Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:30, 9 February 2021

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Uncivil and hostile comments and edit summaries

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

User is leaving hostile and uncivil edit summaries and comments. Diffs: , edit summaries at , , , , and generally at See recent edit summaries re:John Park Lambert

This type of conduct is one reason good and experienced editors leave Misplaced Pages.

Second issue is with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz signature. It violates WP:CUSTOMSIG/P and is cumbersome for editors using screen readers and magnification software, so there is an accessibility issue.

 // Timothy :: talk  13:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• I will be the first to admit that in a few of these cases I was too hasty in moving people from Category:Living people to Category:Possibly living people. On of the incidents may come from my strong aversion to using the unreliable IMBd at all. I have resolved to try and show more restraint in this matter. For example in the case of Bernard Cecil Cohen I am not sure I found any clear indication of his still being alive. However I figure someone in his position would have their death reported, and my initial search did not show up anything along those lines, so I left him in Category:Living people. The approach used by the editor in question here to this matter has been singularly unhelpful. The edit summary langauge clearly constitutes attacks on me. The fact that he then doubled-down and claimed "You've already been responsible for one of Misplaced Pages's worst public embarrassments". The tenor and tone of these comments is just not called for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait a moment, I had not even realized the edit summary that is #78 above existed. So I moved someone into the possibly living person category, and it turns out they actually are dead. And for doing this I get insulted for it. That does not seem right at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: An admin also needs look at the userbox at the top of their userpage.  // Timothy :: talk  15:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  My goodness, you don't say. Their talk page is also ten times the recommended length and is in serious need of archival. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  There is no policy requiring archiving of user talk pages due to length. Beyond My Ken (talk)

  For God's sake no one click here. 71.184.139.127 (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  There is much about 2014 that was good. That episode was not one of them. Nobody emerged happy with the outcome. If you would like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's talk page archived it would be better if you asked him politely, rather than as a shopping list of complaints at ANI. Cabayi (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  Cabayi, unfortunately I was not editing Misplaced Pages back in 2014, so was unaware of that hoo-ha then. I had no intention of having a shopping list of complaints; that was just one of the first things by which I was struck when I visited their talk page. I am well aware of what BMK has pointed out; I had replied to it but that reply was caught up in a RevDel. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• To note: HW is under a community-imposed sanction "...Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is also warned that further uncivil comments towards any editor will result in a block." See here. It dates from 2016, but has never been revoked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• It appears that the sanction is still relevant, see these. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Also in addition to its overlength it appears HW still has that WP:POLEMIC-violating signature line. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Let me make a few points clear at the outset:
  • I believe John Pack Lambert lacks the competence to edit Misplaced Pages.
  • I believe John Pack Lambert's editing practices are unacceptably lazy.
  • I believe John Pack Lambert does not behave honestly in disputes

• And there is strong evidence supporting my beliefs. There is no point in euphemizing. Civility policy does not prohibit making statements like these unless they cannot be supported by evidence. And the evidence here is clear and substantial.

About eight years ago, John Pack Lambert was responsible for what is probably Misplaced Pages's worst public embarrassments, covered in The New York Times and The New York Review of Books, resulting in criticism from prominent American writers like Joyce Carol Oates and Amy Tan, ending up with sustained public criticism of Misplaced Pages sexism. James Gleick, "an American author and historian of science whose work has chronicled the cultural impact of modern technology . . . has been called 'one of the great science writers of all time'", wrote a piece entitled "Misplaced Pages’s Women Problem", where he concluded that " single editor brought on the crisis: a thirty-two-year-old named John Pack Lambert living in the Detroit suburbs. He’s a seven-year veteran of Misplaced Pages and something of an obsessive when it comes to categories".

When I referred to these events yesterday, Lambert accused me of telling "outright lies" and "attacking lies", claiming or insinuating I'd made statements which I plainly hadn't. He also falsified quotations from me, misspelling key words apparently to suggest incompetence or subliteracy on my part. It's rather petty, but Lambert has a pattern of using spelling errors to indicate. He waged a lengthy vendetta against novelist Amanda Filipacchi (who had criticized sexism on Misplaced Pages in a New York Times op ed), incorrectly spelling her name over and over. See, for example, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#John Pack Lambert should probably resist talking about Amanda Filipacchi if he can't do it civilly. Lambert refuses to discuss any of the substantive issues related to the deficiencies of his editing . That's a greater breach of civility than I'm accused of, as well as a substantive violation of editing policy. It's far more destructive than occasional sharp language, at least to people who care about the integrity of Misplaced Pages as an encyclopedia, as opposed to those who see themselves as hall monitors in a gigantic RPG.

Let's talk about the substantive issues. This dispute centers on BLP editing and categorization. BLP policy states that "Editors must take particular care" while editing BLPs. Lambert doesn't take "particular" care. He barely takes any care at all. He's on a jihad to reduce the number of BLPS on Misplaced Pages . There's no policy reason for doing this, and Lambert's pattern, once again, is rapid fait accompli editing, behavior that Arbcom has recognized as disruptive. See also the last paragraph here .

Rather than taking particular care, Lambert was blazing through BLPs (selected by birth year), spending only seconds on each. He wanted to find excuses to remove the "Living people" category, without regard to whether there was any real reason to alter the tag. The standard is that the tag should not be changed unless there is some "documentation" that the person was alive in the last decade. Lambert, however, has invented his own, narrower standard, that the article itself include a sourced statement that the subject had done something notable in the past decade. This is utterly groundless, and functions to make Misplaced Pages less accurate. As I responded to Lambert yesterday, "Any documentation that indicates the subject has been alive within the last decade prevents application. It doesn't have to be in the article, or even be related to something notable enough to be in the article. A photo of them at their 75th high school reunion in their local paper would be good enough. It would be time- and effort-wasting to require that editors prove that elderly article subjects have done something noteworthy at an advanced age to prevent them from being classified as only possibly alive". Lambert has refused to discuss the issue.

Let's take a look at just some of the articles involved:

• Ann Turner Cook - Evidence that Lambert is taking no care at all. The first page of a simple Google search turns up five press reports of the subject's birthday celebration in November 2020. Another editor beat me to reverting this.
• Christian Azzi - Google search turns up an obituary on page 1.
• Gene Barge - IMDB listing, already in article, shows multiple credits in recent years. Google search shows 2018 newspaper interview as well as several recent video interviews.
• Robert Basmann - Simple Google search turns up active university faculty listing as well as a 2017 birthday festschrift.
• Giotto Bizzarrini - Qualifying source already in article.
• Albert Brenner - Simple Google search turns up 2018 Variety profile on page 1.
• Peter Whittle - Source in article includes a 2017 video interview.

Looking at articles with primarily English-language sources, my sampling indicates that John Pack Lambert has an error rate of about 50% in reviewing these articles. That's unacceptable in any context, but especially in editing BLPs. It's obvious from the minuscule time he spends on each BLP and the ease with which the appropriate documentation can be found that he's making no effort whatever to reach an accurate result. That's disruptive behavior and should be sanctioned.

So that's my position. Lambert is deliberately trying to reduce the accuracy of biographical articles because of his peculiar belief that most biographies don't belong in an encyclopedia. And the diabolical Mr Wolfowitz says that this is evidence that he really isn't competent to edit here. But, you know, WOLFOWITZ BAD is one of the Secret Pillars of Misplaced Pages.

I'd also note that this dispute was escalated immediately to ANI without ant attempt to discuss with me, after Johnpacklambert had expressly refused to participate in my attempts to discuss the substantive issues. Under standing principles, that would bring him under direct scrutiny. But, hey, we're going to bring up the same complaints about The Big Bad Wolfowitz that have been rejected over and over. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal (re:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz)

Based on:

• The diffs in the original post
• Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's respose above which doubles down on insulting/uncivil attacks against another editor while attempting to justify their behavior and showing no understanding of the problem.
• Additional reports of problematic behavior since community imposed sanctions were applied (examples provided above by BMK).

Comment: This is an outright falsehood. BMK identified no such "examples". BMK simply posted a search for my username over the drama boards, regardless of date, regardless of substance, regardless of outcome. It literally picks up every comment I have ever made to these boards, every 3RR report I filed, every time I was pinged to add a comment. A similar search for BMK's username produces more than twice as many results. Now tell me why I should afford good faith to this falsehood. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I propose that the indefinitely imposed community sanctions warning (recorded here) be applied, "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is also warned that further uncivil comments towards any editor will result in a block."

I also propose that their signature be changed per WP:CUSTOMSIG/P and WP:POLEMIC and that an admin remove the threatening userbox at the top of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's userpage.

 // Timothy :: talk  07:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support: as proposer.  // Timothy :: talk  07:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. HW may be right about JPL (I've had my own concerns in the past), but that doesn't excuse his behavior here, or his steadily increasingly Not compatible with a collaborative project behavior overall, laced with assumptions of bad faith and casting of aspersions. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project, and we need our editors to act like it is one. And the below...thank you for neatly proving my point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • You have a very strange idea of what collaboration involves. Johnpacklambert refused to discuss the substantive issues after I set my position out. Johnpacklambert has explicitly called me a liar multiple times, on multiple pages, over the last few days, without providing one shred of legitimate evidence -- and that is far more uncivil than anything I've said. And I haven't assumed bad faith in this dispute. I've inferred it from patterns of behavior. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, of course. You don't deny, and you can't deny, that Johnpacklambert's BLP editing is so far below policy standards as to be incompetent. However, you insist that it is uncivil to call an incompetent editor incompetent. It is, however, acceptable for Johnpacklambert to falsely accuse me of lying, because false accusations of dishonesty are civil. You disgrace yourself. You disgrace this project. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support warning — I'm tired of mean editors, and our community's long-term tolerance for them. A formal warning is better than nothing. Levivich /_hound 17:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Update: Sorry, reading this again, I see I may have misread the proposal. I thought "that the ... warning ... be applied" meant that we log such a warning, not that the editor be blocked. I don't support a block. Given that this logged warning was years ago, I support another logged warning. Levivich /_hound 01:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Per proposal, without reservation. The restriction previously imposed was unambiguous. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC) edited 00:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - HW has been a disruptive influence for quite a while. Personally I would classify him as a net negative to the project. My support for this proposal has nothing to do with his userbox (per El_C), and my !vote does not include approval of the suggestion to remove it. His response to my providing raw data for other editors to consider, and his lashing out at me, are, I'm afraid, entirely typical of this uncivil, non-collaborative person, who (as far as I can tell), never admits to being wrong. I have not looked into HW's wall-of-text complaint about JPL, but even if it's entirely true, it doesn't in any way justify HW's behavior. His sig is a violation of the spirit of WP:POLEMIC and is -- I believe deliberately -- disruptive.I suggest that these cumulative factors justify a block of a significant duration, i.e. days, and not hours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose "He may be right". No he is right as a cursory look at JPL's editing over even a small period shows. If you look at it over a longer period it just gets worse. JPL is either incompetent and/or lazy in an area where we are required to take extra care. There is plenty of evidence for that. The alternative is that they are not incompetent or lazy and are deliberately flouting various policies and guidelines despite knowing full well what they are. Feel free to pick, because the AGF option here is that they lack the required competence or effort. Levivich it is not mean to tell someone who you have to clear up after, that they are making a mess. After repeated messes, you waste less time mouthing pointless niceties. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  I don't know what you're reading but tell someone who you have to clear up after, that they are making a mess is not what happened here. There is much more up above. For example, in this thread, HW wrote that JPL falsified quotations from me, misspelling key words apparently to suggest incompetence or subliteracy on my part. Accusing someone of intentionally inserting misspellings into quotations in order to make you look bad, is seriously paranoid. Levivich /_hound 04:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  JPL routinely deliberately mis-spells for their own purposes. The alternative is that they are writing out a quotation by hand rather than using copy-paste as normal people do, and inserting their own mis-spellings that they seemingly have no problem spelling at other times. I think the more common explanation is that when people take these petty actions they do it because they are a common troll who likes to be a dick to people. But unlike HW, I am not the target of said petty niggling, so I have a less personal opinion on it. The idea that JPL is accidentally mispelling is laughable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  Gotta agree with Levivich -- people do all sorts of weird things (personal favorite example), and retyping quotations by hand seems totally plausible. Like, does JPL not make typos in their own writing, only when quoting other people? I think it would be better to stick to criticisms grounded in actual evidence. --JBL (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Generally Oppose - Frustration over sloppy editing and calling this out does not justify a block. Not a fan of an indefinite sanction warning over civility from ~5 years ago given the amount of tolerance for other users on this noticeboard. Support shortening link to user page given accessibility concerns. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: This does not appear to be a situation where one of them is in the right, and the other is in the wrong. We are faced here with two editors, each problematic in their own way, being problematic against each other. BD2412 T 02:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, and if JBL JPL is problematic, someone should open a report on them and make a proposal, but their disruptiveness doesn't make HW any less uncivil or disruptive in his own right, and is not -- in fact -- a legitimate justification for an "Oppose" !vote. The closing admin should ignore any !vote that does not carry with it proper justification. Nor is this a one-time situation regarding HW. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • It is not my intention to suggest in the least that HW's conduct is pardonable. BD2412 T 04:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • You cant even be bothered by your own admission to take the time to do any investigating into HW's complant, so your !vote is meaningless. I look forward to when someone raises a complaint about you and people take the same approach. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @Beyond My Ken: Leave me out of this, please ;). --JBL (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC) (not JPL)
      • Ooops! Fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The problem here is that the category:Living people is fundamentally unverifiable because people may die at any moment and sources about their living status will always be dated. It is logically equivalent to the category:Possibly living people whose name better reflects the inevitable uncertainty about this. Either the two categories should be merged or both deleted. The bickering and busywork will then be reduced and we can focus better on definite facts instead. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support- Even if HW is right about JPL's editing (and I think he's exaggerating for dramatic effect) that doesn't excuse the name-calling. But since it's an inclusionist doing the name calling it is impossible that anything will be done about it. Reyk _YO! 10:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions. Leaving an uncivil edit summary when another editor decides that a living person is only "possibly living" with no evidence is, if not justifiable, at least understandable. If calling someone's life into question isn't likely offensive to that person, what is? --GRuban (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I think the opposition here is basically trying to give HW a pass on because they do not like JPL's edits. It is possible to disagree strongly with someone's edits without being uncivil; its normal to be civil with people you agree with, civility becomes an issue when you disagree and the stronger the disagreement the more need to pay attention to civility. Hopefully this is not ignored.  // Timothy :: talk  08:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The sanction that is indefinite should only be the interaction ban. The warning is a warning and should not mean that HW has been indefinite probation for nearly 5 years. I understand there should be a shorter leash. However, if I gave a final warning template to someone ~5 years ago, I do not expect an admin to block afterwards after I report them for a similar incident today. It's not a difficult concept to understand. If HW has been behaving below CIVIL towards multiple editors recently, that would be justification and those still needs diffs. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

That, and he didn't just make a random personal attack. He made the uncivil comment while undoing JPLs edit, which makes for mitigating circumstances. I personally see there is some difference between someone saying bad words in general, and Joe Bloggs, firefighter, saying bad things about the person who set the fire that they are currently putting out at this very moment. --GRuban (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The fireman's job is to put out the fire. If there are things to be said about the supposed perpetrator of the fire, they should be said in a different context, and in the proper manner. Someone just called me a "bozo" in an edit summary. The fact is that I made a minor error, and I has happy to see the error fixed, but not very happy to be called a "bozo" while it was being fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• JPL's edits are problematic and may warrant all kinds of sanctions or whatever, but it doesn't mean they get to be a target for incivility. Wolfowitz is problematic in their own ways; they modified their signature a little bit, but I've always thought that claim incredibly whiny and just totally off-putting. I cannot judge if their incivility was bad enough to be blocked, but I do believe that their signature is disruptive and they should change it. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• I think a renewed warning or short incivility block is all that is called for here. An indefinite block on the basis of a five year old warning seems too harsh. _signed, Rosguill 20:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Except that HW has been up on this board for incivility a number of times since that sanction was imposed, but no one seems to have been aware of the sanction. He slipped by on those occasions, which is something he should not be rewarded for. It's not like his sanction is slowly disintegrating over time, it should be as usable now as when it was imposed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Agreed with BMK. The fact of the matter is that the editing restriction imposed was indefinite and has not been revoked. Just because it's a few years old does not mean it should not be enforced. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support based upon editing history and the fact that there's a clear, logged editing restriction. If editors object to enforcing it, then we should have a discussion about lifting it, but nothing leads to recidivist behavior and chronic problems like setting clear restrictions for problematic behaviors and then just shrugging when the restricted editors ignore said restrictions. Grandpallama (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose messing with HW's signature; support lifting the absurd editing restriction misguidedly levied upon HW for calling out glaring CIR issues when he saw them. Iaritmioawp (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Insurrectionists' gallows

Let me preface this by saying that, at the time of writing this, I have only glanced at this complaint. That I am not familiar with the main participants or their respective histories (I mean: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and John Pack Lambert — I, of course, know and am fond of TimothyBlue). I have less than a passing familiarity with this dispute (seemingly over categories, one of the things I know least about on the project), and I am not committing to reviewing it further by virtue of this comment. So, with that out of the way, here we go. Above, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was criticized that the top of their user page features Image:Tombstone courthouse gallows.jpg, with the caption: This user believes that Donald Trump gives aid and comfort to enemies of the United States. I'd like to strongly disagree with anyone (TimothyBlue?) who wishes to censor Hullaballoo Wolfowitz from displaying this custom userbox, for whatever reason. Don't want to be associated with a gallows? Don't have your most ardent supporters build an actual gallows in the midst of an insurrection which you are accused of inciting (Mr. Trump). I don't feel that this is an unreasonable position to adopt. It is not incitement, on Hullaballoo Wolfowitz part, nor is it a BLP violation against Trump himself — who, btw, I'd love to see sue Misplaced Pages over something like this, even though the likelihood of that happening pretty much approaches zero. Anyway, the point is that I believe this is still within the bounds of acceptable userpage political expression (for the times). I realize the very notion of userpage political expression itself is something many find distasteful, even anathema —my own userpage (last meaningful change circa 2008) included— but I would ventrue to remind participants that it is still very much an allowed practice. Jeez, sorry for the length of this. I imagined this much shorter in my head. El_C 15:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Whoa, on closer look, it looks like AHullaballoo Wolfowitz actually added that userbox in 2018 (diff)! Which makes them some sort of a prophet...? El_C 15:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh maybe Wolfo only has 25 Minutes to Go...! Lugnuts 16:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I wondered why that was being brought up myself; concur with El_C on this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

El C, I confess to being quite perturbed by that argument. It is one thing to put "this user supports the Democratic/Republican Party" or "this user believes that Reagan/FDR was our lord and saviour" etc, but it is another thing entirely to have a set of gallows next to an accusation of treachery directed to a politician. It seems very much to be a veiled death threat and perhaps analogous to a userbox calling Bush Jr. or Obama a war criminal with a noose next to their photo. Carte blanche should not be given for such inflammatory content on userpages. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, nor is it a place to include material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz, well, I, for one, argue that it is more likely to bring the project into disrepute if we were to censor it. At this moment in time, I find it an arguably relevant political statement rather than a veiled death threat — though, oddly, I would not have thought this to be so in 2018. Talk about unintended consequences! Anyway, the reason for that, again, is because of the actual Capitol gallows, whose significance should not be understated. It makes the usage of a gallows fair game when it comes to Trump "giving aid and comfort to enemies of the United States." Because that could be understood in the sense of him having incited insurrectionists to overthrow a branch of the US government. Insurrectionists who also built a gallows on-site. Hope that makes sense. El_C 22:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

El C, I am aware of the new context behind the photo. But given that (as you pointed out) the userbox was added some years ago, that doesn't make it retroactively okay. As far as I'm aware (of course feel free to correct me) there is no grandfather clause for such material on userpages. The soapbox requirement applies to user pages too. Political statements, however relevant, should be confined to Twitter and Facebook than here on Misplaced Pages. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz, I think you got it backward. Unless I fix my broken time machine, we can't go back to the past to remove it then. But it's fine now. As for political statements, in general, that is a wider policy matter. It may be frowned upon by many, but it is still generally allowed. Where the line is drawn there is, of course, subject to debate, as it always has been. El_C 22:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

El C, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. Our interpretations of the guidelines and that userbox obviously differ. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz, it's all good. Thank you for sharing your perspective. El_C 22:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for closure

Given that this discussion is close to being automatically archived, I request that an uninvolved administrator determines what consensus (if any) has emerged from the discussion. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

An additional comment came in not too many hours ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Just in case anyone still believes that BMK and some others are genuinely concerned about civility in edit summaries (rather than inflaming old quarrels), I suggest you review these bon mots from BMK's more recent contributions. , , , , , , , , , , . And is there even a sign of a warning . . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 01:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Rev id's that start with "8" or lower are not recent. Levivich /_hound 01:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Civility is a slippery slope :-) Vikram Vincent 08:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

YaSiRu11 – POV-pushing and other problems

YaSiRu11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I hope this won't be a WP:TEXTWALL, but there are many diffs despite only having edited on six separate days. YSR has:

• Stripped the page on 1958 anti-Tamil pogrom to just the lead and removed sourced sections on background, the pogrom itself, sexual violence, and massacres, saying that they lacked reliable citation.
• Removed multiple pieces of sourced information regarding ethnic cleansing, pogroms, bombings etc, saying that they corrected the grammar and spelling mistakes. and deleted information that lacked reliable citation and did so again on List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces
• Changed "civil war" to "rebellion" and "terrorist uprising" and called civilian deaths and casualties "collateral damage", saying that they corrected the grammar and spelling mistakes on Sri Lankan Civil War
• Appears to have just copy-and-pasted material from a website directly onto Misplaced Pages
• Removed sourced information, while saying that they added new information
• Again, saying they deleted unsorced infomation
• Again, saying it lacked reliable citation and added their own commentary
• On Jaffna District, removed sourced section regarding twinning with Kingston, saying No official and reliable citation were found for the deleted section. Did so again after I added an archive URL for the government source
• Added probable original research (the source did not support their claim)
• Tagged Draft:Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka, under as a blatant hoax, despite what seems to be over 100 sources (albeit not controlling for duplicates), including ones from Amnesty International
• PRODed Sri Lankan state-sponsored colonisation schemes and said it Contains many misleading facts that were possibly added with racist motives
• Removed section headings and a hidden note without explanation
• On my talk page claimed that a council source was no government link and claimed that another did not mention Jaffna as a twin city when it says it was "twinning with the city"
• Added an unexplained nowiki

To conclude, I suggest either a topic ban from Sri Lankan pages, broadly construed, or an indefinite block. Sdrqaz (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

To add to this the I suspect the user used this sock-puppet Kisnueque (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (which was created during edit reverts) to indulge in abusive behaviour against me, by attempting to pose as me, and falsely accusing me of being a member of the LTTE. Notice the misspelling of the word message as 'massage' which he also misspells on his original talk page.https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:YaSiRu11 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Oz346&oldid=1002489539

Oz346 (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Reply: I will say why I did that particular thing in the order he has presented them.

1. This was a mistake. I am new to this website I was just figuring things out. I'm sorry I wasn't able to undo my error.

2.I deleted the attacks that lacked credible sources. the listings which claim credibility "Department of State 2009" doesn't actually verify these claims. and many of its findings are repeated with different names on the list. for example the document states;

"Embassy Colombo reported that 58 people were killed and 143 injured due to shelling in Ampalavakanai and Mullaivakal. This may be the same incident reported by a source in Mattalan reported to HRW shelling in the NFZ and heavy fighting in the north"

but the listing doesn't clarify this. and I deleted the repeated listings.

3.I corrected the grammar and words that didn't sound right. and for the change of words, I quote this website

              "The main difference is who the battles are fought between... A revolution is a battle fought in hopes of a new system, by overthrowing a government and a civil war is fought between people of the same country."

LTTE fought for a different country. So, they had a rebellion not a Civil war.

4. I am the original writer and the photo editor of the website. I don't know why I can't publish my research-backed writing on Misplaced Pages.

5. The description there lacked new information so I added new Info and changed the existing. but I never deleted the existing information. You can still see both the etymology theories in my updated version. I changed its wording. that's the only thing I did.

6 and 7.I corrected a piece of wrong information. and I provided the necessary references.

8.I explained this to Sdrqaz and I still don't know why he still hasn't understood that. There is no way to confirm "the town twinning" as currently there is no official mention of this on the website.

9. It wasn't original research it's clearly mentioned in the source I referenced. I ask you to read this website to further clarify.

10. It is a blatant hoax. none of the sources support the claims. Please read the sources first. 11. I don't know why I can't do that.

12. The page was a bit messy. I made the page more clear.

13. I explained this before.

14. I literally didn't change that page.

and as for Oz346's claim, are you sure it's me because you seem to have edit wars with an awfully lot of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YaSiRu11 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.ukessays.com/essays/history/difference-between-the-civil-war-and-revolution.php

I don't know what I did wrong. I tried my best to make Misplaced Pages a better place. Just because I didn't agree with you why did you make things up to defame me? YaSiRu11 (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Rebuttal: I'm sorry that this has been poorly formatted, but I didn't want to create a block of text.

1. I don't find that argument plausible. Removing 75% of a page is not easily done. Moreover, an edit summary was provided for the change. That does not seem consistent with accidental deletions.

2. The State Department source does verify those claims. If you feel that there are possibly repeated entries (the source makes it clear there is ambiguity), then add a note. Don't remove both entries. It is not for editors to improperly synthesise sources, or reach conclusions that the sources did not reach themselves.

3. As it states in the disclaimer above, that is a student-written essay. Moreover, that essay is about the American Revolution and Civil War. Not only is that not a reliable source, it is not even relevant.

4. Please see WP:SELFPUB and WP:SELFCITE. With all due respect, are you an established subject-matter expert? Has your work in this field been published by reliable independent publications? Even if you have, copy-and-pasting paragraphs over is excessive.

5. The page history doesn't lie. 2.7kb does not just disappear with a minor rewording.

6 and 7. How are they incorrect? They were pieces of sourced information.

8. There is a way to confirm the town twinning: look at the newspaper source. Look at the archived council source. Link rot happens. It doesn't mean that we disregard the sources just because the URLs are dead.

9. The source you referenced was from Encyclopaedia Britannica. That is not that. The Britannica source does not mention substantial evidence to say that Nagas were Buddhist followers after the 4th century B.C.

10. I have read the sources, and they do support the information. Misplaced Pages is not censored, and includes information that you may not like. Calling it a hoax is not the solution.

11. Casting aspersions is not allowed. Where is your evidence for racist motives? How are the facts misleading?

12. If anything, you made it less clear. You removed a section headings without explanation, which had the effect of making it seem like one uninterrupted table.

13. Please read the sources.

14. There just didn't seem to be any rationale behind that nowiki.

In addition, YSR has accused another editor of having no ability to say what is "serious" history and whats not here.

Sdrqaz (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC) amended 02:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved administrator reviewing the above allegations, I find cause for concern with YaSiru11's editing. While some of the issues highlighted by Sdrqaz remain at the level of content disputes, overall the identified edits (particularly #1, #3, #5, #10, #11, #12 and #14 as enumerated above) suggest carelessness at best and intent to POV-push on Sri Lankan topics at worst. Either way, YasiRu11 does not appear to be able to contribute constructively to Sri Lankan topics at this time. An indefinite topic ban from content related to Sri Lanka, appealable after several months in the event that YasiRu11 can demonstrate their ability to abide by our policies when editing other topics, seems appropriate. _signed, Rosguill 22:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  Support Rosguill's proposal. I am grateful that they have taken the time to sort through all the diffs. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Rosguill for taking the time. Also it may be necessary to look into Yasiru's suspected sock-puppet Kisnueque (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well, it was used to slander me on my personal talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Oz346&oldid=1002489539

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Oz346&diff=prev&oldid=1002489539

He seems to have tried to do it with his original Yasiru account, but then had second thoughts before deciding to use the sock puppet to evade detection:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Oz346&diff=next&oldid=1002487988

Oz346 (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Oz346, sockpuppet investigations should be handled at WP:SPI _signed, Rosguill 15:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Obi2canibe I see a message has been left by you on Yasiru's talk page regarding a sock puppet investigation, if only one account gets banned, it may not solve this perennial issue.Oz346 (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Rosguill, as an uninvolved administrator, would you be able to take action? Sdrqaz (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  Sdrqaz, given that Sri Lankan history isn't under discretionary sanctions, a topic ban requires a community consensus to be imposed. Although there's nominally a unanimous consensus above, I don't feel comfortable closing this myself, as I proposed the topic ban and it's received an endorsement only from you and Oz346, editors who were already lodging complaints against Yasiru11. Thus, I would ask for another admin to close this discussion. _signed, Rosguill 15:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Reply to Rosguill -

Do what you want to do I don't care. I tried my best to contribute to Misplaced Pages but now I have left the site. Don't just block, delete my account if you can, I don't care. You guys didn't give a damn about those pages before even though they were filled with false, misleading information. just look at here, <ref https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hinduism_in_Sri_Lanka&oldid=1003288905#cite_note-Dailynews-6</ref> How in the world does that prove that Naga People practiced Hindusim. but It seems that Misplaced Pages only believes users who have years of experience. and It seems that the user who accused me was not well-informed on the subject because I clearly explained this.YaSiRu11 (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Accusations of bad faith and POV derailing

BunnyyHop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Slavery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

BunnyyHop has a long history of POV pushing sections. On the previous ANI he was warned if he keeps adding POV sections, action would be taken against him. He has not stopped. He has tried add a random paragraph quote in Misplaced Pages's voice, I reverted these edits as they were disruptive. At which point he accused me of being on a "anti-communist crusade" completely unrelated to the article, assuming bad faith, and attempting to derail the conversation and making useful discussion impossible. BunnyyHop also has prior disruption on the article Slavery, removing sections he doesn't like and tagging them as minor to avoid it being reviewed. BunnyyHop does so here and here. This is not BunnyyHop's first time of trying to derail conversations with accusations of bad faith, as shown by his talk page. Des Vallee (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Just a side note - I really suggest you to take a look at WP:FALLIBLE. Anyways, even the diffs used here date back to last year, so it's not even what me and the other editor were discussing. There's a long history between me and this user, leading even to the filling of a big WP:ANI report. Related to this report, provocative replies such as «our complete waffle of sources and POV sections aren't allowed» (while these were not even my sources!) and «ou have tried three times to add POV pushing sections into articles and all have failed, every time» made me reply sourly, which I apologised shortly after and opened a report on dispute resolution (as suggested in the ANI report). PS: Apparently the paragraph being disputed here was not even given a diff to. Diff. An ANI is really not warranted here if one is looking to sort this out. I opened a section on the dispute resolution noticeboard, but the afterwards opening of this ANI report closed it --BunnyyHop () 03:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This isn't the first time you have done this, you did it here, and warned here. You did it when you were reported for edit warring calling, and were warned for it here, you constantly did it at Marxism-Leninism. You also generally are un-cooperative and keep adding POV pushing sections, and editing only off your to push your POV. Des Vallee (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm tired of this stalking, following me and reverting what I do for no valid reason. You yourself stated here that you would continue to follow my edits, as well as that I'm «an extreme waste of time as it is clear his only goal is to push his POV, and a toxic one at that ». I'm pretty sure you didn't assume good faith. I reached an agreement with the other user until you came and disrupted everything with aggressive provocations trying to get a reaction, and I was too dumb and fell for that. --BunnyyHop () 03:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Multiple other editors have found you to be disruptive, ever since you started removing chunks of articles and tagging them as minor, or adding POV language. You have edit warred with so many users, added POV text to articles and wanted to add "The liquidation of the hostile classes and the success of Bolshevik comrades from exploitative monetary systems" to articles. It was only after I pointed out what you are doing that you retracted your comments. As shown previously you have a long, long history of these actions and I don't think you will change, because well it's been over 4 months and you haven't. Des Vallee (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, Des Vallee's and BunnyyHop's behavior is essentially equivalent from opposite POVs. The diffs you provide are BH removing unsourced info from Slavery article about Soviet Camps. Without sources describing Gulag as a form of slavery, the content violates WP:V and WP:OR. Even Nazi concentration camps as a form of slavery is complicated, see Forced labor in Nazi concentration camps#Slavery analogy and I would NOT support adding them to the Slavery article without qualification. (t · c) buidhe 06:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

buidhe, right, if there are no reliable sources linking to slavery it can't be included, despite any opinion editors might have (which holds no water whatsoever). I made concessions with the other editor to include it on the basis of the opinion of one scholar - but is it enough to not be considered WP:FRINGE? And still - even if we have the Gulag sorted out, there are another 2 countries there. This thread closed the one on dispute resolution, what steps should we take now? --BunnyyHop () 17:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Unrelated to this article in specific, there was a clear avoidance (diff) to discuss the changes added here, purposely missing the point(I underlined that the conservative turn in the paper was referred to Maoism and this was interpreted as "completely ignoring" the citation). Remember that WP:CIR, and this is not the first time Des Vallee shows trouble in basic reading comprehension. Anyways - related to the first diff, it was reverted for "lacking consensus" yet there was no response by anyone to the section I opened in the talk page Talk:Chinese_Communist_Party#Ideologies, not even this editor who reverted the edit for "no consensus". Note what content is disputed here - Cultural conservatism in the ideologies of the Chinese Communist Party. --BunnyyHop () 18:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• How many different pages are these two feuding on? I’m familiar with them going back and forth at Chinese Communist Party. Normally I’d recommend a voluntary interaction ban in lieu of blocks or other bans, but it seems that BunnyyHop also has an ongoing and partially overlapping feud with at least one other editor so that might not even be an option. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

If you're referring to My very best wishes, I don't consider it a feud, I don't have anything to complain about him, even though it's clear we as editors have very different personal POVs. --BunnyyHop () 18:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there is no hard feelings on my part. However, your editing is a matter of concern. For example, here you followed me on a page you never edited before, only to revert my edit in a matter of minutes. And again . And what was your reason for revert, exactly? According to your edit summary, "I should mention that I'm entirely neutral on this and this revert is purely mediation." What? Now, speaking on the content, you restored text sourced to writings that you did not even bother to check (you can't because these references are in Russian, have no pages and not available on line). Why? Because, as you said in your edit summary, these authors have PhDs? You do not know that. And even if they did, their "candidates of science" diploma would not be accepted as PhD by typical US institutions. Do you even know that students of history departments in places like MGU had a second "secret" degree in "military disinformation"? But most important, you did not check what these authors actually claimed, while just blindly reverting my edit two times because ... you are "neutral". My very best wishes (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing I can do but swear that I did not follow you, I follow a lot of pages about Lenin. I had been following that discussion for a while, and I even commented here. There was a lot of accusations and no actual linking to WP:REliable sources, so I didn't give much attention to it. This was reverted because there was no consensus on the talk page to remove it, and content shouldn't be removed just because one can't verify it, hence why I added the (request) quotation template. My opinion was neutral because I wasn't taking any side, just in case it was interpreted as such.

I have accessed the file, and I'll be posting it on the respective talk page. --BunnyyHop () 21:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: BunnyyHop is 7 months old, with ~1,100 edits and in this short period they have been able to create a great amount of disruption:

I think this individuals contributions, show they are here to push a personal and postive viewpoint of anything related to Marxist Leninism, and soften or remove negative information about Marxist Leninism. Examples on article and talk pages: Marxist-Leninism, Deportation of the Crimean Tatars, Slavery, User:Vincentvikram/Yes Marxism-Leninism, 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, Chinese Communist Party, Communist Party of the Soviet Union Portuguese Communist Party, Anarcho-communism. (See editor history for more).

They have created Walls of text in their attempts to soften or remove negative content about communism related articles. Talk:Marxism–Leninism is a BunnyyHop wall of text; this is an extreme example of DE TE. Other examples can be found by looking at their contributions, eg: Talk:Slavery#Soviet Union continued in Talk:Slavery#Forced Labour and this ANI Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1057#Marxist-Leninist soap boxing and advocacy.

They have engaged in edit waring to this end (See block log and edit history) and create timesinks using sematics and word games in discussions in order to push a postive pro-Marxist viewpoinit (See talk pags for Slavery, Soviet democracy, and Marxist-Leninism for examples).

This editor is not here to build an encyclopedia, they are here to push a positive representation of communism/Marxism. They should be topic banned from anything having to do with Marxism, communism, socialism, broadly construed.  // Timothy :: talk  21:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This discussion has already come to an end and the conclusion is very clear: No consensus. Don't try to rebuild it here. Thus, I'm not replying to anything within the scope of slavery. Just a side note: I can't help but notice that those who choose to insist I'm a menace to Misplaced Pages are those who have an extremely opposed view of communism as an ideology (you yourself stated that bolshevism is the moral equivalent of nazism).

I don't think asking for sources that link said camp to slavery to justify its inclusion in slavery is an outrageous claim? In fact, it's necessary to not violate WP:OR. --BunnyyHop () 23:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, I have never edited 1989 Tiananmen Square protests neither Communist Party of the Soviet Union. --BunnyyHop () 23:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

You have edited 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and its talk page multiple times with POV edits. You are right about Communist Party of the Soviet Union, I intended Portuguese Communist Party. Corrected above.  // Timothy :: talk  23:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

You're right, just manually checked my contributions (only about the editing part, hah.), I wonder why it's not showing up here? --BunnyyHop () 00:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

"No consensus" means, definitionally, that a conclusion was not "very clear". There is no policy against discussing things which previously failed to reach consensus (talk about self-fulfilling prophecies!)

A majority of editors supported a topic ban then, so why would it not be permissible for them to support one now (especially since much more WP:TE has taken place since then?) jp×g 22:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Quote from the previous ANI closure: A majority of editors is of the view that BunnyyHop should be topic-banned for consistently non-neutral editing, but there is not currently consensus for this view. Nonetheless, if non-neutral editing by BunnyyHop continues, editors may request a block or other sanctions at WP:AE (if in a topic area subject to WP:DS) or at WP:ANI. I don't know why the closer chose to ignore the majority and side with the minority. Typically, we go with a majority in binary decisions unless there are reasons not to.The editor is very obviously only here to push their political POV. They also apparently have a serious problem with plagiarism; see the log for Marxism-Leninism: We know this is them from the timing of this and because the main copyvio (all the sciencedirect links) was from the International Encyclopedia of Social & Behavioral Sciences, a source they favor on their user page and are constantly pushing at Talk:Marxism-Leninism (use your browser's Find tool to see all the times). This paper which was plagiarized was also their idea: Editing Misplaced Pages is not a right and competence (including in NPOV) is required. This user is a complete timesink and needs to be separated from the topic area. Crossroads 04:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I think BunnyyHop is taking the wrong lessons from the former ANI post. Instead of viewing it as a close call with a block and changing their ways, they seem to have interpreted it as license to double down on their POV editing.  // Timothy :: talk  07:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Here we go — the same group who was rallying to get me banned is doing the same thing once again, the same arguments are being used once again. And note — I only asked for sources that link labour camps to slavery to avoid WP:NOR, but this is interpreted as pushing a POV. I wonder what would happen if we did the reverse? I publicly state on my talk page my political views to avoid any confusion and to show that I have no problem with it — I'm simply here to improve Misplaced Pages — but this has caused users that have extreme opisition to it to interpret every edit I do as having some secret motive behind, every edit I do is to "soften" my political POV.

I am tired of being followed, harassed, provoked and not being assumed WP:GF. When my edits are reverted there's always a personal remark — the ones that led me to reply sourly are really blatant. It's not hard to see my edits were being followed, so that when I reached consensus and edited the page they would be promptly reverted.

This has a clear goal, however. Those who defended me in the previous ANI will get tired and those who follow me will get what they want, because I too am getting tired of this. Edits being reverted and not being discussed, lack of WP:CIR when they are discussed. See how many times POV push was used in Marxism-Leninism and by whom. Also, the "text wall" (you act like I was the only one engaged in that discussion and that I was alone in defending my arguments) led to a RfC and probably major article restructuring.

Diffs on how my "POV pushing continued" are non existent however. And yes, paragraphs were added into the article that violated copyright, and although I was not the sole editor involved in them I assume full responsibility for it.

I would really appreciate some feedback by an unbiased reviewer willing to go through the talk pages of this thread (minus Marxism-Leninism due to its sheer size and uselessness — it's a dispute based on what's the scope of the article) and edit summaries. Realising that this witch-hunt will continue until I get banned probably just killed of any joy I had editing this wiki. Harassment wins, I guess. Won't reply soon, unless obliged to. TimothyBlue, I don't even know which content dispute you're referring to, but whatever. BunnyyHop () 07:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for BunnyyHop. Edit wars on multiple pages (here is the most recent example: , ,,,,), WP:NOT HERE and WP:CIR (BunnyyHop does not really know these subjects and does not even care to look for any references which do not support their views). What they do on article talk pages is not really discussion of improvements, but trolling. My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Chinese_Communist_Party#Ideologies BunnyyHop () 18:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, talking would be fine, but you continue edit warring on the same page during the standing ANI request about you. This is telling. My very best wishes (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban BunnyyHop hasn't stopped making POV pushing edits since last time, as well as him now, doubling down at pushing his POV even harder. Des Vallee (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Newest example of what I said above: diff. Completely provocative edit summary:

Just because you feel you know Misplaced Pages's guidelines doesn't mean you do, trying to override consensus by saying "I am right and this a break in policy therefor I can ignore consensus" without understanding guidelines or consensus one bit isn't going to work

bold and italic added by me

Well, what did I do this time? A simple ] edit, with a little note to the previous edit diff, where I affirmed:

+ ]; furthermore, local consensus shouldn't overwrite Misplaced Pages's guidelines, local consensus shouldn't violate WP:NOR nor WP:V

Most likely didn't even check first what I edited! Why else would I be accused of "trying to override consensus"? It should be noted that the edit was reverted by the same editor a minute later. diff.

--BunnyyHop () 06:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by BunnyyHop: I decided to make a proper comment after taking a break from this. This ANI report came only five days after the closure of the previous one. The three diffs provided by Des Vallee when opening this report include one Talk page comment I made on 2 February, and two edits I made on 26 October and 26 December of last year, before the previous ANI report was even started. Then Des Vallee posted an additional three diffs: Two edits I made on 24 December of last year and one warning I received on 1 December. In other words, the only activity I've had since the previous ANI report that is being reported by Des Vallee now is one Talk page comment in which I accused them of being on an "anti-communist crusade." I was wrong to say that, and I'm sorry for it (I should've maintained a positive state of mind), but I do not see how it amounts to "continued POV pushing".

After that, other editors have essentially repeated the exact same accusations made in the previous ANI report, based largely on my previous edit history from before the last report. I wish to emphasize again that it has been less than a week since the closure of that report. In that time, I have only made 24 article mainspace edits, and 12 of them have been small edits of 50 characters or less. It is true that I am involved in several long-running content disputes, and I have continued to engage with those disputes since the last ANI report. Note that I've had 47 Talk space edits as compared to the 24 in mainspace since the ANI report. I am mostly just trying to resolve the disputes that I was already involved in.

These other editors continuously accuse me of "POV pushing" for what I consider to be simple engagement in content disputes. All I want is to resolve the several content disputes that I have already been involved in for some time, and then move on. But it seems that my very act of engaging in those disputes is considered "POV pushing".

I have discussed every edit (in fact, one of the accusations against me is that I discuss too much). I would like to ask my accusers what, in their opinion, it would be necessary for me to do in order to engage in our content disputes without it being POV pushing. It seems to me that their only request is that I simply stop disputing the content they prefer, with nothing else being considered good enough. I think that is self-evidently unreasonable.

I would also ask everyone reading this to consider the dates on the diffs used to accuse me. I can't go back into the past and undo edits I made in October or December. But for the future, as I said, I wish only to resolve the content disputes I am already involved in and then move on. --BunnyyHop () 17:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

BunnyyHop Stop posting walls of text. This isn't only a month ago you tried to add "The independence of Soviet comrades from clandestine monetary systems", you edit warred on Chinese Communist Party a week ago with three separate editors, you have also doubled down on your POV pushing. You edite based off your POV, you add "accuse" to proven facts, add "quote needed" to text you dislike when there is an inline citation, whitewash text like trying to add "The liquidation of the hostile classes, and the rise of the proletariat". Stop trying to redefine the definition of consensus to "I am going to wear out this conversation with walls of text until you don't respond", stop bringing up peoples positions in conversations, stop trying to poison the wells of discussion, don't tag edits as minor that remove entire paragraphs, stop using POV words like "imperialist" "exploiter" "comrade". Stop soapboxing positions by using quotes to state fringe theories on Stalin. You have constantly been a huge disruption to Misplaced Pages it's clear your just here to try to spread your agenda. Des Vallee (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

BunnyyHop This was the edit but it was already reverted. Des Vallee (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I have been trying my best to work with Bunnyyhop, today at . They are still changing text to fit their POV without consensus and contrary to what sources state. This is going on in almost every article they edit.  // Timothy :: talk  02:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Topic Ban for articles related to Communism/Marxism/Socialism, in both theory and practice, broadly construed.

I waited to !vote, I hoped BH would stop, but their POV pushing, source twisting, word games, walls of text, etc, are only getting worse and its getting worse on almost every article they edit.  // Timothy :: talk  02:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not POV pushing. If we aren't discussing this in WP:GF no amount of discussion will solve this. I could do the same thing and ask why are you so reluctant to change it from slave camps to forced labour camps, holding to an interpretation of the text which is different from the one seen in Gulag and in every other academic source. I'll explain it (link):

On the start of her text, she states «The Gulag was the vast network of labor camps which was once scattered across the length and breadth of the Soviet Union, from the islands of the White Sea to the shores of the Black Sea, from the Arctic circle to the plains of Central Asia, from Murmansk to Vorkuta to Kazakhstan, from central Moscow to the Leningrad suburbs»

In the same paragraph, she states «But over time, the word has also come to signify the system of Soviet slave labor itself, in all its forms and varieties: labor camps, punishment camps, criminal and political camps, women’s camps, children’s camps, transit camps»

In the same paragraph, but later, she says «Even more broadly, “Gulag” has come to mean the Soviet repressive system itself»

The text under dispute is «Between 1930 and 1960, the Soviet Union created a system of forced slave labor camps called the Gulag»

Applebaum uses «Gulag» with three meanings: to refer to the camps themselves; to refer to the system of repression; to refer to what she calls "the system of Soviet slave labor itself, in all its forms and varieties". Between 1930 and 1960, they created a system of forced labor camps, like we can see in Gulag's lead. And this is something so minor - these three meaning's Anne Applebaum gave to the word Gulag are fully quoted just below, as well as Golfo Alexopoulos' - an author which I recommended to add. Even Alexopoulos refers to it as a system of forced labour camps. TimothyBlue, maybe if you didn't have such an intransigent attitude towards me I could've gotten your point sooner. As I come to grasp your side of the argument - she doesn't refer to it with three different meanings, but rather one unified bloc. As a matter of fact, I kind of agree with you now.--BunnyyHop () 03:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban at this point. All the new examples cited in this report are just examples of standard content dispute. TimothyBlue cites them changing "slave" to "forced" labor in Gulag, but the changed wording is probably more WP:IMPARTIAL in my opinion. I do admit it would be preferable if BH was more brief in making their points. (t · c) buidhe 09:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, per the WP:NOTHERE behavior detailed in the last AN/I thread, which seems to have continued as well as expanded in scope considerably. This editor should find another area to contribute positively in. jp×g 22:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry to question, but how so? I hardly edited an article's mainspace in the last few days. I can't see how it has expanded in scope considerably, especially because I'm only concluding the disputes I previously had. As buidhe wrote, «forced slave labour» is probably more imparcial wording, and I don't consider Anne Applebaum using it is enough to label it as such in Wikivoice, especially since most scholars simply refer to it as forced labour camps. After looking at scholarly analysis on this to justify the inclusion of the Gulag in Slavery, I suggested the addition of Alexopoulos' comparison between labor in gulag and "other forms of slave labor", which was added by TimothyBlue. All I'm seeking to do is to improve the neutrality in a contentious topic. I concur with buidhe's suggestion. My arguments should also become clearer if I present them in a concise way. diff for my lastest comment related to this - I presented things briefly --BunnyyHop

• Comment: BH's POV WP:BLUDGEON continues at Talk:Slavery#Forced Labour, ignoring responses, repeating the same arguments, this entire thread is a timesink.  // Timothy :: talk  12:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Uhm, no, the conversation has moved on from the Applebaum interpretation. I'm stating that those academics that criticized her/their approach should be included, something I'm afraid to do myself because it might be interpreted as "pushing a POV". I have to be careful about including anything that goes against your POV, since you have not made a single compromise, other than when I suggested the inclusion of Alexopoulos, a scholar that made a comparison between "labour in the gulag" and "other forms of slave labour". My reply explicited those who criticized their approach as well as how this affects the usage of "forced slave labour camps" in wikivoice, which returns a total of 1 result in Google Scholar, but these points were not addressed by your comment, which contains the word "You" 10 times. --BunnyyHop () 22:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: BunnyyHop continues to fight at least four editors, across multiple talk page discussions at Slavery to get their POV perferred wording. WP:IDHT, WP:LISTEN, WP:BLUDGEON, WP:BATTLEGROUND. Latest Talk:Slavery#Forced Labour, pervious discussion Talk:Slavery#Soviet Union (see OP for others). The WP:BLUDGEON BH has displayed in this thread is a minor example of what they do in articles.  // Timothy :: talk  01:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It should either have proper attribution or not be there at all. You claim that slave camp and forced labour camp can be used interchangeably because they're not mutually exclusive, so it's a simple matter of "POV perferred wording", when it's not. Aside from the clear usage of labor colonies, corrective labor colonies, etc., but mostly forced labor camps by most scholars (simply compare Google Academics search: "slave camps" "gulag" - 127 results , "forced labour camps" "gulag" - 643 results, "forced labor camps" "gulag", 1320 results). This relies on most importantly on Applebaum's book, a right-leaning journalist/historian (personal bias is important in WP:DUE), whose introduction (this is taken from there) has been criticized by a scholar. When I brought this up you started avoiding content and overusing shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument, as you just did, and replying based on "You", "Your", "You're", as well as using this report to intimidate me, instead of discussing content. --BunnyyHop () 02:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban for BunnyyHop. IMHO, a topic ban for Des Vallee and Timothy would be more fitting. After reviewing the talk pages, I see that BunnyyHop is making constructive talk page contributions along the lines of policies like WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP, as I think he also demonstrates here. I see no serious issue with an editor who's doing that, regardless of what the editor's content opponents might impute as the editor's "POV." In this light, I see DesVallee's and Timothy's contributions as less constructive, since their behavior looks like a textbook case of several editors WP:STONEWALLING against one. Here we go again: same editors aggressively blockshopping, less than a week after the previous report was closed. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

This user has tried to put in text stating "Following Russia's independence by the success of Bolshevik comrades from exploitative monetary systems", tags edits as minor that removes whole sections, warned numerous times on wiki-layering, and blocked for edit warring, constantly brings up personal info. This user's actions are un-defandable. Des Vallee (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't that edit prior to your first report to ANI against BunnyyHop, over a week ago? You already put that into your last report. I thought that was not a good edit, which was why I abstained from supporting BunnyyHop at that ANI report. You know that Bunnyyhop is fairly new. He already admitted that he had made some poor edits and would act more constructively moving forward as far as wording, reverting, and tagging edits as minor. And he is doing that now: he is NOT tagging major edits as minor, adding text about the "success of Bolshevik comrades," or bringing up any "personal info," contrary to your claim. Saying that you were on an anti-communist crusade after the last ANI incident was not helpful (generally, it is more helpful to assume good faith of another editor, even if NOT warranted), but I see nothing substantive since the last report that would genuinely add up to a topic ban now. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Couple things, indeed however it's that inexcusable, BunnyyHop was warned about this POV sections, however even so he keeped it up. This is a place to state completely bad faith editing something BunnyyHop is. Nowhere did I state I was on an "Anti-communist crusade" that is simply made up, I am leftist. This isn't new, this text is from less then a month ago, when he had over 1,400 edits and felt confident enough to constantly espouse Misplaced Pages policies. He was warned for this at which point he dug his heels in and defended his actions, consistently stating it was a NPOV. Also there is no defense for tagging edits as minor that removes entire sections, let's take the route and say BunnyyHop was acting in good faith and removed a whole paragraphs because he thought it was minor, what is BunnyyHop's rationale? How can someone think such an edit is minor, moreover how can someone not understanding removing an entire paragraph is not minor. Moreover how could they not understand the concept of a "minor edit" when they read previously the information on WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE as seen here, and beforehand here and here. The thought BunnyyHop read up on NPOV and other policies but not "what is a minor edit" has no rationale defense. Des Vallee (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Des Vallee, I clearly did not accuse of you of being on an anti-communist crusade. That's something you brought up in your preface to this second ANI report against Bunnyyhop. His response acknowledges that remark: "the only activity I've had since the previous ANI report that is being reported by Des Vallee now is one Talk page comment in which I accused them of being on an 'anti-communist crusade.' I was wrong to say that, and I'm sorry for it (I should've maintained a positive state of mind), but I do not see how it amounts to 'continued POV pushing'. I agree that it was an unhelpful comment on his part; but it's far from an infraction that should merit a topic ban when he has otherwise been totally constructive since the last ANI report. Your other examples may be from "less than a month ago" or more than a month ago; either way, they are from prior to the previous ANI report closed less than two weeks ago, so they were are already looked at. You are relitigating the same set of issues, without demonstrating a case of continuing disruption. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Zloyvolsheb, I can vouch for Bunnyyhop having been disruptive since the last ANI thread was closed. You are right in that Des Vallee does appear to have a feud with Bunnyyhop but that doesn’t excuse Bunnyyhop’s continued tendentious editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh no, BH continued edit warring even during this ANI discussion , on the same page where they did it before: , ,,,. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Why do you characterize this as "edit warring"? The diffs you provide are different reverts made by the same editor to the same article, but they are different reverts of different edits, made on different dates. (Your diffs show two reverts from February, and then some from the month prior.) Looks like there's a content dispute, with about 7-8 editors roughly evenly split among two sides at the talk page. I'm also puzzled that you would choose this among the diffs above - actually looks like a great edit. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Evidence of a feud between the editors filing and pushing the first and second ANI against BH may be seen in this MFD. I have to say that I am thankful to all the editors who participated in that discussion and helped the essay gain better perspective but it has to be noted that the opposing editors used their feud with BH to position their arguments, as I have not stated my position on any of the topics they have used. This is a simple piece of data to show an ongoing feud among certain editors on this thread, for whatever reason, which needs to be resolved. Vikram Vincent 07:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support any sanction the majority support, and sorry to see again this mess, did not even read it through, but unlike last time what made me to take clearly sides is this edit today (), (), just noticed...I think this the point when it's enough (and please, noone should explain me that blue is in fact red, or yellow is dark purple, I won't engage in this thread anymore, shall anything happen).(KIENGIR (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC))

• If you look at what actually happened in that diff, BunnyyHop removed a statement citing "Aubrey" and "Moghadam" with the explanation that the added text was "unsourced." BUT there are no works authored by "Aubrey" or "Moghadam" actually in the references section, so he was correct. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Easy fix. We don't delete sourced content because of an easily fixed problem.  // Timothy :: talk  18:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: KIENGIR's example above is illustrative. I was easily able to fix the problem. BH removed a Summary style section of content with links to sourced articles related to topic with two references as "unsourced" even though it was easy to fix the oversight (sources are in the target articles, no reason to leave them out it was an oversight). They didn't want to see the information improved, they wanted the informaton deleted.

Almost everywhere this editor goes, they display this same pattern of POV pushing by removing negative information related to communism or softening language to change meaning. Everyone has moments, but this is a consistent pattern of disruption. They do not want to improve the encyclopedia, or fix problems, they want to delete information they which does not fit their POV.  // Timothy :: talk  18:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

They just removed the sourced cotnent again ignoring the fix with a new objection. POV pushing. First Excuse to remove content, Second excuse to remove content.  // Timothy :: talk  18:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Timothy, to be frank here, I don't think that's a "fix" and I don't think you have even read the sources you found. (Or you may have misread them.) Here you identified "Aubrey 44-45" as the book The New Dimensions of International Terrorism and used this source to reinclude a comment about mass killings by communists, but pages 44-45 of the source you found has nothing to do with it. It actually talks about "state-sponsored terrorism" as a "foreign policy instrument" and mentions a few left-wing Western groups , whcih is quite different from describing actual mass killings by communist regimes. You also reinserted "Moghadam" without even providing the name of the work. This is why I think YOU are editing tendentiously. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Removed content with explanation "sources not listed". Sources were added, but thats not a fix... Now the excuse for removing the content changed - the goal is to remove the content to fit a POV, the excuse will keep changing until editors tire and drop out. This is another pattern in BH editing - exhaust those that disagree.  // Timothy :: talk  20:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Stix1776

• Stix1776 (talk · contribs)
• Holodomor in modern politics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've been working on cleaning up and improving the referencing for Holodomor in modern politics since yesterday after Stix1776 attempted to remove material from the article . Since then I have been working at it, have asked this editor repeatedly to stop while I add references, but to no effect. They continue to remove stable sourced content , , , , , ,

Now an IP editor is suspiciously doing the same:

I have reverted changes this editor has made more than 3 times to add references. Let me know if I should cease, but then I cannot continue to add references to content that has been removed. Again I have left messages on the talk page, this users page, edit summaries, page tags, etc to let them clearly know I am working on references.

It is going to take time to look up resolutions in dozens of languages. These mass repeated deletions of sourced content is disruptive, and make it impossible to improve the article. The article needs work and this editor is impeding it.  // Timothy :: talk  06:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

My browswer, without my knowledge, logged me out of Misplaced Pages. I apologize about the IP edit. It wasn't intentional.

TimothyBlue is claiming that it's old material, but it's content that he added not 2 days ago (edits on 18:08-18:12 on 31 January).

The content he's adding is poorly sourced (original research) and the admin on the page agrees with my assessment on the talk page.

Expecting to hold a Misplaced Pages page for several days while an editor looks for sources is unreasonable, especially for an issue on a contested topic. Stix1776 (talk) 06:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Stix1776 concerns seem reasonable to me. Misplaced Pages articles should be precise about exactly who is recognizing what. I would suggest separating out declarations of genocide from declarations that do not use the word "genocide". Furthermore, we shouldn't leave up unverified content indefinitely while editors work on finding sources. It can always be restored later if sources are found. The in construction tag should not be misused to shut out other editors. (t · c) buidhe 06:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• The under construction tag is not being misused. I agree the article needs improvement, but the content is sourced already. I can't improve the article if Stix1776 keeps removing content.  // Timothy :: talk  07:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Clearly it's already sourced and that Stix1776 isn't here to build an encyclopedia. Removing mass content isn't allowed, specifically when hyperlinks in other articles can be used as a source, if the article being hyperlinked is well sourced, which it is. Des Vallee (talk) 07:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  I just checked one diff Stix's edit summary is correct, I checked the source and the resolution does not mention "crime(s) against humanity". It is therefore false, or at best WP:OR to say that this resolution recognizes the Holodomor as a crime against humanity. I see you've repeatedly restored this incorrect content so I would recommend being more careful about citing sources correctly. (t · c) buidhe 09:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'd recommend you read the article and references more carefully. The note is a list of resolutions and the resolutions are listed below with references. Its sourced and it is accurate.  // Timothy :: talk  10:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Also I've been working on this for 2 days, the content has been there for years, it can wait a bit as editors work on it.  // Timothy :: talk  08:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• I guess everyone can see how tedious it is working when TimothyBlue. The UN has never "passed" any of the resolutions you are citing. A little humility and consideration with editing is appreciated, so everything doesn't have to be resolved by administrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stix1776 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• The references are there. You're just ignoring them. I've been very patient with your reverts.  // Timothy :: talk  14:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• I swear I've read through your references. Joint statements and declarations signed by 30 something countries do not count as "passed" by the UN. This is tedious. I genuinely feel bad for admins that need to go through your edits.Stix1776 (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I am still working on the article, but Stix1776 DE POV editing is only getting worse and making it difficult. I believe this is intentional to wear down editors trying to improve the article. See Talk:Holodomor in modern politics, , and my talk User talk:TimothyBlue/Archive 2#Sorry, I unintentionally made an IP edit again for the latest exmamples.

Mzajac posted helpful comments and I used their feedback, I hope some other experienced editors can join the discussion. I think it is clear this editor simply wants to delete the content they do not like, not improve the article. If there is a consensus my efforts to work on the article are not constructive (no one is perfect), I will step back and hopefully others will save the content from Stix1776.  // Timothy :: talk  16:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the reverts made by User:Timothy Blue speak for themselves. Especially those when he was reverting edits removing unsourced ideas and original research. Guy, use the talk page if editors disagree with your content. Reverting edits while ignoring the problems listed is just edit warring. I apologize to the admin for having to deal with this. Stix1776 (talk) 11:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

My work on the page does speak for itself and so does Stix1776 deletes. And you provide no diffs.

As I stated earlier, if a consensus of editors believes I should step back and allow you to delete the content, I will. // Timothy :: talk  12:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

More removal of sourced content by Stix1776

Stix1776 is continuing to remove sourced content to fit their POV:

• Removal of sourced information: with misleading edit summary.

Added content directly refuted by sources in article: with misleading edit summary.

On the talk page they are arguing to remove nations such as Albania from the list of nations which "recognized the Holodomor". The content is sourced to votes in both the United Nations and the European Parliament. But they are still claiming Albania has not recognized the Holodomor. See . (Albania is the first of a list of nations from Europe that the editor is trying to remove).

I continue to work with Mzajac on the article but this needs to be addressed. This is a serious POV pushing problem and is disrupting editors that are working to improve the article. Actually it is more serious than a POV editing, it is removing clearly sourced content.  // Timothy :: talk  04:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, Stix is right on the content issue. Albania does not recognize the Holodomor unless its national government, either the legislature or the executive, does so. No reliable source says that the UK has recognized the Armenian Genocide even though some of its representatives have voted in favor at the European Parliament and Council of Europe. Please cite secondary sources to avoid OR and do not label their editing as disruptive without addressing the underlying issues. (t · c) buidhe 07:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you t. In regards to ], the two sources that Timothy cite don't say that 'The United States government recognized the Holodomor as a "famine-genocide"'. As for the first edit, ], the source literally states 'The U.S. government has not recognized the Ukrainian famine as a "genocide,"'. I feel bad for the admin having to deal with this. So much of your edits have huge POV issues or source issues. The two edits above (that you reverted) are examples of this. Also you kept reverting this even though it was obvious plagarism ]. Or this ] when no source said that "The United Nations has passed multiple resolutions commemerating the Holodomor as a man made famine".

I'm kind of a n00b with Misplaced Pages. I did want to do more stuff about Computer Science and Education (my degrees). I'm sorry to pull the admin into this editing war. Should I create a edit war report on the admin noticeboard? Thanks. Stix1776 (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the article and the post above will again show Stix1776 is playing POV games to delete content. One example from above is their comment regarding Radio Free Europe . This source does incorrectly state the Holodormor has not been recognized as genocide, and the fact of the recognition is referenced to the public law at Congress.gov, where the it is labeled a famine-genocide in a public law. Congress.gov > Radio Free Europe as a source.  // Timothy :: talk  08:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Timothy, cite a source so we know what you're talking about. Stix1776 (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

In the article and in the diff.  // Timothy :: talk  08:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Timothy, thanks for being helpful. This is the source from congress.gov ]. Here's the source from Radio Free Europe ]. Per radio free Europe: "In the U.S. Congress, simple resolutions are nonbinding, passed by only one chamber of Congress, and don't become law. Typically, they are used by lawmakers to usually back a pet project or endeavor, or a potentially political controversial issue without forcing a more public vote." A resolution is not an official policy of the US government, and your source doesn't say otherwise.Stix1776 (talk) 08:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

You are again distorting to push your POV. The public law on Congress.gov is not a simple or non-binding resolution and RFE does not call it such.  // Timothy :: talk  09:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Per the text at]

The Senate "recognizes the findings of the Commission on the Ukraine Famine as submitted to Congress on April 22, 1988, including that...'Stalin and those around him committed genocide against the Ukrainians in 1932–1933,'" it said.

Millions of people died in the famine, which many Ukrainians consider to have been caused by Soviet central planners as an act of genocide, aimed at wiping out Ukrainian farmers.

In the U.S. Congress, simple resolutions are nonbinding, passed by only one chamber of Congress, and don't become law. Typically, they are used by lawmakers to usually back a pet project or endeavor, or a potentially political controversial issue without forcing a more public vote.

Timothy, you are more than welcome to that opinion, but you need to SOURCE your opinion for Misplaced Pages. Stix1776 (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It's plain you are trying to mix up the source about the Senate resolution and the source about the public law.  // Timothy :: talk  09:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

False accusations of plagiarism

Stix1776 has made unfounded accusations of plagiarism against me , . There comments also contain other serious accusations.

The content has been in the article for a while.

Instead of fixing the minor amount of plagiarism and saving the sourced content, they deleted it

I restored it because it was sourced content , and was easily able to remove the plagiarism and save the content.

This false accusation of plagiarism against an experienced editor cannot be left unaddressed, especially combined with their other accusations and POV pushing. The accusations should also be redacted.  // Timothy :: talk  09:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Your revert]:

The United States Government received numerous contemporary intelligence reports on the famine from its European embassies, but chose not to acknowledge the famine publicly. Similarly, leading members of the American press corps in the Soviet Union willfully covered up the famine in their dispatches. In both cases, political considerations relating to the establishment of diplomatic relations with the U.S.S.R. seem to have been critical factors in this cover-up.

• The text from this website ]:

The United States Government received numerous contemporary intelligence reports on the famine from its European embassies, but chose not to acknowledge the famine publicly. Similarly, leading members of the American press corps in the Soviet Union willfully covered up the famine in their dispatches. In both cases, political considerations relating to the establishment of diplomatic relations with the U.S.S.R. seem to have been critical factors in this cover-up.

OMG, just fix your plagiarism instead of reverting it (now solved).Stix1776 (talk) 09:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

You are making false accusations.  // Timothy :: talk  09:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I am afraid that, as presented, this is verbatim copying from a non-free source. I can, in principle, be presented as a quote, but we can not really keep this without further explanations.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The easiest would be probably not to edit the article directly, but to make something like Holodomor in modern politics/temp, discuss it at the talk page of the article, amend according to suggestions, and then move to the main namespace (merging the edit history).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, the text was not mine, I performed the revert to restore the uninfringing text and sources and then immediately copy edited it to remove the copyvio. I was fixing the copyright issue.  // Timothy :: talk  11:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Good, thanks. I will revision-delete it later. Well, then we are again back to a (unfortunately, too) commons pattern of a newish user with 100+ edits appearing out of nowhere to make false accusations. Not really good and very tiring.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Mzajac and I are working on improving and expanding the article and your words very tiring fit. You can see from this editors response to your DS notice, they don't have an interest in this area, they are just deleting content they do not like and making life exhausting for others.  // Timothy :: talk  11:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I kept repeating this as reverting back the plagiarism, not "your plagiarism". It wasn't my intention to accuse you of plagiarism, but of edit warring by reverting back without fixing. I did unintentionally say "your text" above, which is now edited to "your revert". Can we please be nicer to other editors?Stix1776 (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

You're lying, "is making unsourced edits, original research, plagiarizing, and edit warring". You've been playing word games on the article, and you doing it here.  // Timothy :: talk  12:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for not being specific enough. I should have said "repeatedly reverting planarized text". If you look down in the edit, it says "Also you kept reverting this even though it was obvious plagarism" which to me makes the meaning obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stix1776 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Also untrue. I reverted it once, not repeatedly, and for the permissable purpose of salvaging non-infringing text and references and immediately copy editing the passage to remove the small amount of text which was the problem. As soon as the problem was noted, I fixed it. I didn't report it for reaction immediately, because there could be other cases and in that event a collective report would be easier and faster for admins to redact from.  // Timothy :: talk  12:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• It appears that the copyrighted text was there before Timothy showed up, and that is now fixed. I am generally quite unimpressed by Stix' handling of this, such as adding an edit summary of "lol" while posting here on ANI and trying to retaliate against Timothy in the thread above, plus being generally combative. Now, I might be biased because I have mentored Timothy for a good while, but when Timothy says something about a source I would generally trust it. Timothy's work on sourcing is very impressive (see his many bibliographies User:TimothyBlue#New_Articles_Created). I think Stix needs to cool it, and engage in our traditional dispute resolution processes, such as WP:DRN, or holding an WP:RFC on the issue. If you need help crafting a good, neutral RfC, let me know. Stix: if your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior continues, I suspect it will not end well for you. CaptainEek ⚓ 16:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Devlet Geray

Devlet Geray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is making a range of WP:TENDENTIOUS by attempting to Turkify several articles. At Template:Turkic topics he has added loads of non-Turkic entities, most notably First Bulgarian Empire, Old Great Bulgaria, which he claims to be "Turkic" (were not they Turkic? think twice). He has refused to take his concerns to the talk page and instead has resorted to edit warring.

He has already been reported here before , and by the looks of it, this conduct of his already got him banned in the Russian Misplaced Pages.

More WP:TENDENTIOUS here;

Not to mention he isn't shy of casting WP:ASPERSIONS/making personal attacks;

Hello. Please refrain from ethnic vandalism and historical revisionism on English Misplaced Pages.

tendentious pro-Iran nationalist vandalism

simple vandalism

Your revisionism is amazing

(f***, are you so sick that you still keep track of my contributions? i know that this page is not in your watchlist

--HistoryofIran (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• The topic-starter tries to violate neutrality based, as I understand it, on his pro-Iranian position. For instance, here he removed a huge text with sources only because he didn't like it. Here a removal of a large text based on his attempts of historical revisionism. He claims that First Bulgarian Empire, Old Great Bulgaria weren't Turkic (apparently Iranian). Let's see. Here is the information from the First Bulgarian Empire article The First Bulgarian Empire (Old Bulgarian: ц︢рьство бл︢гарское, ts'rstvo bl'garskoe) was a medieval Bulgar-Slavic and later Bulgarian state that existed in Southeastern Europe. Let's see the article Bulgars: The Bulgars (also Bulghars, Bulgari, Bolgars, Bolghars, Bolgari, Proto-Bulgarians) were Turkic semi-nomadic warrior tribes that flourished in the Pontic–Caspian steppe and the Volga region during the 7th century. Now let's see Old Great Bulgaria article: Old Great Bulgaria or Great Bulgaria (Medieval Greek: Παλαιά Μεγάλη Βουλγαρία, Palaiá Megálē Voulgaría), also often known by the Latin names Magna Bulgaria and Patria Onoguria ("Onogur land"), was a 7th-century Nomadic empire formed by the Onogur Bulgars on the western Pontic–Caspian steppe and It is generally believed to derive from the Turkic verb bulğha (to "stir", "mix", "disturb", "confuse"), possibly suggesting that other Turkic peoples regarded the Bulgars as a "mixed" people or as "rebellious". Devlet Geray (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

When did I claim that they were Iranian? Please show revisions for this. I am not "pro-Iranian" either. And no, I did not remove anything "because I didn't like it" or because of "historical revionism" - I literally stated why. More WP:ASPERSIONS/personal attacks and whatnot. I guess you forgot to add the part from the article where it literally says that the Bulgars were eventually Slavicized? Claiming that the two Bulgarian dynasties were Turkic would be like claiming modern-day Bulgarians are as well, this is WP:TENDENTIOUS. Pinging admin @Ymblanter: (I assume this isn't canvassing?) as he seems to be more knowledgeable of your past actions. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• I repeat it again: think twice. 1. I didn't add/mention/write about modern Slavic Bulgarians, I wrote about historical Turkic Bulgars. 2. I didn't write that you claimed that they were Iranian, I wrote "apparently Iranian". Devlet Geray (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This is useless, I'll let the admins deal with you, I'm out. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Concerning First Bulgarian empire, it could have been moved to Turco-Slavic (or Slavo-Turkic) states section (it could have been created, as already done with Turco-Mongol states or Turko-Persian states. It's clear that I'm not against it. The previous section doesn't mention that the state was completely Tukic either, it's just the state that is related to Turkic history, that's all), but this does not seem to be the appropriate reason for reverting everything. As for your pro-Iranian position, you mentioned it on your page "this user is proud to be Iranian" and I especially say "as I understand it", but I may have been mistaken (you on the contrary say that I attempt to "Turkify several articles", which is not true at all) Devlet Geray (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Just taking a random example above , the user does not see a difference between his personal position and encyclopedic material. I propose a topic ban from everything related to Eastern Europe and Turkey, broadly construed. For EE, it could be arbitration enforcement. I remember I had to take the user to this noticeboard in the past.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Taking into account Ymblanter's cross-wikipedia persecution and attacking me , this "I remember I had to take the user to this noticeboard in the past" sounds at least inappropriate Devlet Geray (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

For those who can not read Russian, the above "persecution and attacking" was in fact removal of copyrighted material (a text of a poem). When Devlet Geray restored it claiming it is fair use, I removed it again and said that the fair use policy must be adopted forst on that wiki.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe this was the previous instance Devlet Geray was featured here, though I could have missed something.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• the fact that you was looking through my contributions to Crimean Tatar wiki shows that it was a clear persecution. Your taking part in the previous discussion on the noticeboard and your mentioning about my contributions to RuWiki, which is unrelated to this Wiki, proves it Devlet Geray (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• I joined the Crimean-Tatar wiki when it was still in Incubator (I was in fact one of the people who helped to get it out of the Incubator) and have been editing it every day ever since. I check all edits on that project, but, indeed, before your edit I have never detected any copyright violations, not mentioning that I had to edit-war to remove copyright violations.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Just saw that topic-starter was involved in the conflict on the same topic (Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tarik289) just two days before, which seems to me like he creates conflict situations, preventing the editing of articles in a direction - towards a neutral presentation - that does not coincide with his views. As for Ymblanter and Каракорум who previously mentioned me on this noticeboard, they are both from Russian Misplaced Pages and both harrass me cross-wiki Devlet Geray (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not from the Russian Misplaced Pages. The last user who had pleasure to call me a "Russian admin" and would not stop against my objections, was recently site-banned by the community.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

And, well, to claim I am not an active English Misplaced Pages user is ridiculous.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• No, I didn't say anything about your activity on English Misplaced Pages and I didn't call you a Russian admin. Devlet Geray (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment When I recently added a WP:RS source by the Encyclopedia Iranica to the further reading section of the Crimean Tatars article, user:Devlet Geray reverted my edit and called it "propaganda". Looking at the compelling evidence, there are definitely WP:CIR issues in relation to user:Devlet Geray's editorial conduct. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• He was right to remove the link to Encyclopedia Iranica in the article. Encyclopedia Iranica is an encyclopedia with a focus on Iran (and may be a RS for Iranian history), but it's coverage of topics outside it's purview is subpar, to put it mildly. The specific article linked to in question was absolute monstrosity of misinformation, steryotypes, misconseptions, distortions, and generalizations, - all contradictory to the text of the Misplaced Pages article itself - and ergo should not have been linked to. Removing it was the appropriate action.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, Encyclopedia Iranica is known for forgeries and inaccurate presentation of information. It's not me who says it Devlet Geray (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• I know you didn't even bother to read the article that PDF was referencing, so here it is . At no point does it state any accusations of forgeries or inaccurate presentation of info. All it states is that Yarshater being Baha'i and its description of pre-Islamic Iran means it's opposed by elements of the Iranian government. Your false presentation of news is yet another example of disruptive editing. --Qahramani44 (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• refrain from your agressive style of talking with people who are not Iranian --Devlet Geray (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Based on the evidence and the discussion above, I propose a 6-month topic ban on all topics related to the Iranian/Turkic world for Devlet Geray. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it is way too mild. It should be an indefinite topic ban or even a long-term block. The issues have been ongoing for several years.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I was willing to hand out a final straw of WP:GF, but, looking at his final response in relation to my comment above, I believe this won't change anytime soon. User:Devlet Geray is indeed not here to build this encyclopedia, and thus, I will support a block as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Disagree with this. LouisAragon was involved in conflict with me (knowing that Iranica was accused of being propaganda, I deleted it - but when it was returned I didn't revert it again), Ymblanter keeps track of my contributions cross-wiki and is clearly prejudiced against me, Каракорум (the user who created the first notice on this page) harrasses me cross-wiki, these are Ukrainian Misplaced Pages, English Misplaced Pages, Russian Misplaced Pages, Wikimedia Commons, Wikidata. I've never broken the rules of English Misplaced Pages and always acted with sources (see my reverted edit). Devlet Geray (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The statements "I've never broken the rules of English Misplaced Pages" and "Ymblanter keeps track of my contributions cross-wiki" are demonstratably false.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• I have already shown an example here, the same situation is here - , but Ymblanter didn't delete it (though he says that he checks "all edits", so this claim seems to be false, not mine). Devlet Geray (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• After the indefinite blocking on the Russian Misplaced Pages, it was Devlet Geray who began to harass me in Commons and on the English Misplaced Pages, canceling my edits without explanation, like this . He began corny to take revenge on me for the fact that I dared to resist his pushing on the Russian Misplaced Pages. Therefore, Devlet Geray is lying again. Каракорум (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ok, I see that Devlet Geray is obviously not interested in addressing his own behavior and tries to excuse his year-long disruptive editing that other users "keep track" of his contributions. Could an admin please just block him, preferrably indef. Last ANI thread was closed because the general sentiment was that someone is importing conflicts here from other wiki; in this thread it is clear that Devlet Geray is disruptive on the English Misplaced Pages, and in addition he tries to import real or imaginary conflicts from elsewhere. Thos thread should not go forever, there is enough proof given here that he is not capable of editing Misplaced Pages in an appropriate manner.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• What "my own behavior"? Adding information with many authoritative sources and then just got it reverted with one click? Yes, I reacted slightly emotionally on this mass-deletion of what I added, I shouldn't have done it and I'm sorry for that. All other conflicts were solved long ago. I edit conflicting topics, it is obvious that it may cause far more conflicts than if I were editing articles about nature, this should also be taken into account Devlet Geray (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Support a block: Looking over this users contributions it's clear they're not interested in reliable sources. They're not interested in amicable discussions. They're not interested in a neutral representation or the widely accepted interpretations. They are just pushing their view, and anyone who disagrees with them is clearly wrong. They are simply not compatible with a collaborative project. Canterbury Tail talk 17:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Provide at least several proofs to your claims, without them it is like your point of view. Thank you Devlet Geray (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This whole section is proof your actions. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Support indef (topic) ban: Per WP:NOT HERE, WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:NPA, lack of WP:COMPETENCE.. I could go on. The fact Devlet accuses me (among other things) that I like to "create conflict situations" because I reported a editor for whose disruptive actions he got banned really says it all. It's almost as if he can't see anything wrong with the banned users actions, which would explain his own conduct. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• You are a topic-starter, it's clear that you are for my block. As for your claim, it's a simple falsifications/forgery of my words (not for the first time). I said, quote: "seems to me like he creates conflict situations", I didn't say that you "like to create conflict situations". I leave now. Devlet Geray (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I started this topic indeed; because you were unable to behave accordingly. Okay, I accidentally added "like", my bad. But you do realize there's ultimately no difference between the two? Both are equally inappropriate. The fact that you can't see that says it all. It's a even bigger wonder you haven't been blocked yet after all the accusations and attacks you've made towards me in this noticeboard alone. I hope someone is taking notice of this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

No topic ban, but a brief block for incivility could be appropriate. The block should be brief because this is a long-term contributor without prior blocks. But he definitely needs a wikibreak. Sorry man, I know how you feel. My very best wishes (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

But some his edits (like that) do look highly opinionated. My very best wishes (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Temporary block. The user is problematic and mean as proven by the diffs provided, however, they made overall helpful edits to the project in the past. So, I feel like a temporary block can help the editor take some time to cool off. If they continue their behaviour again after the temporary block, then a permanent block or topic ban would be appropriate. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Some editors can not productively edit some topics. If they're here to build an encyclopedia, they can find other areas where they can edit without contention. BD2412 T 19:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• support indef topic ban per HistoryofIran, as well as a forced "vacation". - Kevo327 (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• It's unrelated to this, but probably you voted for my block because I added Turkic origin to Safavids (then probably i'm "pro-Turkic", if I'm "pro-Turkic" I can start adding anti-Armenian information/propaganda to wikipedia - so just to be on the safe side you supported my indef block - it's your option). But, fyi, I renamed article about Armenian Genocide from "Fake Armenian Genocide" to "Armenian Genocide" and removed all propaganda from it, which wasn't done by Ymblanter who claims that he "checks all the edits" there (another proof of what I said above). So, don't be that prejudiced about people, if everything I wrote is true. If not, I'm sorry Devlet Geray (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  For those who think that Devlet Geray can edit "unproblematically" may I please note that this is the second time in this thread he implies that I am lying. Without having any credible reasons for that. I am sure if he escapes with a topic ban he is going to be back here soon because of his unacceptable behavior (casting aspersions and personal attacks).--Ymblanter (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• This is the second time i give proofs that I'm not lying, not that you are lying. I'm not interested in attacking you, I'm interested in defending myself from attacks (as any person here) Devlet Geray (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  Doubling down again.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, English is not my native language, and it may cause some problems, something may sound like doubling down. For instance, here, which was "a random example above" of my violations mentioned by Ymblanter. So, i didn't mean that these "republics" are fiction or something like this I meant that these are puppet states (марионеточные государства) (Crimea unrecognized not only by Ukraine but by the whole world. And de-facto it's a part of Russia - we cannot say that Crimea is of the same status as this republics, as they were not annexed by Russia - we should differ them, don't we?) and the word fictitious (фиктивный) was the first to come to my mind (To understand more what I meant there is such collocation as фиктивный брак which means legal registration of marriage without the intention of starting a family, but for other purposes, for example, obtaining citizenship, benefits from state or municipal services. This is close to what I meant). I agree that this is my fault that I didn't find a better word, but I just want to show that I didn't assume bad-faith Devlet Geray (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

DNR and LNR belong to Category:Unrecognized or largely unrecognized states. Crimea is currently .My very best wishes (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support ban. (after edit-conflict). Devlet Geray's editorial behaviour is uncivil if you ask me. He reverts edits without looking if some of them are helpful or not and his edit summaries are too hostile. This suppresses useful activities of other editors and creates unnecessary conflict situations. Even here in the discussion, his comments reflect his attitude towards other editors.--Renat (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban Reading what Devlet Geray has written here has violated most, if not all, of Misplaced Pages's pillars. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support indef ban. On the Russian Misplaced Pages, where he was blocked indefinitely, here on the English Misplaced Pages, at Wikimedia Commons, Devlet Geray is behaving aggressively, pushing the Crimean Tatar POV. You can be sure that in case of blocking, he will create sockpuppets, as it regularly does in Russian Misplaced Pages. So you need to monitor it to avoid damage. Каракорум (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• I didn't see any proof of the endless stream of accusations (such as "he's not interested in reliable sources" or "pushing Crimean Tatar POV" — attempts of removing soviet anti-Tatar propaganda/adding another well-sourced point of view to maintain a balanced presentation may seem "Crimean Tatar pov-pushing" on Russian Misplaced Pages, but I have a patroller status on Ukrainian Misplaced Pages). Second, it was RenatUK who deleted sourced information adding his information and after revert, instead of going to the talk-page and discuss, he decided to start an edit-war (though it was not a conflict situation at all before he started to bring the RuWiki, which was completely and for sure unrelated to the discussed topic). I agree with the fact that I shouldn't have accussed the topic-starter of vandalism/revisonism because of a mass-text deletion and had to go to the talk-page and discuss everything (as I see now he is not a vandal (as I mistakenly thought then) and has more than 50 thousand edits) Devlet Geray (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Just a piece of advice. Continually replying to everyone and posting isn't going to help you, in fact it's much more likely to hinder your cause and is considered bludgeoning. Also ultimately what happens on other Wikipedias is not relevant here, we're only interested in behaviour on the English language Misplaced Pages. If there's evidence of issues on other languages it may be taken into consideration, but it's about edits here that people are concerned about. Canterbury Tail talk 14:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• ok Devlet Geray (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban After communicating in this topic: Talk:Crimean Tatars/Archive 1#Devlet Geray edits--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• "there the opinion of one Vozgrin, a member of the Mejlis. This is a partisan source, at best". To make it clear, Valery Vozgrin is a Russian professor, Doctor of Historical Sciences who worked at Saint Petersburg State University, the Russian-leading university, until his death. Saying that phrase at the beginning of a peaceful dicusion doesn't seem to be an intent of a constructive dicussion. Moreover, there is a whole article (Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe), fully dedicated to this topic, there is no need to repeat all these again and again in the aricle about a modern people Devlet Geray (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Vozgrin is a specialist in the Scandinavic countries. His works on the Crimean Tatars are tendentious and were criticized by specialized specialists. For example, the Russian Misplaced Pages carried out an analysis, and after that they refused to use Vozgrin's works on the history of Crimea. Каракорум (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks like there's a consensus on this issue. - Kevo327 (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Outcome

What is the result? Каракорум (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't go to the archive without a solution. Каракорум (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, can some uninvolved administrator look at the above fairly supporting info and make a call on this one please. Canterbury Tail talk 16:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLP violations at Talk:David

• Editshmedt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• David (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:BLP violations at Talk:David: whereas Finkelstein's analysis, incompetent as usual, ... He does this by basically doubling or tripling the length of the Megiddo strata he agreed to downdate in order to keep the gate strata in the 9th century BC. That is obviously insane and requires no further comment, as other archaeologists have pointed out. and . The editor seems to be an anti-Finkelstein troll, furthering a wiki-feud, I offered them a formal warning about paid editing. The editor has fascination for Isaac Kalimi (29 November 2018). Writing and Rewriting the Story of Solomon in Ancient Israel. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-58837-9., which has been called a polemical writing . Their edits may be interpreted as WP:Advocacy for Kalimi's POV. They have formally denied being a paid editor: .

Same editor wrote I decided to read the rest of Ahlstrom's paper and was disgusted by the sheer dishonesty of your claims. There is clearly no limit to what you will manipulate in order to establish your sheer and utter propaganda. . They have been blocked once for violating WP:NPA. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This again? M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 01:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Don't accuse someone of paid editing if you don't have any evidence. Jerm (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  My idea was that they were doing promotional edits: for Dever/Kalimi and against Finkelstein. Therefore asking them if they were paid for such edits. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

If you knew the editor had already denied being paid, why would you even bring it up in this report? Jerm (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Err, I have written the above message in several steps. At first I was unaware they will deny. After learning that they denied it, I stated clearly that they did deny. Anyway, saying that Israel Finkelstein is both incompetent and insane made me wonder if they have an axe to grind against him. That's why I thought they edit promotionally. You may see all the steps of my message at Special:Contributions/Tgeorgescu. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This is obviously a content dispute, and you are putting so much effort in having this editor blocked, so that you'd be the one to come out on top in the dispute. The fact that you had already made a previous report against the editor and about the same article David, still accusing the editor of paid editing even though you knew Editshmedt had already denied it, and filing an SPI case via Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Korvex only shows your desperation. As far as I can tell, Editshmedt has not violated any policies. Btw, in your previous report, you stated you could "smell a rat"? Seriously? And now Editshmedt is a troll? Tgeorgescu, you are really pushing you're luck with this report. Jerm (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I don't find it normal that Finkelstein gets called incompetent and insane. I thought that is against WP:RULES, like WP:BLP. If the rules have changed, and any editor may call names top mainstream scholars, let me know. At least I was bona fide in reporting what seemed to me a BLP violation. And believe me, I have a special sense for detecting troublemakers, many of my WP:SPI reports were successful. So it's not like I would cast aspersions without any reason. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't care if the editor thinks the source is good, bad, reliable, unreliable, that is an argument for the article talk page, and your past successful SPI cases have nothing to do with this report. You have been editing for many years, yet you couldn't start an RfC? Jerm (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I do know something about the editor, but WP:OUTING does not allow me to say it here. Anyway, my take is that that discussion should have been closed long ago, it no longer has anything to do with the article David. And I guess RfCs are not for closing discussions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I think there is no secret that I wanted Editshmedt blocked. But I am not desperate about it; I'm more likely bored by it. It is not so much that it would be because of disagreeing with them, but the inability of them to find a common idiom with the other three editors at that talk page. Bona fide editors recognize WP:RS for what they are and objective evidence for what it is. I am a rational, intelligent person and I can change my POV when provided with evidence, or at least write for the WP:ENEMY. But that has not happened at Talk:David: what Editshmedt says failed to convince three of us and what three of us say failed to convince Editshmedt. I sincerely believed that it is not done to call Finkelstein names. So yeah, Editshmedt pleads mostly their own understanding of archaeological papers, claiming an elusive consensus of archaeologists that the United Monarchy has truly existed. To this we replied that there is no smoking gun in that respect, all we have is a tiny, broken, multi-interpretable inscription which says something about the House of David. And we don't have even that much about Solomon, a king who according to the Bible become the head of a wealthy empire through maintaining military prowess and through international trade and diplomacy. It was a shock for me to learn that Wikipedians are allowed to call top professors names. We are supposed to be civil with each other, but everyone outside the Misplaced Pages Community has been declared fair game for casting aspersions against them. A Wikipedian just has to comment upon a source and boom, all dirty words become allowed for persons living outside of Misplaced Pages Community. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, I agree with Jerm that you need to have evidence to make claims that another editor is an "anti-Finkelstein troll, furthering a wiki-feud" and engaged in paid editing. In the page you linked to above, the sixth bullet point discusses WP:ASPERSIONS. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Has there been any attempt to bring the dispute (behaviour notwithstanding) to the WP:DRN? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, that discussion is about the archaeological evidence for the United Monarchy especially in respect to the Low Chronology of Finkelstein. So, if WP:DRN is needed, it is needed for another article, not for David. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jerm: You aren't admin, are you? So you do not dictate what WP:BLP says. I want an admin to chime in. Does calling Finkelstein "insane" and "incompetent" amount to a WP:BLP violation? Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Never mind, it is an important question, so I asked about it at WP:BLPN. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Answered with:

How is calling a very famous (in his field) professor emeritus insane/incompetent not defamatory? "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." Or do you mean such opinions are relevant to content choice? Doug Weller talk 11:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Tgeorgescu, you seem to be making a lot of accusations against Editshmedt without providing supporting diffs, including that the editor is an "anti-Finkelstein troll, furthering a wiki-feud" and engaged in paid editing (although Editshmedt has never edited the Israel Finkelstein page itself).

@Wallyfromdilbert: Paid editing is something I mentioned before Editshmedt has replied to my request about paid editing. I no longer pursued such accusation after they replied. But the wiki-feud is pretty obvious, they look like a WP:SPA for demeaning Finkelstein's Low Chronology. See their edits at Talk:David, where they insist time after time that the Low Chronology is the single reason why scholars don't accept the United Monarchy and that the Low Chronology is patently false. That even after we all told him that the Low Chronology is not that all-important as they think.

E.g.:

The article isn't about the Low Chronology. The article is about David, a legendary biblical figure. The supposed point of the section in question, "Historicity," must be to present a) what evidence exists for this legendary figure and b) the scholarly consensus on what conclusions can be drawn from that evidence. I agree that the section is not very good, but I don't think your edits are improving it. I think the section should resemble the Historicity section in the article about King Arthur. In both cases are we dealing with legendary figures that may or may not have existed and whose deeds may or may not have been greatly exaggerated. ImTheIP (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing you can do to change the fact that the overwhelming majority of archaeologists have rejected the Low Chronology. The Low Chronology, in turn, is the only basis on which you can disentangle the SSS, LSS, and all the other structures we've discussed from the 10th century. But please keep telling me about how William Dever and Amihai Mazar are maximalist religious fundamentalists in order to preserve your precious, if fragile views.Editshmedt (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, except for your obsession with the Low Chronology, do you have WP:RS-based edits to make in the article David? None of the editors who disagree with you put all their money on either the Low Chronology or Finkelstein. You behave like this article is about the Low Chronology, while that is at best WP:COATRACK and WP:TE at worst. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The Low Chronology is the only basis on which the six-chambered gates, ashlar palaces at Megiddo, fortification of Beersheba, construction of the SSS and the LSS, and so forth can be placed in the 9th century rather than the 10th. Unless you defend the Low Chronology, I'm simply going to assume that they're all 10th century. Editshmedt (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with the Modified Conventional Chronology, or any other Chronology – it's not important to this article. I fully accept that "Iron IIA pottery is continuous from the 10th to 9th centuries BCE". I'm sure this problem is not limited to Iron IIA pottery either. It is only your determination to perpetuate the Low Chronology strawman that hinders progress here. I found it interesting how you tried to trick me into "defending" the Low Chronology. Mmmmmmm.
Finally, you put huge emphasis on the "Solomonic" six-chambered gates, but you neglect to mention that other six-chambered gates existed outside of Solomon's territory – including a six-chambered gate in Ashdod, where Solomon would never have ventured. How did all these cities have near-identical gates, when Solomon (assuming he existed at all) never built things in Ashdod? Who did control both Ashdod and Megiddo in this time period, along with many other places, and came from a monumental-building culture? Who could it possibly have been? Oh wait, was it perhaps Sheshonq? Could it maybe have been him? He did erect a stela at Megiddo ... I wonder if ….. Wdford (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you not see that it is clearly the Low Chronology which is patently political? Mazar has never written a populist book in his life. However, almost at the outset, Finkelstein published The Bible Unearthed constructing a whole system on his Low Chronology and made tons of money. Since then, Mazar has forced Finkelstein into numerous concessions which I can list out. It's game over for the LC. Once Finkelstein retires, it will be forgotten.
The only candidate for a 10th century construction of these six-chambered gates in Megiddo, Gezer, or Hazor is Solomon. All the relevant strata are Israelite in their material culture. Got any more escape hatchets?Editshmedt (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

... and every other ad nauseam repetition of Finkelstein's chronology, Low Chronology, or 'low' chronology at Talk:David. See also User:Editshmedt/Commentary on the United Monarchy_debate which makes his POV against Finkelstein crystal-clear: Bibliography of publications that have rejected Finkelstein’s Low Chronology and his rejection of the United Monarchy and/or accepted the United Monarchy.

Conclusion: Editshmedt claims that the falsification of the Low Chronology is a done deal, but they just try to fool us in that respect. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu Of course I'm not an admin. I never said I was, and I don't remember dictating policy. I'm just assessing this report (mainly behavior concerns because that's what ANI is meant for and not resolving content disputes) and providing my input on the issue, just like any other non-admin editor does here on ANI. It's really weird though that you stated you're not desperate in having Editshmedt blocked, but this is the second case you've initiated against the editor concerning the same article. Basically, this report you started is a contradiction to that statement, and especially now as of February 6, you're still accusing Editshmedt of being a sock via Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Korvex. I do agree that "But please keep telling me about how William Dever and Amihai Mazar are maximalist religious fundamentalists in order to preserve your precious, if fragile views" was abit inappropriate, but you just straight-up called Editshmedt an "anti-Finkelstein troll" in your report. Everything else you've stated above is more of a rant about Editshmedt's perspective on "Low Chronology" and other disputed-related content you have with the editor. Jerm (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jerm: Editshmedt's POV is that the Low Chronology has been busted (like in MythBusters). That's imposture. And seek Talk:David for the word insult: others have seen the same thing I am telling you here. They quarrel with everyone who tells them that the United Monarchy isn't consensually accepted (we offered them verifiable quotes and arguments). Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Needless to say, almost everyone one of the opinions attributed to me here by Tgeorg is exaggerated/false. According to Lester Grabbe, the Modified Conventional Chronology "seems to have been fairly widely accepted" (the revised edition of Ancient Israel, pg. 84). But I am sure that, as usual, the literature just counts as my "opinion" when it says something inconvenient. I also found it funny that Tgeorg had to clarify to everyone that his dozens of attempts to get me banned over a series of months ranging on a whole variety of accusations including but not limited to paid editing (based on nothing) is actually just him being "bored" rather than "desperate".Editshmedt (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Carchasm reported by Smuckola

This is an example why WP:AIV is not the right venue for such reports: WP:ANI requires notification of the editor and allows us to enforce discussion about the behavior. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Carchasm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – This account is one month old and mainly does unilateral radical changes on a mass scale and edit wars. In the rare case he responds, that is mostly in the edit comments of edit wars. His Talk page pretty much consists of people telling him to stop doing unilateral unexplained undiscussed edits. He pretended to unilaterally dictate the total reformation of Wikproject Literature by declaring one archived discussion from 2007 to magically be the status quo that he needs to suddenly reset the entire encyclopedia to. He just started mass editing the definition pages of what the wikiproject is, ignoring all responses via edit comments except to blithely instruct them to stop reverting him. He declared a few days on the project talk page to constitute zero feedback and a completely dead project (actually ignoring or defying all feedback), and thus spam hundreds of edits with no edit comments, which will apparently not stop. He did all this without even initially knowing the basic concepts of wikipedia such as edit warring and BRD, but learning it hasn't stopped him. So I call that massively disruptive editing. I discovered this when he removed Aesop's Fables from Wikiproject Literature. Thank you. — Smuckola(talk) 16:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Smuckola - I don't see you leaving the user a query about this issue on their talk page. Can you engage with them on their user talk first? -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Fuzheado Sorry, no, the whole point is that's already been done several times by several people and he simply refuses and escalates. — Smuckola(talk) 16:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I did engage with the people who raised objections to what I was doing - I'm not sure which feedback that you feel I was ignoring or defying. I also added a discussion of the changes to the wikiproject itself. Maybe I just don't understand WikiProjects, but shouldn't the talk page for the project be the place where discussion should occur on what the scope of the project is? - car chasm (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Also maybe I've read the community wrong, but it doesn't seem to me that "which WikiProject banners are on a page" should be a controversial thing - especially to editors that aren't involved in that WikiProject. If you look at the project, it still has well over 3000 unassessed pages. Honestly the only reason I didn't mark the project as inactive rather than semi-active was that I wanted to clean it up. - car chasm (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It would be better to engage with car chasm, who appears to be a new, and possibly too eager editor. Carchasm should be guided not discouraged. Rwood128 (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC).

Proposing guidance is not a valid assessment in response to a report of refusing guidance and of edit warring, and now here in this thread also childishly, aimlessly, and pointlessly casting WP:ASPERSIONS on the veteran editor Xxanthippe simply for having tried to do so. — Smuckola(talk) 05:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Xxanthippe. I endorse the concerns of Smuckola. - car chasm edit wars over categories, persists with mass edits and does not respond to guidance. I suggest a topic ban from Categories and Literature, where the damage has been done, until they have gained more experience in editing Misplaced Pages before engaging in more major structural edits. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC).

Y'know, for all of the quoting WP:BRD you do you don't seem to be very willing to discuss things when other users engage you - looking at your contributions it seems like this is a pattern with you that extends well beyond your interactions with me. Are you sure you're here to build an encyclopedia? - car chasm (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Does this apply to all of my 17,000 edits over the last 15 years? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC).

I agree that the mass deletion of the literature project from author/book articles is disruptive (although based on their explanation on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Literature, I see the point to what they're doing), but I don't see them refusing to discuss on their talk page or on the project talk page. I just read through the history on User talk:Carchasm and I see the editor responding to concerns that other editors raise. If editors are solely relying on edit summaries to give guidance, that might not be the most productive approach. I agree with Rwood128 about "too eager". On the other hand, I'm skeptical on how "new" they are; their second day registered, they engaged in an ANI discussion, explaining that they'd removed a ref from multiple articles because it had been added by an account circumventing a block, linking to an archived SPI. Schazjmd (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: Good point. I don't know if there's a basis for initiating a sockpuppet investigation because there is no point of comparison to another user. But how on earth does someone know what ANI is, knows how to install user scripts, knows what WikiProjects are and is obsessed with pretending to just take one over, but who says they don't know what BRD and edit warring are? What can be done? — Smuckola(talk) 05:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Let User:Carchasm be asked if they have previously edited Misplaced Pages under another account. Who knows what the answer, if any, will be. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC).

But answer came there none. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC).

Agree with Xxanthippe's proposal for a topic ban. — Smuckola(talk) 05:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Kyopa repeatedly going against consensus, continued WP:OWN behavior and personal attacks after block

• Kyopa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Greek Football Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of Greek Cup finals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kyopa has already been blocked for editwarring on these articles, yet refuses to stop. Consensus has already been established that as the match was abandoned neither club should be awarded a win for the cup finals in question. Sources (including those provided by the user in question) also agree with this viewpoint. The user has a habit of attacking other editors AND authors of sources (see: here, here), displayed OWN behavior here and noted that they would wait 24 hours to avoid triggering 3RR here. Padgriffin 00:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear Sirs, I apologize for the inconvenience. I made an effort to correct something I thought was wrong. Some users have the opposite view. I was treated hostilely and maybe I did the same. Because that leads nowhere, it's best not to dwell on these articles again. It does not mean that I am wrong. They just do not understand me. You should not punish me because users who disagree with me cooperate secretly (canvassing). User Padgriffin is negatively biased with me and please be excluded from the case. I generally think I have a group of puppets in front of me. --💫Kyopa▪ (talk) 06:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Pinging @REDMAN 2019: and @Abudabanas: Padgriffin 07:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Kyopa has his own pov on Greek Football Cup honors and he is very persistent on this. I have a different pov and when edit war occured, I stopped reverting, opened a discussion on the article’s Talk page and called other users for help. You won’t find any reliable source that backs up his pov and that is why he was told to stop edit warring on Greek Football Cup and List of Greek Cup finals by multiple users (5-6) and blocked twice by 2 admins (48hrs and 1 week). I believe that Kyopa won’t stop until his edit is accepted and it has been proved pointless to talk/reason/reach consensus with him. I tried everything. Abudabanas (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• I came into this a month or so ago. Abudabanas asked me for my opinion on a "minor controversy" at the article in question. I had a look and found Kyopa's view at fault and said so on the talk page. Kyopa then repeatedly rejected my words and everyone else's. He made it clear that he wasn't going to stop edit warring, as shown by the message he left on my talk page and this revert. I then took the issue to WT:FOOTY here, where Kyopa was again found to be at fault by other editors, including @Nehme1499, Crowsus, and GiantSnowman:. Kyopa has been blocked twice already for edit warring, and both times he has come back and continued, accusing all who oppose him of being puppets, vandals, or negatively biased against him for some unknown reason. I too am of the opinion that he not going to change and that he needs to be prevented from continuing his trouble-causing. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef block - kyopas has made it clear by their editing history (even after multiple warnings & blocks) and by their comment above that they don't get it and won't change. The only way to prevent this disruption is an indef block. GiantSnowman 11:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

See first of all the difference in our edits . The users who accuse me of lying are blatantly lying, as all the sources confirm that the final was stopped and the teams were punished. Only one journalist says he does not count on the final because no trophy was awarded. So what? The federation decided so, as in other cases it decided to share the title. They completely eliminate the fact. The federation records it normally. But from the moment he punished both teams, it means that we have two runners up. I see that they are asking for my final block. I consider it unacceptable and fascist. Ask them what is ip 195.xxx.xxx.--💫Kyopa▪ (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support The comments that Kyopa has made in this ANI, AND the talk page comment he made about how he is going to wait 24 hours AFTER a block for edit warning. AND all of the personal attacks/lack of Assuming Good Faith(calling the users fascist, sock puppets, vandals. etc etc), makes me support a indef block. Regardless of who is "right", the behavior being exhibited by Kyopa idetrimentalal to the collaborative environment of Wikipeida. LakesideMiners 14:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support as nom. Kyopa continues to attack users and refuses to act in a civil manner, ignores warnings, has expressed a desire to deliberately circumvent 3RR and is unwilling to partake in civil discussion with other editors despite prior warnings and blocks. Padgriffin 15:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per everything I have said above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

From what I see I am doomed. Of the 4 who have voted, 3 are directly involved in the case and normally should not have voted. But I have to accept the data. So if you decide to punish me, let it be only for these two entries and not from the whole wiki. I repeat, however, that I consider any punishment of mine to be unjust.--💫Kyopa▪ (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

 Question: :In a cup final we have the cup and two teams claiming it. The one who gets it and the one who loses. If neither of them gets it for any reason what should be the names of the teams that participated in the final? Is it right to cancel their participation in the final because they failed to win the cup? My view is that both should be considered runners-up. That's all.--💫Kyopa▪ (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I have repeatedly gave you the answer from the beginning of all this. 1962 final stopped in overtime and never replayed (fact). Definitions: Winner (1st), Runner-up (2nd), Finalist (last 2). Olympiacos Greek Cup honors: 28 W , 12 R-UP , 1 FST. Crowsus edit is perfect. Four-five months of talking, edit warring, personal attacks and bad behavior because you are the only one who insists on 28 W , 13 R-UP for something that even if you are a devoted Olympiacos fan, can't understand. Abudabanas (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Since there are Crowsus footnotes why write 12 and not 13? Notes are entered for the above and not for the following. --💫Kyopa▪ (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Cause it's 12 times R-UP and a note explaining that there is also 1 as FST (not as R-UP, so that it is written as 13) for 1962 final. That's what happened, it did not come out from Crowsus' or anybody's personal view. Abudabanas (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

That is, the finalist is one thing and the runner-up is another;--💫Kyopa▪ (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support - per above reasoning. Kyopa I am not involved and can see your issues here. Your not understanding the issues here, as explained above. This is about your edting behavior and your lack of accepting consensus and inabaility to work in a collaborative environment. As to your question, its irrelevant to what is being discussed here. This is about your behavior, who won some sports event in 1962, really not relevant. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) 12:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Scott Thomson. Understood. So the problem is my behavior. All I can do is apologize to those who offended me, but attack me to maintain the belief that my treatment is correct. Thank you for participating.--💫Kyopa▪ (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Please can an uninvolved admin review and close? Personally I think there is consensus for an indef block given this editor's attitude and conduct. GiantSnowman 11:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

ANI against user Omnipaedista

Omnipaedista (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is obstructing contemporary edits to Abelard and Heloise. He continually reverts edits of the Heloise and Abelard pages, preferring in particular an edition of the Heloise page in which Heloise is called "brash", in a sexist way, in her critical depictions of marriage. He continues to remove contemporary scholarship or references to feminism. Bad faith likely. The Abelard page in particular needs work to bring it to "good status". — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarTigerJLN (talk • contribs)

StarTigerJLN, the large orange caution at the top of this page says When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}}--~~~~ to do so. Please follow those instructions to notify the editor that you have started this discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks -- I informed him of a report, but I will mark it on his talk page more officially. StarTigerJLN (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Since you still haven't notified Omnipaedista, I have done so for you. Schazjmd (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I continue to notify him on his talk page and he continues to remove the notice. It's not my doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarTigerJLN (talk • contribs) 02:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The only things that they have removed are this message of yours and another one. None of the required ANI notices have been removed, and even if they were, they're well within their rights to do so (it just also means that they have acknowledged it by the act of deleting it). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Reverting egregious violations of WP:INTEGRITY and WP:SYNTH is not vandalism. I also reverted uncivil comments by StarTigerJLN (like this one and this one) violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

ANI against Magnus Dominus

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

Magnus Dominus, been "suddenly" obstructing MMA pages from further changes and try use this ANI to goes his way. Edits from Oct 2020 to Feb 1 2021...looks like random edits. Strangely it something do with this RFC. This is almost like reopening same case over and over again..... Targeting same 3 person over and over again @Squared.Circle.Boxing: @Cassiopeia: @NEDOCHAN:. I want a review on Magnus Dominus behavior please. Kent Bargo (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Continuing behavior

1. Magnus Dominus doing WP:FILIBUSTER too much in mma pages. Special:Contributions/Magnus_Dominus Kent Bargo (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
2. Magnus Dominus used SPI to once again targeting the same editor (sorta harassing with wild "wall of texts"). SPI Kent Bargo (talk) 08:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
3. Went soo low targeting anyone who question user edit or behavior. Kent Bargo (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
4. Attempting to pay for services. HERE Kent Bargo (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
5. This disruption maybe related diff diff 2 Kent Bargo (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for SPI experts/Admin for assistance (Confirmed SOCK)

The user targeting & disagreements are getting out of control. I reported user for roadblocking articles and concern may do it on other page. I did not notice the person also being investigated for WP:Sock in the Lordpermaximum SPI case. "Wild wall of texts" length are similar. I like to request these SPI cases to be fast forwarded if possible.

• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Lordpermaximum <-- in this SPI - Magnus Dominus accuses Admin @Girth Summit: for some favoritism? (might not be the right word)
• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/NEDOCHAN <- targeting again

Kent Bargo (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC) The user is a WP:SOCK via Confirmed-nc. This explains the unacceptable wall of text and behavior. Request ANI closure @El C: or other admins.

Post Behavior (Threat)

WP:SOCK Possible threat towards fellow editor @Squared.Circle.Boxing: Kent Bargo (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Can't get an editor to communicate

I'm sorry to even bring this here, but I've been asking this editor repeatedly (once, twice, thrice) to handle a template correctly, and they ignore me and do the same again and again and again. I keep having to clean after them. Maybe administrator intervention will help them understand the need for communication? Thanks in advance. --Muhandes (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

All of their 1600 or so edits have been on mainspace (no talk pages) and none have had an edit summary! DeCausa (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Muhandes, These sort of editors turn up every now and again. I wish I knew what their problem is with communicating - most of them aren't here to push a POV, they just edit the encyclopedia and don't seem to know there's any way other people are watching them. Either people get fed up, or they blocked, never to return. Ritchie333 19:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Muhandes From the editnotice at the top of this page: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. I've notified them for you. jp×g 23:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

JPxG, they did. Look at that user's talkpage two sections above your notice... Jack Frost (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, man, above the ArbCom election notice! Whoops. jp×g 01:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

We're too used to people ignoring the MASSIVE YELLOW BANNER, heh. Padgriffin 07:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I've been here long enough not to ignore that banner and I thought placing that notice right after the warning might be more constructive. Other than the empathy, maybe I can get some help? My experience is that an administrator leaving a warning usually does the trick, and if not, a 24h ban definitely does. --Muhandes (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Muhandes, I'm going to give something a go. I've blocked with a custom template message that says "Click here to read your talk page and respond" that ought to be pretty difficult to miss. As soon as there is communication, anyone can unblocked. I'm trying this, because a standard block rationale of "Disruptive editing, failure to discuss" means something to us, but nothing to them, and there's no other way of customising the block message to make it more user-friendly.Ritchie333 16:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Since this is overall a constructive editor, I hope they just respond, get unblocked, and we can go on with our beneficial editing hobbies. --Muhandes (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

On the handful of occasions I've done this in the past, the editor disappears forever (Exhibit A, Exhibit B) and I'm left scratching my head wondering what's stopping them from communicating. Ritchie333 16:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Dhananjay Munde Misplaced Pages Page

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

Hello,

My name is Mahesh Karve and I recently joined Misplaced Pages. I read all the guidelines of Misplaced Pages to enter information in articles. It has come to my notice while checking the 'Dhananjay Munde' page that some editors are being spiteful to the new editor and using Misplaced Pages's warnings to threaten them from editing this page. This is a highly sensitive matter as it may be concerned with politics. I would like you to interfere and stop these edit wars. It is my personal request as I find talking to them on their talk page results in them being unreasonably insulting. This has become an unending cycle. They are deleting and having their way. I do not wish to stay on Misplaced Pages if this is how you people work. Where anyone can bully and delete anything with their helping editors to spew warnings on newcomers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahesh Karve (talk • contribs) 09:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC) (moved from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts: Editor is now autoconfirmed. -- BlackcurrantTea (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC))

Mahesh Karve Thanks for your contributions to the article. I have posted a welcome message on your talk page. Please do spend some time reading through it. I'll be happy to help you out if you need any help. Best! Vikram Vincent 17:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Mahesh Karve, is your account in any way related to VedikaThorat? I ask because you have both made identical edits. 109.155.148.247 (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

IP, that is a good catch! Vikram Vincent 20:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Wondering if we should check this out at SPI or if it ain't an infraction yet? Vikram Vincent 06:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Vincentvikram The edits that I looked at were identical. I would have raised at SPI but as an IP I cannot create new reports. Do you believe that there is enough in common to do the honours? 109.155.148.247 (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. Vikram Vincent 13:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

One observation. It is a good idea to ask for a checkuser in a case like this otherwise the case just sits there until someone gets around to doing a behaviour check or gets dismissed as stale. I have made the appropriate adjustment. 109.155.148.247 (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment:Mahesh Karve has been blocked for being a sock. The other editor has been given a chance to explain. Please close this section. Thanks. Vikram Vincent 07:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban request for Covid-in-Greece-related articles

MadJack1974GR has repeatedly attempted to insert libelous content into the biographical article on Sotiris Tsiodras. It was pointed out to said editor that the 'sources' cited are clearly unreliable. (Disclosure: As it happens, I speak modern Greek fluently.) The response I received was this message; a bit incoherent but the gist is clear. Then, anonymous ISPs, all originating from Greece, started adding back the libelous & unsupported content.

I invited the user and all potential other interested parties to discuss the quality of those 'sources' in the article's talk page (here) but there has been no response there either. In the meantime, we see that the editor has been repeatedly, in their talk page, warned off articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic in Greece.

I'll quote the forensics of those 'sources' hereunder, as well:

•Kourdisto Portokali (Clockwork Orange) has been created and curated by a local conspiracy theorist, currently under indictment for extortion, known for various racist editorials (e.g. "Greeks are simply ugly Albanians who think they're Italians", here).

•My Dimosio (My Public Sector) is an "open" website where Greek citizens are "invited" to denounce anything "wrong" they see around them that concerns the Greek public sector or any grievance they have against it. In other words, it's a source that contains (mostly) anonymous claims, of various degrees of seriousness, all unsupported by reportage or evidence.

•The anonymous text from Crash Online contains nothing except innuendos and makes the connections between the alleged 2009 scandal of Greek ministry ordering an excessive number of H1N1 vaccines and Tsiodras who, again, was at the time a member of the scientific advisory committee.

•This report, by established and generally reliable newspaper Ta Nea, makes no reference at all to Tsiodras; it's in the mix most probably to provide it with some credibility. The report simply describes what the H1N1 vaccine was all about.

I request a topic ban for MadJack1974GR on all articles related to the issue of the COVID-19 pandemic in Greece, as well as for the ISPs involved, i.e. 79.107.170.77 and 80.106.185.122, whose sole contributions to Misplaced Pages have been adding libelous content onto this BLP. -The Gnome (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

You are a common liar and you act as a praetor, you have no proof of what you say about the sources and it is purely your personal opinion, what you say is not proven anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadJack1974GR (talk • contribs) 21:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I became involved with this article via a WP:RFPP request, where User:The Gnome requested full protection for edit warring at the page Sotiris Tsiodras. I observed that the problem was with a single editor, MadJack1974GR, and that that editor was apparently edit warring to put disputed negative information into a BLP. I considered applying EXC protection since MadJack is not extended confirmed. Looking further, I found that MadJack had not edited the article since being warned on their talk page, but that a new IP had appeared at the page and made exactly the same edits as MadJack! I advised The Gnome to file an ANI report, and I semi-protected the page to ward off any further IP damage in the interim. The Gnome has posted on the article's talk page explaining their position, and just now I laughed out loud when I saw that a brand-new user called GreekLivesMatter has replied there, with more and even wilder accusations against Tsiodras. The Gnome has asked for a topic ban for MadJack and the IPs. I would go further than that and suggest a site block for sockpuppetry (per DUCK) and possibly NOTHERE (MadJack has been here since October and has made more than 130 edits, all of them on only one subject: COVID-19 in Greece). -- MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The Gnome ask a topic ban because he behaves as a praetor or is a praetor and has no argument for what he says on the contrary he judges the sources non-objectively and certainly as a praetor of Tsiodras. I find that you do not mind this but if someone has done 130 or more posts on a topic, is it prohibited? Does it matter how many posts someone makes or if the posts are from reliable sources? I want to let you know that I do not feel guilty about anything, you can not allow me to write again anywhere on Misplaced Pages, I will remain a simple reader. It should be known that I am nothing more than one of the millions of Greeks who are ready to give information about the very bad situation that currently prevails in the country in terms of democracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadJack1974GR (talk • contribs) 22:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you meant that I'm a praetorian guard for the article's subject rather than a "praetor," a term denoting a magistrate in ancient Rome. Either way, all this is above my pay grade. -The Gnome (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support site ban of blatantly NOTHERE SPA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support site block per WP:DUCK and WP:NOTHERE via narrow interest, disruptive, edit-warring account for Covid-19 in Greece. RandomGnome (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• I topic-banned MadJack1974GR from Covid-in-Greece as part of general sanction, which I imposed in my role of uninvolved administrator. However, if there is a wish for site ban, this can still be considered.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  Since the best thing they decided to do after they were topic-banned was to go here and to leave the above messages, I also blocked them indef per WP:NOTHERE. This is not a GS action and I am not going to log it.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

HELP !, the banned editor (MadJack1974GR) has made a large number of edits on this section of the COVID-19 pandemic in Greece article - which is largely his work alone. My suspicion is that at least 80% of Madjack's edits are poorly sourced, NPOV and WP:OR, however the skills of a Greek speaking editor, familiar with Gk online sources would be helpful in order that the baby isn't thrown out with the bathwater. I am only able to Google-translate Madjack's additions, but that is sufficient to establish that the content is pretty awful. Pincrete (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Ymblanter, the editor GreekLivesMatter - who may well be a sock of Madjack1974GR according to MelanieN above, . Pincrete (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done, user blocked, article semi-protected for 3 months--Ymblanter (talk) 06:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Completely ban for The Gnome

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

DJ JAYLON is NOTHERE

DJ JAYLON created WCC-FM, which went through this massive mess and I think we can all tell this user is definitely not here to edit constructively, but to promote an online radio station (and not even a good one). On the AfD for the article, tdl1060 mentioned that DJ JAYLON was "an LTA vandal of radio station articles, using multiple accounts and IP addresses to add content about fictional radio stations." So, a checkuser might be necessary.

Spiderone nom'd the article for deletion, I took it a step further and requested it be deleted, per G3. I'll let you all deal with the editor. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:17 on February 6, 2021 (UTC)

They deleted some of the comments from Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/WCC-FM which I have now reverted. It's worth keeping an eye to makes sure he doesn't try doing it again. Spiderone 16:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• I've blocked them for advertising, being unable or unwilling to comprehend basic policies, and spamming "why they deleted my article" messages across half the project. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, can we get a block on their IP 68.184.218.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? They've also been using that account for nonsense I've had to clear up since early in January, including a radio station on 75.5 FM (which isn't a part of any FM bandplan worldwide), GTA V stations being real and living entities, and and a false wiki to prove their stations are "real". They were still using the IP yesterday. Nate • (chatter) 21:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

And a dig back on The Steve Harvey Morning Show shows that DJ JAYON is a mega-duck of JAYLON BRICE THE AMAZING (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was blocked last year (and who got booted from Wikia for a false wiki attempt). Nate • (chatter) 21:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that all seems pretty darn clear. I'm on it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done bagged and tagged. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much, it's appreciated. Nate • (chatter) 23:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Other accounts they have used include 85.5 STAFF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is indef blocked on Misplaced Pages but is still being used on Wikimedia Commons, and 85.5 FOR LA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is also indef blocked on Misplaced Pages.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

As the account 85.5 FOR LA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created 14 April 2019, it is the oldest of the bunch, so the other accounts should probably be tagged as socks of 85.5 FOR LA.--Tdl1060 (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• My sleep schedule is a mess, just wanted to say "Thank You!" to everyone who commented and took care of everything. Much appreciated! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:08 on February 7, 2021 (UTC)

User:Texan681

I have stumbled upon this rarely used account which although inactive for the last three weeks seems to be very problematic. The account mainly edits around racism in France, though the views are so idiosyncratic it's hard to know whether it's pro-racist, anti-racist, or a parody of either. Here are some of its just sixteen edits:

• accuses a French anti-Islamophobia charity of fuelling the murder of Samuel Paty. Unsourced. This has been alleged by many figures but AFAIK not proven.
• calls same group "soft terrorism"
• accuses a black actor of being a hypocrite who ignores crimes against whites
• accuses sister of police brutality victim of being a criminal
• invents an imaginary NYT article that says that crimes by non-white people were done by far-right Germans in disguise. The reverting editor called it a "good faith" addition that forgot to cite the article, but the article doesn't exist, period
• writes in a non-neutral but POSITIVE manner on the same victim of police brutality

As you can see, it's impossible to tell if this is a pro- or anti-racist account, but whatever it is, it's not writing neutrally or using sources. I don't know what the procedure is with accounts with only 16 edits, whether they're given rope until they hang themselves, but I've seen brand new accounts get blocked within minutes because they prove they're WP:NOTHERE by this kind of editing.

If there's not sufficient grounds for a block, I at least propose a topic ban on the subject of racism and anti-racism, broadly construed. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• It's usually expected that before you ask for a sanction, there is some evidence you actually tried to discuss the matter with the user first. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry, this is my first time using the board, and I assumed that there already being three warnings on a user's talk page (a user with 16 edits I may add) was enough to say that this user is aware of what they're doing. I don't see why it's different if I'm reporting them but didn't give them those warnings myself. But maybe the user hasn't edited for three weeks because they're bored now, maybe not. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Solavirum and Shusha

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

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

Solavirum removed the boldface for the significant alternative name "Shushi" that I added to the lede of the Shusha article, which I presented a clear rationale for in my edit summary.

In the edit summary of his edit, he argued that the matter had been brought up in a previous discussion: on the article talk page as a rationale - however the topic of that discuission was the very presence of the name and its status as a significant alternative name per Misplaced Pages guidelines.

I reverted his edit and explained on the talk page that he did not present a valid rationale for his edit. I provided my original rationale from my edit summary on the talk page with relevant links. I believe the rationale I presented was pretty straight-forward, while referring to Misplaced Pages guidelines that are clear about the matter (WP:NCGN#Alternative names/MOS:BOLDSYN).

He then carried out another revert pointing to his answer on the talk page which referred to that there is a consensus about the matter from the previous discussion, which is hard to grasp since the issue of boldface was not discussed.

He then said he was too busy to respond and would get back to me tomorrow. I don't want to engage in an edit war, and since I would say that his behavior is not constructive or prudent for a Misplaced Pages editor, I would appreciate administrator input regarding the matter.

AntonSamuel (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

AntonSamuel ANI is meant to resolve suspected behavioral issues of an editor, not resolving content disputes. Please stick with the discussion and avoid violating WP:3RR, and likewise Solavirum, avoid violating 3RR. Jerm (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jerm: The main issue that I wanted to raise here was with regard to the behavior of the user, but I wanted to provide context regarding the matter so I included an extensive explanation to avoid confusion. As I mentioned, I don't intend to engage in an edit war - I only carried out a single revert - which I believe was justified with regard to the lack of a reasonable rationale for the removal of the boldface, and I also opened a discussion on the talk page. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Trevor LaFleur persistent overlinking

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

Despite repeated reverts with explanations and several user talk page warnings, the editor has continued to add/re-add links to well-known cities and countries. MOS:OVERLINK advises against linking "The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. This generally includes major examples of: *countries (e.g., Japan/Japanese, Brazil/Brazilian) ... *locations (e.g., Berlin; New York City, or just New York if the city context is already clear; London, if the context rules out London, Ontario; Southeast Asia"

The affected articles are mostly about musicians that only note the locations in passing and the linked place articles do not provide any useful information about them. Examples include:

• United States
• New York City
• London

Also, they add and link political subdivisions (states, provinces, counties) to well-known cities, that do not contribute to understanding the subject musicians. These are often added in the infoboxes, where unnecessary info is discouraged because of space limitations. Examples:

• Toronto, Ontario, Canada
• Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
• Liverpool, Lancashire, England
• Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands
• Oslo, Østlandet, Norway

Additionally, when the city article links already include a state, they pipe the link to just the city and add the state with a link:

• ] → ], ], ]
• ] → ], ]
• ] → ], ]
• ] → ], ]
• ] → ], ]

Most of their editing involves this type of linking/adding extra unnecessary locations, without any sources, explanations, edit summaries, or attempts to discuss when warned on their talk page. It does not appear that they are here to make meaningful contributions. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The overlinking is cluttery, redundant, and against WP:MOS and consensus. But what caught my attention was Trevor's changing or modifying the nationality of musicians or personalities. For example, changing British to English , and vice versa . This should not be done without consensus or sourcing, and can often lead to conflict among editors. Together with the failure of Trevor to respond on his talk page, a formal warning is in order the next time Trevor reverts, and if that fails, a temp block to get his attention. RandomGnome (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Not just OVERLINKing - Liverpool hasn't been in Lancashire since 1889. Narky Blert (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: - Liverpool was in Lancashire until 31 March 1974. Therefore Liverpool, Lancashire is correct and not overlinking.

@Mjroots: But why add Lancashire at all? Liverpool is a fairly well-known city and since "England" is also included, it wouldn't be confused with the Liverpools in other countries (the dab page doesn't show other English ones). Also linking Lancashire does not provide any more useful information about the Beatles or Liverpool. It seems to be details-for-details-sake; music references, such as AllMusic, apparently do not find it important enough to mention. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: - I see it this way, with the exception of linking of Canada and the use of England instead of United Kingdom, the tranche of wikilinks in the second group are absolutely fine. Depending on the historical context, countries may be linked even if the presentation of the wikilink seems counter-intuitive; for example, the pre-1923 United Kingdom is not the same as the current United Kingdom. I always link to the former, but generally do not link to the latter except where the use of flags is concerned. The third group is overlinking. I'm a lazy so-and-so and would generally not indulge in such a practice as it means a lot more typing. Mjroots (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: MOS:OVERLINK advises against linking "major examples of ... locations (e.g. Berlin; New York City, or just New York if the city context is already clear; London if the context rules out London, Ontario". It seems incongruous to add and link "New York (state)" after "New York City", when the city itself is well-known enough to not be linked. I would think Toronto and Sydney are also "major examples". Remember, most of these are for rather recent musician article inboxes, where this type of historical or political specificity does not add to understanding the subject. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: My understanding is that WP:MOS is not set in stone, but editors must follow consensus. What is the current consensus for the breadth of geographic linking? How far are you supposed to 'zoom out'? Trevor LaFleur must conform to this. If there is no real consensus, then I can see how this is a can of worms. What do you think about Trevor changing the nationality of bands and individuals? This to me seems quite egregious in terms of the potential for battleground edit conflicts. RandomGnome (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@RandomGnome: At least six other editors have been reverting/removing Trevor LeFleur's overlinks and unnecessary details from musician articles. Additionally, Bowling is life and Arjayay have left warnings on their talk page explaining the issues with links to MOS:LINKSTYLE and WP:OVERLINKING. Another user engaged in similar overlinking/disruptive editing received an indefinite block. The guidelines are "sets of best practices supported by consensus" (WP:GUIDELINE) and other music article editors apparently agree, so I believe there is consensus.

As you have pointed out, LaFleur has also been making unsourced, unexplained changes to nationalities that other editors have reverted. I'm not familiar enough with the artists to address the issue, but LaFleur, who started editing on 6 January, seems to want to do things their way, regardless of the advice of more seasoned editors. Again, it doesn't appear they are here to work collaboratively.

—Ojorojo (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert AfD nominations

User:Johnpacklambert (JPL) has been the subject of at least one prior ANI discussion about his AfD nominations. That discussion resulted in their being "indefinitely banned from nominating any articles at WP:AFD to a maximum of ONE article in any given calendar day." See here. Yet, JPL's recent track record in making AfD nominations continues to be concerning. Their most recent 17 nominations are:

1. David Garst: Closed as “Keep”
2. Jack Wasserman: Closed as "Keep"
3. Gordon Salkilld: Closed as "Keep"
4. Shaquille Walker: Closed as "Keep"
5. Miriam Marx: Closed as "Keep"
6. Hinarere Taputu: Closed as "Keep"
7. Barbara Radecki: Closed as "Keep"
8. Bekhan Tungaev: Closed as "Keep"
9. Outer Drive: Closed as "Keep"
10. M. Brendan Fleming: Closed as "Keep"
11. Marie Yanaka: Closed as "No Consensus"
12. Dick Martin: Closed as "No Consensus"
13. Leon Lissek: Closed as "No Consensus"
14. Berwick Grammar School: pending, currently 4-0 to "Keep" (prior AfD also closed as “Keep”)
15. Jack Schlossberg: pending, currently 5-2 in favor of "Keep" (JPL's prior nom of same article (here) also resulted in a consensus to "Keep")
16. Silas Bartsch: pending, leaning "Keep" or "No Consensus"
17. Brenda Liz Lopez: Closed as "Delete"

While > 80% of AfDs are sustained, JPL's recent nominations (based on closing decisions and current trends) appear headed toward a rate as low as 5.8% (1 out of 17). To help with this disconnect, I and others have suggested that JPL redouble their WP:BEFORE efforts. See here and here. Moreover, I recently offered to provide advance feedback if they would like it prior to nominating additional articles. See here. In each case, JPL has not responded to these suggestions or offers. In the most recent case, he simply deleted my offer from his talk page. See here. I believe that JPL is acting in good faith and has good intentions. However, a recent AfD endorsement rate of < 10% indicates that further guidance is needed. My suggestion is that someone (probably not me, as he may now view me as antagonistic) be appointed to work with JPL in mentoring them on the WP:BEFORE efforts that they should undertake. Or perhaps others can come up with another remedy to help address this. Cbl62 (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• I've been accused of being a rabid foaming-at-the-mouth deletionist monster a few times, and I have to agree that at a glance this is a terrible record. However, I just pulled up a random sampling and what I'm seeing is well-explained, reasonable nominations being refuted with "Appears to meet GNG" or Keep per WP:HEY, as well as other users making comments in agreement with the nomination, and some "weak keep" comments. There is also the ongoing issue of waning particpation at many AFD discussions, I just looked at one that went three weeks before it drew a single comment of any kind. This is a systemic flaw and cannot be blamed on the nominator. While a few of the noms aren't great, I don't think there is an overall indication that further sanctions are merited. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• To me this is utterly unfair. The Garst article had sat for over a decade sourced only to the website of the company he founded. I did a legitimate attempt to find additional sources and found none. I have been attempting to identify possible sources. This is an unfair narrow look at my nominations that treats having a failed nomination as a mark against me. I am trying to improve Misplaced Pages with my contributions. I have tried to do background sources and not rush into things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• I also found it curious that the list stops at the 17 most recent. Kind of an odd place to stop. Why not stop at 20? So I looked, and that changes the math, with two more deletions and a redirect result. Bump that up to the last 25, and it adds in three more deletions, a redirect, and a merge. Going up to thirty adds one more keep result, two more deletes, and another redirect. Sample size seems to have been used to cherry pick here. Note that the restriction is from 2017 and the last 17 noms go back only a few weeks. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• I have a proposal. From now on with each nomination I will explicitly explain what searches I have done and what results have come up in those searchs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• I've seen JPL's comments at many AfDs, usually "Delete - a non notable " and it's got to the stage now where I ignore his comments for the purposes of consensus. Ritchie333 23:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Of the 500 most recent nominations for deletion at AfD by JPL, in 61% (306/500) the results were "Delete", as determined the AfD Statistics Tool. When Speedy Deletes and Redirects are counted, the number rises to 70.4% (349/500). Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• I have seen failed AfD nominations of BLPs in the Academic section that have disturbed me but I am not in a position now to give chapter and verse. I suggest that JPL rein in his enthusiasms and act with more temperance. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC).
• In all, it is my honest opinion that @Johnpacklambert is a net positive. The timing of this report imo is done in bad faith seeing that currently he was name dropped in an ongoing discussion that portrays him in a bad light so this report is definitely not AGF, it just feels like adding more ammunition/gasoline to fire. JPL made a proposal above that forthwith he would explain in detail why he has nominated an article for deletion which is a very good approach moving forward. Whilst In NPP academy, @Barkeep49 always emphasized the need to include in your nomination rationale that you have done a WP:BEFORE search, present your findings & explain how they do not do meet any notability criteria, so like I said that is a positive move on the part of JPL. In summary i oppose any sanctions whatsoever on JPL. It’s really horrible how we treat honest veteran editors who have dedicated their time to serve this collaborative project. Furthermore @Ritchie333 what you just said above is rude, unnecessary, & uncalled for. Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

  Celestina007, No, it's just honest straight talking. Actually, I checked a bunch of AfDs I closed last week and saw JPL's comments are getting more substantive, so as he says, there might be improvement. I didn't make any comment on sanctions (because I haven't thought about whether they're necessary or not). PS: Is this comment of yours polite? Ritchie333 00:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

  Celestina007 Not really - I will take any AfD comment with less weight if it says "Delete - non-notable" in the same way I would do the same for "Keep - definitely notable" or "Keep - has sources" etc. Black Kite (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite, I understand crystal clear what you are saying & I’m not justifying that sort of !vote. In-fact, policy makes it clear those sort of !votes aren’t to be considered. My point was & still is the manner in which @Ritchie333 casually made the condescending remark. You just said the same thing but in a mature manner an admin should do. Celestina007 (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

My comment was not intended to offend and I apologise if it did - I was just stating my opinion. Ritchie333 00:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• It's not just the nominations, but it's the way JPL casts his votes in AfD discussions. I don't think he has any interest in association football which I am around that area a lot of wikipedia when I have the time. Yet a lot of the time I've seen him vote for the sake of voting and nothing more. As Ritchie said he just ignores JPL's comments, do all the other admins disregard him also? I am surprised his hasn't had a perm topic ban from the AfD environment. Govvy (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

  We're going to need to make a loooooooong list if we are going to start topic banning people who make the cookie cutter votes at AFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The list would be shorter for the serial offenders. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC).

• I agree with Govvy here. I've noticed that JPL seems to cast 'delete' votes repeatedly AfD after AfD. Looking at this editing history, he seems to go in alphabetical order casting delete vote after delete vote, sometimes not even a minute between votes. I doubt he can claim that he does a proper WP:BEFORE check to notability prior to every time he casts a vote in an AfD thread. --Soman (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that he should be banned from AfD discussions. He does not spend any time reviewing the article or discussion before voting delete based on flimsy rationale that was already addressed or obviously refuted. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• On that basis, as Beeblebrox says, we should probably start with the significant number of people who vote "Keep" every time with similarly flimsy rationales ("I found it mentioned on Google") and whose AfD stats scores are somewhat worse than JPL's. Black Kite (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• OTHERSTUFF, but I don't necessarily disagree with that. However, we should probably start with people who were already sanctioned over similar behavior and violated that sanction afterwards. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• I’d like to draw this noticeboard’s attention to JPL’s participation in series of CFDs as well. He has voted these two categories for deletion based on some kind of intuitive sense that they shouldn’t exist, which is perfectly fine but after being presented with evidence that these classifications are abundantly present in academic literature, he doesn’t change his vote or even reply to my contribution. It’s possible that he hasn’t had time to even reply because he’s been to busy participating in other deletion discussion, but this by itself is cause for concern. Links: 1, 2, 3. (For disclosure I didn’t participate in the first CFD, and I don’t think there was any problematic conduct, other than his possibly not checking sources WP:BEFORE nomination) -—Prisencolin (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Somewhat related to this was an earlier discussion on the noticeboard about reaction to his category edits. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

That’s quite eye opening, I had heard of this controversy long before I became an editor on this project myself. It gives me even more confidence that the nomination of this category was not made in entirely good faith, however I discontinue commenting on this particular ANI thread if JPL further explains his reasoning behind his deletion arguments in that CFD.—-Prisencolin (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• I am trying to make Misplaced Pages better. I will strive to do more in depth reviews of articles before nominating them for deletion. That is all I can do at this point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • That’s great that you wish to improve. I will ask that you at some point reply to my comment on the CFD listed above. If you don’t want to wade through the paragraphs I wrote here’s all you need to know: my category meets the criteria for inclusion because “reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having,” and these sources are listed in discussion. I can list them out here or in your talk page if needed, thanks for your cooperation..—Prisencolin (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Complaints about the lack of WP:BEFORE were made for AfDs in 2017 and PRODS in 2020. Has the striving gotten better since then? Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• The user has a habit of rapidly !voting in AfD discussions one-after-another, sometimes performing three and even four delete !votes in one minute of time. This suggests that WP:BEFORE source searches are not necessarily being performed, and that the user is !voting per their personal preference for BLP articles be reduced on English Misplaced Pages. The user's contributions in Misplaced Pages namespace on 19 January 2021 provide one example, which consist of mostly rapid-fire deletion !votes for BLP articles. The same pattern can be seen by changing the dates in the Search for contributions search box.

Regarding the user's subjective desire for BLP articles to be reduced, see this post, where the user states, "Currently there are 973,163 articles in Category:Living people. The category will have to have a net growth of 266 per day to reach the dreaded 1 million by the end of the year". I suspect the user may be posting mass, rapid-fire delete !votes per this bias they have demonstrated, in hopes of reducing the number of "dreaded" BLP articles present.

Additionally, the user seems to ignore WP:NEXIST, in favor of basing notability upon the state of sourcing in articles, rather than basing notability assessments upon the availability of sources. See this AfD discussion for one likely example. This may be further demonstrated via the rapid delete !votes alone, whereby it is unlikely that WP:BEFORE searches are being performed in the first place. North America 14:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000, Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project with each editor and their own idiosyncratic nature, bringing to the table their own quota. If JPL has chosen to path of weeding out non notable articles (which is quite daunting I must say) I don’t see the problem in that, imo, the real problem here is people do not like the fact that JPL would most likely !vote a delete than a keep but In this very collaborative project we have serial keep !voters but no one seems to tackle them in the manner this collaborative project has vilified and incapacitated JPL. It is as though every year the community finds new ways to try and incapacitate JPL & at this rate we may lose a great editor over relatively trifling errors. Celestina007 (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Every year? Seems more like the Inclusionist Pile-On of JPL is a quarterly event. JPL gets singled out because he is active, that's all. The quality of his AFD participation is better than most. Any analysis of a representative sample of his contribs shows that. Levivich /_hound 16:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• I don't post much at AFD either as nominator or !voter - because it's hard work. I estimate that it takes me a minimum of 10-15 minutes to propose or support deletion, even in the most rodentodouriferous cases. !Voting keep can sometimes be a lot quicker - "this person passes WP:NBIO because of such-and-such a citation, already in the article".

As !voter, you must WP:AGF for both creator and nominator, do your own research, and only once you have done that post a (reasoned) opinion. Otherwise, what you say is merely WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Narky Blert (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Personally I don't have an issue with his nominations however his occasional Delete !votes puzzle me, I get the impression at times he !votes Delete purely for the sake of it (There's been 2-3 clear cut Keeps yet he's !voted delete), That being said I don't see nothing sanctionable here and I'm happy that he'll put more effort into his !votes. –Davey2010 16:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• I think JPL's commitment to affirmatively disclose his WP:BEFORE efforts is a good step and shows a willingness to improve. In opening this discussion, I acknowledged JPL's good faith desire to improve the project. JPL has also been, historically, a dedicated content creator, e.g., Public relations of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Peter M. Johnson, Gary P. Gillum, and Michael Otterson. I understand they may have been deterred by deletion of some of their articles, but I encourage JPL to redirect more of their very significant energy back to building the encyclopedia. JPL - if you want to collaborate on creating or expanding an article, I'd be willing to help in any way I can. Cbl62 (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions on the basis just of the most recent 17 nominations. Anyone as active in one area as he is can have a bad stretch. JPL's last 500 nominations are out of line with consensus 24.8% of the time. That's not ideal but also not so bad. And his !votes overall are out of line with consensus only 9.6% of the time, which is very low (I consider the "red cells" most telling in the afdstats page). So as for nominations, I say we take JPL's offer to increase due diligence regarding WP:BEFORE. JPL can be frustrating at AfD for the rapid !votes that seem to defer to the judgment and due diligence of the nominator rather than doing a thorough search for sources, but that's not what this section is about, and when those !votes are so frequently in line with consensus, there would need to be a lot of evidence of a problem. — Rhododendrites \\ 16:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm glad at least one admin ignores Lambert's comments when it comes to closing an AfD. I have no problem with anyone putting through a well thought out rationale for delete on any topic, but Lambert just works through the AfD log and tags dozens and dozens of articles within a VERY short space of time with the same delete !vote. This does not show that any WP:BEFORE work has been done at all, suggesting either WP:DE or WP:CIR issues. From his past record with WP:PROD, he's just moving that issue to AfD instead. Lugnuts 17:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick look at contributions on 5th Feb shows at least 30 delete !votes between 14:02 to 14:57. Lugnuts 17:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm still not sure how JPL has actually harmed the encyclopedia? It's possible I guess that somebody who put a lot of work into writing an article, only to see him say "Delete - a non notable blah" might get upset, but either a) The AfD won't close as "delete" or b) Other people will have put more substantive arguments to delete in the AfD anyway. Then there's the point that his weak !voting rationales can annoy the closing administrator, but I find it much easier to deal with that than, say, an AfD with two people going "It's notable! No it's not! Yes it is! No it isn't!" for two pages. And plus "he's annoying" is pretty much the worst possible reason ever to sanction somebody. So I'm not sure what we should do, other than take him at his word that he's going to improve? Ritchie333 18:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'd be highly concerned about JPL's AFD record, if it weren't for the fact there are serial "keep" !voters with similar or worse records. They can be weighed appropriately at AfD; I don't see what else needs to be done here unless we want to make voting against consensus a sanctionable offense and start at the top of the heap and work our way to him. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@David Fuchs, your comment above is very much apt & summarizes everything! Celestina007 (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• This is the third response I've started to this, partly because I keep finding myself being drawn into discussing of what I see are fundamental structural issues with AfD as it stands, but when it comes down to it, unsubstantiated "delete" votes are routinely dismissed, and I personally find myself in agreement with JPL more often than not. Considering the crap I have had to deal with in the geostubs cleanup, this is extremely small potatoes. Mangoe (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: JPL has caused no harm, therefore a ban will is not prevenative.

AFD needs systematic reform (along with the almost useless PROD process). Whatever "standard" is supposedly being applied here is being applied selectively to a single editor, ignoring others with worse problems, as well as the overall problems at AFD, such as:

• voting based on personal opinions, essays, and likes and not policys and guidelines,
• using completely unfounded claims that "sources exist",
• "me too" voting,
• voting with a complete disregard for what guidelines state about what is an independent reliable source
• votes based on a complete disregard for what significant coverage means,
• abuse use of the word "presumed" in guidelines to mean "guaranteed",
• Keep mobs that form to derail noms for their favorite topics/areas,
• closing based on vote counting or keep mobs as opposed to arguments based in guidelines and policy,

and other issues.

Numerous editors that frequent AfD and at least two admins that routinely "Vote" keep have far worse AfD records than JPL. If the above mentioned well known problems had been addressed instead of ignored (they all favor the Keep voters), JPL would have a better record, and many of the editors voting against him would have a worse record. Everyone can improve, but selectively holding nominators to some vague interpretation of a standard, without holding voters, keep mobs, etc accountable to the clearly definted existing guidelines, will only drive nominators away, which along with allowing a defacto lower notability standard for inclusionists, is what I think this is about.

I support reforming AfD and clarifying notability guidelines, which will be far more productive than the continuing attacks on single editors. If someone wants to make AfD better this is the proper place to start. It will also make AfD stats useful; if guidelines are ignored, stats become useless because nominators have nothing to base their noms on and even the best nom can be derailed by a keep mob.

JPL has caused no harm, therefore a ban will is not prevenative.  // Timothy :: talk  19:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

TimothyBlue, I'd like to see some case studies and diffs of your evidence, particularly of your accusation of two administrators who do not follow the deletion policy correctly. Ritchie333 19:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I did not name names for two reasons: those individuals are uninvolved here so this is not directly about them and fear of retaliation (not from you). I will strike admins if you believe I am being dishonest (or name the admins). I know some editors like to bash admins, I am not one of them, and did not state what I did to bash admins. I believe my points are on topic, but I do not think this is the proper place for an extended discussion about general problems at AfD, but if you feel I would be justified in supporting my points with diffs and case studies here, I will do so.

I would really like dicsussion that could focus on issues at AfD and the issues I raised above.  // Timothy :: talk  21:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - I would also strongly oppose any sanctions. JPL starts discussions at AfD. Starting an AfD does not mean that the article will be deleted, it means that its notability is being questioned and an editor wishes to start a discussion about it. I am also worried about this obsession with 'conversion rate'. It puts people in an unnecessarily bad light who try to start honest discussions on the notability of topics that some other editors might feel strongly about. This obsession with having a good conversion rate will only lead to people putting articles up for AfD that should be speedied to improve their rate or people only using AfD for stuff that is so uncontroversial that it should be PROD. AfD is an important process and shouldn't be censored nor should we be discouraging people from taking part just because you find them annoying or you don't like the fact that they vote 'delete' more often than not. Spiderone 20:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

He's already been sanctioned over this type of behavior in 2017. Given your stated rationale, would you have objected to this sanction back then? He apparently violated that sanction very recently within those 17 listed AfDs. He has not violated this since 2019. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support rationing AfD contributions. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC).
• If we're going to bolded comments, then fine I oppose, per my above comments, along with Ritchie333 and David Fuchs on-point remarks above. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment –Ultimately, administrators need to consider the strength of the arguments presented in deletion discussions relative to various policies and guidelines. !Votes that provide absolutely no valid rationales (e.g. the word "keep" or delete" with nothing else) should be given no weight, and those that provide very weak rationales should be given very little weight. Problems can occur when folks show up at AfD and cast a bunch of "per nom" !votes, in either direction, to retain or delete, wherein it is at least possible from time-to-time that absolutely no research has occurred to qualify their validity.

A problem is that when users cast !votes sans any research, it has the potential for articles that actually do not meet various notability guidelines to be retained, and vice versa, ending up in the deletion of articles that actually pass. Regarding the user being discussed here, see this AfD discussion for another example, whereby at the time another user (Nfitz) questioned the validity of the user's !vote there, stating:

Hang on User:Johnpacklambert, in the two minutes you had after your delete vote at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Barbara Snellenburg (2nd nomination), how did you have time to look at the 21 foreign language references here, and determine that they were all "too newsy" to meet GNG? That's not possible, and I once again have to question your competence to edit in the AFD area. Can you please explain your justification in detail, as I really think your topic ban on AFD participation needs to be expanded. Nfitz (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Upon receiving some input from Scope creep regarding the matter, Nfitz later stated:

AGF has limitations - I've pointed out these 20-second judgements time and time again, but nothing changes. At some point, it becomes a question of competence. See also the discussion at their topic ban - since then, they seem to have replaced the creation of far too many AFDs with voting delete at discussions with no discrimination and clearly not enough time for judgement. Enough is enough - this one is particularly blatant given the number of Spanish articles they'd have had to have looked at, in no time. I'd like a better understanding. Nfitz (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The point here is that, regarding input in AfD discussions, the user has demonstrated an ongoing tendency to !vote rapidly, and likely at times, per this rapid rate, without performing any source review that involves actually reading the sources, as well as not performing source searching, essentially 1) !voting for deletion for the sake of deletion, and/or 2) only basing notability upon the state of sourcing in articles, which is against WP:NEXIST, a key point of the main Notability guideline page. Unfortunately, these types of actions serve to deteriorate the integrity of the deletion process on English Misplaced Pages, whereby inaccuracies are presented that can lead to results that are actually incorrect.

Furthermore, it states at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion, section WP:AFDFORMAT regarding AfD discussions that:

But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider a dispute resolution process outside the current AfD.

So, if this sentiment is never going to actually be enforced, then should it therefore be removed from the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion page? North America 09:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, if the issue is enforcing users not appropriately evaluating articles before commenting on AfDs, there are far more demonstrably disruptive and contrary-to-consensus editors out there. Why is JPL a unique problem? If we're going to deal with bad !votes you need to deal with all of them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

He's not unique, but he is by far the worst offender in this area. Lugnuts 17:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per Ritchie333, David Fuchs, Spiderone and Beeblebrox whom have collectively articulated my thoughts far better than I could myself... --Jack Frost (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per rationale of User:TimothyBlue. Mztourist (talk) 09:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose unless we're going to look at the entire problem of cookie-cutter AfD "voting" or until evidence is produced that doesn't require cherry-picking a prime number sample size. Black Kite (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanctions whatsoever. It’s my opinion that good faith editors who have the projects interest at heart be allowed the privilege of editing without feeling subliminally restrained or “shadow marked”. If a change has to be implemented it would have to be a total AFD process overhaul/reformation. Celestina007 (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support AFD ban The point of JPL's existing sanction logged at WP:RESTRICT was because he was nominating articles that would never be deleted at a high rate. The sanction was specifically to limit him so he would take more time over his nominations instead of wasting multiple editors time having to deal with him. There has been no improvement in the quality of his nominations and he is still wasting other volunteers time having to deal with him. Its entirely a self-centered approach and this is the point to say 'thanks but no thanks'. By allowing him to continue, it is actively supporting disruptive behaviour. There will be no downside to banning him from AFD, and the upside is that every other volunteer who has had to deal with him gets more time to be productive. Far too many of the !votes above completely ignore other volunteers or suffer from whataboutism. This is a problem that is easily solved, allowing it to continue does nothing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - I see a lot of editors claiming that JPL's AFD participation is out of sync with consensus, but the data shows that's just not true. His numbers are within acceptable parameters (and better than some of the people who are calling for a sanction here). Levivich /_hound 18:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions; these were good faith nominations. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose It would be one thing if JPL was doubling down and becoming argumentative when consensus doesn't go his way, but unless I'm overlooking something his occasional replies to Keep !votes are always polite and policy-based.

I also disagree with the idea that these deletion discussions are a waste of time. Of course AfD is not cleanup, but sources found during AfD are often used to improve and expand articles that would have otherwise been overlooked.

It's silly to put too much weight on AfD statistics, and the cherry-picked set of 17 nominations deserves a trout. –dlthewave ☎ 23:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose blanket ban, it appears that he is capable of making well thought-out nominations. However, if possible it would be nice to see extra scrutiny placed into nominations JPL makes which are obviously low effort by the closing admins.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I think JPL makes useful contributions to AFD. I don't think a person should be banned from making AFD nominations unless their nominations are utterly tendentious, and JPL's nominations are not. Mr248 (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support: In my (limited) history of participation in AfD, I often find that JPL has been there before me, and on many occasions, has given an opinion on why said article should be deleted (there are many, easy to find) instead of referencing policy and giving reasons related to aforesaid policy and standards. These are verifiable observations. --Whiteguru (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Editor making mass changes without consensus to do so

WP:FILMPLOT is an editing guideline promulgated by WikiProject film. It has never been approved by the community via a community consensus discussion, and remains a quasi-private editing guideline. It is not mandatory, and it does not have the community's imprimatur. It has solely been agreed upon by the members of the WikiProject.

It is settled WikiPolicy that WikiProjects cannot control the content of the articles which they take to be withing their area of interest. WikiProject, by itself, cannot mandate what can and cannot be done to film article, they can only make suggestions.

Today, an editor User:Halbared, is making mass changes to film articles based on WP:FILMPLOT. The vast majority of classic film articles (not so much for current films) contain the names of the actors in the film plot section, in the form "Detective Sam Spade (Humphrey Bogart) meets the beautiful Brigid O'Shaugnessy (Mary Astor)..." to help guide the reader through the plot. Without these insertions, the reader is forced to read a bit of the plot section, then look down to the cast section to see what actor is playing the part, then return to the plot section to continue reading, then back to the cast section, over and over again. Having the names in the plot section is a service to our readers, the people we are supposed to be serving in writing and maintaining this encyclopedia.

I undid a couple of the editor's changes that appeared on my watchlist, then check their contribs and saw that they were making many changes of this sort, so I explained what I was going to do, and used rollback to undo more of their edits (as is allowed). They ignored by explanations, and restored their changes.

I have explained about the status of WP:FILMPLOT, and suggested that if they feel strongly about this, they should start an RfC at WP:Centralized discussions and get community approval for the mass changes they are making. Unless they've responded while I was writing this, this advice has fallen on deaf ears.

I would like an admin to tell Halbared to stop making these edits until they have a community consensus to do so, not simply a WikiProject consensus, and allow me to restore the articles they have already changed to their status quo ante in the meantime. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining this so well. I have responded about centralised discussion, but I suppose you didn't read it because you were busy here. I have asked for your assistance in crafting a rfc.Halbared (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page just now, I'd be happy to work with you on setting up an RfC, but not until all the film articles you removed cast members from are restored to the condition they were in before you edited them. I can do it myself if you won't edit war against me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Great, this is done. I've read your clear explanation of the whole thing now. Are you willing to make the rfc (or help, I feel you know the policies) to get an agreed aligned format? YOu seem to know the issue very well.Halbared (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I've removed BMK's rollback privileges and blocked him for a month. Enough with the petty edit warring. And, no, you don't get to ignore the MOS just because you dislike it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure a mega-block is helpful here. The edit-warring stopped hours ago and the two editors seem ready to talk this out amongst themselves. Moreover, a month seems excessive for an editor who hasn't been blocked for edit-warring in nearly two years. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

That's because he's almost always let off with a warning. This ANI complaint is a particularly egregious example of his years-long behavior: edit war using rollback across dozens of articles, browbeat some newer editor into submission with demands that they follow his idiosyncratic rules, and then casually throw away some community-vetted guideline because he doesn't like it. This behavior needs to immediately stop. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I would add that if you do some digging, one of his alt accounts was blocked three times for edit warring, making this something like block number thirteen for the same thing. I don't care how long they went between blocks, thirteen chances is a lot, we expect people to learn not to edit war fairly quickly, not still not get it after 12 years of being blocked for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It should probably be mentioned here that over on BMK's talk Ritchie333 is proposing to unblock him for "time served." P-K3 (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• I wrote the following before the 06:48, 7 February 2021 comments just above which throws more light on the matter. I don't understand the removal of rollback or the block. WP:ROLLBACKUSE #5 ("provided that you supply an explanation in an appropriate location") was satisfied by User talk:Halbared#Actor names in film plot sections. Re possible edit warring, few things are more disruptive than someone making fait accompli mass changes without any discernible central discussion. I see that WP:PLOT ends up at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Film which has a MoS sidebar so it appears to have been blessed. However, BMK sounded confident and I wouldn't expect them to be wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 06:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Do whatever action you think best, but I'm probably not going to be around much in the next 24 hours. Fait accompli mass changes can go both ways, such as people who use rollback to revert constructive, guideline-respecting changes. It's absurd to say that people need to get community consensus to follow a community-endorsed guideline, then edit war to keep their changes out of any articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Just out of curiosity: can someone link the community discussion that led to the approval of that section/sentence, showing that Do not include actors' names in the plot summary, as it is considered redundant to the "Cast" section. enjoys consensus? Also, how long has it been part of the MOS? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

  @ProcrastinatingReader: It appears to have been added by Erik here, citing what appears to be general agreement. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

  My addition is based on the discussion here: Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 19#Actors names in plot section? Other editors are welcome to revisit that passage. Erik (talk | contrib) 03:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Long term creation of hoax drafts

• 72.50.16.105 (talk · contribs)
• 67.224.128.43 (talk · contribs)
• 66.50.50.53 (talk · contribs)
• 67.224.128.49 (talk · contribs)
• 72.50.16.192 (talk · contribs)
• 66.50.50.241 (talk · contribs)
• 64.237.237.210 (talk · contribs)

Not intended to be a definitive list; some appear dormant, others active or recent. Appears to be one user in Puerto Rico. Most surely WP:NOTHERE. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Having had a bit of a nose around; 67.224.128.32/27, 66.50.50.0/24, 72.50.16.0/24, and 64.237.237.0/24 appear to be the most active ranges. There doesn't seem to be much of value coming out of these ranges of late, so in light of the net drain on editor time this person seems to pose at present I wonder whether a couple of rangeblocks may be in order? Jack Frost (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The number of drafts they have created for imaginary films is a bit disturbing. All of them appear to be for imaginary films, actors, production houses or distributors. Possibly (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked a few of those ranges (in one case, just a single IP), and for another, partial-blocked the draft namespace.

67.224.128.32/27 - Rangeblocked 3 months

66.50.50.0/24 - Rangeblocked 3 months

72.50.16.105 - Blocked 3 months

64.237.237.0/24 - Rangeblocked from draftspace 3 months OhNoitsJamie 18:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie, thank you. Now, I have a follow-up question: why is it taking so long for all those hoax drafts to be deleted? Is it because they're not in article space, so there's no imperative? Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

There has been some discussion on the Village pump about this, but there is a view that drafts are "where articles go to die" and are rarely looked by anybody except for a handful of reviewers. Ritchie333 15:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Please delete page created by sock of mikemikev or other white supremacist paid editor

Emil Kirkegaard

https://rationalwiki.org/RationalWiki:Saloon_bar#RationalWiki_too_negative_against_Emil_Kirkegaard is definitive proof.

Emil is a white supremacist far right antisemite. None of the article is true. All his credentials are fake. The account that wrote it is paid to write it or a sock of Mikemikev. He admitted it on rational wiki. Please delete it. This is part of an ongoing harassment campaign and whitewashing campaign spanning many sites. I have been doxxed by this person and his stupid goons. 218.232.76.181 (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe the article should be removed per sock-puppet concerns, it had already been deleted. There are many discussions about this currently, see for example and . Mikemikev is a banned sock-puppet who has used Kirkegaard's name on this website . If Mikemivev or some other meat-puppet did create the article it should be removed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. And fully protect it. And watch out for whitewashing on OpenPsych. 218.232.76.181 (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The article has been draftified by DGG.Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Userid1438

User:Userid1438 has been repeatedly removing the sourced mention of 'Urdu' from longstanding version of articles, which is has been granted 'additional official language' status throughout the state of Uttar Pradesh (49 of this source), from the articles they come across , , , , , . They have also replaced Urdu with Sanskrit which is not an official language, alongwith unsourced additions here. Removed mention of another language which is regionally spoken here and typically also adds unsourced content, for example here. In the Noida article especially, they are edit warring with typical WP:OWN like comments 'I live in Noida, I know more' , , . The user fails to understand Misplaced Pages policy despite multiple warninngs and explanations in the edit summaries. Looks like they have WP:CIR issues and/or is politically motivated, considering their removal of 'Urdu' from the articles they come across. Pinging @Fuzheado and Arjayay:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

More POV removal of Urdu and addition of unsourced content here, . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring continues and in Noida article, they are on the verge of breaking 3RR . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Disruption continues also in Uttar Pradesh . — kashmīrī  17:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Again removed the sourced mention of 'Urdu' here. Seems like they wouldn't stop. Pinging @Oshwah:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay i might refrain myself from removing 'Urdu' until and unless I provide some hard legal source. I thereby apologize for my unsourced edits. Userid1438 (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Since Urdu is mentioned as an additional official language of Uttar Pradesh in the sources, you have to prove through latest sources/circulars that the 'additional official' status of Urdu has been revoked now. Obviously you have to discuss those sources first in the talk pages. Secondly, you seem to add original researches and unsourced content in articles, which need to stop (WP:V). - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Continued unsourced edits

You're My Only Destiny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite multiple warnings, including 3 final ones as well as personal pleas (on their talk page) for them to source their questionable edits, this editor continues unabated as can be seen in their latest disruptive edit (I didn't bother leaving another warning, they are ignored). For months this editor has been changing personnel sections on music related pages without sourcing and when confronted, resort to excuses such as "Oh, I ordered my CD and still haven't received it, so I can't read it." A simple hover over their contributions will give one an insight to the problem and to be perfectly honest, though I have been extremely patient, I've reached the end of my tether. Please could an admin take a look and perhaps (re) explain the importance of WP:V as my attempts are seemingly not succeeding. Robvanvee 07:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Block evasion

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

This IP has continued to revert good-faith users disruptively, reverting back to their preferred version without any intent to discuss when contested. Seems like this IP's behavior is very similar to that of another blocked IP, 107.202.235.87. Edit histories seem to line up, and Geolocate info places both IPs relatively close to each other. I was not able to check any previous IPs on persistent targets as they were not blocked at the time of writing this report and the timing would not be right to list them here. I do believe WP:CIR applies here. Jalen Folf (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The IP listing Barney's Great Adventure, a movie that grossed 12 million dollars, in 1998 and then edit warring over it is not constructive..--Bob not snob (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

This IP is evading the three-year block on Special:Contributions/107.202.235.87 and also the two-year rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2600:1700:CAD0:A390:0:0:0:0/64. Same geolocation, articles of interest, kneejerk reversions and childish disruption. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Request topic-ban for User:سیمون دانکرک/IP-range 2600:1700:1030:2070:*

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

User:سیمون دانکرک/IP-range 2600:1700:1030:2070:* has been unceasingly pushing WP:OR at Proto-Indo-European homeland, Talk:Proto-Indo-European homeland and Yamnaya culture, insisting on presenting suggestions of an Iranian homeland for proto-Indo-European as a game-changing "hypothesis":

• At Proto-Indo-European homeland they have recently been removing and changing sourced info diff diff as IP, while in july 2020 they have been edit-warring under their username (see page-history for diffs; too many edits).
• At Talk:Proto-Indo-European homeland they keep on pushing their peculiar interpretations, despite repeated explanations that their pov is WP:OR of a very low level; see especially Talk:Proto-Indo-European homeland#'Anatolian-Iranian front as IE-homeland' - topic-ban would appropriate for this explanation.
• At Yamnaya culture they have started editing in a seriously biased way diff diff diff.
• They have been warned and blocked before diff diff, to no avail.
• Said user and the IP-range are admittedly the same diff.

I urgently propose a topic-ban; this editor seriously passed the threshold of WP:DONTGETIT and WP:TENDENTIOUS. Ping Joe Roe and Skllagyook for input. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

As User:Joshua Jonathan has mentioned, the IP/IP range has been pushing OR and persistently refused to WP:LISTEN. Initially, the IP deleted sourced information from Indo-European homeland, removing a substantial section of a paragraph for no apparent reason here: ], and then removed sourced details here ], and here ]. They were reverted by Joshua Jonathan and then, after another unsourced edit, by me. They attempted to support their deletions/edits on the Talk page with explanations that involved WP:OR and did not seem to justify said edits (a discussion followed involving them, Joshua, Jonathan, and myself), in which the IP user seemingly failed to listen or explain their reasons for deleting sourced material despite it being explained more than once that their statements did not justify this (and in which, to support their claims, they linked a graph and caption, not taken from a WP:RS but apparently synthesized/rearranged misleadingly from various parts of a study preprint, as discussed here:]).

The discussion here: ]

Their IP shifted at least once (or a few times) during the discussion. First it was this: ]. Then, it shifted to this ], during which period they also deleted sourced material from Corded Ware culture, here ] and were reverted by a user who noted that the information they had deleted was properly sourced (here: ]). The IP then proceded to remove information from Yamnaya culture in a way consistent with what seems to be their POV, persistently and despite being warned by me and reverted by three users (myself, User:Joshua Jonathan, and another). The page's edit history here: ]. Skllagyook (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The two-man team here should know better the BOOMERANG effect WP:OUCH. Their arguments are clear and excessively weak, among them:

• there is an intermittent exhausting use of a common fallacy Irrelevant conclusion,
• ignoring the latest opinions of scholars i.e Kristensen who considers a Proto-proto-indo-european language South of the Steppe in northwestern Iran which is ignored based on a funny argument that the theory is not an opposite to the Steppe hypothesis which in this case is considered to be a secondary phase after Iran being the primary phase,
• ignoring the new credible genetic archeological findings,driving notable geneticists like David Reich to the sidelines,
• devoting an unnecessary portion of the article to non-scientific understandings of an archeologist named David Anthony in the field of genetics siding with his theories and putting too much weight on his hypothesis reporting every comment and refutation from him on alternative theories disguising him as the main source of the discipline.

I strongly suggest that both of these editors should be banned for their ganglike actions i.c. monopolising the article treating it as their backyard playground, excluding any editor that they dislike while reminding everyone who confront this mischievous behaviour of their previous triumphs over other editors in this line of article manipulation. I seriously hope their passive aggressive attitude towards the scientific subject rather than a productive one be stopped through a proper decisive judgement in this matter and not repeated by anyone anywhere in wikipedia any more. سیمون دانکرک (talk) 07:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

NB: this editor reminds me strongly of User:MojtabaShahmiri, who was topic-banned 31 may 2020 from Indo-European topics for pushing the same Iranian origins pov. See also Talk:Proto-Indo-European homeland/Archive 1#Proto-Proto- Steppe apologetic nonsense: thread started by 2600:1700:1030:2070:7CC4:AA35:E6DA:7CBC, the same IP-range; a reply by User:Andrew Lancaster, to which MojtabaShahmiri replied. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, please stop it, you banned me and you will ban several other ones because you are censoring reliable sources like "Proto-Indo-Europeans: The Prologue" by Alexander Kozintsev in peer-reviewed academic journal of Indo-European studies which talk about Iranian origins of Indo-Europeans, no one is allowed to mention them in Misplaced Pages because you will attack him/her, I have ignored this issue. --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 07:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding سیمون دانکرک's response:

• No explanation what "Irrelevant conclusion" refers to; exemplary for their evasive and exhaustive way of responding and "arguing" (we're still waiting for the source of this graph);
• The suggestions of Kristensen and Reich, and also Haak, Damgaard and Wang, are referred to at Proto-Indo-European homeland#Main theories, with extensive notes:

Some recent DNA-research has led to renewed suggestions of the possibility of a Caucasian or Iranian homeland for archaic or 'proto-proto-Indo-European' (also called 'Indo-Anatolian' or 'Indo-Hittite' in the literature), the common ancestor of both Anatolian languages and early proto-IE (from which Tocharian and all other early branches split-off). These suggestions are disputed in other recent publications, which still locate the origin of the ancestor of proto-Indo-European in the Eastern European/Eurasian steppe or from a hybridization of both steppe and Northwest-Caucasian languages, while "mong comparative linguists, a Balkan route for the introduction of Anatolian IE is generally considered more likely than a passage through the Caucasus, due, for example, to greater Anatolian IE presence and language diversity in the west."

and also at Proto-Indo-European homeland#South Caucasus/Iranian suggestions, again with the extensive notes:

Recent DNA research which shows that the steppe-people derived from a mix of Eastern Hunter-Gatherers (EHG) and Caucasian Hunter-Gatherers (CHG, native to the Caucasus and Northern Iran, but also found in northern Pakistan), has led to renewed suggestions of the possibility of a Caucasian, or even Iranian, homeland for an archaic proto-Indo-European, the common ancestor of both Anatolian languages and all other Indo-European languages. It is argued that this may lend support to the Indo-Hittite hypothesis, according to which both proto-Anatolian and proto-Indo-European split-off from a common mother language "no later than the 4th millennium BCE."

That's already quite WP:UNDUE, thanks to the insistence on the Iranian "hypothesis," for what's no more than a handfull of suggestions; suggestions which are contested by others based on genetic, linguistic and archaeological data.

• David Anthony is an accomplished archaeologist, and one of the big names on this topic.

Regarding MojtabaShahmiri's response: Kozintsev's publication was discussed at Talk:Proto-Indo-European homeland/Archive 1#The Journal of Indo-European Studies, and rejected by multiple editors as "an unknown academician who has disputed views and whose views are not taken serious by other scholars writing on IE topics." Nevertheless, he's mentioned in note 7. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed articles about Proto-Indo-European are published in the Journal of Indo-European Studies, you ban editors who write about new studies and support those ones who use old articles as their references, the result is clear, new academic views are called disputed views. --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

"Being held ransom to delete the page unless we pay" comment at AfD

• Chronic Tacos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Akronowner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jotun-la (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

From this comment by 47.147.144.26 (talk · contribs) at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chronic Tacos: "Being held ransom to delete the page unless we pay."

No Misplaced Pages editor should be requiring payment to prevent the article from being deleted. 47.147.144.26 probably should contact the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee with information about this. I am reporting this so the community can review. Cunard (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I pointed them to the Arbitration Committee page and the email alias to contact them, on their talk page. I don't know what they specifically received but an awful lot of things that could be described as what they said, arbcom and potentially the Foundation need to engage. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 11:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, Georgewilliamherbert. Cunard (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

This issue appears occasionally at AFC. Reviewers there have been instructed to report such extortion incidents to WMF's legal office legal@wikimedia.org -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Beyond belief. Well, Beyond Beef anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Roger, can you ping them on their talk page with what you know about the AFC related contact protocol? You seem to know more specifics from that comment. I can tell them to mail legal but I don't know what the AFC reviewers were instructed in detail. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert Unfortunately I have not done much AFC work for quite some time so I'm going on what I remember. I have however found a relevant ANI case from 2015 that contains links to several other relevant pages and even OTRS tickets. WP:WPAFC has a specific warning about this scam in the header of it's help page. Perhaps some of the still active editors who were involved in the 2015 discussions might be able to provide further enlightenment. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Feels WP:PAID all around. On 5 January 2021, new user Jotun-la writes their first article on Chronic Tacos (polished and contains logos); seems a WP:PAID article. However, 60 minutes after publishing it, another relatively new user Akronowner puts it up for AfD. Akronowner had focused almost exclusively on AfD (and their first edits were to nominate articles for AfD using Twinkle - i.e. not new to Misplaced Pages). PAID editors are experienced, highly motivated, and evolve new techniques constantly to get around Misplaced Pages's controls. I could not see who patrolled this page. Was it automatically patrolled as part of Arkowoner's AfD nomination using Twinkle - which would be an interesting evolution of PAID. Pinging our tireless PAID patrollers - Praxidicae, and MER-C. Britishfinance (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

No one challenged the validity of the article prior to the AfD by Akronowner. It would seem kind of risky/elaborate to create an AfD then generate a fake accusation of extortion using an IP that geolocates to where Chronic Taco is HQ. A more simple explanation is extortionists are targeting newly created articles by apparent UPEs since they are more likely to go along with the scam (remain quiet) and pay up. -- GreenC 15:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The geolocation is interesting. It could be a coincidence though. As for "risky", well I don't know. While a lot of paid stuff scrapes by, a lot of it is also detected. Waiting until that detection happens to try any games probably adds significant additional risk. Any experience paid editor probably knows that and is probably looking for a way to increase their success. And as it stands, rather than us wondering 'WTF should we keep this possibly TOU violating creation', the AFD looks to be heading towards keep. There seems a possibility this article is going to effectively be protected from deletion forever more rather than always having a risk of deletion as a paid creation. Nil Einne (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Could an extortionist track a likely PAID new editor that quickly (they published that article in one go, and the second edit, 60 mins later, on the article was AfD). Arkonowner has not appeared on New Page Patrol so would not have been aware this was published. Also, paying money to an unknown 3rd party (via bitcoin) to avoid your article being brought to AfD seems odd, as they could send anybody to do it again (and you would not know it was them)? I think a different type of PAID system is at work here. Britishfinance (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

New articles can be tracked easily enough, as an extortionist you want to get them while it's fresh. Both accusers are credible accounts - one geolocates correctly, the other is a known self-disclosed entity with a history. This information can't be easily discarded as coincidence. You are right it is a dumb scam, why the victims have been posting they were approached for money. Most scams are dumb (think of a phone scammer). -- GreenC 16:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Fair point GreenC. Britishfinance (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It does seem like we have another spam infiltration at AFD currently ongoing. I can name two other accounts that I believe are spam socks participating in AFD, but I do not have enough evidence to block them.

Chronic Tacos was not automatically patrolled by the AFD nomination - this only happens if you are a new page patroller. MER-C 15:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks MER-C for clearning that. Britishfinance (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

MER-C, Names would be appreciated, either here or via email. CaptainEek ⚓ 18:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Email sent. MER-C 18:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Akronowner engaging in extortion at AfD

This is not the first time Akronowner (the author of the Chronic Tacos AfD) has been accused of attempting extortion, see this comment by WriteJames from the 25th of January, in which he alleges that "it has come to our knowledge that User:Akronowner, who nominated the page for deletion, subsequently contacted Mark Lanier via email and asked for money to keep the page from deletion. No renumeration was made and we view this as a case of extortion and encourage the Misplaced Pages community to look into this matter.". Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Given that two unrelated people have made the exact same allegation, I am inclined to think that it is true. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I reported Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Akronowner (Akronowner has a number of them). There are other accounts involved. This is a criminal gang, I suspect running from India or Sri Lanka (based on some behavior evidence). Also posted about it Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_66#AfD_infiltrated_by_extortionists. Likely this is not the only scam operation that has infiltrated AfD and corrupted Misplaced Pages. -- GreenC 13:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Given that you are alleging that it's a gang, isn't it more likely that they are WP:MEATpuppets? Which is probably why the checkuser failed last time. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It's easy to avoid CU detection it's always been a mystery to me why anyone gets busted that way. BTW the IP of the Chronic Taco accuser geolocates to where Chronic Taco is HQ. That would be difficult to fake supporting the veracity of the claim. -- GreenC 14:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The likelihood that someone who "work as a marketing professional for Androvett Legal Media & Marketing" and is a paid editor on behalf of W. Mark Lanier would inexplicably make up an allegation of extortion also seems implausible. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Update: Akronowner has been indeffed for sockpuppetry. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment This is not true. I never made any contact with anyone regarding nominating AFDs and deleting them. As per I see is maybe a clever trick to save the *Chronic Tacos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and divert the paid editing done there to instead blaming me for nominating it. If my nomination of this AFD has caused any issues I am sorry for that. If admins want I will stop nominating any AFD again, instead will just participate in the AFDs discussion. But in the end, banning me just because an IP accused me doesn't seem fine. It could be the user who created the page when his page got nominated for AFD, he used an IP and accused me. This could easily happen to any AFD nominator. At last, my intentions were pure and true, all I was trying is to be a helping hand in fighting against Vandalism. Akronowner (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Seems like a classic case of

1. An experienced WP editor (not using their usual account) creates a well made and good looking article about something or someone, without having had prior contact with the subject of the article

2. The creator of the article contacts the subject of the article, asks for money

3. Subject of the article refuses to pay, saying the article is already on WP, so why should they pay?

4. Creator of article nominates it for deletion, using a different account, telling subject of article that it will be deleted unless they pay...

Has happened many times before, and will without doubt happen again. - Tom | Thomas.W 22:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

it seems like this, yes, but how strong is he actual evidence? Ifit can be substantiated, I see it as a reason for a ban from enWP. DGG ( talk ) 09:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Note Akronowner has been blocked as a result of the SPI mentioned above but not the creator who wasn't one of the accounts consider. Also the time frames seem very tight for the above scenario. I mean it's possible, but the creator would need to make successful contact with representatives of the subject and receive a rejection of their request for payment within 64 minutes for the scenario to work. Maybe more likely would be not contacting before the AfD. Nil Einne (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed CBAN of Akronowner

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

Misplaced Pages must not tolerate the sort of behaviour described above. I propose that Akronowner is banned by the community. Mjroots (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

One IP and one user saying something, without having posted evidence, isn't sufficient. Let's let the Foundation legal staff dig in a bit if there were emails. And/or Arbcom. The alleged behavior is pretty bad, but allegations don't make a concrete case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The liklihood of two unrelated people making up the same very specific extortion allegation against the same user is very low. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Georgewilliamherbert - Arbcom/WMF should look into this first. There's no concrete evidence as of now, just claims. Pahunkat (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Akronowner. Pahunkat (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Support CBAN or at least topic ban from deletion discussions while WMF reviews the matter in order to protect the integrity of the project. A preventive, not punitive measure. Slywriter (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Do we have any real evidence Akronowner is involved? I mean sure, we can say that those two people maybe really received exortion attempts. (Although has anyone actually checked the Tacos one is someone connected to the company? While the paid editor seemed to be, remember in that ANI we also initially had another editor who claimed to be the subject or someone connected but the paid editor said it was unclear who they were and they didn't seem to have any connection.) But just because two people received extortion requests on articles Akronowner AFDed doesn't mean they are behind those attempts any more than GreenC was. Admittedly two out of four or so recent AfDs does seem fairly suspicious. Of course it could be extortion "attempts" that weren't genuine, perhaps someone Akronowner pissed off by AFDing their article. Nil Einne (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support ban. I don't care about the details. I do care that there's a clear WP:NOTHERE situation with nefarious motives. Being that editing Misplaced Pages is not a legal right, and this is not a court of law, then I'm just going to straight up evoke WP:IAR to state plainly that we don't have to waste our time or energy dealing with this bluntly obvious fraud bullshit. We can just always get lost and don't come back.

(PS, this is also just more evidence that paid editing should be outright banned. It harms NPOV, and creates a climate role for fraud and related ills. But I digress.) oknazevad (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support ban - Yeah the fraudulent bullshit doesn't sit well with me either. They should be shown nothing more than the middle finger and the exit door!. –Davey2010 16:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• ArbCom is looking into the issue. I suggest folks not rush to conclusions, its possible that Akronower is not involved here. Scammers, fraudsters, and paid editing companies have resorted to very nasty tactics over the years, I would not put it past them to falsely claim they had nominated a page for deletion that a legit editor nominated. CaptainEek ⚓ 17:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Akronowner has been indef blocked for sockpupptery regardless. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

B. M. L. Peters will not stop editing comments that have been replied on a talk page

B. M. L. Peters persists in editing the text of their move request at Talk:United Ireland, despite the fact multiple people have replied to their initial comment. They have done this at 06:28, 4 February 2021, 20:15, 5 February 2021, and 20:22, 5 February 2021. They were informed they cannot do this on their talk page at 20:22, 5 February 2021, a message which resulted in the same editor thanking me for that message and undoing their change. Yet despite this they have once again changed their comments at 09:14, 7 February 2021. This editor has a history of disruptive behaviour on talk pages, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1047#B. M. L. Peters persistently removing talk page discussions. FDW777 (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

After understanding that you cannot edit your own initial comment on talk pages, I thought I can add on to my previous comment without changing it, by starting on a new line, however if this is not allowed according to Misplaced Pages policy, I will cease doing it. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Making your comment on a new line doesn't help if you move the old signature so it's part of the new line. If you are going to modify or add to your comment after such a long time, and especially when it's been replied to, you need to make sure it's clear that it was added a later date by keeping the old signature for the old comment and making a new one for the new comment. In this case, I don't see a reason to add your comment to the top of the thread anyway. Better to just make a comment in the RM after the current comments. Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

B. M. L. Peters, in nearly all cases when you want to make a further comment this should simply be made at the bottom of the discussion or as a reply to someone else, following WP:INDENT. In the rare cases when you need to change something in a comment that has been replied to (e.g. if you wish to correct an important factual error) then follow the guideline at WP:REDACT. And never delete a discussion or change other people's comments. FDW777, remember that very many editors have difficulty with our talk page formatting, so a lot of tolerance is needed when people make mistakes. I don't think any admin action is needed here. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you guys for understanding, I had no ill intent when making those changes. I will stop doing it and review the policy for talk pages. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit war by user Argh

Argh is edit warring in a couple of pages. --Nitraus (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I am correcting information while a couple of users, like the one above, are trying to abuse their position by claiming vandalism and misuse. --Argh (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

No, you are making unsourced edits based on your agenda. This is exactly why you were blocked on finnish Misplaced Pages too. --Nitraus (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

You are projecting, as in claiming I am doing what you are doing with your agenda. You have no source for your claim. I wasn't blocked, by the way. I was put on temporary editing hold by the same users who also have no sources for their claim. In short: a misuse of Misplaced Pages user status.

You are trying to divert attention from the fact that your claim is still without a source. It's an opinion you attempt to maintain with methods that don't allow the claim in question be scrutinized. --Argh (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Only one user has been making unsourced biased edits, that is you. And yes, you are blocked in Finnish Misplaced Pages, from editing the main space to be exact, so you are deliberately lying about that too. --Nitraus (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

You are repeatedly making biased claims without sources and trying to assassinate my character while sabotaging me with this slander and unwarranted reporting. And no, I'm not blocked. I'm temporarily suspended for the reasons I just described. --Argh (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

(1) Don’t edit-war; discuss on the talk page; (2) we require that information in a Misplaced Pages article come from a reliable published source so provide a reliable source that support what is written. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Paranaja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Reverted changes including a previous one that had been established by another user. Is also engaging in editing war. Argh (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Have you started a discussion on the article talk page and have you put forward a reliable source for the edit you want to make? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Nitraus, please provide details of the articles/edits at dispute, including diffs. Fences&Windows 00:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Cyberpunk 2029 (third time)

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

Cyberpunk 2029 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), after two blocks discussed previously and , continues to add unsourced information to articles. After returning from a 1-week block he/she has added unsourced infromation , , , and .

Per WP:CIR competence includes "...the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus." This editor is obsessed with adding unsourced broadcast information to international tournaments and refuses to acknowledge warnings or communicate with other editors. Two blocks have not changed earlier behavior. Blue Riband► 18:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Blue Riband: I blocked them indefinitely. Their lack of response is problematic as well. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Shiawase-wo and Egg-Stamp (Fabergé egg) article

• Shiawase-wo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Egg-Stamp (Fabergé egg) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lasting edit war in the article. User has no valid arguments about infobox image (I've talked with him in ruwiki in russian), he just repeatedly undo other's edits. The article by itself doesn't meet notability guideline. --Sigwald (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• I would support an indef. block on the grounds of WP:NOTHERE seeing this has been long-term, and the editor is not willing to communicate. They've also made little contributions outside of Egg-Stamp (Fabergé egg) and very few edits on Misplaced Pages in general. Jerm (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Sigwald, what is the issue regarding the image? I can see an image getting deleted many times in commons but then restored, but then another image seems fine? Also, could not find anything in English regarding the "Egg-Stamp" Faberge egg on the internet, and neither did the Russian refs confirm it - is there a WP:V issue here as well (i.e. I am presuming that this is not a hoax article and that there was an "Egg-Stamp")? Being a single issue/topic editor is not a particular issue on en-WP, but continually inserting unlicensed images is a problem. Britishfinance (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Britishfinance, File:Яйцо-Печать.jpg - uploaded by UnTiL Pier. Shiawase-wo created the article and then start to upload own version of that image (File:Main-egg-forever.jpg). As you can see it's almost identical except two elemets wich I believe was photoshopped. The only source that I found - artnet.se used in the article itself. Either way this "egg-stamp" is a hoax, or doesn't meet notability guideline. --Sigwald (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • What specific elements are photoshopped? If two almost identical images are being uploaded as "own works", then it seems like they are likely not freely licensed. I can't verify whether this is potentially a hoax article as I don't have enough knowledge in this area, however, I cannot find any reference to "Egg-Stamp"? Britishfinance (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

    I was going to post about this earlier, but the page was locked. The left pendent is missing in the real image. In the other image the left pendent is just a mirror image of the right pendent. You can confirm this by zooming in on the pendent and looking at the dirt around the edges, which is clearly mirrored between the two.

    I couldn't find any reference to egg-stamp either, but it just appears to be a bad translation of the type of object (it's a seal in the shape of an egg) rather than a proper noun. 92.3.131.156 (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• It seems to be described in Finnish at http://lounge.fim.com/antiikki-faberge/. It's a seal (used to stamp wax to seal letters) in the shape of a Fabergé egg. The images are all probably copyright violations. Fences&Windows 00:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I've nominated it for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Egg-Stamp (Fabergé egg). Fences&Windows 00:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Informed analysis

• Informed analysis (talk · contribs)
• All of these IPs: Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:57A0:DE0:0:0:0:0/64
• Back in 2019: Special:Contributions/204.40.194.0/21

I have seen this user charge into GAs and FAs and rewrite bits of them, introducing errors or going against consensus. To try and forestall this happening on Genesis (band), I decided to rewrite the entire lead from scratch this afternoon and left a talk thread here to try and resolve the dispute and a constructive note here, only to get reverted with "I do not care if it is FA if is is wrong." (which misses the point I was trying to make that charging in full pelt to a GA or FA where other editors have done lots of work, means you might get blowback and have to discuss changes) and putting grammatical errors in. I've got to stop work on this now before it starts to look like edit warring.

Elsewhere I see him edit-warring on Katharine Hepburn, saying "Leave this alone. No one else object months last year or weeks now. Leave it alone." and on Aerosmith, saying "I do not understand why the other editor appears to have no concise writing skills and insists on re-adding repetitive and obvious text. Do not do again." which suggests an ownership problem, and his talk page has a bunch of warnings for edit warring and generally being disruptive.

Can somebody else try and have a chat with this user? I feel like I've got a sore head. Ritchie333 21:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Four other editors have either implicitly or explicity agreed with the additions I made in the Genensis lead. Look at the history. For example, why is only the fact Invsible Touch had 5 top 5 singles in the US mentioned. Where any of those successful anywhere else? Turns out only the titletrack and Land of Confusion were. The cherry-picking of only specific high success many editors do is in fact a contravention of the point of view policies. Why is mentioning the popularity of Mama and another signficant song wrong? People want to know some of their popular songs. Why is saying which was their first top 10 ablum in the US was X wrong and what their highest platinum level in the US was wrong? That was stated in several other articles.

I should add some of the text which Richie cited as wrong was not text I added. If it was wrong before I added other stuff why was it in there?Informed analysis (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

If you analyze at the text I deleted there you would indeed see the old text was repetitive and inconcise. The text had Aerosmith repeatedly going on more and more extensive tours. The Aerosmith lead is the longest of any lead on any band I tried to add a key fact of their original breaktrough that is provien by the chart info and dates - that Dream On was re-released 2 years later after Sweet Emotion mde the top 40 and then became their first huge hit, and that editor has reversed in 4 or 5 times even though I explained my rationale several times. He prefers to have info in about rollercoasters and video games. He is exhibiting unobjective ownership. No one else expressed any concern.Informed analysis (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Informed analysis, That is not the point I was trying to make. My point is you seem to get angry and upset when people disagree with you and bark at multiple editors not to change stuff. That is incompatible with a collaborative environment. Ritchie333 11:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Richie - you made massive reversions without thinking or acknowledging some of the text may have been useful. You were angry when you made the massive reversions. You did not make any collaborative effort. You should be restricted from making massive reversions. That is the truth - I think a read of the history will show that - you blindly added back in text that I had already explained in my changes was wrong .Informed analysis (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

That is not correct. If you look at the statistics for Genesis, you will see a number of editors who have worked on the article besides myself, including LowSelfEstitle, RoderickSilly, Joefromrandb and MrMarmite. As far as I'm aware, we've all edited the article at the same time without any issues, and I've had no cause to complain about any of their edits, nor vice versa. The only person who seems to have a problem is you. Ritchie333 13:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

You inserted text saying a certain album was their first to chart in the UK when it was in fact their second. You also inserted text saying they had success in mainland Europe first when the only country the album had charted in was Italy (at number 1). Admit your error. If I made an error in something, I will admit I did. Of course, if you are adding text saying which their first to chart in the UK was, why would we not add text saying which their first to hit the top 10 in the US was?Informed analysis (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I have asked Informed analysis to loosen their grip on the Bryan Adams bio, and I warned them that this edit summary was unacceptable, telling others to stop editing, which demonstrated WP:OWNership issues. I have had a few very spirited jousting matches with Informed analysis regarding how much detail was appropriate for the lead section of musician biographies (I argue for streamlined prose and less detail) one of which can be seen in the Pat Benatar editing history. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet and others just completely revert with no discussion large amounts of text that I had gradually inserted over weeks or months with no one objecting, including by cutting/reduced clearly overly detailed text on tours, record companies and members, and Binksternet and some of those others think that is fine and appropriate behaviour fro them to undertake?? Why? Read the history - Binksternet exhbits excessive, totally uncollaborative behavior over the Pat Benatar article. THe Def Leppard page noted above is one where I had carefully found ways to cut out less important text in order to add relevant text. Why is whether a video was one of the first played on MTV important to the overall impact of a band? It is not. Statement of greatest success "from early 80s to 90s" was partly wrong as they did not have hardly any success from 80 to 82 and is obvious when they read about the 3 albums from 83, 87 and 91. Why is simply saying they had 7 hits in the US from an ablum (which was wrong - a number 80 peak is not a hit - that is biased) adequate without saying how those tracks did in any other countries? It is not - I added key info to which Def Leppard single off Hysteria had actually had success in the most other countries or the only one that was a big hit in the UK.Informed analysis (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Informed analysis has also made a few thousand edits logged out, working on the same articles as when logged in. See Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:57A0:DE0:0:0:0:0/64 and Special:Contributions/204.40.194.0/21.

Starting in September 2019, Bettydaisies and Larry Hockett tangled with Informed analysis at the Gregory Peck bio. They might have some thoughts about the behavior of this user. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Binkersternet, I gradually added text over several weeks on the Benatar article - no one had any concerns - he then deletes every single word I added - that sure is collaborative. That is warring! He could have reviewed the text and deleted or reworded text he felt was truly wrong. I keep in as much of the text already but reduce its length to more concise/cut out repetitive and then I add informaation that many people seem to have found useful. What song and what country was her first top 10 song. What was her first top 10 song in the US? What was her highest charting single in the US? Stuff that is found in other leads but that Biskernet just did not want to include it here. What albums were her first big hits in other countries. As I full illustrate in the explanation of changes to Benatar segmnets, his text made no sense on which Benatar's biggest album was and suggested her success in Britain ccurred at a different time than it did. It was vague and misleading. As well, many leads give 2 or 3 lines about the band's or artist's early years/origins - for Genenis it gives needless detail on my members/organizers; I added what Benatar did in school and in her early 20s, right from the main body - Binksternet just deleted in without discussion.Informed analysis (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Further regarding Binksternet, for Alanis Moressitte's main article (not lead) I gradually added fully referenced chart information, sometimes aggregated i.e. "made top 10 in several countries in Europe" for her entire career over the period of weeks. I pointed out how she how her 4 number one singles in Canada had been number one for something like 30 weeks in a single year. The original article mostly mentioned the US and was wildly inconsistent, i.e giving all chart positions for some minor hits later in her career whereas for signficant hits early on it gave virtually none. So, I had added a larger amount of info so that the article was completely consistent like an encyolpedic article should be. No one had a single objection. He just came in a month latter and reverted every single item of text I had added. Every single item. Clearly that is warring, uncollaborative, acting angerly, and possessive. He should be santioned even moreso than myself. Same with Ritchie.Informed analysis (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I have encountered this user regarding Peck’s page. They expanded if, but users on Talk: Gregory Peck thought it much too bloated. I made substantial revisions to Gregory Peck to improve its readability based on the concerns. The user expressed on my talk page unhappiness at this, stating I “began to destroy” “the most thorough” assessment of Peck’s work ever written.

My personal feedback would be that civility should be kept in mind - as well as syntax and professional language. WP employs summary-style to write informative, digestible biographies. The relevancy of the primary subject to information is paramount. The most prominent issues here are struggles with WP:OWNERSHIP and collaboration. Constructive editing cannot be done without the user having a thorough and ensured understanding of the latter.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I've found this editor impossible to deal with, in that they're just not interested in abiding by WP:NOR. After clashing with them over this issue at Hard rock, I've seen the editor rewrite leads and article text at other GAs (the Who, the Rolling Stones) where their main aim seems to be to present a more international picture of chart success than just mentioning the UK and US markets. Which would be fine as long as the sources supported that, but most band biographies and books on 1960s and '70s rock music do not discuss a song or album's chart performance in, say, Australia and Canada. Wish that they did.

So, most of these changes at the Who and the Rolling Stones will have to be undone. But I get the feeling that other editors are (like me) holding back until they've got the energy to deal with what most likely will be another head-to-head confrontation, because Informed analysis makes it an issue of personal opinion between themselves and any editor who challenges them – when it's not that, it's about a fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages. JG66 (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The chart statistics I inserted are completely accurate - in some articles I added them to the body first; in others they are from body or from the Discography page on the artist or the page on a specific song. Nothing has to be redone. It is amazing how every different lead on different artists has totally different level of information - some only state singles, some only state albums, some extra short, Aerosmith extra long talking about Rollercoasters and cultural phenonmon without any reference at all. One person says 5 paragraphs should be used, another says 4, another says 3. In every case, I try to include as much as the original text that is there as possible respecting what someone else earlier found important. They should be more similar and when you read all the differnt ones it is like what is going onhere. Informed analysis (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Informed analysis: Once again you're sidestepping around the pertinent issue – that is, whether the additions are supported by sources in the article, or whether they're original research in the context of the article because the information is unsourced. You're just choosing to focus on their accuracy and, as you see it, the need for such information.

In the lead at the Who – through your contributions and those of an IP user, admittedly – we currently say that "My Generation" "went to number two in the UK and Australia, number three in Canada and the top ten in parts of Europe"; there's no source for these details, and they don't appear in the main body, sourced or otherwise. Same situation for "Substitute" and "I'm a Boy" being top-five hits in the Netherlands, "Pictures of Lily" and "Happy Jack" going top five in "several countries", "Jack" hitting number one in Canada; and for "I Can See for Miles" being a top-ten hit in Canada. It continues in the lead – Tommy as "the first of nine straight top ten albums in the US and Canada", inclusion of Canadian chart success of "Pinball Wizard" and "See Me, Feel Me", The Who by Numbers being "their fifth straight top five album in France". Nowhere in the 1964–1978 section of the article is any of this non-UK and -US chart success discussed.

A lead section is supposed to summarise main points from the article. The lead's therefore been compromised by the inclusion of unsourced information, which amounts to original research; and it means that the article fails the Good Article criteria, specifically: 1b it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections ..., 2c it contains no original research ... After Ritchie333 reverted your first batch of changes, in January, none of this original research was there.

Just because your additions are "accurate" and the information can be found at the artist's discography doesn't mean they belong, and it certainly doesn't get around the WP:NOR and GA criteria issues. So of course they have to be redone or removed if the article's to retain its GA status. And to echo a theme voiced by other editors in this thread – and despite your constant protests to the contrary – no one's going to thank you for compromising the quality of GAs and FAs, and you are in no way collaborative by continually ignoring warnings and other concerns raised on your talk page over the years. You're either wilfully ignoring WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR and the like, not to mention WP:BRD with regard to working with other editors, or it's your competence that's the issue. And Ritchie and Binksternet are excellent collaborative editors, by the way.

Your 7–9 February edits at the Beach Boys show you're doing the same to the lead there. You've not added any sources to support the information on the band's Canadian, Australian and mainland European chart achievements. JG66 (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I inserted ALL the relevant chart information with exact references into the Alanis Morisette, Pat Benetar, Foreigner, Rush, Bryan Adams, Abba, Journey and some other articles - go look at them. Then Binkersnet reverted ALL my additions of that to the Alanis M article three or more times, and refused to allow me to add anything at all; and deleted my addition to the lead of the Pat Benetar article 4 or 5 times. In Hard Rock my additions were mainly to the body and they were deleted. Due to Binksternet and a couple others, I gave up spending a week or more adding all the references to the body before adding things to the lead as it would just get deleted so I just went straight to the lead using information all found at the discography page for the artist or the page for a song or album.Informed analysis (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Hard Rock above, that article had random references to the chart positions that certain songs had reached, such as No. 12 for Don't Fear the Reaper and several others. I added the chart positions for some of the acknowledged agree-upon most integral early hard rock songs - Born to Be Wild, Girl, You Really Got Me, etc. and Baracudda by Heart. The other editor just blindly reverted what I added without any explanation - that is edit warring. I asked the editor to explain why the chart positions for certain songs was fine to include but not for more important songs and he did not respond. I added references to songs by certain artists who had no songs mentioned - the songs are listed on external lists of all-time best or most important hard rock songs and he deleted the names of the songs. Sounds uncolaborative. Informed analysis (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

My frustrations are similar to the above. After he started synthesizing conclusions from movie critics over and over again (example here), I tried (and failed) to explain WP:SYNTH to him (on the Peck talk page, his user talk page and my user talk page). In hindsight, I could have provided more detailed explanations and showed more patience, but I was frustrated after the IP irregularities became apparent and most of my attempts to explain were met with deflection. (Example: Part of the edit summary for the SYNTH edit above says "go in a delete such statements from all other articles".) Larry Hockett (Talk) 00:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Another editor at the Peck page kept telling me I should add the exact quotes of the movie review, so I did. Larry kept saying, the the reviews of 1 editor or 2 editors do not represent all reviews of the time period...so I looked up virtually eveyone available and for recent decades focused on 8 or 9 most well-known sources. I bascially did what 2 other editors directed me to do. Some people told me they thought it was an excellent read - there are books (Christopher Tookey) that specifly do that. If you read the point of view guidelines, simply including the quote of one reviewer on one actor's performance in a movie should not be allowed as that is not presented a broad perspective.Informed analysis (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Issues with synthesis (such as saying “Critics agree that ..." when no source describes such agreement) were brought to your attention about fifteen months ago. I'm disheartened because there is still not much evidence that you've attempted to understand the guideline. We work all the time with honest editors who have genuine misunderstandings, but when you respond to these IP address concerns by saying you forgot to log in a couple times, that is going to create a certain distrust that makes people lose patience. Larry Hockett (Talk) 11:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Hockett - as I have said then and above - why is simply stating the opinion of one critic is isolation proper point of view?? It is not. It is suggesting that that one critic's statement is better than everyones elses. I got heck for just stating one critics opinion on other pages and even at Peck's. That is why I gathered quotes from 12 or 15 critics AND included the exact key part of the quotes PLUS links to the actual webiste, where availabe, and then said "The majority of reviews were positive citing such things as X or X", and then including the most interesting quotes AND allowing them to link directly to all the quotes. The I said "the few negative reviews focussed on X with one saying...." I cannot see how in the world that is wrong compared to someone just including the comment of one reviewer who someone simply decided to be the one they include. I explained this all to you 4 or 5 times in 2019.Informed analysis (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Informed analysis, I think you're missing the point Larry Hockett is making. I haven't reviewed the article, but from what you've just said it sounds like you're making an unsourced assertion about 'the majority of reviews'. If you collect a bunch of individual critics' comments about a piece of work, they can be used to support assertions about those individual critics' opinions, but presumably none of them say anything about what the majority of critics say, and thus they can't be used to support an assertion about what the majority of critics say. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

regarding inclusion of only one critics opinion of movies, here is text from wikipedia's article on wikipedia:

"Finally, Misplaced Pages must not take sides. All opinions and viewpoints, if attributable to external sources, must enjoy an appropriate share of coverage within an article. This is known as a neutral point of view (NPOV)." This is why I included quotes of numerous critics both from the time a movie was released and in recent decades, not just one quote or viewpoint from one critic that so many other people feel is appropriate, in contravention of wikipedia's principles.Informed analysis (talk) 07:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

TO EVERYONE: I challenge you to just read the history on Genesis (band) to see Ritchie's methods as he is the one launching this review. You will see he just massively deleted text I added whereas I tried to explain my changes. I challenge you to read the history on Pat Benatar with Binksternet - he was the warring one whereas I tried to reach middle-ground.Informed analysis (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• I admit that I have not read any articles involved and stopped reading Informed analysis's comments above after seeing that this editor considers that getting to number one in Italy was not success in mainland Europe. Anyone who doesn't know that Italy is in mainland Europe cannot be considered qualified to be involved in writing a Misplaced Pages article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I will point out that Italy was the only country it charted in - it did not chart in single other European country. That is not "success in Europe." Success is Europe means at least 3 or 4 countries. I wonder how many of you seemingly Americans consider an album going numer one in Canada but not even charting in the US "success in North America" Even when a song has success in 3 or so countries in Europe, people have tended to write "parts of Europe" or "Scandinavia" if that was were the countries were?Informed analysis (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

To everyone - I propose a vote of each person who reviews all the above comments - read the current leads on the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, The Who, The Eagles and Genesis, and tell me if you do not think they are an excellent summary (all at length that is still less than Aeorsmith's and the one of Bette Davis - which some other person was trying to add more length too) of those band's careers. You could add Rush to that. No one has objected at to the Rush lead for a few months - but what if Binksternet or Ritchiee suddendly don't like it and revert everything from months ago? I guess that would be fine? For some of these bands, old lead did not even mention they were in the Rock Hall of Fame - how was that not in there???Informed analysis (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Everyone - look at Beach Boys lead - on December 8 editor ILIL rigigdly reversed additions I made listing some of the band's top charting hits (previous version only mentioned 1 or 2 songs) and despite myself explaining my additions (and deletions to make other things more concise) he repeatedly reverted even my moderate, half-way additions. He was showing rigid ownership. I gave up. On Feb. 7 I decided to just add TWO of their number one US ongs to the lead (which is done in many, many other leads). Now someone else (Merjin2), totally on their own, I swear this is not a co-worker (204) or friend of mine, has gone in on their own and added more info on their top charting songs. Clearly, other people agree with adding more on important songs, their chart positions, including outside the US. The problem here is mostly editors who feel they alone own a particular band's article refusing to allow someone like me to objectively analyze the situation and to add other useful information that a vast majority of people have not opposed and in some cases are adding back in themselves. Misplaced Pages needs to focus on the quality of the leads, and making them consistent which is clearly, in any objective analysis, what I have been doing.Informed analysis (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Logged out edits with Toronto IPs

Informed analysis has acknowledged that they "forgot to log in a couple times", but the problem is much bigger than that. The range Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:57A0:DE0:0:0:0:0/64 has made a few hundred edits, and some were clear violations of WP:MULTIPLE, for instance this sequence from yesterday in which Ritchie333 reverts a series of edits from Informed analysis, which is quickly reverted by 2607:FEA8:57A0:DE0:69EF:EFDF:8697:2E80. Back in October–December 2019, Informed analysis made a concerted effort to fool others into thinking that there were two different people involved in the Gregory Peck article, when it was simply Informed analysis editing logged out using Toronto IPs of the range 204.40.194.0/21. Informed analysis referred to this other editor as "204" in the following edit summaries: "this addition of editor 204 from famous writer Shipman seems useful so I am re-inserting", "I discussed this with editor 204", "204 - these changes show the exact text you need to insert to do it properly..." and "204 - the soft break template shows up in red..." This is bad faith falsification, using two accounts to take advantage of other editors. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

204 was a friend at work who I used to talk to about making changes. She would make the herself. I could not control what she was doing and aver a year ago she lost interest in doing any more edits and since we now work from home I have not talked to her in ages. I don't know what else to say. This does not excuse Binksternet's repeated huge reversions without working collaboratively or trying to meet halfway as is explicity shown in Pat Benetar and Alanis Morrisette.Informed analysis (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

This is not creative writing class. You and the 204s have the same edit summary style: "the changes I made are totally valid" and "this change is totally valid". Same with you and the 2607:FEA8 IPs: "paragraphing" and "paragraphing". You are all the same person. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

That's because at work our supervisor and entire unit used the term totally valid and discussed changes to reports we prepared to go to the minister has valid or non-valid. We talked about using that term in our wikipedia edits.Informed analysis (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)th

Color me disbelieving. Binksternet (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Gee, are you going to accuse me of being Merjin2 at the Beach Boys and Floydian at Genesis too? They are both explicilty agreeing with my changes. And in numerous cases various editors went in and corrected minor errors that I may have left behind, obviously generally agreeing with my changes and trying to assist in their implementatin/finalizationInformed analysis (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see Binksternet or Ritchie defending their mass, repeated reversions, refusal to collaborate, and ignoring the explanations I provided. That is because their changes are completely undefendable and they acted in totally inappropriate, edit-warring fashion.Informed analysis (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

As you can see at the top of the thread, I wrote I've got to stop work on this now before it starts to look like edit warring and that's why I left a lengthy message on the talk page to resolve the dispute. You also asserted I did not discuss my revert on The Who as mentioned by JG66 upthread; which is not true. You also said Floydian supported your changes on Genesis (band) which is not true. If you continue saying things without backing them up with evidence, people are just going to tune out. Ritchie333 10:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

This is an example where the 2607.fea IP accidentally replied to a discussion between me and IA on my UTP (before deleting the reply). Larry Hockett (Talk) 16:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Good example, and the person says they have more "contacts" who agree with them, obviously referring to the IPs working with IA in violation of WP:MULTIPLE. And then a few edits later on your talk page, the IP editor continues the charade by implying they are not IA, which is completely false. Purposely violating WP:MULTIPLE for more than a year now. Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

No substantial talkpage participation

It appears to me that Informed analysis is mistaking this board for a content discussion forum, having saved all this discussion up for years with no talkpage participation, least of all on a bunch of GAs and FAs. Given that the wall of discussion above appears to be in lieu of any article talkpage participation on any of these articles since ... click, click, click ... I give up, at least since last November, I can understand why editors are complaining. IA, you are expected to use talkpages to explain your edits and to gain participation. Your complete absence of such engagement is disruptive and contrary to the editing ethos of this site. I see a whopping 62 talkpage edits on 3902 total edits, apparently with no talkpage participation at all for years. No wonder people are irritated. In short, stop posting here, go to talkpages and make use of them, and make no major changes without gaining consensus first, most of all on high-profile articles. If you return to jumping into articles with big boots and no discussion, you will face sanctions Acroterion (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The proof is in the pudding - it is clear that in most articles there is only one editor (the one who feels they are the owner) objecting to the additions/reductions I made, often gradually over weeks; sometimes they only objected several weeks later. As I provided evidence of, some people explicitly and others implicitly agree with the specific and type of additions I made. In most cases, the talk pages have had no discussions in a long time - probably only the one objector would even check there and, given their obvious evidence of rigidly reverted any changes, they would have disagreed on the talk page anyhow. I note that two to three years ago on some webpages I engaged in talk about a few article and got agreement from the only person who commented. Then 1.5 years later someone else came in and changed everything. I objected at first but then gave up. Even the persion who had originally agreed with my approach changed their opinion.Informed analysis (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You appear to be under the fundamental misapprehension that you don't need to explain anything. Your edits are being disputed. It's 2021. Use talkpages - this isn't optional. Acroterion (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Ben Carlson

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

This user has been adding uncited recording dates, particularly to three specific article: Mambo No. 5, It Wasn't Me, and Dear Jessie. The dates they are adding do not appear anywhere in the article text. They continue to add these dates even after multiple warnings to stop. I'm at my 3RR limit on Mambo No. 5 and decided to take this issue here to avoid breaking the rule. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 23:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I've given them 24 hours off (this edit summary seems to assert they'll just edit war regardless) while I have a discussion with them. Ritchie333 23:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism at Ramsha Khan

Various IPs and accounts have been reinstating this rubbish over and over again for the past few days, and clearly nobody was interested in my AIV report. They responded a few minutes ago to my final warning with this comment (translation: go mind your own business... thinks he can go around giving warnings. You're just a normal user.) Since AIV obviously won't work, and there is a BLP at stake here, posting here for better visibility. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 01:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ramsha Khan‎ and also Nadia Khan for some reason. Also, what it this A-I-V of which you speak? El_C 02:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Todah, El C; now I can get back to doing my homework in peace. I was rather obviously referring to a blood pressure hormone. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 02:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

.אין בעד מה * Ah, I remember homework — giving and receiving. Hmm, that sounded dirty without me even trying (which concerns me a bit). El_C 02:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

M Imtiaz, that's IrzaKhanz69 with their socks and IPs on another BLP. Pahunkat (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, Pahunkat, thanks! Please do let me know at my talk page if you have any more useful information about this master and their MO; since Pakistani television is one of my main areas of editing, it'd be useful to know what I'm up against. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 21:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

M Imtiaz, I've sent an email rather than message you on your talk page per WP:BEANS - please check your inbox. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

User:King Edward I (Longshanks)

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

King Edward I (Longshanks) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has persistently added content violating WP:NPOV and WP:OR to articles relating to the American Revolutionary War and England. Nearly all edits have been reverted. Been warned a total of seven times. Has blanked talk page. sam1370 (talk · contribs) 06:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Sam1370: If they are constantly editing disruptively, you can just report them at WP:AIV. ―sportzpikachu _{my talkcontribs} 08:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I've explained to this editor what it means when they blank their talk page. Pointed towards WP:NOR and HELP:REFBEGIN. Let's see if there's an improvement otherwise I fear we are looking at an editor with a short career. Mjroots (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

They have also attempted to blank this section...not a good response. GiantSnowman 11:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Mjroots, given this I fear it may be shorter than otherwise predicted... Jack Frost (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I've given this user a head's up that if they blank discussions again, there may be a block. Ritchie333 11:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

They are still removing discussions from their talk page (fine) and editing disruptively (not fine). I think it's NOTHERE. GiantSnowman 12:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks like Tide rolls has done the deed. Ritchie333 13:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

When will they learn? If an admin puts "advice" in the edit summary, then it is an extremely good idea to follow said advice. Mjroots (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

After this response I have turned their talk page access off. I would further like to correct the assertion expressed there as I have two kids. And grrr .. it's "could not HAVE". Ritchie333 13:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad Drmies didn't see that... Tiderolls 14:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Boo, these Immaculate Conception folks think they're so much better than the rest of us! And... I've just been cancelled. El_C 14:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Tide rolls, I don't mind that colloquialism so much. Completely ungrammatical utterances like "War Eagle", that's different. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

And Ritchie333, Tide, what do you make of this? Drmies (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Merge with OpenStreetMap. Seems best to have a short paragraph describing the Foundation here; better to have one good article instead of two "meh" ones. .... Oh wait, sorry, this isn't AfD. Ritchie333 14:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Gopher draft

Would someone be able to look into the situation around Draft:Lord of Little Stambridge Hall please? It has been resurrected. The topic has been around the block, and I summarise that at a recent MfD.

The draft is synthesis based on sources about Stambridge and historical figures, creating the appearance of a notable topic. There was a keeness for early deletion (here and here), so I watchlisted it in case it popped up again.

I can't put my finger on what's going on, it doesn't feel malicious or like SPA gaming, but something bothers me. Maybe the numerous attempts to explain its not notable weren't understood. Regards, Zindor (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I forgot to add that it's possible to sell manorial lordships, so we risk being used as some kind of advertising service. A very similar draft was rejected before and several of us agreed it was a non-notable topic. Zindor (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering what I found fishy about that draft. You're right, it reads like dodgy estate agent-speak. Miscellaneous gobbets of history, and no narrative; whole centuries are missing.

Anyone contemplating the purchase of a Lord of the Manorship should be aware that it is their seigneurial obligation to pay for every drink ordered in any hostelry in their demesne during such time as they grace that establishment with their presence. That has been the immemorial custom since ooh maybe yesterday. They will also find it useful to know that in the local idiom, "gullible" means "able to smell onions frying around corners". Narky Blert (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Narky Blert Hi,I got a message from Zindor regarding the recreation of the page (Which led me here). I have got no knowledge of the page being remade. However I do know Fred will have remade it. If you would like I’ve got his contact details, so I can speak to him about it. On a lighter note your “meaning” of “gullible” did make me laugh, rather a lot.EvWills(talk) 21:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, EvWills, thank you for joining us. It's nice to hear you've been doing some collaborating, that's what Misplaced Pages is all about. I'm just interested, was creating the article part of your job or just a project? I know a lot of us are working from home at the moment. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

ZindorIt was a project for me. Can’t speak for Fred. If there’s anything you want me to do feel free to ask.EvWills(talk) 23:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, EvWills, that's everything. I hope I haven't discouraged you from editing; discussions like this are very rare. If youre interested in local history perhaps you might find something to add to the Stambridge article? All the best, Zindor (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Zindor Zindor, I know it’s not my place to say but Fred will mean no harm in the recreation and as you have questioned up above I can guarantee you it will not be meant with a malicious intent.EvWills(talk) 23:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to express your thoughts, EvWills. As I said, i didn't think it was anything on those lines, I just had a feeling something was unusual. I'm glad we've solved this. Zindor (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Can someone un-involved close this thread please? Thanks Zindor (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

FredBensen, there's little chance that draft will ever be acceptable. You musn't stitch together articles out of mentions in primary sources and no sources I can find talk about the lordship of Little Stambridge Hall in any detail so we can't have an article about it.:Some mention of Little Stambridge Hall, including its listed building status and the former church, can be made in Stambridge using appropriate sources. Some occupants might be notable or at least worth mentioning in that article, e.g. Sir James Bouchier who was Oliver Cromwell's father-in-law.

If you persist in efforts to include this lordship, that will confirm that you're only here to promote it for sale - in which case you'll likely not be allowed to edit any longer. Fences&Windows 00:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Zindor's and F&W's suggestions of adding to the Stambridge article look good to me. There's sourced info in the draft which would add local colour. Narky Blert (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Fences&Windows I might be missing something but carrying improving my draft page, which will likely never be submitted. Proves Im only useing wikipedia to advertise sale in what way? FredBensen (talk) 09:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, FredBensen.The draft space is for working on draft articles with the potential to be published. Your last draft on this was rejected, which means no chance of resubmission. That copy might have been hidden from general view but that didn't change anything. Continuing to pursue the topic would be indicative of a kind of motivation not aligned with our policies. Seeking advertisement would be one such motivation.

You're not being accused of anything. We'd like you to carry on editing, but on other topics, and have suggested a way of doing so. Regards, Zindor (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Zindor I know im not being accused of anything, my motivation is for the few that do want to expand there knowledge on the subject are able to with ease. As you for one must surely know the annoyance when searching for what you would believe is a important thing and no pages coming up. FredBensen (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I can empathise with that, Fred. However on Misplaced Pages our inclusion criteria is based on whether secondary sources have chosen to devote significant coverage to the subject. If we believe a topic is worth writing about, that's not enough. I have a copy of a book that was written by a neighbour of mine, and it was about the history of our village. It was interesting and included information about the local manor and lordship, but that book is where most of the information belonged; not on Misplaced Pages. Zindor (talk) 11:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Hotmountain1 potential undisclosed paid editing/advert-like content

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

Look at this diff from Hotmountain1. Revamping an article with a load of fluff. Potential paid editor, and if not here to make that page a mere advert. Block please? talk to !dave 16:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

User pretending they have unblocked themselves

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

Account10000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has six known socks, all blocked:

• Account20000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Account30000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AidenPearcetheHacker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• IceWelder and Scottywong are jackasses (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (a delightful name, I must add)
• JimBurtson100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wrench1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Their actions have been exclusively vandalous, even after multiple attempts of explaining our guidelines. Since being blocked, the user has used their talk page for further disruptive measures, such as:

• Personal attacks
• Pretending to have unblocked themselves
• Improper block threats
• Gaslighting

Since they actively switch between accounts (Account10000 and Account20000 have been in use today, for example), it is likely that they have the credentials for all of them at hand. After consulting with other Wikipedians, I was told to request revocation of this user's talk page access across all seven accounts. IceWelder 16:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• @El C: but think of how much time we'd save just on unblock requests alone if we allowed more editors to pretend to be unblocked. Next time you decline an unblock, call it a "pretend-accept", and see if that works. Levivich /_hound 20:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Project MKFAWKES (minor problem that we can easily nip in the bud)

Someone on the Internet is trying to get a new conspiracy theory started.

• https://nitter.dark.fail/RadiumDanny/status/1355723625001844737
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSwGdAAByf8&feature=emb_logo
• https://www.reddit.com/user/MKFawkes

Here on Misplaced Pages this has resulted in the following so far:

Related: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Project MKFAWKES (is it a username violation of the project doesn't exist?)

I am thinking that a short duration semiprotection of Project MKOFTEN and Project ARTICHOKE (and maybe Project MKUltra?) will stop the disruption. Or perhaps short blocks for the IPs involved. A surprising number of IPs give up and never come back when they run into protection that only lasts a day or two. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• I've deleted the draft article, blocked the username, and protected the 2 articles they actually attempted to add this to (I didn't protect Project MKUltra because no one has tried to add it there). Now I'm off to refresh my memory on how to close an MFD. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

New users resuming multi-IP disruption after rangeblock expiration

• MusicFan2021 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Better Than My Life (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 67.218.119.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2601:201:280:1020:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

The IP range Special:Contributions/2601:201:280:1020:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked five times for spamming and disruption, each of the last three blocks for three months duration. Admins Oshwah, Ponyo and Materialscientist set the longer blocks. During this time, the person behind the disruption switched to the IP range Special:Contributions/67.218.119.0/21 in November 2020, continuing the same pattern.

The IP6 block expired yesterday, allowing the person to create two new usernames and resume their disruption. The new users are adding very low quality alt text, which was one of the methods of previous disruption.

We usually give a user less leeway if their block expired and they resume the same editing behavior. In this case, there was a lot of block evasion prior to the new usernames, and two usernames show an obvious violation of WP:MULTIPLE. And there's the same huge problem with WP:CIR. Binksternet (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet, isn't SPI a better venue? Fences&Windows 22:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I filed this with one username known, before I saw the second one. Binksternet (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Update: the registered users were blocked by checkuser, but the IPs will probably continue to disrupt. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Users who are frequently and incessantly using pejorative language and WP:ATA in deletion discussions

@Carlossuarez46: and @William Allen Simpson: used pejorative terms in a recent CFD ( Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_5#Category:Hong_Kong_people_of_Lower_Yangtze_descent ) we were involved with, namely "Delete another useless descent category (see User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories) without any indication that "Lower Yangtze descent" is definable or meaningful. " and "That's because your premise is both absurd and useless. " Upon closer inspection these two users also have a long history of using such terminology in deletion debates even though it is specifically advised against in WP:ATA. As such I find little faith of their ability to participate in CFD with integrity. I'm only posting here because I have spoken directly to both of them about it, and they refused to even strike their offending comments, whereas a third user who used similar language has taken this exact action.

Carlossuarez46 has also indicated he will report me for canvassing and inappropriate talk page usage. I will agree to stop messaging either of them directly about matters related to this issue.

--Prisencolin (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Carlossuarez46, these highlighted comments are an example of "belittling a fellow editor", see WP:IUC. Please be kinder in your comments. A simple apology would have avoided this escalating. Fences&Windows 22:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• I never called him useless; the categories are - and per WP:ATA I described why they were. He/she is personalizing a content dispute. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Also, thanks for advising me about this discussion, because contrary to the instructions the OP did not so notify me. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I indicated my intention of bringing the issue to this board to both of you a few days ago, I think that's enough. If it pleases you I have now posted the notice template to both of your talk pages.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

    @Prisencolin: it's not and never is. When the big box says you must notify, it means around the time you start discussion. (Most people notify immediately after, but it would be fine to post just before.) People shouldn't have to follow your contribs to know if or when you follow through with your plans in a day or two. (Obviously if an editor says something like, thanks, I will follow you contribs, you don't have to notify me again then it's fine to follow that.) And pings aren't enough even after you said you might do it a few days ago for the same reasons they aren't enough if you never said anything. Nil Einne (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Those statements are commentary on the contributions, not the editor. Not pleasant to receive but not personal attacks, not "belittling a fellow editor", and certainly not a reason to raise steam at ANI. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree that those terms weren't directed ad hominem, but the fact that they are used cast doubts on the motives of these editors.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• I would also like to highlight a larger pattern of these two editors systematically ignoring my evidence (supported by reputed scholars in the field), and relying on their own subjective judgement about a topic they know little to nothing about. WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS appears to be at play.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unless you've got some better difs, I can't see this ending any other way besides "Well that wasn't all that nice, but they're not even really personal attacks, let alone anything actionable". Sergecross73 msg me 01:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Those would relate to my second concern which is the fact that they are consistently ignoring whatever reliable sources I put out. I've asked about this issue on IRC and they suggested I take that concern here too.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I don't know how you think that is heading towards something actionable either. I think you all just need to disengage for a bit. Sergecross73 msg me 02:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
      • The more I look through the these users' recent history with CFD (see the sub-section), the more I realize this is actually a small part of a broader issue, which is potentially damaging to the project. I don't know whether it's an issue with the users, the CFD process or something else.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
        • The way I see it, if your argument and sources really destroys the argument of the other two, then the CFD should clearly close in you favour and no major harm done. If the two name editors really persistently add useless comments to CFDs and are always wrong, perhaps we will take action. But we're not going to take action over two or three or even ten CFDs. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
          • How would you even go about proving this though? In a discussion a few places above this one, there is a discussion concerning possible sanctions over a user’s obsessive AFD activity. It lists the discussions and outcomes of 30 nominations given by the editor. I personally have little interest in compiling this kind of data, but I do hope that some kind of increased oversight over the CFD process can come out of this notice board request.Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? —Prisencolin (talk) 06:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Misc. conduct in CFD

To further illustrate examples of questionable conduct at CFD please refer to: Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_4#Category:One-thousanders. A user put up an earnest question about a series of technical classifications for mountains used in the sport of mountaineering, and Carlossuarez46 inserted his opinion that they should all be deleted as he believed it to be some arbitrary measure invented by editors. This was apparently done without WP:BEFORE finding out more about the subject matter. I believe admin action should be taken if he continues down this pattern of behavior.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Apparently, Prisencolin has been busy posting a WP:VERBOSE attack here overnight, the same as much of her/his "discussion". This is abusive.

1. Obviously, I've A. Read and understand these policies and guidelines; I've been involved in writing them for ~16 years, and am a former developer who was involved in creating Categories for Discussion.
2. Carlos has been active for even longer, and is a long-time administrator.
3. Prisencolin recreated a nearly identical category after deletion. See Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_5#Category:Hong_Kong_people_of_Lower_Yangtze_descent, resurrecting Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 20#Category:People of Shanghainese descent.
4. That is against WP:CSD#G4 policy.
5. We don't categorize descent of people "by city or region". Descent is a WP:CATNAME#Heritage category. The place of birth is rarely notable and therefore categories that designate place of birth are discouraged. The place of birth or emigration status of ancestors is even less notable.
6. I was the original editor of the Heritage and WP:CATNAME#Residence subsections of our guideline.
7. Prisencolin is abusing Misplaced Pages review processes (both here and at CfD) as method of attack, both personal and procedural.

Please suspend Prisencolin for a suitable length of time. I'd recommend at least a week, so that related CfD can run to completion.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I posted the discussion to WP:HELPDESK and another editor suggests that my participation in the discussion is not even particularly long to warrant WP:WALLOFTEXT objections (he did suggest it could be WP:BLUDGEON based on my insistence to reply to everything, but I think that's just a result of my being the only person to defend niche content on an obscure board.

1. Nothing to say, you have both worked on the project for a very long time for sure.
2. --
3. It's clearly not G4 because it's intended to be a much broader category than the first one, a fact that you summarily ignored when I pointed out to you
4. The admins appear to agree at this moment seeing as they G4 categories in CFD all the time. Given that I was the only one to work on the category, I requested WP:G7 deletion, in order to focus on a WP:DRV which was recommended by the closing admin when I spoke to him direclty. It is not WP:FORUMSHOPPING because DRV is a widely used path of negotiation.
5. "We do not classify based on descent of people "by city or region" is literally just a made up policy that you insist on re-stating over and over in these discussions; it does not exist in the guideline you linked (If such a policy exists somewhere I apologize for misunderstanding and will remove this statement). Such categories do actually exist as well, I may add. e.g. Category:People of Catalan descent, Category:Bavarian emigrants to the United States. This classification is also not exclusive to people who's place of birth is Shanghai, so that part doesn't apply. --Prisencolin (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I'm not sure why we're arguing the WP:CFD over here as well. I wish to redirect attention back to the hasty and uninformed deletion of content performed at CFD. Perhaps they have been working at CFD for so long that they have become too accustomed to using their intuition rather than search for answered when a challenge confront them.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Prisencolin is out of line; he or she is posting on CFD participants' talk pages, in their user space, all to forward some agenda that is specifically targeted to anyone who disagrees with him or her at CFD. This has got to stop. Will someone uninvolved talk sense to them before they cause more problems. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I will attempt to explain my recent talk page messages to the best of my ability as I believe Carlossuarez is conflating a few things, using the chronology I found using the advanced contribution search. The first message I sent in relation to the CFD was an attempt on 28 January to get an explanation from User:Good Olfactory about the closing of Category:Hong Kong people of Shanghainese descent. Soon after I messaged User:Marcocapelle, who had nominated the CFD, about re-creating the category now that I added more information to a header article Shanghainese people in Hong Kong , Marcocapelle did not directly reply to the new evidence, but stated the CFD had already closed. I then went ahead and created a new category on that same day, and the category was put up for CFD (and not tagged for G4 directly I may add) by Marcocapelle a while later on 5 February. At this point I messaged him about the nomination again, and asked why the new one did not satisfy inclusion criteria even though I had worked extensively on it, and he gave a similar non-response. During the course of the CFD the two users who were mentioned in the initial ANI post made !votes on the CFD, and I took issue with the way they phrased their comments. I messaged both about this issue, and asked that they strike the comment I perceived as uncivil (per WP:RUC) but did not get a reply immediately. On 7 February a third user, User:RevelationDirect, used similar language in their !vote, so I spoke to them about it, and they agreed to strike the comment on that same day, and thanked me for taking it to their talk page, rather than the CFD discussion, thus implying that my course of action was correct. I went to User:Good Olfactory about my intentions to go forward with a DRV. William Allen Simpson replied back on his talk page, choosing not to comply with my request. I informed Carlos Suarez and William Allen Simpson about an impending ANI notice on 8 February, and got a reply from Suarez which I interpret as WP:BAITING ("Go ahead. You will not intimidate me. ") and he suggested that I may be breaking WP:CANVASSing rules. Carlos Suarez alludes to my activity on his userspace, and that regards a message I posted on his essay User talk:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories, in which I express concern over his appearance as an authority on academic disciplines which study ethnic identity and descent, where he doesn't appear to have any credentials in this field. This was not related to any specific discussion, but rather I felt the need to do this because he will often post this essay to CFD threads. Anyone who wants to review my claims can see my contribs filtered by User Talk space. I will also refrain from directly posting to anyone's talk page for at least a week.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

JohnMiller414 adding external links to personal website

In a series of edits to 24-hour clock and Talk:24-hour clock User:JohnMiller414 has added links to http://www.militarytime.site/ https://militarytimeconverter.org which appears to me to be the personal website of someone named John, who does not give a surname.

In at least one instance the description of the site, after the edit, was misleading.

In another instance the editor refactored another editor's talk page post. I will not revert any further edits by this user to avoid violating the three-revert rule. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC), link fixed 9 February 2021.

It appears the website in question has been taken offline. Nightfury 13:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism on Gamestop short squeeze

• 2600:1700:9b40:7c30:3094:b7cd:f834:5d64 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

In Gamestop short squeeze, this IP repeatedly vandalize the article with adding obscure sentence. It was already reported in AIV but it is too long to respond. 36.65.47.156 (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer fabricating policies

• List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Danielbr11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nightenbelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Here https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Nightenbelle#Arbitration_Notification And here https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll_discussion

User Nightenbelle has been fabricating policies In the first link she pretends to quote the reliable sources page by saying “ the very first line of the reliable sources policy says, “ Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy” that is what your sources fail. The reliable source page actually says Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered

In the second link she states “ But you are not adding different viewpoints- you are trying to add cold hard facts- and for that, you need unbiased peer reviewed sources.” And “I'm saying the sources are not reliable because the publisher is biased.“

For context I Stated this directly quoted from policy pages “https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view it says "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." And here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources it says "Misplaced Pages articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Danielbr11 (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Nightenbelle

I literally copied and pasted from the policy to my talk page. Not re-typed- copied. And. Pasted. This user has been forum shopping and making personal attacks on the article talk page, at the drn, and on my talk page because they don’t like what multiple editors have told them about reliable sources. And for the record- I have been participating in this discussion as an editor- not as a drn volunteer. I specifically recused myself from mediating the drn case because I had commented on the sources and asking this editor to debate sources not make personal attacks on the article talk page. Nightenbelle (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

−

This user has, in the last couple of days opened up an ANI, an ArbCom Request, Opened and closed an RFC, and a DRN on this same issue. On the talk page Rklahn tried to explain to them why their sources were not RS, They then added an RFC tag, which brought more users who tried to explain why their sources wouldn't work, C.J. Griffin Then told them to stop edit warring and to not make this a battleground. Yet they continued. I tried to come in and explain from a different angle. That didn't work. They closed the RFC and opened a DRN. They opened an ANI case - where they were warned that their personal attacks would not help them, They appologized for their personal attacks, tried to delete that case, it was restored and closed so they could open a DRN. That went nowhere, resulted in more personal attacks at myself and Rklahn, that was closed as failed and Danielbr11 was given a list of options of where they could go- instead of using any of those- they started posting on my talk page and then opened an ArbCom request. I copied and pasted from the WP:RS overview- they decided I was fabricating and making that up- and here we are. This is beyond ridiculous. I've asked repeatedly that they stick to arguing the sources and stop making personal comments- they refuse. I've asked them to go to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.... they refuse.... I know I'm a sarcastic crumudgeon- but I've stayed dang calm in all of this and not used any sarcasm, let alone personal attacks. This report is silly! I almost feel like they know they are wrong, and they are posting here before myself or Rklahn report them for the personal attacks. Nightenbelle (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You have made a strong and false claim about Nightenbelle here. Perhaps this link will help you see WP:REPUTABLE, which links to the Overview section of WP:RS. They are not fabricating a policy, it's the page lists the policy two different ways, which you would have seen if you read the policy or read their comments directing you to the overview section. I strongly urge you to WP:Dropthestick and maybe also read WP:IDHT because right now you are escalating a content dispute to a behavioral one and you may not like the WP:Boomerang. Slywriter (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Slywriter. Agree with the narrative as stated by Nightenbelle. User:Danielbr11 passed uncivil a while back. At one point, I thought Danielbr11 was inexperienced and please do not bite the newcomers applied, but now I have no idea. I must admit, I've lost my objectivity and patience here, and cant be neutral. Rklahn (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Rklahn: - Danielbr11 has been around since May 2016. Not that many edits, but has been around long enough to know what Misplaced Pages is about. Mjroots (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Well slyriter than it is more of a content dispute so I can drop the stick. May you close this request as I will discuss further with them civilly.Danielbr11 (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose close at this time. This is the third time I have seen Danielbr11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) initiate a discussion about another editor. The other two are:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll
• Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll

In my opinion, this needs to be resolved one way or the other. Closing now will most likely result in another filing in the near future. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Danielbr11:, Not my call; you have devoted half of your edits to this topic and found this board twice in a week, some scrutiny by the admins and other editors is likely. Slywriter (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

• List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This started as a content dispute about the list of human inhumanity to humans. User:Danielbr11 wants to add an entry to the list, of 150 million due to Mass killings under Communist regimes, which is the subject of its own article. Two other editors disagreed, saying that Danielbr11's sources were unreliable and biased. They filed an RFC, and then withdrew it. They filed a previous ANI, which was closed. They filed the first DRN, which was closed because other disputes were also pending.

They filed a second Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case, and I began acting as mediator. User:Nightenbelle entered the dispute resolution, as a participant (and so was not required to be neutral, but only to be civil), and researched the sources, and agreed with the other editors that the sources were not reliable. Danielbr1 became hostile to Nightenbelle, and I failed the mediation.

At this point I recommend a 24-hour block on Danielbr11 for personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The filing party, User:Danielbr11, has also filed at ArbCom: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Editing_List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll On the one hand, there is no need for ArbCom to accept the case when it is also pending here. On the other hand, the community should not close or dismiss this case, and ArbCom will probably say that the community should resolve it.

When I closed the case at DRN (a few hours ago), I said that moderated discussion (which is voluntary) had failed because the editors could not reach an agreement. I stated that there were at least four possible ways forward:

• 1. Any question about the reliability of sources can be taken to the Reliable Source Noticeboard.
• 2. A neutrally worded Request for Comments can be used.
• 3. Disruptive editing can be reported at WP:ANI. I did not recommend that option because there was no disruption at that time.
• 4. The party who was in the minority, Danielbr11, could accept that they are in the minority.

Here we are at WP:ANI, which was option 3. Now that this thread has been opened, I recommend against premature closure, because this filing has been the disruption. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

When Nightenbelle said "In the second link she states “ But you are not adding different viewpoints- you are trying to add cold hard facts- and for that, you need unbiased peer reviewed sources.” tell me where that is stated in policy?Danielbr11 (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

TLDR version

Danielbr11 has been repeatedly trying to insert a statement into List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll, that communist regimes are responsible for 150 million deaths using this reference. Other editors on the article talk page have rejected this reference as inadequate for such a major claim (which I think is sensible, as the source is poor). Danielbr11 ran an RfC on the talk page, but then deleted it (outside of themselves, nobody else supported the source). Danielbr11 then decided to bring his case to DRN, ANI (twice), and now ArbCom. Britishfinance (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement from Deepfriedokra

• With all due respect to Robert, my inclination last night was to site block Danielbr11 for a week for disruption, forum shopping, and personal attacks, and to partial block from the article indefinitely/until no longer needed. I still feel this way, but hopefully, they can now proceed calmly and civilly. Gonna walk my dog now. Tschau. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you and i apologize deepfriedokra i will only discuss this civily in the reliable sources and neutrality pov noticeboards as i was advised to do in the dispute resolution noticeboard. I hope they can review each source i provide and inform me why each one is unreliable per policy.Danielbr11 (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

And Danielbr11 When they don't will you attack them again? I'm sorry- but you have said that you would be civil before- and if what you did over the past 24 hours is your definition of civil- I'm concerned. You owe me and every other editor involved with this, an apology for your behavior. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I apologize Nightenbelle to you and others for any personal attacks. I wish to have all my sources reviewed in the reliable sources noticeboard. It just feels that only the first one is focused on and then im dismissed.Danielbr11 (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

THank you. I'm sorry you feel we've brushed you aside- If I haven't been clear that I read every article you posted up to the University of Hawaii Professor's list of numbers- I'm sorry I wasn't clear- I read each of them. All the way through. I hope you get a more clear answer at the rs noticeboard and they can answer your questions in a way that makes more sense to you. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I am a regular on RSNB. I saw Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Editing List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll, which contains the usual walls of text typical of any thread where Danielbr11 participates, so I created a subsection at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Rudolph Rummel where we could have a general discussion about the reliability of Rummel without any material related to Danielbr11's edits. That subsection has resulted in some excellent analyses. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Apollo 14 - Today's TFA receive high level of IP vandalism and unsourced content

• Apollo 14 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please protect this page, at least invoking pending changes settings in the article, because i see in page history after it was posted as TFA for Tuesday February 9, it receives high level of vandalism and distruptive edits from IPs and non-autoconfirmed users which includes adding unsourced or poorly sourced content and there are too many "Reverted" tags in their edit summary. 36.65.47.156 (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I've semi-protected for three days. I considered pending changes, but as far as I can tell every IP and most newcomer edits today have been reverted already, so the collateral damage is minimal. In future, Requests for page protection is thataway. Ritchie333 11:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It has already requested at WP:RFPP by Wretchskull, but admin respond is taking too long as vandalism persisted. But, thank you for your comment. 36.65.47.156 (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Melcous targeting specific page of author Joseph Couture

Biography of Joseph Couture Looking back through the history of this page, it is clear that you have focused a great deal of your personal attention on this particular page. You continually revert edits, demand citations for simple and ordinary matters and keep reducing the size and scope of information about this individual. Now you have tagged it as not being a notable subject although it clearly meets the guidelines for such as both a published author, award winning journalist and famous gay activist. The pattern here appears to have an element of personal dislike for the individual or subject matter. This is an opening dialogue as per Wiki guidelines before a complaint is filed and a review of your edits requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD29:1900:2012:35CE:1224:43BB (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to review my edits - if you look through my contributions you will see that I have edited a large number of articles here, so I have hardly focused a great deal of personal attention on this particular page. It is on my watchlist, and so I have noted over the last couple of years when unsourced content has been added and maintenance tags have been removed without improvement of the content and therefore reverted those edits. I have no personal opinion in this particular person whatsoever, my concern has been with wiki guidelines for biographies. If you could clearly explain which of wikipedia's notability criteria this person meets, that would be great and the maintenance template can be removed. Melcous (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC) P.S. Why was this completely unrelated link to the Capital attacks added to this comment? I did not put it there and it has no relevance whatsoever to the matter at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD29:1900:2012:35CE:1224:43BB (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It is a footnote from an earlier editor and was not added to your comment, it has been on this page well prior to you editing it. Melcous (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

No doubt it is on your watchlist as the history shows that often within minutes of an edit to the page you respond. But you do not simply review the changes just made, you take the opportunity to make extensive changes of your own at that time, usually cutting larger and larger chunks. Like today, you removed his journalism award, which was in fact published in numerous places around the world and is a documented fact. As he was the only journalist in Canada to have won this prestigious award at the time, and under the circumstances he did is only one element of his clear eligibility. This now helps your case he doesn't meet that criteria as things such as winning major awards are a factor. Being an internationally best-selling author is an another example of his eligibility, which has been listed there for many many years and you did not challenge. As is the fact that he was named amongst the top newsmakers of the year at the end of 1995 for both his journalism and the award he won. That same article from the Globe and Mail (one of Canada's most respected national newspapers) mentions his award, but you ignore it and delete mention of the award because you claim another source inaccurate. As you chip away at removing the history, you slowly erode the evidence of his eligibility.

As much of this material is now quite old and was placed here long ago, it is harder and harder to find it in a simple Google search and you are burying his history and putting people in the position of having to work harder to prove things that were previously available and established- and that at an earlier time you even approved yourself. You also arbitrarily decide what stays and what goes regardless of proper and verifiable sourcing. For example, from the last two lines quoted from the same source, you leave one line and remove the second. The second happens to talk about his history of bisexuality and polyamory. You have previously removed properly sourced material on numerous other occasions, seemingly simply because you do not like it. Whether you like this man, or his history does not permit you to decide what details of his life get told and those which get buried. The fact that in raising this issue with you, you respond by immediately further removing documented elements of his history and attacking this individual even more reveals your clear bias. You obviously have had this page on your "watchlist" for a long time and many things that you later changed were there before you appear on the list of editors and you did not remove it until much later. And why only now, after all this time and all your deletions of his many accomplishments, do you now suggest the page be removed?

You have actually made it easy to demonstrate your history of bias and edit warring, a rule which was designed to protect against random members of the public who disagree, and likely not from one of their own editors who may commit such an offence. Since you not only will not cease your campaign or demonstrate a willingness for meaningful discussion, I now have no choice but to escalate this and complain to your superiors. It will be easy in some many cases by examine your history of arbitrary and capricious editing as it is well documented in the record, which, thankfully, you cannot edit out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD29:1900:8442:1568:65B3:B9AE (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is a great example of your selective editing:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/bernardo-author-wins-humans-rights-award/article1136923/

This article mentions in the Globe and Mail that Joseph Couture had previously won this award before author Stephen Williams and that such awards are typically only given to journalists living under dictatorships. You claim to have checked this information but it only took a quick check to prove this point as it is so well documented. This award, the circumstances, the high level of publicity around it are all evidence of his notability. Yet you continue to chip away at it. You are well aware that as time goes by more and more things slip behind pay-walls and can no longer be easily accessed by the public and only now make changes that are increasingly difficult to reverse, but easy for you delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD29:1900:8442:1568:65B3:B9AE (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Case in point, that link to the article with the headline that Stephen Williams won the same award is no longer found on the web, possibly because the paper is now defunct. Did you simply read the headline and conclude because it only mentions Williams that it had nothing to do with this author? As you can see from the still available link to the Globe, Couture is mentioned as having won it first. So if you read the actual article, or did your own research, you would have known that. But I suggest you are not looking for what you do not want to find. The link to the journalism committee report documenting the harassment of Couture is still active and is evidence again you choose to ignore. On and on it goes, I will be reporting you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD29:1900:8442:1568:65B3:B9AE (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Another important item deleted earlier was the fact that he was nominated repeatedly by his colleagues for awards in investigative journalism. Again, many of these links are gone. But this one remains:

ps://caj.ca/blog/congratulations-caj-awards-finalists-2015

I could just go on with this, but I think you should be getting the picture by now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD29:1900:8442:1568:65B3:B9AE (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD29:1900:8442:1568:65B3:B9AE (talk)

Is there something you are trying to say with this wall of text? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Didn't read it, either (indeed, super long), but I think it may be something about whether an award was given to Stephen Williams (writer) (redirect) as opposed to Joseph Couture (as in a misattribution)...? Hard to immediately tell, though. El_C 15:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism from 102.66.137.116

• 102.66.137.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hypnotize (The Notorious B.I.G. song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mo Money Mo Problems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This IP has mostly been changing chart positions on these articles to higher positions, going against what the established sources show. 102.66.132.207 has also displayed similar behavior and has edited other pages relating to the Notorious B.I.G. but has not been active since 4 February 2021. I highly suspect this is the same person. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 15:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they are the same person. It's just the typical sales inflation. Revert, warn and report to AIV is what I do. (CC) Tbhotch 18:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Alexei Navalny, Mhorg, and ‎LauraWilliamson looking for a user to make a fourth revert

There is something going on at Alexei Navalny and its talk page. In particular, IPs were restoring the edit by Mhorg, which is being under discussion at the talk page. I had Mhorg at my talk page, and then I semi-protected the page as arbitration enforcement. Then I had ‎LauraWilliamson, a user with 105 edits, at my talk page, asking whether I can remove the edit since they have already made three reverts today. When I asked them do they want me to be their proxy to avoid 3RR, they said no. At the same time, I see that they went to Nicoljaus to ask the same. I really have no time now to look into this, but we probably need some blocks). From my expert knowledge of the area, the information which Mhorg tries to add is certainly valid but I have no opinion whether it should be in the lede or in the article at all. I would much appreciate if someone can have a look at the situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi just to add, that summary is mostly correct but I would just add that I asked Nicoljaus to revert because the question of the content's inclusion is still being discussed on the talk page, so I didn't think it was right for new IPs with no real edit history to spring out of no where and reinstate the content. Perhaps I should not have asked another user to reinstate the status quo, sorry for that error on my part, I just thought it was right to have the status quo back while the issue is being discussed at talk. LauraWilliamson (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Laura, the problem with your messages to Ymblanter, Nicoljaus and My very best wishes, when viewed in their entirety, is that they come across as WP:CANVASSING, which isn't allowed. Of course, it'd be different if the edits were obviously disruptive (vandalism, etc.), but I'm not sure that this content dispute can be termed vandalism, not to mention, as you put it, "clear vandalism" (please see what vandalism is not). El_C 16:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes of course if I have inappropriately canvassed users then that is my error, and apologies. I wasn't sure whether it would qualify as vandalism or edit warring or something else if new IP's came along and started reinstating the disputed content that's still being discussed on the talk page, but I thought that the usual guidelines were to restore the page to to status quo until the conclusion of the discussion. That was why I asked other users to restore the status quo - but I didn't realise that would come across as canvassing. So in that case, apologies for my ignorance in this instance. LauraWilliamson (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

No worries, I think it's fine, Laura. Just for future reference. Not sure I'm seeing those IP/s as immediately suspect (possibly). But IPs are allowed to edit the page — well, at least they were until the page was protected by Ymblanter. About retaining the status quo ante version: yes, that is generally strongly recommended by WP:ONUS in the course of content disputes, but unless otherwise mandated by an admin, it still isn't an actual automatic requirement. That only happens with something like the Consensu required restriction. Hope this helps. Regards, El_C 16:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• First of all, I did not make "4th revert". I made completely different changes on this page which I think would be needed per WP:BLP, and I explained them on talk page. I do not see any problem. I edited this page previously many times, and I do not mind if LauraWilliamson or anyone else informs me about anything. Let's encourage, not discourage communications in the project. My very best wishes (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• No, no — again, the reference is to the "clear vandalism" messages (plural) when viewed in their entirety. You may not see a potential problem with that, but I do. Or did, at least — because, in any case, it seems resolved now, so I suppose it's of no further moment, either way. El_C 16:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I am increasingly convinced that there is some sockpuppetry going on with the page. Firstly, a sudden wave of brand new IP's have sprung up to either repeatedly reinstate user:Mhorg's disputed edits or push for other users to take action against me. They are all IP's that have never contributed to Misplaced Pages before today: (except in one case not since 2006!):

• 220.253.99.152 - https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/220.253.99.152
• 120.16.121.41 - https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/120.16.121.41
• 102.176.108.200 - https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/102.176.108.200

And now, there is another editor, DarkCloud2222. The reason why I think this user also could be a sockpuppet is because they are not only , but they also just added another comment supporting Mhorg at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Russia#Is the Movement Against Illegal Immigration (DPNI) a supremacist organization?, a debate in which Mhorg is also arguing in right now. Most notably, shows they have edited similar pages to Mhorg - pages to do with Italian things, and in particular pages related to Italian communist groups or figures. I really do feel that this is all not just a coincidence. LauraWilliamson (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Would it be possible to get an administrator to look over this?

User:102.176.108.200, has, notably, just been blocked as well for disruptive editing related to this issue. LauraWilliamson (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Laura, I'm still here. Just had to deal with Special:Contributions/102.176.108.200 for a moment (that was me who blocked them). Anyway, I agree that the sudden appearance of DarkCloud2222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is suspect — however, as far as Mhorg editing anything to do with Italian communist groups, I'm not immediately seeing that, though possibly I overlooked it. Regardless, perhaps someone should file an WP:SPI about the whole thing, unless a patrolling CU feels like sparing us the bother...? El_C 17:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

LauraWilliamson, I inform you that DarkCloud2222 is a well-known user from the Italian Misplaced Pages, it's funny you're trying to portrait him as to my sockpuppet. As I said before, here, the only strange thing is a , your user, (with around 13 days of activity, mostly about Navalny's article), that knows every complicated Misplaced Pages rule, and acts like an expert of Misplaced Pages. A user that act aggresively and only back other user comments likely in a coordinated way and that clearly doesn't want to discuss, but to win: you started deleting my RS, and at the moment, on the Navalny's discussion you're trying to delete 5 RS. You even not try to find sources that support your position.--Mhorg (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: comparing the edit histories of Mhorg: https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Mhorg and Darkcloud2222:https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Darkcloud2222, I would note the following editing similarities.

Mhorg's edits pages related to Italian/USSR/Russian politics, such as:

• Communist Party (Italy) e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Communist_Party_(Italy)&oldid=805138556
• Talk:Stepan Bandera (edited by both accounts, including in same debate to make same points), e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Stepan_Bandera&oldid=999950619
• Stepan Bandera, e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Stepan_Bandera&oldid=1002434840
• Front of Communist Youth (Italy), e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Front_of_Communist_Youth&oldid=956658373

While Darkcloud2222 has also edited suspiciously similar pages, such as:

• Front of Communist Youth (Italy) (Edited by both accounts), e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Front_of_Communist_Youth&oldid=800728640
• Communist Party of Italy (2014), e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Communist_Party_of_Italy_(2014)&oldid=800724338
• Communist Party (Italy) (edited by both accounts), e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Communist_Party_(Italy)&oldid=800728925
• Talk:Stepan Bandera, e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Stepan_Bandera&oldid=999277080.

Definatley not a coincidence - especially when looking at how both accounts were used last month to edit the same debate at Talk:Stepan Bandera. LauraWilliamson (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Woah, that's incredible, you discovered that two users who take care of the same "categories" end up editing sometimes the same articles (how many times?). Who cares if we have millions of edits that have nothing to do with each other and extremely different years of activity... And congratulations again on your skill anyway, in just 13 days you look like an administrator. After 5 years I still don't know how to open an WP:RfC. You know, the more I notice how you move the more I think there is something extremely unusual. In 5 years of activity on Misplaced Pages I have never seen a user behave the way you do. It almost makes me think that those anonymous edits were made by you, to turn up this whole mess (and I'm so sorry for the accusations, but you were the first to make them to me). --Mhorg (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Laura, I understand your feelings, buy you should avoid casting WP:ASPERSIONS.--37.147.251.233 (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, here's some other articles both accounts have edited on:

• Hammer and sickle
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Russia
• Talk:Alexei Navalny LauraWilliamson (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Laura, maybe. who knows. And you're really making me work hard by linking to old revisions instead of straight to diffs. Anyway, as Mhorg astutely notes, this coming from a newish, seemingly single-purpose account such as yourself certainly muddies the waters and places a magnifying lens on you as much as (if not more than) anyone else. El_C 18:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I may be a new user but I can see that this is the same person using two accounts. The similarities in their edit histories are such that it cannot be a coincidence. If no one else is going to file a sockpuppetry report then I'll find out how to do one myself. LauraWilliamson (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Not sure why linking to Darkcloud2222 is proving so challenging for all involved (myself included), but here is their contributions on en: Special:Contributions/Darkcloud2222, and here they are on it: it:Speciale:Contributi/Darkcloud2222. El_C 17:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

User:LauraWilliamson is a sock of a particularly irritating longterm disruptor; see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Gordimalo/Archive. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

LauraWilliamson, wait, Darkcloud started in 2009, therefore I am the real sockpuppet, because I started in 2015.
Drmies please tell me this is the truth, because these days have become a nightmare for me, and I want to wake up.--Mhorg (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks El_C and Drmies, hopefully we are done here.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Anubhab030119 personally attacking other editors

Add: softer touch also recommended on Favre1fan93's part (my note here). El_C 16:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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

• Anubhab030119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I had posted a disruptive editing warning on User:Anubhab030119's talk page here in regards to them adding this comment on Talk:WandaVision to a closed discussion thread about the cast list that has been consistently beating a dead horse after consensus was formed to hold off on new discussions regarding that list for the time being. I added the disruptive template on this editor's talk page to help further explain this, to which that editor responded with personal attacks and hostility. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

ANI against User:Kanto7

@Kanto7 was reverted many times for unconstructive edits for adding in unnecessary infobox clutter and prioritizing/removing the information to various geopolitical and history related articles and other related topics (like unsourced flags). Pinging also editors that have reverted Kanto7's unconstructive edits, Trivialist, Havsjö, Lubiesque, Vif12vf, Moxy.

It also appears that Kanto7 was involved in a previous ANI report here.

This reversion by administrator Wtmitchell is one of the examples of the unconstructive edits that were reverted.

Including this addition of the US flag to a UN Trusteeship:

Unconstructive infobox:

Edit warring here:

Here: (No reliable source was supplied in the talk page: )

Here:

Here:

There are a lot more but this is the final one that I will add here: (Talk page: Talk:British_Raj#Flags)

And reverting a cleanup bot:

I saw good faith in their edits, however their persistent unconstructive edits has pushed me to go to here. I have already warned him in his talk page, my talk page , and other discussion pages before and they seem to not have learned from their previous warnings by other editors. I'm proposing either a topic ban from history and geopolitics related articles since their talk page is evidence that they have engaged in edit warring and unconstructive editing before. PyroFloe (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Editor adding lots of copyvios

Marshjosh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be only contributing copyvios. These are being reverted, but the behaviour continues, and there has been no response on user talk page despitre messages from Materialscientist, Diannaa, Sphilbrick, and myself. DuncanHill (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)