Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1108

Standard offer request of Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel

The following message copied here on behalf of Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk · contribs) per this discussion. (posted by Mathglot (talk) at 19:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC) )

To whichever admin(s) see this, I am respectfully requesting a standard offer by the suggestion of another admin by the name of Ponyo. I simply put it as a request to be able to edit on Wikipedia again after eight months away. I was genuinely unaware that my actions two months later of suck puppetry was illegal on the site after seeing other users get away with it; but as six months have passed since then, therefore I put forth the request of a standard offer now.

I fully recognise my short temper and hatred I felt for others if they made mistakes or fell short of what I believed were the standards of an article, and I did not find my block unjust. Since then, as I stated in my second block review, I have gone through rehabilitation via minor therapy and simply alone time, been relieved of stresses also applied at the time, and now I feel I am ready to start editing Wikipedia again without verbally attacking anyone for reason why; and I shall harass no more. Thanks, User:Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel 10:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

What other than lashing out at others should one do when in disagreement with what others are doing? How does one resolve WP:CONTENTDISPUTEs on Wikipedia in a constructive, collegial manner? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel: in case not watching this thread. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Housekeeping note: I've added a request at Mikey's talk page to recommend he subscribe to this topic. Also, since I may have limited availability for a couple days, I recommended use of {{HelpMe}} for help copying his messages here. Mathglot (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

If it is with a minor fault that someone else is doing, using the summary box to outline what the user's mistake was and how the fault was fixed or reverted is the best option. If it was to be a major mistake, then approaching the user via their talk page would probably be more plausible. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC) Copied from Mikey's TP by Rich^T|C|E-Mail

@Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel: Thank you. What if the dispute remains unresolved? What next? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

It would depend on the response of the criticised user. If they disagree they are at fault and they repeat the error on multiple articles, one could contact an admin to sort them out. If it is just on a particular article, I would say one should resubmit the fix/revert if the criticised has reverted the fix/revert themselves once more, and if they again revert the fix/revert, then the article's talk page can be used for discussion or debate on who's right. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC) copied from Mikey's TP HouseBlaster^talk 22:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Note: thanks go to Deepfriedokra for his responses, and thanks for carrying it this far. He has indicated he has disengaged from this discussion (here). Echoing his cmment at the diff: Additional community input requested. Mathglot (talk) 09:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

An unusually narrow rangeblock

192.124.203.8/29 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) Can a block be placed on 192.124.203.8/29? These addresses are a subnet within a Glasgow Council owned IP range (192.124.203.0/24) and have done (very nearly) nothing but vandalise for at least a year. Some of the individual IPs are blocked, but they seem to be able to switch addresses quite easily (see edit history of Lucky Luciano). This is the narrowest range that would catch all addresses used almost entirely for abuse, (it gets from xx.8 to xx.16, the ones used for abuse seem to be xx.11 to xx.15, the others in the range seem to be unused). This seems to be a school, and at least one IP (192.124.203.13) has been blocked as such (blocked for a year back in November 2021). There has been only one or two good edits from the range, which has been far outweighed by the sheer volume of garbage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mako001 (talk • contribs)

I blocked the range for a year after noting the last block for that range was six months expiring early this month. Johnuniq (talk) 09:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

High risk external link

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I just clicked on this in the external link section and the security flagged a high risk warning. What to do? 79.73.26.181 (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, article is I Am a Singer 79.73.26.181 (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

It appears to be a link to the Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) website, more specifically to the Korean version of The Masked Singer. In the Korean language. Given this is the English language Wikipedia, an external link to a website in the Korean language is of limited value to our readers and could be removed, in my opinion. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. My security software certainly do not like it. Thank you. 79.73.26.181 (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Gone now. 79.73.26.181 (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

False MOS:ACCESS introductions by User:Bgsu98

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello I was wondering if an administrator could investigate the actions of User:Bgsu98. I usually edit from an IP but have created an account to file this complaint. The user is completely changing the format of various articles such as the Dancing with the Stars franchise and most recently Big Brother 22 (American season) where he has removed columns from tables and dumped information In the same column as houseguests names. No one seems to be reverting him as he's made himself to be a "professional" and argued with everyone that has disputed it. I think this needs to be looked at. Thank you Queensdying (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Your complaint about Big Brother 22 (American season) that you deemed "most recently" was on August 7th, and my rationale listed was "Simplified table", which I did to bring it more in line with the Survivor tables. Nowhere did I qualify that edit as MOS:ACCESS. And as for making myself out to be a "professional", I don't even know what that means. Bgsu98 (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

What you've done is remove crucial information and shoved it in places where it's extremely misleading to other users. Removing "previous season" columns and placing the season in the "name" column is perhaps the worst example of MOS:ACCESS I’ve ever seen which indicates to me you haven’t a clue what you’re doing. Removing "Bottom two" colours from Dancing with the Stars, with no note to say that couple was in the bottom two.. these are just a couple of things I’ve picked up on and I think this needs to be investigated further before you cause potentially more damage. Thanks Queensdying (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Queensdying. You did not notify Bgsu98 as the big orange box at the top of the editing window informs you that you must. I have done so for you. This looks like a routine content dispute, and administrators do not adjudicate content disputes. You are informing us that this editor made some bold edits, but Wikipedia:Be bold is a widely accepted editing guideline. What, precisely, do you want administrators to investigate? Punish them for following the editing guideline? If you disagree with these edits, revert and be prepared to make your case on these articles' talk pages. Cullen328 (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, in the edit you are complaining about on Big Brother 22 (American season), nowhere did I cite MOS:ACCESS. My edit summary on that edit was "Simplified table", which I did. That table is entirely too wide, so I added the previous seasons to the contestants' cells as is the standard on the Survivor articles. The contestants' placements in the previous seasons are irrelevant to the current season. But, as @Cullen328 has pointed out, this is not the place to adjudicate content disputes. I would also like to point out that absolutely no one has contacted me via my talk page with regards to complaints or issues on the Dancing with the Stars articles, and only twice over thirty different articles have I had to revert edits that returned tables to a non-accessible state. Bgsu98 (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Yogeshpahade9 (again)

Yogeshpahade9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User is still making cut and paste moves, has been warned innumerable times not to do so, and yet has returned from a one month break, only to continue making cut and paste moves. This exact issue has been raised twice before at this board, and yet they have never either communicated, or altered their behaviour. Prior reports here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1079#User:Yogeshpahade9 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1105#User:Yogeshpahade9 making cut paste moves despite multiple warnings. Latest move: [2][3]. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 04:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I blocked them indefinitely, that is, until they respond in a way that shows they understand the problem with a plausible explanation of how such issues will be avoided in the future. I don't think they have ever commented. Johnuniq (talk) 06:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Banned user editing on IP address to continue POV pushing

The user 94.54.234.39 appears to be the same individual as @Burtigin:, who was banned indefinitely because they were not here to build an encyclopaedia. It seems they are now editing through their IP address to continue POV pushing after being blocked from editing.

Their edit interests and their edits' content (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) correspond to those of @Burtigin:. Antiquistik (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Yep, seems like loutsocking to me. Blocked 1 week. firefly ( t · c ) 09:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editor on IP range

• Special:Contributions/90.167.165.*

This is a beauty pageant SPA who is repeatedly adding unreferenced rows to pageant article/s. e.g. [4] (165.91), [5] (165.109), [6] (165.135), [7] (165.142)

There are a number of recently blocked SPA editors so it could possibly also be block evasion. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Special:Contributions/90.167.165.0/24 Madeline (part of me) 18:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Have I ever said how tedious pageant-related disruption can be? Guess I have now...

IP range blocked for 3 months (anon only). I agree that this could well be block evasion, but it's disruptive enough in its own right that we don't really need to worry too much who this might be. firefly ( t · c ) 09:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Arjunuok COI issues and potential socking of IPs

Arjunuok has been attempting to add a lot of spam information about University of Kelaniya (including things like phone numbers, promoting certain aspects/areas of the school, etc.), and the numerous attempts to direct them to the COI guidelines and the guidelines about promotion/advertising doesn’t seem to be working. And now it appears that Arjunuok might be operating a few IP addresses, as they have stopped editing on their account (which they have been undoing my reversions for the past few hours), and two IP addresses, both geolocating to Colombo, Sri Lanka with the exact same latitude and longitude and ASN number, have attempted to do fixes around the infobox and lead section of the article in a similar way that Arjunuok has been doing.

• Arjunuok says here [8] that “I am an authorized person from the University of Kelaniya, and I can not have false information on it's Wikipedia page.”

• 123.231.84.57 and 2402:4000:1382:5E24:C033:E805:4665:785C then proceed to show up to this page not even 10 minutes after I made the last reversion and start editing the lead section and infobox again [9] [10] with the exact same edit summary (“Wrong information”), compared to the changes that Arjunuok made to that particular part of the article. [11]. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 08:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi

including things like phone numbers: available to fill on the university information template

Promoting certain aspects/areas of the school, etc - Not a single promotional content was added. Rank of the university added following Oxford University - UK.

I was arranging the content ina scientific order removing the INACCURATE information.

Thank you for understanding. Arjunuok (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Arjunuok. Whether you consider the edits promotional or not you shouldn't be editting the article because of your conflict of interest, being paid or not paid for your editting doesn't change that. You really need to read WP:COI, it explains how to handle your situation. Also copying your preferred version of the article to your user page is inappropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

In addition, editing the article under IP addresses by logging out to make the same disruptive edits is considered sockpuppetry, and is a serious example of abuse of editing priviledges. If your edits have been challenged by other editors, attempting to evade scrutiny is highly inappropriate. Instead, please submit an edit quest to Talk:University of Kelaniya, making it clear what exact changes you would like to make and why they improve the article as a whole. If need be, cite relevant Wikipedia policies to justify your edits, though do note that as a whole phone numbers and promotional language are generally not regarded by editors as information that would improve the article as a whole. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 10:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On September 9 and 10 of this year, Volunteer Marek massively destroyed my work on the Jan Karski article. On the talk page, I told him on September 9:

Under the pretense of suppressing "original research", you suppressed the fact that Raul Hilberg, the foremost Holocaust scholar, did not find Karski's testimony worthy of a footnote. You also removed the fact that Karski first said he visited the Belzec camp and that after Hilberg's criticism, a theory of uncertain origin replaced Belzec with Izbica, a theory that raised doubts in the Izbica specialist Steffen Hänschen. Even if some remarks I had made in the article can be discussed, the fact remains that when I say that Hilberg did not believe Karski's testimony and that Hänschen questioned the Izbica version of this testimony, it is not original research. Therefore, it is clear that you are using notions such as "original research" to conceal from the readers that Karski's testimony is suspect in the eyes of certain specialists.

He answered :

Please provide sources, links and quotes for these claims. I already noticed that the David Engel article you used as a source said nothing like what you claimed. (the article was being used to source this claim about Hilberg doubting Karski but the article didn't even mention Hilberg

Let me explain this absurd reproach about Engel's article. I had written in the article:

Karski's visit to the camp is only attested to by his own statements and was questioned by several historians, starting with Raul Hilberg in 1986.

Thus I spoke of several historians and I gave references, in two notes, to statementss of two historians. The first note was a reference to an interview with Raul Hilberg (who was mentioned in my sentence) and the second note was a reference to a second historian, David Engel. Volunteer Marek believed or pretended to believe that the second note was a way of sourcing the part of my sentence which concerned Hilberg, whereas I had already sourced this part of my sentence in the first note. I answered :

Let's go in order. You say: "Please provide sources, links and quotes for these claims." Well, it seems to me that I gave the sources (several texts of Hilberg and the book of Hänschen) in our article and you deleted the whole thing. Did I understand your request correctly? After your response, I will respond to the rest of your message.

His only response was:

How about this. Please let us know which page in the David Engel article mentions Hilberg.

I answered :

I want to go in order, one thing at a time. I made the effort to answer your first request, I would like to know if you are able to recognize that I answered well. Otherwise, it's not worth wasting my time. After your answer, I will answer about Engel's article.

Again, his only answer was :

No, if you did indeed blatantly misrepresent the source that's quite significant. So let's resolve that first. Where in the Engel article does he actually mention Hilberg?

I answered :

So after all this time, you haven't guessed yet. Quite simply, I never said that Hilberg is named in Engel's article. I mentioned Engel as a second example of a historian questioning Karski's account of his clandestine visit to an extermination camp. Engel thought that the camp described by Karski could not have been Belzec and he conjectured that it was Belzyce's camp. I did not go into details because this conjecture has not been accepted by historians.

About 24 hours later, V. M. having not answered anything, I added this :

Volunteer Marek, I thought that, after my last reply, you would apologize. Is it impossible for you ? If you don't apologize, I will seek action against you.

He then answered :

You can seek whatever action you wish but the fact still remains that you tried to use a source that doesn’t even mention Hillberg to try and pretend-source a statement about Hillberg, your ex post justifications not withstanding. Your text certainly pretend that “Hillberg is named in Emgel’s article”.

After my convincing explanation, this insulting accusation was a blatant violation of the "Assume good faith" rule. I therefore demand a measure against Volunteer Marek. He is clearly an ideological militant who wants to hide from the public the facts likely to tarnish Karski's image. Before my interventions in the article, he had already deleted the following words:

According to a contemporary note, when Karski met with Anthony Eden, the latter pressed for more information on the fate of Polish Jews while Karski wanted to discuss Soviet designs for Poland.

V.M. claimed the source was ineligible, but he was unable to say why. (See the talk page.) Marvoir (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Marvoir, this is a routine content dispute that simply does not belong at this noticeboard. When you begin by writing "massively destroyed", that is obvious hyperbole that undermines your argument. Your contributions are still in the edit history, after all. It seems to me that this could have been easily resolved by simply mentioning David Engel (historian) as well, and rearranging the references accordingly. Trying to force an apology about such a triviality here at ANI seems unwise to me, but I suppose that you see things differently. Cullen328 (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Also failed to notify the editor per the requirements --ARoseWolf 17:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328, Volunteer Marek destroyed 42.913 byyes. Is that not a massive destruction ? And the only reason he gave was his stupid accusation of misrepresenting a source, after I had given a convincing explanation. (By the way, I HAD made the reference more explicit on 12 September.) Do you really think that it is possible to discuss with somebody who accuses you of misrepresentation after you gave him a convincing explanation ? It is a violation of the "Assume good faith" rule. Why don't you say this to him ? Marvoir (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

You made massive changes to the article without any discussion and strangely, these 42k bytes mostly revolved around, or were dominated, by a single theme - some obscure statement by Raul Hillberg about Karski. One of the sources (Wood et al) is not easily available though superficial familiarity with it suggests that its tone is entirely different from you edits. Another source is a magazine article of which there is no record of. Third source, the Engel article, I checked and it said nothing like you claimed it said. In fact it didn’t mention Hillberg at all. This isn’t very encouraging.

I will have the Wood source shortly and I will look at your edits in detail - worse case scenario the article will stay in its long standing version for a few more days. Volunteer Marek 18:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Marvoir, reverting is not destroying. When you say things like that, it damages your credibility. Unsurprisingly, you consider your own explanation to be convincing. I disagree and so does Volunteer Marek. Do I think that it is possible to discuss things with Volunteer Marek? Yes, I do.

Do you understand that this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes? Cullen328 (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh and most of the text was very badly written style and grammar wise, with switching of tenses mid sentence, fragments, etc. Volunteer Marek 18:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328, can you explain why you find that the explanation I gave to Volunteer Marek is not convincing ? Marvoir (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Marvoir, I explained why in my initial response above. I notice as I am taking a closer look that you have accused Volunteer Marek of "ignorance and ill will" in one of your edit summaries. Are you aware that No personal attacks is a policy that must be followed? Cullen328 (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

No, Cullen328, you did not explain in your fist post why you find that my EXPLANATION was not convincing. Even after my explanation, Volunteer Marek pretended : " you tried to use a source that doesn’t even mention Hillberg to try and pretend-source a statement about Hillberg, your ex post justifications not withstanding. Your text certainly pretend that “Hillberg is named in Emgel’s article”. Cullen, do you agree with him on this ? Marvoir (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Marvoir, everyone can see that you placed a reference to an article by Engel that does not mention Hilberg directly after discussion of something regarding Hilberg. If you cannot see that this is confusing and improper, then I do not know what else to say. As I pointed out earlier, you could have mentioned Engel as well in the article text, but you chose not to do so for whatever reason. Now that I have answered your question again and in greater detail, will you please answer my questions about the purpose of this noticeboard and about your personal attacks? Cullen328 (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328, you didn't answer my question. You say that the first form of my reference was ambiguous, but you seem to (implicitly) admit my explanation. Volunteer Marek, after my explanation, persisted in accusing me of a bad intention. That is a personal attack and a violation of the "Assume good faith rule". Do you agree with him ? My "personal attacks" are objective descriptions of Volunteer Marek's behaviour. Marvoir (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

That's very funny. That kind of statement is what we usually hear from blocked editors in their unblock request. Are you really this clueless? If it weren't for the fact that two admins in this thread have taken no action, I would block you.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

You made a large number of Bold additions to the article, which were Reverted by Volunteer Marek with explanations in the edit summaries. At this point, WP:BRD (Bold, Revert, Discuss) applies, and you should have headed straight for the talk page to discuss why your changes were an improvement to the article, not simply put them back in again. And that is exactly what you should be doing now. Also, I suggest that calling VM "stupid" and an "ideological militant" on an administrator's noticeboard page is something you ought not to continue doing, or you may find yourself unable to edit the article at all. Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Black Kite (talk), after my convincing explanation, Volunteer Marek persisted in accusing me of a bad intention. He pretended : " you tried to use a source that doesn’t even mention Hillberg to try and pretend-source a statement about Hillberg, your ex post justifications not withstanding. Your text certainly pretend that “Hillberg is named in Emgel’s article” Such accusations are personal attacks. Why don't you say it to him ? Marvoir (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Marvoir, those remarks are criticisms of your edits and are not personal attacks. You are the only one engaging in personal attacks. Cullen328 (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

No, Cullen328. After my explanation, a criticism of my edit would have been : "Your edit was ambiguous." But he accused me of lying about my intentions. That is a personal attack. Marvoir (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Marvoir. Neither the word "lying" nor any synonym appears in those criticisms of your edits. So, you are in error on this matter. Cullen328 (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2022 (

Marvoir, do you intend to answer my specific questions? Cullen328 (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)"Stupid", "ideological militant", ignorance" and "ill will" are all objective descriptions? Looks like a violation of WP:NPA to me. Can you please provide a diff where VM directly referred to you as "lying" about your intentions along with specifically answering @Cullen328's questions, please and thank you? --ARoseWolf 20:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Now three, but yeah. I see something here that says Marvoir needs a block. Cullen328's pateince is amazing and priceless. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf: That's it! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I consider myself too heavily involved in the content matter at this point to use my toolkit, but any other administrator is welcome to. Cullen328 (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it.🙄 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I've blocked Marvoir for 48 hours for personal attacks and for their behavior here.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  Out of curiosity, wouldn't this dispute fall into the Eastern Europe/Balkans topic area? And if so, has Marvoir been put on notice? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thinking the same thing, but DS alerting sounds like just piling on. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  Why would it be? The block is only 48 hours, and users under alerts have been sanctioned for lesser offences. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this is a content issue so it shouldn't be here in the first place but never let a great opportunity as a teachable moment in "reading the room" go to waste. Marvoir, when one experienced editor says there is a problem in your logic here then I guess you could ignore that, though not advised, but when multiple call into question your logic here then I would most definitely take heed. While WP:BRD is not a policy itself, it does give you an amazing map to avoid edit warring and insight into the policy on talking and editing. I would suggest you look pretty heavy into what is provided for you here once your block ends. --ARoseWolf 20:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Please remeber that your racist EE/Balkans comments will survive probably hundreds years. Xx236 (talk) 09:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rishabisajakepauler ban evasion – IP ranges recently active

• Rishabisajakepauler (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 2600:1700:511:59A0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 172.56.7.47 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.178.61 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 69.159.46.228 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 99.71.209.242 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 108.215.178.233 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

User:Rishabisajakepauler was blocked three years ago for disruption in music articles. Since then, he has used a wide variety of IPs to evade his block. Most of the IPs are from Frisco, Texas, or nearby Dallas, a short drive north to Oklahoma, and more distant places including Washington and Atlanta... some travel involved with this case.

His pattern for about a year was to request through WP:AFC/R the creation of song article redirects,[12][13] which he later expanded into articles. Back in April, I posted a report describing this problem at Banned user gaming the system of redirects to create music articles. Since then, he has asked individual editors to create redirects.[14][15][16][17][18]

Can we block some of the recently active IPs or ranges? The range Special:Contributions/2600:1700:511:59A0:0:0:0:0/64 already has a block log, as does the IP Special:Contributions/99.71.209.242. Some of the currently blocked IPs and ranges are listed below. Binksternet (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Involved IPs

• 2600:1700:1113:2C40:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 108.217.3.222 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 194.5.215.250 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 198.17.32.189 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 198.17.32.159 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 173.172.3.168 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 199.91.37.165 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 65.36.59.228 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Delaying auto-archiving. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Repeated misuse of talk pages

• CuddleKing1993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:Atlantis536

Over the past few months, this user has been repeatedly coming to my talk page not to correct misinformation or seek my help with Wikipedia-related matters, but to solicit opinions on paleontology topics. I must admit I too violated WP:TALK and gave my opinions, but only because I felt pity on them. An IP asked if I have a Discord account and when I replied I didn't, CuddleKing (which I believe is the IP, given that they continued and referred back to the IP's conversation) started spamming me with questions about a potential remake of Walking With Dinosaurs. Out of friendliness and politeness, I answered their questions, but recently tried to tell them the true purpose of talk pages. After that they went silent for a while before referring me to a discussion on Talk:Lingyuanosaurus, which, as it turns out, was started by them a month ago about the taxon's "usefulness", which, frankly, is quite unscientific. I gave them a rational answer and also explained how the discussion topic didn't merit them going to my talk page for answers. As much as I want to answer their questions, I also want them blocked under WP:NOTHERE, as they seem to be using Wikipedia mostly to talk dinosaurs, not to improve the encyclopedia. Atlantis536 (talk) 11:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Somewhat harsh, as they DO have mainspace edits, and you DID encourage them to chat on your talk page until you tired of it, and what are we talking about, a single edit to your talk page in the last month? Blank them out on your talk page if you prefer, but that's not remotely a barrage worthy of indeffing, and certainly not because it seems easier to have an admin be the bad guy instead of having to give them a "Never post to my talk page again" warning to THEIR talk page. Ravenswing 12:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I did not ask them to stop because I'm just tired of them; I only said so because I realized that isn't what talk pages are for. And while they did have mainspace edits, those were a long time ago (and mostly constituted vandalism based on their personal beliefs). Their main focus now seems to be talking dinosaurs. Atlantis536 (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Is a block needed? For now, why not try to make it clearer that you aren't interested in talking to them? I don't see any sort of NOTHERE issue. Attempting to put myself in their shoes, they are bored, no longer are motivated to finish a draft that they started, and are trying to find something to do. Why not try to redirect that into something else? Maybe you could try to give them some ideas of useful activities? The situation you are in (or something similar) often happens, and blocking the other user usually isn't the best outcome. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I give people the link for Wikipedia:Community portal/Opentask. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced statistics changing

AndrewMr2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

AndrewMr2 appears to be arbitrarily changing and adding numbers in EU economies' articles, such as dates and wages, without sources. Examples: 1 2 3 4 5 6. When asked on their talk page to stop making unsourced edits, they replied with this which does not appear cooperative and afterwards made this other unsourced edit. Nythar^T.C 22:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm the admin who gave the warning. Very much considered just blocking them after they continued following my first message to them, but decided to give them the benefit of the doubt and a final warning. They haven't edited since but if they continue I intend on blocking. I also have a feeling socking may be involved, but didn't see any solid evidence in my 5 min look. --Trialpears (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

And blocked. --Trialpears (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP and WP:OR violations

Hi. I have been unable to explain WP:BLP and WP:OR policies to Justi7, a user with apparently 14 years of experience on Wikipedia, at Talk:Prince George of Wales#Titles and styles section. They insist on restoring challenged, unsourced material into a BLP, suggesting that templates requiring sources be added instead of removing the unsourced misinformation. They also refuse to respect the consensus reached on the talk page and apparently do not even understand that Wikipedia content must be properly sourced. Users such as these drain my energy and will to contribute to this project, so I beg for assistance in explaining how things work around here. Surtsicna (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Every royal biography have titles and styles sections because their titles changes with time. For example: Charles III#Titles and styles. So Prince George of Wales page was Prince George of Cambridge before. This was his birthname (22 July 2013) and changed to Prince George of Cornwall and Cambridge at 8 September 2022 (with Queen’s death) as I sourced at the article. At 9 September 2022 (with The King’s Speech) it changed to Prince George of Wales. Again sourced. Wikipedia changed article name exactly like that too. I just wrote those changes, like other royal bios. You can see from talk page Surtsicna removed entire section for him and his siblings because for him/her sources was not enough or dates was not clear. His parents named him two days after his birth but it doesn’t make him nameless from 22 July to 24 July. Parents have legal time period to write birth certificate and name is valid from birth. I never saw anything otherwise. And all other european and british biographies are like that too. Justi7 (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The issue with the dates was discussed thoroughly on the talk page. You have been told you are editing against consensus but you do not care. None of the sources you have provided verify any of the material you have included. You continue to restore this material despite it being challenged and despite not having sources to back it up. After 14 years on Wikipedia, your evident lack of understanding of WP:Original research and WP:Biographies of living people can be interpreted as nothing but deliberate ignorance. Surtsicna (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Surtsicna: BLP specifically says that contentious material should be removed. "Contentious" is not the same as unsourced. I don't propose to dig into all the issues but quickly googling one of the titles you question suggests you haven't made much effort to check whether the material can be reliably sourced before simply removing it (and then adding failed verification tags). Yes, there are lots of tabloid sources but just because a tabloid says something doesn't mean it's necessarily false - ITV, the Irish Times, Bloomberg, Yahoo News, Le Monde, the Evening Standard and so on are all reporting the same. Sometimes it's better to go find sources than to argue that material should be removed because you don't think the sourcing's up to scratch - that way we improve the encyclopaedia as we go. GoldenRing (talk) 11:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, you could all learn to use citation templates, or ProveIt, or something grumble grumble. GoldenRing (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

GoldenRing, it is easy enough to find sources speculating about the title "Prince George of Cornwall and Cambridge"; finding an authoritative one that proves he actually was called that by the Palace is another kettle of fish. It's the same with the dates for the first title, which had been discussed three times on the talk page, meaning they are obviously contentious, and the consensus is to exclude them because they are unverifiable. Insisting on restoring to a BLP something that has been deemed unverifiable in prior talk page discussions is extremely disruptive. Surtsicna (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how we treat sources. If a reliable, secondary source says that's his title, that's what we say. If another source contradicts that, we discuss the contradiction in the article. A palace source here would be a primary source. GoldenRing (talk) 09:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Primary sources are useable for statements of facts. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but we don't reject secondary sources just because we can't find a primary source. GoldenRing (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Main page hook needs pulling

Please see WP:ERRORS#Errors in "Did you know ...". We have on the main page now a hook about a BLP which is factually completely wrong (though luckily makes the subject appear "better", not worse). Not many people seem to frequent the "errors" page, but at least trying to keep such errors off the main page should have some urgency. Thank you! Fram (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I just did a touch of legwork on that one myself. That is research so sloppy it's embarrassing, both on the submitter and the approver. Ravenswing 17:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Hook removed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. Fram (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• How is this an urgent incident? DYK has been putting mixed-up junk on the main page for decades. EEng 20:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

LJstats

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

• WP:GAME
• WP:CIVIL

As this complaint about LJstats is on the knife edge between Wikipedia:AN/EW and ANI, I am bringing this case here since the CIVIL component amounts to an incident entire of itself, but to project the full scope, I need to introduce aspects of an AN/EW nature. If I am advised to do so, I will paste this report onto AN/EW if any administrator feels it is better dealt with there.

More recently, there had been some back and forth edit-warring on Average height around the world mainly by LJstats and me, generally because neither of us had received guidance on which revision should have been on display while an RfC was (and still is) live. In summary I oppose inclusion, and he supports inclsuion. User:Ohnoitsjamie noticed the activities and warned me, and then LJstats. At the time, the details were off the article but I self-reverted anyhow. Another editor who (at least then) supported my position removed the content, only for LJstats to restore the data after his warning on account of @Juicy Oranges: not being an admin. Frustrated by this, I removed the details once but recanted quickly deciding AN/EW be the best solution. During this time, Juicy Oranges removed the data yet again but I advised him not to carry on. The result of the ANEW was page protection for two days per the revision not supported by LJstats. During these two days, LJStats made no appearance on the article's talk page. His only related contribution was this inappropriate personal attack - I say inapproproate because I had been active on the talk page the whole time, before and during the page protection. I advised him about WP:NPA. Hours after the protection was lifted, LJStats restores his revision for the third time after his warning. I believe this bevhavour to constitute WP:GAME and so I invitied LJstats to self-revert and rejoin the discussion to propose a forward plan. His resolve was to perform the same personal attack "manlet" the second time (I am not offended by "Slavic" as that is what I am). Note he also added, "Get the fuck off my side!" . This was noticed by @Hey man im josh: who issued this warning. From this point, LJstats neither self-reverted, yet he blanked the whole section. It is patently obvious that this editor cares little for edit-warring warnings as he just proceeds with his version anyhow, and furthermore he has no resepct for WP:NPA since he has used the same insult immediately after being told to familiarise himself with the policies. I ask the administrator community to consider this complaint seriously, and note that in six years of on-and-off editing, I seldom come to the noticeboards. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. I have done so for you. dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 20:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes Dudhhr I was fully aware, but it is also the case I have been told I am not welcome on that talk page which places me in a difficult situation. But if you look at my most recent contributions, I pinged the editor from somewhere else so he was aware. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I have just imposed a partial block for a fortnight. If any admin thinks I was too lenient, I don't oppose stronger measures. Salvio 20:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ST1849 stick shtick

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user ST1849 keeps spamming my talk page because he or she corrected an edit I made many years ago. I have not disputed the edit he or she made, yet he or she continues to harrass me and use unprofessional language. Please do something to make this user stop harrassing me and unable to edit my talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldlyVoice (talk • contribs) 00:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• This definitely violates NPAs. Calling people brats is beyond the pale. Yikes. ST1849 should apologize. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Apologize for what? I asked him a question. Instead of politely answering me he ghosted his talk page. That's something a child would do. ST1849 (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked per WP:disruptive editing. Also, apparently posted a death threat on WordlyVoice's talk page - the revision has since been removed. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I linked the WP:CIVIL page on their talk page, but now knowing this editor somehow didn't listen... ah well. Another win for Wikipedia. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The guy just called the editor a "child", among many other things: "lazy", for instance. I think they need to be enforced to read WP:CIVIL, because if people say "you need to apologize" when it's petty insults, I think it's necessary to apologize. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 08:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

For now, SR1849 should refrain from name-calling and chilling out for once. I've commented twice on their talk page, because dear lord, were the insults really necessary? WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The article in question Otto Wilhelm Lindholm, should probably be deleted. Sources and notability seems sketchy. ST1849 seems to have some issues with WP:OWN 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:AD4A:40B6:B041:EBE5 (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm gonna hazard a guess and say you're never read a thing about whaling, have you? ST1849 (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, you're in luck, because I'm a 30+ year member of Mystic Seaport who's pretty knowledgeable about whaling (never mind having hauled ropes several times on the last surviving whaler from the Age of Sail). Now that we've gotten that out of the way, this is a poorly written article, choked with irrelevancies, trivia and WP:COATRACK flubs -- why do we possibly need to know several sentences about an officer of Lindholm's who killed himself duck hunting, or detailed explanations of all the game they hunted in winter camps -- and largely sourced from the subject's own memoirs? This is a dispute better left to AfD than to ANI, but you don't need to know a trysail from a tryworks to see all the deficiencies here.

That being said, you've been on Wikipedia quite long enough to understand that other editors are not required to submit to your demands to explain themselves, that it's uncivil to harass them over it, doubly so to do so after they have requested that you not spam their talk page further, and trebly so to insult them repeatedly while you do it. Now I'm off to the Lindholm page to take a boarding axe to it (and we'll see, after I've looked for independent reliable sourcing, about that AfD), but you might want to ratchet the hostility back a few notches. Ravenswing 07:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otto Wilhelm Lindholm, for what it's worth. Ravenswing 07:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

You should try looking at the article Whaling in the Sea of Okhotsk, it's practically unreadable. It's slightly better now that I've removed all the horrific overlinking, but any subsequent attempts to clean up the article were reverted as I'm a "non-expert".Canterbury Tail talk 11:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

(just having looked at it) Jesus tapdancing Christ. Even after reverting to your previous version, this ghastly heap is one of the strongest TNT candidates I've ever seen. Ravenswing 11:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I've given up trying to fix it, it's too dense with references and overlinking of trivial unencyclopaedic detail. A nuke and rebuild may be best. Canterbury Tail talk 12:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• @ST1849: WorldlyVoice, if we're talking about Otto Wilhelm Lindholm, has not edited there 2017. I think it's time you stopped badgering them. Also, you need to cease from making personal attacks. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  PS.Users are allowed to blank their talk pages. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Not sure what reading about whaling has to do with editing an encyclopedia. My advice would be to read WP:CIVIL instead. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Huh? Can somebody point me to the policy or guideline that says one must be an "expert" in boats and big fishies to edit Wikipedia? – ².O.^Boxing 09:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Meh. I thought that rather than individual expertise, we relied on content cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." But what do I know? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Not as much as Moby Dick, that's for sure. Oh whale, nevermind. (see what I did there? Did ya? Ey? Ha). – ².O.^Boxing 12:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Arrr, shiver me timbers. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  (Sigh). I guess we should be glad El C hasn't found this thread yet :) Canterbury Tail talk 13:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• I have some serious concerns over their editing as well. I came across this yesterday. I never knew you could over-reference and overlink so much. We have references for individual food items and things sailors may have done on shore leave, and multiple references for the same non-controversial point. There are 12 references for the simple statement that 19th century sailors on shore leave got venereal diseases (something that is uncontroversial and is almost approaching WP:SKYISBLUE.) In one small section of 7 rather short paragraphs there are 203 references. Yes 203 references for such a small section. It's literally unreadable. I started to tidy it up, but was summarily "revert edit made by non-expert" with zero addressing of the issues. The rest of the article isn't hugely better. Canterbury Tail talk 11:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Y'know something, I think I am going to take Whaling in the Sea of Okhotsk to AfD on TNT grounds. As it stands, this article on this relatively obscure topic runs nearly 120kb and has over six hundred references. It's a nuclear option that I think I've used nominating an article for AfD about one other time in 18 years, but this is utterly absurd. Ravenswing 12:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Whilst I felt unreasonably disappointed that they hadn't managed to reach 1,000 references that brings all sorts of competency issues to the fore and it makes the page virtually unreadable. Gusfriend (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  The fundamental problem is it's almost entirely OR based on primary sources such as ships' logs and suchlike. I must confess to wanting more detail on the article's assertion that many whalers were killed by bears. EEng 00:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  *many whalers were killed by the Bear. Levivich (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

ST1849 WP:TBAN proposal

• I think a topic ban from whaling, broadly construed, may be appropriate; editing an area they don't believe they are an expert in might allow them to be more civil and productive. BilledMammal (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Support: I'd sign off on that. The level of trivial detail and overlinking of uncontested statements ST1849 is jamming into these articles is, honestly, a competency issue: [19][20][21][22] Ravenswing 12:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Support there is too much extraneous information here as well as ownership and gatekeeping. Gusfriend (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Support, most of this stuff isn't encyclopaedic, it's trivia. Like they may load corn, rice, bread, flour, water, potatoes, turnips, meat, carrots, cheese, grains, (continues for 20 more food stuffs) each individually referenced instead of just supplies is not encyclopaedic. They seem to be basically putting ship logs up, not encyclopaedic content. If they can stop owning articles, stop attacking and harassing other editors, and learn how to write better articles that are readable by a regular visitor, then this can be lifted. However they need to prove they can edit collaboratively and write encyclopaedic articles. Canterbury Tail talk 12:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• ST1849 went off the deep end and I've indeffed them.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Wow, that went fast. Canterbury Tail talk 14:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (sigh) I was afraid they would react badly to all the updates and the AfD's. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Good show, Bbb23. Any time someone with that kind of attitude's punted from Wikipedia is a positive win for the encyclopedia. Ravenswing 20:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Let me guess: they didn't get the memo and started getting mad? I swear, the fact this is over something relating to boating is just baffling. Maybe archive this topic considering there's nothing else left? Not sure. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Apparently the editor made a death threat...? Okay, make that concerning and baffling.

For now, there's nothing to worry about this person anymore. P.S. I have no idea why they're so petty over wanting people to answer their questions and over something related to whaling. Also, being an expert on boats and big fish just to edit a whaling article... as if historians and fishermen weren't a thing that could know about those. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Time to close this discussion? Or are we going to consider a CBAN? Seems somewhat moot at this point. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!}

May be worth checking if ST1849 is a sock for User:Jonas Poole, who had a strong interest in whaling, problematic interactions with other editors, and known to have used socks. Rlendog (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Impressive catch. I can't even remember what I had for dinner last night, never mind editors from a decade ago. Canterbury Tail talk 15:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Someone told me you had whale for dinner, but I'm sure they were mistaken.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rlendog: problematic interactions with other editors? Now, that's an understatement. Good catch! Even the username is similar; see, e.g., SHFW70. I think this thread can now be closed. I was leaving it open only in case editors wanted to continue to vote on the topic ban in the unlikely eventuality that ST1849 would be unblocked, but now that they are sock-blocked, that seems like a waste of time.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Could the TBAN be inherited onto Jonas if the connection is confirmed? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿とうこう) 15:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extremely strange edit summaries from Choong Hon Heng (NSP)

Could I get a second set of eyes on this edit history and these summaries? I've never seen anything quite like this and I'm wondering what the purpose of this could possibly be. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 03:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I noticed those too. I've seen other recently created users doing similar dummy edits, by the way, though with edit summaries in what I believe is Chinese (I could be wrong, though). Liliana ^{(UwU / nya)} 03:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@ThadeusOfNazereth@Liliana : They are the socks of Agt2008fan. SPI raised for them and CU requested. They are rather seasonal. And yes, the edit summaries are in Chinese and tends to either repeat what the media or the politicians had said in their electoral campaigns, or the LTA's personal views.. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh Choong Hon Heng is a politician from the National Solidarity Party (Singapore) and of course, this is an impersonation like User:陈庆炎えん博士はかせ, Singapore's former president's Chinese name (see Tony Tan) and User:陈钦亮あきら先生せんせい, businessman and presidential candidate (See Tan Kin Lian). Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikihounding and aspersions from IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

98.103.253.178 seems to be an IP being used as an WP:SPA for the purpose of WP:HOUNDING. All of their edits up to this point are talk page edits, only 5 of which do not involve harassment of me either directly through my user talk page or by casting aspersions on other user's talk pages.

It started on my talk page [23][24] and I responded to their questions initially until it was evident that was feeding trolls. So I removed their comments as they served little purpose, at which point they escalated on my talk page [25] as well as aspersions on other user talk pages [26][27] I had indicated further contact from them was unwelcome, which they have now ignored [28]

I can provide further information or clarification upon request. ButlerBlog (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. El_C 04:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

 Blocked for 3 months for block evasion, per the behavioral evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bagofscrews. — Newslinger talk 05:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Espngeek

I feel someone should take a look at User:Espngeek's contributions to the site. I initially found this user through the article Postmodern television, and was preparing to AfD when I checked the edit history, and started digging some more into its sole editor. Espngeek has been extremely active for years, but during this time has racked up a number of admonishments from various editors for their persistent low-quality, original research, destructive, or otherwise harmful edits. For example, Special:Diff/1110340939 just went up today - the user has added something to Category: Rediscovered television because they, personally, just "discovered" it by watching a documentary? I think?

There are other sole-curator "film category" pages of low quality like Maximalist film, and instances of stuffing an intended curated list full of way many entries, as in Golden Age of Television (2000s–present)#Selected notable shows which had seemingly indiscriminate additions of "sourced" Top 10 lists for every year from 2000 onwards. The user mainly appears active in TV, movie, and music pages.

I'm pretty new to this, so if admin notice is not the answer here I understand - I just saw a pattern and thought I'd raise the issue.

Hornpipe2 (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• I was referring to Z Channel: A Magnificent Obsession, the 2004 IFC doc about the California movie-based Z Channel that ran from the 1970s-80s by programmer Jerry Harvey then went into obscurity until it was resurfaced by Xan Cassavetes, the daughter of filmmaker John Cassavetes, who made said doc. Espngeek (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Espngeek: that's clear, but unless some reliable source has stated that the channel was largely forgotten until that documentary aired, it can't be classed as "rediscovered". Your having personally been unaware of it up to then doesn't satisfy WP:V; categories are required to be based on something sourced in the article. And the article asserts that it influenced directors (although that needs a reference!) I appreciate that you created the category, but I've just removed all but two articles from it. I suggest that for eligible members of the category you look at early TV where the film was often reused or thrown away, but a particular broadcast has resurfaced, rather than things that were simply local or shown a few decades ago but have since become cult favorites or been MST3Ked. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring regarding Albanians in the Greek revolution

There is a long edit war going on at the Greek War of Independence article. The discussion involves User:Çerçok, User:Alexikoua, User:Othon I and User:Excine, who I all call upon here to finally solve this issue with the help of an administrator. - Therealscorp1an (talk)

To start with, I fully protected the article for a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I would be happy if someone took the time to see what is happening there. But please take a look at the talk page as well. It has been almost a year that a few editors are forcefully preventing improvements to the article, in full objection of all reliable sources that have been provided to them in the talk page and in the article itself. Çerçok (talk) 07:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Mark Mazower's views are important, if disputed, they should be included with attribution. As for the edit war...I am not surprised. This kind of opinions spark tensed emotions. Experienced users however should know how to resolve these kind of disputes without edit wars. Cinadon36 07:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Apologies but I did not disagree to mention that there were Albanian-speaking navy men from Hydra and Spetses. This is what Mazower states. I disagreed with wrong wording from User:Çerçok (maybe slightly falsifying the source, take this with a pinch of salt) because he wrote about the "Albanian-speaking islands" of Hydra and Spetses. This islands never have been exclusively Albanian-speaking but mixed. There are many Greek-speaking individuals from the islands as well such as the Anargyros family (I am preparing an article) from Spetses and Antonis Oikonomou from Hydra to begin with. Plus there were various people from Asia Minor and on as refugees in these islands. Labelling them exclusively Albanian-speaking is a mistake. Othon I (talk) 08:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

You could have easily re-worded the sentence. Instead you chose to remove Mazower entirely, even the part mentioning Christian Albanian Souliotes. The article has now been protected in its distorted version, really for no reason other than a few editors disliking verifiable truth. Çerçok (talk) 09:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Competence of user:25Abhi7234

25Abhi7234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:25Abhi7234, who registered a couple of days ago, clearly lacks the competence in the English language necessary to usefully contribute here, but seems either unable to understand this, or unwilling to accept it. Several contributors have tried to explain the problem on their talk page, to no effect. As an illustration of the problem, we only need to take a look at their efforts of today. Firstly, they have added a barely comprehensible block of text to the Saraswati Samman article (which concerns an award for Indian litrary works), entitled "Explains". As can be seen, [29] this consists of nothing useful beyond a repetition of material already in the article, written in broken English. And this isn't the first time they have done this: I removed a similar block of useless content [30] from the article yesterday. Todays second effort is even more bizarre, an article entitled Reduce the Addiction on sex, which seems, in as much as it can be understood at all, to be 25Abhi7234's own, uninformed, attempt to deliver a moral lecture on the supposed evils of masturbation, and is accordingly about as far from useful encyclopaedic content as could be imagined. I don't really think it should be necessary to provide more details, but if anyone is in doubt, they can look at 25Abhi7234's remaining contributions, almost every one of which has either been reverted, or has been deleted entirely, as was their 'Study Techniques' article, now speedy deleted at AfD. [31]

I see no particular reason to assume that 25Abhi7234 isn't acting in good faith. That however is clearly not sufficient. The combination of poor language skills and an inability to understand (or accept) that such skills are necessary, along with an apparent inability to understand what Wikipedia is actually for, suggest that this contributor can only ever be a monumental time-sink, and accordingly I think that an indefinite block would be the most sensible solution. It has already been suggested that 25Abhi7234 find a Wikipedia in a language they are more competent in to edit, but that advice appears to have gone entirely unheeded. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I have partial blocked from article space for 1 week, pending discussion outcome, and asked them to discuss here -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

support This user just does not get it, and there seems to be no indication that they ever will. It appears that all discussion with them at this point is fruitless. Banning them from the English language wiki seems like the only option left. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support permaban. This editor shows no comprehension of what Wikipedia is for, and no ability to write competently in English. WP:Competence is required, but this editor does not have either of the two basic pre-requisites required to even learn how to become competent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Support. The faff around Study Techniques was just a waste of everyone's time for an 'article' that was never encyclopedic. GedUK  10:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Continued harassment, stalking, and interference by an editor based on professional disclosure

User:Theroadislong has, for the last several weeks, engaged in a constant campaign of harassment and stalking based solely on my full disclosure — under Wikipedia guidelines — as a professional editor for various entities. This editor in their own words has stated opposition to my contributions, despite following all rules and guidelines, and has continued to harass me despite multiple requests to refrain from personal attacks. Attempts to 'turn the other cheek' and continue contributing (professionally and as a volunteer) continue to be met with uncivil behavior, crossing into the abhorrent at times. Although I appreciate the resistance to professional Wikipedia contributions, I have made every effort to conform to the disclosure requirements as a professional and have never hidden my professional status as I'm fully aware happens routinely. As a professional international writer and editor with nearly three decades experience, I've encountered plenty of both positive and negative feedback on countless venues. However, it's extremely rare that I'm compelled to actually report an individual as I am now. This type of behavior is unacceptable and, in my opinion, should not be permitted on Wikipedia, regardless of entitlement status. Respectfully submitted. Danceswithedits (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Dance... I hate to say it but Theroadislong's concerns appear to be justified. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I norified Theroadislong as required.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

User was paid to create a draft United States Civil Rights Trail which I accepted at WP:AFC, user has edit warred since to add more content, without using the request edit template as requested. Theroadislong (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

False. I added completely appropriate content based directly on previously published Wikipedia entries, conforming to ALL Wikipedia guidelines. Being a paid contributor is ALLOWED on Wikipedia. Period. That fact that you disapprove is not justification for bullying, harassment, and stalking. Period. I can easily launch a new account and pretend to be a non-professional editor as so many do, or, as I've chosen, I can fully disclose my status under Wikipedia guidelines. I choose the latter and will not be harassed for that by anyone, in any venue. Danceswithedits (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

You can certainly try but you will be blocked, so perhaps you should take a different approach and listen to what experienced editors (you know, those with a clue) are telling you. Though, I'm sure your clients would be thrilled to hear about your unethical plans. PS: the terms of use aren't optional, you are required to disclose, so saying you did so as if it was a favor to us is laughable. PICKLEDICAE🥒 16:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Threats of WP:SOCKING win no friends and less sympathy. Narky Blert (talk) 08:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I have no problem saying the concerns are in no way justified. Harassment is NEVER justified, in any context. But thanks for your input. ~~~ Danceswithedits (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Harassment is never justified, but this is not harassment. See WP:HA#NOT. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not as familiar with where the bright-line boundaries are for declared paid editors, but doesn't WP:COIU say "If another editor objects for any reason, it is not an uncontroversial edit"? That would mean DWE needs to gain consensus on the article talk page, not revert any editor's removal of their edits. FWIW, I do not agree with the philosophy that, once the article was published, their contract is over and now they're a volunteer. I'd say as far as that page are concerned, they're a paid editor forever. Otherwise, too many loopholes are possible. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Looking at a little more, I think Draft:Paul M. Sparrow is really promotional in tone. Being a disclosed paid editor doesn't immunize you from inability to properly manage a conflict of interest. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I encountered this editor at the Help Desk a few days ago and this is what I wrote: Hello, Danceswithedits. One would think that a paid professional editor would produce high quality work that fully complies with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and Manual of Style. But no. You have produced several low quality, promotional drafts with glaring problems. Instead of complaining about the feedback you have received from highly experienced volunteer editors, why don't you do your paid job correctly instead?. I stand by that comment. Cullen328 (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Ooof! Pow! Ouch! EEng 05:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

EEng, was I too harsh and judgmental? Cullen328 (talk) 06:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

You're asking Attila the Hun whether you were too harsh? EEng 06:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I do appreciate your commentary in the style of Roy Lichtenstein, though. He was one of my father's favorite painters. My dad painted for decades but never sold a single painting. His art was for his family and closest friends. Cullen328 (talk) 06:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I remember when a very wise editor told me that You have transformed shooting off your mouth into a not totally unappreciated artform [32]. EEng 06:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Just more proof, EEng, that you have a better memory than I do. Have we strayed off-topic a bit? Cullen328 (talk) 06:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments from an uninvolved editor:

1. The trail article clearly meets WP:GNG and Wikipedia should have an article on it.
2. Once an article is in mainspace the direction that it takes is no longer under the direct control of an individual (see WP:OWNERSHIP) and is now based on consensus. The destination may end up going in strange directions but that is a good thing.
3. Best practice is to make an edit request on the talk page where you have any sort of COI.
4. The practice of WP:BRD is common here so whilst being Bold is encouraged so is discussion to find consensus once you are reverted or if anyone has any concerns.
5. Using the article talk page is a good thing.
6. Trying to do everything yourself on Wikipedia without working with others tends to get people in trouble eventually.

Gusfriend (talk) 06:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Danceswithedits:, even from a very simplistic analysis, it's not looking good for you. You started this thread but failed to notify the editor you were reporting despite the big yellow box telling you to. You've been edit warring yet your name is absent from Talk:United States Civil Rights Trail other than the paid editing disclosure. Looking at your talk page, it took multiple comments from User:Diannaa before you seemed to come to some understanding of our copyright policies. These are the sort of issues highly concerning even when the come from a volunteer editor, when you are paid and cannot get such basics right, editors are going to question if you belong here. Nil Einne (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment to User:Cullen328 - You said

  One would think that a paid professional editor would produce high quality work that fully complies with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and Manual of Style.

  I am sure that there a paid editors who produce high quality work in Wikipedia, but normally using well qualified editors in Wikipedia is not the best investment of a company's resources, so they normally deploy hacks to Wikipedia, and use good editors for corporate writing. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I have never known User:Theroadislong to engage in harassment of paid editors, although they are wary of them. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I encountered United States Civil Rights Trail in August and declined it because it was inadequately sourced and read like an advertisement. I cannot review the details because the version that I declined has been redacted because it contained copyrighted material (which was likely also promotional). The record doesn't show high quality work. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - In my opinion, a partial block is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  I imagine we do not encounter and never know about the PAID editors that are actually earning their money. As to low-quality work, I guess it's true one gets what one pays for. I don't think copy-pasted content is anything a reasonable person would pay for. Anyone who would paste in a customers web site content is not earning any pay as company content is by its nature promotional and unsuitable to Wikipedia. I have no objection to PAID editors that produce high quality work. Of course, low quality PAID work I deal with the same as low quality not-PAID work. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  Per Cullen and Deepfriedokra, I am 100% certain that there are many UPEs going on as we speak. They are producing high quality, fully compliant, and unbiased Wikipedia content, and that's why no one knows about it. When the writing is so bad that it obviously doesn't belong at Wikipedia, and when the writer of that content is so bullheaded they refuse to accept advice from those who are more experienced than they are, then it is an affront to both Wikipedia and their employer. I fully endorse what Cullen said above.--Jayron32 15:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

DePiep edit restriction violation

User:DePiep in this edit suggested that I am "arrogant", "paternalising", "intimidating", "OWNing", and "creepy".
These remarks seem to be a clear violation of their indefinite editing restriction from 2018 which states he is 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. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Just want to say that I consider the first four sort of edge cases: they can very easily be interpreted as comments on conduct. "Creepy" could as well, I suppose, but that's seems different in quality to me. DePiep, I would respectfully suggest that you at least apologize for that one. As ever, just one old guy's opinion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

"Creepy" was about the automatic message on my talk page, which neither of us understood. ("I find his templated notice here quite unclear, unless it is to signal something creepy -- but what?") It did come across as odd, but as FormalDude said, he didn't actually write it. Not that I could tell it was automated without his later explanation. (I've never seen one before.) — kwami (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this edit could be classified as other than paternalistic and arrogant, not to mention incredibly dismissive. Just like DePiep can sometimes do better in his interactions, I hope that you can do better than your dismissive and threatening attitude towards DePiep you've exhibited. DePiep has certainly engaged in behavior before that was less than helpful to building this community, but his description of your actions (arrogant, paternalising, and OWNing) as well as your actions' effect on him (intimidating) are far outside of that kind of problematic behavior. In fact, I would take it as an opportunity to reflect on how your actions come across to others, because even though I have not had a direct interaction with you, I am very put off by the dismissive and arrogant tenor of your comments on DePiep and User:Kwamikagami's talk pages. And you still haven't even attempted to justify the bizarre unreviewing of a page created by two highly prolific editors that brought about the "creepy" templating of Kawmikagami's talk page. Now maybe that has much to do with an incredibly badly crafted template in the page curation toolset, but your subsequent actions haven't reduced that effect in the slightest. VanIsaac, LLE ^cont_WpWS 16:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

If his comments aren't textbook examples of bad faith incivility, I don't know what is. Could I have possibly been more amicable? Yes. Does that make it okay to cast aspersions about me like this? No. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

No, it is a textbook case of people who eavesdrop never hear anything good about themselves. DePiep remarked to Kwami that your intervention appeared [to him to be] quite arrogant on my talkpage (or is it paternalising? intimidating? OWNing? I'm not specialised in these words). DePiep [who is not a native speaker of English] is describing to another editor the effect on him of your intervention in the form you made it. It was not directed at you, it was not given as a description of you but rather of its effect. Drop the stick and walk away. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't eavesdropping, they commented these attacks directly under a message that I left. Also, this is a matter for an admin, not DePiep's talk page watchers. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• That stick that keeps getting picked up is looking more and more like a WP:boomerang. VanIsaac, LLE ^cont_WpWS 21:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

RE: This doesn't need to be discussed, you shouldn't create inappropriate articles. FormalDude (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC) — FormalDude, Kwamikagami, Vanisaac, and anyone else, just out of curiosity, what is/are the "inappropriate articles" being referred to here? Not a single person above makes that clear. Just link it, please. El_C 17:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Kaktovik Numerals (Unicode block). As DePiep first created it, it was a forked stub. But it's since been expanded to a full article, though (due to its subject matter) still very short. I would've left it alone if DePiep had tagged it as 'under construction', but failing that I thought it was premature to have it as a separate article with a hat-note rd from the main article. It's fine now IMO, and there was never anything inappropriate about it other than its relative lack of content. — kwami (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh I_C. I thought it was something salacious — colour me dissapointed. :( El_C 18:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, truly a nothing-burger of miscommunication during initial article creation and jumping the gun on forgetting the developing information (Unicode version was just released) that got resolved quickly and amicably. VanIsaac, LLE ^cont_WpWS 18:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• My response to the report. About article Kaktovik Numerals (Unicode block). I had a BRDiscussion with Kwamikagami (Kwami), now solved independently of FormalDude. (As noted before [33], I have little time so proofreading this might be incomplete; ask me if you need clarifications).

A. [34] FormalDude deleted the article, without editsummary. First interaction.

my respose: [35] I reverted this into its status quo ante, in es pointing out to FD that the WP:BRD Discussion had started.

B. [36][37] FD reverted without editsummary or BRD-engagement, put a "warning" by boilerplate template. So again: without any reference to articles issues nor regarding the Discussion. Actually, right below that Discussion.

response [38]: I replied with again a BRD reference, as a motivated Warning wrt BRD.

C. [39] FDs reply, complete: This doesn't need to be discussed, you shouldn't create inappropriate articles.

response [40] pointed out this edit as problematic, and requested to leave.

D. [41] FD then went to Kwami talkpage, a boilerplate unspecific "set page to unreviewed" notice. This is an obvious try to drag Kwami into their edit, doing so by unspecific and unmotivated edit (manual edit, boilerplate notice).

response: [42], [43] I warned talkpage host Kwami for possible tolling (Or whatever one wants to call it).

[44] asking to be specific.

E. Incidentally: this is how FD replied to Kwami [45]. What word should fit here?

[46] FD talking "we"-form about ANI? ([47] Send off by the host)

My conclusions:

1. I do apology to Kwamikagami for getting their talkpage to be spoiled; should have stopped earlier.

2. A, B, C edits by FD were made after the BRD-Discussion started. FD was noticed. FD did not engage. Not in editsummaries, not in their boilerplate replies, not in the Discussion thread itself, not on talkpages.

3. Instead, FD threw out boilerplate "warning" signals, wrote "this doen't need discussion", deleted an article (twice), and see above (they have been disinvited to both talkpages). Up to this moment of writing, FD has not raised a single issue about the article content.

4. My responses are about the edits, not the editor.

-DePiep (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Even if they were about my edits, they are still clearly uncivil and assuming bad faith, which violates your edit restriction. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Read the diffs. Not engaging in an ongoing discussion is not my opinion, it is your edits. DePiep (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Your comments were not that I was "not engaging in an ongoing discussion", they were that I was "arrogant", "paternalising", "intimidating", "OWNing", and "creepy". If you were being civil and assuming good faith you wouldn't have hurled these aspersions at me. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein

Despite the current protection level, disruption remains steady, with some of it targeting WP:BLPs and constituting defamation. Perhaps more stringent protection and some rev/deletion are in order. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:E1F3:65FD:D51E:E427 (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The current setting of pending changes means that nonsense edits will not go live immediately, which is necessary. There probably isn't enough disruptive editing to justify semi-protection at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• Actually, looking at the last few days of edit history, a lot of nonsense has been added, and although it was prevented from going live by pending changes, semi might be a better option.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Every time some preadolescent sensibility writes that he was murdered in prison by a former president or presidential candidate, it's a WP:BLP violation that requires rev/deletion. Unless an admin is willing to ride herd on this indefinitely, an alternative is worth considering. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:E1F3:65FD:D51E:E427 (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

    I’ve upgraded the protection to indef semi. Protecting admin presumably just granted a request for temporary pending changes at RfPP, but looking at the edit history, I think the article is far too active to be a good candidate for PC. Furthermore, the protection log demonstrates that this article requires long-term protection. I acknowledge that indef semis are not standard practice and should never be encouraged, but I think this is a fairly obvious exception. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with indef semi for proper topics, and this would qualify. I would almost go EC, so only those with established histories can edit. BLP trumps other considerations, and this is a magnet for disruption and conspiracies, and there is little hope that will not be the case in a year or two. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Swarm: You could make it a WP:NEWBLPBAN indef semi if you wanted, since indef semis are pretty common in that context. (Epstein of course is not a BLP and is past the BDP window, but a lot of the disruption pertains to living alleged accomplices and victims.) Or WP:GENSEX... in particular I'd say the '08 plea deal is a "gender-related dispute or controversy". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

ILoveHirasawaYui: violates AGF, NPA and BURDEN; calls me "a troll"

@ILoveHirasawaYui: has reverted me 5 times, each time violating WP:BURDEN. Two times, the user called my edits "trolling" ([48], [49]). The other reverts are: [50], [51], [52].

I pinged the user at my talk page. I made the user aware of its violations of AGF, WP:NPA and BURDEN; I also alluded to how their behaviour was inconsisted with adding back Template:More citations needed banners (here and here) stating: "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed". To which, the user among other things responded: “This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism).” And I never personally attacked you. I’m just reverting obvious vandalism. I then confronted the user about their clear violation of BURDEN, and warned I would open an ANI about their behaviour unless they were to revert themselves. Part of the user's answer was: I’m not violating WP:BURDEN and I have no reason to listen to your threats because you’re just a troll (and banned) (my emphasis). My last message with the user was giving them an example of another person removing unsourced content, hoping it would change their mind, to which the user has not responded. See this full discussion at: User talk:Veverve#Very weird accusations.

Therefore, the user has willingly and knowingly violated AGF, WP:NPA, and BURDEN. Veverve (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Veverve blocked for resuming an edit war immediately after the previous block for edit warring ended. ILoveHirasawaYui warned about civility and restoring unsourced content. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Without commenting directly on the actions of ILHY I would suggest that for changes that might be contentious, as they have discovered for changes like this in the past, Veverve should post on the Talk page explaining why they are making the change. I would also suggest starting the conversation on the article talk page rather than your own talk page with a ping. Gusfriend (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

User:LaserLegs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

LaserLegs has been a long-time contributor to WP:ITN/C. Some of his posts and comments have been provocative, but for the most part, nothing has approached the level of being seriously disruptive - until now. We had a nomination for posting the mission failure of a New Shepard spacecraft, the Blue Origin NS-23. Without going too much into inside baseball, this was initially considered a WP:ITNR (recurring item) which normally does not require a consensus to be achieved on the basis of significance or notability. However, a significant number of editors invoked WP:IAR to determine that the item was not notable enough for ITN. A discussion on WT:ITN to remove this type of item from WP:ITNR was also gaining ground.

LaserLegs made the argument that WP:IAR should be ignored and that the item should be posted per WP:ITNR. That argument in itself is not problematic. What is problematic is recurrently and disruptively marking the item as "Ready" [53], [54], [55] multiple times within a 24-hour span after consensus had already fallen towards closure. Even after the discussion was closed by an admin, he continued to persist. I recognize there's a lot of subjectivity at ITN and that nominations can often get heated, but there's a difference between normal persistence versus being disruptive and making a WP:POINT. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Every ITN/R item has in its template "The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance." At WP:ITNC we ask editors please do not "oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. The criteria can be discussed at the relevant talk page." WP:ITN/R itself stipulates "Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur." and WP:ITN stipulates states "Items listed there are considered exempt from having to prove their notability through discussion on the candidates page." WaltCip themselves said back in May "I think this needs to be codified somewhere: ITN/R is not a guideline and there are no exceptions. Any attempts to treat it as such by opposing an ITN/R item based on notability, usually with the accompanying argument of WP:IAR, should itself be ignored. Any consensus established on ITN/R supersedes any attempt to block a posting on such grounds, and in order to remove an item's ITN/R status, consensus needs to be established on WT:ITN".

The disruption at ITN is the wall of opposes who disregarded the overwhelming documentation as to the functioning of ITN/R, not me. I'm literally just applying the guidelines as written, and following past consensus, now I'm at AN/I. Y'all do what you feel, I'm not sure what else to tell you. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

On top of that, I've made two good faith nominations at WT:ITN one to remove the "Please do not" as it pertains to ITN/R items to align the expected etiquette with the behavior, and one to relegate ITN/R to an advisory role instead of a compulsory one both of which are facing overwhelming opposition. If I oppose an ITN/R item nominated at ITN/C in the future, will I end up here for being disruptive again? Either the guidelines exist and are adhered to or they don't. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

(sigh) I guess that depends on whether or not you WP:drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. (sigh) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'll let an independent admin weigh in after this, but just to rebut your comments:

• I acknowledge that in May that I made the aforementioned comments regarding codifying WP:ITNR as an unbreakable consensus. I now admit those comments were wrong. This nomination also showed why WP:ITNR is a guideline and not a policy. Certain situations come into play that require us to reexamine whether a standard we've set should continue to stand. I'm thankful that WP:IAR exists for situations like this, and that we have capable admins who can assess these types of edge cases to separate consensus from vocal opposition. Even so, the discussion regarding launch failures on WT:ITN was trending away from posting items of this type.
• LaserLegs's question: If I oppose an ITN/R item nominated at ITN/C in the future, will I end up here for being disruptive again? The issue, and I am bewildered that he does not seem to realize this, is not opposing something. It's the inability to realize when the argument has been made and heard. I know that this is an unusual case. But anyone who wishes to contribute constructively to our processes needs to know when the argument is over.

🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

LaserLegs has been repeatedly disruptive at ITN in the past (see e.g. my June 2022 warning for this extremely callous edit summary about the death of 23 people, or the July 2022 warning from User:Levivich, the warning from the same month from WaltCip), and this is just another episode, though with a different approach (though it looks from the February 2021 warnings from User:RandomCanadian that this happened before). Perhaps it's time to just topic ban them from ITN? Fram (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

If you can point out a specific policy which I've violated, go ahead and do so, else there is no T-Ban needed. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:IDHT Levivich (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Is there something in the water over at ITN? Over at AE, we just TBANned an editor who could not drop the stick! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I ended up here and dropped it, even though the whole episode is an example of anarchy and has demonstrated a breakdown in the functioning of the project. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Scroll up, nothing disruptive here except for the wall of opposes at WP:ITN/C which disregarded the documentation of the implementation of ITN/R and past consensus on the functioning thereof to oppose the Blue Origin launch. Really that crowd should be facing a T-Ban. Go ahead and get that started, I was literally just following the rules here. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

In addition to violating the IDHT policy, as you continue to do even in the response above, there is also WP:EW (reinstating "Ready" in the section header 3x), WP:CIV (for referring to the removal of "Ready" in the section header as vandalism), and generally being an asshole (calling the deaths of seven people "the nothingburger weeks old earthquake story"). If you don't stop being disruptive you're going to get sanctioned. Levivich (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Removing the ready tag, given that the oppose !votes were invalid (as explained previously) qualifies as vandalism and as such revering it is not a WP:3RR vio. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

You should read up on what is WP:NOTVAND. LL, you've got two options here: (1) acknowledge your mistakes and tell us you will not repeat them, or (2) no longer edit Wikipedia. You've been told already by too many editors that your editing is disruptive; I do not believe ignoring it, or even disagreeing with it, are viable options for you at this juncture. Levivich (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't wrong here, the guidelines are clear, a mob ignored them, I was right to revert the removal of the ready tag. The whole episode was an example of utter anarchy. The other "civility" items aren't in scope here, if you want to litigate them one by one that's fine, list them out. We're here to talk about my marking as ready an item which was included at ITN/R and which had a pile on of invalid opposes. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

You do realize your entire defense thus far boils down to "I am right and they are all wrong," correct? The Kip (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Well and the four different policy clarifications I linked to and the past commentary from WaltCip who opened this AN/I, yeah. Look if I read all four of those docs wrong, and ITN/R is advisory and subjective, then I'm wrong, but I if I read them correctly then everyone else is wrong. It's really that simple. --👮LaserLegs 15:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I would respectfully suggest that the nexus of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:IAR tells me you are wrong without even engaging with the substance. Reasonable minds may differ, of course. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I did have a look at Wikipedia:Understanding IAR it was most enlightening and reaffirmed that the pile-on opposes at the the Blue Origin nom were not in the spirit of WP:IAR and rather "opposing an ITN/R item based on notability, usually with the accompanying argument of WP:IAR, should itself be ignored" --👮LaserLegs 16:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay then, and as for WP:CONSENSUS? Dumuzid (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, per WP:ITN/R the consensus to post that item had been established with it's inclusion at the subpage, and the process to challenge it codified as a discussion at WP:ITN. The whole purpose of WP:ITN/R is to prevent what happened at the Blue Origin nomination. --👮LaserLegs 16:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

You made that argument several times. No one is ignoring the substance of your argument. Your argument was weighed and it wasn't in alignment with consensus. You had several legitimate avenues for discussion, but you chose to edit-war, bludgeon, and blame-shift, and that's why you're here. You're proving that you are incapable of participating in a process with any sort of civility, which is a minimal requirement for being part of Wikipedia. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

WaltCip, those Opposes were invalid, thus there was no consensus, it's really that simple. At the time it was nominated, the item was listed at WP:ITN/R. --👮LaserLegs 16:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

At the time you reopened the closed discussion to post your "ready" for the fourth time, there was a 14 to 1 consensus at ITNR that it should be removed from ITNR, with you as the lone opposer. Your continued hiding behind "but it was at ITNR" completely ignores that it was obvious for everyone but you that consensus both at ITNC and at ITNR was against (consensus not to post this accident, and consensus that such accidents don't warrant automatic posting). Fram (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The continued hiding behind "there was consensus" completely ignores that those opposes were invalid and that preventing the repeated litigation of the notability of recurring items at ITN/C is exactly why ITN/R exists. --👮LaserLegs 16:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Hence the discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news#Remove "launch failures" from ITN/R? which I referenced above, and where you participated, and which is now at 19:1 consensus that these kind of launch incidents should not be ITNR. Fram (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Which was started AFTER the item was nominated at ITN/C. I don't care if it's pulled from ITN/R, I care that the guidelines were once again thrown completely out the window as has happened many times with WP:ONGOING noms and now again with WP:ITNR. It doesn't matter anyway, I'm about to get a T-Ban, y'all enjoy the anarchy you asked for. 👮LaserLegs 16:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

If your T-ban will induce "anarchy," I will certainly enjoy the "anarchy" of not having your disruptive, combative, often insensitive comments around ITN for the next while. The Kip (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I can't easily link to it right now but we just had a discussion on ITN civility

In the last few months on that talk page, of which LL participated. While no clear answers came from it, it was generally agreed there are civility problems, and snide comments (of which LL is not the only one that was doingbthat) are not helpful. While most of the other major ITN contributors did improve, LL has continue to insult and make derogatory comments in regards to the news topic (not to editors) which helps no one. Examples have been posted of this recent behavior. I get that LL does like how ITN and has made suggestions to improve at the talk page (some which have been rejected) but this continual insulting attitude from the peanut gallery us disrupting ITN. Masem (t) 19:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: LaserLegs indefinite In the News topic ban, broadly construed

Basing this on the bludgeoning here, and LaserLegs' past history/behavior at ITN. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 16:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support based on previous incidents of varied nature (see my comment in above section), including repeated very insensitive (and completely unnecessary) remarks about some tragedies, and the current edit warring, WP:IDHT, refusal to accept consensus or to debate it in a reasonable way (e.g. the everyone who reverts their "ready" tag is vandalizing claims), and other WP:POINT editing. Fram (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  You're very WP:INVOLVED Fram I'm not sure your support is appropriate. --👮LaserLegs 17:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  For someone so hellbent on following a guideline to the letter above, you sure have no problem linking me, a non-admin voicing support for a sanction, to a page about admins acting as admins in disputes. Fram (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Fram is not an administrator, hasn't been one since WP:FRAMGATE. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  WP:INVOLVED doesn't prohibit any type of support for sanctions - it just doesn't allow involved admin actions, which this very much is not. PICKLEDICAE🥒 17:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support per above.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support The editor's behavior has been pedantic bludgeoning at it worst. Cullen328 (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support but prefer an indef block per El C's comments below. PICKLEDICAE🥒 17:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support Wait! LaserLegs is justifying actions under ignore all rules? Anytime anyone uses the WP:IAR justification, they should be prepared to show that the rules were in the way of performing a needed and desireable action. Clearly, this is an example of misapplication. Looking over this thread, I cringe at LaserLegs illogic and comments and quasi justifications. The involved remark above is really out of touch in many ways. Indef block has been bandied about, but perhaps LaserLegs can be constructive in a new work setting. Think of it as a reassignment in lieu of dismissal.-- Deepfriedokra (talk)

  (edit conflict)Also, per Trey Maturin below, " lack of humanity alone, but also for the wikilawyering, IDHT, stick retention and other crap." Note nableezy's (ec) oppose below.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Its not really an oppose, I definitely think the behavior is disruptive, but I also think it is perfectly in keeping with the culture of that page. So its a meh, should be topic banned, but the topic is a cesspit anyway. nableezy - 19:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Holy moly! Also support CBAN per appalling dif's added in oppose section. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  "Wait! LaserLegs is justifying actions under ignore all rules?" Uhmmm, no, I'm not. 👮LaserLegs 20:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• WP:POINT violations at ITN should be met with topic bans, but ITN has been a lawless place for any number of topics and editors. So support as the behavior has been disruptuve, but also oppose as I dont see it as outside of the norms on that page. nableezy - 18:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  The sad thing is ITN has become so accustomed to unacceptable behavior that it is not being dealt with. Time to change that. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support This is not the first time LaserLegs has done this, rather it's a worrysome trend.--47.16.96.33 (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked sock. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support While based off their absolutely disgusting comments below that El_C and the IP have discovered, I would support a straight up site ban, at the very least, anyone who can flippantly refer to the death of 23 people as quality border security shouldn't have anything to do with ITN. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - Isn't an indefinite block pretty severe? I think a temporary block (of 30 days to start, for example) would be enough, with increasing severity upon further escalations. Jumping right to indefinite is extreme and ignores the user's productive behavior in the past, and gives them no chance to recover. Give them a lesson and time out if they deserve it, but let them come back and try again. If the problem continues, then sure, at some point an indefinite block may become appropriate. - Indefensible (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  and gives them no chance to recover Yup, that's the point. Calling a couple dozen people killed in a natural disaster insignificant because they are from a developing country is pretty irredeemable. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe I am more forgiving, I don't think it warrants an indefinite block and they should be given another chance. - Indefensible (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  I would absolutely be willing to give them a second chance if they could drop the "I'm right, the world is wrong" attitude even a bit. Dumuzid (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Indefensible: did you post in the wrong section? This section is about a topic ban from ITN. While there is one or two comments about an indefinite block or cban, if you want to discussion that aspect it will probably be better to post below. A topic ban from ITN gives LaserLegs ample chance to reform, since they still have nearly the entire encyclopaedia to edit. If and when they demonstrate they've reformed, they can request the topic ban be lifted, as plenty of editors before them have done. Nil Einne (talk) 11:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  Did I? Anyway I think the nomination is pretty much over, LaserLegs is completely banned at this point. - Indefensible (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support Long-time disruptive influence at ITN, including under several previous accounts. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support Long overdue. I also supported below. I am supporting this as well, in case the indef and CBAN doesn't gain consensus, or is eventually rescinded. Their continuous toxic commentary has been a problem for a long time, and ITNC has been the locus of that toxicity. --Jayron32 15:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

RE: "now that's how you secure a border"

Re-presenting Fram's complaint uncensored and unhidden by links.

The blurb: ​At least 23 migrants died trying to cross the border fence in Melilla between Morocco and Spain.

LaserLegs's edit summary: now that's how you secure a border (diff).

LaserLegs, what the fuck is wrong with you? My only regret is that I didn't see that at the time to indef block you for that reprehensible and heartless edit summary. I still think you should be site banned for that alone. El_C 17:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Many things, apparently. A god complex among them. The Kip (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support indef block for the lack of humanity alone, but also for the wikilawyering, IDHT, stick retention and other crap in the thread above. Failing that, support the TBAN as proposed, if only because they will break it and get indeffed anyway. — Trey Maturin has spoken 18:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@El C How about The fact that over crowded third world countries with lax enforcement of weak building codes and inadequate disaster response kill a few dozen insignificant people during routine weather events does not in any way make those events notable. [56]? Or this crap [57] where apparently the most important thing in a blurb about the death of 53 people was adding the fact they are unlawful migrants because that apparently shows that they died because of their own poor decision making? 192.76.8.74 (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

*Support Those edit summaries are shocking and disgusting. --47.16.96.33 (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked sock.

• Support indef They referred to the deaths of 23 people as "border security"? Block them. Nythar^T.C 19:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support I don't usually participate in these kinds of discussions but El_C echoed my exact thoughts when I read the diffs linked above - what the fuck? Sam Walton (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support TBAN or indeff with a preference for indeff. Whats been brought up from the past makes it hard to believe this didn't arrive at ANI sooner. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support per supports added after Trey Maturin. Wow!-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  If that weren't enough, please see rsjaffe's remarks below, and those that follow. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support A mindset like this is not compatible with editing Wikipedia. John (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support If this is turning into an impromptu SBAN discussion, absolutely indef. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I feel regret that it has come to this; especially since as has been pointed out above, a lot of us ITN contributors - myself included - are not blameless in allowing the surrounding culture to persist to this point.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 19:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Considering that most the worst comments from others that come up are when US gun control (or lack thereof) comes up, we still don't get comments from regulars that are that demeaning or insulting to the people involved in the news item of discussion. LL'S commentary well beyond that. Masem (t) 19:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah I'm subject to an unrelenting deluge of insults and personal attacks at ITN and levy none in return. When it comes, the ban will be a mercy killing, really. Someone at WP:ITN actually said to me "You give zero fucks about ITN/C and civility, because every time someone dares criticise the fragile conservative American worldview" but I'm the one who is here for "incivility". _shrugs_ --👮LaserLegs 20:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  How delusional can one be? The Kip (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support I have said some awful things in my time. I used to work in a particularly emotionally fraught field, and the humor in that office would have been absolutely wildly offensive to anyone from the outside. But that was something quite different from a considered edit summary on Wikipedia. If there were an apology that I actually believed, I would certainly be willing to rethink my stance, but combined with the attitude on display in the section above, I sadly can't envision it. Dumuzid (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Reply "2,000 migrants crossing from Morocco tried to attack and break through the Melilla border fence". "tried to attack and break through". The border defense forces defended against thousands of people storming in illegally. That is, objectively and unquestionably how you defend a border. Why is that a problem? --👮LaserLegs 20:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think any good would come of a conversation. All the best to you in your future endeavors. Dumuzid (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yep, its CBAN time. To misquote a relevant wikipedian: "[Wikipedia] sometimes [needs] to be scrubbed for trash after the POV warriors have found something else to be outraged about."[58] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) Yeah, not letting you use AN/I to push a POV that it's good to kill migrants. Such racially-tinged editing is per se disruptive. Indeffed. This block is not meant to preëmpt the outcome of this CBAN discussion (read: this should not be closed as "indeffed by Tamzin"), but these comments have no place on Wikipedia, and it would be counterintuitive to say that an editor facing a CBAN proposal shouldn't be blocked for things we'd otherwise block an editor for. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

    After the block, they posted the same comment on their own talk page. Madeline (part of me) 20:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Strong support an indef/ban. PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support an SBAN for the record; at this point they're just begging for it. Madeline (part of me) 20:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support: Yeah, it's a pile-on. But when this bloke doubles down on his wretched statement instead of doing what we'd expect of a human being in this situation and come back with "You're right, that was a tasteless and inappropriate edit summary, and I'm sorry for having made it, and I won't do it again." If he's incapable of that, well ... indeffing his sorry backside is how we secure Wikipedia. Ravenswing 20:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support a community ban. He's just digging his grave at this point, by refusing to hear what we're saying. Sometimes he's a useful contributor, but any editor who, having been told that their comments are extremely offensive, continues to persist, deserves a ban, honestly. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 20:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Note this is not new behavior: see User talk:LaserLegs#Warning from 2020. To be honest, I think a TBAN is more appropriate than a CBAN, but ... like so many other cases lately ... I don't think I want to waste my valuable time arguing for someone expressing views I find really distasteful, especially in the face of near-universal CBAN support. But I agree with several people above that the general ITN environment sucks; this behavior isn't occurring in a vacuum. Lots of trolling, lots of personalization of disagreements. Reminds me of AFD. I'm not going to be the ITN police alone, but if there's an appetite for being more proactive about removing comments like this and more proactively PBLOCKing people if they do it a lot, I'd support that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose invalid block reason. "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia" -- not clearly the case in this brief statement of opinion. If ITN conduct is a concern, then discuss a topic ban that covers that only. Avilich (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • They are pushing a POV that killing 37 people was a good thing—not just a necessary thing or well-executed tactical action or something, but affirmatively something to be praised. If there was any question as to whether the callous, pro-killing tone of now that's how you secure a border was a one-off, since the block they've said things like 2000 violent militants stormed a border, attacked security forces and were killed for their trouble. That is disruptive. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

    POV policy applies to article content, regardless (in theory) of whether the POV in question is that the deadly incident was "necessary", "well-executed" or "to be praised". The statement "that's how you secure a border" on an edit summary doesn't apply to it, and it disrupted the activity of no one--reader or editor--who chose to ignore it. This shouldn't be a forum for discussing the incident or his opinion of it. Avilich (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

    WP:NPOV applies to article content, yes. The concept of "pushing a POV" is still relevant to an an assessment of whether editing is disruptive, though. As to "disrupted the activity of no one ... who chose to ignore it", the same could be said of literally any offensive remark. "Disruption" isn't some theoretical thing; what makes comments disruptive is whether they actually tend to disrupt, and this thread is evidence that these comments disrupted. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

    "Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time on many articles and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia."

    Has their edit summary really disrupted progress towards improving the encyclopedia? I don't think so. The article is still being updated and the only people who take part in this discussion are the ones who go onto the dramaboard anyway and wouldn't necessarily be improving the encyclopedia with the time saved had this discussion never happened. If being a person with abhorrent and terrible ideas and morals was grounds for a CBAN, LaserLegs would undoubtedly be out the window, but unfortunately, that's simply not the case. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 11:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support siteban and pull TPA per nom and per "They're violent militants who attacked border security and were killed for their trouble" and "2000 people stormed a border and were met with lethal force and yes, that's unquestionably an effective way to secure a border and challenges the notability of the event". Regret the time I spent trying to talk some sense into this idiot. And while I support sitebanning, I think the indef while this discussion is still ongoing is premature, though that horse has now left the barn. Levivich (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  I have revoked talk page access. Cullen328 (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Levivich: Tamzin blocked them when they started bludgeoning this discussion. Nythar^T.C 21:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support I think a TBAN probably would have sufficed, as ITN is the only place where they ever edit, but as we're here. Perhaps they will eventually be able to see what was so problematic about that edit summary and submit an unblock request, but the doubling down on their talk page doesn't make that seem very likely. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support Community ban. That's an unacceptable comment. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support Piling on at this point. I cannot believe they did not get blocked when they originally made the comment. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone noticed at first. Amazing that LaserLegs doubled down instead of apologizing ,though. Good riddance to him. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• He actually brought it to ANI complaining of an IP hounding him over it here. nableezy - 02:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support The recent comments were insensitive enough but consider these gems from 2020: Decrepit shit hole countries always have higher death tolls because even in 2020 they seem either unable or unwilling to organize themselves into a civilized society and The fact that over crowded third world countries with lax enforcement of weak building codes and inadequate disaster response kill a few dozen insignificant people during routine weather events does not in any way make those events notable. This is reprehesible contempt for people who are poor not because of any moral failing on their part but rather because of how rich and powerful countries have chosen to organize the world. Cullen328 (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  And these conspiracy theorist ideas: [59] [60] [61]. Nythar^T.C 01:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment -- seems like an overwhelming amount of support for a community ban. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support: An editor who believes that poor people deserve their circumstances (to put it incredibly lightly) is inheriently incompatible with Wikipedia. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef. I used to participate at ITN/C until I was driven away by the toxic, trashy nature of that board. I remember that LaserLegs was one of the most problematic contributors there, and they should have been run off the site years ago. The only thing that I would add is that this block should be framed not merely as the result of one ill-considered comment but as the result of the sum total of this user's so-called 'contributions'. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Good grief. Those comments are beyond the pale, and LL shows absolutely no recognition that they were inapprpriate. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef/CBAN. That's ... unbelievable. If I had seen any of the three comments presented by Fram and the IP at the time they were posted, we would not be having this discussion now as LL would already be blocked. Black Kite (talk) 10:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose CBAN or indef. Their beliefs are definitely terrible and their lack of empathy makes me nauseous, but that's not really a valid reason for a permanent ban from the site. Thinking poor people deserve their circumstances because of how rich people have chosen to organize things, or calling disaster victims insignificant, while definitely a disturbing line of thought that demonstrates a concerning failure of the ability to care about others, is not a violation of WP:NONAZIS as far as I know, and there's not much else that I can see that violates it. Their disruption seems to be mainly focused in certain areas, and that can be dealt with with a topic ban. A community ban or indef won't prevent damage to the encyclopedia and seems more emotionally driven than anything. Edit summaries are not content that will be shown to readers anyway unless they look for it, and an editor should be free to express their beliefs in them, no matter how aboslutely horrible, as long as they are not explicitly incompatible with the encyclopedia.

There is no rule against being a bad person.

☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 11:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

It is not the holding of these views per se, but the toxicity of those views being expressed on Wikipedia. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra The views held don't seem to be a violation of WP:NONAZIS given the lack of a racial or nationalistic core, and that's really the only policy on this site that governs views expressed (well, except the child protection policy, but that's not relevant here). He sees people as insignificant and okay to kill based on their financial status rather than a racial or national basis. If someone came onto the site and said "I don't care if [Insert ethnic or racial group here] die, they're insignificant", that would be a clear violation of the rule. Unfortunately, by saying "I don't care if the poor die, they're insignificant", LaserLegs manages to skirt around this.

I have no opposition to updating policy to include edge cases like this one so that users who express these kinds of beliefs on the site can be dealth with, but as it stands, LaserLegs can probably get off scott-free. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 12:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra Honestly, in my opinion Plutonical is an editor that is long overdue for a CIR block. I raised concerns about their messing about in project space and inappropriate comments regarding user blocks and unblocks way back in February. Following that discussion they continued to get in trouble and make messes, with, for example, Nominating the main page for deletion to see what would happen, incorrect, disruptive speedy deletion tagging, a telling off from BBB23 for messing about with sockpuppets and a warning about inappropriate comments in DS topic areas. Following that mess they vanished for six months. They seemed to have just returned, and within a week and a dozen edits we're back to seeing disruption in project space, replying to month old IP troll comments on policy pages and jumping back into block discussions while missing the entire reason that comments like these are inappropriate and disruptive (just look at their response to your comment, "advocating the killing of poor people isn't a Nazi view, so it's ok" is absolutely ridiculous comment). This is all despite despite explicit advice to steer clear of policy debates, unblock requests, ANI and similar areas, unless you absolutely must comment because an issue directly involves you in the last ANI thread. They seem to be fundamentally unable to avoid mucking about in project space despite not having a clue what they are doing. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Not surprised. We'll need a separate thread for them -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree. WP:CIR definitely at play here. On his own talk page he proclaims: just for good measure, I think I'll just stay out of the behind-the-scenes component entirely, including AIV and UAA reports and then seems to have gone back on his own word to defend a clearly disruptive editor and claim those who support a CBAN are "emotionally driven". This is hair-raising. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

No, I have no Wikipedia related emotions I am aware of. When I was a kid, I idolized Spock-- cool, methodical, logical and bereft of emotional clouding. When I am here, I leave my emotions at home. If anyone (more familiar) cares to start an ANI thread, I will gladly opine -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Give me a minute and I'll start a standalone thread. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Please do ping me. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support for community ban. What a cruel thing to say and if we let this kind of behavior poison WP's pages. It will only cause more trouble. Cinadon36 13:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support, what a pathetic snob. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support A toxic personality in every discussion I have witnessed them in, long overdue. --Jayron32 15:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support - but yall really need to stop with the personal attacks on a now indef blocked user. Sheesh, you dont have to kick somebody on the way out. nableezy - 16:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support Looking at history of prior IDs used by this person reinforces the conclusion. Has been a problem user for a decade.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  In case anyone is interested in Laserlegs' history with prior usernames and previous poor behavior, look at User talk:IP98 and User talk:CosmicAdventure. Lasrelegs also (which they disclosed) used an ip address that can be seen hurling obscenities at another user in User talk:IP98#Your userpage — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  Well, they have a history of volatility, don't they. They also, on their user page, say that their TBAN will result in anarchy. I guess they have a history of not being compatible here. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Rsjaffe Hurling obscenities at other people is a recurring problem with them, see [62] for a more recent example. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support per Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive and, by extension, WP:CIVIL and WP:DISRUPT; editing Wikipedia requires a bare minimum of civility and decorum that isn't met here. If they'd immediately apologized and indicated that this was some singular mistake, perhaps things would be different, but instead, by my reading, they've generally blamed others and doubled down. --Aquillion (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unsourced number changes

2804:D4B:9A4F:E800:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)—many unsourced date changes. Kleinpecan (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

 Blocked x 1 week for disruptive editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I have reverted all of their last 500 edits not already reverted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

😵 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't that many. Most had already been reverted. This looks like a vandalism only IP. I am somewhat surprised this is their first block on the /64 range. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Jayanthkumar123 and Fostera12

Note:I have merged two closely related threads, and retitled as above to indicate the merger. --Jayron32 15:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

This is the second time, I am here to notify the personal attacks by Fostera12. Previously too he/she was blocked due to their nature and edits on the Pan-Indian film article. Now, again all these, i.e., personal attacks and making wrong allegations against me were started. For better understanding refer to these talk pages: User talk:DaxServer and User talk:Ab207/Archives/2022/September#Telugu cinema. Also look at these edits, [63], [64]. These are just a few. They are removing the longstanding and sourced content, but he/she are continuously removing the content by saying that the discussion is going on. In the same article, I tried to explain to him/her not to remove the longstanding content just by saying that the discussion is still going on. This user has tagged me in many other users' talk pages by making wrong allegations against me. Also, check my talk page, they have added edit warring messages without stating the issue. If I am not wrong, they have violated the 3RR policy. I cannot again mention all the personal attacks made by him/her against her. He/she is mentioning me as a "Telugu cinema fan", I don't have any problem with that, but the thing is he/she using this comment and saying that I am wrong. But you can check the above-mentioned talk pages and the user's contributions and other edits. Also, he/she was already blocked in the past. If I make anything wrong, I am ready to accept and leave wikipedia. Thank you....Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Consistently attacking me, addressing me as joker and comedian, says he is getting laugh when talking, disrespecting and attacking fellow editor, and non participation in dialogue. Requested him to participate in dialogie over cinema of India talk page, instead posted here after personally attacking me and insulting me. Repeating this same message again and again

"They are removing the longstanding and sourced content, but he/she are continuously removing the content by saying that the discussion is going on. In the same article, I tried to explain to him/her not to remove the longstanding content just by saying that the discussion is still going on. This user has tagged me in many other users' talk pages by making wrong allegations against me. Also, check my talk page, they have added edit warring messages without stating the issue."

The user is involved in persistent vandalism on Cinema of India article adding unsources promotional content and advertising material. The dispute is related to adding numerical information without proper sources on box office revenue of films. Instead of addressing it constructively, user posting false allegations on me. Fostera12 (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Fostera12: WP:dif's would be nice, Is this the same for which I just fully protected the page? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

oh good grief. see above thread. Someone might merge them -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I have just done so. --Jayron32 15:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the said user is involved in adding promotional material into cinema of India article, without adding appropriate sources. User is known for usage of superlatives such as "In 2021 Telugu cinema became largest and greatest in terms of box office", and shouting at other users in talk page via usage of text in capital letters.Fostera12 (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey Fostera12, why do have so much hatred for me? Before making false allegations against me, first, try to prove it!! As per the sources I only used "largest" and none of the other mentioned superlatives. If you live in India, you would definitely know that the sources mentioned are appropriate. Stop making personal attacks. Because I am exhausted and being emotionally damaged. I have dedicately created many articles and made thousands of edits. Just because of your hatred, all the others are also blaming me. Do you know that you were already blocked in the past for the very same reason you mentioned above? You are inappropriate in your edits. At first, I want to resolve this peacefully, but because of your edit nature, all these have casued...Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 3:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) [65] - labeled this vandalism which it isn't WP:NOTVAND. I see where the accused editor did say they laughed but this mostly looks like a content issue rather than anything behavioral. Neither editor has remained civil. I would encourage both editors to follow WP:BRD and WP:EPTALK. if they can't get through their disagreement then seek WP:Dispute Resolution but no one is going to arbitrate or weigh into an uncivil discussion where the two sides can't at least respect the process or the pillars of this encyclopedia. Recommend cautioning both editors to "walk away" from this until they can discuss the issues constructively. --ARoseWolf 13:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

User:ARoseWolf, User:Deepfriedokra and User:Jayron32 I respect wikipedia's policy and I might use the term "laugh" out of frustration caused by the personal attacks and baseless comments made by Fostera12. If he/she proves that I referred him/her as a joker or comedian, I will definetely leave wikipedia or you can block me. Please understand that this user always does this to me. Previously too, they said that I have added false content. But in reality, other users have added that. They add extra things to a small reason and blame me. Also, don't fall for his/her talk page. As they remove the content. The user Fostera12 was already blocked once due to their edit conflicts regarding Pan-Indian film. They have actually removed all the edit warrings,etc. I guess he is happy now because in the mentioned page,i.e, Cinema of India, the very sourced and longstanding content was remooved. Right now I can't edit it, so the content was removed. Also, he mentioned that i have used many superlatives stating that "Telugu cinema is largest, greatest, etc". But in reality i only added largest that too in terms of box-office clearly. Please go through alreday mentioned talk pages for his nature and behaviour. I respect other's emotions, that is why i am following the rules. Atleat consider my contributions to wikipedia. You can get to see that I have created sevaral articles related to Telugu cinema. Even now, I strongly admit that the removed sourced and longstanding content should be included. The content was there from ago, but this user started this edits warring today and removing it stating that the discussion is going on. Consider looking into the edit history of the article. You will definitely understand his behaviour. As said before, the user's talk page you see is onl the latest one, but there is much more which they have deleted. Ofcourse, that's their choice. Please consider adding the sourced content. I am requesting this. I am once again saying that I accept the usage of word "laugh", but I don't exaggaerate the things. Please go through the article's history, User's hidden talk page, contributions and mentioned talk pages (where most of the discussion was happened as also you can get to know more about the issue). Also, the user have posted edit warring messages on my talk page without any proper reason. I sincerely apolosize for using the word "laugh". This could to be immature, but I also want to mention one thing: the user too hurt my personal opinions saying i am bias, unproffessional. Also, in a discussion that was done today, he/she mentioned other user to "educate" me. This is the second I am facing issue due to him/her. During the last time, he/she actually tagged me to get blocked. But, finally he/she was blocked. If such kind of users disturb my edits, how can we edit or add content. I doubt if he has personal grudge on me keeping in mind about previous issues. For him/her, whatever I do is completely bias. Out of nowhere they blame me evry edit. For example, check this Talk:RRR (film)/Archive 2#RRR initalism, he/she is blaming me for which I don't have connection. I actually want to sort this peacefully, but after so many allegations against me, trust me, he/she won't agree with me or atleast get to a consensus. He/she feels that should should not be added as it is against his/her wish. But I have mentioned everything according to sources. He/she is asking unrelated stuff for my content. In this commet on Ab207's talk page, teh user stated this "The references he provided doesnt anywhere mention that box office revenue of telugu films of 2021 is higher than hindi or tamil or kannada for that year, and when he says he is not a trade analyst, who gave him rights to mention in terms of box office that a certain language film industry is largest? this is not advertising portal. And what is this language "in 2021, Telugu cinema became", is it a human being that it will become something over time? and coming to this highest paid director and actor, u have defended some other editor on this previously". Everything of this meaningless. So should we have rights to add content. There are many more comments amde by the user against me and also baseless allegations. This is why, I am insisting to check the mentioned talk pages, his talk page and his contributions. If possible, consider blockinh him/her. If I made anything wrong, you can block me. I am ready to accept this, but please check everthing thoroughly. Thank you....Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, no idea why you are pinging me. I'm afraid that anyone who thinks Ima read a post of this length does not know me at all. tl;dr. Sorry, no. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Not sure why I am being pinged. I merely performed the technical task of merging two closely related threads. I am not particularly interested in anything to do with this dispute. --Jayron32 15:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I was asked to provide a third opinion on the Ab207 user's Talk Page discussion (not sure why) which I did, but with no further discussion or addressing my comments. Admin noticeboard seems premature. It's just a typical content dispute between two heated editors who appear to need help understanding how to use sources for statements. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't why everyone blame including me. I have properly stated the content according to the mentioned sources. Why can't you investigate the other side. I guess there are no administraters who can look into this issue. Anyways, I feel there is no space for good things on Wikipedia, just like me I don't know how many uses would have been got blocked even though there is no mistake of theirs. I have created several article regarding the Telugu cinema. So, I have basic knowledge regarding those articles. Anyways...thank you for inputs.

(Non-administrator comment) @Jayanthkumar123: I was attempting to help, and learn more. You could have responded to my comment so I could better understand and help. No one is against you, just trying to better understand how the source supported that statement. Feel free to discuss further on my Talk Page, if you'd like. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• (comment from involved editor) As Pyrrho the Skipper said, this is something that should've been discussed and settled at the article talk page. I believe Fostera12 has turned this content dispute into a user behaviour by taking it to talk pages of uninvolved users, asking them to "educate Mr. User talk:Jayanthkumar123" ([66], [67], [68]). This whole fiasco could've been avoided had they tried to settle it amicably in article talk without casting asperations on each other. Regards -- Ab207 (talk) 04:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Estonian POV (again)

This issue was previously dealt with at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1093#H2ppyme and Estonian POV, which resulted in H2ppyme (talk · contribs) being banned for removing references to 'Estonian SSR' from articles (despite that being the historically accurate name at that time).

Now Plingen Plungen (talk · contribs) has appeared and is making the same edits, at the same article (Friedrich Karm), including referring to the Estonian SSR as a "scam government set up by the occupying Soviet Union. It was set up illegally and was not internationally recognized".

Plingen Plungen is edit warring to maintain their POV. Please can somebody review and intervene? GiantSnowman 10:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any decision about changing Estonia to Estonian SSR at the biographies in the ANI. I'd say GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) is edit warring to insert their POV. Soviet name was re entered into the article only on 28 June, then when reverted back to original on 24 August GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) arrived to defend the recent change.

I remain at my position, that internationally unrecognized regime that has been set up illegally by military force of a occupying country is scam g