Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution 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

Alpinegora

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

Well, I was told by WP:AIV to take it here.

Major WP:NOTHERE, WP:POV issues, and anti-Iranian/Persian behaviour as seen through their edits and comment. Not a single edit by this user (starting from this summer) has been constructive and neutral. The vast majority of their edits have been reverted (some recent examples [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], notice their dishonest "simple changes" edit summaries) and they also responded to my warning with this grim comment, accusing me of getting paid for my edits, etc [6]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Writing so it doesn't get archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: this page is archived by Lowercase sigmabot III, which according to its manual should obey a Template:Do not archive until. I've added {{subst:DNAU|10}} to this thread, which should keep it here for 10 days. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, that's a thing. Err.. well, this is embarrassing. Thank you very much Apaugasma! --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved editor: I agree, definitely looks WP:NOTHERE to me, only here to push a POV. Together with that user talk page response, should be blocked indef. — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, that Talk page comment screams NOTHERE. Indef is the right call. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Yep. They are still unashamedly pov editing under the same dishonest edit summary "simple changes", which I just reverted [7] [8] [9] [10]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• This is grim comment I was speaking of; "You may better to write and edit the content about your country, Iran. The history of Afghanistan is belong to Afghans and we can write by ourselves correctly! I see that many Iranian wiki writers like you are getting paid by dictator regime of Iran to change everything for their own benefit and as the religious regime of Iran want. You will never be proud by lying about history and stealing the pride of other countries! --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Srich32977 and FAITACCOMPLI

Srich32977 believes that ISBNs should be formatted as 0123456789 or 978-0123456789, and has been mass-converting correctly-hyphenated ISBNs to this form (e.g. [11][12][13][14][15][16][17]), despite guidance in WP:ISBN to "Use hyphens if they are included", and {{cite book}} that "Hyphens in the ISBN are optional, but preferred." Often the rationale given for the edits is consistency; the changes invariably aim at consistent use of the above format. Between December 2016 and now, many editors have asked Srich to stop these edits ([18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]) – most recent attempt here.

Certainly the content issue is somewhat arcane and opinions will differ, but that is best discussed elsewhere, e.g. WT:ISBN, where Srich has not succeeded in getting support for his position.

The issue here is WP:FAITACCOMPLI: attempting to force his preference on others with mass edits over years, ignoring contrary guidance and the objections of many editors. I ask that he stop making these edits (removing correctly-placed hyphens from ISBNs) until and unless he can show consensus for them. Kanguole 12:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

What is the rationale for removing the hyphens? Doesn’t seem to make sense. Hyphens are used as standard in ISBN composition. Makes no sense and doesn’t benefit the project in any way. Don’t usually comment on ANI cases because I am not an administrator but this one just appears very odd. MaxnaCarta (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kanguole: mis-construes what I "believe". Out of my many edits, 7 recent examples are selected where I've taken a mix of ISBN hyphen-citation styles and established a consistent style. Were ISBN-hyphenations "correct" or "proper" before or after my edits? In a sense, yes – all the "checksumss" verified that they were valid. But were the citation-styles consistent? No. (And Consistency is one of the "5 Cs" that copy-editors cherish.) Moving along with another example, todays' Featured Article (Renewable energy in Scotland) has 7 references with ISBNs. One of the 7 comes from an edit I did — the expand-citations bot/tool added an ISBN-13 with no hyphens. (Later it was manually hyphenated to 978-1234567890.) My point? This is an FA with a consistent/established citation style and that style involves ISBNs with either 0123456789 or 978-0123456789. Should all WP articles have this sort of ISBN hyphenation? NO WAY. It is too big and clumsy to impose that sort of MOS. Again moving along – a few editors have admonished me. Kanguole is one, another admonishment is for a typo I did. Another recognized that the issue was one preference verses another. But is this "many"? No, in fact I've received "Thanks" and Barnstars for my ISBN-hyphen-related edits. So I will thank Kanguole for noting that my edits are invariably adding consistency to individual WP articles. And I will give even more thanks when Kanguole uses available tools to add consistent hyphen-citation-styles to references. – S. Rich (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems fairly self-evident to me that where a number of Wikipedia documents show a consensus that hyphens should be used, the reasonable thing an editor should do to improve consistency is to ensure that all ISBNs use hyphens. XAM2175 ^(T) 17:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The presence or absence of hyphens makes absolutely zero difference to the meaning of an ISBN (I won't write more on that matter here, but see my posts at Wikipedia talk:ISBN#Hyphens in ISBNs). Therefore, adding or removing them is a purely cosmetic change. If done on the grounds of consistency, I would point out that WP:WIAFA#2C says nothing about ISBNs; it links to Wikipedia:Citing sources which basically says that ISBNs can be provided if available (it stops short of requiring their use), but says nothing about how an ISBN should be formatted. To my mind, if it's good enough for FA-Class, it's good enough everywhere. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

​I'll dispute that the hyphens make "absolutely zero difference to the meaning". They make no difference to which book is meant by the ISBN but they indicate whether the book was published by a large publisher (small registrant element) and is potentially more reliable, or a small publisher (large registrant element) and is potentially self published. The inconsistency of component length, and hyphen placement, is a part of the system. Where the hyphens are used incorrectly their removal is good. Where they are used as assigned their removal is a removal of information based on a misconceived idea of consistency. Cabayi (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem here is the mass changes to impose the preferred style, despite the objections of many editors. Kanguole 06:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

There is little functional difference between converting all the ISBNs on a page to your preferred format, e.g. [28], and performing the same conversion when there is variation, e.g. [29]. In the latter case the ISBNs were uniformly correctly hyphenated until a bot introduced a single unhyphenated ISBN, which you took as licence to convert the others to your preferred format.

In any case, consistency is not a sufficient reason to override the existing guidance and the objections of many editors.

However, there need be no conflict: you can achieve your stated aim of consistency by subst'ing the newly-resurrected {{Format ISBN}} template to correctly add hyphens to ISBNs that lack them. Kanguole 09:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

ISBNs with hyphens are more informative than without, as they indicate, roughly, whether the book is from a major or minor publisher. Information is lost if hyphens are removed. Yes, an article may look inconsistent if ISBNs in one article are in a mix of hyphenated and non-hyphenated, but a partly-hyphenated set of isbns is more useful than a totally-non-hyphenated set, so the hyphens should not be removed in pursuit of consistency. If the inconsistency worries anyone, they can fix it by searching out and adding the correct hyphenation. Otherwise, just walk away. PamD 09:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Wow, I've just read more carefully the above post: {{Format ISBN}} seems the answer. Perfect. PamD 09:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The template "{{Format ISBN}}" is a very good answer. But there is only one configuration that solves the problem – "{{ISBN|{{Format ISBN|9780631184287}}}}" renders as "ISBN 978-0-631-18428-7". That gives the reader the Book Sources magic link and hyphens. The Format ISBN template instructions need clarification. E.g., the examples are non-linking-examples or they are parameter-error examples. But this Book Sources-linking version should be encouraged. I intend to use it. – S. Rich (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

A note that {{ISBN|{{Format ISBN|9780631184287}}}} was changed by a bot to {{ISBN|978-0-631-18428-7}} almost immediately. I don't know if that means anything. — Trey Maturin™ 16:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

That's expected; it was noted in the parallel discussion at Wikipedia talk:ISBN § Hyphens in ISBNs that [the] template is auto-subst'd by AnomieBOT. XAM2175 ^(T) 17:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Cool. We now return you to talking with people who are less technically incompetent than me ;-) — Trey Maturin™ 17:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, the bot works fast! – S. Rich (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

{{Format ISBN}} should be subst'ed – then there's no need for the bot to clean up. That is, you use

{{ISBN|{{subst:Format ISBN|9780631184287}}}}

if you're not using citation templates, and

|isbn={{subst:Format ISBN|9780631184287}}

inside citation templates. Then the formatting happens when you save the edit, so these are saved as

{{ISBN|978-0-631-18428-7}}

and

|isbn=978-0-631-18428-7

respectively. Kanguole 18:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem with that is that when either of these is used between <ref>...</ref> tags, substitution doesn't work. This is phab:T4700, and having been open for almost eighteen years, doesn't look like it'll be resolved any time soon. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

One for the next version of the Community Wishlist, perhaps. In the meantime I've added a comment there on phab: perhaps all other interested parties should do so too, just to show those interested that this is a real issue of concern to current editors. PamD 07:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Srich32977: Since we now have a workable method (namely {{Format ISBN}}) to obtain consistency without removing hyphens from ISBNs, will you agree to not remove them going forward? Kanguole 19:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems the answer is "no", as the campaign continues.[30][31]

This low-level disruption is not as dramatic as some of the other matters on this page, but it has continued relentlessly for more than six years, despite the requests of many editors (diffs at the top of this thread). It is time for it to stop. Kanguole 20:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Back with more "but they don't serve any purpose anyway" at Wikipedia talk:ISBN as well: [32]. If having the next best thing to a set-and-forget formatting tool is still not good enough for consistency's sake then I don't know what will be – unless, that is, "consistency" is merely a veneer over "IDONTLIKEIT". XAM2175 ^(T) 20:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The OP's report seems at least formally warnable. WT:ISBN does seem to have generally resolved in favor of dashes, but that page is not a guideline (a showing of a half dozen in favor to one is a good start perhaps for a WP:MOS addition along the lines of "prefer dashes" if you have a choice).

I separately don't find the "make the ISBNs on one page all consistent" argument as defensible for removing dashes from a page. Izno (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Volgabulgari's disruptive editings in Tatar confederation

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

---

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

These claims below were originally posted in Tatar confederation's talk page (though I've also minorly modified them for here).

• Here Volgabulgari changed the wording

  • The name "Tatar" was first transliterated in the Book of Song as 大檀 Dàtán (MC: *da^H-dan) and 檀檀 Tántán (MC: *dan-dan) as another name for the Rourans.

    to:

  • The name "Tatar" was first transliterated in the Book of Song as 大檀 Dàtán (MC: *da^H-dan) and 檀檀 Tántán (MC: *dan-dan) also used as another name for the Rourans who were of Proto-Mongolic Donghu origin.

  • The reason why the original wording had been:

  • The name "Tatar" was first transliterated in the Book of Song as 大檀 Dàtán (MC: *da^H-dan) and 檀檀 Tántán (MC: *dan-dan) as another name for the Rourans.

  • was because in the original Chinese wording in Songshu, vol. 95 is:

    • 芮芮一號大檀，又號檀檀

      , which, when translated to English, is:

    • Ruìruì [aka Rouran], one appellation is Dàtán, also called Tántán

  • Songshu, vol. 95 did not claim that 大檀 Dàtán and Tántán 又號檀檀 were "also used as another name for the Rourans"
  • It's very apparent that Volgabulgari cannot read Classical Chinese. From the article's edit history, Volgabulgari wrote these:

    • Tatar name also used for Rourans but it's not necessary to add Proto-Mongolic. Because "Tatar" here are not the Rourans.

    • atar confederation here is not same with Rourans. Not the same people.

• Here Volgabulgari asserted that: "He [i.e. me, Erminwin] is using a Britannica source where it says Tatars originated between Lake Balkai and Manchuria. Same source also says Original Tatars (Nine Tatars) are a Turkic-speakers unlike Mongols." when in fact the source I cited for that is "Note 144 on "The Kultegin inscription" in Türik Bitig. Russian original: " Otuz Tatar – кочевые племена монгольского типа. В китайских источниках их называли «татань, дадань». Проживали на Байкале и маньчжурии." rough translation: "Nomadic tribes of the Mongolic sort. In Chinese sources they were called 'Tatan, Dadan'. They lived between Baikal and Manchuria."
• Volgabulgari also asserted: "When I added "Original Tatars associated with Turkic peoples" he keeps deleting without saying anything most of the time." I did delete "Actual Tatars, the Nine Tatars are associated with Turkic peoples. They might be related to Kipchak and/or Cuman peoples." from the section "Name and origin" because it is a repetition of "they [Tatars] were proposed to be Turkic speakers (e.g. by Encyclopedia Britannica or Kyzlasov apud Sadur 2012) related to Cumans and Kipchaks." in the very next section "Ethnic and linguistic affiliations", where the Nine Tatars' ethnic and linguistic affiliation/association would be relevant. I even wrote here "No need to repeat same claims by same sources too many times." to explain why I deleted "Actual Tatars, the Nine Tatars are associated with Turkic peoples. They might be related to Kipchak and/or Cuman peoples."
• Volgabulghari themself edited then deleted one whole section [EDIT: "Legacy"], even though the claim "Turkic-speaking peoples of Cumania, as a sign of political allegiance, adopted the endonym of their Mongolic-speaking conquerors, before ultimately subsuming the latter culturally and linguistically." in that section is sourced.
  • The source is Pow (2019). On page 563, Pow clearly wrote:

    • If we accept this statement regarding self-identification within the military-tribal confederation that arose in the steppe, then Mongol ethnic identity was at least partly a creation of Chinggis Khan and his immediate successors. Carpini’s “Mongols whom we call Tartars” had once been Tatars – whom we now call Mon-gols. A Mongolian linguistic and cultural identity existed before Chinggis Khan but the specifically “Mongol” national identity and predominant ethnonym must be products of Chinggis Khan’s empire-building project. If so, this only confirms what has long been said: Chinggis Khan is the father of the Mongolian people. Regarding the Volga Tatar people of today, it appears they took on the endonym of their Mongol conquerors when they overran the Dasht-i-Kipchak. It was preserved as the prevailing ethnonym in the subsequent synthesis of the Mongols and their more numerous Turkic subjects who ultimately subsumed their conquerors cultu-rally and linguistically as al-Umari noted by the fourteenth century [32, p. 141]. I argue that the name “Tatar” was adopted by the Turkic peoples in the region as a sign of having joined the Tatar conquerors – a practice which Friar Julian reported in the 1230s as the conquest unfolded. The name stands as a testament to the sur-vivability and adaptability of both peoples and ethnonyms. It became, as Sh. Marjani stated, their “proud Tatar name.”

• On their talk page Volgabulgari even told Nishidani "Kys (very likely standing for Kill yourself, 1, 2)" when critiqued by Nishidani for "editing a top class 4 article with virtually no prior experience as an editor" and "ignoring standard rules."
• EDIT: and many more actions... as can be seen on the Tatar confederation's page revision history

Erminwin (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• A report by Volgabulgari about this was closed on AN as a content dispute, which is what it appears to be. The advice there was to discuss it on the article talk page, which I reiterate to Erminwin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• It might be unrelated to this thread, but User:Ermenrich and I had a bizarre encounter with User:Volgabulgari in Talk:Hunno-Bulgar_languages, where they tried to defend the notability of a POV fork with entirely made-up "citations" allegedly taken from diverse scholarly works. Having access to these sources, we quickly exposed the "citations" as fabrications. I posted a hoax warning[33] on their talk page, which was reverted. I haven't given a thought about it because @Volgabulgari self-reverted their POV fork back to a redirect—case closed. But upon seeing this report now, I wonder if User:Erminwin can spot similar "put-on" attempts in their interactions with @Volgabulgari. If not, I will be happy to acknowledge the bizarre incident in Talk:Hunno-Bulgar_languages as a singular misstep. Otherwise, the interaction reported here might turn out to be more than just a "content dispute". –Austronesier (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  https://www.britannica.com/topic/Tatar

  "The name Tatar first appeared among nomadic tribes living in northeastern Mongolia and the area around Lake Baikal from the 5th century CE. Unlike the Mongols, these peoples spoke a Turkic language, and they may have been related to the Cuman or Kipchak peoples. After various groups of these Turkic nomads became part of the armies of the Mongol conqueror Genghis Khan in the early 13th century, a fusion of Mongol and Turkic elements took place, and the Mongol invaders of Russia and Hungary became known to Europeans as Tatars (or Tartars)." Volgabulgari (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  "However, identification of the Tatars of the Orkhon inscriptions with "Dada" from Chinese sources is contested."

  link

  10th century geographical treatise Hudud al-Alam mentioned Tatars as part of Turkic tribal federation called ToquzOghuz.

  Golden, P. B. (1992). pp. 155–157 (Source repated in page, original citation did not given by me)

  "From the 10th to 13th centuries, Shatuo Turks joined Tatar confederation and became known as White Tatars branch of the Tatar" (Repated in Shauto page)

  "Actual Tatars, the Nine Tatars are associated with Turkic peoples. They might be related to Kipchak and/or Cuman peoples."

  lnik Volgabulgari (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Austronesier: When I demonstrated that User:Volgabulgari had bald-facedly lied about me, this is their response : "Flatheartism [sic] is better for you." Erminwin (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't say about lie. I said for the guy who really believes I'm getting paid for Tatarstan government. He really believes that. Volgabulgari (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Volgabulgari: "[Erminwin] the guy who really believes I'm getting paid for Tatarstan government. He really believes that." When I wrote: "There's this Vietnamese idiom: chưa đánh đã khai 'already confessing before getting beaten'." I was being sarcastic. Erminwin (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  Salty irony then. I'm really tired of speaking nonsense that leads us nowhere. You trying so hard to ban me. You reported all history and I explained myself. So, case closed. It's administator's decision. Volgabulgari (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  Lol it is you HAHAHAJSJADHAHS. Volgabulgari (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

References

• Comment While I agree there is something strange going on with this editor - the use of faked sources mentioned by Austronesier was very odd, although to their credit Volgabulgari did revert their additions once it was clear that they were unsupported by the sources used - I'm not sure that this particular ANI thread is shedding any fresh light on the problem. Erminwin, can you show any places where Volgabulgari seems to be making things up (possibly while claiming they are supported by sources)? Otherwise, I'm not sure there's much to be done at the moment.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I apologize. As soon as I realized that the resources provided to me by the website I used were fake, I deleted them when you two checked them. I didn't create these resources myself, and it would have been unnecessary for me to have the intention of producing fake sources while you two were monitoring and evaluating me through "Talk" section. I was looking for all academic websites in internet for Hunno-Bulgar languages in few hours, so, i came acrossed with some Bulgarian fabricated sources. I even added quotes to them for readers to find it. Volgabulgari (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: *

Erminwin, can you show any places where Volgabulgari seems to be making things up (possibly while claiming they are supported by sources)?

No. Yet I've encountered this one instance which involved User:Volgabulgari misinterpreting a source and then insisting on making a source-misinterpretation-based claim. Let me summarize:

• There's this Classical Chinese quote in a primary source: Book of Song, vol. 95: "芮芮一號大檀，又號檀檀"; my rough translation: "Ruìruì [aka Rouran], one appellation is Dàtán, also called Tántán". From this one may conclude that Songshu's compilers thought that Datan & Tantan were other names of the Rourans.
• a secondary source, Turkologist Peter Benjamin Golden's 2013 article "Some notes on the Avars and Rouran", contains this claim on page 55 "Datan may refer to the Tatars."
  • From these, one may conclude that the ethnonym Tatar was possibly transliterated by Songshu's compilers as 大檀 & 檀檀, which they thought to be merely other names of the Rourans.
  • However, User:Volgabulgari changed the wording of this sentence "The name 'Tatar' was [possibly] [I think the word "possibly", absent in the sentence's original version, should be included] first transliterated in the Book of Song as 大檀 Dàtán (MC: *daH-dan) and 檀檀 Tántán (MC: *dan-dan) as another name for the Rourans" based on those two sources to "The name "Tatar" was [possibly] first transliterated in the Book of Song as 大檀 Dàtán (MC: *daH-dan) and 檀檀 Tántán (MC: *dan-dan) also used as another name for the Rourans"; as if User:Volgabulgari implied that Songshu's compilers also used the word 大檀 / 檀檀 (transliterations of *Tatar) to transliterate the name Tatar of another people (whom User:Volgabulgari unfailingly asserted to be exclusively Turkic), even though the text did not indicate that at all.
  • While in almost all likelihood User:Volgabulgari cannot read Classical Chinese, I do not think it excusable that they again changed the wording to "also used for [sic] another name of the Rourans", then to "also used as name of the Rourans" in the Tatar confederation's latest version; as Wikipedia:Competence is required.
  • Another user, Folly Mox (who can read Classical Chinese), also wrote in here:

    • Having had a look at the Song Shu source, I agree that the wording "as another name for the Rourans" reflects the source, whereas "also used as another name..." misrepresents it, since this is the only context in which the term appears in the source.

Erminwin (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Volgabulgari: You have said that you "came across" these fabricated quotes in the internet on some website. Can you kindly provide the URL of the source of these fabricated quotes? –Austronesier (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

You are talking about Hunno-Bulgar languages or Tatar Confederation? Volgabulgari (talk) 09:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Volgabulgari: I'm talking about these quotes[34], which Ermenrich and I found to be forged in the further discussion. If you didn't make them up, as you say, who did? –Austronesier (talk) 10:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Can I send all these side-by-side as a mail, explaining which website and/or referance link where I used? Otherwise, you can feel free to add another topic. When I realized that the article contained errors, I removed it before it was published. I do not believe that I am obliged to disclose where I obtained them. However, if you are asking me personally, I can explain. Volgabulgari (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal

This edit alone [35] merits a block.  // Timothy :: talk  10:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support. There are also suspicious things involving sock and or meatpuppetry with other, now banned accounts, see [36] I was editing first Bulgarian empire and mailed Karak1l1c if he can help me to do some revision and this sock puppet investigation.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support indef block This is obviously a user who cannot be trusted to edit unless their edits are carefully scrutinised by other volunteers, which is just not a sustainable use of other users time. The civility issues means that an indef block is probably the best solution. The last thing Wikipedia needs are more nationalist POV-pushers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
• Already blocked for sockpuppetry. Luckily, we can put this case speedily to rest. This user has been trying to gaslight us for too long already. –Austronesier (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

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

User WikiEditor9599 at article G. B. Pant Engineering College, New Delhi

WikiEditor9599 (talk · contribs) is a WP:SPA who has added and re-added large amounts of content to G. B. Pant Engineering College, New Delhi. If I revert again I could be open to accusations of edit warring, so could an admin intervene? Aside from possible page protection, there is an apparent WP:COI leading me to suspect WP:PAID issues in need to administrator review.

The added content is poorly referenced and badly formatted, but the COI concerns are the most egregious: the images look like architects' promotional drawings and the text is both spammy and/or written in the first person (example: Today to name a few, we have our proud alumni in Apple India, Oracle USA, Nike USA, ISRO, Indian Navy etc).

Link to page prior to changes: [37]; link to page after changes: [38].

Many thanks.

Dorsetonian (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

A copyvio from https://dseu.ac.in/okhla-i/ Most likely a student. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 19:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The use of we and our makes it clear that its obvious COI at least. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely pageblocked WikiEditor9599 from editing G. B. Pant Engineering College, New Delhi. They are free to make well referenced, policy compliant edit requests on the article talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Cullen, the content has been cleaned up and merged into an existing section at Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University, so the page block may also be needed on this page.

Re: I think the copyright issues have been cleaned up, at least as far as the merged material. Here is the Earwig report, in case I am wrong.  // Timothy :: talk  09:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Block extended to cover Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University, Cabayi (talk) 06:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I edited the page as there was very least information was updated on the page, I updated all the correct information, and it is not a copyright issue as the content was from the same university website whose wikipedia page is WikiEditor9599 (talk) 06:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Your explanation that "the content was from the ... university website" is a clear statement of copyright violation. The website claims (at the foot of the page) "© Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University (DSEU) 2023. All Rights Reserved." Copyright would exist even if they did not explicitly claim it. Cabayi (talk) 06:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I apologize if I was unaware that the content I used on Wikipedia page was copyrighted and I have learned that it is a violation of copyright law as per Wikipedia Rules. I understand the importance of taking corrective action and will do so immediately. But, the point is that it is an government organization and it is meant to share the information regarding university. and also under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.

Regarding my request to revert the old page so that readers can find information about the college, as the Admission are going to start soon and students will get confused if they will not find the wikipedia page of the college .I understand that it is important to find a solution that does not infringe upon the rights of the copyright owner. I will work with the Wikipedia team to explore alternative options such as creating new content or finding alternative sources of information that are not subject to copyright protection.

In the future, I will be sure to respect the intellectual property rights of others and ensure that any content used on Wikipedia page is either original or used with the appropriate permissions. WikiEditor9599 (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

'Fair use' argument can only be invoked in limited circumstances. I am unable to see the deleted text, but looking at the amount of bytes added and removed in the page history, it seems to be large chunks of text being copyright-violated, which runs contrary to the 'fair use' doctrine of limited content being copied. The relevant policy can be read here: WP:FAIRUSE.

There is no 'Wikipedia team' on Wikipedia. We are just individual editors editing here mostly independently of each other. If you have a content team, you are encouraged to use the article's talk page to requests for edits, or even create new drafts for experienced editors to review, in line with WP:COI. – robertsky (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Thankyou for your feedback. Now , I read all the policies and rules of Wikipedia and understood its importance.

Thankyou WikiEditor9599 (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Admission Session is going to start this month and students will get confused if they will not find the wikipedia page of their college so , I request you to please think on your decision and revert back the page. WikiEditor9599 (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform to promote or advertise any organisation. – robertsky (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Robertsky you are right, But I was not trying to promote or advertise any organisation. And Now I have understood my mistake and I have read all the policies of wikipedia carefully. So, now I will never do these mistakes again WikiEditor9599 (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

All the content of the page was accurate as the university , recently changed its name so there was a lot of new information . So, I request you to please don't delete this wikipedia page as it is a very Renowned Government college of Delhi. WikiEditor9599 (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

As I told you previously, we have no interest in helping prospective students of your college. You should use your college website to do that, and direct prospective students there for the most current information. 331dot (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

You are right, But I was not trying to promote or advertise any organisation. And Now I have understood my mistake and I have read all the policies of Wikipedia carefully. So, now I will never do these mistakes again. But, I also believe that due to my mistake the original article should not be removed or merged . So, I request you to kindly revert the original Article of the college before my editing.

Thank You for your valuable time WikiEditor9599 (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

This editor has made it clear in their comments they are only here to edit the above articles and are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. There only concern is having the article restored so they can continue to promote the subject.  // Timothy :: talk  17:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I understand your concern and want to clarify that I have no intention of promoting the college. I want to emphasize that I do not have any connection with the college. I apologize for any confusion my previous message may have caused.

I want to clarify that my intention was to update the article for good reasons, and I didn't realize that my actions could result in the page being deleted. I feel guilty about this, and that's why I am requesting that the original page be restored and my edits be removed from the page. I hope this clears up any confusion and that we can find a way to move forward. WikiEditor9599 (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

It is false that this editor "has no connection to the college", they state on their user talk "The college has no objections to this information being used on Wikipedia" and " I collected all the necessary information for this college from the college authorities , they mentioned me that this college has been recently gone through many changes", 331dot (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I had already mentioned that I don't have direct connection with the college . But, for details I've contacted the college.

At last, I just want to say that if it is against the COI rule of Wikipedia. Then , I will never edit any article which I have COI .

So, Now, I will never Edit These college articles.

I feel guilty about this, and that's why I am requesting that the original page be restored and my edits be removed from the article. WikiEditor9599 (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

DePiep breaking Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#DePiep

DePiep (talk · contribs) is subject Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#DePiep which impose immediate sanction for any failure to assume good faith on the part of another editor, or uncivil remarks. He is currently engaged in editor-baiting at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers and has gone on to make a remark at User talk:XAM2175 (diff), which I believe goes directly against the editing restriction. I believe his comments to EEng (talk · contribs) in the MOS discussion are also in contravention. --10mmsocket (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § ENGVAR controls big L or little L for litres/liters? to be slightly more precise, starting from EEng's line NebY: before I unleash the mob to pummel you into submission... I wouldn't describe DePiep's conduct as editor-baiting, but rather exceptionally-obstinate civility policing where only the faintest shadow of a civility problem originally existed. I had hoped that my message would be read for the DROPTHESTICK suggestion I intended it to be, but alas it wasn't, and their referring to my message as one-way whitewashing in their post on my talkpage is bad faith in abundance. XAM2175 ^(T) 17:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  To clarify, by editor-baiting I meant that he has deliberately joined in several days after the fact to have a direct pop at EEng, i.e. baiting him, using a pointy stick to get a reaction. Apologies if that causes any confusion and detracts from the very obvious poor behaviour. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  Ah yes, I see what you mean now. No worries. XAM2175 ^(T) 18:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Could we have some diffs, please? Makes everything easier to assess. Black Kite (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  1. EEng's original post on 4 April: [39]
  2. DePiep's reply on 21 April: [40]
  3. (skipping a few more back-and-forth exchanges, still visible in the page currently, then)
  4. My interjection this morning: [41]
  5. DePiep reverts a further reply from EEng: [42]
  6. DePiep is reverted by Dondervogel 2: [43]
  7. DePiep leaves Dondervogel a talkpage message objecting to the revert: [44]
  8. ... then leaves me a talkpage message chastising me for not reverting EEng : [45]

  XAM2175 ^(T) 18:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

In which universe is this kind of remark acceptable? [46]

:Too bad cluelessness and unintelligibility aren't pillars -- you'd be the undisputed God King Emperor of Wikipedia. EEng 10:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

What some might consider to be 'just wikt:banter" – especially when directed elsewhere, a reasonably dispassionate viewer would have to interpret as an ad hominem attack and bullying. It seems to me that DeP has been remarkably restrained in the circumstances, in merely deleting it. WP:boomerang time. I suggest. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It is unquestionably inappropriate, yes. XAM2175 ^(T) 18:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

XAM, what "It" do you refer to? DePiep (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Got it, it is about the 10:49 EEng quote (not a post). -DePiep (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed if any editor baiting is being done, it certainly looks to me like it is DeP who is being baited into breaking the civility sanctions. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

(ec) reply by DePiep (1/n):

- 10mmsocket did not provide diffs, nor in 2nd post (17:47). That's very unspecific then, and still cause for misunderstanding.

- XAM2175's list of diffs leaves out EEng's posts ("skipping"), thereby hiding essence. For a judging editor, this does not look balanced. I will (have to) provide these, annotated, when I have time for this.

- Re XAM2175's #8, I object to "chastising" as characterisation. Since XAM2175 stated Further discussion here will be completely unproductive (#4), that should be the final post in the indents. I respected. To my surprise, EEng continued (omitted by XAM here) and so I asked XAM to maintain (enforce) their DROPTHESTICK statement (#8). It has not been explained to me why that did not happen. As for "one-way whitewashing": that refers to XAM's multiple judgements in #8, exonerating EEng, which I was probibited to challenge. For the dispute-solving editor role XAM took, this does not look balanced.

As said, later more.

DePiep (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I omitted those diffs because I judged a diff-by-diff playback of the entire incident to be excessive. Nothing has been redacted or even substantially modified at any point, so it's easy to read the comments visible on the page before the diff in question. In retrospect it may have been better to simply insert an anchor at the correct place on the MOS talkpage and link to it, but that didn't occur to me at the time.

I characterised your message to me as chastising because it seemed obvious to me that it would be inappropriate to remove another editor's talkpage posts for the simple reason of "enforcing" my suggestion that the discussion should be ended. I am backed in this interpretation by WP:TPO.

I did not prohibit your challenging my "exoneration" of EEng – I very clearly stated that you were welcome to challenge it here at AN/I, the appropriate venue.

For the further avoidance of doubt, the root cause of us being in this position now is that your reply to EEng on the 21st was unnecessary. EEng's remark was not uncivil, so you did not need to reply to it, and you should not have replied to it. You especially should not have replied to it after seventeen days had passed. You are the person I was telling to drop the stick because you refused to see that you were making a tiny insignificant problem bigger, and I wanted to help you avoid taking it any further. But I do not particularly wish to see you blocked for continuing, nor I am not attempting to provoke you into responding badly. Just please acknowledge that you made a mistake and that it would probably be best if you left civility policing to other people.

All of that said, this should not detract from the fact that in the course of converting this molehill into a mountain EEng has latterly been unwise and made at least one remark that actually is uncivil, as opposed to just irreverent and flippant as usual. XAM2175 ^(T) 19:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

XAM2175, this post is still present. It is contravening your Further discussion here will be completely unproductive statement/attempt to dispute-closure [47]. Above here you state It is unquestionably inappropriate, yes about that very same post 18:36. Why did not you (or anyone else) remove it? ftr, I propose to have it removed right away. DePiep (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

DePiep, please stop. My post was intended as a suggestion, aimed mainly at you, that pointless discussion be ended. It was not a closure – or attempt at closure – that could be contravened, and I have already explained that per WP:TPO I do not believe that I have grounds to remove EEng's posts. XAM2175 ^(T) 10:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

And, for clarity's sake: I will not be removing them. Please don't ping me about it again. XAM2175 ^(T) 10:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• I realize there are people that have trouble grasping social situations, but such people usually come to understand that fact about themselves and exercise circumspection in injecting themselves into others' interactions. Not DePiep! For almost 20 years he's been not only taking umbrage at random innocent things others say to him, but sticking his clueless nose over and over and over into conversations among other editors for the sole purpose of acting the incompetent civility cop. In an hour I could give you a dozen examples; here are a couple (in addition to the one already described by the OP):
  • In 2019 I said somewhere: Just a note in passing that whoever came up with the idea of separate WP: and MOS: namespaces should be shot. Naturally DePiep got right to work defending innocents from my "aggression": WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1018#EEng_agression. A dozen editors told him to drop the ol' stick, but nooooooooooooo, DePiep kept Mrs. Malapropping himself into a deeper and deeper hole. At one point someone said:

    I had a friend once ... who was literally incapable of understanding hyperbole, jokes, or other non-literal forms of speech. It was very amusing telling him things that we all understood were not literally true but he didn't, watching him react, and then letting him know that it was not true so that he'd be in on the joke as well (as he was a friend and we wanted to laugh with him, not at him). This somehow reminds me of that, except for the part about being in on the joke once informed that it was a joke, and also the part about ending on ANI instead of in laughter.

Did DePiep get the hint? Noooooooooooooooo. Here we are years (and several similar ANI threads) later, and he's still prattling on with the same nonsense.

• In the very ANI thread in which DePiep get his editing restrictions slapped on him, I happened to mention as an aside:

  the single-letter template names are a rare and precious resource not to be squandered. The idea of wasting Z on something about chemical elements is appalling, and whoever appropriated {M} for earthquakes should be boiled in oil

(I have to admit -- I seem to have a lot of fantasies of doing bodily harm to my Wikipedia colleagues.) And sure enough, we've got DePiep scolding me about this, not to mention spouting gibberish about the admin habit to not wheelbarrow easily [48], whatever the fuck that could mean (and that right after asserting that his English comprehension isn't part of his problem).

One of DePiep's editing restrictions is that he's subject to immediate sanction (including blocks) if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, or personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. And like it says WP:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack?, it's a personal attack for him to make Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. So I'm telling you now, DePiep, for the very last time: stay out of my fucking business, or the next time you call me uncivil when the actual problem is that you don't understand human behavior, I'm not going to bother reminding you to get a clue. Instead I'll just have you blocked.

Actually, here's another idea: can I please have a one-way interaction ban against this pest? Then I wouldn't have to waste my time with him and he won't have to get blocked. I'd really appreciate it. EEng 04:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• If I might add a comment from someone not involved in any of the original discussions…

DePiep is subject to previous sanctions issued at ANI, as listed above. They have been to ANI multiple times for this same issue. They replied to a two week old comment by EEng which had a gentle jibe inside, and took that miniscule problem and blew it up beyond all proportion, which is exactly what they have been told not to do in previous ANI discussions and in their sanction.

While I do not condone EEng’s behaviour in response to DePiep, surely some action must be taken given the latter’s obvious disregard to their existing restrictions? Danners430 (talk) 10:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, see below. Accusing me of gaming the system is a failure to assume good faith. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Danners430: Your statements & judgements here are not based on (absent) diffs. Instead, they are speculative and inconsistent. -DePiep (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

My statement here is based on the diffs and talk page link linked in previous comments. It’s not anybody’s responsibility to repost links that have previously been added to the report. Danners430 (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

As said [49][50]: diffs are absent or incomplete. As for inconsistency: you apply the phrase condone asymmetically. DePiep (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I do love how you appear to be accusing everyone who is commenting on this thread instead of looking at yourself… not sure how I can use a phrase asymmetrically when I only use it once… Danners430 (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

You are judging unbalanced, prejudiced. Your judgement is based on incomplete diffs. You are reflecting roused talks. DePiep (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• The diffs, annotated

AA. Discussion started at talkpage [51] (27 Mar)

AB. EEng .. NebY: before I unleash the mob to pummel you into submission, .. [52] (4 Apr).

AC. DePiep, regular contributions [53] [54] [55] [56] (17 Apr)

AD. DePiep re AB: Needless violent language here, EEng [57] (21 Apr).

AE. EEng Needless comment born of your misreading of social cues three weeks after the fact, DePiep [58].

AF. DePiep You wrote it. It's agressive. If you mean something else, write something else [59].

AG. 25 Apr (+4days), EEng stop trying to referee the interactions of other editors, because you lack sufficient awareness of social cues to understand what's going on .. I'm not going to use kindergarten baby-talk .. Really, just butt the fuck out of others' conversations [60].

AH. 26 Apr, DePiep agressive and condescent language here, again .. Civility is a pillar .. My question stands: EEng, please avoid agressive language [61].

So far: DePiep joined the ongoing talk on 17 Apr. The post re AB was on 21 Apr, 4 days after joining. Talk was still open, so all texts are active. Don't see why "three weeks", incorrect by itself, could be an issue.

Note that DeP is asking, no problematic wording. Aimed as keeping the discussion free of bad language. Replies by EEng: Personal attacks. No civility. Steep escalating. Personal, i.e., not helpful for the discussion.

AI. XAM2175, closure post: .. Further discussion here will be completely unproductive [62].

AJ. EEng. After XAM closure. Trolling. Personal atacks. Too bad cluelessness and unintelligibility aren't pillars -- you'd be the undisputed God King Emperor of Wikipedia .. he doesn't know what he's talking about [63].

AK. DePiep reverts, es .. As XAM2175 says: "Further discussion .. unproductive" [64].

AL. Dondervogel2 reinstalled AJ [65], usertalk no further effect 3x.

AN. DePiep on usertalk, request XAM to maintain their closure i.e., delete AJ [66]; not acted upon.

Current state: AJ (after-closure trolling post) still present.

AQ. cf this, from an other talkpage, illustrates EEng SOP.

EEng [67].

DePiep: [68] (22, 24 Sep)

-DePiep (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

My judgment, which acknowledges this complete list of diffs, is that you should have abided by your editing restriction. You assumed bad faith in your April 21 response to EEng. You have likewise assumed bad faith in your responses to Danners430. Furthermore, in your 'report reject' subthread below, you have assumed bad faith by alleging that the OP is Throwing mud to see what sticks. I don't condone EEng's overreaction, but none of this would have happened if you hadn't assumed bad faith in your unnecessary response to a stale comment that was clearly a joke. Floquenbeam is right that it would be better if editors ignored your 'out of left field' comments, but at this point it's probably too late for that. If you do end up blocked, it will be a reasonable consequence that you brought upon yourself. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

10mmsocket: report reject

OP report lacks diffs, therefor causes misunderstandings & speculation. Cannot be a base for discussion. Due and careful process broken.

The 10mmsocket (talk · contribs) initial report here lacks diffs for its accusative remarks (which are unspecific otherwise too). Cause for misunderstanding and so projection, which is inexcusable in the ANI process [69]. No diffs added in 2nd post either [70]. Nor after explicit request for diffs [71] (1st). Their second post, 10mmsocket has disappeared.

Given the unspecified report, and the reluctance to provide diffs, I conclude that the report is useless and not worth nor deserving replies. Every response would imply assumptions, speculations, and failed process. So I will not, can not reply thoroughly to the 10mmsocket report/posts. Treat as nullified, not present.

Throwing mud to see what sticks, and then let others deal with it, is gaming the system. The ANI community & processes are failing due proces here. I propose and take for granted that the contributions of 10mmsocket are not part of the considerations.

One could also consider disallowing 10mmsocket to interact with me or with ANI in a wider sense. ​ -DePiep (talk) 09:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Sigh... Diffs were provided subsequently so I saw no need to add anything further. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I don't really see this closing any other way than a pretty long block for DePiep. Nobody is going to just drop it, and eventually, a "This has gone on long enough" type admin will come along. And I realize admins shouldn't just ignore editing restrictions, so this is just me venting, not "acting in an admin capacity" on this. But... is it just me, or is 51% of the problem that (a) DePiep is incapable of letting go of something once they latch on, even though they are often wrong on the subject, and also 49% of the problem that (b) there seems to be something about DePiep that causes otherwise sane people to be incapable of ignoring them when they say something out of left field. I mean, I suppose I understand enforcing rules and stuff, but couldn't everybody just ignore them? If the "this is violent imagery" comment had just been ignored, what would probably have happened? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  Tell you what. Every month or two I'll pick a random discussion you're involved in, and into it I'll interject a largely unintelligible string of gibberish scolding you for doing something which I clearly have no clue about. Once in a while I'll open an ANI thread accusing you of misbehavior, into which I'll dump some kind of acrostic like DePiep's AA, AB, AC junk above, and a lot of people will spend a lot of time telling me to cut out being such an ass all the time, but their time will be wasted because that advice will sheet off me like water off a duck's back. I'll keep this up for years and years. Then we'll see how long you're able to ignore that. EEng 23:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  That sounds awfully close to describing WP:Harassment to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  For clarity and because people sometimes miss EEng's point, what EEng wrote is what he believes happens to him. That is in response to Floq's wise advice to ignore inappropriate replies, and EEng is saying that asking him to just ignore it is unreasonable. Johnuniq (talk) 05:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  When I was younger people saw my point all the time, but I changed my hairstyle a few years ago and now I'm told my point is difficult if not impossible to see. EEng 01:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

  This is a much better version of a joke I tell frequently. I'm stealing this. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'm available for children's parties. EEng 03:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

  I lost my hairstyle more than a few years ago, and now all anyone can see is my point. (I'm available too, and I work for union scale.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if that was directed at me, but just to be clear, that is exactly what I got from EEng's comment, and what I characterized as being close to harassment (of EEng) is DePiep's behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  It's a good thing most of us here know how to read EEnglish (and sometimes speak it, though with not as much success). ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  I had interceded with the intent of preventing further escalation. Obviously that was naïve of me. XAM2175 ^(T) 10:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  Turns out you were WP:DIFFUSINGCONFLICT. EEng 00:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• I suppose a one-way interaction ban for DePiep on interacting with EEng is something that could be done. But really, as Floq says, one does have to wonder exactly how long this extended time sink of multiple contributor's time is going to go on for - after all it will just be someone other than EEng next time - and there will be a next time, previous experience tells us. Indeed, the paragraph that this comment is part of tells us quite a lot. Black Kite (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  I really shouldn't have proposed the interaction ban, for a couple of reasons. (1) I've never "banned" someone from my talk page or asked for an interaction ban; it's kind of a point of pride to deal with things myself. (2) It's selfish. It would solve my problem, but not that of the teeming millions who suffer DePiep's inscrutable, infuriating ministrations year in and year out. The problem with the current block is that it's clear that, as always, DePiep not a clue what he's been blocked for. (See User talk:DePiep.) He thinks, as he's expressed many times before, that he's being blocked because everyone's against him, that I've got more friends than he does, etc. (See here: Looks like EEng has more friends than I have. Of course, that might actually be true, and DePiep might want to think about why that is.) His block will expire and he'll go right on back to doing the same thing, because he sees no causal relationship between his behavior and getting blocked -- it's everyone else that's at fault, and he's a martyr bravely enforcing the civility pillar. This will only be solved with an indefinite block, to be lifted only when he can convincingly articulate that he accepts that, for whatever reason, he is incompetent to judge or comment on others' behavior, and that he understands the he must restrict the subject of his posts strictly to article content only, on pain of a final indef. WP:HIGHMAINT indeed. EEng 05:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

  My selfishness again: my post just above really only addresses DePiep's I'm-the-civility-enforcer complex. Other reassurances from him would be needed to address his other forms of misbehavior. EEng 11:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

  b.t.w. I didn't report DePiep because I am your friend. I saw his post on XAM2175's talk page, which I follow due to previous interactions, and clicked through to see the offending discussion which frankly shocked me. I then thought "surely this guy has been blocked before" so looked at DePiep's contribution history and block log, which mentioned the editing restrictions. At that point seeing how many times he had been blocked I knew this was something that should be reported. I confess I'm surprised at him receiving just a month block after so many infringements. Not an admin, but I'd be leaning towards a permanent block this time.

  As an aside, I encountered an editor this week who I quickly judged to be a bit of an a'hole. Then I saw on their user page that they had a condition on the autism spectrum. I thought that was brave and my attitude has changed. I'm now a little more tolerant of their edits. Everyone should follow META:Don't be a jerk, but it helps to understand that (occasionally) there may be reasons for that degree of jerkitude someone is displaying. It makes me wonder about this case... 10mmsocket (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

  Autistics are capable of learning their own limitations. EEng 11:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

  Agree, depending where they are on the spectrum. Others are also capable of using it as an excuse/shield for continuing dickishness. But it still pays to assume good faith (initially). 10mmsocket (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

  Those that are not capable should, like anyone else who can't learn their own limitations, find somewhere else to spend their time. EEng 14:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yup 10mmsocket (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 month

I've blocked for one month for violation of their editing restrictions. I bumped it from from the two weeks given for their last violation. I'm leaving the discussion open to allow for further discussion about a possible 1-way iban with EEng, or another sanction. I'll keep an eye on the section and if it looks like no discussion or consensus is forthcoming on additional points I'll close it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

This is the fifteenth time this user has needed to be blocked for their terrible attitude. I cannot for the life of me understand why they keep getting off so lightly. An iban won't fix this problem, it has to come from the user, I guess we'll see how their sixteenth second chance works out.... Beeblebrox (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Yup. In the circumstances, SFR, I think that sanction was too weak. Leniency towards this user is injustice to his victims.—S Marshall T/C 18:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

This needs to be a more substantive block. No fewer than three months, I would think, given the lengthy block history. This is a case of WP:HIGHMAINT where we are granting far too much leniency. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 22:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, there's a month to work out a consensus for a longer block. I just looked at the most recent block which was for two weeks and doubled it. With the number of blocks and the restrictions that were necessary are we at the point where an indef should be considered? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

To my eye, as someone totally uninvolved who's never clashed with DePiep at all: we are clearly at the point of indef.—S Marshall T/C 07:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes. We are past that point. This at minimum should have been a year. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

As detailed above (I really shouldn't have proposed the interaction ban...) I really think that there's no long-term resolution that doesn't involve DePiep clearly articulating an understanding of what he's doing wrong. And an indef is the only way to get that. Any block for a term (month, year, 5 years) will expire, he'll go back to doing what he always does, and here we'll be again. EEng 16:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Community Ban (CBan) for DePiep

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

---

For their long, long history of disruption, personal attacks and harassment, User:DePiep is indefinitely banned by the community from editing English Wikipedia. If this proposal is approved, an administrator shall impose an indefinite block on DePiep and any known related accounts. This ban can be appealed after 1 year, and every 6 months afterward. It can only be lifted by a community-wide discussion on WP:AN. Should the ban be lifted, DePiep's current editing restrictions will remain in effect.

• Support - as proposer. The editor's block log [72], their history on the noticeboards [73], and the evidence presented in this thread above all support the necessity for banning DePiep from editing here. (Note: As far as I can recall I have never been involved in a dispute with DePiep.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
• Strong Support: How in the pluperfect hell did this editor rack up a block log like that and avoid being indeffed much earlier? Or is this just another MickMcNee-esque case that if you rack up enough edits, you've got a measure of immunity for behavior that'd get a newbie indeffed twenty times over? (My reaction to the admins above musing over whether they should've just dropped the hammer on DePiep is "Who stopped you?") I haven't had any interaction with DePiep either, to my knowledge, but this is ridiculous. Ravenswing 11:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support, but with regret, and here's why. I have not the tiniest doubt that DePiep means well. And I have no belief at all that he means to harass me or anyone else. Instead, what we have here is a CIR problem. The essence of CIR is not knowing the boundaries of one's competency. One doesn't have to be competent in all areas of WP endeavor to be a useful contributor, but you do have to know where you are able to usefully contribute and where you are unable to usefully contribute. If you do not know this, and will not take advice from others on the subject, that's when you've got a CIR problem. So, for example, the fact that DePiep apparently has a cockeyed idea of what civility means, doesn't mean he's incompetent overall; but the fact that he's been told that over and over, yet continues to take on the role of civility cop, does. Until DePiep somehow gains self-knowledge in the area of where he's competent and where he's not, and demonstrates that knowledge to the community, he can't contribute usefully here. EEng 18:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support The only reason I haven't changed the block to an indef already is out of respect to SFR and to not wheel war a block with them. The block log speaks for itself and again I will say what I have said countless number of times: no one is bigger than the project. You have to show you can work with other people collaboratively. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
• I'm really not a fan of this sort of "votes for banning" stuff, but I'm also not a fan of how we extend almost endless patience to editors who are only just this side of the line, even if that sees off good editors. This is so counterproductive, and yet we do it at least once a week on this board, because we'd rather spend a year or so redeeming someone who will eventually end up indeffed anyway than spend 20 seconds helping someone who would be an asset without the damned problematic editor on their case all the time. — Trey Maturin™ 18:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support I think there's a fundamental CIR issue here where I don't see any other option. Galobtter (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Reluctant support - I'm not convinced that DePiep is a net-negative, so I have some misgivings about this. However, there is a clear evidence of a long-standing problem that has persisted for a long time in spite of numerous attempts to get the user to adjust his behavior. At this point, it is apparent that fixed-length blocks are inadequate to prevent the behavior from reoccurring. We now have to decide whether to tolerate the behavior or escalate to an indef, and I find myself leaning toward the latter option. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support a Site Ban – As additional evidence, I will cite the long history of periodic table disputes, where, as I tried to explain, the original issue, the arrangement of the elements in the periodic table, was not a technical content dispute at all, but a matter of formatting that should simply be decided. Those disputes led to a Request for Arbitration, in which I said, in November 2020, that ArbCom should consider whether DePiep is a net negative for the encyclopedia:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=990863692#Elements

ArbCom declined the arbitration request, but I think that the community should answer my question with a Yes. Search for ANI reports on the Periodic Table, and three of them were complaints about DePiep: *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1089#Alleged_interference_in_RfC_by_DePiep

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1055#Disruptive_behaviour_by_User:_DePiep
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1048#Uncivil_behavior_by_User:DePiep

Nothing has changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

So it's been a periodic periodic table dispute. EEng 22:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

That was elementary, my dear EEng. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes. It was as if DePiep was on the left side of the periodic table and was mixing it up with someone on the right side of the periodic table, and the reaction was predictable (since prediction is one of the uses of the periodic table). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• Just in case this wasn't clear from my contributions to the debate above, I wholeheartedly support the proposed community ban. DePiep will not understand why, and that's unfortunate, but the greater injustice is to let him continue this behaviour.—S Marshall T/C 09:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The editing restriction, which is about to turn five years old, was put in place as the result of two massive amounts of work: one was the building of the restriction by people who wanted User:DePiep to remain a part of the community long after he'd earned removal from it and the other was all the explaining of WP:CIVIL to an editor whose block log meant he was owed no such consideration. That second effort would have started well before his first civility block in January 2009 and 14 years later there's still plenty of evidence this guy still doesn't know when he's insulting people and he's still completely incapable of comprehending WP:AGF.
  Since the restriction was put in place, DePiep has been blocked either four or five times for incivility. (The April 2019 block was arguably just for edit warring but if I said it was also for incivility I doubt the blocking admin, User:MSGJ, would correct me.) I don't think he should be indefinitely blocked because he won't stop insulting people or assuming they're acting in bad faith. I think he should be blocked per WP:CIR because he genuinely has no idea if what he's saying is an insult and he has no idea what he's doing that means he's assuming another editor is acting in bad faith. I hate coming to that conclusion but there you go. CityOfSilver 17:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support I've been an admin here for nearly 16 years and I've literally lost count of the number of times we've had this discussion. It's time for it finally to be dealt with, or it will, inevitably, be back here yet again soon. It is unfortunate, but such is the nature of a collaborative encyclopedia; if you can't behave collaboratively, you do end up being shown the door. Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current evidence presented doesn't lead me to believe this editor is a net negative. CapitalSasha ~ talk 01:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• Have you considered the evidence of previous AN/I discussions, in particlar [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84] ...? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

And that's certainly a fair perspective. But Sasha talked about not being convinced of the "net" effect of DePiep's editing being negative~. That requires considering the positive contributions of DePiep as well as the negative. Some of those positives include foundational content on the Unicode Standard, an incredible amount of maintenance and functionality building in both the template and module namespaces, as well as a consistent pattern of assisting people undertaking large WP:AWB projects. Those kinds of contributions to this project can't just be ignored, just as civility issues can't be ignored. This should be a decision made taking the whole into account, and not just a narrow snapshot of when we fail to be our best. If the only thing that matters is our mistakes, then no editor of sufficient standing will be able to remain. Because while 300,000 edits is absolutely not a get-out-of-jail-free card in terms of behavioral standards, it is also a contribution history that is very easy to cherry-pick worst moments from. I don't think we can have a real conversation about the best thing to do in this circumstance if we are only talking about this editor's shortcomings and not their redeeming qualities as well. VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 00:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree with what you say, but I think the situation here is that DePiep's positive contributions have been a major factor in his getting many passes in the past despite his incivility and disruption, and that people are pretty much fed up with it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

DePiep's template editor privs were revoked for misbehavior in that area as well, so you might want to drop that from your list of +ives going forward. EEng 02:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support Fifteen blocks is enough rope to build a spider-web, let alone a proverbial noose. As much as I like to believe that everyone can change given time, I honestly can't see DePiep changing enough after 14 years of blocks. GabberFlasted (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Strong Support 15 blocks is enough. It's time for a C-block on him because he's obviously not changing. Dinoz1 (chat?) 16:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support If they were an employee, their loaded write-up file would've had them out the door seven blocks ago. Time to drain this time sink. Nate • (chatter) 22:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Incivility in talk and edit summaries from MrOllie, ultimate result is disruptive editing.

I've been IP editing since yesterday under 142.115.142.4 and 66.207.202.66. I have declared this since first I was using both [85].

Editor MrOllie has been uncivil in the short interactions with me and a brief look into his contribution history and talk page history shows a very similar interaction with another user running concurrently with me, and similar behavior going back. MrOllie accused me of pushing a POV [86] after a revert with the edit summary "no" [87], which is apparently in reply to my edit summary "see the talk page", which is in reference to this detailed talk message [88].

I would have let it go, but MrOllie's history shows a pattern, not just this instance. So I added a talk page incivility message. MrOllie almost immediately reverted it[89] with edit summary "Rv more nonsense". I realized that I was on the other IP he had not seen yet, so I thought he might have mistook me for spam/trolling. I posted another talk message to clear that up. It was also almost immediately reverted with the edit summary "take a hint" [90]. I have taken the hint: MrOllie has no interest in civilly discussing my edit and his revert of it, in clear violation of WP:Civil and WP:BRD.

Another IP user made a reasonable edit and was equally mistreated in almost exactly the same way: Message incivility [91] and Edit summary incivility:[92] [93] [94]. MrOllie has been uncivil since the start with this IP, just as he has with me. Some other instances that looks similar at first glance. [95] [96][97]. Thank you. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

MrOllie accused me of pushing a POV. No, he accused you of having an obvious POV. It's possible to have a POV and still edit neutrally. And if you are going to put a news outlet's Pulitzer win in scarequotes it's a bit rich to come and complain when someone suggests that you might have an obvious POV!

MrOllie could have been less brusque with you, but I'm not seeing any sanctionable incivility here. Nor do I see it wrt the other IP – when you reinstate a message on an editor's talkpage that they have removed, after they have told you not to edit their talkpage, an edit summary of "rv harassment" is about what you should expect. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

You are equivocating two senses of "POV". You are suggesting MrOllie merely criticized my personal and reasoned perspective, rather than accusing I'm violating WP:NPOV. I'll admit my perspective, and reject the accusation at the same time: the NYT is not a reliable source for history, as the 1619 project page shows. How they decided it won the Pulitzer is questionable and part of the controversial nature of topic. Every historical authority is shaking their head about this.

But so what? MrOllie is terse and disruptive. He reverts and doesn't discuss. He actively tells those he reverted to go away, but will revert again if you edit. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

"the NYT is not a reliable source for history, as the 1619 project page shows"...consider yourself very lucky you haven't blocked yet. Nothing actionable, and MrOllie warned you appropriately for obvious POV editing and was terse because of removal of well-sourced content. I'm going to be even more terse here; knock it off, now. Nate • (chatter) 21:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I didn't remove any content from that article. Do you have a diff that you're referring to? 66.207.202.66 (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you going to take back your claim I removed sourced content and concede that you didn't actually look very far into this? This argument with MrOllie (which I consider resolved) was about a very simple addition of a word. I don't appreciate that you'd fly at me with both fists up like this while clearly not even bothering to read the discussion and edit diffs. 142.115.142.4 (talk) 04:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

As for the other IP edit..."Morris is not a medical doctor but has authored over 100 academic papers"...he's not a doctor, and again, reverted appropriately and we don't template regulars with sarcasm about civility. Nate • (chatter) 21:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

we don't template regulars. I can remember that. But I can assure you, there is no sarcasm here. I'm dead serious about MrOllie's behavior. This is my first ANI submission, but not the first time I've endured this kind of abuse. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it's the IPs conduct here rather than MrOllie's that is the real concern. They are engaging in tendentious POV-pushing against the talk-page consensus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Which preexisting talk discussion do you think is giving consensus that my initial edit and talk post address? And if you'd like to address how the message of my small edit is contrary to the existing article message (since it is a lede edit), I'd love to hear it on the article talk page. The fact is, the article is very critical of the topic, since that is the prevailing opinion among historians. The 1619 Project is and has been resoundingly criticized, and the leading sentence should reflect this, just like all other heavily expert-criticized topics. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The honorable IP needs to educate themselves very, very quickly on WP:RS if they want to continue having an editing career on Wikipedia. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 22:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I understand the RS policy. You should educate yourself on the topic and perhaps read the diffs I provided.

I understand Wikipedia puts NYT as WP:GREL. I also understand sourcing is evaluated on each individual case. I also understand that grel doesn't mean infallible, and that despite this many regular Wikipedians will argue "but it's grel" like that does confer infallibility. The NYT left a big mess in the bed on this one, and the Wikipedia article shows this. It is filed with heavy and aggressive criticism from history experts, and virtually no positive responses (because none exist). See my above reply for more info.

But like I said, you should educate yourself on the topic and perhaps read the diffs I provided, since the grel status of NYT and sourcing in general is irrelevant to this issue. It hasn't even come up! This is about MrOllie behaving incivilly and ultimately editing disruptively. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, when multiple editors are bringing up a concern, even if it's not the one you started with, it's usually a good idea to listen. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Sound advice. However, the responses here are not giving a unified message. I also have doubts they've looked into the topic. But if they want to make this about POV, then they can take it to the NPOV notice board, then we can come back and settle the ANI. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

You appear to be trying to use this complaint at ANI to recruit assistance in a content dispute. We do not do that. We address behavior. Multiple editors have expressed concern, with varying degrees of asperity, that you are pushing a POV against consensus. That appears to be the primary issue, not MrOllie's conduct. Your conduct here only reinforces that perception. Acroterion (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

No, I said the exact opposite. If they want to discuss the POV of the article, then do so at the article or the NPOV message board. If they really want to double down, put an ANI on me for POV pushing. I talked about behavior. One admitted MrOllie is terse, but it's apparently ok because he thinks I'm POV pushing. I don't have much faith in his assessment, since he also thinks I deleted sourced content. I didn't delete anything from the article. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

What you think you're doing and what you're actually accomplishing are two different things. When many people advise that you're doing something wrong, it would be wise to consider that they have a point. ANI is a bad choice of venue to try to direct an outcome to your specification. Acroterion (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

It's your actions that are being scrutinized and not what you said. Honestly, I suggest you do yourself a big favour and drop it. M.Bitton (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

IP, I will refer you to WP:BOOMERANG, but for your convenience, it says: A common statement on noticeboards is "this isn't about me, it's about them", as if discussion is restricted to the original complaint, so that discussing the behavior of the original reporter would be "changing the subject". But that isn't the case: any party to a discussion or dispute might find their behavior under scrutiny. A reporter whose behavior is or becomes out of line may find themselves be bludgeoned with their own boomerang. I would take M Bitton's advice. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, MrOllie's user Talk page (what he hasn't reverted of it), unfortunately is overflowing with petty bickering with other users. Much of it seems to spark from a pattern of behavior: reverting entire edits and refusing to discuss, often antagonizing users who attempt to engage with him. I politely pointed out that these practices are bad practice and noted that this erodes civility on the platform.

This kind of behavior absolutely merits addressing with sincerity, not yet more bickering and finger-pointing. 2604:4080:13F8:8320:D972:8646:9B07:D794 (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you really think that coming in as a meat/sockpuppet in an attempt to make it seem like your POV has support is going to work here? It's more likely to earn you rangeblocks. Ravenswing 03:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

This IP isn't me. It's not even the same protocol... Range block that whole /64 if you want. I've been upfront since way before this ANI that I'm on 2 IPs at the moment. Why would I do that while also socking? 142.115.142.4 (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• If you ask me, all three of these POV IPs need a time-out from editing in order to fully understand Wikipedia's policies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

^This, particularly with meat/sock puppetry now entering the picture. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Proposal: a one week siteban for OP so they can read up on Wikipedia policies. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I withdraw this ANI. I believe I've overreacted a bit, though still believe MrOllie's contribution history shows he is quickly and unnecessarily curt, especially in discussion about his reverts. I've attempted to make this right with him. [98]

As for this boomerang, ulgh. You guys jump to conclusions, out for blood, makes you feel powerful I guess. It was me that posted to NPOV [99] about the argument and it was me that conceded to MrOllie's position. [100] So, I feel quite justified at this point to tell you guys to go do something uncivil with yourselves. Good day. 142.115.142.4 (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Following this edit, the IP made a series of POV edits to Xenophobia in the United States, removing the entire section on Donald Trump and much other material critical of US policy. The POV editing is indeed clear, and it looks as though a boomerang would be justified here. RolandR (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I cite policy on three talk sections I created, you cite nothing on your revert. And wp:onus applies to some of the edits. I'm happy to discuss with you there or on NPOV. 207.236.147.164 (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Apparently my IP changed again... 207.236.147.164 (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Follow up / proposal

I wasn't planning on responding to this at all, since the IP editor has been doing a good job of making my case for me. But now I want to draw attention to this non-apology apology that was posted to my talk page about this ANI: ANI about your recent behavior posted. Between the inability to walk away without another round of personal attacks and the edit warring about Trump at Xenophobia in the United States I think some sort of boomerang sanction is warranted. Perhaps a topic ban from American Politics for the person behind these IPs? - MrOllie (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Support though I'm not sure how enforcable such a topic ban would be. Regardless, these IPs need to be dealt with to curb their disruption. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Support, they're clearly here to right great wrongs and don't care if they disrupt Wikipedia to do it. A topic ban seems like an appropriate way to push them towards editing in less contentious areas where they're less likely to continue running into these arguments (though I suspect they won't bother). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 00:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Roger Ogden/Chicano Park

I am requesting that user Roger Ogden be banned from editing the article on Chicano Park. I go into more detail on the article's talk page, but in a nutshell the user has a clear conflict of interest as he personally was directly involved in political protests at the park (news outlets cited him as the organizer of at least one of them, though he claims on the article's talk page not to have been), and the majority of his edits have been heavily rewriting the section regarding his protests in an extremely self-serving way, as well as inserting various political attacks on the park itself. Some edits also include links to his own web presence (a Scribd account under his name) and seem to constitute original research, again pushing a particular political agenda.

The edits have taken place in two long batches, one in 2018 and one in 2023. Comparing the versions before his edits to the versions after illustrate the issue pretty clearly: 2018 edits, 2023 edits. Note that the diff links above also include a number of anonymous edits, but these coincide with both the timing and the nature of Ogden's logged-in edits and are almost certainly the work of the same person, just not signed in.

Due to the clear conflict of interest and disregard for NPOV, it is my recommendation and request that this user (along with an apparent sock puppet account TRobles, which he seems to admit is also his account on the article's talk page) be banned from making edits to Chicano Park. -Literally Satan (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, the TRobles account has never posted an edit besides the one on the talk page that he immediately admitted was his, and the user talk page was created with the only text being "this is a test", so I think this may not have been necessarily intended as malice. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The post by TRobles was a mistake. That is a dummy account that I was experimenting with, but had not used. I just forgot I was logged in on that account. I am a video blogger and I have never organized a political protest at Chicano Park. I have recorded protests at the park on both sides of the political spectrum, left and right. Just because I have a critical opinion of the park does not mean I have a conflict of interest. I should not be prohibited from making edits on this page. It is Literal Lucifer who has actually a bias and is operating on his bias. He doesn't want certain objective information about the park to be made public, even when it is supported by court documents and valid photographs. I recommend that you ban Literally Lucifer from the page because he erased wholesale all all of my edits, including from five years ago, which have never been contested before. Also, it appears that he deleted a number of actual photos of the park that I made myself. Those were completely valid photos of the park that showed the revolutionary nature of the park murals. There was nothing wrong with them in regard to uploading them to the page. They did not misrepresent the Park in any way. He has also misrepresented me as "alt right" to demonize me, which I am not and never have been "alt right". RogerO (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

It is correct that a "critical opinion" does not in and of itself constitute a conflict of interest. The conflict of interest comes from Ogden's direct involvement in an incident being discussed in the "controversies" section. All (or maybe almost all) of the edits Ogden has made to that section of the article were clearly intended to portray his involvement in a positive light and his opponents in a negative light, which demonstrates to me that the user is either unable or unwilling to adhere to the policy of NPOV, particularly when describing his own involvement.

This is the second time he has accused me of trying to smear him as "alt right", which is not a statement I have ever made about him or inserted into the article. I did use the term "far-right" in an edit I made before discovering his involvement in the editing of the article, but this term is used in the Los Angeles Times article I cited for that paragraph. He has also accused me both here and on the talk page of trying to suppress information about the park in pursuit of a particular agenda, which is not the case. The only edits I have made to the article are:

• rewriting the Controversy section (and fixing a typo) to change what I saw as an extremely biased account of the incidents described. These changes included providing context about Ogden and his motivations, more information on other attendees and their political affiliation, and removing an extended rant about the criminal history of a man who had nothing to do with the event (on either side) that seemed to only have been included to associate the park and its supporters with criminality. These changes were made before I realized Roger Ogden had been involved in editing the article, and included citations to local and regional media articles. (A couple of these edits were made when I wasn't logged in.)
• removing material written by Ogden, which I did after I looked through the article history, realized his involvement in the article, and saw the nature of his edits. I felt these deletions was necessary for reasons I have explained repeatedly both on this very page and on the article's talk page. Some of these changes involved removing material that didn't directly have to do with the incidents in question, including the deletion of the aforementioned photos. This was done not in an attempt to suppress information; it was done to remove material inserted by a source who should not be providing material to this article due to the conflict of interest, regardless of the validity of any individual deletion. If other editors who do not have conflicts of interest feel that anything I removed or rewrote should be restored to the article as proper context, and that said material is not a violation of NPOV, they are of course free to reinsert it. Again, my reasoning for removing much of the material was its source, not necessarily the material itself.

As for the alternate account TRobles, while I agree its use does not seem to have been malicious, I included it in this request because of the possibility that it could be used to evade the ban I was requesting. My ultimate concern is not which account has this or that action taken against it; my intention is that the person Roger Ogden (regardless of which account he may or may not be using) should not be allowed to edit the article on Chicano Park for the reasons outlined above. -Literally Satan (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Simple stated, and to not be argumentative. If I broke Wikipedia rules with some edits that would be due to not having much experience. Those edits could be reversed or deleted, though the edits I made are actually the truth. I think the motivation here, though, is to have me banned mainly because I have information about the Grand Jury investigation of the Chicano Park Steering Committee and also I have have information about the conviction of David Rico, one of he Founders of the Park and a member of the Steering Committee for about 50 years. David Rico was charged and convicted of criminal syndicalism for planning to firebomb a local college and it was believe they also intended to attack critical infrastructure in the hopes of starting a revolution. Criminal syndicalism is a law that they charged terrorists with before the current anti-terrorism laws. Rico was convicted of a crime of terrorism. The Park insiders do not want that factual information shared on Wikipedia. Also, my photos of park murals that show that promotion of radicalism should not be deleted. Chicano Park is a far-left political park similar in concept to the People's Park in San Francisco. Chicano Park has a large political following who want to suppress any negative information about the park. I believe that is what's going on here. So in the interests of fairness and truth in Wikipedia, I don't think I should be banned. Neither LL nor the other editors who have edited out my contributions ever tried to discuss this with me earlier, he just went straight to trying to have me banned by the admins. I am actually trying to input some objective information in this page, but I don't think they are concerned about objectivity. RogerO (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

People's Park isn't in SF. Better check. EEng 19:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

No, that's not why you're here. The reason you're here is that you're acting in violation of WP:COI, which is a simple policy that does not have to result in a ban and is honestly quite lax, but in my experience a lot of people end up getting banned because of it anyway, because they don't listen to the warnings. I strongly suggest that you step away from the article and leave it to uninvolved editors to decide what is and is not worthy of inclusion. We really don't care about whatever magic secret knowledge you have, the WP:CABAL is not after you, we're just random people and we like to keep this place clean and organised, so if you break the rules and make things messy, we get grumpy. That's all. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say you were after me. However, I wouldn't classify "court records" and photographs of the murals as "secret knowledge". I had already decided to sit back and see what happens. :-) RogerO (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I haven't touched the article, since this started and had no intention of doing that. RogerO (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

good! then I think we're likely done here. Take care to read the policy I linked (and maybe consider reading WP:NPOV as well, to be on the safe side). That way you may well be able to avoid ending up here a second time. ^_^ --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Alejandro Basombrio: POV-pushing, edit-warring, canvassing

Hello ANI, first or second time posting here, so I apologize if I'm doing this wrong. I think this has gone for long enough to warrant an assessment from a wider range of administrators. The user in question is Alejandro Basombrio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

POV-pushing / Edit-warring:

• Special:Diff/1150564609: removal of categories Category:Anti-indigenous racism in South America, Category:Class discrimination, Category:Genocide of indigenous peoples of South America from the article Forced sterilization in Peru. This speaks for itself.
• Special:Diff/1073969975, Special:Diff/1149991780, Special:Diff/1150155145, Special:Diff/1150206572: addition of far-right ideologies including Nazism, National Bolshevism and Neosocialism to the {{Socialism}} navbox, some of them as "minor" edits, revert-warring after being asked to gather consensus on the talk page first time (per WP:ONUS). Special:Diff/1150156515: similarly for National syndicalism on {{Syndicalism}}. WP:FRINGE and against consensus.
• POV edit-warring on Ayacucho massacre (look throughout the history log, the article's talk page and the user's talk page).
• Other general whitewashing and downplaying of far-right politics that constitutes their entire contributions log, too many diffs to list. Mostly removing "fascism", "Neo-fascism", "Neo-Nazism" and replacing them with "conservatism" or "nationalism". This includes Special:Diff/1150219971 on Nationalist faction (Spanish Civil War) and Special:Diff/1150388314 on {{Francoism sidebar}} (again, "minor" edit, presumably to try it fly under the radar), against already established consensus (if they had time to even acknowledge it during this widescale POV-pushing campaign).

Canvassing:

• Special:Diff/1152054618: openly asking a partisan audience to support their campaign on Talk:Far-left politics.

I admit having made ad hominem here, while trying to bring some light on this user's activities, and I'm standing behind my assumption that they were very selective in who to ping among many who participated in previous three sections. Whether I'm wrong or not about it, I'm leaving to the judgement of Wikipedia staff. –Vipz (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the POV at categories, looking at the edits: The added/deleted templates/categories of the user seem to be mainly used as more or less subtle associations to discredit/credit. For example the person did add to the Black Power movement the perpetrators and ideologies of the Rwandan genocide and vice versa [101] [102] [103] [104]. What has the genocide of Hutu militias against the Tutsi in Rwanda to do with the Black Power movement? This makes no sense (net search shows only Wikipedia as result too), other than to associate negatively with a supposed "gotcha" (yes black people can do crimes against humanity too). --Casra (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Page 49 from this issue in JSTOR (https://www.jstor.org/stable/40466134?read-now=1&seq=8#page_scan_tab_contents) claims: "The "Mouvement Révolutionnaire pour le Développement" or MRND changed its name in 1990 to "Mouvement Révolutionnaire pour le Développement et la Démocratie" after multiparty democracy was authorized in Rwanda. It retained the acronym, MRND. Other important political parties at the time included: the MDR (Mouvement Démocrate Républicain), the PL (Parti Libéral), the PSD (Parti Social Démocrate), and the CDR (Coalition pour la Défense de la République). In 1993, both the MDR and the PL split into two factions. In each case the faction opposed to RPF participation in the government called itself "Hutu powa" after the English term, power. The "MDR powa," "PL powa," MRND, and CDR parties all counted many among their numbers who later became active in the genocide against Tutsi.". Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The source mentions on p. 49, in a footnote describing the names of organisation in the conflict, that the faction used the English term power. Without mentioning the faction as part of the Black Power movement at all. That's no reason to include them as part of the Black Power movement, unless we want to add everything from Power Rangers to Power Forward (international used basketball term) to the template. With good faith in mind, I find it still hard to believe you really thought that when the rather common term "power" is used (with English being an international influential language) it makes the topic an automatic part of the Black Power movement, no matter if the source includes it as part of the Black Power movement, and that just by coincidence you added a genocide topic to the movement. Casra (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

1. About the "forced sterilization in Peru", the terms "class discrimination" is not present on the article, nor it is inferred. The "genocide" label is still debatable. The article uses more the term "ethnic cleansing".

2. While I recognize national socialism is still debatable if it's a form of socialism, which I apologize to add without consensus, national-bolshevism or neo-socialism are not. National Bolshevism is a variant of Bolshevism, which is included in the socialism bar. NB was also included far before I added it again, because someone removed without consensus. On other neo-socialism is included in the "French Section of the Workers' International" bar. In fact, the article describes it as a "revisionist" socialism.

3. All my "Ayacucho Massacre" edits were entirely extracted from the Spanish Wikipedia. If you were actually informed about my country's events or at least you learned some Spanish, you would not complain about the changes I made or you would complain about Spanish Wikipedia's information. In that case, go check the talk page, since it's not only me the only one who thinks the page already violated the NPOV rule far before I edited it.

4. About the "Nationalist faction" article, the label of fascism is questionable since the nationalist faction included a diversity of right-wing ideologies, which not all were fascist. Conservatism, Traditionalism, Carlism, Alfonsism, etc. The main ideology of the faction is "Spanish Nationalism", not "Fascism", which in the infobox the ideology used in a faction is "falangism" and "semi-fascism", not fascism entirely. On other side, while I apologise for removing "fascism" from Francoist sidebar, Francoism is also considered by a lot of academics as a form of conservatism rather than fascism, reason I added "conservatism" category too.

----

I apologize, such as how you apologize for ad hominem, for "canvassing" since I didn't know it was against the rules. Some user tagged me on a talk page before and then I thought it was allowed to do. But I only committed the pinging once with a user called "trakking", not with the others, which you claim I tagged them for canvassing purposes. You were also called out for being dishonest in your last comment by Spookytalk Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

1. Forced sterilization of indigenous peoples constitutes genocide, it is not debatable. It takes a whole lot of mental gymnastics to justify attempts at denying this. Ethnic cleansing and genocide are not mutually exclusive, they go hand-in-hand.
2. Nazism ("National Socialism") being a form of socialism has been debated and proven WP:FRINGE more times than you can imagine; it is not. Its offshoots "National Bolshevism", "National syndicalism", "Neosocialism", "National anarchism" and such have not received as much attention. I told you on your talk page to start a request for comments that will cover all of these, either together or separately. Even if you're acting boldly, tagging some of these controversial edits as "minor" is very questionable.
3. Since I did not participate on this article, someone else who did will have to attest.
4. You've now been informed about the RfC that resulted in clear consensus that Francoism and its followers were fascist. Likewise, not mutually exclusive with other ideologies. While WP:CCC, it's only a little less unlikely to change compared to Nazism. You're welcome to present all of the academic work that has not been brought up yet (on the article's talk page), gather consensus, then act accordingly; as opposed to just casually changing this under a "minor" edit tag.

I look forward to responses from others. –Vipz (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no "debate" over whether National Socialism is "a form of socialism or not", the consensus of subject experts is that it is not. The Nazis added "socialism" to the title of their party in the hope of attracting disaffected workers who might otherwise align themselves with the Socialists or the Communists, and to do so they redefined "socialism" to be something that is not socialistic at all, thereby setting up the current situation where right-wing cranks and wannabe Nazis pepper us with complaints and constant requests to redefine Nazism as "left wing" and not "right wing". Fortunately, the experts are perfectly clear than this is not the case, so we should not even allow a hint of that to remain unquestioned on English Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

True. I was actually referring to Wikipedia talk page debates that keep popping up about it and which always result like you explain above. Thanks for the clarification, however, as I might not have worded the above reply too well. –Vipz (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Vipz's assertions, broadly speaking. While on a few occasions, seen in isolation, his edits may be/seem reasonable, this editor's overall activity consists precisely of general whitewashing and downplaying of far-right politics. The editor has been attempting to enact a series of bold changes on pages that are thought to be less watched like nav templates and categories in a predictably bivalent pattern: adds nazism to socialism navbox on one hand, removes integralism category from the fascism category (diff ... but doesn't remove fascism cat from Integralism or discuss this on the main article's talk page, which would be the starting point for such a change) on the other etc. Their Ayacucho massacre edits are discussed on the NPOV noticeboard, and probably shouldn't be discussed in detail here, but one of those edits is this preposterous 18k removal of the entire 'Background' section. —Alalch E. 20:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

This. Glancing at the edits they look innocent, but for instance with the Template:Conservatism in Peru, they try to separate the newspaper El Comercio (Peru) from conservatism. Not to mention that with the Ayacucho massacre, the user tried to justify the killing of unarmed protesters, though this may be partially to blame on the media situation in Peru (with their El Comercio edit, I doubt this is the case, however). Another questionable edit would be this one where they remove information about Go on Country – Social Integration Party being described as "far-right" by multiple sources. So as other users have stated, this appears to be a whitewash effort regarding right-wing politics and Peruvian topics specifically. WMrapids (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Why do you complain about the Avanza País article when you were the first one removing sources, such as the one from Amerika12.de? I moved the sources claiming that the party is "far-right" to the "far-right bloc" paragraph, where they fit more properly. Also about the Conservatism templates, I highly suggest you from checking the format used in the ones from Spain, Germany and Russia (the last one completely made by me). When recurring at media, people are not mentioned, like you added Erasmo Wong Lu, but newspapers and TV Channels. The claim about El Comercio being "conservative" is debatable and most sources describe it as "liberal" or "center-right". Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Your edits reverting multiple reliable sources makes it apparent that you are not here to build an encyclopedia and are rather an ideology warrior for the promotion (or whitewashing) of right-wing/conservative articles. Your questionable edits far outweigh the few good ones. WMrapids (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The edit you just put there to make the claim I'm "reverting multiple reliable sources" shows the reliable source from Amerika12.de you removed before. The modifications I made was not removing sources unlike you, but moving there to a place were they fit better, like the claim you literally wrote about Avanza País being part of a "far-right bloc". Also you wrote that globally the party is considered "far-right" and apparently only the national "mass media" claims that the party is center-right, then cherry-picking sources to make the claim that it is a far-right party. I highly suggest to check this Wikipedia essay and check if the biased sources make that claim because of ideological purposes or if they want to make a valid claim. As the article says: "A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view". Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Since much of the content is WP:USERGENERATED, it is a dubious source. Seeing that you recognize Amerika21.de as a reliable source for such information (it strangely describes Prensa Latina as a “partner” too), you either need help with determining reliable sources or you could be making quite the reach to support your ideological edits. Could be both. WMrapids (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, you tried to replace well-cited information with an opinion article, a site named “Olive Press” (?) and a .info site. Clearly making some reaches here. WMrapids (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Another anon adding unsourced material

• 94.41.90.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I seem to notice this IP making unsourced changes across much of Wikipedia, mainly at the page for The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare, where the IP tried to source IMDb for some of the cast, a source already confirmed unreliable per WP:IMDB. For all other articles this IP has edited, the IP has not provided a source for their claims, regardless of relevance to the film. Talk page posts have not deterred their actions, and at least one edit summary has suggested the person behind the IP might have a COI with the film. Perhaps a day block might give them a chance to rethink their actions? Jalen Folf (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

This would probably be better suited for WP:AIV. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Ray Russell

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

---

Ray Russell (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, A member called Melcous deleted all my work on page Ray Russell. They even removed his PhD which I cited from the university website itself. If I need to improve cited links I shall, but to have all my work destroyed is heartbreaking. I have seen that this same user has done similar activity before with several people finding their conduct aggressive and unjust. Please help by placing a partial band on them.

07:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)07:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)07:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC) regards, MsMaui I have given the user a warning which they ignored and have notified the user about this report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MsMaui (talk • contribs) 07:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a new WP:SPA editor who does not appear to understand core policies. I don't think it belongs here, but that's not up to me. I did not ignore their warning but have in fact been engaging with them on our talk pages. My edits to Ray Russell (musician) have included edit summaries with links to the relevant guidelines e.g. MOS:DOCTOR for the PhD in the name/lead; and more importantly to WP:RS and WP:V for the inclusion of poorly sourced content and WP:PROMO and WP:NPOV for content that reads like it belongs on the person's own website. Melcous (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, MsMaui. Your lengthy edit included overtly promotional wording like Internationally renowned and Additionally skilled as an award winning. And that was in the first few sentences. Promotional, advertising and marketing activity is not permitted on Wikipedia, and any evaluative assessment must be attributed to a reliable source entirely independent of Russell. Please read the Neutral point of view carefully, and avoid promotional editing. What is your connection, if any, with Russell? Cullen328 (talk) 07:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The first few words are taken from a professional source if that is the issue I will cite it. He is internationally renowned because he is known globally in the music industry I can cite over 20 sources that would confirm this and he has won 2 Gold Disks, 3 BAFTAS, 2 Royal Television Society Awards and more. So calling him award winning is justified. May I advised administrators to look at Melcous other Talk conversations where users report similar poor conduct by Melcous. Melcous claim has be that I have a conflict of interest, I do not. I also fully understand the core policy and have made sure I follow WP:PROMO and WP:NPOV guidelines. If it pleases Melcous I will improve my citation further if required but ask not to have my work removed without a prior warning. Non of my writing was my own opinion everything is taken from professional reports, educational documents, published sources and University publications. Information taken from the persons website has then been cited with other external sources. Again this behaviour from Melcous is unjust and aggressive.

~~~~~~~~~~~

MsMaui MsMaui (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Having just looked over the disputed sections, while this is a content dispute, I agree with Melcous: the great majority of MsMaui's additions are heavily promotional and chockfull of gushing praise far more suitable to fan reviews (never mind being in dire need of a proofreader for spelling, grammar and punctuation errors).

Beyond that, MsMaui, while I recognize your distress, edits are a fact of life on Wikipedia. The terms of service to which you agreed allow any editor to change, heavily alter or remove outright any edit you make, and there is nothing inherently "unjust" or "aggressive" about doing so. Ravenswing 07:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

So do I. It came up on my watchlist for some reason. I wonder who puts them on the watchlist. Anyway, it seems to be lots and lots of dodgy references being added that are non-rs and a spam link. It is a WP:BLP as far as I see. scope_creep^Talk 07:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Fine let me improve my citations - although I don't see how a book citation or university link or links connected to websites that provide factual information on published Albums is wrong in any way.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MsMaui MsMaui (talk) 07:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

MsMaui, this is not ridiculous. You will not be allowed to add promotional content to this article. If you do not understand what you have been told, then you will be blocked from editing this article. Please state your relationship with Russell. Cullen328 (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I have no relation at all to Ray Russell. Im just upset that I spent so long looking up all this info to have my work destroyed.

I don't see how stating who he worked with which was all factual or mentioning his Royal Society Awards which was cited from the awards website was wrong or promotional. Why was that removed? MsMaui (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

MsMaui, several experienced editors have told you that your edits were too promotional. I hope that you will not continue arguing about it, because that would be a waste of your time and other people's time. Please move on to writing neutral content. Cullen328 (talk) 08:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

No because it was not promotional! And you are still avoiding telling me why and what parts exactly. Especially when I have stated I have no connected to this person and that I have cited facts. MsMaui (talk) 08:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I have decide to take this matter even further. MsMaui (talk) 08:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• I have partially blocked MsMaui from Ray Russell (musician). You're welcome to use the talk page to gain consensus for your edits. Star Mississippi 22:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Removal of facts and important information

Dear Wikipedia Admins,

I am writing to report a user who has made unexplained and irrelevant edits to the Mohammed Zubair (journalist) Wikipedia article. The user in question removed several important pieces of information from the article, all of which were from reliable sources such as BBC and Bar and Bench.

I have already reverted these edits and warned the user from making such edits, but my edit was also reverted. I do not want to engage in an edit war, and I believe that admins' intervention is necessary to address this issue.

The information that was removed includes:

• In 2020, Pratik Sinha said that Zubair is being targeted for his work as number of FIRs were lodged against him.
• On 10 June 2021, Zubair received a notice from Twitter alerting him that Twitter had been approached by Indian law officials regarding a tweet Zubair had tweeted in March 2021, which Indian authorities claimed breached Indian laws.
• Extremist Hindutva leaders named, Mahant Bajrang Muni 'Udasin,' Yati Narsinghanand.
• Police case (FIR) was filed in Khairabad, Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh in early June in response to a complaint by a Sitapur leader of a Hindu group. The complainant accused Zubair of "outraging religious feelings" of three seers by labeling them "hatemongers" on Twitter.
• In mid-June, Zubair posted e-mails from Twitter informing him that one of his tweets criticising the comments by Yati Narsinghanand Giri the leader of a Hindu group were being 'withheld' in India under the country's IT laws at the request of law enforcement authorities. 'Withholding' a tweet meant that it would no longer be visible in India. Twitter said this was done "in order to comply with Twitter's obligations under India's local laws". Later two more of Zubair's tweets were withheld, they were about the provocative comments made by a Hindu priest Mahant Bajrang Muni threatening to kidnap and rape Muslim women.
• The charges under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code and section 67 of the IT Act were pressed against Zubair. He was then brought before a magistrate, who granted the police one day custody. Vrinda Grover, Zubair's lawyer, asserted that while many social media users tweeted the same message, only Zubair was targeted by police. Grover also alleged that Zubair was a target of police because of his Muslim faith, name, and profession.

These pieces of information are important to understanding Zubair's situation and should not have been removed without a clear explanation from the user. I kindly request that the admins review the edits made by this user and take appropriate action to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the Mohammed Zubair (journalist) Wikipedia article.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely, ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 09:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• The user (User:REDISCOVERBHARAT) that is edit-warring to remove what appears to be well-sourced material has not engaged on the talk page, so I have restored the edits and left them a warning. Black Kite (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

  I've partially blocked them from the article for a week after reviewing their talk page including deleted posts. They've been on my watchlist for quite a while. Next time, as they were given a DS alert for IPA last May, I think a TB may be in order. Doug Weller talk 12:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@TheChunky: You have failed to notify REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk · contribs) of this ANI report, even though the red notice on top of this page clearly requires you to do so. I have done so for you this time, but please remember to perform this mandatory task next time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 12:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

This is biography page each and single incident should not to be describe here. Moreover I have only simplified the paras. Neither any fact nor any important information is removed. Its seem that @TheChunky is forcing his propaganda here. @AdoTang has also notified that the tone used in article is not neutral. I request Admin please check my edits and conclude your opinion.

REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• I did check your edits, and found no good reason for removing that sourced information. As I said above, you need to explain on the talk page why you insist on removing it. Black Kite (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

You know, pardon my language, but seeing me get pinged in the Admin noticeboard scared the shit out of me.

But anyway, I don't really know what this is about, and I know literally nothing about this guy, I just stumbled upon this page from Arma 3 and wanted to make some fixes.

I have nothing to input other than a recommendation that further reverts in this stupid edit war only revert to my edit, because it has some text edits and an actual proper lead that doesn't dedicate most of it to a recent event. AdoTang (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Arkenstrone: baseless accusations

Context

User:Arkenstrone has been POV-pushing since the beginning of April at articles Maria Valtorta and The Poem of the Man-God. I recently removed their POV-pushing. The user opposed this removal, so I reverted their revert and tried to explain to the user that random blogs and reading clubs' websites and the likes were not reliable and why information had to be removed along with refs, but the user WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and stated they wanted to create a FALSEBALANCE between what they deem "pro-Valtorta" and "anti-Valtorta" points.

Then, Arkenstrone's versions on both articles were revdeleted for copyright violation, part of which was due to me asking Diannaa to check them after their revdeletion at 'Maria Valtorta'. The user asked Diannaa for the revdeleted content, when Dianaa refused Arkenstrone stated: I am seeking other admins to give me access to the original material because you are unwilling, even though I've explained to you the unique circumstances of many valuable non-infringing edits being lost as a side-effect of your revision deletion. The user then went to ask 3 other admins to get an e-mail of the deleted versions (links to threads): Bbb23, Deepfriedokra, and DatGuy. The user has stated that all three were chosen because they had imposed sanctions upon me in the past (I have made those requests to these admins because you have been blocked by them at least 5 times previously for disruptive editing behaviour [...] I contacted the admins that previously blocked you because they might recognize a pattern of questionable behaviour in your conduct and be more sympathetic to my request), a reason the user has double-down on (on Deepfriedokra's talk page, admin Anachronist characterised Arkenstrone's behaviour as a blatant demonstration of WP:Admin shopping). By the way, the admin shopping worked with the last admin.

Accusations

The user has portrayed my behaviour as disruption or vandalism without any basis, thus violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links"). They have also consistently characterised my removal of their POV as "gutting" the articles. This is the the user's last remark to me that made me write this ANI, and I have updated the writing with DatGuy's recent acceptation of e-mailing the copyrighted material.

• The user gave me bogus warnings, also stating they reverted my reversion of my disruptive edits. I asked the user to stop their baseless accusations, otherwise I would go to ANI. To which they responded by giving me more bogus warnings. They have also attacked me on 3 admins' talk pages.

• At User talk:Diannaa#The Poem of the Man-God: This editor's approach by removing large portions of the article because he doesn't like the sources, is extremely disruptive; the other editor removed large portions of the article because he doesn't agree that the sources presenting important information are good sources. This is disruptive; this user disruptively gutted large portions of the article.

• At User talk:Bbb23#Assistance for Disruptive Edits: they state I have a long history of WP:3RR, WP:DISRUPT, and WP:VANDALIZE, and they ask that I be blocked for serial disruptive edits and vandalism: this is not true, I have never been blocked for vandalism and my removal is not disruptive nor vandalism.

• At User talk:DatGuy#Access to copy of deleted revision?: I didn't give the normal editing process a chance to function, me asking Diannaa to check for copyvio is a sort of gaming of the editing process, and I have been attempting to confuse, conflate, and game the editing process.

Sidenote unrelated to me: Arkenstrone has also characterised Diannaa's refusal of handing their revdeleted versions as well beyond your purview and veering dangerously close to a form of soft-censorship and micro-management of the editing process based on your own personal views and opinions. Veverve (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The admins involved in this discussion already came to a resolution. User talk:DatGuy#Access to copy of deleted revision? Arkenstrone (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a completely different issue, as DatGuy has told you at the very talk page you link. Veverve (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

If Arkenstrone had stuck to the subject of getting back their content, that would have been great. But they personalized the conflict with Veverve and specifically sought out admins who'd sanctioned Veverve in the past. Me included. I'll leave it to y'all to decide what to make of this. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

You are missing some important facts. Allow me to correct the record.

• Bbb23 was the first admin I contacted after Diannaa, asking him for 1) a copy of the deleted revision and 2) to assist, and possibly block Veverve since he was repeating past disruptive behaviour for which he was blocked multiple times previously (by gutting articles due to what he considered unreliable sources and edit warring). That's not how things are done. You bring it up on the talk page, and if a source is indeed low quality, then tag the sourced text with "citation needed" or similar, and give other editors a chance to provide better sources. That's good-faith.
• Bbb23 didn't want to have anything to do with it. So I respected his wish not to get involved and left it at that. Afterwards, I decided to focus on just getting access to the deleted revision and not confuse things with conduct issues. I made no mention of Veverve, on any other admin's talk page, including DatGuy's or yours.
• It was Veverve that decided to make his presence known on DatGuy's talk page. Only then did I respond to his confused and deflecting statements, and provided the facts of his past bad behaviour, which was happening once again. I wasn't going to mention his past behaviour in that thread, deciding instead to give the editing process a chance to function, and see what happens.
• Only after DatGuy [105] recommended to introduce material from the deleted revision with copyvio corrections + source improvement (slowly), did Veverve choose to file this frivolous ANI. I would advise Veverve to consider WP:BOOMERANG. Arkenstrone (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Baseless accusations?

Patterns of questionable conduct: 1) gutting articles WP:VANDALIZE, 2) disruptive editing WP:DISRUPT, and 3) edit warring WP:3RR. At least 5 blocks have been levied and one Arbitration Enforcement Sanction. The facts speak for themselves (below). This editor doesn't seem to be getting the message. Before opening a frivolous ANI, perhaps he should consider WP:BOOMERANG.

1. Edit Warring: [106] Block: [107]

=> "You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Russian fascism (ideology)) for a period of 1 week for EDIT WARRING."

2. Edit Warring [108] Block: [109]

=> "You are currently edit-warring across a wide swath of liturgical calendar-related articles. You are fighting multiple editors who disagree with your unilateral decision to gut all of these articles of their usefulness. Could you please cease and desist the edit-wars, firstly, and secondly, consider that your decision goes against consensus and that you should permit others to hold contrary opinions about this?"

=> "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring."

3. Edit Warring & Block: [110]

=> "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring in the same articles immediately after your previous block ended."

4. Block Extension: [111]

=> "I have extended your block by two weeks and revoked your talk page access. Pinging other editors to argue with them and berate them while you are blocked is not acceptable. Please read WP:UTRS for your unblock options."

5. Edit Warring & Block: [112]

=> "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Heresy in the Catholic Church."

6. Arbitration Enforcement Sanction: [113]

=> "The following sanction now applies to you: You are indefinitely topic banned from all subject that relate to "Russia", including discussion or any article that is related to Russia in any way, broadly construed. You have been sanctioned [114]"

7. Disruptve Edits: [115]

=> in progress Arkenstrone (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

You appear to have completely missed the point. And you double-down on calling my edits Disruptve Edits (using your own warnings as proofs), accusing me of having vandalised (which I never did, you do not appear to understand the meaning of this term on WP), and baselessly state that I was repeating past disruptive behaviour for which he was blocked multiple times previously (by gutting articles due to what he considered unreliable sources and edit warring). I never denied receiving blocks or being topic-banned. That none of the three admins to which you mentioned my behaviour were willing to sanction me should have made you realise your accusations were baseless.

That you decided to make it personnal and continued to baselessly accuse me once I intervened on DatGuy's talk page, or on whatever page, is not a defence at all: it only proves you have trouble working on a community project. And as I said, I had decided to start this ANI once you confirmed that you were clearly unwilling to give me the time of the day.

You admitted you decided to ask specific admins that sanctionned me in your admin shopping. Veverve (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Problematic editor removing indentations despite warnings/without discussion

Hey there – hope everyone's doing well. Just wanted to bring a problematic WP:AFL editor, MelbourneFan2022, to your attention, as they've been continually removing indentations from AFL player infoboxes (for games and goals, to align them properly) despite several warnings from myself and another editor trying to open a separate discussion with them. See this recent edit, for example – I'd already updated the player's statistics for the round, but this editor's gone out of their way to still remove the indentations without discussing, and you can see from their contributions that they've never edited talk/user talk pages full stop. Anyway, just wanted to reach out in the hope that someone might be able to step in – thanks. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 02:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be a personal preference thing, I see nothing in the infobox instructions or examples that suggests that adding alignment padding is a requirement or even suggesting its use. Additionally I see nothing in your communication with this user that attempts to explain the situation and why the 0 template is being used, just templated disruption notices. Canterbury Tail talk 02:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobox parameters which are lined up are easier to read than those which are not lined up, but the annoying thing about people adding or deleting spaces in infoboxes to line them up is when they do that and nothing else, and I've wasted a bit of my time examining the edit only to see those non-rendering changes. I have no objection to non-rendering changes that have a purpose and help in making it easier to edit by making a better visual impression in edit mode, but I wish people (myself included) would do so only when they are make other changes to the article. Further, I've come across editors who do nothing but that kind of edit, who are adding to their edit total without actually substantially improving articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The formation is more than a personal preference - it's more on the WP:AFL project consensus level. Also, as you can see from this talk page post that 4TheWynne also linked above, I have tried communicating with MF2022 about it, but recieved no answer and they continue making these changes. Also often it will be the only change they make. The problem imo is a less a content issue, but much more a communication issue - if MF2022 isn't willing to communicate, it's very hard to work with them to build this encyclopedia. --SuperJew (talk) 06:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not believe that WikiProjects have the power to enforce such decisions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

As I said, the decision is less the problem. The lack of communication is. --SuperJew (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I left a strong warning at User talk:MelbourneFan2022#ANI discussion. Please let me know if problems continue. As mentioned in my warning, the issue is trivial but communication is required and it is not reasonable that contested edits be continued further. Johnuniq (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I support an indefinite block of s/he fails to respond to this ANI. LibStar (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Conversion to Islam in prisons

Source number 20 is prejudicial and unreliable, a systematic review should be done of FOX news as a source. It should be discounted from every potentially biased article (on Religion, Race, Sexual Proclivity, Sexual Identity, Mental Health, and all American Partisan politics generally, I'm sure I missed some) on the grounds that it is a propaganda engine not a news service. Wikipedia should uphold the high level of editorial impartiality we, the public, have come to expect of it. I love this site and plan to become a content contributor when I have time and energy to seek out a wiki-site that I am prepared to fully research and claim expertise on; don't make my trust a folly. 70.113.35.12 (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

An RfC (Request for Comments) is underway here as to whether Fox News should be deprecated as a source. Please go there if you want to make your opinion known, but it would be advisable to make an account first, as I don;t believe that IPs can participate. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about that.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

It certainly gets them a wierd look and possibly a removal as an SPA --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

An IP isn't an account, and in general it's history isn't indicative of the long term editing history of the person using the address. It would be a strange take to disallow IPs from making an argument at an rfc, especially since they aren't votes. That is my understanding at least Very Average Editor (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

User:GrantKereama

• GrantKereama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KereGrant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Grant Kereama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is either an account impersonating Grant Kereama or the subject themself. It may be (can't say for certain without checkuser) block avoidance by the similar User:KereGrant account. --SVTCobra 05:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

If it helps anyone trianguate technical details of or look for style matches, 222.154.94.68 self-identified on-wiki as being the subject. DMacks (talk) 06:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks from C. A. Russell

C. A. Russell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

C. A. Russell has repeatedly attacked the competence of Steel1943 in the RfD nomination for FILE pointer that was created by them, with comments such as:

• This request could have only arisen from someone (alternatively: a naively implemented bot) that did not actually read the article.
• If you feel there's something unclear about the statement that stdin, stdout, and stderr are all identified as FILE pointers, and the data type itself is, in fact, described in the section that immediately follows ("Member types"), then please take some time to consider whether you should be participating in, let alone initiating, the "discussion" part that's intrinsic to the "Redirects for discussion" process.
• The person who opened this RFD lacks the attention span to read five sentences that directly address the claims they made in the RFD. Nominally, this is written as an example of a sentence about a topic that doesn't directly have the exact name of the topic. However, the choice of this exact wording rather than one that doesn't attack a user should still be considered a personal attack.

Relevant RfD diffs: [116] [117] [118] [119]

In addition, C. A. Russell has made edits to the target page with the specific intent to be reverted[120] as to "demonstrate a trivial edit" to add the exact wording "FILE pointer". This also should fall under disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, however the amount of disruption here is immediately self-reverted edits in the article history rather than serious vandalism.

I'd also bring attention to an earlier ANI report that seems to have went unnoticed by administrators before being archived. Randi Moth ^Talk_Contribs 11:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

In addition, it seems this editor has been blocked in the past for personal attacks. There are also warnings regarding personal attacks in the editor's talk page history. Steel1943 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

...Anyone? Steel1943 (talk) 07:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• Anywho, I suppose I'll bring up some things that I feel the need to point out since it seems as though this editor is preparing a response statement and ... well, this whole scenario has caused me a lot of grief already:
  • A day or so ago, I replaced my user page with a link to Wikipedia:Artificial intelligence and then reverted after I saw this report. Obviously, the former edit was in response to this editor causing me emotional grief. Ultimately, any such mention of this occurrence as a negative towards me is a strawman-type argument since it strays from the content of the argument that resulted in this report, but rather validates the grief that this user caused me, thus any such mention will probably be a WP:BOOMERANG.
  • As pointed out above, the editor's initial "keep" vote in the RFD discussion was identified to include a personal attack not just by me, but by another editor. In addition, the editor accused me of wasting the community's time with RFD ... which is a rather odd thing to accuse someone of and definitely did not seem like a "good faith" statement, considering RFD is one of the various WP:XFD discussion forums out there that literally is built on community participation, and thus utilizes the attention of the community. In addition, there are cases where such discussions will literally receive no community input, and will this result in "soft delete" or something similar: In other words, there is no requirement for there to be excess community participation in anything other than closing an open discussion ... which is really cheap resource-wise.
  • A few days ago, when this all started, I took it upon myself to see if this editor had a history of causing editors grief such as this ... and the results were astounding. In 2020, the editor was blocked for 48 hours due to personal attacks. In a recent RFD for a redirect titled Primus sucks (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 29#Primus sucks), the editor posted a rather long list of questions, demanding yes/no answers that, to me, seems to have came off incredibly unhelpful for forming consensus and may have resulted in the nominator wanting to withdraw the discussion. (I mean honestly, if I had seen something like that in one of my nominations, I'd probably would have decided to ignore it and move on to actual consensus-building inquiries ... a lot of those questions seemed to be snidely attacking the nominator rather than having any sort of consensus-building purpose.)

...With all that being said, this editor, with their statements, has caused me the most unreasonable amount of grief I have had to deal with on Wikipedia for a good while; I'm no stranger to dealing with (and previously, finding) stress on here, and have over the years learned to do my best to avoid extremely controversial areas in response (but in no way am I diminishing the efforts of others who do so since thanks to them, policies and precedents are established on Wikipedia), but the responses from this editor were like a figurative land mine that I would not have been able to spot with the best mine-detecting equipment; their attitude comes off as needlessly defensive to a point of lashing out. Steel1943 (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

For reference, here's a draft of the response they are writing. Steel1943 (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm guess I'm tangentially involved here, in that I originally put a comment supporting Deletion on this RfD, which I since vacated because the thing has become a wall of text that has more words than that redirect has seen page views in its entire lifetime and I don't want to be a part of that. Still, it's pretty clear that @C. A. Russell's behavior at that RfD is uncivil. They seem to feel ownership over this page and redirect, to the point of saying @Steel1943 is wasting contributor time by proposing it, requesting that Steel1943 not only change their mind about this particular redirect but stop participating at RfD altogether, and willingly disrupting Wikipedia to make a point ([121]). It's evident that they're someone convinced the only valid outcome of a discussion is one where everyone else acknowledges they're right. I think at the very least C. A. Russell should be formally warned here, and given that their behavior is enough to drive other editors away from discussions, I'd favor something more. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 06:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

As a person intimately involved with the Primus sucks RfD and has started the "earlier ANI report" (already linked above) regarding that RfD, I broadly agree with Dylnuge's assessment of Russell. However, I do believe that we can probably start with warning Russell this time around but ensure that we emphasize the OWN-related issue that they have, given that Russell themself had created both "Primus sucks" and "FILE pointer" and proceeded to use that attitude when their redirects are challenged over at RfD.

I would also like to alert you to this page in Russell's user space, which contains the list of "a rather long list of questions, demanding yes/no answers" (using Steel1943's words) that first appeared at the Primus RfD. I do deem the page pretty POINTy, but I don't know about you.

(NB: Unless there is a comment directed specifically against me - whether I am mentioned explicitly (pings) or implicitly - or for minor, clearly-noted refactoring, I plan for this to be my only participation in this ANI thread. Need to cut down on drama after my previous ANI report.) NotReallySoroka (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

It looks like this is regular behavior on "their" redirects at AfD pretty much no matter what the redirect is, see also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_17#Yanny\_or\_Laurel. It may also be worth noting that the collection of quotes from themself they have at their talk page seems to be all surrounding an incident with another user that ultimately ended up at ANI and got them a short block. Their user page isn't a problem in-and-of-itself, but it doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in me that they'll listen to a warning here when they've got that little monument to how they were right and everyone else was wrong. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 16:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Busy editor

User:Softsword has been going through seemingly unrelated articles at a rapid rate. Within five minutes they have made around fifty "good faith" edits to SS Gothenburg that took me around ten minutes to go through. I wrote a reasonably helpful summary before checking the user's history. Is there a problem here? Doug butler (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I just looked at their most recent edit. I'd call it a good faith edit, with plenty of grammatical improvements—but also with errors, including quotation and ENGVAR spelling changes. I'm guessing the editor is using Grammarly (or something similar) and being careless. Woodroar (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, it doesn't look like you notified the editor about this thread. I've done that for you, but please remember to do so next time. Woodroar (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Even a redlinked userpage? OK, will try to remember. Doug butler (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I left a comment on their talk page. A lot of edits involve unnecessarily adding the words "the" and "a", changing British English to US English on European articles, or creating redirects and other minor errors, but I also see some positive changes. APK whisper in my ear 03:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Rant at Talk:La Porte County Herald-Dispatch

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

---

[Sorry if this is not the most appropriate place to post this] Noticed when I did a page move. I would have just deleted it myself except for the discouraging of deleting others' words on talk pages, plus the topic is contentious. Only edit from the respective IP address. Mapsax (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I removed it as soapboxing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@Mapsax: You have failed to notify 173.46.235.45 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) of this discussion, even though the red box on top of the page clearly requires you to do so. I have done so for you this time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The complaint was posted a year ago, I very much doubt the IP editor has been monitoring their talkpage since then anyway, so not notifying the IP isn't a big deal. Acroterion (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

...How did I miss that it's from 2022? That's a rhetorical question, because I guess it is pretty obvious; I'd just assumed it had happened recently. If I had known I probably wouldn't have left that message re notification. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 12:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by Guns & Glory

Guns & Glory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I removed two sources on the EF88 rifle in Steyr AUG as they were forums [122] per WP:USERG and added a {{Citation needed}} tag.

Guns & Glory has removed the tag and added an Army source [123] for the rifle. The source did not clearly support the material as presented in the article per WP:BURDEN. The user misrepresented a reliable source per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS.

I then substituted material on the changes to the rifle from the Army source and removed material not in the source [124].

Guns & Glory then reverted my edit [125] re-adding the disputed material with the Army source.

I left a disruptive editing warning on Guns & Glory user page [126] for the article.

I then removed the disputed material on the rifle [127] and Army source.

Guns & Glory then reverted my edit re-adding the disputed material with the Army source [128]. Melbguy05 (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

You're removing information that is important of the said topic. The list provides the changes/improvements of the EF88 from the F88. Know your weapons before you start crying like baby Guns & Glory (talk) 06:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Wikipedia can do without insults like "crying like baby"; see WP:CIVIL. I suggest you strike it. Narky Blert (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Let me ask everyone, what is the main purpose of Wikipedia? To educate and prove reliable information. What this guy is doing is removing information just because the new set of citations that were added didn't include what was mentioned before. New citations have been provided due to a different editor who removed previous citations. Guns & Glory (talk) 06:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore it shows your lack of knowledge of this particular firearm. Read the paragraph, it talks about the Thales F90, not the adopted EF88 by the Australian Defence Force. The F90 is capable of equipping the said new rifle grenade technology. Before you remove that list again, I suggest you do your research, cause you clearly need it instead of removing it. I already provided a citation for the main website and have added the need to provide a better source to accommodate every single detail that contains on the list. That list has been on the article for as long as I can remember. Maybe since 2012. Obviously whomever added it at that time, because the original citations were removed, it will be difficult to find a source that will state every single thing on that list. But I read it, and I don't see anything that is misleading or incorrect with the information given. It feels like you just wanna remove content for the sake of it. Not even providing a better alternative just a straight up deletion which is absurd and contradicts the main purpose of Wikipedia, which is to provide information. Guns & Glory (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Guns & Glory WP:VERIFY requires that "All content must be verifiable.. and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". The Army citation you provided did not verify the content in the 10 points. You even admit it did not saying above that the "new set of citations that were added didn't include what was mentioned before" and that "it will be difficult to find a source that will state every single thing on that list". Per WP:VERIFY "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." You restored the material without a citation that supports the material. The Army citation did not support the 10 dot points. It is disruptive editing to mispresent a source as you did for the Army source. I placed a disruptive warning on your talk page and you ignored this and re-added the unverified content to the article. Melbguy05 (talk) 07:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Because the original citations were removed by another editor. Then asked for new citations. I placed 2 citations, and added 'need better source' Guns & Glory (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Guns & Glory You added the Army citation discussed above which misrepresented a reliable source. Later, which I did not discuss above, you added {{Better source needed}} with "The current source is insufficiently reliable (WP:NOTRS)" [129] you then added another source [130] Lithgow Arms citation. You kept {{Better source needed}} after adding Lithgow Arms. Since those edits you admit above that the ""new set of citations that were added didn't include what was mentioned before".--Melbguy05 (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Here's a revision dated June 2017 that has three citations for the list, which at that time contained 12 points: Diff of Steyr AUG. How about you two have a look at these 3 citations and see if they cover the points and look reliable. Do this on the article talk page, not here. — Diannaa (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Here is an archive url for citation #28. The other two might be forums. Unsourced content can and should be removed if a supporting citation cannot be found. It doesn't matter if it's been there a long time. — Diannaa (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The 2011 Thales document has information on the F88SA2 rifle and on its planned replacement the EF88 rifle. The EF88 information on page 20 is potential design changes "areas for enhancement". The disputed material is the actual design changes implemented which came from the forum w54.biz. My edit comment was "remove WP:USERG forums, not in WP:RS ref" by WP:RS I meant the Thales document. --Melbguy05 (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

If the previous supported the material in question, then just add the previous source. North8000 (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

North8000 I'm not sure what you mean by previous supported. There were three citations that I removed when I added the {{Citation needed}} tag: two were forums (removed per WP:USERG) and other a 2011 Thales document that did not support the material. The forum indiandefence is a dead url and it is not available from an archive. The material in the most part comes from the forum w54.biz.--Melbguy05 (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I was mostly addressing Guns & Glory / their argument. I haven't taken a deep dive into the article/issues. Their "Because the original citations were removed by another editor" implies that the material in question was supported by a now-removed source. North8000 (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The source was a forum, which is not an RS. So yes, the material in question was "supported" by a now-removed source, but the source was invalid. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Muhsin97233

Muhsin97233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:NOTHERE, user is on a nationalistic mission rather than improving Wikipedia. The vast majority of their (pov) edits (some direct examples [131] [132] [133] [134] [135]) have been reverted, as seen here [136][ if you Ctrl + F "reverted". They are obsessed with turning everything to anything "Arab", even spamming talk pages with their WP:SOAPBOX nonsense [137] [138] [139] [140]. This has been going on since they first started editing, in February 2022.

Their talk page is also full of warnings I have warned them multiple times, which they only addressed once with this comment (there's more in the diff); "...Conclusion We all know the English Wikipedia, most of them are run by racist Persians who falsify the facts in favor of their Persian nation..." --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, I won't comment on this as I'm not well versed in the subject, except only to point out that it's pretty misleading of you to say that "Their talk page is full of warnings", when in fact all those warnings come from you yourself. To avoid creating the wrong impression, please use the active voice in such situations, such as "I have warned them many times". Bishonen | tålk 13:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC).

You're right, my bad. I have fixed it now. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

user:Bon courage

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

---

Not requesting any sanctions beyond what I'm about to describe but can someone please kindly remind the aforementioned editor to assume good faith with fellow editors in FT/N discussions? I will acknowledge my first comment could've been a bit more diplomatic, but I don't think the response was entirely deserved. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't question your good faith at all. I do question some of your edits however (and rather than engage with the detail of my concern or answer my queries, you complain I'm attacking you). Bon courage (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

From the Department of Deja Vue, I'll link to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1123#Aspersions by Bon courage, and just say here what I said then. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

But it looks to me like an admin should full protect Aquatic ape hypothesis while the discussion at WP:FTN goes on. And this is content that is subject to Contentious Topics in pseudoscience. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

As the original reporter of that thread, I'd like to say for the record that I believe this is a continuation of the same behavior, and would very much like an official warning at this point. Loki (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

What you mean you should get the WP:BOOMERANG being mooted there? Bon courage (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to note here that BC's reaction to this comment was even more WP:ASPERSIONS. Loki (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

He's not wrong, though. You should've gotten a Boomerang last time around, and you're doing the same stuff again on a new article. MrOllie (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Cast ass

Persian

@LokiTheLiar: It's not a cast aspersion, but a directed criticism for a particular thing. Read that old ANI thread; plenty of editors were telling you to drop the stick. But you've taken it up again for a different topic and are now at - what - 4RR? I can understand your desire to 'take out' an opponent with a classic ANI pile-on attempt, but remember everybody contributing here gets scrutinised. Bon courage (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Of the participants in that thread other than the two of us, the only person who told only me to drop the stick was MrOllie, who was also involved in the underlying content dispute. SandyGeorgia, Tryptofish, and Horse Eye's Back all told both of us to back off and stop the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Loki (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

You might want to read that again MrOllie (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, I did indeed miss Jojo Anthrax. Loki (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

So for you, probably a TBAN from pseudoscience broadly construed would be the way forward I think. If it doesn't happen now and you continue on with your quirky misreading of the WP:PAG it'll happen at some point. Bon courage (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

You missed JoJo, but you also mischaracterize what I said at the time. I pointed out that you (Loki) were on the wrong side of consensus. In no way did I create a false equivalence. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I also think Loki has misrepresented SandyGeorgia's position in that[141] thread. As I read it she was not telling "us both to back off" but rather was recommending that more be done to make make the EMDR article's pseudoscience aspects clear. Bon courage (talk) 06:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Bon courage is correct. Loki, you seem not to have understood either Jojo or Tryptofish or me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. One of the diffs you linked to was by Loki, but I assume you meant to link to the diff above it. "Watering-down" is a correct describing of this edit, and not a personal attack. is classified as a pseudoscience has been changed to has sometimes been classified as a pseudoscience. That watering down was justified using an IMO clearly wrong reading of WP:FRINGE/QS, that argues that we can't call it pseudoscience because not all critics have used the term "pseudoscience" when they wrote pieces debunking the theory. But clearly, WP:FRINGE/QS does not apply (WP:FRINGE/PS does), since sources are unanimous that the theory has no academic support. DFlhb (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

My edit was probably linked to emphasize the title Bon Courage added ("PROFRINGE") and not the description of my edit as "watering down". Even I don't think there's anything sanctionable about describing that edit as watering down, but I do believe that calling it WP:PROFRINGE is an WP:ASPERSION, especially since nobody involved is even trying to argue that the AAH is not WP:FRINGE. Loki (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

On the other hand, the 'watering down' itself should be sanctionable, especially given that it is a continuation of your misunderstanding of policy from the EMDR arguments that wasted so much time. MrOllie (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Like I said to BC over at FTN, I'm not going to rehash every argument I've ever had with you. Loki (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, another one of the diffs in the OP was Bon courage's reaction to this diff, which was understandable given that it literally the sentence to say it's "not" pseudoscience in Wikivoice; only, the diff was an unfortunate typo, as Bon courage readily conceded. DFlhb (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Such an aggressive reaction to a typo is not really understandable IMO. You can see what I think is a much more reasonable reaction from MrOllie's comment on the talk page. Loki (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

One other thing I'd like to add is that before BC posted the thread in WP:FTN, he and MrOllie were having a separate content dispute with another editor, who also felt that the two of them were failing to assume good faith. Loki (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Can someone close this thread? It seems to be serving absolutely no purpose. There is a reason that WP:WQA was shut down, and it wasn't so that all those risible conversations could happen here instead. jps (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

No, WQA was closed because it couldn't do anything about the problems raised there, not because those problems shouldn't be resolved potentially in a central location. IznoPublic (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect to all involved, if the remedy you seek for your problem is a "reminder" or a "warning" or the like, and not concrete admin action, I would like to suggest that it's best not brought to ANI. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

A warning is a concrete admin action and can be used in future proceedings as evidence of a pattern of behavior. Loki (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

And sometimes they miraculously manifest without a new topic at this board. Dumuzid (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

And it's not as if WP:FTN isn't watched by a substantial flock of admins (if flock is the correct collective noun for admins). Bon courage (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I believe the most widely-accepted collective noun is "cabal". Narky Blert (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

We obviously need an RFC on what the correct collective noun for admins are. I like "choir". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

a horde? a mob? DFlhb (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Flange! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• I wasn't planning to take this to ANI. I usually don't take things like this to ANI. but I got a little annoyed when Bon courage decided to call me a troll and for me to be blocked over this edit, specifically. As I told him, if you look at the two edit summaries you see when you review that change, it is blatantly obvious that I was trying to workshop the sentence and simply accidentally left a word in. Bon courage did not read any of it and instead immediately assumed bad faith. He's been doing that continuously throughout the discussion. I don't mind being told that I am wrong, and I have no bone in this fight, but I would like to receive the basic courtesy of WP:AGF. The thing that ticked me off enough to come here is that I was trying to de-escalate the situation while this was going on, and get back to a constructive discussion, and this attempt was completely ignored in favour of calling me a troll for something that even the most basic due diligence would've shown was a honest mistake. A honest mistake, I might add, that was intended to add the majority of his preferred wording back into the article. Either way, I'm signing off from the discussion.--Licks-rocks (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  Fine to close from my perspective too. Bon courage (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

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

France IPs adding wrong song credits

• 86.198.138.62 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 80.12.41.69 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:CB1C:495:4200:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2A01:CB1C:1024:AC00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2A01:CB1C:E3C:D200:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2A01:CB1C:E3F:6200:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2001:861:3702:1440:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

For at least 14 months now, someone in France has been adding many wrong names to album and song credits. Typical wrong names include Mina Myoui, Yoo Jeong-yeon, Jihyo, Son Chae-young, Chou Tzu-yu,[142] Zedd, Madeon,[143] Jeongyeon, Tzuyu, Porter Robinson, Hugo Leclercq (birth name of Madeon) and more.[144][145]

Can we get preventive block on the France range Special:Contributions/2001:861:3702:1440:0:0:0:0/64 and the larger range Special:Contributions/2A01:CB1C:400:0:0:0:0:0/40 which is wide enough to catch four of the listed /64s with very little collateral? Can we get a block on static IP Special:Contributions/86.198.138.62? This vandal has been a thorn in the side of editors such as Paper9oll, Ïvana and Btspurplegalaxy who work to revert back to the correct facts. Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Blocked the /40 and the other /64. Courcelles (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll keep an eye on the static IPs. Binksternet (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Long-term CIR behavior by ChiserYT

User:ChiserYT has been editing since 2021, and from the start has been demonstrating CIR behavior. They received multiple warnings in January 2022 for edit warring, and trying to use "hands on expirence" [sic] as a citation. I tried to reason with them towards the end of January 2022, and initially it seemed promising, but they also said I understand, but i also need you guys to undestand how to co-exist with someone that has adhd or other mental disabilities. I know im stubborn. But impulsive control isnt easy. suggesting that this user openly has CIR problems and difficulty participating in a collaborative environment.

Next month, ChiserYT created a draft that was copyvio and seemingly did not understand why it was deleted. Around this time, they changed their signature to (and this is not a joke) ADHD and i hate speedy accusations of bs. Then there was this rant which really speaks for itself.

Now we come to April 2022, where ChiserYT blanked an article and was reverted and warned. Their response? i cleared it to start an article about m&w mfg. We also see their new signature, and again I'm not making this up, ADHD Ginger Boi. Jumpy to conclusions. I like Trains. #ALDM ChiserYT (talk)

Next, ChiserYT decides to hijack a redirect, and we see this incredible display of maturity. Here another editor raises the issue of their signature, and we see stonewalling. its my signature. too bad. you ever heard of privacy, or leaving someone alone instead of harrasing every single aspect of their prescents. now answer my question instead sidetracking into useless nagging. And we now have an even worse signature. It reads: ADHD Ginger Boi. Jumpy to conclusions. I like Trains. #ALDM [[User:ChiserYT|ChiserYT]] ([[User talk:ChiserYT|talk]]) (talk) Yes, all of the markup is fully visible in the signature.

And then we get another rant from ChiserYT, complete with an (admittedly weak) personal attack of You think i know how to customize my signature how id like too. u stupid. Shut up. Leave me alone. This prompts a warning from Primefac. Eventually even ChiserYT seems to realize they've messed up their signature. It has become even worse, and is now ADHD Ginger Boi.#ALM2M [[User:ChiserYT|ChiserYT]] ([[User talk:ChiserYT|talk]]) (talk) again with all the markup visible.

In May 2022, we have more warnings about ownership behavior and disruptive editing [146] [147] [148] at Tractor.

After this, ChiserYT becomes less active and generally makes smaller edits, until March/April this year, when they unsuccessfully[149] request undeletion of two articles they wrote that was deleted. When that doesn't work, ChiserYT promptly forum shops by asking Liz to undelete one of the articles instead. Liz notes ChiserYT's absurd and confusing signature. Unsurprisingly, Liz does not action the request.

This week I saw ChiserYT's comments at Talk:Illinois Central Railroad. I informed this user their signature is a clear violation of our signature policy, and was told to "lay off". Clearly, trying to reason with them won't work. Yesterday, they also left this aggressive message on an admin's talk page. I'll also note their userpage reads HI Adhd sucks living with. Also i hate my life, SO f'ing much. With CIR history going back over a year, I don't see any hope of their behavior improving, and am requesting an indefinite CIR block. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Agreed. On top of that, people who use their disabilities as an excuse to behave poorly should be blocked. Disabilities don't manifest in the same way for everyone, but there are plenty of neurodivergent Wikipedians who have become prolific editors, so I feel Chiser's behavior is also very disrespectful. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 14:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

ableist ADHD Ginger Boi.#ALM2M [[User:ChiserYT|ChiserYT]] ([[User talk:ChiserYT|talk]]) (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

For one, you need to remove the personal attack. Second you MUST change your signature. This clearly does not meet our guidelines. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• User indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Raj sahu z

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

---

• Raj sahu z (talk · contribs)

I noticed a few non-neutral edits from Raj sahu z. After some follow up on their talk page, it is quite clear that the person writing talk page comments is not the person writing the article edits. Raj sahu z says my sister is writer at news publication so she do rewriting things diff. I'm not sure if this is copyvio, ChatGPT, or a shared account, but something does not seem right to me. Thoughts? - MrOllie (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm tempted to not here this editor. They can barely construct a meaningful sentence on the talk page while the words just flow on articles (yeah, sister, sure!). I guess this is a chatGPT case since I can't find the text online and there are dozens of non-working links (an endemic problem with chatGPT which tends to just make links up). RegentsPark (comment) 19:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I succumbed to the temptation, RegentsPark. Bishonen | tålk 20:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC).

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

SimoooIX and M.Bitton - round 3

SimoooIX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (also previously known as Simoooix.haddi)

M.Bitton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous ANI discussions:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1125#non_adequately_explained_revert,_baseless_accusations_from_M.Bitton
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1125#M.Bitton_and_Simoooix.haddi_2-way_interaction_ban

Two weeks have passed since the last discussion, and I was recently called in to Talk:Ahmed Ben Bella to intervene in a latest round of dispute, taking place at Talk:Ahmed_Ben_Bella#April_2023 and Talk:Ahmed_Ben_Bella#May_2023. While there's some mild PA-sparring going on there and at discussions linked in those sections, what ultimately motivated me to bring this back to ANI is the exchange related to Talk:Ahmed_Ben_Bella#April_2023 and misrepresentation of sources. Reviewing the source in question [150] and the diffs carried out by SimoooIX (Special:Diff/1152380324, Special:Diff/1152392502), while I think it is possible that SimoooIX's misreading of the source may have been a genuine mistake rather than a deliberate intent to misrepresent the source, their willingness to insist on edits and argue forcefully for them despite their inability to understand the source cited is disruptive, and leads me to recommend that the community pass a topic ban from Moroccan, Algerian and West Saharan topics, broadly construed against SimoooIX. If this were a first time offense, WP:ROPE would be appropriate, but coming as it does after months of bickering, a p-block and 2 ANI threads (not to mention this opening shot to their relationship), I think that we have collectively been more than enough patient in waiting for SimoooIX to edit constructively. I would also note that the specific concern that SimoooIX was misreading French sources has been raised before by M.Bitton but does not appear to have been investigated in detail in the prior threads. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Enough is enough, this has to stop. --Yamla (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, regarding the issue of sources misrepresentation (which is not the real issue why i pinged you, and i think you should have mentioned the edit warring and properly sourced content removal stuff):

1)- the content i added is a matter of fact even if it wasn't mentioned in that specific source, It is supported by other reliable sources.[151]

2)- the author of the article, did also write an other article in which He is clearly confirming what i added. [152]

3)- The author of the article made this conclusion at the end of the paragraph. "Le futur président algérien est donc marocain et « berbère » par ses origines, rural et provincial par son statut social".Why would He even do that? SimoooIX (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban from Moroccan, Algerian and West Saharan topics, broadly construed against SimoooIX. The above post does not help their case.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support, per evidence above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Here are some reasons why a Topic ban from Moroccan, Algerian and West Saharan topics is not a good idea:

• 1)- It simply means that i should definitely stop editing on Wikipedia (see my userpage in order to know why):
• 2)- I have contributed many times on this topic and the majority of my edits were constructive (feel free to check my contibutions). i have also created the articles of Almohad conquest of Norman Africa and Awraba. and i have intentions to improve them in the future, also i have plans to create more articles.
• 3)- the most important reason to me is that M.Bitton clearly has something against Morocco and you can see that in many instances. For example they have labeled mentions of Morocco 'stupid' [153] and i have highlighted their mistake [154] and another editor did that too [155]. Also they have referred to the Moroccan policies as being 'colonialist'[156]. Unfortunately there is no one to stop their POV pushing. if i get banned that means they will feel free to do whatever they want.

As for my third edit. I admit that it was a mistake, and i have already apologized for it. i re-apologize if this was needed. Thanks. SimoooIX (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Most of SimoooIX's edits have been either disruptive or questionable at best. Here's their sole contribution to the Awraba article that they "created" (a single line with a factually incorrect nationalist POV that their tried to reinject after it was removed). The other article is a POV fork (created according to them to present the Almohad's view rather than the Normans' view) that consists of 80% background that is covered elsewhere.

Three days ago, they accused me of POV pushing and when asked to either substantiate their accusation or apologize, they referred to a discussion that proves the exact opposite of their assertion (this comment by Apaugasma sums it up quite well).

Look, i'm aware that an Algerian president being Moroccan Berber by his origins is a bothersome to you. But Wikipedia is not the place to impose your biased POV. yesterday's personal attack (that they tried to hide 12 hours after making it) is beyond the pale. It's also near identical to the first they made on the day they joined the project. M.Bitton (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Now you are clearly making baseless accusations. When I created the article of Awraba, I simply translated a part of the French article that referred to the Awraba as a tribe of Morocco. When you changed "Morocco" to "North Africa" and mentioned that you've adressed the anachronism, I initially thought adding "modern-day" would address the issue. However, after you explained the issue more clearly, I agreed with your reasoning and moved on. I was assuming good faith throughout our interaction.

"The other article is a POV fork (created according to them to present the Almohad's view rather than the Normans' view)" you clearly understood nothing from my comment ( I don't have to explain it now). So i suggest you refrain making accusations based on misunderstandings.

Now let's talk about your behaviour as an editor. You've personally attacked me more than once [157][158][159], you have threatened me [160] and falsely accused me of sockpuppetry [161]. As for the reason why i pinged Rosguill (apparently that was unhelpful), the following is a copied comment of mine that i have left in the talk page of Ahmed Ben Bella:

I have added properly sourced content, but apparently M.Bitton didn't like what i added, and removed it as well as other relevant content for being 'undue' (which is clearly not). i have reverted their removal and respectfully asked them not to edit war and discuss their removal in the talk page first. but they clearly seem unwilling to cooperate and cotinued edit warring. (you'll notice that they are refusing to continue this discussion). SimoooIX (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Jacona

Hello, I’m writing to report behavior of User:Jacona that I believe constitute personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA, as well as WP:OWN, and WP:TEND concerning Trinity Christian Academy (Addison, Texas). I’m an employee of the school being attacked, which has more than 1,200 students and a minority population of 17.5% as of 2021. Jacona has been forthright in making these personal attacks against the school on both the article’s Talk page and my user Talk page. This includes asking that I get the school’s administration to issue public statements in line with Jacona’s agenda and an outrageously false and libelous claim that the school “successfully continues that mission [perpetuating segregation] today.” Jacona’s agenda has spilled over into damaging the WIkipedia page in many ways, which I will detail later.

Here are examples of Jacona’s attacks against the school (ital emphases are mine)::

We all want the article to be better, but not everyone is interested in accuracy - the Wikipedia article should not look like the school's website, which tells this fairytale about the school's founding. It makes me very sad to see racial discrimination equated to "the glory of God". Since you're connected to the school, perhaps you could encourage the administration to publicly acknowledge their founding and demonstrate how they've grown despite of it, rather than claiming that very sordid beginning to be glorious and divine. (emphasis mine) [162]

The school has certainly come a short way in a long time, so far as diversity is concerned! [163] Note: the school website Jacona links to describes the school’s religious mission and makes absolutely no mention of racial discrimination or equating racial discrimination to the glory of God.

If this article were an attack piece, it would likely dwell more on how this school was founded to perpetuate segregation, and successfully continues that mission today. (emphasis mine). [164] 
It saddens me to read your school's website and it's fairytale history of the schools founding that states "Founded on the purpose of educating and developing the whole person for the glory of God, we believe there’s more for us to do than simply teach and ultimately, there’s more for our children to do than simply learn" and "TCA was started by a small group of parents who were committed to building a school with a strong curriculum within a framework of traditional Christian values". It implies that the "glory of God" is to keep Black people from getting uppity and think they are good enough humans to attend the same school or ride the same buses as White kids, and that "traditional Christian values" include providing rich White and Asian kids an education free from the influence of poor black kids. (emphasis mine) I don't believe either to be true, and am inexorably drawn to Matthew 25:45-46. When we're talking about education in the United States in 1970 and today, it is obvious to me that when Jesus was speaking about "the least of these", he was talking about the students that were then and now are excluded from an education at TCA. (emphasis mine) [165] 

For the record, Trinity is committed to promoting diversity, including with scholarships, and as noted, has a 17.5% minority enrollment as of June 2021. [166] It’s worth noting that this pattern is not limited just to Trinity, but can also be seen with similarly disparaging Edit Summaries on pages about other Christian academies. In these two examples, Jacona inserted the term “segregation academy” into the lead of two articles about a private Chrisitan school, and then removed it shortly after, but left a disparaging comment in the Edit Summary about each school:

(Removed the term "segregation academy" to avoid offending whites who want to feel that an all-white school that admitted no black students is somehow not a segregation academy.) [167] 
(Removed the words segregation academy; although the school certainly fits the definition quite well, I can't find a source that uses those exact words. Split the current demographics into a separate section.) [168]. 

Jacona has also demonstrated a pattern of altering the leads of articles about Christian] academies with content that is original analysis based on WP:PRIMARY sources or no sources at all. For example, Jacona added this sentence to the lead of Trinity. The source does not have any information about the racial demographics of the area, and certainly does not make the comparison Jacona does.

The White enrollment is now 80%, in a community that is 48% White. (emphasis mine.) The school serves pre-kindergarten through grade 12.[169] 

Jacona does the same thing, using Primary sources, in the lead of another Christian Academy:

The public school district, Clarendon 02, had a student body population that was 47% Black and 46% White. (emphasis mine) [170] (contrasting public-school district demographic stats with those of a single private school.)

As I said at the top, Jacona’s agenda has spilled over into damaging the WIkipedia page about Trinity Christian Academy in many ways. These include: 1) fabricating grossly inaccurate stats to attack the school (i.e. saying in the lead that the school had only 4 black students in 2020) [171]. 2) When User:Archer1234 removed this fabricated information [172], Jacona added in a wholly original analysis comparing the region’s racial demographics (without any source), to the school’s racial demographics – stating that “to not include [it] looks like whitewashing.” Edit Summary. 3) Jacona also cherry-picked this stat for the lead of Trinity on November 7, 2022: “...as of 2020, 4 percent of the student body was Black” (ignoring the overall minority enrollment from the Primary source.) [173] Yet the body of the article, where Jacona got the stat, gave the full demographics of the student body, including Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans and African Americans. By choosing to highlight only the recent Black student population in the lead (rather than all minorities), right after a statement about the discriminatory 1971 history, Jacona created the false impression that the current student body is 96% white. 4) Importantly, Jacona has blocked efforts to expand the page about the school from beyond attacks. They answered a Request Edit proposal I made last October in less than 24 hours, declining with thin rationale Request Edits regarding reliably-sourced school information (e.g. sports, curriculum, school activities) that comport with Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article advice [174]. The result is that the page remains about little else but the controversies. Jacona says they believe the school is only notable because of controversies, and should be deleted. Apparently in their mind this means the page should only be about the controversies.

So anyway, the only areas that make this school notable are its history of bigotry against Blacks, and the more recent discrimination against homosexual students. In my opinion, the article should be deleted. [175] 

Of course, it’s Jacona who has blocked the expansion of the article to include other topics, such as the curriculum and sports, in part by questioning the legitimacy of multiple local newspapers or topics not to their liking, despite the detailed content recommendations of the WikiProject Schools. There are many dozens of stories about the school in the local press over the past five decades, enough for it to even perhaps reach GA status, if future rounds of Request Edits are not blocked by Jacona. Given their history of making personal attacks and undisguised agenda editing, I do not see how Jacona can continue to make direct edits to the page in a neutral manner or evaluate/close Request Edits. Lkspears (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Lkspears (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

References

I'm curious why you brought this up 4 months after the last interaction you had with Jacona? This doesn't appear to be a pressing issue and I'm not seeing any personal attacks here. Attacks on the subject, sure, but not on you or any other editor. --Golbez (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@Golbez note that this editor says they work for the school, not sure in what capacity. Doug Weller talk 19:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

This should be closed. There are no apparent personal attacks here, and this is not a forum for resolving content disputes or for determining if an article should or should not be deleted. @Doug Weller: For what it's worth, a quick inspection of the school's web cite here provided me with good evidence of the OP's job description. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@JoJo Anthrax yes and yes. I’d close it if I weren’t on my iPad. I’m as likely to mess it up as do it properly, clumsy fingers.😀 Doug Weller talk 20:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

[T]he only areas that make this school notable are its history of bigotry against Blacks, and the more recent discrimination against homosexual students. This line amounts to Lkspears (talk · contribs) complaining about WP:NOTCENSORED — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Oops, misread the history — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I've made no personal attacks. As the self-acknowledged paid editor mentions, I've acknowledged that the school has made a lot of progress, being rougly 83% white/17% minority (albeit in a community that is majority minority), but that does not change history. It was founded as a seg academy. Their complaint boils down to non-acceptance that Wikipedia is not censored. They (or IPs I strongly suspect to be them) have just been trying to censor it for a long time. Jacona (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Logged out edits

Can Lkspears confirm that they are not responsible the recent wave of IP edits that resulted in the semi-protection of the article? [176], [177], [178] [179]? — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

No, I am not responsible for any of those other edits and I have no idea who is making them. I didn’t go to the trouble of disclosing my COI on the page’s Talk, proposing Request Edits with COI disclosures over many months, and posting this extensive ANI complaint with another COI disclosure today, just to turn around and wantonly violate Wikipedia policy with undisclosed COI edits from an IP address. Lkspears (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant, poorly sourced material at Midlothian, Virginia

Writing this to preempt my violating 3rr (though I don't believe I would be based on WP:3RRNO). It looks like CWCvilleresident1982 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is attempting to insert poorly sourced BLP content into Midlothian, Virginia. In the spirit of full disclosure, I think that Chris-Chan is the victim of a nearly decades-long harassment campaign, but I recognize WP:RGW. Once again - since the content is in violation of WP:BLPRS I don't think my reversion would run afoul of the 3 revert rule, but I also think it's in the best interest to raise this matter here. PriusGod (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Never mind. Vandalism is now blatant. Nothing to do but block PriusGod (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I was going to say! Honestly If I see doing [his/her/their/your/my] mom I typically stop reading because there's no way anyone with competence would type that. No matter what sources they doll the contribution up in or how plausible it sounds, some things will always be giveaways. There's nothing wrong with being cautious around 3RR though. I threw them up at AIV. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

For the record, they began socking. Ivanvector appears to be on top of it though GabberFlasted (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Protected and RD2'd by Ivanvector. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 17:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Pretty simple, if it's Chris Chan related, it needs to be removed immediately. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

If any oversighters are watching this, most of the edits have been zapped, but there are still a couple that are merely revdelled - I think there's a bit more that needs doing. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I sent a request to the OS team earlier on this in fact. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't the username also be nuked from orbit? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 22:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Also watch Commons; we had to get some KF-contributed 'content' obliterated earlier. Nate • (chatter) 19:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Marrakech

I removed this comment that Marrakech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made to Talk:Cheshire home invasion murders because it seems blatantly transphobic to me, and to ignore styling guidelines for names of transgender individuals at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Gender_identity. After I informed then of the guidelines, they doubled down, [180]. Given their previous edits in the transgender topic area (eg [181]) I think a topic ban or an indef block may be warranted. Admittedly my original "taking out the trash" edit summary when initially removing their comment was not ideal and did not adequately explain the issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it's because I'm from that area and go there with some frequency (though I don't know anyone involved in this, it was a huge news story that was unavoidable around here), but given the context I'm having a hard time getting past referring to this specific person's previous name as a "deadname". The Linehan thing I don't know enough about, this isn't my topic area, so I'll defer to those more familiar. That said, the removed comment from Marrakech was totally inexcusable, I have no sympathy for Hayes but that was obviously intended to be as incendiary as possible. At minimum it deserves a strong warning, repeating it would certainly be worthy of (at minimum) an indefinite p-block from that page. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah the person was clearly notable under their old name due to their crime, and I agree the name should be include. My issue was with Marrakech calling it a "disgrace" that their current gender identification be respected, which is part of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Gender_identity. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Enough with the hyperboles. It is not 'blatantly transphobic' to call the guy who raped and murdered an innocent woman a guy. Nor was my comment 'intended to be as incendiary as possible'. I am merely criticizing the article for treating Steven Hayes as if he were a woman. You may not agree with that, but voicing an opinion can hardly be a reason for any ban whatsoever. At least not in an environment that respects basic rights and principles. Marrakech (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, actually, voicing transphobic opinions is transphobic. "I'm just voicing my opinion" is not some magic protection from criticism, and being permitted to edit wikipedia is not a "basic right". Wikipedia's guidelines on gender identity are very clear, and you wouldn't be the first to be blocked for blatantly refusing to follow them. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, looking further into this I'm deeply unimpressed by Marrakech's recent contributions as a whole, which are largely concerned with pushing their PoV on trans issues. Since the beginning of 2022 they have made 19 edits as I write this, including: the comment on Talk:Cheshire home invasion murders (once, twice, three times); this edit using Quillette as a source (generally unreliable according to WP:RSP), this edit sourced to a Forbes Contributor article (generally unreliable according to WP:FORBESCON; and the source doesn't strictly support the claim made anyway); this edit to Talk:Colorado Springs nightclub shooting where they argue that WP:DEADNAME should be ignored "as a general rule"; twice adding the word "alleged" to the description of Graham Linehan's anti-trans activism, and this edit to Talk:Ezra Miller arguing that the use of singular they in reference to a specific known person is ungrammatical. Some of these might be excusable individually, but they make up the majority of Marrakech's edits in more than a year, and together they constitute a clear pattern. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

You're not helping yourself here. I can attest that, especially for anyone from here, this is about the least sympathetic subject imaginable on any level. Your problem is with choosing the most inflammatory way possible to express it, and I have a hard time thinking that you wouldn't intuit this would result; if you honestly didn't, that's a problem in and of itself. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

It is blatantly transphobic to call a trans woman a guy. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Marrakech's original comment - the one linked to by and removed by Hemiauchenia - was pure transphobia, and expressed in the most despicable way. They need to apologise and voluntarily back off, or I would support a block of some kind. GiantSnowman 22:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• I should probably know this, but my eyes glazed over when they talked about the new contentious topics regime in class. Do you still have to have some kind of official templated warning before making a contentious topic sanction? I looked at WP:CTOP and didn't see such a requirement, but surely they're needed, right? Anyway, I'd suggest an official warning (if required) or a CT topic ban (if not). --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  Oh wait, sorry. They already got one last summer (although I'm still a little curious if they're officially required; did I miss something at WP:CTOP?). I'd suggest an admin more familiar with the i-dotting and t-crossing of CT sanctions just unilaterally topic ban them. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  See Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Awareness of contentious topics; there's still some formality involved but they've tried to reduce it. Galobtter (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• comment: in case english-only people here are unaware, this user is currently the main party subject to an unresolved ArbCom case on dutch Wikipedia for a related issue. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Marrakech has used a previous account. Per Wikipedia:Clean start#Contentious and scrutinized_topics they should disclose the previous account. I was going to impose a WP:GENSEX topic ban, which should be done as a minimum, but this edit suggests that the problems extend beyond the topic area. Galobtter (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

Furry roleplayer (talk · contribs · count)

User has been continuing to add unsourced and/or unhelpful content into various music articles, which they have previously been blocked twice for. (Recent example[182]) As of recently, they have been going on a mass genre-warring spree, adding and changing genres without sources or discussion, causing a significant amount of work for other editors to revert. Magatta (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

First of all, even on a mobile device the format is awful. That said, this has gone on for quite long enough. Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Ohairtneada's conservative/christian pov

It appears that User:Ohairtneada has been editing many articles from Love to Heartbeat bill, adding information from a conservative and/or Christian point of view, including a massive edit of over 750 bits on Love. I'm requesting a block from editing for a couple of weeks due to persistent Wikipedia:Neutral point of view violations, of which, the user has been at for a while and has been warned multiple times for. --AugustusAudax (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

So yes their edits are not helpful to the project. However you appear to have missed the fact that they have not edited in well over 4 years. A couple week block is pointless and it's unlikely we'll ever see that editor again. Canterbury Tail talk 01:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, they took a 3 year break. Maybe a longer break would be good, given the fact that they appear to off-and-on disruptive edit. So, who knows. Didn't notice the year though.

--AugustusAudax (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think they've done enough to warrant a block. A talking with yes, but not a block. We've started a talking with them and we can continue that should they return. Canterbury Tail talk 01:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Swarm of promotional SPAs at Harley Pasternak

• 2001:569:7EBC:700:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• EdwardRClark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SusanforHarley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Slecuyer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over at Harley Pasternak, there are a bunch of SPA accounts that are being used to tag-team edit war promotional spam regarding hotel gyms he has worked on, none of which is sourced is to reliable sources. @Cullen328: has removed some of this material, but was subsequently reverted. I gave a COI notice to SusanforHarley, and they did not deny the COI allegation. [183]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

As a start, I semi-protected Harley Pasternak for a month. Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Socks blocked as well. Courcelles (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Unnecessary fighting

An user named @DarkAudit: suddenly started to revert my edits without valid reason. As per the sources[[184] [185] , Paethongtarn Shinawatra is the head of Pheu Thai Family but the user keeps changing the word "Family" as "Party". I added the latest image of Chonlanan Srikaew but he reverted that edit to old image (I restored his edit now). Vish Yuva (talk) 06:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The article is titled Pheu Thai Party, not Pheu Thai Family. Reverting the image was because the name on the caption was inconsistent with the name of the subject. DarkAudit (talk) 06:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@DarkAudit: Please understand one thing first. "Head of the Pheu Thai Family" is a specific post created specially for Paethongtarn Shinawatra. [186] It does not equal to Head of the Pheu Thai Party. In October 2021, Paetongtarn was named chief adviser on participation and innovation, her first role in the party. In March, the party introduced her as head of the Pheu Thai Family, a party component. Since then, she has campaigned and participated in Pheu Thai outreach programs. [187] Vish Yuva (talk) 06:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The edit at Pheu Thai Party looks correct, the Title is 'Family' not 'Party'. @DarkAudit You made a mistake there. Nobody (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

That one's on me, then. Apologies. DarkAudit (talk) 06:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)