Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Southasianhistorian8 (talk | contribs) at 19:21, 24 December 2023 (→LTA from disruptive 93* IP ranges: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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 admin 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)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Disruptive editing, WP:Canvassing, Offsite canvassing on a General sanctioned page and topic

I’ve been guided by another admin to report this here from this talk page. Can you all please look into the edits of this user on these General sanctioned subject like  1, 2??. The editor has been reverted twice for removing the lead of this GA article. The editor may also have been canvassed or is engaged in canvassing other people here for Misplaced Pages and in reddit. They are also engaged in spreading my username and making grandiose claims about my edits on social media like this. I also have suspicions about this IP address A, also editing per the request of this user. What is the point of general sanctions if such behavior is allowed to continue?TruthGuardians (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

It is really noy accurate to say you were "guided by another admin" about that exchange. It is also not fair to make these accusations simply because you don't like the facts. Michael Jackson was accused by at least 8 people of abuse during their childhood and you or others repeatedly removed it from the lead. Take a look at the Talk:Child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Update: Just for the record, two new editors 1, 2 who do not have a recent edit history or any previous edits on Jackson related topics appeared on the talk page. Possible more evidence of canvassing.TruthGuardians (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Truth Guardians, go to my talk page and look at what the user, User:NinjaRobotPirate you complained to wrote to me about me tagging that user I "know" from editing same topics over the years. Ninja explained to me "don't tag a user to weigh in because it looks like manipulation.. instead place a notice on the Neutral Noticeboard." And I wrote "thanks ok i will" and i did. So if new editors you dont know are suddenly coming to your MJ pages, it is probably from the neutral noticeboard. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC).

I am more concerned with adding protections and more invested in ensuring comprehensive safeguards are implemented for all articles related to Michael Jackson at this point in time. Currently, there is evident canvassing occurring within an anti-Jackson thread on Reddit. Notably, users in that thread share identical usernames with their Misplaced Pages accounts like DanieleJava, claiming they have been working working on Misplaced Pages to spread such accuser advocacy and propaganda. Furthermore, there seems to be a concerning doxing activity, with users attempting to identify me 1, 2,. Additionally, the editing patterns of some canvassed individuals suggest the presence of potential meat/sock puppet accounts. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I do think this is clear case of offsite canvassing and warrants a topic ban. There is also encouragement from others to do it when should of know the guidelines not getting encouraged by reddit users. The user did around 60 edits in less than 24 hours and continues WP:DISTRUPT on the article. Their activity on the above mentioned reddit sub shows he is not acting in good faith but wants to use wiki to display even the least credible accusations. Mr Boar1 (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I never ever "canvassed" anyone EVER except on that talk page and User:NinjaRobotPirate already told me not to tag other users I know on my talk page. Come on. Look at the kind of well-sourced material you're deleting: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Child_sexual_abuse_accusations_against_Michael_Jackson&oldid=1190795244 Misplaced Pages says you're supposed to IMPROVE the text, right? Not blanket delete.

Also this is all what I think is called "Forum Shopping" on wiki. You all know as do I that there are active conversations about the neutrality of edits on the talk page and on the "neutral board." Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if I am allowed to paste this here, but here's an example of a mass swath of material posted by me to the page in question a couple hours ago and instantly mass deleted by User:Mr Boar1. No effort to improve, no effort to discuss the content, or add a "better citation needed" blurb or what have you or check out my talk page posts about the same. Just instant delete. This is not collaborative editing:

Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

If anyone is curious, more on the saga here: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Concerned that Child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson lacks neutrality as it omits a number of sourced accusers Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Opening that discussion while you knew there was already one here is WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Bad look. — The Hand That Feeds You: 15:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

] that isn't accurate. I was TOLD to open the neutral page discussion on my talk page when all this hullabaloo kicked off. Look at my talk page. I opened 2: one on a page I created about the 2023 ruling and AFTER that, after tons and tons of chatter on the "Child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson," I told User:TruthGuardians and other users that "later on that day" I was going to open up a neutral post bc we were "going around in circles" over "Which Abusers To Include" - gate. TruthGuardians was cool with it although of course disagrees with me on substances. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Please do not engage in WP:WALLOFTEXT , you can refer to your edits linking to the relevant part of the edit history. Posting your full edit here is spamming the noticeboard with references which have no relevance to this notice just to promote articles you want people to read and that smells like WP:ADVOCACY. castorbailey (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Not accurate. Pasted to give color on the background of the edit warring. Not to "spam." Assume good faith, always. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Good faith can only be extended so far, and we're rapidly running out. — The Hand That Feeds You: 20:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

You reposted that entire section here with a long list of references that has no relevance to this notice. You also included inflammatory commentary ("we were grossed out" testimony) in another reference list where you also misrepresented what the source said to make it sound worse than it is. That's not good faith editing. castorbailey (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Jim that doesnt make any sense. You know full well there is a huge discussion on Star Arvizo on the talk page and numerous assertions that Star "never testified to abuse" when it is crystal clear that Star did so testify according to numerous credible media reports. The point of the quote was locate his words in the source. It feels to me like you're throwing anything to the wall that you can. Links to relevant discussions are on my talk page. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Ps and Jim I went back and looked and realized something. You 'yourself wrote in one of your many revisions: "02:48, 12 December 2023 (seven is inaccurate, no source on Star Arvizo." That is one of thoae edits that triggered more of a deep dive into exactly what Star Arvizo testified according to Google News! So how can you delete my edits regarding Star Arvizo as an accuser, and then when I create a heavily sourced footnote with quotes and unpleasant detail, turn around and accuse me of being "inflammatory" and "salacious"? You are the very same editor who reverted more oblique edits about Star by me, denying that he was an alleged victim. You are the very audience for more detail on him being "grossed out" as a victim, not just a witness. This is not making any sense. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

You decided to characterize that testimony as "we were grossed out" testimony, for no other reason but to include inflammatory language here. The source could have been included without it. You also made it looks like Star Arvizo alleged Jackson was masturbating in front of him during the alleged incident. He alleged no such thing. And you were told over and over again why Star Arvizo's claims did not rise to the level of sexual abuse under the law. If they had the notoriously anti-Jackson prosecutor wouldn't have missed an opportunity to charge Jackson for it. castorbailey (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Scrubbing reliable sourced text about Star Arvizo is a manipulation of the page to lower the accuser count. The sources about Star speak for themselves. Star did not allege he (Star) was touched sexually, true. But Star did allege in his testimony that Jackson walked into the room naked with an erection and discussed masturbation with Star and showed Star pornography." Your statement that the prosecution "would have prosecuted" for the Star abuse doesn't make sense to me. Jackson was prosecuted and acquitted for a sexually abusive relationship with older brother Gavin. Star was allegedly an eyewitness to those acts and Star so testified. Even if Star was abused in terms of indecent sexual displays by Jackson, charges are up to prosecutorial discretion. Would it ever make sense to risk overcharging Jackson when all that was alleged was indecent exposure and sexual conversation and showing material to younger brother Star, and when Gavin was the alleged primary victim? Would it make sense to charge Jackson for the Star abuse after Jackson was acquitted of much worse allegations of actual sexual contact? Of course not. That doesnt mean Star did not allege child sexual abuse. Scrubbing reliable sourced edits about Star is manipulation of the page to lower the accuser count. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Whether you are responsible for canvassing others to Misplaced Pages or if you yourself was canvassed is to be determined. However, your edits, along with the edits of a couple of other never before editors match what exactly is being canvassed on this Reddit thread. The Reddit thread is loaded with users with the same usernames here on Misplaced Pages who has attempted to edit Jackson topics. This is canvassing defined. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

T.G., I have to disagree. Look at "2BOARNOTOOB" one of the new editors you tag above as suspicious. He or she is stridently pro-Jackson-innocence in all things.

In fact the only person making ANY "unfavorable facts in eyes of the Jackson estate" edits is me that I can see. I'm the only one making edits akin to "Hey guys.... shouldnt we list ALL the accusers? Right?" is me. At least on "Child sexual abuse allegations against Michael Jackson" page. If there are all these "anti-Jacksonists" spamming Misplaced Pages, Im the only one i have seen.

It isnt a plot. I like to edit articles about Black musicians and, separately, "true crime" sometimes,i read the new decisio, and noticed the pages, to me, look skewed. That's all. No evil plot here. And I tend to edit on my phone so lots of typos I go back to fix, which is why so many edits. I also tend to forget to add edit summaries bc usually no one cares about the pages I edit. Inalso dont have a fancy "about me" page so maybe I looked like a nefarious random, but I have been editing a lot over thr yrars with no axcusations of disruption Bhdshoes2 (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I also constantly forget my reading glasses, which creates typos, which means more edits. Again, nothing shady. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

On December 3, you make your first edit on the Misplaced Pages article at the center of the dispute. December 9, you started to heavily make changes to the article. December 11, there was a Reddit thread created based on the same topics as your attempted edits. The same day, December 11th, you attempted to make the proposed edits in the Reddit thread here on Misplaced Pages. Coincidence? Unlikely. The suspicion is that you tried to canvas people to support your effort to include those “accusers,” and I use that term quite loosely. The suspicion is based on the above cited reddit thread. As I see you have not denied your involvement in that Reddit thread. So either you are the creator of the thread attempting to canvass others, or you yourself have been canvassed as a spectator of that thread. Comments like this one from that Reddit thread results in canvassing or people being canvassed: “ETA: if anyone wants to edit, then I suggest they try the non-English pages first. They aren't restricted like the English version.” TruthGuardians (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

TruthGuardians you filed 3 attacks on me in three different "forums" within probably hours of me making edits you don't like. Here, with NinjaRobotPirate, and on "Request for page protection," which you presumably deleted when you didn't get the answer you wanted. The links are now on my talk page. Only fleetingly did you engage with me on the talk page and only to make disingenuous arguments about how the page was in Good Article.Status (in 2008!) so, by definition, my edits are disruptive.

My only request to any admin reading this is to look at my edits and look at the text of the page. They speak for themselves. Take a hard look at the actual edits I made and their revisions. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Also looks like I created a page on "Michael" the bio film back in Feb looking at my talk apge- I had forgotten. Apologies. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate the user continues to ping other users in an on wiki canvassing attempt in tantrums even though you have warned the editor against this behavior. He is also using the talk pages like a fan forum, blog or his Reddit page as you can see here and the Misplaced Pages:Wall of text is becoming a little too much here. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

sorry you don't want your disruptive, combative bad faith history called up, TruthGuardians. Those editors are the very same who have admonished you in the past regarding your obsession with proving Michael Jackson innocent in lieu of maybe actually working with others in building an encyclopedia. One of them built.a chart on your alleged canvassing in June of 2022 with JimBailey / CastorBailey. Stop using "wikilawyering" in multiple fora to silence anyone who doesn't want to see the encyclopedia twisted into a bad faith temple to Michael Jackson's virtue. The only reason the page is on a sanctions list is because of passionate pro-Jackson spam. Stop wikilawyering and engage with the substantive glaring biases of the page. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

That is MY user talk page, TruthGuardians. Not "a talk page." Stop misleading admins Bhdshoes2 (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

According to WP:OWNTALK User talk pages are subject to the general userpage guidelines. While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Misplaced Pages is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier. Editors who refuse to use their talk page for these purposes are violating the spirit of the talk page guidelines, and are not acting collaboratively. TruthGuardians (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

It is literally a timeline of what actually happened between us. I would have posted it here but then you'd berate me for walls of text. No one trying to bring those pages into good standing can win with you. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 03:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

And again this comment accusing me of canvassing is agaiin another bad-faith performative deceptive post in the hope of snookering some admin into banning me from editing your personal temple to Jackson's virtue. You know those "pings" are in reply to your own post on my page where NinjaRobotPirate is already tagged in your very post. This is a performance. You're hoping that you say enough things about me that might hoodwink enough admins, you will get to preserve your Jackson Was Innocent purity temple masquerading as a "Good Article." Bhdshoes2 (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Given the sheer number of personal attacks leveled in those posts, I think Bhdshoes2 needs blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You: 23:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Here the editor is calling those that oppose them “rabid Michael Jackson fans” TruthGuardians (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I hope only one thing. That general sanction rules are followed. Your attacks against me means nothing. Your false accusations about me doesn’t move me. The timeline posted above with the evidence provided is classic case of canvassing as I see it and that’s why I reported the incident here. No conspiracy at all. Thanks. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

TruthGuardians, yet again you make false statements. Just as the pages you edit clearly mislead readers, which is why I'm here, your posts here also mislead. That edit said that the REASON the page was under sanctions, put in place years ago, was because of rabid fans. Nothing about you being a rabid fan. The true timeline is on my talk page which you also twist. I can only say 1200 times i wasn't one of the many handles attacking your Jackson enthusiasm on social media. But you already know that. You are not here to build an encyclopedia. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I never said the username you use here was on Reddit. However, there are users in that thread that has matching usernames here on Misplaced Pages and has edit Jackson pages. Usernames don’t have to match for attempted canvassing or being canvassed to be proven. Your comments on the talk pages and editing on Michael Jackson-related pages are identical to the Reddit user that started the thread there. Sure we can call this a coincidence that in the same day and week there is a similar discussion started on reddit and Misplaced Pages on this topic and attacking editors involved here on Misplaced Pages. The discussion suddenly stopped once I took this issue to the noticeboard. The way you are editing and using talk pages clearly shows you are not here to build encyclopedia but partake in WP:ADVOCACY. Do not make wikipedia a WP:BATTLEFIELD to prove your arguments on Reddit. Thanks. TruthGuardians (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Show me one inaccurate edit I have ever made. Why did you edit the page to say that Jason Francia alleged "tickling" and omit the part of his testimony about genital touching? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to prove to you that I "stopped beating my wife" when I have been editing for years. It looks to me like numerous Reddit people are talking smack about your user name and inappropriate reversions on Reddit which is obnoxious doxxing and I would never be a part of such a thing. The real question is why you falsely said you were "directed" to make a complaint here? Why did you delete so much well-sourced text? Why have you been repeatedly brought up to admins since at least 2019, heavily in June 2022 for problematic single-view-point editing. Of course the "page didn't see much editing" before me because I'm an extended user and shenanigans from the Fandom have prevented the page from being open for editors. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Ninja suggested that I report the canvassing here when I took the issue to her talk page as the Admin didn’t have the bandwidth to deal with it right then and there. So I did. I don’t owe you any explanations for my past edits which has been in complete alignment with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. If I mess up somewhere, another editor points out my mistake and I go in and fix it myself if they hadn’t already. Also, I can’t control past editors going to admin board with false accusations that never amounted to anything. Furthermore, until recently, I can’t ever recall editing the page that you have attempted edit, which by the way was last protected (semi) in April 2020 by QEDK for three months. The protections have expired and has since been open to all editors. It is quite normal to protect pages when there is disruptive editing, which I feel your comments is a direct insult to the admins that protect the page. You’ve been asked to stop referring to editors as fans, rabid fans, or being part of a fandom. Be it the case or not, it’s not WP:CIVIL. Just because you just don’t like someone’s edits or there’s a disagreement of sorts, civility should not be abandoned. Thanks. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

M.Bitton and Nourerrahmane reported by 808 AD

I request the intervention of administrators on this matter. I came here after I mentally got tired from the behavior of those two editors. They couldn't collaborate in a civil manner with me lately during a discussion about the result of the so-called "Capture of Fez (1576)". Talk:Capture of Fez (1576)

Nourerrahmane: Regarding this editor, you can start reading this comment in which he says very dangerous things about me as well as how he is obssessed with the "Algerian identity" of Ottoman Algeria. And while we were through discussion about the result, they made an edit even if there was no consensus and the manner is still disputed. When I undid their edit, They recovered it with "Disruptive".

M.Bitton: Well, from where should I start? This editor doesn't seem to like my opinions and they always seem to be ready to disagree with me, their mind is always made up even before hearing what the other side have to say. M.Bitton proves my point here saying that "your support is as irrelevant as your oppose". Regarding the latest content dispute, they too made some edits despite the fact the the manner is still disputed in the talk page. They Changed here Morocco to Saadi Sultanate claiming that it is more precise, I recovered Morocco (and left link to Saadi sultanate) and told them that "the more you stick to the sources, the more precise it gets" as indeed the sources support it. In the same edit I fixed a reference as its link lead to a wrong source (the coreect one is the V3 o fthe Cambridge history of Africa and not the V5). They reverted my edit without any edit summary. Then they started other contentious edits. For exmaple they removed "Morocco" claiming that it's anachronism, in the same time, ironically, they support "Ottoman-Algerian victory" as a result, and mere "Algerian victory" in other articles (they contradicts themselves). 808 AD (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

•  Note: there is Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/SimoooIX (in case a CU is around). M.Bitton (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  Reminds me of this, coincidence ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Nourerrahmane: please add it to the SPI together with the diff that shows 808 AD's similar edit. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  Well, that's weird. I don't know this account. But that proves how Misplaced Pages artciles become problematic when we don't consider neutrality. Let's see where this will lead us. 808 AD (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see much wrong with M.Bitton's edits. That comment from Nourerrahmane strays into personal attack territory since it talks about the contributor rather than the contributions. It's still pretty mild and borderline though. I don't really see a need for admin intervention here but @Nourerrahmane please be careful with that in future. WaggersTALK 09:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Waggers my apologies. Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Waggers Thanks for your inputs. But I think there has been violation of the consensus policy by both editors.@ 808 AD (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Note that I have now restored the stable version of Capture of Fez (1576) since the matter is still disputed (an Rfc is still open there). I did also correct a reference there (for the second time). There is no Misplaced Pages:Consensus yet. 808 AD (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

As expected, he reverted it to include his POV by force. and they really don't care whether a reference is corrected or not as long as his POV is there. Certainly an admin should do something about it. 808 AD (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I suggest refraining from editing the page until you do have consensus. We don't want to have to protect the page. A bit more maturity is required here. WaggersTALK 13:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you're right, but other contentious edits were made there by M.Bitton and Nourerahmane despite the fact that there is an other editor (me) opposing them and the matter is still being dicussed (and an Rfc has been opened). The stable version should be restored. @Waggers what do you think? 808 AD (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

In an edit war or content dispute, you won't generally find administrators taking sides. See WP:PREFER and M:WRONGVERSION. WaggersTALK 13:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright, it makes sense, let's hope the intervention of a non-admin editor. And certainly the page now is in the wrong version. In case protection was required, it can't be still as it is. But if an admin can't do it, who would judge the violation of the rules of consensus? 808 AD (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Placing an RFC tag on a section that clearly isn't a valid RFC isn't going to help much. It certainly is not a method to force your preferred version of an article. The RFC tag ought to be removed. MrOllie (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand. What's wrong with the RFC tag? Anyway, could you fix it? I can't see the problem. 808 AD (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:RFC is a formal process with very precise requirements. You shouldn't open one until you understand the formatting & scope of your request. Specifically, you violated the Statement should be neutral and brief requirement. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds Yes, I think you're right. I should have put my opinion as a normal reply. What do you think now is it fixed? 808 AD (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I fixed the reference to Cambridge History of Africa. Previous versions were each differently wrong. Folly Mox (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Caseeart move warring

@Caseeart has engaged in move warring in regards to Avi Yemini an article which is currently in draft leaving misleading edit summaries in his moves and has refused to engage in discussion.

For reference the article has been deleted twice by AfD in the past and on both occasions the reason for deletions was the subject was not notable:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Avi_Yemini
• Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Avi_Yemini_(2nd_nomination)

However during the pandemic the individual became notable in Australia and there are numerous citations in the article which can be seen in the article in its current form at Draft:Avi Yemini Draft.

• first moves to draft with edit summary "Deleted multiple times (problems not corrected). WP:ATTACK not suitable for BLP." This edit summary is misleading and patently false. Anyone with eyes can attest the article in its current form has 16 citations, many of which include The Age, The Guardian news.com.au and the Herald Sun which make up 9 of those citations. Clearly that article would survive a new AfD and the statement "problems not corrected" in reference to the article being deleted multiple times is incorrect. Additionally in their edit summary Caseeart wrote "WP:ATTACK not suitable for BLP". Per WP:ATTACK "An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced" (my emphasise). Clearly the article is not poorly sourced as demonstrated by its current state. If Caseeart did believe it to be an WP:ATTACK they ought to have followed that policy and tagged it with the {{db-attack}} template. Clearly they didn't

• I restored the article to mainspace and left a message on Caseeart's talk requesting they not move the article to draft again. I advised that clearly the subject is notable given the number of citations given to WP:RS and that if they disagree they should take it to AfD.

• Caseeart has now moved to draft again without discussion with misleading edit summary "WP:BLP WP:ATTACK. Deleted multiple times. No explanation why restored." Given the message I left for Caseeart and their removal of it it is clearly incorrect that there has been "No explanation why restored". Per above as the article has adequate referencing to WP:RS it is not an WP:ATTACK page and if it was then Caseeart should be using the {{db-attack}} template per policy.

Avi Yemini is now protected until 21 January 2024 and a article which clearly passes WP:GNG is stuck in draft as a result of Caseeart disruptive move warring and not engaging in discussion. Can I get admin intervention and santions on Caseeart for their disruptive behaviour please. TarnishedPath 11:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Justlettersandnumbers as an involved admin. TarnishedPath 11:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• OK, I'll bite - for which of these things is he notable?

Works for Rebel News

Opened a couple of gyms and then sold them

Got sued for defamation by his brother

Ran in a state election and got < 0.5% of the vote

Assaulted his wife

Took legal action against state officials. Lost.

Tried to sue Facebook fact-checkers. Lost.

• That's a lot of trivial things that have been mentioned in reliable sources, but it does sort of read like a laundry list of negative issues (and it doesn't even mention the anti-Muslim or anti-Semitic claims). Black Kite (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Black Kite, provocateur/activist would be my description. He's a serial pest and after years of keeping at it a lot of mainstream media took notice during the pandmemic. No one has to like that he's notable but there's heaps of WP:RS that cover him in depth, not just the ones in the article. As I wrote in my message to Caseeart, if they thought the article still had notability problems then an AfD was the appropriate course of action. TarnishedPath 12:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  The anti-Muslim stuff I believe was a lot of his activism pre-pandemic and there is a argument for developing the article to make it more rounded per WP:RS which aren't currently represented. As it stands though the article passes WP:GNG and it doesn't meet WP:ATTACK as described above. TarnishedPath 12:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  Replying to your specific question though he is notable for engaging in vexatious civil action. That would be an area of improvement for the article. Listing/Detailing his civil actions that he has launched against others in a section. Though as above I’d say his primary notability is as an activist/procoteur. TarnishedPath 13:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Note: I today move-protected the mainspace title for a month to limit scope for any more move ping-pong, preserve the status quo for a while and leave room for some discussion. I made no attempt to establish which was the 'right' title for the page. My initial suggestion would be to submit the draft for review and abide by the result, but if consensus develops here that it should be in mainspace then do please go ahead and make that happen without further reference to me (I'm busy with family and feasting for the next few days at least). Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers, thanks for your assistance. TarnishedPath 21:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I have submitted the article to AfC per your suggestion. @Caseeart, if this passes AfC, if you still disagree, I suggest your only recourse is AfD. Which is what you should have done previously after I left a message on your talk page. TarnishedPath 02:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Caseeart, this article has now passed AfC. Do you agree to either improve any faults with the article in mainspace or take it to AfD? TarnishedPath 11:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

This absolutely cannot be moved back to draft at this point, if anyone wishes for it to be deleted they must go to AfD. Another unilateral draft-ification would be disruptive end-roading around our deletion processes given the history here. Daniel (talk) 18:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Errico Boukoura

The user made a serious allegation against me here. This comes in the context of an AfD, which I recommend you to read. The editor has previously made an another questionable remark ('The "concerns" raised about Keramikou 28 appear to be more personally motivated than reflective of adherence to Misplaced Pages rules.') and ad hominem arguments (claiming I am incompetent to judge tone of text, because I have an "intermediate" level of English, as is written on my user page). I can not disprove that the editor may have communicated with a victim of a AfD-exploiting fraud. But even in that hypothetical situation, the editor is too quick to make claims unsupported by anything other. I can, however, explain what led me to nominate the article for deletion:

I have made a question at WP:VPT. I found the talk page of the TFA of the day as an example of the third issue. Later the day, an image was removed from the TFA (for reasons on the talk page) and I decided to nominate it for deletion on Commons. I was told there is a problem with the problem with the image being in use on TFA archives, so I asked about it on WP:HD and I was led to WT:TFA, where I started a discussion. Later, searching for policies related to the discussion, I found CAT:MISSFILE. I emptied it (the date was December 10 – see my contributions), and one of the articles I edited in the process was Kerameikou 28. The article got into the category because an editor changed all instances of "Keramikou" to "Kerameikou" without renaming a file whose name contained "Keramikou". After several edits to the article on the following days, I finally nominated the article for deletion for the reasons in the top of the AfD entry.

I think my argument is sufficient to disprove that my nomination was made in a COI. I would like you to judge Errico Boukoura's conduct. Janhrach (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I haven't yet looked into this enough to comment on the content issue, but I can see that Errico Boukoura made a very tenuous claim of Janhrach having a conflict of interest while admitting that he had a clear conflict of interest himself (Errico seems to be a male name). Phil Bridger (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I have been attempting to make changes to Kerameikou 28 since the AfD was opened. Unfortunately, Janhrach is not clear on what the problems are, as he keeps changing the issues with the page.

Personally, I do not find it offensive to state that an individual who is not a native speaker of English (and claims to be intermediate on his personal page) as they actually cannot provide proficient corrections in English in any way.

Furthermore, my statement about Janhrach 's potential conflict of interest is purely hypothetical. I only mentioned it as there isn't a clear reason yet as to why Kerameikou 28 was marked for deletion.

I would also like to express my personal opinion regarding the transition from the AfD to here. It seems a bit excessive, as Janhrachand I are currently focused on discussing the developments related to Kerameikou 28, and not engaged in any conflict. Errico Boukoura (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

NOTE: I don't fall under the term 'conflict of interest' as I am a professor conducting research outside of any institution, organization, financial or otherwise. I don't know or have met anyone from Kerameikou and I only recently obtained the phone number of the previous owner.

This was an encyclopedia-focused intention, not insitutional or otherwise. Errico Boukoura (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Errico Boukoura, I do not understand your problem with Janhrach's English language proficiency. English is my mother tongue and I have no difficulty whatsoever understanding Janhrach, and the editor is certainly capable enough in English to nominate an article for AfD. Your repeated criticism of the editor's language skills at the AfD, complete with boldface and underscores and bold all caps, is way out of line. As is your strange, evidence free attempt to tie the editor to some phone conversation with the previous owner and some vague, unsubstantiated threat. So, I highly encourage you to avoid that type of unjustified criticism of a colleague. Focus, instead, on demonstrating the notability of the topic and specific ways that the article can be improved. Cullen328 (talk) 06:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I have made all of the changes Janhrach asked for. If there’s anything else I can improve, please let me know. 2A0E:41C:4543:0:B0B6:1007:D6E3:5793 (talk) 09:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

(assuming I am writing to Errico Boukoura) There is still a lot of things to improve. There are typos, unreferenced claims (e.g. how is this URL related to the Role in Athens Arts Scene section otherwise having no other references, what claims are sourced by which references in Community, etc.) and tone issues (e.g. The End of Kerameikou 28 is toned promotionally, actual information there is worth two sentences at most, et cetera. The list I provided before was a counterargument that I can discern tone and was not meant to be exhaustive). We are going off topic. ANI is meant to discuss conduct. By the way, AfD also isn't fit for this, these are matters that were to be handled back at AfC, but you fraudulently bypassed it. Has that not happened, the article wouldn't be facing AfD now. Janhrach (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Please consolidate all your concerns into a single message so that I can address them collectively. The mention of Role in Athens Arts Scene section is the first time it has been raised as an issue.

Once you have outlined all the issues in one comprehensive message, I will ensure everything is prepared within 2-3 weeks. Errico Boukoura (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

What you want to do is not a matter for AfD. It is not meant to be opened indefinitely until the article is ready. Draftification and a subsequent AfC submission are for that. And at AfC, there will be more competent people than me to suggest changes. Janhrach (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Since the pages was published, the article has already been approved as ready. Once you or anyone else addresses any further problems, I will look into it and changed (or added) the issue within 2-3 weeks. My fast-response to your concerns proves that I am more than willing to make any changes if needed.

I would like to excuse myself, while I am currently engaged in another project as well. I will exclusively participate and respond to matters only related to Kreameikou 28 changes.

Any inquiries beyond that scope will be addressed at a later time.

Note: Please address all of your concerns at AfD so I don't miss anything. Errico Boukoura (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

One last thing: the article was not accepted. This cut-down version was. What is there now was expressly declined in previous AfC submissions, yet you re-added most of what was previously declined. Janhrach (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

As mention above, any inquiries beyond that scope of Kerameikou 28 will be addressed at a later time.

Please address all of your concerns at AfD. Errico Boukoura (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

There is a new comment at the AfD, I strongly recommend you to read it, the argument is well-reasoned. @Errico Boukoura: The reasons for AfD are same from the beginning: bypassing AfC, tone issues and references. I brought this to ANI because you accused me of being connected to someone who "threatened" (extorted?) somebody over an article, without absolutely any independently verifiable evidence. Janhrach (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Thinking the allegation over, I can't find any reason why would the new owner of the building complain to the past one (as opposed to the group that resided in the building) about the Misplaced Pages article. My AfD-exloiting scam hypothesis is almost definitely false – why would a scammer try to contact somebody who is no longer connected to the article subject and whose contact information is hard-to-find? I can't help myself, but I see the phone call as a fabrication.

This is an instance of the 4th bullet point of WP:NPA#WHATIS. Janhrach (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, any inquiries beyond the scope of Kerameikou 28 will be addressed at a later time. Please focus on the issues related to the Kerameikou 28 Misplaced Pages page for now. I will not respond to any further questions until the deletion of Kerameikou 28 has been settled. 91.80.89.32 (talk) 09:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I am aware that you don't want to respond to queries unrelated to Kerameikou 28, but you don't have a right to suspend this ANI thread for that reason. The above message was not addressed mainly or exclusively to you. Janhrach (talk) 12:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a collaborative environment. If you flatly refuse to engage in discussing potential changes to the article, other editors are free to make their own changes without your input. Stonewalling is a bad tactic. Also, please remember to sign in before making edits or comments. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

New user continued disruption

Baraniscool (talk · contribs · count)

Despite multiple warnings and an expired block, user continues to disrupt Pink Floyd articles. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

{{resolved}} No, not resolved. El_C 03:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

User blocked by Ponyo - FlightTime (open channel) 21:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I'be blocked for two weeks. Perhaps in that time Baraniscool will come to realize that they need to communicate with editors raising valid concerns regarding their edits.-- Ponyo 21:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

FlightTime You've also disrupted these related articles. I see you were also edit warring without communication on Fat Old Sun (an article I have been fixing up at the moment and improving sourcing), so you deserve at least an admonishment if not some other WP:BOOMERANG-based sanction. As I write, Machine Head (album) says it was released on 31 March 1972, but the infobox says it was released on 25 March 1972. Which is it? And this is supposed to be a good article. Can you please fix your errors? Ritchie333 12:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: @FlightTime has also been warned very recently about edit warring and being disruptive on other articles as discussed at El C's talk page. This appears to be, at the very least, a recent pattern. --ARoseWolf 13:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  I think FlightTime has been almost but not been quite disruptive for some time, but I can't remember a (recent) time they had sanction-worthy behaviour, always stopping short of it. I do recall blocking them once years ago, but it was reversed as being draconian. Ritchie333 18:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• @Ponyo and Ritchie333: as linked by ARoseWolf above (live, permalink), the brazen expectation on FlightTime's part that they are owed special treatment in an edit war, and their immediate attack against myself when I obviously declined this — that's concerning to me. Concern which I believe FlightTime needs to address. Since, if this is their modus operandi, it's a serious issue. El_C 16:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@El C: if you review the history and think additional action needs to be taken, the by all means, do as you see fit.-- Ponyo 17:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

User:KANLen09

I had issues with the edits of this user before, mainly due to their insistence on adding unsourced trivia content in various anime articles (more specifically in episode sections), content that is of no one's interest but their own. I have suggested them before to discuss the matter on talk pages, to which they have refused and continued to make the same kind of edits, ignoring any kind of objection. Now, there is this particular MOS, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, which clearly indicates to avoid adding links to sections within the article, given that the table of contents provides that function. To be honest, it has only been a few months since I and other editors began to adhere to this MOS, and sincerely, despite the time I have been here, I didn't know about it until recently, so I try to be empathetic with other editors who are not familiar with the MOS and continue to edit contrary to what it indicates, in other words, assume good faith. The problem is that I have warned KANLen09 on several occasions through edit summaries to stop re-adding these links once they were removed, pointing out the specific MOS, and if that hadn't been enough (thinking that, maybe, they just didn't see those edit summay warnings), I wrote them directly on their talk page about the issue. The result? The user continues to this date adding those links, without, at the very least, explaining why they continue to do so. I have little reason to believe that they're not deliberately ignoring the warnings. Their edits are almost disruptive at this point, and if they're not doing them on purpose (which is highly unlikely), makes me wonder if this could be considered a WP:CIR case. I didn't want to get to this point, but the user has been trying my patience for a while now. Xexerss (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with @Xexerss on this, I had to edit a lot of articles because this user keeps Ignoring MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and keeps adding links to sections within the articles which is against what that MOS says and no matter how many times I tell them, it's like they don't care. It's honestly becoming really frustrating. I single handedly have edited near 100 articles and more to implement MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and now this person is undoing them one by one and as @Xexerss said this user is trying my patience now. Parham.es (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the talk page of KANLen09 (talk · contribs)—there is almost no explanation there. Also, I just looked at MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and could not follow the point because on my browser MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE did not display the Purpose section. Per WP:AGF and the principle that Misplaced Pages is too big to rely on admins educating people, next time please use a few more words on user talk (and a couple of diff links) to spell out the problem. Finally, I looked at a couple of recent edits and did not notice a INFOBOXPURPOSE issue. Please use a couple of diffs here. Johnuniq (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says: "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. Avoid links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function."

which means to avoid things like #Episodes or #Volumes and other #X which are sections within the article itself as a hyperlink in the Infobox. The reason you didn't see a INFOBOXPURPOSE issue is because me, @Xexerss and other editors are keep fixing them. As for diffs, here you go:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=I_Shall_Survive_Using_Potions!&diff=prev&oldid=1191474807
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=A_Returner%27s_Magic_Should_Be_Special&diff=prev&oldid=1191471214
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=My_New_Boss_Is_Goofy&diff=prev&oldid=1191464251
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Kingdoms_of_Ruin&diff=prev&oldid=1191315864
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=A_Girl_%26_Her_Guard_Dog&diff=prev&oldid=1191201848
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Protocol:_Rain&diff=prev&oldid=1191479748

As I said, based on MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE you should not add #Episodes as a hyperlink in infobox which means (| episode_list =) should be empty unless episodes are in another article such as "List of X episodes" (it's just an example). Parham.es (talk) 13:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Overtake!&diff=prev&oldid=1190704137
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ragna_Crimson&diff=prev&oldid=1190347351
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Under_Ninja&diff=prev&oldid=1187809725
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Under_Ninja&diff=prev&oldid=1189987759
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=KamiErabi_God.app&diff=prev&oldid=1190953306
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=16bit_Sensation&diff=prev&oldid=1187660825
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dead_Mount_Death_Play&diff=prev&oldid=1188333445
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dark_Gathering&diff=prev&oldid=1191625226

Here are a few of the several instances when I showed them the MOS and requested to stop adding links to sections within the article. I didn't elaborate too much in my warning on their talk page because I assumed that the user was aware of the ones already made through edit summaries, given that those are articles frequently edited by the user. Note that the diffs posted above by Parham.es are after my warning of their talk page, and also after this own ANI report, so indeed there are still INFOBOXPURPOSE issues. I really have no reason to believe that the user is unaware of the matter and is not doing it on purpose. Xexerss (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The point is that we cannot rely on someone reading edit summaries. You need to explain this on their Talk page first. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

As I said before, I already explained the issue on their talk page with a link to the MOS in question, and the user keeps acting contrary to what it says. There is also this ANI report notification on their talk page, but the user refuses to rectify their edits. Edit summary warnings aside, given the fact that I have directly warned the user on their talk page and also notified them of this report, do I have to believe that the user is not aware of the matter yet? Xexerss (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Othmas biaggio

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

Othmas biaggio (talk · contribs) recently appeared and has a wonderful log of mass removal of content, edit warring, and disingenuous Talk messages (presenting false translations). I warned them and reached out to two other admins who know the topic area already, but the editor is continuing to revert. Can another admin please examine this and intervene? --Joy (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Where is this 'wonderful log' of mass removal? I have edited a whole whopping four articles in total. Naturally I reverted your edit and even stated why I did so, because the content was already discussed and agreed upon with another moderator. Your edit, on the other hand, showed signs of subjective pushing of bias, which is quite concerning since you seem to be very active and have been so for a long time. I wouldn't expect anyone with your track record to use a Google search result with 67 matches as a source as seen here:/ Talk:Slava Othmas biaggio (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The first 4 edits this user did were in Human rights in Serbia:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Human_rights_in_Serbia&diff=prev&oldid=1077275638
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Human_rights_in_Serbia&diff=prev&oldid=1077276893
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Human_rights_in_Serbia&diff=prev&oldid=1114652954
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Human_rights_in_Serbia&diff=prev&oldid=1115508786

This is not normal. --Joy (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

You must be absolutely kidding me - the state of the article is what prompted me to create my account in the first place. Let's go through the edits one by one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Human_rights_in_Serbia&diff=prev&oldid=1077275638

Dead links.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Human_rights_in_Serbia&diff=prev&oldid=1077276893

Dead link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Human_rights_in_Serbia&diff=prev&oldid=1114652954

The section is based on a 12-line summary and includes stuff never mentioned in the sourced material such as this line from the previous edit: "and faulty asylum protections (particularly for children)". The source

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Human_rights_in_Serbia&diff=prev&oldid=1115508786

Explained in the Talk section here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Human_rights_in_Serbia

Are you even checking the edits you're listing as disruptive? How can anyone have edited articles since the beginning of the 2000s, two decades, apparently being well-versed in the rules of Misplaced Pages having a moderator position be this amateurish? Your own edit as a revision to my, based on bogus claims of "censorship" uses a Google search result with 67 matching pages as a source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Slava_(tradition)&diff=prev&oldid=1191260586

This is utter insanity. Othmas biaggio (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't finish the 3rd paragraph. The source doesn't even mention anything in regards to what is being written in the article. Othmas biaggio (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Don't attack other editors or you're going to find yourself blocked for incivility. Nate • (chatter) 19:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The removed source in Joy's first link is Wayback Machine-accessible, so it certainly isn't a deadlink, just needs to be merely noted as archived, so removal of these sources is not justified unless it absolutely isn't archived. Nate • (chatter) 19:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

So because one link exists on Wayback it suddenly constitutes as proof for the collective four edits being unsubstantial? Furthermore, can a political declaration and document account for proof of anything? The Declaration itself is based on a flawed pretext of Vlachs and Romanians being considered as one people and claiming this is a political move from Serbia. This is completely false as I am Vlach myself - these claims are usually postulated by Romanian ultra-nationalists trying to group us into being Romanians.

Objectively, though, the source can stay for all that matters, but the clear and unhinged bias must be mentioned in the article. Nobody Vlach in Timok consider themselves to be Romanian, which is the presumption of the sham Declaration - this would be akin to someone denying others of their ethnicity or saying it doesn't exist propagated as being objective.

This is getting interesting for what can really be used as a source? Joy is using a Google Search result with 62 matching results, where it is solely mentioning the tradition of Slava in a historic and unrelated context to the pertaining article (Slava), as evidence for explicitly including Croats as contemporarily celebrating Slava despite arguing with an absolute degree of uncertainty on the Talk page. How is this not considered agenda pushing? The article prior to the edit even mentions it is practiced "to a much lesser extent amongst Catholic and Muslim ethnicities in the region".

Lastly, let's analyze what Joy is saying:

Othmas biaggio (talk · contribs) recently appeared and has a wonderful log of mass removal of content, edit warring, and disingenuous Talk messages (presenting false translations).

Where is this wonderful log of mass removal? I have edited a total of four articles in the span of more than a year and explained with reasons in all of my edits other than in the recent Ottoman_defter_of_The_District_of_Branković_(1455), where my edits almost solely consisted of formatting and adding pictures. My edits were discussed on the Slava article with Jingiby and we reached a collective consensus and agreement. Is it really relevant to, once again, discuss and alter content when one could simply read the Talk page and comment in there before changing anything? The way I see it is we're allowing Joy to edit freely without questioning using Google Search, while we must question the documented and summarized edits of others? I believe that doesn't make sense nor is it justifiable in any way whatsoever. Othmas biaggio (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Deadlinks are a reasont to find an archive or a new source, not for removing content. If you're unable to find a source you coild use {{citation needed}}. Also the diff you presented of Joy's was to Croatian Encyclopedia not Google search results. Did you provide the right link? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The edit on the Slava page, where Joy uses a Google Search result as a source or as substantial evidence for his claims:

Talk:Slava

The edit in question:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Slava_(tradition)&diff=prev&oldid=1191276425

Not only does he or she uses a Google Search result as a source, but claims I am 'censoring text' despite the mentioned edits even having been discussed and a concensus reached with a previous moderator being Jingiby. Joy could have simply read the Talk page instead of once again churning settled content and editing using Google Search as a source. I am referring to the edit, where Joy argues on the notion of uncertainty and Google Search results being evidence. The "real" source is the link to a Croatian Encyclopedia followed by Joy pointing to Google Search results. Othmas biaggio (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Lastly, you have countless of sources stating Slava is indeed a Serbian tradition here, but I guess one could always cherrypick using things like national encyclopedias and Google Search results to include subjective and biased edits. Isn't this especially concerning when the one doing it is a moderator?

https://ich.unesco.org/en/RL/slava-celebration-of-family-saint-patron-s-day-01010

In Serbia, Orthodox Christian families celebrate an important holiday in honour of the patron saint, Slava, who is believed to be their protector and provider of welfare..

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326252390_The_Slava_Celebration_A_Private_and_a_Public_Matter (by Bosniak author Sabina Hadzibulic)

A family celebration named the slava or krsna slava (celebration/ glorification or christened celebration) is a unique custom within the tradition of the Serbian Orthodox Church when each family annually celebrates its patron saint.

It seems only on Misplaced Pages commonly held notions are up for discussion - especially on pages related to the Balkans. Despite the above sources a consensus was even reached earlier with Jingiby to include Muslim and Catholic ethnicities, but still Joy feels the abosolute need to explicitly mention Croatia and Croats. Othmas biaggio (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no mention anywhere in that diff of Google search results, nothing, not in the references which is for Croatian Encyclopedia or in the edit summary. Note whether this is a Serbian or Croatian tradition has zero to do with this board, and this board doesn't deal with content issues. Also how does this specific issue relate to you removing details of human rights issues? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Othmas biaggio (talk · contribs), a couple of things. First of all, this combative attitude, please drop it. I need you to stop yelling at other editors, and using their "moderator" status to strengthen that personal attack just makes it worse. Second, please use regular layout, instead of responding in paragraphs with extra line breaks--Microsoft Word's extra line after a paragraph has done the world more harm than good. Finally, like ActivelyDisinterested I can't really figure out what you are trying to argue here, but if you are going to make some point about content you shouldn't cite a UNESCO website--and of course we don't handle content discussions here. Drmies (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

There are two articles in question: Slava and Human Rights in Serbia. I am simply linebreaking to separate my content and make it easier digestible.

Regarding Slava - Joy has reverted an edit of mine as seen in the Talk page, where the user argues on behalf of Google Search results and voids earlier discussion pertaining to the same subject calling my edit "censorship". Scroll to the bottom of the Talk page. You would have to ask Joy specifically what is referred to by the "wonderful log of mass removal of content" comment.

Regarding Human Rights in Serbia I have explained all my edits here and in the original edits and on the Talk page. So I can't site a UNESCO website, but Joy can cite a Croatian Encyclopedia consisting of 3 lines and a Google Search result? So what has this discussion been about then? Or was it simply invoked in a wrongly manner by a moderator? I am simply responding to the incident created by Joy. I believe all my edits are just and contributing, but understand I should be more careful with removal of content in the future and don't remove dead links or citations. Othmas biaggio (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Othmas biaggio, please stop misrepresenting Joy's statement on Talk:Slava (tradition). Joy pointed to a search result string to demonstrate the existence of sources ("Try doing for example a https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahrcak.srce.hr+hrvati+krsna+slava and see a bunch of scholarly references to it."). Joy has not cited Google Search. Schazjmd (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Joy cites a Croatian Encyclopedia consisting of 3-4 lines supporting it by using a Google Search result. The whole previous section revolves around discussing this exact phrasing and whether or not to include that particular sentence and how to phrase it - a consensus was reached. Instead of simply reverting the edit based on the Talk-page discussion, meaning the content was actively agreed upon by two parts, he could simply had commented on the Talk page. You can't seriously be saying pointing to something makes something valid- then I could simply index a search result based on my own specific keywords on any given encyclopedia entry and point to that. Othmas biaggio (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, calling it a simple "Google Search result" is only partially true, as it is a search on a specific website (), as you can see in the URL. This is only to establish that sources mentioning this claim exist on this specific site. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 22:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

So since it's partially true why isn't Joy providing a specific source rather than pointing to a collection of works containing his specific own personal tags in a Google Search result? Othmas biaggio (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

A source was literally given in Joy's edit. This search is just to show that the topic of this celebration among Croats is well-described in scholarly articles, beyond that one specific source. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 22:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

A source being a national encyclopedia entry. Is this seriously considered valid as a source? Like I stated I could just take anything from any encyclopedia, look up some tags in a Google Search result and add them as an argument. Real historic dissection addresses bias and even encyclopedias hold biases. Everything has a bias and something is not necessarily true because a specific encyclopedia says so. If he was really adamant on including the paragraph couldn't he simply have used on the "numerous" sources he pointed to? Furthermore, like I already stated, pointing to a Google Search result isn't equal to something being "well-described in scholarly articles". The one specific source he mentions isn't even a scholarly article. Othmas biaggio (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

It is literally a search on a specific website, which happens to be the Portal of Croatian scientific and professional journals. In other words, yes, it is literally a search among scholarly articles. An additional source could have been added, yes, but this search was there to establish that these sources exist. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 22:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

So what? Would you trust a Turkish encyclopedia on Armenians or Greeks? A Greek encyclopedia on Turkey and Turks? An Azeri encyclopedia on Armenians? An Armenian encyclopedia on Azeris? National disputes and nationally produced material are not clear of bias and just because something is institutionally produced doesn't make it more objective. Especially not if it should be used in a broader sense when writing articles pertaining to a larger audience trying to grasp a subject at surface level. Would Thanksgiving be a Mexican tradition if a Mexican encyclopedia said so? Would Chinese New Year be a Japanese tradition if a Japanese encyclopedia said so? Othmas biaggio (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

We are discussing two articles - Joy has reverted one of my edits, which to I was given an unwarranted, in my opinion, warning and now he or she refers to another article in here. I guess we'll have to ask Joy to make him clarify what this is really about. Othmas biaggio (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

In this edit you removed criticism of Serbia's human rights record by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe because you believe the assembly is wrong and it has a deadlink, neither are a valid reason for removal.
And in this edit you removed criticism of Serbia's human rights record by Human Rights Watch and the European Parliament because of a dead link, again not a valid reason to remove it.
When asked why you removed these you stated deadlinks and have tried to shift the discussion to a different discussion that wasn't part of the original complaint. A discussion in which you continue to misrepresent what Joy has done. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

No I haven't - I have been given a warning and had this incident made by Joy. I am addressing both. There is no shifting of discussion here. Many of these articles pertaining to the Balkans are extremely biased - one of the edits, as an example, proposes my ethnicity, Vlach, doesn't exist and that we are simply Romanians. This edit and including of information was clearly not checked in the first place. Would you find it suitable having an article stating your ethnicity is the extension of another without addressing the inherent bias of the Declaration? But I see your point - I should instead have added the citation needed tags to the edit despite it stating my ethnicity doesn't exist. Othmas biaggio (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Your ethnicity has absolutely nothing to with it, try reading WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. You personal opinion is not applicable, only what is verifiable through reliable sources. And none of that explains why you were removing records of human right abuses by Serbian. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

It has much to do with it as the removed text centers around a premise of my ethnicity not existing. The bias of the 'reliable source' wasn't mentioned in any way whatsoever, which led med to questioning whether the edit was indeed done in bad faith - what is this? Kindergarden history? You can't simply say something is reliable and thus the objective truth - this is one of the core principles of history as a subject being everything having a bias. Just because something has EU plastered over it doesn't necessarily removes the inherit bias of both the institution it is being channeled through nor the bias of the underlying authors. I am astonished this isn't being even remotely considered here - all politics regarding the Balkans is politically toxic and that goes for all sides. I could simply had put a citation needed tag - what then? The reader would be left in a void of thinking Vlachs are indeed Romanians, which is propagated solely by Romanians. Also, according to the article I would not only be Romanian, but also oppressed. We could reverse the article with the Wayback source, but then we would have to address the information further. Also let's really look at what's going on here - four edits are posted as evidence for a supposed claim from Joy of a wonderful log of mass removal of content. I have edited a total of four articles, I repeatedly mention again and again, in the span of a year and a half. This is clearly a witch-hunt by the moderator who posted these edits and gave me a warning and undid my edit on the Slava page based the information not suiting his bias. Do you think the claims of Joy are justifiable - are my four edits done more than a year ago and the rest of my edits on four articles proof of a wonderful log of mass removal of content? This discussion really proves some moderators are cherrypicking sources and information to their liking and leveraging their position to have the articles suit their personal bias and actively blocking other users. Othmas biaggio (talk) 11:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely ridiculous, I just checked the Slava page and as it just so happens someone undid his revision again to make it appear I did it from an outside IP. This is getting more and more crazy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Slava_(tradition)&diff=prev&oldid=1191404120

The edit has the text lol a croatian source, be serious - totally written by me. This should probe into further investigation into Joy. Joy, being a Debian dev and having plenty of IT experience, naturally made it to look like I did it even further by spoofing his IP, which is geolocated in most Southern part of Serbia. The thing is, not only am I not from that part as stated by my personal user page since Vlachs are from Timok but I ain't even writing from Serbia. I call upon Jingiby to notify I didn't do that edit. I can't belive this is seriously happening - this guy has over 20 years of edits with the status of a moderator acting like a spoiled brat. Othmas biaggio (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The IP is a VPN! Just as I suspected:

https://www.ipqualityscore.com/vpn-ip-address-check/lookup/91.148.114.224 Othmas biaggio (talk) 11:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The same VPN IP-address furthermore undoes another one of Joy's edits:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Serbia_and_Montenegro_at_the_Olympics&diff=prev&oldid=1191403910

This simply can't be real. Othmas biaggio (talk) 12:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

If memory serves me there is an LTA that likes to do that with open ANI cases, its just someone being a jerk. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

So you seriously believe someone random, while this discussion is ongoing, would use a VPN to undo two of Joy's revisions? You must be kidding me. Othmas biaggio (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is a quite common trolling behavior here at ANI. The best way to counteract it is to ignore it and adopt a calmer approach to discussion: the targets are people who seem likely to get very worked up / lose their cool / etc. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is getting 'worked up', but this is clearly targeted at me to make it look like I did those revisions. How could it even be random common trolling behavior? This is seriously concerning - you have moderators reporting others on unsubstantial claims of having wonderful logs of mass removal despite having edited only four articles in the span of one and a half year, handing out unwarranted warnings and harassing other contributors actively gatekeeping articles and their contents. Othmas biaggio (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes: the way this particular kind of trolling works, the troll picks someone and impersonates them, hoping to get them blocked / get them worked up. What can I say -- there are a lot of pathetic losers on the internet who think riling people up is fun. The way you should combat it is by being less riled up -- for example, people who are calm don't feel the need to add lots of emphasis to their comments, repeat themselves, and spend so much time explaining what is wrong with other editors without listening to advice and taking on board comments about their own behavior. (In case it is not obvious, I have no power whatsoever to affect any part of this situation, and no knowledge of or interest in the underlying dispute -- but it will obviously have a better outcome if you chill out and devote more of you energy to hearing what other people are saying.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no trolling here - there is only Joy trying to make it look like I am doing revisions from a VPN. This kind of behavior belongs in a kindergarden - nobody is being riled up, but this is simply unacceptable and astonishingly being done by a moderator with over 20 years of activity. I even see my edits were noticed by another moderator being Vanjagenije all the way back in January 2023 welcoming me as a new editor with no mention whatsoever regarding any of my edits. Othmas biaggio (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Many reliable sources disagree with you, that's all that matters not you personal feelings or opinions about the matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Which many reliable sources? feel free to list them here. This has absolutely nothing to do with my personal feelings, but regarding what's objective or what's not. Othmas biaggio (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, I have to agree with Joy on the "disingenuous" quality of talk page discussions. I'm looking over Talk:Slava (tradition), where Othmas is waging a kind of war over "occasionally among Croats", which they removed here (without any kind of explanation) and elsewhere. In that talk page discussion it's noteworthy that Othmas seems at pains to not address the matter of Croats honoring this custom, and takes issue with Joy bringing it up--and then takes issue with Joy's citation from the Croatian Encyclopedia. Joy defends the citation and says "look, it makes sense that they're saying this since it is true--look at these results", but is then accused of using a Google search as if he were defending an article it: but Joy was explaining why a citation made sense. Yes, that's disingenuous, or at least very confused. Finally, there's this: "I propose we discard your edit as the content has already been discussed. There is no need to go over content, which was already agreed upon in the first place"--well, "we" is two people, which is of course the minimum, and "agreed-upon content" is not set in stone, though that's precisely what Othmas is trying to do here. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

What is "disingenuous" here? Me disagreeing? There is no war being waged here - the tradition is Serbian as pointed to in here and by countless of other sources and I even agreed to say the custom was being honored by Muslim and Catholic communities in the region. Slava isn't being celebrated in Croatia. That's akin to saying Thanksgiving is being celebrated in Mexico. Naturally so information isn't set in stone, but the topic at hand has once before been discussed. Why is the subject suddenly being opened again? Joy could simply have commented on the Talk page if he was to add or remove something previously discussed by respect of the other users as one can clearly see there was a civil discussion on the topic. I could also simply extend the matter and add the sources stating the tradition, as I already did in here, is inherently tied to Serbs and the Serbian Orthodox Church, which it is, but wouldn't that be considered editing in bad faith? Othmas biaggio (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, even Joy argues with uncertainty saying something is "likely" - with that he really just said he doesn't know. Othmas biaggio (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

You keep misunderstanding things. The "likely" in Joy's answer doesn't mean what you claim it means, and you keep arguing here about whether something is exclusively Serbian or not, and you claim that you know damn well that it is and everyone else is wrong, but what is at stake here is your behavior. Please familiarize yourself with the expression "when you're in a hole, stop digging". Drmies (talk) 02:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

If you think I am arguing whether something is 'exclusively Serbian or not' then you haven't gotten a clue what we're discussing or talking about at all. Would it be objectively false for the Misplaced Pages article for, let's say, Dia de Los Muertos to state it is a Mexican tradition, which it is? You think this is a one against many case of argument and you're totally missing the point at hand being writing a quality article with the information being as objective as possible directed towards people who perhaps don't know about the subject at hand. It definitely signifies a degree of uncertainty by this is even besides the point also being he uses a Croatian encyclopedia being written as a three-liner on the subject further pointing to a Google Search result with no direct source reference whatsoever - a purely amateurish move with one not even being able to provide a direct source reference to the claim. You can't say something can't be defined just because it doesn't encompasses something else - then it wouldn't be definable in the first place. I have provided multiple sources stating the traditions is inherently tied to Serbs and the Serbian Orthodox Church, it is without a reason of doubt whatsoever this is the case, but still even though this is the case, the original edit mentioned Muslim and Catholic communities practicing Slava to a lesser extent. Nobody is digging any holes other than Joy claiming I have a wonderful log of mass removal of content without any shred of evidence whatsoever with me having edited solely four articles in the last year and a half. I challenge you to find any shred, even the slightest smallest speck of evidence, of ethnic Catholic Croats celebrating Slava. It doesn't exist. You have page up, page down, videos, official church material, practically anything on the subject on the internet, specifically stating this is a Serb tradition. I seriously can't believe this is even being debated - it would be equal to saying Christians practice Hajj. And with a moderator opening the discussion clearly agenda pushing his own subjective views trying to leverage his position of power. Othmas biaggio (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I just handled a request to semi-protect Slava (tradition) and noticed the discussion on its talk. You may be right (I have no idea) but I can say that regardless of that, you will be blocked if you do not immediately dial back the attitude. Think about it—Misplaced Pages has six million articles covering every known contentious topic and it is not feasible for the community to tolerate ongoing belligerence. Focus on article content and the reliable sources supporting it. Johnuniq (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no attitude, but this incident has evolved since Joy being a moderator and in a position of power decided to mask outside revisions by VPN to make it look like I did them. This whole incident and warning I was given is based on the subjective bias of the moderator attempting to push his agenda by the above mentioned means. All the edits in question, being from several months to more than a year old, had previously been acknowledged by several moderators and I have edited a grand total of four articles in total with the content in question relating to only two articles. Yet he claims I am mass removing content or being "disingenuous" after respectfully ending a Talk-topic on the article in question you semi-protected by now. This was months ago. Not to mention the fact that these insane accusations and spoof VPN edits are being done by an actual moderator. Othmas biaggio (talk) 08:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any actual evidence to support the accusation that "spoof VPN edits are being done by an actual moderator"? Brunton (talk) 08:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Thou dost protest too much, methinks, or, if you prefer, WP:BLUDGEON. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a lot of noise from someone who has less than 30 edits to mainspace, ever. Heat to light ratio needs to be considered at some point, especially given the explicit allegation that a 'moderator' is using VPN to edit in breach of our sockpuppetry policy with no evidence presented to support the allegation. Daniel (talk) 12:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Amazing. This whole debated was opened by Joy who has since the evolved discussion not said a single word in here. I don't get why you people think I am making noise or getting riled up - I have edited a total of four articles in the span of over a year and here comes a moderator accusing me of three massively unsubstantiated claims on old edits because it doesn't suits his narrative and subjective bias. I stand by my position and will answer every, single comment in here since this is unjust behavior by a person in a position of power abusing it to push his agenda and harassing newer contributors. Othmas biaggio (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

If you look at my previous user page edited months ago it clearly states I am located in Denmark. Now why would anyone edit the revisions of a moderator with a spoofed VPN from Serbia? Naturally so if the user, here a Croatian mod, would think I am in Serbia cause I have mainly edited articles, here a whole whopping two articles in total in the past year and a half, pertaining to Serbia. This all begun after this incident evolved and I believe Joy simply thought I wouldn't protest against his unsubstantiated claims. Othmas biaggio (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

You've just doubled down and repeated the allegation regarding a 'moderator' engaging in unregistered editing using a VPN, again with no evidence. Please provide evidence immediately, or go back and withdraw those remarks unequivocally. Daniel (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I refer to my answer to Phil:

"If you look at my previous user page edited months ago it clearly states I am located in Denmark. Now why would anyone edit the revisions of a moderator with a spoofed VPN from Serbia? Naturally so if the user, here a Croatian mod, would think I am in Serbia cause I have mainly edited articles, here a whole whopping two articles in total in the past year and a half, pertaining to Serbia. This all begun after this incident evolved and I believe Joy simply thought I wouldn't protest against his unsubstantiated claims."

Naturally so I wouldn't be able to withdraw any of these remarks as these are clear signs of a moderator heavily abusing his position to push his own personal agenda. I believe I am generally a fair person and especially with my edits, but abuseable actions by people in positions of power is of utmost importance and must be addressed, so naturally I would like to call for a sock puppet investigation into the edits and the IP. Othmas biaggio (talk) 18:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

I have blocked this editor indefinitely for disruption, namely consistently making unfounded sockpuppetry allegations at ANI and refusing to withdraw, battleground behaviour, and failure to drop the stick. In my opinion they are a net negative to the project at this point. Happy for review of the block as always, and any administrator is free to overturn if they wish to. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Note that they are now tripling-down on their talk page (permalink) and insistent that Joy is sockpuppeting with an open proxy, despite it clearly being explained to them above how this often happens with people trolling open ANI discussions. Daniel (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Kingstowngalway, User:K1ngstowngalway1 and edit summaries

Note that the second account was created 5 days since the last edit of the first, which has since become dormant.

• Kingstowngalway: No summary · 20,575 (96.8%)
• K1ngstowngalway1: No summary · 22,799 (98.8%)

User has been repeatedly warned by multiple editors about the lack of edit summaries, none of which has received a response: on 5 August 2006, 21 October 2010, 23 September 2011, 8 June 2014, 9 April 2021, 14 May 2022, 18 October 2021, 22 November 2021, 12 September 2022, and 4 May 2023. NM 03:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Continued articletalk disruption despite repeated warnings

Inspector Colombo (talk · contribs)

Inspector Colombo's edit count is 152 edits. Aside from a reverted article edit and 9 usertalk edits, all but two of of those edits have been to Talk:Lillie Langtry.

His posts are massive rambling diatribes full of personal attacks and aspersions and accusations, and numerous random irrelevant asides. Not only that – after posting these massive diatribes he then endlessly rewrites them, often dozens of times each, long after editors have read or responded to them, so that they do not state what they originally did.

Here are some sample posts and their sizes in bytes: June 2021 through July 2022: 3,398, 2,457. March 2023 through August 2023 7,799, 12,275, 5,054, 3,518, 3,749, 2,058, 2,725, 3,045, 10,959, 7,404. November 2023: 6,289. December 2023: 9,434, 4,013.

He has edited the talkpage on a virtually daily basis since 29 November, with up to a dozen edits per day:

For comparison to his 139 edits to Talk:Lillie Langtry, the next most frequent poster to Talk:Lillie Langtry is me, with 13 edits since 2015.

Inspector Colombo has long since exhausted the patience of the two editors who attempted to respond to him. AnthonyCamp stopped responding to him on 11 May. DuncanHill stopped responding on 11 November.

In August I archived the articletalk ramblings and warned the user about WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:WALLSOFTEXT, WP:PA, WP:OR, WP:BLUDGEON, and WP:NOTESSAY on his usertalk . However, he started up again in November with the same issues, and was warned again on his usertalk on 22 December and explicitly instructed precisely how to use articletalk . He has however started up again with the same behavior, reviving his disruptive articletalk ramblings.

At this point I believe the user probably needs to be blocked from that articletalk and article, or to be given a topic ban on Lillie Langtry, or to receive a flat-out block, possibly indefinite. He is a disruptive WP:SPA and not here to build an encyclopedia. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I issued an indefinite block with a message to the effect that an appeal may be successful if there is a plausible explanation of how future problems would be avoided. Johnuniq (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I am leaving this thread up for a while because the user is now using his usertalk as a WP:SOAPBOX to continue his long-winded single-minded agenda. Softlavender (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced BLP articles by User:Ramaprabha1

User:Ramaprabha1 has been creating completely unsourced BLP articles in the mainspace even after multiple warnings on their talk page asking not to do so. List of unreferenced articles created

• Prosper Tsvanhu
• Aravelly Avanish Rao
• Shubham Dhubey
• Rajan Kumar
• Saurav Chauhan

Previously created

• Sanapala Vallabha Rao
• Cyrus Poonawalla Group
• LNJ Bhilwara Group
• Lalbhai Group

They do not appear to respond on their talk page and have a history of removing AFD and BLPprod tags, ultimately increasing the workload of new page reviewers. While I don't believe there's a policy violation here that I can find. Jeraxmoira (talk) 07:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Ramaprabha1 has created a new article for Prosper Tsvanhu after the old one was draftify'ed. - Draft:Prosper Tsvanhu. Jeraxmoira (talk) 10:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Once again, they have removed the BLP Prod tag without addressing the issue. Jeraxmoira (talk) 13:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Zero talk-page responses. No edit summaries. Misplaced Pages:Communication is required would seem to apply. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• Obviously unsourced or badly sourced articles moved to draft. At least one claims that the player has played in a league which they have not, so I have blocked the editor from article space until they communicate at the very least. Black Kite (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Continuous disruptive behavior by User:AKASH_TH15

User:AKASH_TH15 has been adding unreliable sources ,, despite many warnings from me and another editor. Warning 1 , Warning 2 and replied with apology but continued to readd unreliable source, Warning 3 , Warning 4 . Then User:AKASH_TH15 copied and pasted warning 4 from his talk page to my talk page. and continued to add unreliable source that fails WP:ICTFSOURCES . User:AKASH_TH15 has been ignoring warnings and Misplaced Pages policies and continues to disrupt by replacing reliable sources with unreliable ones. RangersRus (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Warning 5 from another editor and user AKASH_TH15 still continues to disrupt.RangersRus (talk) 13:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@Daniel: need help with this ongoing problem. RangersRus (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Is there any reason why I've been pinged here? Daniel (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:SELFPROMOTE violation

User Brion Carroll is in violation of WP:SELFPROMOTE. This user is adding unsourced content to James Naismith that is directly contradictory to a well established documented fact (Naismith inventing basketball) and is using the book "Nais-MYTH: Basketball's Stolen Legacy" as their source in their edit summaries and on their talk page. Amazon lists an author named "Brion Carroll". Recommend either an outright ban or a topic ban for James Naismith and Basketball.--Rockchalk717 16:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually I think WP:SELFCITE is the appropriate policy and I know there's other policies for using sources you have a personal connection to, I just don't know them off the top of my head.--Rockchalk717 16:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, it's a self-published book, not a reliable source. Schazjmd (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I have pageblocked Brion Carroll from James Naismith and left detailed guidance on their talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you "Rockchalk717" are - but you should know that any modifications to James Naismith's profile is done based on researched, emperical evidence that contradicts those altered areas of Naismith's role in the invention of Basketball.

I am more than willing to have a discussion on this topic and (yes) the book Nais-MYTH: Basketball's Stolen Legacy has much of the basis of these suggested modifications.

The world is not flat as some thoroughly believed before being proven wrong (with evidence).

There is virtually no historic evidence that James Naismith invented Basketball. However, there is a plethora of printed evidence that the game of Basketball was invented by Lambert Will; that the game was being played in Central New York 10 months (Feb/1891) before Naismith even knew how to combine a ball and basket; and therefore the adjustments made were factually proven (even as agreed to by a heavily validated Washington Post analysis/article). Brion Carroll (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Self-published books are generally not considered reliable sources on Misplaced Pages. If you have a plethora of printed evidence, then provide citations to those sources on the article's Talk page for discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

User:2600:1006:b125:a67c:d871:8bf4:ace4:b90: edit-war violating 3RR, POV-pushing, removal of reliably-sourced content

• User has received two warning at their talk page (User talk:2600:1006:B125:A67C:D871:8BF4:ACE4:B90)
• User has gone against the talk page consensus, or if it cannot be considered a consensus at least they went against the common agreement two other users had on the specific content (consensus: Talk:Fiducia supplicans#Unbalanced representation within article)
• User has edit-warred, violating 3RR, to impose their POV against what RSs and the aformentioned consensus say: , , ,

Veverve (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

5th revert in less than 24 hours: Veverve (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Death Editor 2

Death Editor 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

While only 8 months old, with 1,383 edits, this editor has a very problematic editing history (User talk:Death Editor 2).

They are currently engaged in a slow moving edit war to change the infobox results in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (an area covered by three CTopics infobox, a-a, and e-e)

• First , rv by Super Dromaeosaurus
• Second , rv by TimothyBlue , referred to talk page discussion Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict#Is the conflict over?.
• Third change after failing to get consensus on talk page discussion

Previously they were blocked for edit warring in infoboxes: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1140#Death editor2 and edit warring under WP:ARBPIA.

Community should evaluate this and the editors overall history User talk:Death Editor 2 of disruptive editing for sanctions. I do not believe this users history show willingness to work within consensus and think it shows an inability to work with others.

I believe this (see history) goes beyond edit warring to overall problems editing in CTopics areas, which is why I think the discussion belongs here and not in the edit warring boards.  // Timothy :: talk  21:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, how the isn't the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict over? The Republic of Artsakh no longer exists in any meaningful way, and nearly all of the Armenians fled! Death Editor 2 (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

That determination needs to be made by WP:RS. If you cited a reliable source, your edits might not have been reverted. (t · c) buidhe 01:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

24.131.62.42

This IP has been making disruptive edits for a while, including attempting to make a cut-and-paste move: , adding lyrics from songs: , , (all of them need RD1), and adding redirect tags to existing pages: . They also blank their user talk page regularly after being warned. —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 22:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Notice: —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 22:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

They blanked this report as well. The IP has previous for this, and was last blocked for 3 months, so blocked for 6 months this time. Black Kite (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Problematic edits on Shia-Sunni topics

• Shadowwarrior8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor mostly edits Shia-Sunni related topics but they have a problematic history in this topic area. They apply a clear double standard on how they present Sunni groups in comparison to Shia groups. They minimise the actions of Sunni groups against Shia while making articles about Shia groups very negative. They often make large single edits with multiple changes throughout the article using vague, generic and unspecific edit summaries which are misleading or even untrue. This masks many problematic changes like removing sourced content. Most editors are not going to check every change in these large edits. They often misrepresent sources and their edits are fulll of non neutral language. I have highlighted numerous examples that illustrate this problematic pattern of editing:

• On Shia-Sunni divide they removed mention of genocide against Shia using the edit summary of "Grammar" which is clearly deceptive insincere.
• On Sectarianism and minorities in the Syrian civil war, they inexplicably deleted mention of the Hatla massacre of Shia villagers hidden among a typical large single edit.
• On Yemeni Civil War, in another very large edit, they stealthy changed the first line of a paragraph which stated that "The international community has condemned the Saudi Arabian-led bombing campaign" to "The international community has strongly condemned Houthi drone attacks,". This related edit on Yemen removed a sentence from the lead and inserted a ridiculous amount of weasel words and also scare quotes to further minimise accusations against the Saudi government.
• I've linked some typical edits on Syria related articles they're very active on and which they have made very negative towards Shia groups: Human rights in Syria, Bashar al-Assad, Syrian civil war, Syrian revolution and Anti-Sunnism.
• On Persecution of Christians, they removed the only mention of genocide by ISIS using a dubious edit summary.
• On Al-Qaeda in Iraq, they added (alleged) next to Anti-Shi'ism with no explanation. They have also systematically removed Al-Qaeda's responsibility for bombings against Shia. For example on List of bombings during the Iraq War.
• On September 11 attacks, they have made multiple problematic edits. In one particularly egregious edit, they absurdly called the attacks a military attack instead of a terrorist attack using another insincere edit summary of "Grammar". Similarly on Letter to America, they removed the only mention of 9/11 and its description as a terrorist attack with an ironic edit summary of "Removed Repetition". Another edit with a misleading edit summary of "Quote box alignment" misrepresents the cited source to change the language to describe Bin Laden's views of non-Muslims in Arabia as being correct according to Islam.
• On Al-Qaeda, they made multiple changes throughout the article in one edit using a typical unspecific edit summary. They removed Islamic extremism and Takfirism from ideology, both well sourced, while adding Sunni–Shia alliance and Muslim unity. This edit also removed the sourced statement that "As Salafist jihadists, members of Al-Qaeda believe that killing non-combatants is religiously sanctioned." A subsequent edit removed all remaining mentions of Al-Qaeda's Takfir. This is in striking contrast to their editing on Hezbollah and Takfir. 217.40.96.193 (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  While the editor might be biased and their use of edit summaries should be improved, in some of these diffs what is being removed is poorly sourced or unsourced content. In the Human rights in Syria diff, the countent added to the article looks mostly well sourced to a Routledge book. (t · c) buidhe 01:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  I linked the Human rights in Syria diff more so to iillustrate the contrast in their edits towards Shia groups compared to Sunni groups like Al-Qaeda. In the linked edit on Al-Qaeda they removed multiple pieces of well sourced content that was negative to the group. 217.40.96.193 (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  I edit on a wide range of topics. LoL

  You've simply compiled a personal collection of a lot of my edits on a particular topic you care about, personally analysed my edit history, (without checking the references and my edit summaries) and have made a lot of allegations which are not backed up by reliable sources.

  It looks more like you are the one behaving like a single-purpose IP obsessed with somebody?

  All of my edits are well-sourced. Contents which I have removed are all unsourced or original research. Maybe you should try to assume good faith.

  You have done absolutely nothing other than linking some of my edits (which are all publicly accessible in my editing history) which you personally find to be problematic.

  Since I dont have the time to expose the obvious shallowness of each and every claim compiled in your list, I am simply going to dismantle your first allegation alone.

  • Regarding this edit, I improved the grammar of the contents and clearly wrote in edit summary "Grammar". Also, there are no references claiming that the Islamic State perpetrated a "genocide against Shias". Infact the page itself is titled "Persecution of Shias by the Islamic State". I simply made that correction. "Value-laden labels... may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." MOS:LABEL

  Onus is on the editor who wants to insert content. Maybe you have your own POV, but you havent backed up any of your claims and complaints with reliable, academic sources. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 05:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  I have checked the references and your edit summaries and that's exactly why I reported you. What reliable academic sources am I supposed to provide when I am specifically reporting YOU for removing well sourced content and misrepresenting sources and have linked and explained numerous examples of you doing this. You have used dubious edit summaries like "Grammar" on other occasions to remove information critical of Sunni extremist groups. Can you also dismantle my other allegation where you used "Grammar" regarding this edit to September 11 attacks? Was your change backed up by reliable academic sources? Is calling 911 the deadliest terrorist attack bad grammar or is it original research? No reliable academic sources call it the "largest military strike by a non-state organization in contemporary history". Fortunately this blatantly egregious edit was quickly reverted.217.40.96.193 (talk) 11:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  If you are claiming that I allegedly removed "well sourced content" or that I "misrepresented sources" (I didnt), it is you who have to provide the inline citations to insert the content. Onus is on the editors who want to back up their claims.

  "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." WP:ONUS

  You havent provided any inline citations to back-up your allegations. So far, you've only resorted to dontlikeit-style of argumentations throughout this entire conversation. The entire premise of your complaint is your accusation of bias against me. Also, your personal view of me as biased doesnt mean you can censor my edits. It doesnt mean anything, infact.

  "The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias." WP:POVDELETION

  You accuse me of being biased, but your recent comments and edit summaries very explicitly demonstrate your biases and POV-pushing, if anything.

  As for this edit on the "September 11 attacks" page, I changed the wording from "deadliest terrorist act in human history" to "largest military strike by a non-state organization in contemporary history".

  I specified the reason for this minor edit in the edit summary. "Grammar". I think my wording is more grammatically precise and has an impartial tone in that particular sentence, which describes these attacks as the "deadliest" amongst a certain category of attacks. The attacks have been described as terrorist attacks throughout the page, so I think the new term "largest military strike by a non-state organization in contemporary history" is more appropriate in that context. MOS:TERROR

  Either way, another editor soon reverted that change after that user disagreed with my view. The content I inserted has been erased. Then why are you making a big fuss about that edit? Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

"I specified the reason for this minor edit in the edit summary. "Grammar". I think my wording is more grammatically precise and has an impartial tone in that particular sentence, which describes these attacks as the "deadliest" amongst a certain category of attacks. The attacks have been described as terrorist attacks throughout the page, so I think the new term "largest military strike by a non-state organization in contemporary history" is more appropriate in that context. MOS:TERROR.

Shadowwarrior, if that is in fact how you view that situation, I'm afraid that your explanation raises more substantail concerns than did the IP's reference to the edit itself, at least for me. The distinction between those two differing modes of description is clearly more factual than it is anything that can reasonably said to be "grammatical", and the description you inserted was clearly not appropriate without a proper citation. Nothing in MOS:TERROR contradicts WP:V or WP:NPOV#WEIGHT (and even should they conflict, the latter, being pillar policies, could not be overriden by the former, being a piece of a style guidance). Countless sources clearly support the "deadliest terror attack" language, whereas, unless I am missing something, you have presented no source for your "military strike" language. That is, to put it mildly, more a matter of semantics than syntax, and you would have done better here to own up to the inadequate edit summary. Because at present it is clear that this is at a minimum an issue of insufficient care and/or lack of accurate policy language, but it also would not be unreasonable to suspect an effort at outright obfuscation here. So it doesn't help us to assume the more innocent explanation when you deny that this was a misleading/inaccurate edit summary at the least: it clearly is.

I haven't looked at all of the other edits presented here so far, but the first one I chose to investigate also shows issues with proper framing: the matter of changing the meaning of what the international community supposedly supports in the Yemeni civil war article. Now, to your credit, you do have some sources on this one. But rather than use an additive approach and trying to demonstrate that different elements of the international community and international institutions had condemned different parties to the warfare at various times, you instead chose to change the entire meaning of an existing statement, presumptively representing previous editorial consensus, to virtually the diametric opposite of what it previously said (at least in terms of the "side" that the international community holds most responsible for the conflict), thus masking what amounts to a deletion of sourced content (complete with the source itself), simultaneous with your own addition. And this too was accompanied by an edit summary of dubious accuracy, as it refers only to supplying info, and not at all to any changes or removals of statments from the previous status quo. Now, as an uninvolved party who is a big advocate for a healthy application of AGF, I am trying to see these attempted changes in the best possible light, but I must tell you that it's hard not to feel the IP has identified some real issues here, because the choice to replace rather than compliment the existing coverage does suggest a bias (willful or implicit) in how you are approaching some edits, and the way you describe these edits suggests either an effort to obscure them or (hopefully) just a lack of an appropriate level of care for properly labeling them. Either way, things need to change in your approach. SnowRise 16:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@Snow Rise "Countless sources clearly support the "deadliest terror attack" language"

I am not disputing that, Snow Rise. Numerous academic sources do support "deadliest terror attack" language. What I meant here was that, "deadliest terror attack" and "largest military strike by a non-state organization in contemporary history" are not mutually exclusive (as you well know). In that particular sentence in the lede, describing it as something "largest" within a category of attacks launched by a non-state organization may have been appropriate in the lede, considering the fact that it is already well-acknowledged as a terrorist attack throughout the article. So in that context I felt such a description may have been appropriate to improve the lede.

MOS:LEDE

That edit got quickly removed. And upon further investigating sources, I couldnt find my wording anywhere. So I left it. What I'm trying to say here is that, there is nothing unusual about my edit, when you look in that context. So, there is no point in making a big fuss about this edit.

• Regarding the issue you raised related to the "Yemeni civil war" page, this was my edit a few months ago.

Snow Rise: "Now, to your credit, you do have some sources on this one. But rather than use an additive approach and trying to demonstrate that different elements of the international community and international institutions had condemned different parties to the warfare at various times, you instead chose to change the entire meaning of an existing statement"

Yeah, there was a mistake in my editing, (not sourcing), which lead to a bias. It was a long edit, as can be seen from the contents that were inserted in that edit.

But I later noticed this bias and improved that wording in this edit, making it more impartial.

The IP was only referring to an older edit which I personally corrected later on. Meanwhile, the IP is explicitly asserting in his latest edit summaries that he edits because he personally advocates for something (here, here). I mean, this is the individual who is accusing me of bias. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

PoisonHK

The user has been informed of CTOP , warned and/or challenged by other editors, and already temp blocked twice (unblock request declined: ) for POV-pushing by adding/removing locality names in Ukraine and Russia. A couple of days ago he did it again at Volnovakha . Perhaps paradoxically, some of his edits in areas closer to my interests are not bad (for instance, this is a good addition), but it is apparently dependent on whether what they are editing aligns with their views or not. Ostalgia (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

They probably need an indef block. I warned them sufficiently, blocked a couple of times, they never responded (other than posting an unblock request) and never changed their behavior. Ymblanter (talk) 14:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

TS Made

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

TS Made (talk · contribs) The account is very obviously a sockpuppet that's used for trolling purposes. It has made ten edits since 21 December, and it has immediately entered into an edit war in the Wankel engine article. Whoever operates the account has a very good understanding of formatting text and talk pages on Misplaced Pages, so I'd argue that it passes the duck test. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Generally, this kind of suspicion goes nowhere, at least not at WP:ANI. That said, I noticed a couple of things. First, there is this other new editor, Steven Enlarger, who has intersected on two articles with TS Made. In Maia Sandu, SE removed some material from the article (along with an edit summary that is a WP:BLP violation), which was reverted by another editor, and then restored by TS Made. In Bad Blood (Bastille album), SE made a change to the article, which TS Made reverted. What are the odds that two editors should edit the same rather different articles in opposite directions?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Banned editor canvassing for an RfC

I have begun an RfC on page Lucy Letby. There is a history of that page being disrupted by banned editor User:MeltingDistrict, a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of User:BarehamOliver. The editor has a history of IP socking, and also of socking at RfCs (see particularly Talk:Michael Stone (criminal)#RfC - See also section, and the struck through sections). The editor has a vendetta against Richard Gill and perceives the Lucy Letby page as a battleground for that vendetta. I was thus expecting IP socking at the RfC, but the sockpuppet has become a little more clever and instead has been canvassing some well reputed editors, based on views they have previously expressed. See: Special:Contributions/213.31.104.198. Grateful if an admin could take appropriate action to protect the integrity of this RfC. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

To add, some history of this sock puppet's ban evasion and trolling of Gill: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141#Ban Evasion - Trolling IP. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• Sirfurboy, first of all you MUST notify any user you start a discussion about on here - it says that clearly multiple times. You have failed to notify me and I only saw this from your contributions which isn't on. You must notify any editors you start a discussion about on this page. Secondly, I have always been open that I am a Twitter follower of that banned user Melting District and it was them that brought my attention to this whole issue in the first place (and, btw, BEFORE they were blocked and I even knew they were socking). I have never denied this and indeed told you it, and I AM NOT MELTING DISTRICT. You don't like that I am a Twitter follower of a now-banned editor, yet when another user who was banned for pro-Letby advocacy - Richard D. Gill - clearly came back as an act of ban evasion onto the Lucy Letby page and demanded that his preferred pro-Letby intro was instated - the one that he'd LITERALLY spelt out was his version on his own Twitter page: , your response was "Thanks for bringing the tweet to our attention, but it seems to me it is less likely Gill than one of his twitter followers". So for some reason it's fine for you for a Twitter follower of one banned user to come on here and edit on behalf of him, but when I come on here after being notified via Twitter of the discussion by a different now-banned user, that's unacceptable? You do realise that people can tell Twitter followers of their editing, right? Well of course you do - since you said that's fine for banned Richard Gill to do. But not anyone else!

If I am breaking the rules by being here after being notified by a now-banned editor via social media, then absolutely fine I'll leave and not bother. But let’s not have double standards and have one rule for one banned editor and his Twitter followers, yet have another for another banned editor and their Twitter followers. 213.31.104.198 (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Secondly, I have always been open that I am a Twitter follower of that banned user Melting District and it was them that brought my attention to this whole issue - Admission of meatpuppetry. Although as for all the other times, if this isn't MeltingDistrict in person then I am a purple banana. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Sirfurboy if I am a meat puppet, then why did you not report and strikeout the comments of the editor who you claimed was a follower of Richard Gill when they appeared on the Letby page? They must also be a meat puppet? The one you said was likely a Twitter follower of Richard Gill? How can you justify asking one banned editor’s Twitter follower to be blocked but not the other? 213.31.104.198 (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• For more background to this, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1139#Number of concerns on a COI editor. The content dispute reduces to an attempt to remove the words "serial killer" from the first sentence of Lucy Letby, and would benefit from uninvolved eyes on it.—S Marshall T/C 16:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Sirfurboy, you have no right to strike out a non-blocked editors comments. @S Marshall: surely this should not be allowed? 213.31.104.198 (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

This is how Banned user MeltingDistrict wrote it on your talk page, yes. He said, inter alia, ... So basically, they want to get rid of her being called a serial killer, on various grounds including "I don't think we can assert in Wiki's voice that she is a murderer". But what he placed in quotation marks is nothing to do woth the nominatiopn and neither is it an accurate summary. The phrasing retains the sense of serial killer (serial murders) and wikilinks to that. It is not removed. The question is whether, in wikivoce we say she is a serial killer or whether she is convicted of being a serial killer. That is a subject that can see perfectly legitimate difference of opinion, and I have stated my opinion and why. I won't relitigate it here. What is extremely frustrating is that this sockpuppet, who has a history of attacking anything to do with Gill, and of changing pages of those found to be innocent of murder to place them in a bad light (e.g. ) just to get at Gill, has now succeeded in bringing in a very large number of editors who wrongly suppose that the issue is to remove "serial killer" from the page. It is not, and it never was. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for one week for either block evasion or meat puppetry. Six of one, half dozen of another. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Dismissed report regarding User:Keremmaarda

Hello,

some weeks ago I've opened a report regarding the user Keremmaarda, however, it was moved into IncidentArchive1144 and no action was taken. There were several users that were concerned about the uncivil demeanor that Keremmaarda was exhibiting himself. Everyone who criticized his behaviour was accused of being unneutral. I don't want to ping everyone that's been involved because that would go too far, but those are only some of the uncivil comments (disregarding the actual article the report was about):

Are you practicing nationalism?

all the editors who object are Albanian

Am I to blame here?

Now tell those who deleted the same things before a consensus was reached. Thanks (in response to Ostalgia, who criticized his behaviour)

You are not impartial (in response to PoliticDude, who criticized his behaviour)

But I think reading the report will suffice. Thank you. AlexBachmann (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

LTA from disruptive 93* IP ranges

There is a person who since 2022 has been using various 93* Italian IP ranges to troll and make senseless edits to Misplaced Pages. Their edits are usually in South Asian/Indian/Pakistani pages (though occasionally they'll troll on some unrelated pages) and typically center around inflating their religion's numbers in various Indian states or districts or even in European or North American states or cities, changing demographic figures in general or writing things that glorify their religion. They have made at least 1000+ edits and have been blocked countless times (typically short 24-48 hour blocks on individual IPs).

This IP range 93.33.0.0/16 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) seems to mostly contain this user's edits even on pages such as- and and and and .

I was hoping this range could be blocked for some time to prevent vandalism and disruption. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one year. El_C 19:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks EI_C. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Londonbeat dance band versus Italian IPs – rangeblock exercise

The Londonbeat article has a persistent Italian person attached to it, trying to change the group's nationality from British to British-American. The person uses a variety of IPs from the Rome area. To stop the disruption, the article could be semi-protected for a long time or permanently, or the IPs could be partially rangeblocked.

The 151.xx IPs are widely dispersed; larger than a /16 range. Here are the involved IPs from the last two months:

• 37.100.146.139 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 93.148.97.18 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 93.148.109.180 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 151.19.3.162 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 151.19.144.48 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 151.19.155.47 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 151.19.161.113 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 151.19.193.52 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 151.19.206.178 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 151.19.238.79 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 151.19.240.157 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 151.35.205.187 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 151.35.238.109 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 151.37.241.233 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 151.47.77.48 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 151.47.116.100 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 151.47.238.107 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 151.75.198.146 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 151.77.66.69 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 151.77.91.202 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 151.77.140.94 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 151.77.147.33 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Regarding the actual content dispute: three of the four founding members had been performing together in the UK for a decade before finding a native Englander as their fourth member and establishing themselves in London. The Los Angeles Times said they were a "new British soul wave" group. Spin magazine said they were "one of the latest British acts to invade the U.S. via MTV." It doesn't really matter that two of the four were ex-patriate Americans, or another member was from Trinidad. They were all living in the UK for years, and they formed the group in the UK, which establishes the nationality of the group. Binksternet (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Pinging User:Revirvlkodlaku who has been helping to keep the article accurate. Binksternet (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards