest information on the case that I was able to find was from early 2017, when a stay was in place, and he retired in October 2020. I have reverted the latest removal by Basanthjain and largely rewritten the article with a subsection on the investigation and a bit more on his career (using sources that were already present). Our article on Emaar Properties, the private partner in a public-private development project that gave rise to the charges, may also need some attention; it appears to me to be somewhat effusive. Duffbeerforme started a talk page section; I'm going to post there inviting Basanthjain or others to find references on the disposition of the investigation since 2017, since they may be in Telugu, which I can't read. (I found a Telugu reference hiding in the article's refs under an English title.) Yngvadottir (talk) 09:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

AuzairRaja

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

The user here is a sockpuppet with the edits at Katrina Kaif filmography . Neel.arunabh (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Users Isabelle Helm and Mikehaas

Regarding disruptive editing and COI violations on Michael Haas (political scientist) article, and Political Film Society (Which Michael Haas founded and runs) User:Mikehaas is obviously named for the person themselves and has edited both articles extensively. User:Isabelle Helm is in the process of repeatedly adding unsourced information to the Michael Haas article. A very very brief search on google shows that Isabelle Helm was Haas' Mother [[87]]. Isabelle Helm has repeatedly re-added content ("Michael Haas is a prolific writer who has ..") [[88]] , word for word, that was previously added by Mikehaas [[89]] (and subsequently removed due to COI concerns) So I think it's an obvious sock-puppet as well.

Both linked article are of dubious notability, I have started the process on a deletion discussion for both.

JeffUK (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Andrew and Lightburst are STILL being problematic

The topic bans on these users don’t seem to be very effective at preventing disruptive behavior. They’re just moving it to talk pages.

Here is Lightburst haranguing Jimbo with a lengthy complaint about recent events that is filled with hyperbole and personal attacks in some kind of appeal to solomon:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Process

And here’s Andrew bludgeoning everyone with the process over his “banned means banned” indef topic ban (heading courtesy of LB):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrew_Davidson#Personal_attacks_on_the_Article_Rescue_Squadron

And also andrew hounding me with a personal attack:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrew_Davidson&diff=1053845536&oldid=1053844794

Clearly they aren’t learning from existing sanctions. If anything the sanctions are just making them angry and even more disruptive. Dronebogus (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)