Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not 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. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Nationalist WP:POVPUSH by User:Ulianurlanova

Tendentious editing based on Russian nationalist POVPUSH by User:Ulianurlanova relating to Balhae - examples: deletion of referenced content based on Russian territorial argument, accusations of Korean ultranationalism, deletion of referenced content based on the "position of Russian science".

Some of his deletion edit summaries are outright misleading or false. Example: he claims that content on the international relations between Balhae (the subject) and the Tang dynasty of China to be "internal Chinese history and not related to the Bohai state".

Section blanking and accusations of source unverifiability: [1], [2], [3], [4]. The source in question which he accused of being unverifiable: [5].

General tendentious and disruptive editing can be seen in the revision history of Balhae. The user took issue with my editing on Balhae and followed me to Liao dynasty, where he deleted referenced content with the edit summary: " I try to restore the article before the encyclopedic type, I remove fabrications without reliable and verified sources from the Qiushufang user". He then accused me of vandalism and said he had filed a complaint against me although I have not received a notice. Further accusation that:

"This user is engaged in falsifying sources - he writes his own author's text and, in order to confirm it, put a link to a source that is not verifiable, or an unreliable source, or even simply turns the article into a platform for his own position. A complaint has been sent to the administration, but I do not know all the procedures. I will do what I can."

As the revision history of Liao dynasty shows, I have been one of the primary contributors on the article for quite some time and nobody has taken an issue with my additions given that they are all referenced. Ulianurlanova's only prior contribution was accusations of Korean nationalism.

He also seems to believe that if a source does not have an ISBN or electronic version, then it is not a suitable source: [6]. However here, Ulianurlanova deleted content which cited Xu 2005, which can easily be found in the Sources section with an electronic link, publisher, and ISBN: [7].

On further inspection of his edit history going back to the beginning, I believe Ulianurlanova is not here to build an encyclopedia and only seeks to push a Russian perspective relating to issues surrounding Korean-Russian territorial dispute - Qiushufang (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

This edit summary seems to be (intentionally) misleading, the reference is about Balhae, and the statement is in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I cannot read Russian so I have not tried to check those sources, however it would not surprise me. Here is another false edit summary: [8]. He claims that the source added does not say that Choe Chiwon believed the people of Balhae to be Mohe, but the referenced source he deleted provides a direct quotation: "As we know in relation to the origin of the Bohai people, when Gouli [Koguryo] was not yet destroyed, they [the Bohai people] were the useless tribe of Mohe, [and] many tribes were alike; its name was that of the small barbarian nation Sumo, and in the past [this tribe], being in competition with Gouli, moved to the inner area [China]." - Choe Chiwon ([9] Kim, Alexander. "The Historiography of Bohai in Russia." The Historian (SUMMER 2011), vol. 73 no. 2: 284-299, p. 292-293) - Qiushufang (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed a few troublesome edit comments from this user.

• Khabyarovsk was founded by the Russians in 1858 and only became a city in 1880. there were no settlements on this place before the arrival of the Russians. the rest is also well recognizable nonsense from Hwandan Gogi. Bohai never reached the size of the Amur River.

Our page at Khabarovsk appears to be well-cited, and the #Earliest record section clearly states that the location was settled in the 700s -- with self-rule by the Heishui Mohe tribes.

No explanation of how this is from the Hwandan Gogi.

The map at the top of the article at Balhae clearly shows that a portion of the northern border follows the Amur river. Granted, this appears to be our own graphic, but it is odd for this user to contest the text but not the map.

• Please do not touch this paragraph. The position of Russia differs significantly from the position of Korea and from the position of China. And if someone wants to know how, let him go and look at it in a specialized article. And please don't distort the Japanese position.

The "Please do not touch this paragraph" is a troublesome indication that the user is claiming ownership.

The user says "please don't distort the Japanese position", but the text the added (or restored) in the body of the article is itself a distortion.

The Russian scientific archaeological school has its own view of the history of this state, which has significant contradictions with the Korean, and different from the Chinese. Japanese official position coincides with the position of Russia.

I am reasonably fluent in Japanese. The ref on the "Japanese official position" comment is https://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/area/china/pdfs/rekishi_kk_j-2.pdf. This is a long 305-page PDF, apparently a collection of papers by various authors. I find it unconscionable to throw this around as a "citation" without specifying any particular part of this document.

Skimming through for instances of 渤海 (Bokkai) or "Balhae" in Japanese, I also find nothing to suggest that the Japanese position aligns with the Russian contention currently described at Balhae controversies#Russian position, that Balhae is "the first highly organized independent state formation of the Tungus-Manchurian peoples". Balhae is mentioned most often in juxtaposition with Silla, for what that might be worth, as the two were viewed historically from the perspective of the early Japanese imperial court. I cannot find any instances at all of the term ツングース系民族 (Tsungūsu-kei minzoku), nor indeed of the term ツングース (Tsungūsu).

The user's edit also removed this text:

The Russian archaeological school views Balhae as a state of primarily Mohe people while Japanese scholars consider it a tributary state.

I have no particular comment on the Russian side, but this same PDF that I'm skimming through does indeed talk about the Japanese court viewing both Silla and Balhae as tributaries, as the Yamato (Japanese) court sought to project an image as on par with the Tang. This is from page 64 of the PDF, or page 6 of the section marked Part 2: 中国文化の伝播と日本文化の創造的発展の諸相 "The Stages of Chinese Cultural Propagation and Japanese Cultural Creative Development", Chapter 1: 思想、宗教の伝播と変容 "The Propagation and Transformation of Philosophy and Religion", of 日中歴史共同研究 古代・中近世 "Japan-China Historical Joint Research: Ancient, Middle, and Modern Ages", by Tsuyoshi Kojima. Translations are my own.

日本が独自に元号を定めたということは、唐における皇帝の徳から独立し、自分独自の帝国を形成することの意思表示であった。そして、擬似的に新羅や渤海を朝貢国として扱い、蝦夷を夷狄とみなすことで、天皇を中心とする世界を構築しようとしたのである。（日本国内では朝貢使節として扱われたが、新羅も渤海も自身の認識はこれと異なる。）

In setting up their own era names, the Japanese showed independence from the imperial virtue of the Tang, and showed intent to set up their own independent empire. As such, in similar fashion, Japan treated Silla and Balhae as tributary states, and viewed the Ezo as outlanders, and in doing so, they attempted to build a world with the emperor at the center. (While the treatment within Japan was as of tributary states, Silla and Balhae had their own different views.)

Just from my cursory investigation, User:Ulianurlanova does not appear to be in the right here. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 04:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• User:Qiushufangjust attacks me from the first day of my participation in the project. Taking advantage of the fact that I do not know the procedures for filing complaints. he distorts the text of the article in favor of the Korean position. he distorts the text of the article on the basis of either unverified and unreliable sources, or completely falsifies them. it undoes all my edits but ignores all requests for origins. it removes NPOV template about neutrality where there is no neutrality. Take a look at his professional accusation work here. This is clearly an employee of some Korean agency to promote the South Korean version of this state and remove the prevailing non-Korean version from the article. He turned the article into a platform for Korean nationalist propaganda. And he himself is a violator of those rules of violation of which he accuses me. I looked at the history of this article and it is repeated there constantly. The Koreans or their employees will attack the Russians who demand reliable sources and not extortions and provide historical sources. And then all the Russians are blocked. The project is clearly engaged in propaganda directed against the Russian people, supporting the territorial claims of the Republic of Korea to Russia and the PRC. In fact, he is waging a propaganda war against these states. It does not engage in encyclopedic informing. The rules declared by the project are an empty phrase since the activities of such users as this one are allowed on it. What right does such a project have to complain that it is being blocked in some countries? Because he doesn't want to uphold his own rules.In the text of articles about different peoples and states of East Asia, chauvinistic statements from Koreans constantly appear. But the project supports them and does not allow them to be deleted.Ulianurlanova (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Requesting block due to this user's intractable position and single-purpose account. See Talk:Balhae#Northern_border_of_Bohai and User_talk:Ulianurlanova#Targeting_the_wrong_editor. Accusation that I am a state funded Korean propagandist and complete unwillingness to engage in meaningful discussion. Qiushufang (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• I will add that Ulianurlanova also re-reverted Qiushufang's restoration of content on the Balhae page earlier today here, without edit comment. They did add a comment on the Talk:Balhae page here, claiming (among other things) that "[e]verything that I deleted I deleted based on the fact that the edits were made without approval". I am not used to any approval requirement here at Wikipedia; rather, I am more accustomed to WP:BOLD, so long as the changes can be backed up with references. And, rather, the deletion itself has been contentious, not least as it was of content with multiple references, so presumably the deletion would need further discussion.

At any rate, massively changing a disputed article that is the focus of this ANI thread strikes me as poor form. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• • • support for Korean Nazism will end with nuclear strikes on your cities. Do you want that ?Ulianurlanova (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

      The above response should lead to an immediate block.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• • • The atmosphere of the project is extremely toxic and justifies attacks on Russians, justifies Korean radical nationalism. And I just got tired of it. Since you do not want to listen to the voice of reason, you must be prepared for the fact that the propaganda that you support will turn against you.Ulianurlanova (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Ulianurlanova (talk · contribs) again reverted to remove a large chunk of referenced material, adding as an edit comment the exact same text as above: "support for Korean Nazism will end with nuclear strikes on your cities. Do you want that ?". Not too long afterwards, Britmax (talk · contribs) undid Ulianurlanova's edit, commenting "Reverted inadequately explained changes." This appears to be WP:Edit warring. (Note: -- I meant, on the part of Ulianurlova. I do not think that Britmax is edit warring. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC))

Ulianurlanova's behavior looks very much to me like WP:POVPUSH and WP:NOTHERE, as well as problems with WP:COMPETENCE and an apparent unwillingness to play nice with others. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• The account went dormant after their edits here, and, judging from their activity pattern, may remain dormant for a month and then continue disruption. If anybody wants to have action, it should be done now, otherwise we just let if go because there is likely no further response ongoing, and the response we got on this page is substandard.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• Ulianurlanova appears to be a new editor who is unfamiliar with our policies and guidelines. A warning may suffice, unless they break with policy again, at which point an administrator may feel compelled to take action. I will be watching the page and responding to pings. Pious Brother (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Annette Maon

The user has engaged at extensive conflict about neutral point of view policy at Talk:Elon Musk, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive334#Talk:Kenosha_unrest_shooting, User talk:Annette Maon, and more at their contributions. My only action is to explain about Wikipedia's etiquette, but the user is likely wasting time from other editors, engaging in conflicts for the sake of it, and has no interest in building the encyclopedia. I suspected that this is a sockpuppet by an active spaceflight editor, given their history. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Related ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1089#Conduct_of_User:Annette_Maon. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

User made a threat to submit a Good Article Reassessment on Elon Musk if corrections for issues that they "saw" were not made. User has persistently brought up their disagreements in existing and unrelated discussions on the Elon Musk Talk page, often at the expense of the original matters. 17:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this editor's activity on the Elon Musk page has been disruptive. They have dominated the talk page of late with a strongly one-sided POV. Stonkaments (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to add to this and say that this user showed up at the 2021 Top 50 Report to completely rewrite the section on Musk, claiming it violates WP:BLP without describing why (rejecting my explanation that the Report is meant to be humorous and also pinging random uninvolved admins on talk). Based on what's already been said here and my personal experience, Annette Maon doesn't seem to be here to contribute to an encyclopedia. JOEBRO64 19:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

TheJoebro64, I absolutely agree with their revert here, and I'd like to hear from User:Stwalkerster as well. I didn't know that the Top50 was supposed to be funny, and I don't think that your BLP violations and your borderline BLP violations are funny at all. Update: no, let me rephrase that--I agree with the removal of your (?) text, but not with their replacement text. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record, I also agree with the reversion. "It was a joke" is not a defense against BLP. Annette Maon pinged me because they're presumably still salty that I deleted a similar "humorous" page of theirs that had been tagged as a G10 attack page, and is now trying to make it a whole thing with me playing the part of "BLP police", I guess. Regardless, they may have made the reversion for less-than-stellar reasons, but the action in itself was the correct one. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

My use of the phrase "BLP Police" was in reference to a different incident which I am still trying to process. It reflected my limited WP:NEWCOMER understanding about when the Wikipedia community chooses to use "rev-del", a term I had not been aware of at the time. I would appreciate any pointers to policy and/or examples that elaborate on Wikipedia:Crying "BLP!" and would allow me to learn about the process and dynamics from other people's mistakes so I can avoid blundering myself. I understand why Writ Keeper could have interpreted "BLP police" as a reference to their own actions instead of the ones I had in mind. It is important for me to clarify that I respect both Writ Keeper and Barkeep49 as people that I want to learn from and would not have used the phrase "BLP Police" to refer to them or to any of their actions. As I said in the original post which TheJoebro64 linked here "I will defer to their judgment". I made some suggestions for going forward on the talk page which reflect my own WP:NEWCOMER understanding as it continues to evolve. I hope that at least some of those suggestions are useful enough to be incorporated into the final version by someone with more experience than me. I would also appreciate comments from experienced editors on what I might still be missing. Annette Maon (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies: I'm in agreement that the text as it was is nowhere near appropriate; my edit (IMHO) vastly improved the situation but I think it's still not great and could certainly be improved further, though it's probably best to rip it out and rewrite it completely. I have neither the time, energy, or motivation to sort it out properly - my motivation with that edit was to make the problem less urgent. For the most part, what remains I think is sourced, albeit in fairly poor taste and with a clear axe to grind against the subject. stwalkerster (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Same here, stwalkerster--thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that your BLP violations and your borderline BLP violations are funny at all. Update: no, let me rephrase that--I agree with the removal of your (?) text, but not with their replacement text. Drmies, for what it's worth, I actually wasn't the one who wrote the Musk section. If it was a BLP violation, I apologize and acknowledge that I made a mistake—but I didn't write it, I merely reverted because it'd been months and was changed by someone who had no involvement with the report. JOEBRO64 21:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

User:TheJoebro64, thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I was pinged to that top 50 discussion but did not have time to do much beyond read it. What I read clearly contained BLP violations and am glad that stwalkerster decided to excise some of it. I recently gave Annette Maon a firm warning about BLP violations and am glad she's taken that feedback on board though I have no comment about whether the way she went about doing it was correct or not. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I tried to keep the discussion on Talk:Elon Musk and reach consensus there. Since it has been brought here (not by me), I would appreciate some input about having "a hard time reaching consensus that BLP statements about 'unscientific stances' and 'spreading misinformation' should not be made in Wikipedia voice". The BLP subject's twitter criticism of the quality of Wikipedia curation on his article has received wide media coverage. Those who mansplain to me that "Musk doesn't have the final say on what warrants inclusion in the article" are completely missing the point. I never said or thought that he should have any say. Regardless of what happens on the talk page or here, he will still have an army of twitter "trolls" that try to do what he says. What I am concerned about is the actual quality of Wikipedia curation on the BLP article that happened to receive the most pageviews in 2021. Looking at the state of Talk:Elon Musk since I got there, it seems that there is some room for improvement. I thought that would be a priority, but I am starting to have doubts about that. Annette Maon (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I explained on the talk page how to discuss the issues. You have failed to do so. You originally opened up a discussion with an ultimatum which is not a discussion. Based on the agressiveness of your responses, I think I am leaning towards OP's recommendation about education on NPOV. The article does have room for improvement but the way you are currently going about it is WP:POVPUSHing.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Just want to chime in that my concern is the constant attacks on the project and editors. 'Mansplainin' used above, current user page in the 'Seeking Mentor', previous not so subtle personal attack directed at me. They have an agenda and whether its WP:ADVOCACY, WP:LAB, or plain ole trolling it adds up to disruptive editing and a disrespectful attitude to fellow editors of the project as a whole.Slywriter (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I was coming here to add that User:Annette_Maon#Looking_for_a_mentor, by itself but especially when paired with the user's hostile attitude to other editors, is very concerning re. motivations for editing and community/project civility. I'd suggest an active civility warning, active BLP warning, and TBAN on Musk, and see where we go from there. Kingsif (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is their definiton of consensus Special:Diff/1071029840, which amount to my edit stays, not status quo and my personal favorite, yet another personal attack that quickly gets stricken Special:Diff/1071012272Slywriter (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The context for that last one is that I replied to their messages at the Top 50 talk, not about Musk, then I saw the Musk stuff and was going to their talkpage to leave a message about maybe not poking other editors with a big stick to get your way. Then I saw their user page and this ANI thread message and had to point it out. How they saw that I had left a comment here before replying to me at the Top 50 talk would suggest they were actually following me, but it is ironic that as soon as I say they should be civil they leave me a personal attack accusing me. You know, rather than the simple truth that if they are doing noticeable things they will get noticed. Actually, that specific Diff is about Sly. I'd quote that meme about incredibly similar things happening twice but I am not surprised. If they want to blame their attacks on their paranoia, then we have a CIR issue: too paranoid to function collaboratively. They are a ridiculously hostile editor who would rather make personal attacks and then use those to disregard others than listen to policy. Kingsif (talk) 04:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Previous issues

It's only a few weeks since Annette Maon has had significant issues at another BLP article (well, BLP/BDP) - link. One may be an error, but two appears to be a problem (note also Barkeep49's comment about warnings). Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

BLP statements about 'unscientific stances' and 'spreading misinformation' should not be made in Wikipedia voice"

Putting aside all the personal attacks and innuendo against me. The ongoing talk page discussion about whether there should be "a mainspace section dedicated to Jeffrey Epstein" was going nowhere before I created this section. If being dragged here is the price I have to pay for getting that WP:UNDUE WP:BLP problem removed and restoring some semblance of curation to the process, I am willing to pay it. If the dynamics surrounding that section was the only problem, I would not have been wondering about the need for a WP:GAR (which I did NOT ask for). Moving on to other content issues. It has been extremely difficult to reach consensus on Talk:Elon_Musk that phrases like 'unscientific stances' and 'spreading misinformation' should be quoted and attributed instead of being stated in Wikipedia voice. Other articles dealing with similar content issues (i.e. Joe Rogan) do not seem to have this curation problem in mainspace (I haven't checked Talk:Joe Rogan). I am starting to wonder if there is any chance that the discussion will actually "talk about content, not users" (Thank you Slatersteven). Annette Maon (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You are doing it again. QRep2020 (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Yet more inappropriate language crying vandalism and BLP violations rather than discussing content - Special:Diff/1071111456.Slywriter (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed this thread when I went over to their TP to warn them about their edit-warring on the Orson Scott Card article, where they've shown a flagrant disregard of NPOV and a deep investment in promoting the article subject for the past several months, including both the removal of reliably sourced material and the addition of self-serving cruft. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus forming here that being skeptical about COVID-19 policy is worse than genocide:

Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."

WP:WIKIVOICE

Musk was criticized for his public comments and conduct related to the COVID-19 pandemic.[306][307] He spread misinformation about the virus, including promoting chloroquine and assuming that death statistics were manipulated.

Elon_Musk#COVID-19

Others have made incorrect assumptions about my POV which forces me to clarify it for the record:

• I do not support Musk's views on COVID-19.
• I do not support Musk's promotion of people who are accused of "spreading misinformation".
• I got vaccinated 3 times against COVID-19 (as soon as I could).
• I actively avoid being in the same room with anyone who has not been vaccinated 3 times against COVID-19.
• I do believe that Musk has a right to be skeptical.
• I believe that Musk has a right to make mistakes.
• I believe that if Edison hadn't dared to fail so many times we would not have lightbulbs.
• I believe that if Musk hadn't dared to fail so many times we would not have the Falcon 9.
• I do not support the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie
• I do support the right of Janis Ian to disagree with me about Skokie
• I do not believe my personal POV is or should be relevant to the contents of any Wikipedia Article including Elon Musk

Another consensus that seems to be forming here is that WP:UNCIVIL behavior toward me is acceptable even when it includes:

• rudeness, insults and name-calling
• personal attacks, disability-related slurs
• ill-considered accusations of impropriety
• belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts
• taunting or baiting
• lying
• quoting me out of context to give the impression I said something I didn't say

As a WP:WikiGnome in training, I could provide links to each of the bullet points above. But that would be taking the bait and feeding the trolls. So I will try again to "talk about content, not users".

This discussion may be "dominated by the loudest and most persistent editorial voices" but a quick look at Talk:Elon_Musk shows that even they have to work hard to keep up the illusion that stating "He spread misinformation" in WP:WikiVoice is "Uncontested and uncontroversial".

I am still wondering if there is any chance that the discussion will actually "talk about content, not users". Annette Maon (talk) 09:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

You have obviously thought about this issue quite a lot, so let me ask, did Musk spread misinformation about the virus, or is that merely someone's opinion? Johnuniq (talk) 09:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that ANI is just a more public forum to talk about content, or are deflecting. In case you need to be told, this forum is for editor issues. This is where we talk about users, not content. The topic of discussion here is not the contents of the Elon Musk or Orson Scott Card articles, it is your behavior while trying to implement certain versions of them, as well as general comments. Continuing to insist that your versions are correct is doing the opposite of helping; it is rather quite demonstrative of the issues that have landed you here. Kingsif (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1071406173 & Special:Diff/1071390667- just more inability to discuss content without attacking editors and more of their special brand of consensus where the status quo can't stay.Slywriter (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Special:Diff/10714095750- Intentional misquoting of another editor to make a point not grounded in policy or logic.Slywriter (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The issue raised by OP is the conduct of a user. The discussion has since evolved in discussion about content. This is not the place for that. In fact, Annette Maon was told not only here, but on the Elon Musk talk page and their own talk page how to properly address a content dispute. They have failed to do so and continuing bludgeoning. I think we have done more than WP:AGF but AGF isn't a WP:PACT. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Call for close (Annette Maon)

Editors have raised issues above including incivility, disregard of NPOV, CIR, bludgeoning, and BLP problems after a warning. They have recommended remedies including a civility warning, BLP warning (there's already one in place), and a TBAN from Elon Musk. I support a civility warning, having been on the wrong end of Annette Maon's incivility. Regardless, I encourage an admin to close this section, whether it's with action taken or not, rather than let another discussion of this editor's conduct archive without closure. Firefangledfeathers 14:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Almanbet Janışev

Almanbet Janışev (t c) persistently adds non-standard transliterations of Kyrgyz language (which is written with a Cyrillic alphabet) names to articles about places in Kyrgyzstan. Recent examples are Kochkor and Tash-Döbö, but there are dozens more places where they did this (and which have been reverted, by me and by others). They have been asked repeatedly to stop this, but they don't reply and continue to add similar transliterations. In fact, they have no edits at all in Talk and User talk namespaces. Markussep ^Talk 08:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to attention here. I would like to add that I also brought this up at the Teahouse yesterday; there is some further detail available in my post there. — JThistle38 (talk) 10:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Also worth noting is that the other contributions made by the user tend to be very good (even if the style of writing could use some work) - well-referenced, encyclopedic etc.. It's just the romanisations that are unconstructive, so I would be careful not to mass-revert the user's changes. — JThistle38 (talk) 11:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I have only reverted the romanizations, since I know they're not helpful. I haven't found a good reference for this PAU romanization of Kyrgyz, the only thing I find there is a Kyrgyz-Turkish online translator, that indeed converts Cyrillic text to latin text (but does not use the q for Kyrgyz к). Markussep ^Talk 13:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

A comment about their other contributions: I checked Murat Salihov, this appears to be a literal translation (Google translate?) of the corresponding article in Russian Wikipedia. Markussep ^Talk 08:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

From what I can see, Markussep is right, and Jthistle38 has said the same thing at the talk page, which I started with the required attribution template. Contrary to Jthistle38's statement, there's a lot wrong with machine translations and they require cleaning up and need to be strongly discouraged: they are hard to understand and likely to contain inaccuracies. I've templated the page as needing attention and reported it in the "rough translations" section of Pages needing translation into English. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Almanbet Janışev (t c) did it again, see [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. All have been reverted already by an anonymus. It's well possible that they don't respond to our messages because they don't speak English, so I'm going to try Russian. Markussep ^Talk 09:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Problems including repeated XfD discussion interference

• NeverTry4Me (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Onel5969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pallab Bhattacharyya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

NeverTry4Me (recently known as Arunudoy) interfering with Onel5969's XfD !vote at Special:Diff/1070810711 and Special:Diff/1070993030 and personal attack alleging their are corrupt editors (the obvious implication that including Onel5969 at Special:Diff/1070988111 especially given This COIN discussion NeverTry4Me has multiple other issues per there talk page. Suggest behavior is out of hand and needs addressing. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• another baseless allegation by Djm-leighpark . Wherever I did AfD/SfD, I have tried creating Neutral sources, but both are disrupting my edits. Edit differences are evidence of it. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 10:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• @NeverTry4Me I have very specifically given diffs of your removing Onel5969's !vote with a nowiki and then of putting a strikethrough through part of Onel5969's comment; and you have called allegations against that disruption baseless. You have vaguely in response said look at edit differences. I suggest you need to own the fact you have been disruptive or face sanctions or come up with specific edit differences rather than drawing in community wasted effort. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• What the hell? This is not a "baseless allegation," but an entirely correct one. You do not refactor another editor's comments at XfD (short of direct personal attacks) ever. Period. If you disagree with their observations, your sole recourse is to rebut them in your own comments.. Ravenswing 11:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• @@Djm-leighpark: I have corrected all of my entries, and there is no disruptive editing now. You and User Onel5969 are placing baseless allegations against me. I, again, say the allegations are WP: FRANCKENTSTEIN. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 11:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• @NeverTry4Me: What made you feel you had the right to edit other people's AfD votes or talk page entries in the first place? — Czello 11:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• NeverTry4Me, please stop referring to allegations as baseless when proof has been provided (Special:Diff/1070810711 and Special:Diff/1070993030) that they are not. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• NeverTry4Me is also very ready to accuse other editors of vandalism, corruption or being "arrogant:" [17][18][19][20][21] Ravenswing 11:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  More than half of those diffs are from 2020 or earlier. Stifle (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  They are still calling other editors "Corrupt" in 2022 though [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1070989321&oldid=1070988111&title=User_talk%3ANeverTry4Me&type=revision "presumption of a few corrupt editors". However, it isn't entirely clear what the accusations of COI against NeverTry4Me are actually based on.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  Well I can see that their username until recently was User:Arunodoy and they created Arunodoy Asom, whether that's part of it I don't know. Black Kite (talk) 13:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  I also independently noticed that as odd. Wonder if that's a COI/autobiography of sorts. Pilaz (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  I have created wiki pages of Police chiefs and militants also. Police and Militants are counterparts. They live in jungle, I do not. :) --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 18:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  What's your point, Stifle? It's not as if NeverTry4Me's stopped doing so. My point is that this behavior is an ongoing pattern, and no momentary lapse. Ravenswing 13:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm going to put this in bold so NeverTry4Me pays attention - Comment on the content, not the editors and do not refactor anyone else's comments as outlined at WP:TPO. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• I apologize. Pardon. Can we end now? --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 19:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• @NeverTry4Me: I suppose we may have to: albeit at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Draft:Sanjib Baruah you are still requesting " this Draft history is enough to prove that @Onel5969: made a baseless allegation against me. I appeal to Wikipedia:Administrators to come up with a fair investigation and inquire about @Onel5969:'s allegation as per Wiki policy WP:ANI. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 08:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)" and I'd also note that at 12:18, 10 February 2022 with Special:Diff/1071012824 Onel5969 had to clean up your disruption to their !vote summmary at XfD though earlier here at 11:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC) you claimed you had moved disruption. So I'd see this is as a brush-aside sloppy apology but its likely the best that's going to be got so we will need to move on ... hopefully problems will not re-occur. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Djm-leighpark: Further no issue will re-occur. Again, my unconditional apology. I shall refrain from things related all those mistakes, I have done. This discussion output helped me to learn a lot, specially a new user like me. Thank you. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 06:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• @NeverTry4Me:: You've just re-factored one of Hemantha'a comments at Special:Diff/1071409975 with a violation of WP:TPO. Perhaps as a defence you may been you been you are e feel you are being harassed given there are WP:COIN discussions are still active, (one barely and on the cusp of inactivity). But you are continuing to make these problems/mistakes, which is an issue after saying you were going to stop. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC) & Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Djm-leighpark: I didn't know that replying in that way is a violation of the rule, as I I thought it was my reply I haven't edited his. Thanks for learning me. Again, I tender an apology for that one. Probably I should study a vast of rules before writing on discussion pages. Thank you. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 21:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• You still haven't understood you inserted your reply into the middle of their comment! Which means you are going to continue doing it! Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Olrac625

This user was reported several times, and still no action. Repeatedly adding unsourced informations to BLP articles, and seems he don't want to participate in any discussions on his talk page and in ANI where he has been reported many times. Seems also that every contributions he made has no source. I think he never visited his talk page nor his user page. Blocking him seems to be a good idea to prevent him from doing those non-constructive edits, and sometimes, it's a good idea also to get his attention and so he can respond on the reports he received and realized that he made unhelpful edits in Wikipedia and for the future, he can do more constructive edits. —Ctrlwiki (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You need to notify them of the ANI filing even if it appears they don't read their talk page. Looking at the previous filings, they've been a little vague. It would help if you included diffs. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I have already notify him, just incase. Majority of his contributions/recent edits are addition of unsourced information in BLP articles so I think diffs are unnecessary, just look at his contributions, latest or past. —Ctrlwiki (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You've not really provided any context for this report. Not even a link to the editor. It makes it far more difficult to figure out if there is any case against them.

Olrac62

• Previous Report placed by Ctrlwiki on 1st February 2022. Very little information provided. Olrac62 was not informed about the discussion by Ctrlwiki. Look at the top of this page, this is something you absolutely have to do. There were no warnings on Olrac62's talk page subsequent to the prior ANI report:
• First report placed by Hotwiki on 16th October 2021.

I see some edits of theirs that you've reverted... they look fairly innocent... adding a cast member to some TV series. Google appears to verify the addition. Can you point out any behaviour that you can say is disruptive? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Google Search is not a reliable source. Minkai (rawr!/contribs/ANI Hall of Fame) 18:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Of course not, but it's a good way for finding reliable sources. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. A lot of diffs showing that he is not really providing reliable sources, isn't that enough? Is there still no action? He received many warnings on his talk page still no action? Ok, if that's how Wikipedia policy works. —Ctrlwiki (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Throwing your toys out the pram because you've been asked to provide evidence isn't going to encourage a volunteer to look at the issue. Just saying. – ².O.^Boxing 10:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I would appreciate another pair of eyes on this one. The edits that Ctrlwiki has identified appear to all be unreferenced film or television credits for Philippino actors, inserted into lists that are all unreferenced to begin with. In an ideal world, all filmography lists would be referenced as well as the likes of Robert De Niro filmography (which in itself is not fully referenced), but for less well known celebrities (from the perspective of en WP), poorer referencing is not unusual. The few diffs I checked appear to be verifiable and not deliberately disruptive. It appears that Olrac625 is being held to a higher standard than other editors of the articles in question. There is however clear WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU going on. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I remembered that I have linked in the edit summary his talk page when I reverted his one edit, and told him that he has talk page, still no response from him. —Ctrlwiki (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't guarantee that they have seen your edit summary. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ctrlwiki: If you want "action" to occur you need to provide evidence and make a proposal so an admin can judge consensus. I looked at your previous threads and I can see why no action has been taken. Not providing any WP:DIFFs and saying "I think there is enough action to be made into this user." does not make any sense.[22] What is the action you want to be made into this user? What does that series of words even mean? A topic-ban? Indefinite ban? Temporary ban? Same thing here which isn't a thread you started but no diffs and no request for action. [23] You need to post links to WP:DIFFs, which you've successfully done. But now you need to actually propose a course of action. Do you want this person blocked for 3 months because WP:IDHT? 1 month? A week? A topic ban from actor related pages? If you want something to happen make a subheading, call it "temporary c-ban proposal for Olrac625", and propose a 72 hour block for adding unreferenced content to articles. Either you get shot down or people agree with you but that'll cause something to happen. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

User talk:AleDenshi

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

---

• AleDenshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I received an email from this user asking for personal information about blocked Lyanbox782 (talk · contribs), whose rename request I declined HERE . I replied on their user page. They say their account exists for contacting Wikipedia admins. I find this whole affair unsettling. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for not following proper Wikipedia etiquette and not replying here earlier.

I was contacting Deepfriedokra (talk · contribs) about Lyanbox782 (talk · contribs) because I falsely believed that the former was responsible for the rename request of the later.

I apologize for my ignorance regarding this whole situation; I now know that this request was denied by Deepfriedokra (talk · contribs) and was imitated by a different user; this is all the information I needed. AleDenshi (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@AleDenshi: Ah, but that is not all the information you asked for. You asked about their real-life identity. Otherwise, I'd have not been concerned. You also asked how I knew them-- quite prying, I think. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

AleDenshi, the self-description on your user page IS a bit baffling. Why are you on Wikipedia? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my user page comes off weird, the reason I made it that way is because I only intend to use this account to discuss the Lyanbox name issue; I do not wish to contribute or edit Wikipedia.

Also, regarding the Lyanbox emails: I probably typed my mail wrong; What I asked was:

"but how did you know? Is this his real, legal name? Did he doxx himself?"

The reason I sent you that mail in the first place was because I had heard of the name "Martin Lavin" pertaining to Lyanbox before, and I had no idea how you or anyone on Wikipedia would know about that name, since I thought it was private knowledge in my internet circle.

I also said this in my email:

"Please reply with any additional information you are willing to share about Lyanbox as well."

The reason I asked for additional information "you were willing to share" was just in case you found out about this name (Martin Lavin) from some other source. I'm sorry if this is phrased in some doxx-y way, I definitely didn't mean it that way and I wasn't expecting any sensitive personal information regarding Lyanbox from you, I was just curious as to how someone who edits Wikipedia would discover the Martin name. AleDenshi (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

"I only intend to use this account to discuss the Lyanbox name issue; I do not wish to contribute or edit Wikipedia." Given how fishy and inappropriate all of this is, I think a WP:NOTHERE block is in order, and so done. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

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

AndyTheGrump (talk) is not civil with multiple people

It started when I edited the Black people and White people page.

We both agree that scientifically race does not exist, but thinks that I am offensive by saying that black and white people don't exist, which is scientifically true, not black or white person exists. He requires me to have a reference and stop making forum edits, but you only need human logic to understand that black and white people don't exist. I desire to make it clear from the beginning that such concepts are erroneous and are a social construct. He thinks the article is clear enough that it is a social construct only, and not scientific. He thinks he fights systemic racism, but I think by not being clear enough that the articles are talking about a scientifically erroneous term makes them part of the systemic racism, where people think it's ok to use a concept such as race, white and black people.

He reverted all edits where I specified that black and white skin colour does not exist.

He contacted me to call my edits non-sensical.

Then a row of insults from him to me, based on the reverted edits:

• imbecile that should not be allowed to edit on Wikipedia
• trolltard
• full of shit
• threatened with WP:ANI

My insults to him:

• suggesting that he and Donald Trump have a lot in common
• that he is a true Wikipedia oligarch

Some comments are on my talk page, some on his, some on White people, some on Black people. No private messages.

On Andy's talk page, he is having a similar row with CycoMa1 (talk) Andy has another ANI notice with Govvy (talk) on 27th of January 2022.

TudorTulok (talk) 08:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@TudorTulok: You missed out that you specifically say "Your age explains it all, why you and Donald Trump have so much in common." and were linking to Quora. And you didn't seem to make clear that dispute started after you made utter nonsense edits like [24] [25]. Anyway I'm confused why you're here. Are you asking ask to block you? You could simply stop editing by yourself. Nil Einne (talk) 08:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I did not say that my edits are non-sensical but that he said that they are non-sensical.

I did not say I want so stop editing wikipedia.

You are missing the points on how Andy behave to me, Govvy and CycoMa1.

He calls Cycoma1 incompetence, he provkes me calling me full of shit, trolltard, imbecile, threatend with ANI, that he will have a good laugh if I report me. My compare with someone with Donald Trump is that I can't believe his grumpiness and attitude, how much it remind me of Donald Trump, called him an oligarch, as I can't believe how much power he has on Wikipedia.

Are you asking to block you? - is that a suggestion, insinuation that I should be blocked before the decision was made. Are you in favour of that decision before it was made. Are you suggesting that letting AndyTheGrump with his grmpy attitude towards 3 Wikipedia is a better solution than telling the truth? TudorTulok (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

you are telling me that an edit that say note that white and black skin does not eixst in non-sensical.

Have you seen a person with white or black seen? I have never seen black or white skin.

The Quora link is for opinons of people that don't believe in race, just like me. That was to back up the fact that I am not the only one that feels the same, that race is not a real thing and there is not need to be called imbecile, trolltard and full of shit by AndyTheGrump. TudorTulok (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• "you only need human logic to understand that black and white people don't actually exist" ← I think I need another coffee. Alexbrn (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  have you seen a person with black or white skin in your life? From Black people Some perceive "black" as a derogatory, outdated, reductive or otherwise unrepresentative label, and as a result neither use nor define it, especially in African countries with little to no history of colonial racial segregation. Some have commented that labeling people "black" is erroneous as the people described as "black" actually have brown skin. Why would you need another coffee? TudorTulok (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  It's almost as if idiom didn't exist in your world. I'm drinking white coffee by the way. Alexbrn (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  Idiomising is what reductive is in the derogatory, outdated, reductive and otherwise unrepresentative label is. Wikipedia should not take part into its reductive nature, but explain that black and white skin does not exist, black and white people don't exist either, and that they are a form of oudated social terms. TudorTulok (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yikes, stuff from TudorTulok at places like Talk:Black people#Black people never existed show an extremely poor grasp of English (either that, or they are a troll). In this edit, TudorTulok added "(note that black skin does not exist)" to the lead of Black people (correctly reverted by AndyTheGrump). @TudorTulok: Wikipedia requires a certain level of competence and you should not edit articles unless you understand the basic concepts. Johnuniq (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  it has not been decide that AndyTheGrumo is correct in his edits. You are making assumptions. You should not be on this thread to take sides. You should be here to comment and judge the behaviour of the two of us. This is not commenting if the original edit is correct or not, or my competence.

  I feel that people might come here to take Andy's side and endorsing him in calling me imbecile, full of shit, and trolltard, and make it an acceptable behaviour.

  You canot decide that I am troll from an edit alone. I have years of modest contribution on Wikipedia. TudorTulok (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) On AndyTheGrump's talk page, TudorTulok accused us of being a "team" and of "praying to the wrong God"[26]. Since I'm a Christian, I don't like that. Some of Andy's words are too strong (IMHO), but I can fully understand that a constructive and experienced editor gets angry when confronted with TudorTulok's nonsense. --Rsk6400 (talk) 09:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I can't believe that this is all about supporting AndyTheGrump to call other users imbecile, full of shit, trolltards and that this is acceptable as future behaviour on Wikipedia because of a minor edit that does not match your opinons, but it is scientifically accurate. This is a team, where eveyone thinks the same, that Andy is right, and I am wrong. The '''praying to the wrong God''' part is for Andy alone, that he thinks that black and white skin exists. I continue to say the same thing, you call it nonsense, but it is not. Black and white skin does not exist, it is an idiom, but you can repeat for a many days as you want, you will get the same result: black and white skin does not exist, it is erronous. Why is wikipedia going with the social construct, and not with scientific proof, calling black people an idiom and an erronous term from the beginning, I don't know, this is the discussion we were supposed to have after my edit, not calling my edits a '''non-sense, and then imbecile that should not edit on Wikipedia, full of shit, trolltard'''. I repeat, black and white skin does not exist. TudorTulok (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Whilst Andy should proably tone down the insults, he is undoubtedly correct that many of your talkpages posts are indeed bordering on the nonsensical, and more importantly they are not contributing to the improvement of any of the articles. Everybody is quite aware that those included in the social construct "white people" do not hve skin that is exactly white (#FFFFFF) and vice-versa. But that is how they are referred to (see WP:COMMONNAME). Either contribute in a manner that is not causing a time sink for others, or don't contribute at all. Black Kite (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

While I'd voice it in less earthy terms, I can't say I disagree with AndyTheGrump. There is a clear WP:CIR issue here that is leading to disruptive editing by TudorTulok. He needs to walk away from editing on racial issues or to be topic banned. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I was uncivil. I had raging toothache, to add to my usual grumpiness. Possibly, without the toothache, I would have found more polite synonyms for 'imbecile', and 'trolltard'. For my lack of eloquence I apologise. As for the rest, I think TudorTulok's own comments make it entirely clear that I was right to revert their facile and offensive literalism. It should be noted that such facile literalism hasn't been confined to articles (and talk pages: TudorTulok made similar comments on multiple ones) concerning 'race' and skin colour. See also this example on the 3D film article ("they are not in fact 3D") [27], and their use of Talk:Democracy as a forum. [28]. Not to mention this example of vacuous amateur etymology at Talk:Democratic republic. [29] Confronted with such literalism (also demonstrated above), I think it should be fairly obvious why my patience was somewhat limited, having seen TudorTulok resort to adding such nonsense to articles, after failing to achieve whatever objective they had in posting it on article talk pages. I could no doubt have gone into more depth about 'race' as a social construct, about the usage of 'Black' and 'White' as descriptors of putative sub-groups of humanity rather than assignments based on spectral analysis, and on why belonging to a social construct actually matters to real people, and shouldn't simply be dismissed as imaginary, but it seemed evident that I'd be wasting my time. If I hadn't seen TudorTulok's earlier talk-page forum-mongering I would simply have reverted the article posts as vandalism. Maybe I should have done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, I'm glad you have apologised here, because those were indeed blockable. I can appreciate how frustrating dealing with someone like this can be, but while there are edit warring exclusions listed at WP:3RRNO, WP:NPANO is a redlink: WP:NPA applies to everyone, including trolls, vandals and the merely incompetent. If you find yourself extra grumpy with toothache again, please consider stepping back and let someone else deal with it.

TudorTulok, I don't know whether there is a language barrier getting in the way, but some of your comments are so perverse as to be indistinguishable for trolling. I suggest you step back from this entire topic area and line of discussion, before you are prevented from editing here. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• No comment on Andy (already handled), but TudorTulok, you might want to read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. You are absolutely on the path to a topic ban or indef block if you stay on the path you are on. Wikipedia isn't here to push your world view onto the masses. We're here to publish what reliable sources say. Meanwhile, I'm going to go back to my black coffee (or is it really black?) and read the news. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Let's hope it's not Nescafé. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Boomerang block on TudorTulok is needed until it is clear they have understood the purpose of talk pages (to improve articles, not to discuss topics), and that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia i.e. based on secondary sources (not the opinions of its editors). At first I thought a race-related TBAN would work, but we have tedious comments like "Muscles don't have memory" at Muscle memory (the lead makes it very clear that it's the brain that stores memories) and "Never existed" at Democracy. I can't see any productive contributions in 2021 or 2022 that the user has made. Engaging with them is a time sink.
  To spell it out clearly to TudorTulok, so they cannot feign ignorance, let's take the example of "Muscles don't have memory". If you think there is a problem in the article muscle memory implying that muscles have memory, you need to pinpoint specific passages and would be best off improving them yourself by editing them to more closely align with the facts from the references the passage cites, or adding more facts from additional reliable sources. If what you object to is the title then you need to search through biology journals, books and academic writings to find out what the common name for the term is. If it's not "muscle memory" then you can say "here are some sources that use the term X - should we use this in the article instead?" — Bilorv (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Given this and this provided as examples of similar behavior at other talk pages/articles, I'm convinced that this is either an issue with understanding common/idiomatic expressions or a long-winded way of wasting our time. A boomerang block might be the best option here. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Non admin comment. Throwing a wp boomerang at someone for reporting that they were called a "trolltard", even if the reporter is of marginal helpfulness, makes Wikipedia a more toxic place. It is essentially saying that it is OK to call people trolltards when there may be a language barrier. Is that OK? Is civility optional when you have more edits? Trolltard is what, a mentally retarded person who trolls? Calling someone a "retard" is demeaning, then banning them for reporting it sends the message "shut up and take it retard, new members are not welcome here"

Maybe we should address the abuse behavior reported on its merits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:12B0:300F:C948:B5E8:B730:4F44 (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

That's already been done. Addressing it was a very quick issue because its merits were minimal. We are now looking to address the problematic editing; far more damaging to the project and therefore requiring a more thorough approach. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump has apologized, and in my opinion the apology is satisfactory. If another editor thinks that any action needs to be taken against him, so be it, but I won't be the one. Meanwhile, the complainant has doubled down here, with comments such as "I repeat, black and white skin does not exist" and "it is an idiom, but you can repeat for a many days as you want, you will get the same result: black and white skin does not exist, it is erronous [sic]." Also, don't put words in my mouth: I'm not advocating for a block of the complainant for their reporting AndyTheGrump's behavior, and no one is suggesting that they "shut up and take it" (to use your phrasing). However, blocking the complainant might be a necessary course of action to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia, as a TBAN of race-related issues might not be sufficient due to this being a problem at other topics as well. If you have other suggestions, feel free to make them here. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

If you propose OP get a race related topic ban for their views, should you suggest a tban on mental health topics for Andy calling people retarded? That is as serious as calling someone a racial or sexual slur. It is a slur against people with mental health issues and is 4chan discourse. It feels like calling people retarded is acceptable here if you have a toothache. Can I call other editors retards also, if I apologize? Is Andy also allowed to continue calling people retards? Or only on bad days? No warning, nothing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:12B0:300F:C948:B5E8:B730:4F44 (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

In the circumstances, that feels unwise. Yes, there may be CIR issues, but they don't seem to be of any consequence as of yet. Theknightwho (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support boomerang. The OP's original query has been resolved, so now the focus has shifted to other problematic behaviors, his time, by them. SN54129 18:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

How was it resolved? Someone called him a retard, and admins shrugged it off. It looks like the resolution is Andy is allowed to call people retards if he apologizes when called out. Cool, we are allowed to call each other retards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:12B0:300F:C948:B5E8:B730:4F44 (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• First of all, "boomerang" is the wrong term. He came here with a legitimate complaint, no one questions that, and Andy even apologized. WP:Boomerang really doesn't apply. Second, I think TudorTulok understands, or should, that they are on notice for unrelated events, ie: their POV pushing. And now, due to this report, there are many, many more eyes on them. They have a very short piece of WP:ROPE and a block will likely happen rather instantly if they continue to edit this way. I think we all need to just let it calm down and go edit articles now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  WP:GLASSHOUSES may be a better term for OP's current situation. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  I consider TudorTulok to be also on a short rope concerning personal attacks. Comparing users to Donald Trump[30][31] is highly offensive. I'd rather be called a "trolltard" for my part, if I had a choice. Bishonen | tålk 21:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC).

Retard is a mental health slur that is equivalent to the big racial slurs. I work with the people who have learning disabilities, and the word is disgusting. So is it the case, on Wikipedia, calling people retards is semi acceptable? If my first edit was to call someone a retard, would I be allowed to keep editing? The number of admins rallying to defend hate speech here is a red flag. Wikipedia is not for /others/. This place is toxic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:12B0:300F:C948:B5E8:B730:4F44 (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't be disingenuous. I don't think anyone here is "rallying to defend hate speech" or condoning said word choice. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Read this comment thread. Someone above you said being called a trump supporter is more offensive than retard, which is hate speech. Bishonen popped in to defend the use of retard. He didn't need to, but they wanted to make it clear - they agree calling people "retarded" isn't very offensive. Sure, pick on people with mental health problems they can't control. It's the Wikipedia way right? Will you confirm, do you think there should be any consequences to calling people a retard, or (pick your favorite slur)? 2600:1700:12B0:300F:C948:B5E8:B730:4F44 (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment Ctrl F indicates that "retard" (at this point in time) has been used 17 times on this page. Every time by you... and you have conflated it with psychiatric illness. Please don't do that. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello hate speech Jim. *tard is used to indicate retard. It is hate speech. https://www.specialolympics.org/stories/impact/why-the-r-word-is-the-r-slur The exact usage of *tard is mentioned here. Sorry you are so hate filled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:12B0:300F:C948:B5E8:B730:4F44 (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I am more familiar with developmental conditions that have historically been lumped together as "retardation" than you will ever be. You work with people with learning disabilities and describe them as "mental health problems". I'm not going to block you. I hope someone else does. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I've already blocked the IP for personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks... WP:AGF was wearing thin. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

It's funny because I have an adult stepdaughter who is mildly special needs, went to special ed, and she grew up using the word "retard", with a family that jokes about the word, but never used it in hate, but they used it, and still do. It took the venom out of the word. Made it powerless to hurt her at school when the other kids used it on her, and lord knows, they were going to. I'm not a huge fan of artificially putting words in good and bad categories. People just invent new words. The intent is the problem, not the word. But I digress..... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Exactly... and fake outrage for the purposes of scoring points here is far more hurtful than slips in political correctness. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

That IP was definitely a troll and it's good they were blocked, but can we stop saying it's ok to use a modified slur? Andy apologized, and that's good, no action needed, but defending the use of the slur is gross. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't think anyone has done that. I find the concept of someone weaponising fake outrage about my "state of being" (not going to share beyond that) way more offensive than the use of "tard" Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• sometime lurker Comment: If someone comes into a library and puts books in the wrong place, the first thing we would not do is start abusing them. If fact, as anyone with a modicum of professional training knows (let alone human civility), the thing we never do is resort to abuse. I'm struck by how an editor who basically made some annoying mistakes is subject to offensive language, pile-on and blame-the-victim. Why behaviour essentially unacceptable in any public setting is repeatedly excused in Wikipedia continues to strike me as one of this place's greatest problems. We are not a bar or bazaar, for better or worse, we operate as a public service, we need to perform to standards that match that status. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The reason is that this is an encyclopedia, not a place for people to post whatever comes into their minds. We would prefer that those countering nonsense did so politely and maintained a polite facade despite all evidence that being nice wasn't effective, but what is more important is that nonsense is prevented from damaging articles. Anyone objecting to the reported language is welcome to monitor TudorTulok and make sure they don't damage the encyclopedia. Watching the articles mentioned in this report would also be desirable because clearly nonsense periodically erupts there. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
    • I have no quarrel with the identification of the problem (perhaps my library analogy was too obtuse?); it's a question of how we deal with the problem. There's a substantial difference. I don't see any reason why dealing with people in a civil manner, no matter what the circumstances, is a matter of "preference"; there's no zero-sum game between civility and stopping "damage". Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
• What we're more or less doing here is we're judging TudorTulok by a different civility standard because unlike AndyTheGrump, TudorTulok is doing a worse job at actually contributing to the encyclopedia. This is wrong and I don't believe we should exempt people from the rules for being productive editors and a corollary of that is not judging people harshly because they're unproductive editors. So what if TudorTulok made a bunch of shitty WP:NOTFORUM comments? Do we really indef for that without warnings? Because the only person who warned TudorTulok is the same person who called them a "trolltard" so I can see why they wouldn't take the warning at face value. Two people here are accused of misusing talk pages to write bad things and we should either block both of them or neither of them. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  If I remember correctly, the ugly exchange of words began with this conversation on Andy's talk page. I saw some of Andy's edits before, they were always defending scientific standards against racist pseudo-science. TudorTulok attacked Andy's integrity as an editor without any cause, and now they are complaining that Andy overreacted. First you provoke somebody, then you take them to court, hoping they'll hang. Andy apologized and they are obviously here to build an encyclopedia. I'm not so sure about TudorTulok, and that has nothing to do with double standards. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, but the problem is TudorTulok successfully provoked Andy and he did overreact, so the ANI thread is somewhat merited. So rather than this being easily "editor is WP:NOTHERE and is personally attacking others" we have two editors that are personally attacking and only one that's doing a bad job at contributing ("He started it!" isn't a valid defence). Usually the standard is to warn someone before blocking them for bad contributions unless it's really egregious. The WP:NOTFORUM behaviour isn't "really egregious" in my mind. I think we should make it clear that TudorTulok's behaviour is also unacceptable and they'll be blocked if they keep it up. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  Are we? AFAICT, the only one who came close to suggesting a block of TudorTulok for something akin to civility reasons (more specifically NPA) is Bishonen and even they said "short rope" suggesting it wasn't quite there yet. In my first reply (which was also the first reply), I did mention the possibility of a block but I never comment on AndyTheGrump also being blocked. My comment was instead intended as a "what's the purpose of complaining about another editor's behaviour when your own behaviour has been just as bad or even worse". I correctly guessed that the thread was ill-advised since while AndyTheGrump's behaviour was a problem, so too was the OP's. (I should also mention that when I commented, I didn't make the connection between trolltard and retard so AndyTheGrump's behaviour didn't seem quite as bad as it was.)

  Several people have suggested a block of TudorTulok or a topic ban but AFAICT this isn't generally for civility reasons or at best that's a minor reason for why they feel it's appropriate. Instead it's because their silly soapboxing which they even put into article space and then kept repeating here. Blocking an editor for reasons unrelated to civility when they themselves drawn attention to this behaviour by opening an ill-advised thread dealing with some genuine incivility from them and another party is not judging editors by different civility standards since we aren't blocking them for civility reason.

  There's also some recognition of the fact AndyTheGrump has acknowledged wrongdoing which hopefully means they are less likely to repeat said behaviour whereas TudorTulok hasn't really. (Their initial response could sort of be taken as an acknowledgement that their Trump comment was incivil, but IMO their later responses suggest they still really don't get it. More significantly, there doesn't seem to be any acknowledgement of the wider problems with their behave besides civility.)

  BTW, personally I'm opposed to a block or topic ban at this time. I think TudorTulok has got a clear message by now that their behaviour is unacceptable, mostly for reasons unrelated to civility. If they keep at it, we can consider a block or topic ban.

  Nil Einne (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I concur with above editors who recommend a close with a warning to the Original Poster. AndyTheGrump has already apologized. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
• On the content issue I note that the original poster says "such concepts are erroneous and are a social construct". That is a contradiction. A social construct exists, so is not erroneous. Nobody is saying that anyone is literally black or white. On the behavioral issue I note that AndyTheGrump was provoked, and that he has apologised. As with many threads here this should have been closed many posts ago to avoid the possibility of escalation. And, by the way, I suffer from a mental condition and know several people with learning difficulties, but do not believe that AndyTheGrump used any word in such a grossly offensive way that the apology should be ignored. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
• I want to apologise for everything, and how I spoke to Andy. Editing talk pages as if they are Quora pages it's not correct. Quora and Wikipedia are not the same places. I am not a troll and have been on Wikipedia for years, without much contribution in the last years. I am sorry for editing all the talk pages and imposing original research, not being aware that editing talk pages could be trolling or need references. I wasn't aware that incorrect scientific terms are acceptable by both the social and scientific worlds. I understand now that every word is socially acceptable. I thought that if it's scientifically not right, it's not real, creating confusion. I speak four languages and understand the etymology of most words. It is painful to see daily incorrect metaphors and idioms in the speech and thought that Wikipedia would be a place to have only scientifically correct terms. Or at least make people aware that they are idioms and only socially acceptable, but not scientifically accurate. TudorTulok (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I find this explanation stretching all credibility. That said, I think we can close this section as a warning to TudorTulok not to use Wikipedia for advocacy, and move on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Spam on Ashraf Ali Thanwi

I see @TheAafi: is using his/ her self written articles/ books as reference on various wikipedia articles, especially on Ashraf Ali Thanwi, see this and this . It is clear violation of Wikipedia:Spam. Administrator are requested to take necessary action in this regard. Thank you 37.111.219.12 (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I was watching this IP from last few moments and didn't go here and there reverting their edits when they clearly mentioned wrong guideline, WP:ELNO when they removed the reference. I believe the usage of the reference is permitted per WP:SELFCITE and this bad-faith report should be dismissed. I'd try to look for some available sources to improve the article, thus lessening the usage of this particular source, although it isn't used all over. The time I used it, it was in replacement of unreliable/blog sources. Regards, ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 12:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The site haqislam.org is a blog. Why are you adding it in articles? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@TheAafi: You are not allowed to promote yourself on wikipedia. It is clearly against Wikipedia's policies. Go somewhere else to promote yourself, per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. 37.111.219.12 (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, Looks like you missed something. The haqislam blog was removed and I added a published source from TheChenabTimes.com (a news portal). I don't think this is self promotion? The IP-user is clearly acting in bad-faith. The source I used is inline with WP:SELFCITE imho. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 12:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, good to remove the blog. Without me going and digging through your diffs, how many times have you cited yourself in the last 30 days? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, Nowhere! ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 13:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, you are confusing me, or maybe I'm confusing you. You said you posted a cite that was inline with WP:SELFCITE, so I'm asking, how many times in the last 30 days have you done so. I ask this as I'm going through your two accounts. It isn't a matter or trust, it's a matter of verification for myself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, I edited the Ashraf Ali Thanwi article over a month ago, and replaced a blog with an article that I've myself written and is published on a news portal. Is the confusion over? I've nowhere else cited myself not just in the last 30 days but in last two years. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 13:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, that is all I was asking. When someone makes a report, I'm going to look at the claims and see if they are accurate. You coming here and simply saying "it is false" isn't enough. Everyone says that. So there isn't a need to be defensive. What we need are facts. Saying you added one cite in the last year or two under SELFCITE, and me verifying (as best I can), this is establishing facts. Obviously using your own cite every now and then where it applies is ok, I was trying to see if there was a pattern that was excessive, and I don't know until I look and ask (and by virtue of the report, I'm obligated to look and ask). So in the end, I don't see a problem with the editing and the IP is overreacting to something that is generally allowed, in moderation, if it is in line with WP:SELFCITE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, Thanks for that. In such a case, shouldn't their overreacting edits on the Ashraf Ali Thanwi article be reverted? I also see that you left the IP a note on talk page, thanks for that. Looks like you missed adding a heading and used more than four tilde in that note. Regards, ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 13:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to engage in any sort of war with the IP and would leave all the good work related to this to you. I'm only here to improve and develop the encyclopedia and ofcourse to learn new things. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 13:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown:, This was not the first instance when the editor used his/her self written article but, he/ she had previously spammed Mufti Faizul Waheed with his/ her articles. Please check this. Not only this he/ she had inserted article written by him/ her from the blog link named Baseerat online, please check this. I suspect more self promotion by the same user in past which need to be dig out. Thank you. 37.111.219.12 (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

One is a geniune citation over eight months ago, and the other is an EL (not citation). I might have forgotten to state this, but does that make sense? You're free to remove the EL, and leave the citation as is. Nizamuddin Asir Adrawi is the earliest article where I remember using a source in line with WP:SELFCITE. I don't think I've done some excess. Nonetheless, I'd have a relook on all my contributions and be back with facts. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 13:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown; As a matter of fact, I'm leaving this as a proof that there's no excess. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 13:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown This edit is clearly a Spam or self promotion and @TheAafi:, Baseerat online is a blog, along with the article, which you have cited, was written by you, it clearly indicates self promotion. 37.111.219.12 (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you normally edit as a registered account? This entire report is very, very strange. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Catfish Jim and the soapdish, Just see their edits on Nizamuddin Asir Adrawi and Mufti Faizul Waheed; and you'll see they're on a long game. Possibly! That too, when this ANI thread is open. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 14:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Stop, User:TheAafi , to deviate the spam on different side to save yourself, anyways, I have tried my best to stop spam on Wikipedia, I am leaving this case for administrators to deal with it. Thank you. 37.111.219.12 (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

This is not the way a run of the mill IP editor behaves. This looks entirely like a vexatious report. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Leave if you want, but I had already left a note on your talk page. Yanking sources without better justification can get you blocked. As far as SELFCITE, we are always leery of it's use (I've used it myself, many years ago), so I would just note you have to be careful reverting your own work back as cites. Some talk page discussion is always good. So is a disclaimer on your user page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• And CFJ, I agree, and the IP is deleting references and bordering on their own block. But since I didn't see a disclaimer on Aafi's page, I still make the notes. Even I have a disclaimer for my work. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • One last note: it is one thing to link your own work as a reference, but doing so as an external link is just not a good idea in almost all circumstances. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown, I'd make a disclaimer note, but how to? Could you please give me an example? Thanks. I'm always trying my best to follow the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 14:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  and I definitely agree with the usage of the external link and I really feel bad for it. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 14:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  See my user page under Accountability. I just state I own a company (Solacure) and link to it, and state I won't edit in a way that financially benefits me. This provides the reader the ability to compare my edits to my company to see if there really is a conflict of interesting in my edits. I would suggest also adding a note "I work for this source; adding it under WP:SELFCITE" to the summary, so that not only are you complying, but you are inviting others to review, and keeping it all in the wide open. Full disclosure is less likely to come back on you. If it does, you can say "I disclose on my user page, I disclose in my edit summary" so there isn't a way to really question your honesty. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown, Thanks for that. I've a COI page for this stuff. I added the three articles where I have added citations under SELFCITE during last three years. I'd surely add the note, if ever I added a self-cite to any article at the time of need. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 14:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe I didn't see it, but I would make sure my user page had a conspicuous link to that COI page, or just transclude the page onto the user page. Same reason I put mine under "Accountability", which is pretty conspicuous. Really, these steps are more for you than for others. It also lets you search easily. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  At the top of my userpage, I've stated, " If you ever assume that I've a conflict of interest, please see my COI declarations...", in line with the COI disclosure guidelines. I hope someday I'll get time to design my userpage like yours! Thanks for all the notes. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 15:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown; I just fixed the stuff at Mufti Faizul Waheed article, and while searching for more sources, I got a 2019 academic thesis on one of his books, and it was quite helpful. However, the IP's removal of sources from Nizamuddin Asir Adrawi is troublesome, where they call a news-portal (which has editors) as a blog and spam. The IP also tagged the article for notability. I'd just leave this to uninvolved editors to have a look at the IP's behavior; who comes all of a sudden with only one motive, that's to open an ANI thread against me, and accuse me of self-promotion, which I've never done. Regards, ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 16:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown: and @Catfish Jim and the soapdish:; The IP doesn't stop from removing sources. They've once again removed a source from Mufti Faizul Waheed. If I'm right, this would be someone from the Authordom sockfarm. I looked around and found some interested stuff with some similar IPS. I had a look at an AfD on which a similar-IP "37.111.218.17" commented strong-delete, (the nominator of that AfD Sabeelul hidaya was blocked as a sockpuppet by Bbb23 recently). A yet another identical IP, 37.111.219.54 was involved at Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi, and another identical IP, 37.111.217.63, seeks copyediting-help from Miniapolis at Talk:Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi. The IP had included a statement that sounds anti-Deobandi in nature in the Fazl-e-Haq article, and ant-Deobandism is the history of Authordom sockfarm, and I've been attacked only perhaps because I've come across them in past, and rescued several articles in deletion, that were tagged as such. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 19:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

No deletions have happened since this thread started. Lets see what happens before we start swinging the ban hammer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the IP is still about as 37.111.218.70 (talk · contribs) and generally filibustering. All I'm going to say is that whether 'x' is a good source depends entirely on what it is citing, and in what context. After all, we have a consensus to cite The Sun in at least one BLP, despite my general view that you should avoid it like the plague. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Legal threat

User:Gounder parambarai Threatened legal action in this otherwise non-constructive edit: diff tw^sabin 17:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Good job. You left them a proper warning. Most likely they don't understand how this site works and we should see whether they follow the warning before doing anything more. Jehochman ^Talk 17:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• I've left a note on their talk page that adds to your well placed template. I'm not inclined to block because it was vague enough to warrant a warning, but not so much to retract. If they double down and repeat something similar, come back and myself or one of my esteemed colleagues will be happy to swing the ban hammer on them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• SPI filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gounder parambarai. Second account showed up after block: Tn Urali Gounder.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Original research in Dervish-related content

User @Heesxiisolehh: has repeatedly added original research for most, if not all of their time on Wikipedia. Despite letting him know multiple times as well as informing him of removals of content, in line with my special editing restrictions (see [32], [33], [34], [35], ). A peaceful resolution has not been reached as Heesxiisolehh refuses to cooperate (even reporting me for "breaching 3RR" despite not being the case [36], while also leaving me a "notice" on my talk page (link) a mere minute before leaving me a notice of that report (link)).

Heesxiisolehh has repeatedly used this Caroselli source to label all Dervish forts "Dhulbahante garesas" or "Dhulbahante forts" ([37], [38], [39]), which is not supported by the cited source or by any other source and is clearly original research. The consensus reached by the Italian editors he keeps using as justification (link) is also irrelevant since they discussed the translation of the source and the word garesa only, and the consensus does not back up Heesxiisolehh's claims.

Many articles Heesxiisolehh has either created or significantly contributed to have been found to be violating WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:VERIFY, WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and having no WP:SIGCOV, among others (see Diiriye Guure (probably the most ambitious given all the articles that used to link to it [40]), Shire Umbaal,Nur Hedik,Adam Maleh, Maxamuud Xoosh Cigaal as well as Kaaha Tafadhiig. He has been approached and been advised to read up on OR and SYNTH by me as well as by another user (link) however the user has clearly demonstrated that they will not stop.

In addition, after the deletion of the Diiriye Guure article he went on to remake most of the deleted article in the Las Anod article ([41], [42]) and link it to articles where links to Diiriye Guure were removed ([43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52] including in Portal:Somalia link for that), which is another clear indication that Heesxiisolehh will not stop adding OR and SYNTH.

Heesxiisolehh has also in addition to that added unsourced original research to the main article, Dervish movement, misusing many sources which have been mentioned before. There are too many edits to mention but this is the main one, where despite me letting him know almost everything is original research, he goes ahead and re-adds the content, which violates WP:NOCONSENSUS. He also then proceeds to add even more new original research (What is a chieftainship-sultanate-emirate? That's a new word.). Heesxiisolehh has in addition added original research to the Somalia article ([53]), the Outline of Somalia article ([54]), the Geography of Somalia article ([55]), Portal:Somalia (link for that) and Dul Madoba ([56] while also using this as justification despite the fact that, ignoring the obvious synth and original research, the content he added isn't relevant). In Dul Madoba's case, he even moved the page ([57]), going against a long standing name per majority of reliable sources ([58]). Most of Heesxiisolehh's edits are also inconcise and very confusing (what is the intra-46th meridian east territories and why does it link to a burial site? [59]).

Heesxiisolehh has also created multiple categories based on the original research the editor has added, including Category:Border crossings of the Darawiish (the Dervishes were never a full state, which either way doesn't matter since historic entities shouldn't be having "border crossings" categories). Heesxiisolehh has added his original research to non-Somali articles, including Timeline of geopolitical changes (1900−present), List of states with limited recognition, Scramble for Africa, List of national border changes from 1815 to 1914, and Hewett Treaty.

To conclude, I have tried my best to assume good faith per WP:AGF even in the face of clear original research, and now I honestly doubt Heesxiisolehh is fit to edit Wikipedia as he is essentially on a mission to rewrite Dervish history to his own liking. Heesxiisolehh has breached more than half a dozen Wikipedia guidelines and has demonstrated multiple times that he is uncooperative. This reminds me of the user Shit233333334, an edit who also seems to have added a lot of original research to Horn of Africa-related articles and misused sources, in addition to sockpuppeteering ([60]). I should have submitted this report much earlier but I kept assuming good faith. Overall, I don't think Heesxiisolehh is here to build an encyclopedia. Gebagebo (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Since the filing of this report Heesxiisolehh has once again readded their original research to the Dul Madoba article [61] despite it not being supported by both cited sources, another indication that the editor intends to continue adding original research and synth. Gebagebo (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I've looked at both sources in the above diff and agree that it was entirely original research/analysis. The first source is available here, by clicking "View/Open" at the bottom". That author has included many primary sources, mostly a series of angry letters, and it's one of these primary sources that Heesxiisolehh is analyzing. So it's not the author's claim that there was a Dervish-Dhulbahante government, but an ambiguous claim in a letter. The second source is available here, by zooming in about two-thirds down the third column. Not only is this an unattributed war dispatch from 1903 in the Cardiff Evening Express, a terrible source for claims like these, but the source doesn't even support what Heesxiisolehh is using it for. Woodroar (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Woodroar: As outlined above Heesxiisolehh has a history of adding original research and analysis, with almost a dozen of Heesxiisolehh's articles being deleted due to breaking WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and more. Heesxiisolehh has also been advised by @TimothyBlue: see here and @Kzl55: see here to refrain from such as well. Gebagebo (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

If you look at page 76 of Raphael Njoku (link provided) published by ABC-Clio, you see the "government" phrase included, suggesting a) tertiary usage of letter, and b) that academics consider the letter (particularly the "government" passage) notable. As for the 1903 source, that is further buttressed by this source (link & passage provided), published by H.M. Stationary Office. Further strengthening the 1903 source is a 1976 issue by scholar with 105 peer reviews on Google scholar (link provided) Heesxiisolehh (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, we don't analyze primary sources. That's original research. If reliable, secondary sources say—in their own voice—that there was a "Dervish-Dhulbahante government", then we can cite that. As for the additional Deria Gure sources, they still don't support the claim that Guure was "head of Dhulbahante clan". The original (poor quality) source only said that he was "corresponding to [a] commanding Royal Engineer". The new sources only say that he should surrender. They're also primary sources. Look, WP:NOR makes it clear that we need to leave any primary source analysis to secondary sources, the actual experts. And WP:V says that claims need to be directly and unambiguously supported by reliable, secondary sources. Woodroar (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Woodroar: What about the quote "These men are the heads of their respective tribes", in the 1903 Evening Express source. Doesn't that quote unambiguously suggest Gure is the "head of Dhulbahante clan"? Heesxiisolehh (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The claim you added was Diiriye Guure being head of Dhulbahante clan. That source says he is one of "four principal leaders" and clarifies later that he was somewhat like a Royal Engineer. So no, it doesn't support the claim you added to the article. Besides, as I mentioned early, it's an awful source, as British sources about British colonies/"protectorates" often were. (As an example, see WP:RAJ.) There's also no author by-line, it credits another source that we don't have, and the page is filled with all kinds of gossipy "news", like something you'd see at the Daily Mail. For claims like this, we need reputable scholarly sources—preferably modern ones—that can analyze primary documents scientifically. Woodroar (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

In the 25 year existence of the Nugaal revolution, 1903 was arguably the closest to a free press in the Nugaal, per (Press freedom in Nugaal link), nonetheless I guess I could take to heart eschewing to my innate fret of treading between meticulous-to-detail versus WP:Paraphrasing. Heesxiisolehh (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Heesxiisolehh: None of the sources suggest the original research you have been adding. The first source mentions no "Dervish-Dhulbahante government" nor a king being superior to the Mullah. Pure original research.

The second source only lists a number of highranking Dervish members (including Sultan Nur, Haji Sudi and the Mullah himself) who have no guarantees should they surrender. The Jaamac source similarly is nothing but a Somali translation. The other highranking Dervish members are in that Jaamac source as well in line with the British colonial source ([62] see here). Heesxiisolehh seems to have intentionally left out that part of the passage.

The entire passage including a translation reads:

"Iyadoo aan loo malaynayn marnaba in Wadaadku isdhiibo, hadana isaga iyo kuwa raacsan oo kala ah: Axmed Warsame oo loo yaqaan (Xaaji Suudi): Diiriye Carraale iyo Diiriye Guure waxa qur ah oo laga oggolaan karaa isdhiibid aan shuruud lahayn; wax sugan oo ballanqaad ah oo noloshooda dambe laga siin karaa ma jirto"

Translated it means:

"Since it is very unlikely that the Mullah will ever surrender, him and his followers who are: Ahmed Warsame known as Haji Sudi, Deria Arale and Deria Gure can solely be permitted to capitulate and give themselves up, without any conditions. We do not attach any agreements or safeguards hereafter."

Per Official History of the Operations in Somaliland. 1901–1904, Vol. I p. 54:

"In the unlikely event of the: Mullah offering to surrender, in his case and that of the Following: Haji Sudi, Deria Arale, Deria Gure Only an unconditional surrender should be accepted no guarantee of any kind to future treatment been given. Sultan Nur the , sultan of the Habr Yunis, may be guaranteed his life"

This is a clear attempt by Heesxiisolehh to misuse sources to make it seem like his original research is supported by reliable sources. Gebagebo (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

More addition of original research (some since the filing of the report), this time in the Dervish movement (Somali) article ([63], [64], [65]). Heesxiisolehh is showcasing again and again that he does not intend to stop. Gebagebo (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring with multiple IPs

2A02:85F:F8FA:7600:B8F1:9DCF:2A5F:9A66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), new editor, is in an edit war also using IPs 2a02:85f:f83d:200:612a:2e5c:9076:8d13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 2A02:85F:F83D:200:3DE3:5C15:5EC1:5C3A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) He/she is fixated on altering the titles of former Greek Royalty at List of wedding guests of Prince William and Catherine Middleton and Funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales. The legenthy argumentative edit summaries suggest an agenda regarding Greek republic versus the former monarchy rather than an intent to build an encyclopedia. Four reverts today:

• Diff1
• Diff2
• Diff3
• Diff4.

Editor "9A66" has been warned to take the dispute to the talk page. Blue Riband► 03:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Silly idea, but since they are fixated on appearance changes like

[[King Constantine II of Greece]] -> [[King Constantine II of Greece|King Constantine II]],

require them to go through process to rename the article as they feel necessary. Hey, if they can actually _convince_ people rather than simply bludgeoning text... Until then they must stop twisting text to torture titles. Shenme (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I have created a Report on these three ip's (2A02:85F:F800:0:0:0:0:0/40 Range ) at WP:ANEW since these three ip's did not learn thier lesson about Edit Warring. Chip3004 (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unreferenced content by Kzeeez100s2

Kzeeez100s2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) persists in adding unreferenced content despite a level 4 warning. See for example this, this and this. FDW777 (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Report this user to WP:AIV, not here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) Blocked 31 hours by Spencer (talk · contribs). Any more comments about this user before I NAC this thread? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: they have been chaotically warring here as well. They do not listen. It looks like a Greek nationalist with pro-Serb sentiment. See here. Cheers OyMosby (talk) 12:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@OyMosby: That's what I thought, too, with edits like [66] and [67], though I didn't recognize the Serbian nationalism like in their diffs at Ustaše, and particularly [68]. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

IP User:72.229.1.211 undoing redirects

User:72.229.1.211 has been undoing numerous redirects eg: [69], [70], [71] and [72]. Request immediate indef block. Mztourist (talk) 10:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Bashir Iran: insisting on OR & incompetence

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

---

Bashir Iran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked on 5 May 2021 for trying to edit war in this piece of original research (EW diffs [73] [74] [75] [76] [77]). They were doing the same here, considering the Shahnameh (written c. 1000 CE) to be an epic based on the facts of the last 3000 years, and making inferences from that. They were warned for this on 12 May, but had already stopped editing.

On 23 January 2022 Bashir Iran started editing again, adding undue info pushing the theory that Dhu al-Qarnayn in the Quran does not refer, as most scholars think, to Alexander the Great, but to the ancient Persian king Cyrus the Great ([78] [79]). In particular, there is an unpublished preprint advancing this theory which Bashir Iran has repeatedly tried to insert [80] [81] [82], continuing to do so [83] despite having being warned that preprints are not RS [84]. After another warning [85] they stopped adding the preprint itself but continued adding the preprint's theory (based on the appearance of a Persian king named 'Artaxor' on late medieval world maps) [86] [87] [88], sometimes adding text suggesting identification of 'Artaxor' with Dhu al-Qarnayn [89]. We come full circle when this identification is justified by reference to ... the Shahnameh [90].

After it is explained to Bashir Iran that Andrew Gow, a RS of which they are in fact well aware [91], contradicts this identification (Gow clarifies that 'Artaxor' is Artaxerxes I, the references to him being based on late medieval Christian speculations having nothing to do with either Cyrus the Great or Dhu al-Qarnayn [92], cf. [93]), they reply that we should not remove the evidence because a symmetry can clearly show the background of an idea and because deleting this evidence (and removing its citations from Wikipedia) will only help make the wiki more biased [94] (the 'evidence' being unrelated facts and unsourced inferences supporting Bashir Iran's/the preprint's theory).

This shows a fundamental failure to understand the no original research policy, despite multiple recent warnings about this [95] [96]. I am concerned that an editor who thinks that a work like the Shahnameh represents 3000-year old facts, and who –not understanding that medieval Latinized names are frequently corrupted– adds an explicit denial of 'Artaxor' referring to 'Artaxerxes' to an article [97], directly contradicting the RS cited just in order to push an unpublished theory, should continue to edit here. I'm reporting mainly because of the huge amount of time this user is taking up (cf. this concerning message at my talk). Given their combined insistence and lack of understanding, I do not think they will become a net-positive to the project anytime soon. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I see he's been blocked for two weeks. Let's see if that has an effect, although I'm pretty dubious about it although they may disappear for a while again. If the same editing pattern continues if he returns, I think an indefinite block will be appropriate. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Moderna Page

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

---

Hello

I struggle with an abusive user called Zefr, who takes issue with any and all information that sheds a bad light on Moderna. The disputed information is located under criticism.

The argument was supposed to be settled on the Moderna talk page, but Zefr has taken to removing my replies, threatening me on my talk page, and calling any and all negative information "an opinion". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surge Of Reason (talk • contribs) 15:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Surge of Reason I suggest that you withdraw this complaint and use dispute resolution to resolve this matter. It could be said that you are here to embarrass Moderna by suggesting it is controversial for them to engage in tax avoidance and giving it undue weight. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

AFAICT the only reply of yours which was removed is [98]. That reply seems clearly inappropriate for an article talk page as it does not help resolve the dispute. You seem to be Wikipedia:Casting aspersions about the motivations of another editor with no evidence. And per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, you cannot demand an editor fix other articles if they want fix one article. And your earlier reply does seem to be mostly soapboxing [99], the evils of tax avoidance and how many other companies are involved in it do not seem to be particularly germane to the article on Moderna. If you want to resolve the dispute you need to put aside whatever personal disagreements you have with other editors and general issues surrounding tax avoidance and instead focus on the specifics about the allegations concerning Moderna, such as the available sources that relate to Moderna and what they say about Moderna, how it should be covered if at all etc; and as 331dot said, seek help with some sort of dispute resolution as needed. Nil Einne (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Many companies are incorporated in Delaware to take advantage of a favorable tax environment. That’s not “tax avoidance”, and your attempts to portray it that way are clearly undue. Not publishing to protect intellectual property is similarly being abused by you as inappropriate shading of normal business practice to push a negative POV. 03:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Acroterion (talk)

Um, yes it certainly is tax avoidance (which is perfectly legal and distinct from tax evasion). (I'm not taking a position on the instant dispute, just correcting the record.) EEng 05:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Pretty much anything anyone does to reduce taxes could be labeled “tax avoidance.” It is usually reserved for novel or extreme efforts, not for simply being a Delaware corporation. That kind of coloration appears to be heavily influencing SOR's edits. Acroterion (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I propose that the information presented conveys important information about what kind of company Moderna is. I believe that to be the ultimate point of a page on a company. Statements like: Moderna avoids taxes by registering patents in Delaware or by routing money through a Swiss subsidiary are neutral facts. Information based on testimonies from multiple employees is in my opinion not giving undue weight, nor do their testimonies necessarily become outdated. At the very least they continue to meaningfully describe the period before 2016. The testimonies of veterans of the industry that describe Moderna's secretive nature as dangerous should not be ignored either. Moreover, it is commonplace for Wikipedia articles on major corporations to include important criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surge Of Reason (talk • contribs) 12:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Surge of Reason There is no user behavior that warrants action here- except perhaps yours if you continue to seem as if you are here merely to post negative information about Moderna or any company with undue weight. It is not illegal or even just wrong in a society with free movement like the US for any company(or you personally) to register patents in Delaware or any tax haven. You must collaborate with other editors on the article talk page. This is only a content dispute, which are not handled here. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Over half of all companies listed on the NYSE are incorporated in Delaware. If you think of an American company off of the top of your head right now, there's a good chance it's incorporated in Delaware. I struggle to think of any scenario in which it would be WP:DUE to mention this fact on a company's article. Mlb96 (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

ANI is not a first stop in dispute resolution except in cases of user misconduct, which has not been credibly found in this case. The proper dispute resolution processes such as listed on WP:DR should have been followed instead. Also, to echo opinions on Talk:Moderna, Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs, and regardless of your opinions on the thoughts of tax avoidance (not evasion), Wikipedia is not the place for such opinion, unless such has also been echoed in reputable sources. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 23:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

This bit of WP:SYNTH[100] in which the editor characterized several unrelated accidents (for the majority of them, the company was not found at fault) as "a bizarre string", suggests the editor is here to Right Great Wrongs rather than to build a neutral encyclopedia. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 05:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Wrong venue and tax avoidance isn't tax evasion. Pious Brother (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm still quite convinced that this is discrimination in favor of Moderna. There's nothing I added that wouldn't fit perfectly on a big tech criticism page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surge Of Reason (talk • contribs) 10:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Balkanite

Balkanite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Sorry if this seems trivial. On February 12, 2022, Balkanite added three categories to their talk page:

• Add your stupid comments here:
• Tell me what article was edited incorrectly here:
• All comments that aren't in English should go here:

I had never interacted with this editor, and tagged their page with a warning about unsourced content, as nearly every one of their edits is unsourced.

Balkanite moved my warning to the "Add your stupid comments here" category, and left a response including "Now, go away and find someone else to bother."

I left a polite message asking them to remove my comment from this offensive heading, and to remove their offensive categories, but no luck.

My concern is that this uncivil behavior will continue with others. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you insinuating that I was being antagonistic?

I clearly put a comment there stating that if it's not important, then there is no need to leave a message.

You left something on my talk page that was completely unimportant. Now, you're alleging that all of my other edits are unsourced, when CLEARLY they are (hence why I told you to check the article that corresponds to the edit I made).

Also, for context: your comment was re-added to the "Add your stupid comments here" category, because it was deemed unnecessary and a waste of time, yet you still wish to continue to accuse me of being antagonistic.

"I had never interacted with this editor, and tagged their page with a warning about unsourced content, as nearly every one of their edits is unsourced."

And yet you chose to interact on the basis of accusing me of not adding sources, which clearly were in another article related to the one I made an edit in. You simply did not wish to look at the sources cited in that article.

Clearly, as stated in WP:NPOV,

Impartial Tone

"Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise, articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone."

Due to this, you have chosen to engage in a dispute with me over an article that I deliberately left uncited due to the sources coming from the previous article that's clearly related to that article.

If you wish to keep going, go on ahead. You're simply attempting to make yourself feel right, which again, goes against WP:NPOV. Balkanite (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Balkanite:, I can't believe that I actually have to type this out but WP:NPOV is about article and article talk page content. It does not apply to user talk pages. The policies that you're looking for there are WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Designating comments left through community-approved warning templates in a "stupid comments" section probably violates both. Trying to justify it with quoting an irrelevant content policy that self-evidently doesn't apply raises WP:CIR concerns. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking into the substance of Magnolia677's warning, you are indeed making large unsourced edits, such as this one and this one and this one, all of which are completely unsourced and to an article that is covered by discretionary sanctions. Why you would violate one of the Core Content Policies in an article while invoking another in a user page dispute, I can't begin to guess. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Warned. What Eggishorn said. El_C 01:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive Hong Kong editor

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

---

76.30.143.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) will not leave "Hong Kong" alone as common name and repeatedly changes it to Hong Kong SAR, People's Republic of China. Also adds unsourced material, doesn't follow MOS on capitalization, and keeps making the same changes after being reverted. Many TP warnings and one 72-hour block already. Often, changes break wikilinks but they don't seem to notice the redlinks they are causing. MB 04:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Miami IPs falsely listing Tha Bizness

• 2607:FB91:1989:2853:11C2:9877:7F06:2BE6 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2601:586:8400:E160:D3D:D39:C3C:1593 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2601:586:8400:E160:53A:19EB:F89D:CC0C (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2601:586:8400:E160:A415:F862:16A6:826E (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Someone using IPs from Greater Miami, Florida, has been falsely adding Tha Bizness to multiple music articles, falsely asserting that the Seattle-based production team has been credited for working on the song or album.[101][102][103][104][105]

The IPs are in two IP ranges. Binksternet (talk) 04:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

CreecregofLife- Constant edit warring, edits against MOS, usage of unreliable sourcing, etc.

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

As noted within the title of the discussion itself, it seems like there are some major/continuing problems with the edits of the user in question.

Edit warring:

As shown from multiple warnings over the past few months on the user's talk page (User talk:CreecregofLife#Edit warring, User talk:CreecregofLife#Betty White image, User talk:CreecregofLife#February 2022), Creecreg has been shown to constantly edit war with other users/on multiple articles, despite others' input. One of the current (possibly former?) edit wars is also occurring at Pokémon Legends: Arceus (see discussion here), which recently had to be protected due to this user edit warring ([106]).

Was also previously warned of edit warring in a previous case here, though that appears to have not been the last edit warring from them...

Edits against MOS:

As shown within the Pokémon Legends: Arceus edit war linked above, the user's edit war here is actually going against MOS:CAPS and MOS:SENTENCECAPS.

Usage of unreliable sourcing:

In another of the edit wars linked above, the user is edit warring over unreliable sourcing on The Fungies!, despite what they've been told within the talk page discussion about the issue. This is also not the first time the user has attempt to use unreliable sourcing/unverified social media accounts for sourcing, as shown in this warning.

---

Despite multiple explanations regarding why certain edits are incorrect, the user tends to disregard them and edit war over them instead, even attempting to accuse me of edit warring due to my own, "biases and arbitrary skepticism". There may be more ongoing issues apart from what I've listed here, but most of the above listed is making me believe this may be a WP:DONTGETIT case, which at this point, is becoming quite disruptive.

Hopefully this can be resolved soon, thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

This user is abusing their power to intimidate and frame themselves in the right while repeatedly reverting edits to how they see fit, framing lesser-experienced users as edit warrers while engaging in the exact same behavior. They have been disruptive about the issue for days now and clearly will resort to anything to get their way. They never assumed good faith nor did they ever try to be civil. As you can see, none of the above examples are actual edit warring. The PLA edits are the fulfillment of an edit request, which is not a violation. The disruptive editing policy clearly states that disruptive editors can be reverted, and every time that Magitroopa reverted an edit on The Fungies, it was disrupting what had already settled. They are now choosing to retry me for previous incidents I was acquitted on. Magitroopa is not above the policies they try to enforce on others. Implying that I did anything wrong by leaving an edit warring notice on their talkpage is a perfect demonstration of such overstepping behaviors.--CreecregofLife (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Yet that's the exact issue. You claim to be a 'lesser-experienced' user, yet when you are explained certain policies/issues with your edits, you refuse to listen and take to edit warring instead, as shown in the examples above. Also no clue where this claim of being uncivil is coming from- if I was uncivil somewhere and I missed it, I do apologize, but I think you're confusing 'civility' and 'trying to explain to you' together. You're also attempting to say that your edits on Pokémon Legends: Arceus are not against MOS just because it's answering an edit request, so you clearly still don't understand what you did wrong there. Magitroopa (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

(multiple EC) @CreecregofLife: while you're right that at least in the case of The Fungies! the OP could be reasonably be said to edit warring as well, this does not excuse your edit warring. Importantly, I checked and confirmed you seemed to be edit warring at Pokémon Legends: Arceus and Spider Man: No Way Home which did not involve Magitroopa, and all of these were in less than 2 months. (Betty White seems a bit complicated since there was a lot of editing at the time, but I did see 2-3 reverts from you and over a single issue which it seems was already being discussed on the talk page.) In the Spiderman case, both you and the other edit warrior were warned [107] so besides the notices on your talk page, you've been told in clear terms you need to cut it out. So yes you really do need to cool it on the reverts.

Further, while we don't rule on content disputes here, in the Fungies case, it seems clear WP:consensus is against you [108]. Yet despite that you continued to reinstate your edit [109]. As I've now said on the talk page, if you're not willing to accept our requirement to cite WP:reliable sources for information you want to keep when there is dispute, then Wikipedia is not the place for you. And yes an unverified Twitter account is not a reliable source.

Also AFAICT Magitroopa has no power. Both of you are extended confirmed editors and that's it. It's impossible for an editor to "abuse" some power they do not have.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As someone who's had issues with this editor, I concur with Magitroopa's concerns. I also have my own additional concerns that this user is a sock, but even putting that aside, this user has clear edit warring and disruptive editing issues and is honestly bordering on WP:NOTHERE. It's clear they don't understand, or they are unwilling to. Amaury • 07:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I don’t recall having issue with you Amaury. I am sorry. I am not a disruptive editor. I am very much here to be constructive and my edit history shows that. I promise to be better, but I still don’t like the attitude Magitroopa came in here with. I will say, the Betty White image thing was because consensus hadn’t been properly reached. Retaining the image wasn’t even made an option when no such elimination had formally been made. The person had jumped the gun. I was trying to keep it as it was until the discussion had actually concluded. --CreecregofLife (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Decided to look a bit into Amaury's thinking of this user being a sock, and found it interesting that their first edit was "More reference updates". Upon checking the history of that article, Star Lotulelei, it appears that this was their first 'reference updates' edit. No previous blocks on the IP (141.157.254.24), though the filter log and talk page are interesting, with my own previous history with them. Same sort of not understanding from the IP, including a claim of myself reverting based on personal issue rather than policy issue. And here we are, with the same claims continuing... Magitroopa (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

That's not being a sock though, just an anonymous editor creating an account, and there's no overlap. The IP's last edit is on November 29, 2021, and CreecregofLife's first edit is on November 30. @Amaury: were you referring to this? Because sockpuppetry accusations are serious and shouldn't be made lightly or without presenting evidence. —El Millo (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

There are about half a dozen edits that were made by me after the account was created, but those were basically made in ignorance of being logged out (such as having accidentally logged out on one device logging out all devices that were logged into that account), or having not logged in to such an avenue in the first place (such as the mobile app). That it’s still been over two months since that last happened shows they weren’t done out of malice or misuse.--CreecregofLife (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, I was referring to an issue on another article that led to them being reported here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orchomen/Archive#06 December_2021. While nothing ended up happening there, it doesn't mean they're not a sock, just that they're not a sock of that user or that the evidence presented wasn't compelling enough. However, note that I'm just saying I have concerns that they may be a sock, I'm not outright making accusations. Amaury • 08:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

"Just because you don't like a source doesn't make it a poor source" Yep... and here we are, still not understand what an 'unreliable source' is. Magitroopa (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the Pokémon Legends: Arceus and The Fungies! cases, both the talk pages and the edit summaries, Creecreg is constantly being combative (as I already described them here at ANEW not too long ago) and acts arrogant towards other editors despite clearly not understanding or knowing of some basic policies, while accusing other editors of having biases such as considering an unverified tweet to be an unreliable source, when that's explicitly stated not to be a reliable source in WP:V, more precisely at WP:TWEET. —El Millo (talk) 08:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I have made it no secret that I was an IP editor for about a month or so (or was it two nonths?) before joining. I am sorry for being combative. Yes, I’ve gotten into arguments, but that doesn’t mean I’m not here to be productive. In fact I very much have been productive. I’ll concede, maybe I should be calmer, maybe I have been stubborn. But I don’t think I should be blocked for it.--CreecregofLife (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@CreecregofLife: On a lighter note, it is not our goal/hope at all for you to be blocked and leave here forever. If these issues can be resolved and not be encountered in the future, that would be absolutely great. However, when it comes to this many warnings/incidents, and they continue to happen, there does come a time where the issues need to be addressed.

I hope you understand that we are not trying to make you mad/sad/etc. with this, but hope you can learn and improve as an editor from this. In the meantime, I would highly encourage you to read & understand certain policies. Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@CreecregofLife: I personally don't think you should be blocked yet (unless there is something to the sockpuppetry claims but that's likely best dealt with at SPI) but as I said you really need to cool it with the edit warring. It doesn't matter who else is edit warring, unless it's covered by WP:NOT3RR then stop reverting so much. Even if it is covered by an exemption, most of the time the reverting should also only while waiting for a block which you've asked for.

As for the lesser-experienced editor thing, well here's my problem. If you are an lesser-experienced editor, then why are you so sure you're right? For example, when three other editors had already told you we need an RS to cover the cancellation claim and two of these had said a tweet from an unverified account is not a reliable source, why did you still insist on reverting/re-adding the claim?

You can't ignore what editors are telling you when it's backed by our policies and guidelines just becaused it's not civil enough for you or you don't like how they told you or you don't like one of the editors. And I looked at the article talk page discussion and while not perfect, the discussion seems civil and clear enough to me anyway. I did not look at what happened on your talk page or carefully at the edit summaries as ultimately they should not prevent you taking on board what you were told on the article talk page.

Frankly I feel the discussion on the article talk page sufficiently informed you of our policies and guidelines, but if you still had doubts, it was fine for you to continue to ask questions on the article talk page, or somewhere else like WP:Teahouse or WP:Help Desk. What you shouldn't have done is continue to edit war/re-instate your edit. Maybe it wasn't the best decision for Magitroopa to revert you either but it's always difficult when an editor seems to clearly be in the wrong (in this case due to a lack of reliable sources) as supported by other editors but continues to stubbornly re-instate their edit.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Single purpose account of User:GeezGod

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

---

• GeezGod (talk · contribs)

The user just jumped into Wiki today and started disruptive edits/AfD on dead(long before) Indian Police Service Officers and People Wiki pages. Their initial attempt was to go against my edits but now they are vandalizing my edits as per mention. This should be brought before WP:ANI. —  --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 10:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC) 10:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Could you please give an example of when I used disruptive editing? Why are you so easily irritated? This is a platform that is founded on the participation of the community. Everyone will express their viewpoint. GeezGod (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• GeezGod (talk · contribs) you are not into discussion but into harass and personael attack. I am not going to reply as of now. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 11:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• you are not into discussion but into harass and personael attack. ...say what? This is your response when pressed for evidence? That makes no sense; how can GeezGod simultaneously not be under discussion and the subject of this very ANI report? It's very troubling that, when asked for diffs, that you backed out of it this way. I can't see this report going anywhere, and may likely end in a WP:BOOMERANG as stated below. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 21:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Then again, it turns out GeezGod was a sock. Still doesn't quite allay all the concerns I and everyone else on this thread have, however. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 23:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Per the comment of the complaint's subject, it would be appreciated if you provided diffs of the alleged disruptive edits. As far as I can see, there's nothing in his edits that can be classed as disruptive. MiasmaEternal☎ 11:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• @NeverTry4Me: please don't file bogus reports or cast aspersions. Beware the WP:BOOMERANG. El_C 11:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment, this is the second time in a week that NeverTry4Me and their conduct are at a noticeboard. It can't always be everyone else. I'm watching a page that GeezGod has contributed to and find no issue with their edits either. Star Mississippi 17:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• also possibly relevant Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Draft:Sanjib_Baruah where NeverTry4Me refuses to plausibly address COI/UPE questions. Star Mississippi 18:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• I, for one, have given up on NeverTry4Me. At least one of the articles that editor has created is being discussed at WP:AFD and I am in general agreement that it should be kept, but it's impossible to discuss the article subject dispassionately because of their continual interventions introducing irrelevant points. GeezGod may be wrong, but that simply means that one has to reply rather than start spurious discussions here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I've tried to stay away from the numerous battleground discussions begun by the now named NeverTry4Me, but at this point it beginning to look like they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• GeezGod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked as a sockpuppet; details can be found here. I had originally just closed this section, but as NeverTry4Me's conduct beyond reporting GeezGod is under discussion, I guess I'll leave it open. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  @ToBeFree: I wouldn't be so sure that's KSM. I'm not seeing his obvious tells, for example the thing mentioned in the comment on line 2 of the filter. If I've missed something obvious, can you email me? If not maybe check with a CU. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:25, 14 February 2022‎ (UTC)

  Checkuser needed – see also deleted contributions: One of the first things the user did was importing Twinkle from vi.wikipedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  Looks like NinjaRobotPirate already ran a check and noted his conclusion here. In light of that, I'll go ahead and deactivate the {{checkuser needed}} template. Mz7 (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks Suffusion of Yellow, NinjaRobotPirate and Mz7. I find jumping into deletion discussions and importing Twinkle from vi.wikipedia while hitting a low-false-positive LTA filter, hm, "unusual" for a new account. I have also overestimated my ability to detect sockpuppetry this way, after Simpson001 was CU-confirmed. GeezGod is now unblocked. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  Twinkle from vi-wiki might be User:P.T.Đ/TwinkleMobile. It is a new script from a vi-wiki user that makes it possible to use Twinkle from mobiles. It works very well and is being considered for inclusion in the gadget. Hemantha (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• NeverTry4Me has been blocked (see the next discussion) so this can be closed. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Please look out cross-wiki abuse and LTA User:米記123 sock DE and spam 3

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

---

Special:Contributions/42.2.188.0/22,only it edit in this IP range after 9 October in last year,zh.wiki blocked,please block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 10:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry, I am not aware nor do I have any knowledge about this. I can't help you. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 11:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one year. @NeverTry4Me: what are you doing? El_C 11:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• @El C: I don't know what it was and why it was in my Talk page. It looks spam and I have reported. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 02:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• @NeverTry4Me: this is the same problem I've warned you against in your report directly above. You do not provide evidence (there, you even aggressively resist doing so). The pertinent documentation is located at WP:DIFF. So I need diffs to explain: 1. what was "in [your] talk page"? 2. what is your connection to this report? 3. where have your "reported" this account or accounts? Thanks in advance for your close attention to this matter. El_C 10:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• @El C: I am also surprised why that user left a message on my talk page. As per rules, instead of deleting my TP entry, I have simply reported here for Admin attention and investigation. Pardon me if I have spoken beyond rules. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 10:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• @NeverTry4Me: I need for your next response to have the pertinent diffs attached. If you cannot do so, please explain why. Thanks again. El_C 10:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• @El C: I just used Archive Bot in my talk page yesterday. Today some entries vanished and I am even unable to find the earlier entries on my talk page as the Archive Box is not appearing yet. Probably I shall wait for a few hours more so that I can provide the "diff" here. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 10:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• @NeverTry4Me:, again, please review the documentation at WP:DIFF. Unless revision deleted or suppressed, everything can be accessed in your talk page's revision history (link). El_C 10:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

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

User talk:Croatia TX 2201+4844

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

---

Someone needs to revoke TPA for this block evading sock. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Greatyu

• Greatyu (talk · contribs)

Likely a hijacked account (has not edited WP since 2014, then starts to post link spam). Needs admin attention as this looks like some part of a bot network. —AFreshStart (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I blocked indef, let see what happens now.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Pri2000

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

---

• Pri2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

She is trying to influence the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paras Kalnawat by messaging on voter's talk page [110]. She has also commented/voted thrice.106.214.249.231 (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG? Girth Summit just identified a similar IP making similar claims as a block-evader. And Pri2000 has not !voted multiple times at the AfD. Singularity42 (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

See this [111].106.214.249.231 (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Rapid false editing by anon editor 76.30.143.210 on U.S. Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services (Xavier Becerra and Andrea Palm)

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

---

For reasons unbeknownst to me, 76.30.143.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is editing the pages of Xavier Becerra and Andrea Palm to make it that Becerra is no longer the HHS Secretary and that Palm has assumed the office. There are absolutely zero reports of Becerra resigning or leaving the position and Palm assuming the office of the Secretary. This user also changed the page name from Andrea Joan Palm to Andrea Katrina Palm even though it is clear in the congressional record that her name is Joan, not Katrina (see here.) This user has made nearly 20 edits to these two pages alone in the past two hours as of this message going up. They have in the past been blocked from editing other pages and may potentially need to be blocked from further editing, as most of the editing going on as of late from them is disruptive and false. Please look further into this. Thanks a bunch! --Negrong502 (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked - next time it'd probably be better to use WP:AIV. GiantSnowman 16:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I will keep that in mind for future instances. Thanks a bunch! --Negrong502 (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing and accusations by TheWikiholic at the Talk:List of best-selling music artists

We have an unproductive and lengthy discussion going on at the Talk:List of best-selling music artists. As the main editor of the list, I felt this matter is important enough to bring up here even though the disruptions and the accusations by TheWikiholic are taking place at the talk page of List of best-selling music artists.

The discussion was prompted over whether or not lower records sales claim of Whitney Houston should be removed or not. TheWikiholic's behavior became noticeably disruptive each time he/she was provided with an explanation that covered the questions he raised. First, he/she accused me of stating numbers I never said in the discussion. After I clarified what was actually said by me, he/she then went on accusing me of WP:Ownership. Later I noticed that he/she was also accusing me of being biased against black artists, and biased towards white artists, 1, 2. Towards the end of the thread TheWikiholc claims "the discussion is getting long because you are not ready to accept the point of view of other editors and you see the editor with prejudice. You give too much time to attacking other editors, instead of concentrating on the topic".

Note that in the past, we've had long discussions 1, 2, also involving TheWikiholic and his/her usual supporters User:TruthGuardians and User:Salvabl. In all three lengthy discussions, similar disruptive behavior can be seen by TheWikiholic dragging discussions to unnecessary lengths, all the time refusing to get the point, regardless of how many detailed explanations were provided.

It's also worth noting TruthGuardians' edit here "I defended this article one time before and I was being called a racist and a sympathizer of sorts".

I just felt it's important that I brought the issue here as I feel these three editors TheWikiholic, TruthGuardians and Salvabl abuse the talk page of the list each time they're involved in a dispute, meanwhile also offending the main editor with constant accusations. In fact, I've have worked hard on the List of best-selling music artists for over ten years now, and with the help of other productive editors, we've managed to build a great list.--Harout72 (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this matter up. I feel like Harout ignores genuine concerns. I know that he’s not accusing me of disruptive editing, but abuse is a false accusation. I’ve only utilize the talk page in the matter to which it should be used, just like the other editors have. You do not address the concerns of the other editors and then feel attacked when you’re not agreed with. My only objective has only ever been to make this article better. As a friendly reminder, this article is the product of Wikipedia, not any individual editor, or group of editors. It’s all apart of reaching consensus, there are more editors that disagree with you than those that agree with you. That’s part of reaching a consensus as we have done before in the past. It wasn’t disruptive editing then, and it’s not now. It’s simply editing. We could take it to a next level if consensus is not reached, but as I stated on the talk page, this matter is being brought to the admin board for no reason. They certainly have better use of their time than to address an editors POV about what disruptive editing is. TruthGuardians (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, there's probably something to discuss here. I can't quite wrap my head around accusations of racism or racial bias in something as concrete as an encyclopedia replicating already documented sales data. If that's somehow being done, it needs to be addressed, or alternatively, if it's bogus, editors need to stop casting ridiculous aspersions otherwise. Sergecross73 msg me 20:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I can agree to this. FYI, no one has ever accused the editor of intentionally putting white artists ahead of black ones. However, there was a prominent influencer on a social media platform who did bring up this article and stated that the page’s own rules do not apply to some of the white artists on this page as they do for everyone else, and I think subsequently that is what was mentioned, at least on my behalf, I defended the article, but didn’t fully realize that, in fact, different rules do apply to different artists. Now I don’t know if those influencers are Wikipedia editors, doubt it, but that’s what I saw. Also, it’s a little more to it then just documenting already noted sales figures for older artists. The page uses a particular formula to calculate claimed sales for each artist. It’s the claimed sales that are being disputed. It’s being pointed out that Artists like Madonna, Swift, and Eminem get to ignore the page’s own formula, while artists like Whitney Houston must abide by it. TruthGuardians (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

TheWikiholic in this edit states "See these types of uniformity give me a serious feeling that this page has some kind of [[Racial bias on Wikipedia|racial] bias knowingly or unknowingly." He keeps comparing black artists vs white artists, in that edit Mariah Carey with Taylor Swift and Eminem. He gets those digital figures straight from the RIAA, notice that how he could compare Mariah Carey with Rihanna, the digital certified sales of the latter are 151 million, when used the same style subtraction, the total certified sales of Rihanna would drop to 170 million. That is not accidental, TheWikiholic is actually accusing me of discriminating against black artists.--Harout72 (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I’m sorry that you feel that way. I personally don’t think he’s accusing you of purposefully making the edits. Rihanna wasn’t mentioned probably because she’s not the issue here. I do understand his point of view, and agree that there’s a lack of continuity, but I don’t think it is a malice racial bias.TruthGuardians (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

In that the same edit, he also compares Whitney Houston to Madonna. He's constantly using the racial bias to push his point of view forward.--Harout72 (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I won’t speak for him, but objectively, I don’t believe that there was any malice intended. But at the same time I can see your point of view and why you would even take offense to begin with.TruthGuardians (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

As TruthGuardians rightly pointed out, TheWikiholic did not mention Rihanna in this discussion. On the other hand, Harout72 states that "he also compares Whitney Houston to Madonna. He's constantly using the racial bias to push his point of view forward." TheWikiholic has compared two artists named Whitney and Madonna. Who mentioned the skin color of the artists first on the Talk page? I still think that to have come to this point of talking and discussing about this is just terrible. Anyway, it is the user Harout72 who has brought our discussion here, accusing TheWikiholic, and also accusing TruthGuardians and me of disruptive behavior. If you go to my User talk page you will see an accusation against me of disruptive editing (whose discussion continued on the List's talk page from this message), made by user Harout72 when I was trying to restore the "Definitions" section of the List to its status prior to February 10, something that still needs to be done. Salvabl (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

User Harout72 claims that TheWikiholic, TruthGuardians and I abuse the Talk page. Please read the Talk page itself and you will see it for yourself. I have been offering an open door through my messages over and over again. Even when the user Harout72 has changed the content of the "Definitions" section (a conditioning section for the management of the list in the future) unilaterally and without any previous consensus (despite the fact that the matter was being discussed on the Talk page at that moment), I made proposals so that part of the text added by Harout72 could stand, even when direct removal would be the most appropriate action. However, if we state a point of view that he does not support he often labels our behavior as disruptive. This has also happened in the past (please see it here). The difference is that, with a positive attitude (which, of course, TheWikiholic, TruthGuardians and I had. And also Harout72 at that time) and trying to reach common consensus we were able to bring the discussion to a good conclusion. Unfortunately, that does not seem possible this time. He also claims that we refuse to get the point, to which I gave this reply, with the matter better explained here. Salvabl (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Salvabl, now you're posting comments here without having read mine above. Read my post above here "He keeps comparing black artists vs white artists, in that edit Mariah Carey with Taylor Swift and Eminem. He gets those digital figures straight from the RIAA, notice that how he could've compared Mariah Carey with Rihanna, the digital certified sales of the latter are 151 million, when used the same style subtraction, the total certified sales of Rihanna would drop to 170 million". TheWikiholic uses just about any strategy to push his agenda forward, if he runs out of one argument, he'll try another, whether it's a racial bias, or any other false accusations. And that's not how I built that list with my fellow editors since 2010.--Harout72 (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Harout, I have read everything you have posted (both here and on the List’s Talk page). I can also think that you have not read my message in its entirety, since I talk about various things, among which is the unilateral and without prior consensus modification of the List's "Definitions" section made by you. I really dislike that the physical qualities of the artists are being mentioned, and honestly I prefer to focus on this other matter (which is the one that has affected the List with a substantial non-consensual change, since nothing has been changed regarding Whitney's claimed sales yet). Additionally, in this discussion herein, started by you, you have also mentioned disruptive behavior (allegedly on my part, for example) that is not related to the other “matter”. The "Definitions" section should be restored to its previous status, since its last modification was made unilaterally by you when it was being discussed on the Talk page (moreover, it even goes against previous agreements reached with common consensus). You have the opportunity right now to restore the section to its status prior to February 10. And, let me be clear, the very next moment I will be totally willing to discuss any proposal you make for the modification of the "Definitions" section, and then we can discuss percentages, figures, certain conditions.. Each one of us will be able to propose our ideas and expose our different points of view. Because that is what should be done to implement a substantial change in the "Definitions" section of the List. Salvabl (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• OK, I've read all this, and I have just one teensy little question ... what the fucking hell are you all talking about? How on earth can the race of a performer make a difference to their verified record sales? If I'm missing something obvious, please feel free to let me know, but I couldn't read that talkpage for a second time because I'd lose the will to live. Black Kite (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite, to simplify it, some of the artists on the list are listed with lower claimed sales figure and higher claimed figure. When artists' Gold/Platinum certified sales grow and get closer to the lower listed claimed figure, we normally remove the lower claimed figure leaving only the higher claimed figure. However, ever since the Gold/Platinum certifications issued for singles/tracks especially after 2016 became mainly streaming based rather than sales of downloads, we tent to postpone the removal of the lower claimed figures quickly even though the certified sales might be close to it. And this is what initiated the discussion, which later turned into unproductive argument, full of accusations directed at the main editor (myself).--Harout72 (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Black Kite, I’m not offended by the language, but that language is not allowed on the talk page. I did my best to explain briefly how race is involved. “ Also, it’s a little more to it then just documenting already noted sales figures for older artists. The page uses a particular formula(stated in page rules) to calculate claimed sales for each artist. It’s the claimed sales that are being disputed. It’s being pointed out that Artists like Madonna, Swift, and Eminem get to ignore the page’s own formula, while artists like Whitney Houston must abide by it.” The formula has been debated before as it isn’t 100% sourced (which is a problem in itself), and I think that’s where the problem lies.the formula exists because it is impossible to track the sales of artists from the 50’s-90’s so their available certifications are used along with the decade their music first started to get certified. Some have questioned if it’s about race, not made it about race, as the existing formula have not applied to white artists as they have to some black artists. With all due respect, if you do not follow sales, this is not going to be an easy topic for you or anyone to understand.TruthGuardians (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

What Harout has answered you is true and false at the same time (therein lies the difficulty of this discussion). Just one example to clarify this: user Harout72 says that “we normally remove the lower claimed figure leaving only the higher claimed figure”. This is false, as for example, when Michael Jackson's 300M claimed sales figure was removed (and the 400M figure was added) his certified sales were "only" 240M. This is reasonable, since the higher the certified sales, the higher the claimed sales. In fact, Elvis Presley's current certified sales are "only" 229.4M, while his claimed sales are 500M (and when he reaches 280M certified sales, the 600M claimed sales figure will be added; as agreed in past discussions). Therefore, as I have stated in other messages, the modification made by Harout72 to the "Definitions" section of the List is inappropriate, firstly because it is a substantial change made unilaterally by him, and secondly because it even contradicts previous agreements reached with common consensus. Salvabl (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Well, I was going to say that the obvious next question is - "who is suggesting that Artists like Madonna, Swift, and Eminem get to ignore the page’s own formula, while artists like Whitney Houston must abide by it"? but now the most obvious one is "why are you using a formula that isn't 100% sourced"? Isn't that simply WP:OR anyway? I don't know about anyone else, but the sentence "Elvis Presley's current certified sales are "only" 229.4M, while his claimed sales are 500M (and when he reaches 280M certified sales, the 600M claimed sales figure will be added)" has just made my brain attempt to escape my head and emigrate to Switzerland. Black Kite (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand you perfectly. It would be necessary to read old discussions in which we have participated to see the replies that the user Harout72 has given to our proposals and the replies that we have given to his.. To understand several things. Salvabl (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I said "We'll consider reinstating Presley's 600 million figure only when his certified sales grow significantly and be in the neighborhood of 275-280 million", to consider and will be added are two different things. Considering would mean it could be discussed, not definitive. Also, Elvis Presley is a very different case, there were absolutely no certification systems anywhere in the world except in USA when he was charting in the 1950s and 1960. I explained all that in another long discussion involving the same group of editors above. As for the sources the formula's using, the main source we rely on is IFPI, that's also been explained in yet another long discussion. Simple glance at the discussions in the archives for the page of the list, will confirm that all artists are treated the same way.--Harout72 (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

We have already discussed about Elvis’ sales in the past. It is true that in part of his career there were only certification systems in the USA, but it is also true that if we compare (in any period of time) the relation of his certified sales in the USA to his certified sales in other countries/markets of the world, we will see that US sales represent a huge percentage of his total sales. And it is also true that artists like Michael Jackson have uncaptured sales in major markets outside the USA (such as Japan, for example, whose certification system did not begin until 1989). For that reason, I, in my mind, will continue to see it as inappropriate to add claimed sales figures like 600M to Presley when his certified sales are 275-280M; not even if his certified sales were 350M, taking into account the US-rest of markets ratio. 600M is a too high figure in Elvis' case. One only has to look at the certified sales of The Beatles, Michael Jackson or Madonna to appreciate a globality that is not present in the case of Presley. But even so, and despite our different points of view, in those past discussions we were able to reach a common consensus (and I respect it). But I think this is not the appropriate time to talk in depth about the sales of Presley, The Beatles or Jackson, because then this could become an endless discussion. But it serves to show that the unilateral change you have made in the List's "Definitions" section does not allow to do what you yourself accepted (eg.: “We'll consider reinstating Presley's 600 million figure only when his certified sales grow significantly and be in the neighborhood of 275-280 million.”), and it is also wrong to claim that the text is inline with how the List has always been operated (the case of the last modification of Michael Jackson's claimed sales figures proves it). For that reason, it is necessary that the "Definitions" section of the List be restored to its status prior to February 10. After that, everything could be discussed, maybe it would be possible to add part of your text, and maybe it could be complemented with some ideas like the one I proposed (that when the artists meet certain conditions, only the List’s percentages will be applied). But it should be properly discussed with other users, as it is a substantial change, since modifying the "Definitions" section affects the management of the List in the future. That is why a change made by you unilaterally, without prior consensus at the moment when the matter was being discussed in the Talk page is intolerable. Salvabl (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

This was brought here because of TheWikiholic's inappropriate behavior. It is absolutely unacceptable to assume that the list and the main editors discriminate against black artists. Now that's intolerable.--Harout72 (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me, but in this discussion that you yourself have started herein, your message addresses several matters. Salvabl (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking the issue here. I always know that my concerns are up against your POV and that they the discussion on the talk page tends to go nowhere. I am expecting the views of different editors on this. For those who are interested in the subject, I will attempt to explain why I had the above complaints against Harout72.

The List of best-selling artist is based on the Total available certification of an artist combined with the year that the artist first crafted charting. This means of two artists are from the same era and have the same percentage of total available certification, excluding certification generated through digital downloads and streaming, to support their claimed sales there must be some uniformity.

Harout has mentioned that he has been the top contributor to this page for more than a decade. I have been closely and seriously observing this page since 2014. The page has almost maintained the same rules and structure ever since 2014. I also have done my research on both archives and edit history of this page since its creation. According to the edit history and talk page archive, artists who began charting in the 1980s might have at least 60% certification to support their claimed sales. Both Madonna and Whitney Houston began charting in 1984 and 1985 respectively. It was in 2010 that an article was being used to support the 300M claimed sales of Madonna. During that time she only had 153.3M certifications, which was only around 51% of her 300M claimed sales. Keep in mind, according to the page’s own rules she should have been at 60%. Since then the page has undergone a few changes. The one billion figures for both The Beatles and Elvis Presley have been reduced to 600M and  Michael Jackson's 750M claimes have been reduced to 400M and later 350M and again to 400M. Queen has been removed from the 250M club, among other changes. However, Harout72 never touched the claimed sales of Madonna and let it stay as is when Madonna did not meet the page’s own requirements. It took 11 years before she reached 60% certification to support her 300M claims. But on the other hand Whitney Houston, an artist who began charting only one year after Madonna has 152.7m available certification which is more than 76% for her 200M claimed sales. Even if we remove the total digital certification of 29.5 from Whitney's total available certification by using Harout’s own argument, Whitney will still have 123.2M available certification. Which is more than 61% for her 200M claimed sales.  However, Harout still refuses to remove the 170M lower claim of Whitney. Keep in mind, even though the list has 116 artists and out of this only 12 artists have their lowest claims being used.

Harout72 has also been saying 50M digital singles certification of today will only be converted to 20M actual sales as you can see here. I don't know how he reached that conclusion. The total available certification of Eminem is 247.5M, out of this, 107.5M are RIAA's digital certification. Where the total Available certification of Mariah Carey is 185.5M and she only has 39.5M digital certification from RIAA. Similarly, Taylor Swift has 235.4 total available certifications and out of this 134M are digital sales. If we deduct the digital certification from these three artists the total certification will be 140M for Eminem, 145.8M for Mariah, and 101.4M For Taylor. Even if we pretend that Harout’s unsourced theory of 50M digital certification = 20M actual sales for face value, It's impossible that Eminem and Taylor swift meet their claimed sales of 220M and 200m respectively since they are basically artists from the 21st centuries.

Harout72 refers to all editors who oppose his point of view as disruptors. He also once called me by my old user name, even though I had a name change for privacy and legal ground. You can also see from this discussion from last June that Harout has been stating to different users under this thread that “the discussion is futile and you guys are wasting your time" like an owner of this page.” But as a result of that discussion he had to decrease the highest claimed sales of Elvis Presley from 600M to 500M and the lowest claims 500m to 360M. Here is another instance where Harout was changing the rules to the article’s definition that supports his arguments and asked me to refer to the definition in a vain attempt to prove me wrong. I've been editing Wikipedia for a while now and I'm also an admin on a local Wikipedia. I have never seen a single editor having so much control over the policy-making of a page by his WP:OR and WP: SYNTHESIS.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@TheWikiholic, you might want to do your research correctly, just because Eminem and Taylor Swift are 21st century artists that doesn't mean that all of their digital certifications are streaming generated. The certifications issued before 2016 are good 70+% download based. You can see here 2015 Nilesen soundscan, Adele's "Hello" sold 3.7 million downloads, certified 4x Platinum by the RIAA. Taylor Swift has 99 million units of RIAA certs issued before 2016, that alone translates to 70+ million digital downloads. Her RIAA certs issued in 2020 are also not 100% stream based, they're good 25+% download based. The same is with BPI certs and all others, if issued before 2016, they're 70% download based. Eminem also, he has 40 million units of RIAA certs issued before 2016 for singles, and those issued in 2018 are also over 25+% download based. As I stated above you could have made your criticism by taking either Rihanna, Kanye West or Chris Brown, as example, they're also 21st century artists. And if I were to deduct their RIAA digital certs from their total certified sales, their total certified sales would drop to 170 million, 114 million and 102 million respectively. But you didn't, because your agenda is to discredit me. And in this case you used specifically white artists to achieve your goal, which is to make it look like that I'm discriminating.--Harout72 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@TheWhikiholic, you also mentioned above that the rules of this page have not changed since 2014, well you're wrong on that point too. The required percentage for an artist like Madonna who began charting in 1983 was 33.28%, and at that time Madonna had 165.7 million certified units. That's actually 55.2% certified units for a 300 million claim.--Harout72 (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Now that my brain has decided to return to my head, the problem here is that we have a large number of editors who believe that changes to this particular page are very important and are willing to engage in a significant amount of uncollegial behaviour in order to ensure that their "correct" version is there. Note that I'm not talking about all the editors involved, but some of the behaviour is not acceptable. My suggestion would be to fuly protect the page so that it could only be changed with an edit request. Obviously, that would not prevent any of the issues at the talkpage, but at least that's only a talkpage. What do other admins and uninvolved editors think? Black Kite (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite, just a side note, the page is being updated for newly issued certifications multiple times on daily basis by me. It would be impossible, I think, for me to disturb administrators at least once a day to submit the updates.--Harout72 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite, Harout72 is right when he says that the list needs to be updated frequently. For that reason, I believe the easiest solution is to first restore the List's "Definitions" section to its status prior to the unilateral modification made by Harout72. And after that, establish that only the update of certified sales can be done without prior discussion. Salvabl (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news service. There is no deadline by which data must be updated, especially on an article like this. I would suggest that if the article's regular editors don't want it to be protected, they start working together in a more collaborative way. Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Outside of some of the aspersion-casting going on, I'm not seeing much that's actionable here. Perhaps a big WP:RFC on it could help, so you could get some new input so it's not the same four of you guys clashing all the time? As a fellow editor of the music content area, I may be able to help mediate some as well, though I do admit it can take some investment to understand what happens at this particular article. Sergecross73 msg me 21:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you to the admins for your assistance and your time. I look forward to reaching a consensus on the talk page on the matter. Disruption was and is never my intentions. I think if we were to approach this systematically with a goal in mind, then a conclusion can be reached. We’ve reached consensus before in the past.TruthGuardians (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Users JoeDempsey66 and CoolGuySlate--request for IP ban and removal of edits due to vandalist

• JoeDempsey66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CoolGuySlate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi,

This message concerns the Wikipedia users JoeDempsey66 and CoolGuySlate. I believe they are the same user, whom I know in real life. Unfortunately, he's been vandalizing the Chris Sharp page with spam edits that are demonstrably false. I believe that this qualifies him for an IP ban (to prevent further vandalism) as well as removal of these edits (as they are untrue and slanderous). Could you look into these users?

Thanks, Plinkachoo

I have linked the Chris Sharp and Carter Stanley pages, which are two pages that he's vandalized.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Sharp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Stanley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plinkachoo (talk • contribs) 22:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

A quick look at Chris Sharp shows garden variety vandalism by JoeDempsey66. —C.Fred (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

That said, Plinkachoo is a single-purpose account who has only edited Chris Sharp and related articles, so this report may not be from a totally uninterested party. —C.Fred (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

CoolGuySlate has not edited that article for almost a year, and has significant activity in unrelated areas. BilledMammal (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see enough connection to warrant a SPI. I don't see recent vandalism by CGS, and JD66 has not touched the article since receiving his most recent warning. I don't think there's any action necessary regarding those two editors. —C.Fred (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

TPA revoke

Will an administrator please take action on User talk:Pee Pee Poo Poo99, because this edit was disruptive, opening up a lot of unblock requests. Severestorm28 23:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Yup, all taken care of. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Tenditious editing by User:Policynerd3212 - crime and Islam?

Policynerd3212 added a bunch of crime statistics to the article on Sweden - their edit (here) was in my opinion quite tenditious (compare to my revision); it read to me like a deliberate misreading of some of the statistics, it only brought up increases (and not the decreases visible in some of the diagrams) and they also removed the in this case obviously relevant ideological position of the author of one of the studies cited. (on a sidenote I also question whether having all of these statistics at Sweden rather than Crime in Sweden is necessary in the first place and I think just dumping all of the statistics in this way lacks quite a bit of nuance).

They also added a figure for the number of muslims in the country (here), but referred to it as a "documentation" - there are no official stats on religious affiliation in Sweden. This should appropriately have been called what it is (an estimate) and have been (if added at all) added together with other estimates. It's not necessarily an unreliable source but the specific study has been criticized in the Swedish media for its possible use in scaremongering propaganda (for instance). I reverted this but they added it back (here). The information was also added in a quite strange spot. Nearly all of Policynerd's edits have been concerning Sweden's statistics on crime and Islam (IMO bordering on a WP:SPA). They have also removed my concerns of their edits not being constructive from their talk page (here) - this is allowed but I feel like it's relevant to take note of. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Response from Policynerd3212 to Ichthyovenator (talk): The above claims are simply untrue. I have updated a nearly decade old crime section and added nuanced information. I have explicitly mentioned decline in sexual assaults since 2017 and that Sweden is one of the safest countries in the world. I furthermore link to and use Swedens official bureau of statistics:

https://bra.se/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statistics/crime-statistics.html https://bra.se/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statistics/violence-and-assault.html

Regarding muslim population Pewresearch estimates are reliable and Ichthyovenator offer no contratidicting evidence. My source: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/11/29/5-facts-about-the-muslim-population-in-europe/

Furthermore Ichthyovenator link to unreliable opinion articles when he edits on the Swedish wikipage. For example he writes: "Even when accounting for increased expenses in terms of education and healthcare, the economic advantages of immigration over time outweighs the disadvantages." And as a source links to an opinion article. " His source: https://www.sydsvenskan.se/2019-06-26/over-tid-vager-de-positiva-effekterna-av-invandring-over-de-negativa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Policynerd3212 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't even respond to everything I said here. There wasn't really much nuanced information added. You wrote "For a long time ranked amongst some of the safest countries in the world" (implying it no longer is - it still is). You mentioned mainly the risen crimes - mentioning a single downward trend while ignoring others is not being nuanced. I still question the necessity of having all of these stats here, almost only mentioning the negative ones, and what difference it makes to add an unverifiable stat on the number of muslims in the country? So the article written by researchers on migration is unreliable? I also don't know why you assume I'm male.

I also question why you continue to edit war with this discussion raised and why you more or less copy-pasted my edit summary while doing so (here). I think we can wait and see what others think before you continue to push your stuff at Sweden. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Still continuing... Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

And now they've removed my notice of this discussion from their talk page. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Response from Policynerd3212 to Ichthyovenator (talk): As already mentioned, I added nuance to the statistics. But in general the crime has risen on most parameters. So therefore that's what the section reflects as the official statistics from the Swedish bureau of statistics are quite clear. I further use clear citation from The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention and pewresearch. If my information is incorrect or misleading please offer sources which contradict the official sources. Your personal opinion is not relevant.

Another factual error in your critique is that I haven't contributed to other pages. But I have contributed to a lot of different sections in Danish: https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciel:Bidrag/Policynerd3212 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Policynerd3212 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I dispute your idea that you added nuance to the statiscs. I have not disputed that in general the crime has risen on most parameters - the article still makes this clear, but you deliberately or by mistake ignored parts of those statiscs and added largely only what could be construed as bad. I'm not interesting in wasting time to continue argue or to dig up sources that contradict your interpretation of the other sources - I already linked one article concerning the pew study in particular. For an example of an alternate estimate, this page (also cited in the article already) puts the number of muslims at 6.5 % - it's impossible to produce a reliable or accurate estimate. Hopefully more people weigh in on this; please stop editing Sweden until some form of decision is reached. Your conduct on Danish wikipedia is not of concern here but I don't think that looks good either (edits to three articles, some sort of concern on your talk page). My main issue is that the combination of adding IMO misleading information concerning crime w.o. nuance, removing the ideological position of Adamson and adding stats on the muslim population (from a study which the Swedish media was concerned would be used for scaremongering propaganda no less) doesn't paint a good picture. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Response from Policynerd3212 to Ichthyovenator (talk): Göran Adamson is not som alt right-wing proponent and anti-immigration type which you seem to insinuate. He has simply as a sociologist, an expert, researched the consequences of high immigration. Furthermore you aren't disclosing professor in criminology Jerzy Sarnecki ideological position as a proponent for immigration. Why? Because it isn't relevant. They are social scientists/criminologist. You are being very aggressive and disingenuous. And I said, I added nuanced statistics. The estimate by pewresearch is not contradicted by any sources. Why do you continue to delete this valid information in the immmigration section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Policynerd3212 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I've already pointed out my problems with the pew study and more specifically the way you cited it. I don't see why it would not be relevant to mention that Adamson is a self-admitted critic of multiculturalism? I never said he was "alt right-wing". If you have a source on Sarnecki's ideological position you're welcome to produce that. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Perhaps Policynerd3212 is unfamiliar with our policies and guidelines. I am unable to make out the content dispute from the diffs provided, and I don't see a discussion on the talk page, or a noticeboard. This is the wrong venue for a discussion whether the percentage of Muslims in the country is DUE. Pious Brother (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pious Brother: my concern is that Policynerd3212's addition of the crime statistics was misleading (for instance, they mentioned just the significant increase from 2012/2014 but deliberately left out that there is an obvious undergoing decrease - just look at the diagrams they sourced), that they initially claimed the estimate of muslims was a "documented" number (and I feel they implicitly connect that number to the crime) and that none of these statistics ought to be included without a more nuanced approach. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand the concern as you explain it here, but this should have first been discussed on the article talk page. I added the talk page to my watch list. Pious Brother (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pious Brother: I do not have a huge amount of experience with ANI so I apologize if I moved here prematurely. I didn't see anything saying it had to be discussed anywhere else prior. Are you saying that this should now be discussed at the talk page or should this proceed here? Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I think we should continue the discussion there and keep this discussion open for a few days. Pious Brother (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've added a response there as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Islam? Crime? Sweden? Statistics? This sounds very familiar. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Which is why I'm concerned. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I second Drmies, we've seen this before. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was 1Kwords, but fortunately it's not. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Response from Policynerd3212 to Ichthyovenator I completely understand the concern for alt-right crazy people adding inaccurate information and stats. At the same time we need to have objective accurate information on the page. Before my update the crime section section stated: "Violence (both lethal and non-lethal) has been on a downwards trend over the last 25 years". This is simply misinformation according to all official sources.

Yes - I approve of objectivity and nuance. Notice that I have not added back the "downwards trend over the last 25 years" part. My concern was that I felt that you sort of picked and chose what you wanted from the crime statistics sources to push your POV and that I felt the addition of the estimate of the number of muslims (initially with no indication that this is just one estimate, and the reaction it had in the Swedish media), combined with the removal of where Adamson is arguing from, painted a worrying picture. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Response from Policynerd3212 to Ichthyovenator (talk): The religion section is completely unrelated to the crime section. — Preceding undated comment added 02:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It should be, yes. Don't feign ignorance as to why editing both sections (and no others) tenditiously is worrying. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

User:PlanespotterA320 and WP:GS/UYGHUR

PlanespotterA320 (talk · contribs · count) has an intractable, long term history of POV pushing with respect to topics relating to the Uyghur genocide, broadly construed. Over the past year, the editor has more or less been continuing to ignore community consensus on a number of sources and instead has been attempting to push a fringe POV that the abuses in Xinjiang are not reliably reported. The user has continued to refuse to respect consensus on several sources, most notably Radio Free Asia, and has used their opposition to the use of this source (as well as research by tbe respected Adrian Zenz) as a sort of bludgeoning tool to smear everything on the subject.

Their edits on Uyghur genocide indicate a history of misusing maintenance tags to WP:POVPUSH and outright POVPUSHing, comparing the reporting on the abuses of the Uyghurs to crying wolf.

• In March 2021, Inserted POV templates into Uyghur genocide and disguised it as a minor edit, only to later edit war the POV template into the header of the article after the user was reverted by separate editors
• In October 2021, the user tagged the article with a {{partisan sources}} tag, making more or less the same complaints that they made in March about article sourcing, despite prior consensus that the article's sourcing practices were fine. After the PlanespotterA320's tag was removed by another user for it having been a drive-by tag, Planespotter restored the tag into the article rather than engage on the article talk page.
• In December 2021, the user inserted content into Uyghur genocide relating to a 1960s Soviet Union propaganda campaign that reliable sources don't connect in any way to the ongoing abuses in Xinjiang. The user attempted to insert a Chinese denialist memorandum into the article that framed the abuse allegations as arising from only separatists and nationalist groups (the content sourced to Chinas ministry of foreign affairs was removed here). After I removed the content about the Sino-Soviet dispute, the user restored the content on it. The user noted in their edit summary that it was Worth knowing that this isn't the first time someone has played the Uyghur card and cried wolf with Uyghur genocide—that PlanespotterA320 sees the abuses in Xinjiang as crying wolf is explicitly motivating their disruptive edits.
• In February 2022, the user has persisted to continually tag the article with tags that include {{partisan sources}} and {{unbalanced}}, arguing that the inclusion of content from the BBC, Al Jazeera, and Radio Free Asia is reason to put giant cleanup notices atop the page.

This pattern of editing is not just limited to the Uyghur genocide article itself. In fact, this extends to templates and other articles as well.

• In February 2022, Planespotter removed all mention of the Xinjiang internment camps and the Uyghur genocide from the {{Xinjiang topics}} template, while inappropriately placing a number of articles (including Uyghur people) in a "separatist elements" row. After this was reverted by Horse Eye's Back, PlanespotterA320 made an edit that inappropriately restored the "separatist elements" row, Uyghur people article included.
• Also in February 2022, the user has inappropriately marked substantial edits on East Turkistan Government-in-Exile as minor and was reverted by Beshogur. When PlanespotterA320 restored their edits, Planespotter acknowledged that their edits were of substantive nature.

PlanespotterA320 was warned of the active general sanctions on the topic in June 2021, yet nonetheless has persisted (and been particularly active as of late) in disruptively editing in the Uyghur genocide topic area in a manner that reflects clear attempts to push a denialist point-of-view. I'd kindly ask that an administrator take a look at the editing activity of that editor in order to help prevent future disruption in the area. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I have the right to point when an article heavily sites partisan, state-funded outlets and tag an article that does so as having such problem. The so-called Uyghur genocide is a current event, not as historical one, and is subject to controversy as such. If heavily citing partisan sources wasn't a problem then we wouldn't have a tag for it. The fact that so much of the alleged "abuses" (many of which are prevalent in neighboring Muslim-supermajority countries) come from Western state media outlets certainly merits noting until the article is not so dependent on them. There is clearly a concerted effort by an organized group of POV pushers to deem everything in Xinjiang a "genocide", watering down the term at the expense of small peoples who actually suffered genocide. Editors here are clearly on a campaign of censorship to prevent the availability of important context to users, even removing well-cited verifable information about historical precedents of the term's usage by ungrateful separatist elements dating back to the Sino-Soviet split. I simply call a spade a spade, a state funded media outlet a state funded media outlet, a state-funded NGO not independent, and a separatist a separatist. If you want to argue about the merits of those agents case for separatism on your social media, go ahead, but that doesn't make them NOT separatist. And I cannot help but point out here as well just how incredibly damaging the disingenuous propaganda shamefully painting the well-off Uyghurs as victims of genocide is to ACTUAL small peoples on the brink of assimilation, begging for dignity in representation, recognition, the right to live in their land, and respect, all of which Uyghurs in Xinjiang are not only endowed with in addition to titular status in Xinjiang but have completely taken for granted, ungratefully tossing false accusations of "genocide" to the government that includes them in the 56 flowers but could revoke that status with the stroke of a pen as punishment for their treason if it felt willing to but veiws such act as blasphemous and unthinkable.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Editors here are clearly on a campaign of censorship to prevent the availability of important context to users do you mean like removing all mention of the Xinjiang internment camps and the Uyghur genocide from the {{Xinjiang topics}} template? I'm all for including relevant information published in reliable sources in line with the principle of due weight, but repeated tendentious and otherwise disruptive editing of yours on this topic to push the fringe perspective that the people being forcibly sterilized and held in camps are well-off despite no reliable sources actually reporting that have not been a benefit to Wikipedia. Civilly engaging in talk page discussions is absolutely OK, even if your arguments aren't great, but the repeated disruptive editing of articles by pushing fringe views that fly in the face of community consensus that you are well aware of makes this very clearly a conduct problem. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

You mean the info about the Sino-Soviet split which you added with the massively inappropriate edit summary "Worth knowing that this isn't the first time someone has played the Uyghur card and cried wolf with Uyghur genocide. Perhaps the alleged genocide of Uyghurs during the Sino-Soviet split that never happened should get its own article"[112]? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

1. so-called Uyghur genocide
2. alleged "abuses"
3. come from Western state media outlets
4. concerted effort by an organized group of POV pushers
5. watering down the term at the expense of small peoples who actually suffered genocide
6. Editors here are clearly on a campaign of censorship
7. Mentions separatism at least four times
8. disingenuous propaganda shamefully painting the well-off Uyghurs
9. have completely taken for granted
10. false accusations of "genocide"
11. the government that includes them in the 56 flowers

Yikes! Pious Brother (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't just template:Xinjiang Topics, they also removed wikiproject human rights and the GS notice from the talk page [113]. Theres also this bizzare series [114][115][116] of edits at Dinigeer Yilamujiang which are serious BLP issues in addition to UG issues. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

And as I said, Xinjiang is a geographic region and province of China, not an activist or a political ideology.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't really explain removing either the wikiproject or the tag, both of them apply to the geographic region and province of China. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Or why you suddenly added them to Hawaii, Texas and Guam immediately after making the point that it shouldn't apply to a geographic region or territory. Canterbury Tail talk 14:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Theres this edit [117] which scrubs all controversy, including the Uyghur Genocide, from the lead at 2022 Winter Olympics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

This series [118][119][120] of edits across different pages which qualify Uyghur Genocide with "alleged" in a rather pointed way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

They're also currently edit warring [121][122][123] at Salih Hudayar over the "separatist" characterization again without apparent regard for WP:BLP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone seriously think he advocates FOR Xinjiang being part of China?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

PlanespotterA320, can you explain these edits, especially after having made this edit. You are doing the exact thing you are saying is not applicable in your first edit which very much calls into question the reasoning for it. You state on your first edit "Xinjiang is a GEOGRAPHIC REGION and administrative entity, not a political ideology" and then proceed to add the very project template you're removing to other political and administrative entities. It's very hard to assume this was done in good faith. Canterbury Tail talk 02:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban, for six months. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Since Planespotter is belligerent, edit warring, argumentative insists she’s right and have severe OWN issues in every area she edits in these days I actually support a block. A topic ban would have to be ridiculously wide. Canterbury Tail talk 02:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: I'm going to push back on a full block—a more narrowly tailored thing would be a topic ban on WP:UYGHUR with either a general one-revert restriction or an additional logged warning with respect to ownership of articles more generally. The user's edits in the topics of aviation and Soviet military biographies seem to be generally productive and I'm hesitant to block longstanding users with one problem area until more narrowly tailored efforts to prevent future disruption have been tried. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support six month topic ban on the WP:UYGHUR area. I'm not opposed to an additional sanction of a one-revert restriction for behavior outside of the problem topic area, but I'd prefer to give a formal warning before being putting restrictions on all of the user's editing. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on on WP:UYGHUR for six months. Pious Brother (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment User has similar edit warring on Template:Crimean Tatar Surgun era [124] [125] [126] [127]. Also at his talkpage, despite getting different warnings, he said Two reverts is not an editwar. and Editwar is THREE reverts, NOT 2! twice. Beshogur (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Just an FYI, PlaneSpotterA320 is female editor, not male, so please use the correct pronouns and don't assume all editors are male. Canterbury Tail talk 14:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block - This is way beyond pale. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Wider topic ban If we are going to go the topic ban route I think it should be wider than just the Uyghur area. It was only 3 weeks ago when they were at this board last for the same owning, ignoring consensus, combative edits and I dare say bludgeoning with the same arguments and not listening to others, but this time on Crimean Tatars. This isn't exclusive to the Uyghur area. If it's going to be a topic ban I think it should be on all ethnic minorities/repressed or displaced populations/separation movement/disputed type areas (open to wording as this generally isn't my area.) Uyghur is too specific as this behaviour is in other areas as well. In general any time PlaneSpotterA320 comes into any kind of disagreement with other editors, these are the results. Canterbury Tail talk 13:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• She was featured at this very noticeboard for an unrelated issue as recent as three weeks ago. As usual, she responded that she is right and everybody around is wrong, and the topic, as is common with East European topics, was archived without closure. It is now time to take action, which presumably should not be limited to Uyghur genocide.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban on all CN and CIS politics - widely construed. We need a WP:CNPL sanctions regime like WP:ARBAP2 and WP:ARBPIA4 to prevent the POV pushing by Wumao, Wangluo shuijun, Little Pinks and other CCP symps. These guys are ruining it for good faith editors trying hard to introduce nuance where they are WP:DUE. For example, Pompeo's "landmines" [128] [129] [130], are probably due in Uyghur genocide as part of some wider changes, but this is impossible in the current WP:BATTLEGROUND environment where no one wants give up an inch to these guys. CutePeach (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The Pompeo “landmines” stuff (I couldn’t read SCMP) seems to be not include reference to the XUAR, which would render it undue in Uyghur genocide (unless RS are saying that the Genocide designation was actually a domestic political play to screw over Biden—the claim is a bit extraordinary and I can’t exactly find reliable sources supporting that claim from a Google search). That being said, content issues are best resolved on the article talk pages. I also don’t think that summing this up as a WP:BATTLEGROUND on with two distinct sides is generally accurate here—editors on the Uyghur genocide page generally try to resolve disputes by surveying reliable sources, attempting to gain consensus in the talk, and making edits that reflect that consensus. The issue that brought me here is that Planespotter, in particular, has been utterly disruptive across the board in this topic area while explicitly stating their intent of POVPUSHING. — Mhawk10 (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• I was originally thinking that a topic ban or short block would solve this, but given the views expressed in the "I have the right to point ... blasphemous and unthinkable." post and the previous issues with another minority group I think we have to topic ban them from ethnic and religious minorities broadly construed at the very least. An indef block on nothere grounds woild also be justified after what they wrote here, as other users have said "beyond the pale" and "yikes"Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm indefinitely blocking. Genocide denialist bullshit wouldn't be tolerated anywhere else, and it shouldn't be here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

+1 You beat me to the punch, The Blade of the Northern Lights. Why do I start reading from the top? El_C 18:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I hope they get WP:Standard Offer, along with a topic ban on any topics related to international politics or race. I think they deserve a chance to clean up their act after being told what they did was wrong. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 18:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Plutonical, they are obviously not listening. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Calton again

On the 11th of February, an unregistered user went on the 2021 page and added in the June section the guilty verdict of Derek Chauvin. It had long been established, in part due to Talk page discussion (which I personally had nothing to do with), that the event is primarily of domestic US significance and therefore had long been relegated to 2021 in the United States (the Kyle Rittenhouse trial and verdict is also not included) - so I reverted the edit and restored the status quo against inclusion. Calton (talk · contribs) then reverted my edit with the summary "Worldwide attention, Mr. Gatekeeper". He used that same disparaging bad faith name towards me that he had used back in September 2021, and of which his behaviour towards me led to a [report] as well as [condemnation from other users] at the time.

I sent Calton a Talk page message making it clear that I did not appreciate him coming back after around four months only to again violate WP:CIV and not assuming good faith, and again referring to me as "Mr. Gatekeeper" - behaviour for which he had already been formally cautioned. I asked that he never refer to me as "Mr. Gatekeeper" again. His response on my Talk page speaks for itself: "I don't care what you think, Mr. Gatekeeper. You don't like being called a "gatekeeper", here's what you do: stop gatekeeping. Your prickly reaction tells me that you're well aware of what you're doing. Oh, and a reminder: the Norm MacDonald discussion had pretty much everyone saying that you were wrong. Maybe you should have remembered that bit before bringing it up". I would appreciate if something was done about this, because this is entirely unacceptable and bordering on WP:HA. TheScrubby (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, Calton needs to calm it down and cut out the aspersions. However, I will point out that unless it's disappeared from the archives, there has never actually been a discussion about the Chauvin verdict; it was only brought up during the discussion about Rittenhouse, and even then was simply one user (Jim Michael) saying "it's not internationally notable" three times without any evidence (when it clearly was - how many verdicts end up being shown on live TV outside the country they're taking place in?). There probably needs to be a discussion about it now, because it hasn't clearly been decided, and it would probably help if it wasn't bludgeoned this time. Black Kite (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

If there has been a firm discussion r.e. Chauvin, at the very least I wasn’t involved. What I do know is that Jim Michael did argue that the event, though receiving international coverage, was of domestic US significance only, and that the only aspect which had international relevance was the global protests against police brutality in the wake of George Floyd’s death. At the very least there was no opposition to what Jim Michael argued, and from June to now the 2021 page has reflected this by not including the Chauvin verdict, which at the very least could be construed as WP:EDITCON - and it’s worth noting that the Rittenhouse case did lead to a more substantial discussion, and which was ultimately excluded from the main 2021 page. All I had done was revert back to the status quo on this.

Ultimately though, none of this really matters. Even if there had been a consensus in favour of including the event, nothing excuses or justifies Calton’s conduct and constant bad faith allegations & demeaning labeling of those he disagrees with. What concerns me most is that he had already been reported and condemned for his past behaviour (not just towards me, but I also note towards other users over the years), and he had been formally cautioned by El C (talk · contribs) about this back in September, and Calton yesterday has made it crystal clear that he has zero intention of even acknowledging this and following through on the caution. I just don’t understand how this is at all a remotely acceptable standard on Wikipedia? TheScrubby (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

IP making unsourced edits to biographies

This IP has made poorly sourced edits to biographies, including those of living people. I suggest they be blocked. --Firestar464 (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Firestar464 I had a quick look at the contributions. This is a BLP violation, but this is more marginal. Have you tried talking in words instead of templates? I'll have a word. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE by Wesshejjejej

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

---

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

Literally all of this users edits have been disruptive and reverted. Some examples; Changed "Indo-Afghan" to "Afghan" Changed "Iranian" to "Pashtun" Changed "Iranian" to "Afghan" Changed "Tajik" to "Pashtun" Changed "Turkic" to "Turko-Afghan"

Clearly WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

•  Done Indeffed. Black Kite (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Roje Vala and WP:CIR

Roje Vala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editor has not changed its behaviour since the last block in August 2021. The editor was warned four times since then and one editor has left advices on what is wrong with editor's edits (User talk:Roje Vala#Jackson Cates and User talk:Roje Vala#Bowen Byram). In January 2022, other editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey#Roje Vala's refusal to communicate also acknowledged Roje Vala's problematic behavior (not using edit summaries, no communication with other editors, etc). It looks like the editor's behavior is a case of WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE as per my previous report back in June 2021.

Examples of editor's problematic contributions:

• Special:Diff/1072006147 – MOS:CAPS and MOS:DATED;
• Special:Diff/1070842719 – MOS:DATED and MOS:OVERLINK;
• Special:Diff/1064084572 – MOS:DATED and MOS:OVERLINK;
• Special:Diff/1057754058 – MOS:CAPS and MOS:DATED;
• Special:Diff/1054050127 – WP:NCIH (reverted more than once regarding this player's surname at 2020–21 Ottawa Senators season and other team-related pages);
• Special:Diff/1067292287 – MOS:OVERLINK;
• Special:Diff/1067491899 – MOS:OVERLINK and MOS:DATED.

The edits may have good intentions, but there is no improvement. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• The guy's been asked to communicate many times, been template- or otherwise-warned many times, has already received a block, and in over a year now has never posted to a talk page, his own included, and never has written an edit summary. Given his pattern of bad edits, I'd support a long-term or indef block. Someone who willfully refuses to communicate, ever, doesn't belong on a collaborative project. Ravenswing 18:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed, so I'll do it now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Billy6688

This new editor has a single purpose - to remove material from the article Heather Ripley. Claiming to be a family member, he says the material is inaccurate, misleading and causing distress. I can’t see anything in the material that could possibly cause distress. I have posted warnings on his Talk Page about his edit-warring and have urged him to take his concerns to the article’s Talk Page but he just reappears and deletes the content. He claims the newspapers The Guardian and The Times are not reliable sources! He has blanked swathes of the article four times in 24 hours. I have not reinstated the more personal material but even these were Ripley’s own words.

See this [131] and this [132]

Jack1956 (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked them from editing the page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Jack1956 (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

This user hasn't been going about things in the way that regular Wikipedia editors would recommend, but I think there is still an issue with the article to be looked at. This person's only claim to notability seems to be what she did when she was nine years old, but everything that she has done since, which is indicative of a normal, unnotable, life, is considered fair game because of that. Should we really be doing this? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Good point, Phil. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Ripley, where I suspect I'll get roasted alive, but Phil makes a very good point and it's worth debating. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 18:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't feel like a roast of the nominator, but it is snowing there. 🌨️ — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Martinevans123

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

---

Could someone please do something about the behavior of Martinevans123? This man is for some reason reverting my edits without reasonable arguments, let alone logical ones. Above all, on the discussion page of Talk:Martin Heidegger this man is publishing without any legitimate reason at all the location of my IP-adress. This had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion and had more in common with intimidation. After that, he's following me to other articles and starts reverting my edits there, again without any form of logical reasoning. Very weird behavior that reminds me of stalking. Can an admin please do something about this?Cornelis Dopper (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Would that be the IP address(es) that you plastered all over the history of the talk page by editing as an IP before creating a username? I'm pretty sure we can't blame Martin for that. Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• I'm assuming you are Special:Contributions/213.124.174.59 and Special:Contributions/89.205.133.144. Every time you edit as an IP you are publishing your IP address, and anyone can look up the location. As far as I can tell Martinevans123 was trying to determine if the second IP was the same editor as the first, which had been blocked earlier the same day for edit warring. This is a legitimate query as blocks apply to the person, not the account and it would have been block evasion. Here, you admit that you have in fact done that. It is also legitimate, if one sees perceives a user as being disruptive at one article, to check their contributions and follow up at a different article. That is not stalking or intimidation. I don't see anything actionable.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• This complaint is without merit, and should be closed without action. There is a run-of-the-mill content dispute at the article talk page, about the use of superlatives. Martinevens123 has one position about it. A series of IPs expressed different positions, and then the account making the opening post here was created ([133]), and continued to express the same opinion. Martinevens123 raised the issue of the accounts likely being the same person, per WP:DUCK. And WP:IP edits are not anonymous. The "following to other articles" seems to be only to Ludwig Wittgenstein, which Martin has been editing since long before the new account was created: [134]. This is not stalking. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Gaming extended-confirmed to continue edit war

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

There has been an ongoing red-hot edit war at Suraj Mal. I'm completely uninvolved in that and want no part in the content since it's caste war nonsense. That said, I submitted an RfPP, and the page was ECP'd last night, since all of the involved editors were not extended-confirmed. However, Basedch wasn't too far from 500 edits it seems; Basedch conducted a string of minor grammatical edits ([135] [136][137]). They were automatically elevated to extended-confirmed at 10:32 am (EST) [138]. A single minute later, at 10:33, they were back at Suraj Mal continuing the edit war there [139] [140] [141]. They obviously gamed getting extended-confirmed in order to continue their edit-war. Curbon7 (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Will block for 1 week under WP:GS/CASTE for edit warring. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Justanother2 - disruptive edits, ignoring attempts to talk on their talk page, leaving nasty messages on others' talk pages

Justanother2 (talk) has been engaged in making disruptive unsourced edits to Super Bowl LVI and, to a lesser extent, Super Bowl LVI halftime show. Multiple editors have had to revert his edits, and have tried to talk to him on his talk page, but he consistently deletes everything from his talk page (questions, invitations to discuss, warnings) without responding. He leaves edit summaries such as these:

• "If you have a beef or something go look up the myriad of reviews. Take this to a talk page, maybe this one for the halftime show." [142]
• "Learn how talk pages work; you continually run into arguments. You're a deletionist too." [143]
• "Can't most of you use talk pages? Don't remove this info; you're showing you don't understand sports reports or how stats function. Also you can find sources." [144]
• Do you even edit sports articles? It's not a production line; there are two or more admins editing on here now. I will ask them about this prob. Making a note of the rash of reverts on here, stop it!" [145]

I would like to invite Fynsta, Bluerules (talk), and Kinu ^t/_c to weigh in with their experience with Justanother2. As he is not taking advice from other editors, perhaps a warning from an administrator will get his attention. Back Bay Barry (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Back Bay Barry: Minor point; why are you copying and pasting the signatures of the editors you're pinging rather than using {{ping}} to do so? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 23:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

ummm... because I didn't know that was the accepted way to do it? Back Bay Barry (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300: do I need to edit that with the ping function for them to be alerted? Back Bay Barry (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Back Bay Barry: It's too late to do that now, but keep that in mind for the future. It's likely the users you did intend to ping, were pinged (because of how the notification system works). Just keep this in mind next time, as I know some users may not like it if you use their sig as a ping. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Legal threat by User:AEMoch

User:AEMoch has just made a legal threat with this edit. A sockpuppet investigation linking this user to a previous user whose name suggests this is the same person and who was blocked for making legal threats is now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aedwardmoch. Largoplazo (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

SPI, COIN, and AN/I at the same time... darn, still two shy of Bingo. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked AEMoch, who is an obvious sockpuppet making disruptive edits and a legal threat. Cullen328 (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Good block. F W Harvey would have been impressed. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Carfian is WP:NOTHERE

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

---

See their many recent edits to Emergencies Act. Could we please indef? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Their attempts to remove this section at ANI alone provide a case for blocking, indeffed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems like this user is edit-warring, this may also be reported to WP:3RR. Additionally, you have not notified the editor, I have done so for you. Outdated comment, user is already indeffed by Rosguill.Severestorm28 01:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I did—they reverted that too! A moot point, now. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Copperwidth is WP:!HERE

This user is just doing un-constructive editing, and isn't here to build a encyclopdia. From making pages such as Wikipedia:Entertainment theater that doesn't have a clear purpose, to making drawing pages like Wikipedia:KraftwerkASCII, and screwing up other's talk pages, such as this Special:Diff/1071140973. They have also made bad GAN nom's, and added protection templates, when it's not protected. This editor refuses to answer questions, and doesn't seem to want to learn.

Pinging @Blaze Wolf as they have had some interactions with this user.

Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

oh sorry... im just a newbie to wikipedia. :( COPPERwidth (💬) - (📋) 02:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)