Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

  • Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. on this highly visible page  instead click here.
  • If you encounter a threat of violence, suicide, etc., click here.
  • If you're just plain confused, ask at the Teahouse.
  • To report persistent vandalism or spamming, click here.
  • To challenge deletion, click here.
  • To request page protection, click here.
  • To report edit warring, click here.
  • To report suspected sockpuppetry, click here.
  • Want to skip the drama? Check the Recently Active Admins list for admins who may be able to help directly.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user on this page:
  • Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses.
  • If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, click here.

Closed discussions should not usually be 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.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Noticeboard archives

Ythlev - repeated rapid major non-consensus edits

Under the discretionary sanctions for COVID-19 related pages, I propose a temporary block on User:Ythlev, who made a rapid, repeated series of major edits on 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Poland and has not made a serious effort to participate in structured discussion of his/her proposed edit:

This formally violates WP:3RR - four removals of major contributions by other editors on the same article within 24 hours. Independently, there are discretionary sanctions in place for all the COVID-19 related articles. Boud (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Boud, that's only three edits. The second and third edits in your list are the same diff. Grandpallama (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
My error. Fixed. Now I see that the third "removal" was not actually a removal; it created hidden-by-default, viewable-with-a-click maps, but Ythlev didn't give an edit summary to explain. I'm not fully convinced that a block is necessary; it depends whether Ythlev intends to continue aggressive editing of a COVID-19 page without letting the active editors come to consensus. Edit summaries and using the talk page to concentrate on arguments for/against are what are needed. There's also a problem with others having to tidy up proper attribution for using ODbL data, but a block would not solve that. Boud (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
It would seem that if the issues are solely on COVID-19 pages then a topic ban would probably be more appropriate than a temporary block, I’m not sure thats necessary though from what I see here and in Ythlev’s edit history. Do you have any examples of disruptive behavior on pages other than 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Poland? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
No; his/her edits (per capita maps) seem to have been accepted on several other COVID-19 pages with no obvious objections. I get the feeling that Ythlev has been involved in some edit conflicts on Taiwan/China issues, but that's a separate topic. Maybe if @Ythlev: joined in the discussion here the temperature might cool sufficiently... :) Boud (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ythlev: does not seem to be willing to apologise for making a personal attack "in front of" the other participants at the PL COVID-19 pandemic talk page - the point is not so much for me personally, it's rather to make others feel willing to participate without fearing aggression. Nor does s/he seem willing to come here and discuss with uninvolved admins present: @Grandpallama and Horse Eye Jack: (I didn't actually check, but I'm guessing you're admins since you're watching this page), but s/he does seem to have accepted that there's a structured decision-making procedure ongoing. See Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Poland#New map?. I think that if things remain constructive for another few days, then this incident should probably be closed. (I do admit being puzzled how someone can be unwilling to apologise for having made a personal attack.) Boud (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm not an admin. I don't think any admin has yet commented in this thread. Grandpallama (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
We have a recidivism problem: Ythlev thinks that s/he can make a major edit that is contrary to a proposal presently under discussion, without waiting for consensus. So I think again that either a block, a topic ban, or a ban for Ythlev using this particular page is needed, so that s/he gets the message that Wikipedia is not about "the strongest and fastest wins". S/he still hasn't had the elementary politeness of apologising for saying that I had an "obsession" about orders of magnitude (the topic is pandemic-related, in which orders of magnitude are a key element of the whole crisis; otherwise it would have been just a minor local news story limited to Wuhan, not a pandemic.) Boud (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Boud, 3RR has not been violated. There needs to be 4 reverts in 24 hours. Both Boud and Ythlev claim their changes represent consensus. I can't figure out which of them is right at this time. The best thing might be to go back to the status quo ante version while the content dispute is being resolved — if need be, through whatever dispute resolution request participants see fit. El_C 19:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@El C:. Since there are active community-authorised discretionary sanctions, this doesn't have to require 3RR for sanctions: admins have quite some leeway. The ongoing discussion on the page is actually close to consensus, it's just not quite there yet. As long as Ythlev can be a bit more patient, chances are we'll get to consensus soon. The problem is if s/he again tries to force the issue. Boud (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Boud, I am prepared to partially block both of you, if the edit war continues, so please stick to the status quo ante version in the meantime, whatever it is. El_C 19:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@El C: I'm glad you're staying neutral and not biased in my favour. :) I think it is clear what the status quo ante version is. Boud (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Some context here...I thought Ythlev would remain wholly productive in all COVID-19 matters not related to Greater China, as he has indeed created multiple cases per capita maps sub-nationally. But, he has engaged in disruptive conduct (to include blatant WP:FORUMSHOPing) in MOS matters, as I have mentioned previously, also re-instating MOS changes less than 12 hours ago. This is well after his being notified of DS application to MOS matters. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Legality of bestiality by country or territory: Germany

There's a dispute about the legal status of bestiality in Germany that has already run for two months now (29 January to 28 March on talk page). I had contacted WP:DRN in the middle of it, which didn't help resolve the issue (quickly closed, re-opened following my request, discussion began, automatically archived away after moderator disappeared into nowhere, re-surrected following mine and other requests, no one new volunteered to moderate it, hence declared as failed by me, re-opened by someone else to at least prepare an RfC) . The following WP:RfC brought hardly input from editors who had not been involved already anyway; it didn't resolve the dispute. The article was reset to the pre-dispute state by so. else but User:Delderd would not accept it and an edit war (which I had avoided whenever my edits had been reverted before) occurred between him and me.

The underlying issue is that the law in question is worded ambigously and there is conflicting news coverage about the legal situation in Germany, with superficial English news sources mostly suggesting that it would be illegal, whereas the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany explained in a rejection of an appeal against the law that the prohibition only applies when the animal is forced with physical violence or similarily. Both the German primary source and multiple German secondary sources are available, including a nation-wide news paper and multiple sources specializing in law. Additionally available is German news coverage of a verdict where someone was not convicted of bestiality although proven to have committed it, which clearly stated that there is no law against this (person was fined, but only for trespassing). Sources with quotations for convenience in this diff: . There is no single source that would show that anyone has been convicted for bestiality without injuring or forcing an animal violently.

Two users who obviously do not understand German and apparently have no connection to Germany are only (User:Shiloh6555, edits) or mainly (User:Delderd, edits) here at Wikipedia to fight about this, either do not accept or misreperesent the German sources and don't accept going back to the pre-dispute situation either.

My suggestion for a sad compromise – mark the situation in Germany as disputed in the article – was said to be impossible at WP:DRN.

How to solve this quickly and finally?

(Sorry that this report is so long, but this thing already went on for two months. The issue is long.) – Ocolon (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Ocolon is using original research, interpreting the law (“to use an animal for their own sexual acts or to train or make available for the sexual acts of third parties and thereby force them to behave in a manner contrary to the species") their own way when all of the reports on the ruling, including the associated press, say that they threw out the challenge and kept bestiality illegal. There are no actual reports explicitly stating that “consensual bestiality” is now legal in Germany.
in addition to the ap, here are other news reports saying Germany kept the ban on bestiality.
meanwhile, none of ocolon’s sources actually state that the courts ruled that “consensual bestiality” was legal.
Even though Ocolon got Rosguill to reverse their decision because they said they had sources (though Rosguill also said they were still "skeptical that these sources comprise enough secondary coverage to support your proposed interpretation") WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS still applies here with "[having] to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses." That hasn't happened here, all of the mainstream media's reporting on the case have said that the courts ruled that bestiality was still illegal.
furthermore, their old edits on the zoophilia article (“not all modern societies reject the concept of animal/human sexuality“), and their recent statement about it being "original research" that animals can't consent to sex with humans, has me questioning their objectivity on the subject. Delderd (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
No original research. I provided numerous sources, including quotations . There has never ever been a dispute that the Federal Constitutional Court rejected an appeal against the law! This is a total distraction. Why did it reject the appeal though? Because the law only bans forced bestiality and that is justified. The Federal Constitutional Court explains this in their press release for example and it is also in the secondary sources I provided. Here is hoping that someone at this noticeboard can read German, because this is about German law and the German Federal Constitutional Court.
Side note concerning Delderd's links – The AP quotes the law as to be about forcing the animal and that protecting animals from sexual assaults is legitimate. No dispute there. The same in the BBC article – it says the fine is for forcing the animal. The same in the TIME article – it says the fine is for forcing the animal. Nevertheless I do recognize that the overall impression of these superficial, short, English articles may be misleading. This is why it is important to look at the thorough German sources I provided.
Delderd getting personal instead of staying on topic is inappropriate. – Ocolon (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
how is it off topic when the subject is bestiality? you're trying to sound impartial here when your previous comments suggest a bias towards the issue. Delderd (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

This issue is still part of an active "request for comments" dispute process. The page has been locked until April 9th. I suggest we allow the RFC to continue until then. I also feel this should then be settled on "wikipedia policy." The issue should come down to best verifiable news sources that support either claim. As opposed to trying to reach a consensus based on our own interpretations. So what would be the next stage? Shiloh6555 (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

  • The long-standing version of the table should be used if the outcome of the RfC was no consensus.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
It should be based on the best available sources as per wikipedia's content policies. I think an outside editor(s) should decide which version best fits with Wikipedia's policies. Shiloh6555 (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
What's an "outside editor"? There is no version that will be allowed after the RfC gets closed with the no consensus except the version that was before the dispute. The status quo ante version.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
aka the version you voted for even though it has less votes. Delderd (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
No, the version that was before the RfC. Before the dispute see WP:STATUSQUO. Also, the amount of !votes don't count.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Delderd: I'm uninvolved here, so I'll just note that both statements by SharabSalam are correct. You can review WP:NOCON for the controlling policy on the outcomes of no consensus discussions. RFCs are !votes so it is strength of argument and not headcount that is important. Otherwise I have no opinion either as to the underlying dispute or as how closer should currently assess consensus. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

As a follow-up to the above, this is a content dispute and hence fundamentally not an WP:ANI matter. It looks as though this discussion would benefit from a formal WP:CLOSE; which you can in the future request at WP:ANRFC instead, as repeatedly making request for closure here will be viewed as disruptively seeking to jump to the front of the line. Hopefully the attention the RFC receives as a result of this will allow a clearer consensus to develop. Aside from that do not edit war, edit warring is inherently disruptive. Wait until the discussion is closed and abide by the consensus. Even if you disagree with the result drop the stick, and work on something else. Now, WP:CCC but even following poorly attended no consensus RFCs it's usually best to avoid disruption by waiting at least a few months before starting a new RFC to make a similar change unless there is a very good reason for doing so. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 03:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Unless any administrator objects, I am happy to review and close the RfC; and will attempt to do so in the next 24 hours. (Non-administrator comment) - Ryk72 talk 04:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Just a note. I was not part of this editwar. Six days ago there was an editwar between two editors and I decided to revert to the stable version before the dispute happened but I was reverted and I didn't make any revert after I was reverted. I noticed a technical error in that article and went to WP:TVP and reported it (see here and here for more details). After that, in WP:TVP they suggested that I replace flag icons with emojis. I went to the article and replaced the image icons with emojis and I got reverted by Shiloh6555 without even an explanation here so I reverted back and asked for explanation for this revert. I am not part of this editwar. I just made my opinion in that RfC based on discussion of the RfC.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Mein Liebchen-EEng
I started the RFC at the request of some of the parties, after no one mediated the dispute at DRN. My main thought is that any claim that any particular German has been engaged in bestiality is probably a BLP violation. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I for one would welcome a Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. I believe this whole matter should be solved using existing Wikipedia policies regarding Verifiability and reliable sources. In every other case in this Wikipedia article. A single citation to a reliable news source is enough.Yet in Germany's case, reliable news sources are being openly disputed! So again I'd welcome having a neutral editor versed in Wikipedia's guidelines to perhaps close the rfc and issue a statement regarding what edit should prevail. I just don't want to see a constant edit edit war over this. As Ocolon has already threatened to do in his own talk page on this matter. Shiloh6555 (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

In the absence of any objections to my comment above, where I indicated an intent to close, I am now drafting a closing statement. - Ryk72 talk 03:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I have closed the RfC; including an extended rationale. - Ryk72 talk 05:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Even having read your rationale, which is a serious attempt, I do not understand how you could come to the conclusion that there would be a consensus in the RfC. The discussion is clearly split. Your rationale would be very fine as a founded opinion in the RfC, Ryk72, but it is failure for a closure in my humble opinion. I recognize and thank you for your effort though. I am glad this is finally over. Bye – Ocolon (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Noting that I have seen the comment above; and the comment at the article Talk page. If a clarification on the points raised there is requested, I am happy to provide one. - Ryk72 talk 13:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

"Fight CoE" registered for litigation and soliciting - WP:NOTHERE

This brand-new user seems to have created an account simply for utilizing the page Chronicles of Elyria for advertising a class-action lawsuit against the now-defunct developer's owner, Jeromy Walsh. This is an overt demonstration of flouting the rules and utilizing the site for litigation and advertising. DÅRTHBØTTØ (TC) 21:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to try something different. I'll do a soft block that says the account has been blocked to having a username that gives the impression of not being here to contribute constructively. That allows the editor to instantly create a new account. If the new account becomes a constructive editor, that's good. If this person comes back with a new account named something like "CoE sucks and you'll never stop me from editing", we can do a hard block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: Very well; I suppose that works, as I highly doubt they'll be coming back for anything other than soliciting for their lawsuit. DÅRTHBØTTØ (TC) 00:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: You mean like this? DÅRTHBØTTØ (TC) 01:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, that's probably an LTA vandal. Dunno who it is, though, because I haven't run a check. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
And another one suggests that it is indeed an LTA vandal, and that we need to start blocking these accordingly as such. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Onward to 2020 02:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Promotional, copyright problems at a BLP, and meeting resistance from multiple editors

I opened a thread at BLP, but have now seen unacceptable content restored by two different users; forget about the templates I've tried to post. Would appreciate more eyes on this article. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

This IP editor is habitually harassing multiple other editors with groundless warnings and repeatedly behaving in a highly disruptive manner. There may be some problems with this particular article which need attention but nothing which obviously requires such extremist behaviour by this IP. Administrators are requested to take appropriate sanctions regarding the IP's editing. Afterwriting (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I welcome that. Perhaps Afterwriting could cite my apparently numerous disruptions, and administrators could proceed with the sanctions. In the meantime, this is the passage, a possible copyright violation, twice restored:

Lhamo established the One Drop of Kindness Foundation (formerly known as the Yungchen Lhamo Charitable Foundation) in 2004. The foundation's aim is helping all sentient beings through direct action, multicultural programs, community services and charitable giving. In particular, the foundation is dedicated to the preservation of Tibetan culture, whether in Tibet, Nepal, India, the US or elsewhere, through offering multicultural educational programs, projects, lectures and workshops that integrate music, mindfulness, and art to help facilitate in people a more positive outlook on life. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

It either is or isn't a copyright violation. Show us any evidence you have for your claim of it being a "possible" copyright violation. If you can't do this then you cannot remove information simply because you think it may be a "possible" violation. Afterwriting (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I believe I noted this in an edit summary, the foundation's website . Much of the article also mirrors , which is why I'd requested more eyes--if the article is composed largely of copied content, it is a problem. Any content that's unsourced and promotional may, and ought to be removed. You must know that, but for some reason you've decided to take aim at me. Very well. Make sure you're right, given the certainty of 'Administrators are requested to take appropriate sanctions regarding the IP's editing.' 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
The vague edit summary only said that this information "may have been copied verbatim from foundations' website". Lots of things "may" be factual, or otherwise, but you provided no evidence in support of your comment. Had you done so then you would have avoided being reverted. It seemed that you were just being disruptive for the sake of it with this article. I withdraw my accusations of harassment of other editors, but it is my observation that you need to be much more careful (as do we all) in how you interact with other editors in future if you don't want to be accused of such things. Afterwriting (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
@Afterwriting: the community takes copyvios very seriously, possibly you felt the edit summary was inadequate, but in that case the best thing to do would've been to open a talk page discussion rather than risk being responsible for edit-warring a copyvio back into the article. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
In a word, no. Afterwriting is still attempting to frame this as me being disruptive. Let's remove the copyright issue altogether--the content was still unsourced and promotional, in a WP:BLP--how many times have I made that observation. The problem was never my editing. It was an abusive reaction by an editor who was very much in the wrong, hasn't come around on that yet, and is still lecturing me. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
You are only demonstrating why other editors might accuse you of harassment. Your editing was not adequate and should have been reverted without any evidence to support it. So get over portraying yourself as some kind of "victim". Afterwriting (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
@Afterwriting: do you understand that you're not supposed to restore unsourced content in a biography of a living person? Because it seems to me that you think this is perfectly fine. I also don't understand where these random accusations of harassment are coming from. And you have also accused the IP of "extremist behaviour" without posting any diffs. I suggest you stop doing these things. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Afterwriting: I won't pretend to be entirely uninvolved here, but here goes anyway. There was no harrassment, earlier you withdrew that complaint, you would do well not to repeat it. Adding maintenance templates is not disruptive nor is removing unsourced content. It is neither required nor expected that full evidence for copyvios will be provided in an edit summary, e.g. removing copyvio material is perfectly adequate. If you disagree with either the addition of maintenance templates or the copyvio removal then discuss it on the talk page, follow WP:FOC, and try to WP:AGF. Had you just opened a thread asking why the changes were made I am confident you would've recieved a full explanation, but since you did not we are here. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Replacing the long standing graph against consensus

User:Givingbacktosociety repeatedly replace the long standing graph with newly created one against the community consensus.

1. 08:24, 1 April 2020‎ Givingbacktosociety talk contribs‎ 360,477 bytes +30‎ →‎Diagrams

03:00, 2 April 2020‎ Phoenix7777 talk contribs‎ 367,267 bytes -30‎ →‎Diagrams: restored to a long standing chart. Please get consensus on the talk page

2. 04:07, 2 April 2020‎ Givingbacktosociety talk contribs‎ 367,286 bytes +30‎ →‎Diagrams: Replacing graph with a simpler version

04:27, 2 April 2020‎ Phoenix7777 talk contribs‎ 367,396 bytes -30‎ Undid revision 948637281 by Givingbacktosociety (talk) please get consensus on the talk page

3. 03:57, 4 April 2020‎ Givingbacktosociety talk contribs‎ 361,475 bytes -4‎ Replacing graph with a simpler version - To use the previous graph update it to show less information. There are graphs in the same page which shows the count for the most affected countries.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Replaced graphs as comments are not addressed. Remove redundant information which are shown in other graphs and keep this graph simple making it more readable.Givingbacktosociety (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Givingbacktosociety: The graph you are inserting is inferior and less readable than the one you are replacing. You should stop doing that.--Jorm (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Givingbacktosociety, please observe WP:ONUS, especially the part that reads: the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. El_C 17:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


I am bringing this to WP:AN rather than to WP:ANI because it probably doesn't have the urgency of the trolls and vandals who are reported at WP:ANI. It concerns:

This user has competency and battleground problems. This editor has filed two completely malformed Arbitration requests, in that no attempt was made to format them in the way that is specified. The two malformed Arbitration requests were (properly) deleted by clerks. This editor made two malformed Dispute Resolution Noticeboard filings, in both of which the title of the subject article was misspelled (so that the history of the case could not be checked without correcting the spelling). Neither of the DRN requests had been preceded by talk page discussion. (It may not be easy to find a misspelled talk page.) In neither of the DRN filings was the other party notified. Both of the DRN cases were closed by volunteers. The complaint in the first case was that content was removed, which was a newspaper account of a wedding. The log shows that the content was redacted as RD1, copyright violation, which would be correct if the account of the wedding was copied verbatim.

First incorrect Arbitration request

Second incorrect Arbitration request

First incorrect DRN request

Second incorrect DRN request

The contributions for the editor show that he has also been arguing with User:Seraphimblade and User:MrClog about their cleanup of malformed posts.

As an alternative to a competency block, it might be appropriate to ask the editor to play The Wikipedia Adventure and find a mentor.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

AN and ANI are not interchangeable based on the urgency of the report. Also, we don't indefinitely block new editors for making errors as they try to navigate our complicated bureaucracy. We're supposed to be helping them instead. Copyright infringement is a more serious problem, but the editor was already alerted to this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Note: I have moved this to ANI as I agree with NRP's comment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Biting the newcomer; low-key incivility

Hello. I'd like to report the above regular editor for his uncouth behavior toward me, a newcomer, over an unconstructive edit he made at Ang Probinsyano, of which he's a major contributor. On April 1, I performed a major cleanup of that article's infobox with an edit summary citing Template:Infobox television, but user reverted me without an edit summary (diff), causing me to template him (diff). The following day, user gratuitously deleted the warning template (diff) and continued edit warring (diff 1, diff 2) until it came to a point where he had to send me a message in my talk page (even though conflict resolution usually begins in the article's talk page), trying to convince me basically that I must stop deleting the edits as he had worked "painstakingly" for them (diff). When I told him that they cannot stay in the article per infobox consensus, he finally concurred with me (only in part) but went on to say he didn't enjoy collaborating with me, probably because he got frustrated that I had reverted an edit he worked hard on (diff). I admonished him for his attitude in his own talk page; needless to say, his responses composed of nothing but childish rants as well as more projections (User talk:Gardo Versace#Grow up). In a separate attempt for conflict resolution, at User talk:ISpitonYourGravy#Re: Ang Probinsyano writer, user ended up commenting on me and not the content, as displayed in his last post written today.

In a nutshell, user is guilty of biting the newcomer as well as the failure to assume good faith and subtle use of personal attacks, since he couldn't take that a noob like me would dare challenge an incorrect edit made by an experienced editor. I'm requesting some form of admin intervention that could make this user realize his own mistakes and be mature enough to accept them. The attitudes displayed by this user is not something I'm prepared to tolerate. ISpitonYourGravy (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be aware of a great many policies and practices (such as providing diffs) for a complete newcomer. I guess I'm not seeing the big problem here. The user initially told you "good day" and gave you "warmest regards". The user was then frank with their opinion, but it was not a personal attack. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Don't template the regulars.
You're free to delete anything on your user talk page except declined unblock requests.
Both of y'all are being condescending to each other and commenting on each other. Assume that anything you write will be read in the most stupid and hostile tone possible. Read what others write in the most pleasant tone possible.
Both of you read WP:OWN, stop editing the article directly, and go to the talk page trying to salvage as much of the other party's edit as possible. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson: I've done what you advised and put the removed content on the talkpage. Did it a few days ago, was actually thinking of submitting the matter for arbitration if we couldn't arrive at a compromise. I would have loved to try and work out a compromise with him but I was met with condescension. If you'd examine closely the edit history of the page in question, an anonymous editor tried restoring the cut content which I reverted out of respect for the fact that ISpitonYourGravy and I have yet to arrive at a compromise over the matter. As I've told him before on his own talkpage, I don't want an edit war on our hands. Warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
@331dot: Thank you for understanding that it was never meant as a direct attack. When I went to ISpitonYourGravy's talkpage, I wrote the message as respectfully as I can. The last line even read I'm pleading my case with the user. In the user's reply, I was met with condescencion. I would have tried to compromise with the user earlier than I did had the user responded with a more polite tone in the reply that user gave. That's why I gave an honest and candid opinion that I wouldn't like working with the user again because I felt like the user would not be open to compromise nor would the user be polite in its dealings with me. The message the user left on my talkpage also reeks of arrogance as the user made it a point to say that I might only be angry because I got reverted by a new user despite being an experienced editor. I never had a problem dealing with new editors and never had a problem with anonymous editors either, in fact I welcome all the help that I can in maintaining the page in question. I don't fully have a problem with the edits that the user made but there is one item that I am trying to salvage by way of compromise. The user just wouldn't budge, as if to take ownership of the edits it made. I admit I've obssessively collated all the details there but I'm not taking ownership of the edits by willy nilly asking for all of it to be returned there; all that I ask is that one item, the writer's field, be restored. The user just wouldn't budge. As I've intimated above, I am very much open to compromising the situation. If that fails, I'm willing to have the same be submitted for arbitration. Warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
@331dot: and @Ian.thomson: Good day! I've got to report that something occurred in the intervening period between this report and my replies. The user ISpitonYourGravy has been blocked indefinitely for being a suspected sockpuppet of user You've gone incognito, who himself had been banned a month ago for engaging in personal attacks or harrassment. Gardo Versace (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Repeated problems with Walter Görlitz

Hello. I've had repeated issues with the user Walter Görlitz over a three year period and Id like things to be dealt with. As it's getting extremely tiring and has seriously hindered my ability to edit Wikipedia in peace. The latest examples are WP:Articles for deletion/13th GMA Dove Awards where he called the BEFORE I did to ascertain notability disingenuous. Also, on Bethel Music's talk page I suggested the article be split and he said I shouldn't be able to do the split because I disdain Christian. Which clearly rises to the level of harassment as defined by WP:Harassment. There's plenty of other examples out there of similar things. Like arbitrarily removing banners I've added to articles, reverting even basic edits I've done to articles that he is fine other users making, repeated edit warring, disparaging me for asking questions on official message boards multiple times, etc etc. All of it is clearly a targeted attempt to dissuade me from editing through intimidation and other tactics. Especially his comment in Bethel Music I tried to talk to him about it and asked him multiple times to leave me and my edits alone, but he's been unwilling to be reasonable and stop with the behavior. So, I'd appreciate it if someone stepped in. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I can second this opinion by Adamant1. I only recently met Walter Görlitz when he began to edit war over a paragraph break. I found this to be evidence of a very combative editor; apparently, he wrote the lead of the article where I inserted the paragraph break, and he was very much against any deviation from "his" version. It baffled me to the point where I looked over his talk page, and saw a link to this discussion. I don't know anything about Adamant1's problems with Walter, but I thought I should speak up to say that he's not the only one to experience this from Walter. JimKaatFan (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
One editor is not capable of edit-warring alone, and based on your description, you would have initiated it. You made a bold edit to introduce a paragraph break, and it was reverted. BRD is the generally accepted process, which means at that point you discuss, not revert again. And if you are going to make accusations about misbehaviour (OWNing and EWing in this case), you are required provide evidence supporting them otherwise you are casting aspersions. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I have removed (and had them removed on my part) notability templates after AfDs because it has been shown that the subject is notable. I have shown you that the subject is notable by the news with Kirk Franking (essentially WP:BEFORE) but you want me to add the content. I can do that, but I'm busy responding to frivolous ANI discussions and dealing with my family.
As for the paragraph breaks, I was simply comparing other band articles of similar size. We don't need a break there, but I have given up on trying to convince you of that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
as for splitting the Bethel Music article, a simple check of your AfDs and related discussions (at EL about references used) and other locations show that you want to minimize their presence on Wikipedia. Time and time again, other editors have told you that you're wrong and yet you continue to attack this and other charismatic Christian groups. Yes, you edit in other areas, but you come back to these groups. I think the solution is to continue to ask questions about them, but not edit the articles until you can do it in a neutral way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
The article your mentioning isn't really one I have a problem with. Nor did I mention it here. Although, that it took me re-adding the template multiple times for you to agree to adding the sources instead of just removing the template does speak to the general problem this is about. Re, "I attack charismatic Christian groups." I asked for evidence of that and you haven't given any. I edit Christian articles in an extremely small amount relative to other topics and compared to how much you edit them. None of it rises to trying to minimize their presence and I don't know or care what articles are "charismatic." With the article your adding sources to, I repeatedly told you to improve the sourcing before removing the template and encouraged you to add in the part about Kirk Franking. I'm not sure how that's attempting to minimizing charismatic Christianity or a disdainful action. I'd love to see some evidence that is though.
Most other articles I've edited, christian or otherwise are along the same lines. Mostly I edit company articles. Including doing the same type of edits your claiming show I disdain and minimizing of Charismatic Christians. I guess I disdain companies and am trying to minimize their presence to. Either that or there's just a lot of low quality articles out there that need improving, Christian or otherwise. There's nothing nefarious about my edits or the intent behind them, all of my edits have been "basic house cleaning", and none of them excuse or justify how you've treated me. Also, it's pretty ridiculous to claim I'm trying to minimize the presence of a religious group over a few AfDs. Our problems predate the AfD's by a long time anyway and some of your actions have taken place outside of Christian topics.
A few more examples, on Bethel Church (Redding, California) I tried to re-add a removed (without discussion) criticism section. He repeatedly reverted me, but then was fine with someone else adding it back. It was clearly a personally motivated edit war and had nothing to do with just being a bad edit on my part. On this RFC about Michelin stars, he badgered me for asking the question and claimed I was lecturing/re-litigating things for having a personal opinion about it. Also, somewhere else I asked about using social media links. He went off about how I asked in the wrong board (even though didn't), accused me of waiting until he was on vacation to ask the question so he couldn't reply to it, and treated me like I was lying about there being an admin involved in the discussion (who called him out for having an attitude). Then after the admin and another person said it was better not to use social media links, he discounted them by claiming they just didn't understand my question. Plus, he said their opinions were not valid because I asked in the wrong place (which I didn't). Later, he repeatedly reverted me when I tried to improve links to social media accounts. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Nor will I provide any proof of your hostility. It's evident is someone wants to dig and it's not something I want to use as evidence. I will simply make the claim and the request.
And for the RSN—and I made this clear to you yesterday and you show here that you have no faith in what I wrote—I formulated my opinion of the question before I knew who it was that wrote it and my response did not change because it was someone who has shown disdain toward me and my opinions in the past. The majority of editors were similarly incredulous that anyone would question whether Michelin stars were a source for notability. I see you hold long grudges and you'll dig into those. I just build general opinions about individuals and I won't throw specifics back at them. If you want to split that article, I will alert the project that I think someone hostile to the aims of the project is about to act and stand back to see how they approach the situation, but I simply advised you that I do not think you should touch that article because I so not think that you will approach it fairly. Prove me wrong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
And as for criticism sections, would you like to reiterate my reasons for excluding them or do you want to make it seem as though I wanted it removed? No, you want to make it appear as though it was nefarious. In fact I repeatedly reminded you that Wikipedia:Criticism should be blended into existing sections of an article, and not be in a stand-alone section. I have never objected to adding criticism alone, but it gives WP:UNDUE weight to the criticism if it is in a stand-alone section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Of course you won't, because none exists. You can't even support a simple thing like that I used AfD's to target charismatic Christians. That's the problem. You've repeatedly made unfounded claims, used them to justify your actions, and ignored WP:Harassment and other guidelines about proper behavior in the process. Then you just deny your abusive behavior when people call you out for it. That's why this exists. Whatever beef we had was like 2 years ago and I could really give a crap about you or your opinions at this point. I haven't edited any Christian articles since then, except for the few last week because I knew you'd start in again with your bias crap if I did and I didn't want to deal with it. Your the one holding the grudge by screwing with my edits and insulting me two years later. Just get over it, and leave me alone. I'm sick of saying it. It's exactly why an admin should step in and deal with you.
As far as the criticism section of Bethel Church goes, no where in your reverts did you say anything alone the lines of "weave it into the article." You just said if I had a problem with your revert to take it up on the talk page. You didn't say so on the talk page anywhere either. So, that's simply a lie. I didn't see the talk page discussion until recently anyway. It should have been your thing to discuss it on the talk page though since it was already there for years before it was removed and your the one that had the problem with it. It's on other people to do things how you want them and reverting isn't to he used to push a certain way of doing things. On the Michelin Stars thing, there where plenty of comments and the opinions where mostly split. Only one other comment that I saw, out of like twenty besides yours, had a problem with me asking. So your statement that it was the majority of editors is simply false. A lot of them thought they shouldn't Michelin Stars shouldn't automatically count for notability. Your attitude about it and everything else is the issue here, including with splitting the Bethel Music article. I have every right to ask questions or suggest things without being badgered, insulted, or slandered. All I did on the Bethel Music article was make a suggestion, that I said I didn't even want to do it myself, but you couldn't even handle that without turning into a big issues and slandering me. That's why it's WP:Harassment, and again why I posted this. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment @Adamant1: Please provide diffs for the claimed misconduct. — MarkH21talk 02:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment @MarkH21: There's the Bethel Music comment that I disdain Christians. Also this comment. Where he said "you're not at all neutral on them and Christians in general. You have a disdain for them. That has been evident in the way you attack them, their sources and their claims. If you were truly neutral, you wouldn't concern yourself with the articles." There is also this AfD where he called my BEFORE disingenuous. The comment on the RFC for Michelin Stars doesn't seem to have a diff because it's archived or something. I'll quote it though, hopefully that works. "You came here of your own free will. You asked a question. You received a unanimous opinion from the first three editors who responded. Now you're going to lecture us on how we're wrong?" This is the link to it. You can just search for his name to find the comment if need be. He's also repeated the same thing multiple times in this discussion. Including in his last comment "If you want to split that article, I will alert the project that I think someone hostile to the aims of the project is about to act." Hopefully those work. There's more comments out there, but I'd have to find them. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I also found this. I can't do the diff thing there either because it's also archived or something. If you look for "Musical artists and albums pages being excessively linked to Amazon or iTunes - while I was on vacation" He says negative things about me there. Including threatening me and claiming I asked in the wrong place. "this is an official warning to Adamant1, the next time you remove references from the article and tag it incorrectly as you did in the diff linked above, I will take you to 3RR for long-term edit warring. In short, wrong place to discuss this issue." Also, a quote from him claiming my question about social media links was "bait" that other users took (insinuating I was trolling for asking), which also discounted other people's opinions "Second, Ian.thomson fell for the bait and stated that we cannot use commercial site per WP:ELNO." He later used that as justification to continue edit warring me. I'm sure there's more out there. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thomas & Friends vandal

I was going to post this at WP:LTA, but this might be too innocuous for that purpose—this pertains to subtle vandalism. Since at least 2015, there has been steady vandalism across episode list articles for Thomas & Friends. 99% of the edits are done by a 26xx IP, who introduces blatant errors such as airdates being changed and inaccurate episode titles. One look at the edit history of series 1 should say it all. See that 26xx IP? Same vandal every time. This has been going on for years and years and years, across all series. Seeing as it's pretty much the one IP, I would like to suggest a rangeblock for all Thomas & Friends-related articles.. or something along those lines. I know there's RBI, but not having to deal with the edits at all would be easier. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

"26xx" is half of the internet. I'll take a look, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I range blocked 2607:fcc8:e813:83f0::/64 for a week and added a couple more Thomas articles to my watchlist (just what I need – more cartoons on my watchlist). Several of the other troublemaker IPs are already blocked or range blocked. In the future, there's a fair chance I'll see what's going on, but you should probably post to my talk page if you want action taken. I can't remember why I added half the entries on my watchlist, and now I have to guess at what seemed so important to me back a year ago. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Nice, and appreciated. Should make a difference. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Poorly sourced or unsourced controversial claims

Requesting action or advice regarding persistent insertion of poorly sourced or unsourced controversial claims at Velike Lašče and other articles. The user (User talk:Starangel19) has been repeatedly advised to read WP:WPINARS, and multiple editors have requested that the user stop inserting controversial claims without reliable sources. Thank you. Doremo (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, that is this one editor's side of the story anyway. In the past I have admitedly made some editorial mistakes. But one important thing has to be mentioned here; the editors of the articles involved are repeatedly and persistently disregarding significant information with regards to the political affiliation of the WW2 "victims" in Slovenia that they are so fond of writing about on an English version of wikipedia of numerous Slovenian towns. They purposefully don't mention that many of these victims were in fact collaborationists of either Italian Fascists or German Nazis, which have both occupied the territory of Slovenia during WW2.These editors do this even when this type of information is known to them in the sources they themselves are quoting (example Daniel Siter on Rogaška Slatina wiki-page) or when another author of a wikipedia page (example Prostovoljna protikomunistična milica) has emphasized their political affiliation to the occupiers. These editors are trying to cover up collaboration of the "victims" with the occupiers of Slovenia-the Nazis and the Fascists- and are in fact trying to practice historical revisionism by purposefully keeping reader in the dark. In these articles on Mass Graves in Slovenia they repeatedly mention victims as being Croatian and Serbian. What they purposefully fail to mention is the fact that these were disarmed military units of Croatian collaborationists Ustashe and Serbian collaborationists Četniki, which were retreating through the territory of Slovenia on their journey towards the West, where they hoped that they would escape their punishment. I am extremely bothered by the fact that a group of Nazi/Fascist apologists are trying to re-write the history by keeping crucial details away from the reader. Wikipedia should not become a forum for Neo-Nazism and Neo- Fascism.  Preceding unsigned comment added by Starangel19 (talkcontribs) 16:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

WP is driven by verifyability of material in reliable sources, not by claims made at random, as you are stating in your diffs and here. If there are such connections, simply provide a reliable source to show that, but understand that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. As these are extremely controversial claims and in an area covered by various discretionary sanctions, you could find yourself blocked if you fail to follow such advice. --Masem (t) 17:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I would add to what Masem said by saying that it is the very importance of this topic, which you acknowledge, that means that we have to be careful only to say anything that can be verified in reliable sources. We are not in the business of making general claims about such collaboration without specific reliable historical sources to support them. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

These are really not claims made at random but basic primary school-level of history in Slovenia. There is nothing extremely controversial about what I am saying except perhaps for someone, who is completely in the dark about Slovenian history. For one such source you can read MA thesis by Daniel Siter on Rogaška Slatina *a famous spa town* during WW2 (pdf link among the listed sources on WP page of Rogaška Slatina under Mass graves). You can read and verify yourself what the author Siter wrote in his thesis in the quoted/listed pages and what the WP editor is writing and what he purposefully fails to acknowledge. Siter specifically states that the number/nationality of the victims is presumed/supposed as none of the graves have so far been exhumed. He also states that the military units of Ustashe have been terrorizing the local population well after the end of WW2. In fact he mentions Ustashe (slov. Ustaši) 41 times. He writes that Ustashe commander Ante Pavelić and his entire cabinet if ministers spent some time in Rogaška Slatina *a famous spa town* on their way to the West. I may be an inexperienced WP editor, but at least I am not using my experience for falsification of history and promoting a very dubious agenda of historical revisionism, which is giving rise to Neo-Nazism and Neo-Fascism. I am sure you can find something to read about historical revisionism in Croatia, where it is becoming extremely problematic.  Preceding unsigned comment added by Starangel19 (talkcontribs) 17:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

If these facts are so well-known then it will be easy to find independent reliable sources for them, which is all that people are asking. But something better than a masters thesis (from which Wikipedia editing is a displacement activity for me) is needed. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
(ec)If this is "basic primary school-level of history in Slovenia" information, then it should be easy to provide books and other well published reliable sources (not college/masters-level theses) to document these. Random masters' theses are not usable as sources --Masem (t) 17:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The editor of Rogaška Slatina is himself quoting MA thesis by Daniel Siter, I only took the time to read and verify the parts that the author is MIS-quoting to further his own apologist agenda. He is only using the MA thesis by Siter to give credibility to his own claims, which cannot be actually found in the mentioned thesis. In Europe an in-depth analysis of a town during a certain time period can provide for a reliable academic source as the author's research is guided by the professors at the university, in this case University of Ljubljana. Perhaps it is different in the Anglo-saxon world and the quality is much lower. It seems very controversial to bash MA thesis as a reliable source, but approve it being quoted anyway. I am not sure we can have a constructive debate in regards to this; it seems to me you are not familiar with Slovenian history and you don't speak Slovenian, so you are limited to giving me a sweeping general advice, without actually contributing anything specific or constructive.  Preceding unsigned comment added by Starangel19 (talkcontribs) 18:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

If MA thesis are so insignificant then why are people doing them? Rogaška Slatina is a town of 5000 inhabitants, it is not the focal point of academic research in Slovenia. In eventual absence of PhDs done on the subject of R.S. during the war, what should one do? I see the academic bar of WP has (suddenly) become impossibly high when people start to hide their lack of knowledge on a subject behind their academic "superiority".

People are doing them for the simple reason of qualifying for an M.A. degree. M.A. theses are not considered reliable sources because they do no undergo the fact-checking and peer review that PhD theses or papers published in academic journals do. This goes for any topic, not just your pet topic. And it applies whether you or your opponents are citing such a thesis. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, my opponent is quoting an MA thesis as if the latter is proving the editor's claims, which it does not. Nobody objected or stopped him from doing so and nobody (but me) went and verified the quoted information. Instead of being listened to and perhaps wisely advised, I am being questioned, taunted, patronized and threatened to be blocked from WP. I guess this is what happens when you start to rattle people's cages and they get their knickers in a twist. I wonder what would have happened if the editor mentioned used and MIS-quoted a doctoral dissertation on the subject of war-time Rogaška Slatina? Similarly, you would probably rally around him to cover up your own ignorance on the subject and do nothing of a substance to improve the quality of WP. Oh yes, you would attack ME for alerting you to it!!  Preceding unsigned comment added by Starangel19 (talkcontribs) 23:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Inexperienced editor doing multiple account moves

See the contributions of Dr-Taher (talk · contribs), an Admin at our Arabic Wikipedia but with only 375 edits here. Here they moved a user talk page of a user who hasn't edited for almost 10 years. As this is an area I have virtually no experience in, it might all be quite normal, but I find it confusing. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Dr-Taher is a global renamer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: thanks, I should have thought of checking that. I still don't understand renaming an account that hasn't edited for such a long time, but this is all a bit of a mystery to me. Doug Weller talk 17:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I got a block in Arabic Wikipedia by this editor. Also, I want to take this opportunity to say that Arabic Wikipedia is definitely not a free encyclopaedia. Any edit in Arabic even if it's productive and made in good-faith gets reverted without any reason. I was planning to report this in meta Wikimedia but I just felt it's too much work and I don't need to waste my time in a failed project like Arabic Wikipedia.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: I'm not sure who you are referring to as your link doesn't seem to lead to anyone who stopped editing almost 10 years ago and was renamed. (It leads to a 1 + year old discussion about a block of an editor on the Arabic wikipedia for a violation of their username policy. I don't think this is really the place to discuss the Arabic wikipedia's username and blocking policy.) I had a quick look at the recent renames by Dr-Taher and none of them seem to be of an editor who hasn't edited in 10 years ago, the most I found was 1.5+ years go.
But in general, I could imagine 2 reasons why an editor who hasn't edited in such a long time may want a rename. One is if the editor used their real name or something else which may identify them, or otherwise no longer wants their edits easily associated with their current account name. In such a case, it doesn't seem to matter much how long it's been since they've last edited.
The other reason is if the editor needs a rename to be unblocked somewhere and is considering restarting editing under that account. (It's possible this is the case with the 1.5+ year account.) I guess it may also be possible an editor is not blocked but wants a rename before their restart editing because they no longer like the account name.
BTW, I'm assuming that the editor really hasn't edited in a long time. Remember that because of SUL, accounts are global. So if someone is active on some other Wikimedia project and wants a rename, it will affect their account here regardless of when they last edited or even if they never edited. And it makes sense that if an account is renamed, their user pages need to be renamed no matter when they lasted edited.
Nil Einne (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
@Nil Einne: thanks, my bad. It's . They haven't edited anywhere else. They might have emailed a request I guess. Doug Weller talk 18:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
The user joined meta Wikimedia 23 days ago.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
The request can be found at m:Special:GlobalRenameQueue/request/61155. The user wanted to delete their account, but since that is not an option, they requested to vanish. Nihlus 18:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Well I've learned a lot, although I thought I'd checked that editor's contributions. Apologies to everyone for wasting their time. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Please report to our disintegration chambers. EEng 06:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Hello, Really I don't know What's the problem? If the user looks at my global account here, he may save his time and our time. Also, I want to refuse any false-words about Arabic-Wiki, If anyone has his own problem, he shouldn't generalize. Thanks for our colleges who explained the case. --Dr-Taher (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Enforcement of RfC result at Republican Party (United States)

A recent RfC at Republican Party (United States) was closed by S Marshall with a decision not to make any immediate changes to the status quo version in the article. Following the close, I reached out to S Marshall seeking permission to make two minor tweaks to improve clarity and remedy a MOS issue, and they affirmed that my changes would be consistent with their close. I implemented the changes, but two editors who regularly patrol the article (and argued for the removal or modification of the sentence in question during the RfC), Springee and Toa Nidhiki05, have, without notifying or receiving approval from the closer, been further modifying the sentence and reverting to their preferred version. Your attention to this matter and assistance enforcing the RfC result would be appreciated. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Close as malformed. Sdkb made good faith, BOLD changes in support of what they felt was the correct edits based on a RfC closing. Other editors, myself included, disagreed. The next, correct course of action, one Sdkb has not taken, is to turn to start a discussion on the article talk page. Coming here instead suggests that anyone who didn't agree with your BOLD change was either acting in bad faith or in opposition to a hypothetical closing that provided a simple and obvious action. In this case the actual closing was well done, offered a direction but also said people need to continue to discuss possible changes first. Springee (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
A change that has been affirmed as consistent with the close of an RfC by the admin closer is hardly a bold one. "Take it to talk" is a fine response when an issue has not yet been discussed, but it is not appropriate when there has already been an RfC. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
You’ve reverted two editors to try and force your change in. What’s your objection to discussing on the talk, per WP:BRD? Toa Nidhiki05 18:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb made an edit to try to implement the consensus of an RfC. Neither Springee nor Toa Nidhiki05 reverted that edit. One of the things Sdkb did was to change the piped text in the existing link to Southern strategy. Then Springee removed that link (the link itself, not the language used to describe the link), replacing it with a link to southern states. In other words, and entirely separate edit that removes the very subject of the RfC. It was that that was the subject of the edit war. The rest of this is plain misrepresentation, and why I reverted to the article as it existed this morning. Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to say the link in question was always problematic WP:EASTEREGG. I suspect if the link location had been known vs what it appeared to be it would have been reverted a long time ago. We have a primary article Southern United States. The stabled linked text is "Southern states". If you put that into the search bar you get []. None of those links goes to Southern Strategy. Additionally such a link is neither supported by the body of the article nor the RfC closing. I'm OK saying we will rewind to the last consensus version and work from there. Springee (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
The point -- for this venue anyway -- is that you and Toa Nidhiki05 have made it sound like Sdkb made a bold edit and was trying to force it. To the contrary, it was your removal of a link that Sdkb did not add which was the subject of the edit war. Trying to then characterize it as someone else trying to force their own preferred version isn't great. All of that said, my comments here shouldn't be taken as an endorsement of bringing this to ANI. Only commenting because I was involved. Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I made one change. I didn't edit war anything since it was a single change and corrected something per WP:EASTEREGG. Still, the correct place for all of this is to restore to previous consensus and talk. Sdkb's opening an ANI before even opening a talk page discussion does nothing other than poison the well. Springee (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Following up quickly to note that there have been no admin comments in response to this so far — everyone commenting above and at the article talk page is an involved participant. Some assistance closing the discussion and resolving the matter would be much appreciated from any admin inclined to help out. Thanks, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Legal threats by A.Savin

There has been unseemly discussion on Gin Ganga which has descended into an off-topic legal threat against me by A.Savin with this edit:

"And regarding this edit, it's much more serious than you maybe think. If you are misusing your Rollback flag to call "rebel" a group considered terrorist by several countries, including U.S.-- the country hosting Wikimedia servers, this is a reason to report you to WMF Legal, so that they ban you infinitely from all WMF projects. Because supportters of terrorist groups -- no matter if "Islamic State", PKK, LTTE or others -- are not to be tolerated here, for very good reasons. So, if there is no explanation from you in the next few days, I'm going to complain at WMF Legal -- enough is enough."

When I pointed out, in a tongue-in-cheek reply, that this was legal threat, I myself was blocked by admin Ymblanter. The block only lasted two minutes. Ymblanter also does not consider Savin's comment to be a legal threat as it wasn't an external process. I however consider that Savin intended it to be a real life threat, irrespective of whether it was serious or not, in order to to intimidate me. Savin is an admin on Commons and so is well aware of how Wikimedia projects works with respect to user conduct. The deliberate use of the [fictitious] WMF Legal rather than, for example, WP:ANI in his threat also indicates his intention.--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

For the record, this is a correct outline of my position. There is more background on that talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Also pinging @Rehman:--Ymblanter (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Just reading the talk page at Gin Ganga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I feel a WP:BOOMERANG coming... —Locke Coletc 19:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
It's not a legal threat to use Wikipedia's bureaucracy (or Wikimedia's, for that matter). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
WMF legal does exist: m:Legal, but I don't think they will do what this user thinks they will do. I don't view this as a legal threat, but more of an attempt at escalation of internal procedures. It does however contain a personal attack wrapped in nonsense. A.Savin should reel it in. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I definitely am going to go for a complaint against Obi2canobe at WMF Legal. May the WMF staff decide as they deem necessary. That's all I am willing to state about it. --A.Savin (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Ymblanter. What is seen here, is unfortunately just the tip of the iceberg. Obi2canibe has quite a long history of disturbing behaviour camouflaged between edits that are otherwise of high quality. For those curious, a bit a patience and looking into the right places would reveal much more. Meaningful discussions are also not possible with Obi2canibe, as the vast majority of their response are either personal attacks, or simply weasel words in an attempt to completely dodge the question. Unless the community feels a parallel discussion will help, I will not elaborate on this further, purely to allow A.Savin to do what they have probably already started; an escalation to WMF. Rehman 02:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring over template protection

Moved from WP:AIV: ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Jweiss11 (talk contribs deleted contribs nuke contribs logs filter log block user block log) This is pure vandalism to make a point and abuse of WP:TEMPLATEEDITOR rights. It's a juvenile stunt at the expense of others who have accessibility issues and not at all funny. See Wikipedia:Template_editor#Abuse.Justin (koavf)TCM 20:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I would normally have converted this to a WP:ANEW report, but this is extremely delicate and requires community input. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Involved parties:
Sorted in descending order per my personal perception of disruptiveness. Correction: The rollback seems justified. Sorted by number of edits in the conflict. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I was pinged, so I'm responding here. I'm happy to discuss the issue on Template talk:CBB yearly record start but this edit is a completely unacceptable stunt. If other users ask me to revert on the talk page or here rather than change it to some joke, I will oblige. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 21:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Policy sections to consider: WP:TPEREVOKE, #1 (pattern?) and #4 (vandalism?); "Dispute with a fellow template editor". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
    Jweiss11 has now denied "vandalism" but confirmed their intent to "make a point", in Special:Diff/949330876. I think we can safely say that Jweiss11 has misused their privilege to make a point. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
    I guess we have a different definition of vandalism. I was hoping my edit would drive thru the problem with Koavf's approach to this matter so that we can could advance to discussion as a community. My caption was exactly in line with what the caption is supposed to do, alert text readers for the blind that there is a table there. It has no utility for conventional displays in this instance. It's just redundant clutter. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
    Jweiss11, your response seems to contain either a genuine misunderstanding of what Koavf was insisting on, or inacceptable sarcasm that continues the "making a point, disruptively" behavior. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
    Can you explain what Koavf was insisting on? Perhaps I have misunderstood. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
    Any HTML parser is well capable of saying "Heads up! This is a table!" or any other text when encountering the opening tag of a table. Just like any other heading, table captions summarize the content in a few words. Replacing a table caption by "Heads up! This is a table!" is equivalent to replacing a section heading by "Heads up! This is a section!". Your argumentation is similar to "Only blind people need section headings". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
    ToBeFree, Koavf has argued that these captions are needed specifically for accessibility for screen readers for the blind. Take a look at how this renders with Koavf's caption at Mike Krzyzewski#Head coaching record. There are already section headings there preceding the table. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • This is the second edit war without explicitly violating 3RR I've seen from Jweiss11 ( ). I have, in agreement with ToBeFree's analysis pulled Template editor user perm. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
    Barkeep49, so this is the second time you have observed me to not violate 3RR (or 1RR where sanctions apply) when reverting another editor who made changes to long-standing content without consensus, correct? Jweiss11 (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
    This is the second time I have observed you edit warring without explicitly violating 3RR. The framing of your question suggests that 3RR is the only way an editor can edit war. This is not correct. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I think that concludes the discussion about Jweiss11's participation in this conflict, thanks. Now I'd like to address the reporter. Koavf, you're probably one of the most experienced editors around. Was it really necessary to keep reverting – against two other editors and over template protection – without having gained proper consensus on the talk page? Couldn't an RFC or other methods of dispute resolution have brought the desired clarity? I feel it would not be entirely fair to close this discussion without having at least mentioned concerns about your over-insistence in the conflict. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
    ToBeFree, The second revert you found to be justified, so I'll just assume that the consensus is that it was. The first one was because, as "Dispute with a fellow editor" above mentions, he reverted me and template editors should revert one another with "good cause [and] careful thought" which, "this is clutter" does not display. He and I discussed table captions at length on the talk page and the problem was with the accuracy of the wording, I added new wording and posted to the talk page immediately after to solicit feedback on that new wording. I have had many, many discussions over basic accessibility over and over again (alt text, MOS:COLOR, table captions, internal scrolling, collapsed-by-default content, etc.) and the attempts to get local consensus is exhausting. We already have these guidelines from W3C/ARIA in the first place and localized here in documentation such as Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Data_tables_tutorial#Proper_table_captions_and_summaries or MOS:SCROLL. I'm happy to discuss which captions or what type of alt text is appropriate in a given situation but I don't feel like I should have to make the case that basic accessibility should be a feature of the world's largest reference work thousands and thousands of times. If I sound put out, I am. If I seem rude, please excuse me: it's an infinite amount of work just to add this stuff in the first place, let alone bicker about it over and over and over again at every single page and template repeatedly. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 00:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
    No worries. I'm not entirely sure about this and would probably have sought local consensus via an RfC, despite the understandable annoyance that comes with doing so, at least after having been reverted by two different template editors. Special:Diff/949317017 looks way too risky for my taste. Then again, I lack the practical experience with making thousands of template changes and having to gain consensus for the same discussion again and again. I should at least note that Jweiss11's final template edit was the only one that undeniably caused damage to the encyclopedia on all included pages. Edit wars are disruptive, but warring over two somehow acceptable revisions is far away from the public disruptiveness of the edit that led to this report. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
    ToBeFree, you seem to be confused about who has caused damage to the encyclopedia. For the time being, we seem to be struck with Koavf's obstructive addition of clutter. My edit is gone now and was merely a device (an outside-the-box implementation of WP:IGNORE) involved to bring light to the issue when straightforward dialogue with Koavf had hit a brick wall. The upshot is we now have an RFC on the issue, which probably should have been initiated with by Koavf before his relevant edits today. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
    Jweiss11, describing your edit in this way after all the discussion and permission revocation is hopefully the result of temporary feelings and not an indication of long-term unsuitability for trust-based privileges. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
    I think that the permission revocation regarding protected templates was a hasty and poorly-thought out measure that hurts the project by undermining our collective capability. It would be helpful if involved parties could weigh the volumes of work I've done developing and managing templates over the last decade-plus against one unconventional edit, one that was intended to be instructive, in dealing with another editor who had flouted consensus during an obstinate and obtuse episode. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I was pinged here as someone who has edited this template during this dispute, so I feel an obligation to respond. First, to state the obvious, the edit in question placed an obnoxious, unhelpful, pointy header on 3,000+ pages. Jweiss11 explicitly stated I was making a point (link), which is not what the template editor right is for. The edit was not representative of the sort of behavior I would expect of someone with the template editor right. As for the substance of the discussion and how the table should be formatted, my involvement has been limited, as far as I can tell, to reverting the addition of a header with non-factual text and posting a message on the template's talk page explaining why I had done so and encouraging all involved editors to discuss an appropriate resolution before changing this widely used template. If the editors continue to war over this template, I recommend a higher level of protection for it and a search for a more appropriate venue for discussing a mutually agreeable outcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Eyeballs on Kuchesar Fort

There seems to be a pattern of advertising-like edits done by red-linked editors with low numbers of edits. Does this look worth reporting? Qwirkle (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  • That's all very odd. The various new editor's edits are a mixture of advertising, vandalism and actually productive edits, on an obscure article. I wonder if it's something to do with a school or college class project? Black Kite (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Although, this has been going on for over two years, with dozens of accounts. It still could be school-related - teacher introduces Wikipedia to class, suggests a backwater article to test their editing on, repeats this with next class - but apart from that ... Black Kite (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
      • It happens. See Jenny's Journeys, which had so much sustained disruption from random accounts that it was discussed on the CU mailing list. I keep these articles on my watchlist sometimes once I figure out they've been listed somewhere on a syllabus or popular website. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Givingbacktosociety repeatedly opened the same discussions

Givingbacktosociety (talk · contribs) repeatedly opened the same discussions denied by the community.

  1. Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic/Archive_27#Modify_a_graph
  2. Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#Modify_a_graph
  3. Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#Modify_a_graph_-_updated_formatting
See above discussion #Replacing the long standing graph against consensus
The user does not understand collaborations and has no idea of respecting other editor's works. The user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. This user should be block for WP:IDHT―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I have no opinion about whether or not the user needs to be blocked - they seem to be trying to be helpful - but they don't appear to be grasping the things they are being told.--Jorm (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Repeated discussion forced the original graph to be modified. It just doesn't make sense to focus on one country. Look at the history of the graph. Some confusing graphs were removed and label was partly updated. Still the labels have work to be done. Now it still has more graphs which are redundant but atleast they make sense except two of them which are just wrong. If the things that are being told doesnt make sense then it will be questioned again and again.Givingbacktosociety (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
<sigh> Until and unless you can provide valid, strong evidence that our readers are stupid and require "simpler to understand" graphs, you're not going to get anywhere.--Jorm (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The current graph has been modified and it is completely wrong. Replaced it with a correct graph. The updated graph is complex but I still prefer the simpler graph.Givingbacktosociety (talk) 05:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • User:Givingbacktosociety replaced the graph again despite the rejection "Not done" by a neutral editor. The user must be blocked for editing immediately for preventing further disruptive edits.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive unsourced edits by IPs (contrary to sources) without explanations

An IP ( has been making unsourced edits to several dna haplogroup pages (See here: []) which are not supported by the sources (changing divergence dates and proposed places of origin for no apparent reason against the sources and ignoring my notes) without explanations, including at this page []. See page histories: here [], here [], here [], and here []. It seems possible (perhaps likely) that the recent IP is a sock of another IP ( []) that a few days earlier also made a similar edit here [], which I had also reverted with notes explaining why it was incorrect, and which closely resembles an edit of the more recent IP (here: []). Both IPs also seem to be located in the same country (according to the Geolocate feature). Skllagyook (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: Please confirm: there are two and only two IPs involved, and they are + The only articles (so far) involved are: Haplogroup C-M130 + Haplogroup CF (Y-DNA) + Haplogroup D-CTS3946 + Haplogroup DE + Haplogroup E-M96 + Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic group + Y-chromosomal Adam. Correct? Johnuniq (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@Johnuniq I believe that is correct. Skllagyook (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I posted a comment at User talk: Please notify me if further edits occur and I will investigate. Johnuniq (talk) 05:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@Johnuniq I will. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

"WeyerStudentOfAgrippa" is sabotaging edits, United States article

(non-admin closure) WP:BOOMERANG. creffett (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User undo edits in article and in first time make the undo without summary and in second undo gives this summary: Undid revision 949377734 by Janitor102 (talk) content is not encyclopedic. --Janitor102 (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Your edits were poorly written and at best introduced no useful information. I see no action to be taken here. --Kinu t/c 04:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@Kinu: Edit: | calling_code = +1
| iso3166code = US
| cctld = ; Generic top-level domain (preferred){{<--efn|Only used in the U.S. continuously since Internet beginning}}: .com, .org, .net, .edu, .gov, .mil
; 7 ccTLDs (never used){{<--efn|ccTLD use generally is absolutely unpopular in the U.S.}}: .us, .pr, .as, .gu, .mp, .vi, .um
| religion = See Religion in the United States
| religion_year =

"WeyerStudentOfAgrippa" version: | calling_code = +1
| iso3166code = US
| cctld = ; Generic top-level domain: .com, .org, .net, .edu, .gov, .mil
; ccTLD (generally not used in the U.S.): .us, .pr, .as, .gu, .mp, .vi, .um
| religion = See Religion in the United States
| religion_year =

This is very strange. Your edits were poorly written and at best introduced no useful information. represents a disgrgaceful Wikipedia administration argument. --Janitor102 (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

No offense, but the phrase "Only used in the U.S. continuously since Internet beginning" is confusing, and the phrase "ccTLD use generally is absolutely unpopular in the U.S." does not make sense because it is contradictory (is it in general or is it absolute?) and appears to be factually incorrect. Also, I do not see where you notified WeyerStudentOfAgrippa of this thread, which is required as indicated in the instructions for posting here. Seeing as how you did not articulate your concerns with the other editor before posting here, I don't see what administrative action needs to be taken here. --Kinu t/c 05:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Confusing?, contradictory, what??, you're admin??, Also, I do not see where you notified WeyerStudentOfAgrippa of this thread, which is required as indicated in the instructions for posting here. Seeing as how you did not articulate your concerns with the other editor before posting here, I don't see what administrative action needs to be taken here. that is taken by notification, and sounds like an other empty argument. You're a very polemic Indian potential politically-biased high-profile university alumnus. No offense, just the truth. --Janitor102 (talk) 05:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I give up completely. In my time zone is late and I won't have time tomorrow. Duh. --Janitor102 (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@Janitor102: Consider this your formal WP:NPA warning. And Kinu is did not follow the policy for this notice-board (I have now done so). DMacks (talk) 05:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I'm an admin, and seeing as how you've been warned already, it's not worth my time to respond to the racism or other garbage in your comment. --Kinu t/c 07:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
No pussyfooting around racist attacks - I've indef blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Boing! said Zebedee, I'll second that. Disgraceful way to speak to somebody. GirthSummit (blether) 12:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Iranian masked users

(non-admin closure) OP given a WP:BOOMERANG, I don't think there's anything else to discuss here. creffett (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dear bureaucrats and managers, have a good day. A special case: There is a contradiction (Here and Here) in the nature of these users that you may not realize. First of all, these Iranian and Islamic users are wearing Western masks, and their important mission is to throw out Iranian users and welcome Islamic users. Their agenda is to distort the history of Iran and highlight the history of Islam. Now how can I protect myself from their harm? Goodarz Irani (talk) 07:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

You could start by providing some evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Given edits like these by you, I see a swift application of WP:BOOMERANG here. Pinging Largoplazo and HistoryofIran, who do not appear to have been informed of this discussion as required. --Kinu t/c 07:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Clearly a troll. Any admin available? There should be no question that this editor should be blocked indefinitely.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Yep. Clear case of WP:BOOMERANG here. Reyk YO! 07:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

"Your goal is to deprive me, traitor." Is that from something? I like that line. The Moose 08:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  • In Goodarz Irani's comment he accused these editors that they are "Iranian Islamic" and he put a wikilink link to ISIS!. That's definitely a WP:NOTHERE editor.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think I would call them WP:NOTHERE (much less a troll) – I think they do want to build the encyclopedia, they are just incredibly aggressive against anyone who doesn't agree with them. From what I can make out, they pretty much only want to create articles about people, places, and events in the Persian epic Shahnameh. That makes them something of a single-purpose account, but that's a different issue. They have a tendency to interpret comments on their edits as attempts to remove all references to Iranian culture (as also seen above). There is also a huge language barrier here, in that they use autotranslators to create articles and have repeatedly refused to listen to people who tell them that their text is unintelligible or that they need to source their additions. Largoplazo wrote a long and instructive comment on their user talk page a month ago, but that was removed by the user without comment. I have tried asking questions about what their autotranslated English means, see e.g. Draft talk:Korban (Tribes)#Reason for deleting subtitles (and note that the draft was in article space at the time – Goodarz Irani moved it to draft space after my final comment) but never received a response. I think this is probably a person who is an expert in their own field and thinks that every detail in that field is important and takes precedence over other fields, who uses automatic translation software without any understanding of what that does to the language, and who has a very short fuse. I do see a block in their future, though, because their behaviour really is unacceptable. --bonadea contributions talk 08:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree; edits like this (the reversion of which prompted this response) are pretty clearly someone who thinks they're being helpful and doesn't understand why the misuse of autotranslated text is disruptive. (In the case of that particular edit, it's such gibberish I can't even try to guess what it was meant to mean.) Goodarz Irani is much more active at fa-wiki than here; it may be helpful getting a fluent Farsi speaker to explain in that language why an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing is policy here, as it may just be that they genuinely don't understand how many problems they're causing.  Iridescent 09:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I used to be a Wikipedia / fa user who was harassed by the same anti-Iranian (Here) gang and all my edits were widely deleted. I couldn't work with this anti-wiki group, they are stubborn enemies of wiki because they consider wiki destructive for Islamic culture. I'm a Persian-speaking user, but their goal is to get me fired from all wikis. The rest of the protests are just excuses. I have been fighting this group of ISIS for almost eight years, and now I am happy to have informed English Wiki.Goodarz Irani (talk) 09:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
OK, enough. The next time you accuse any person—whether or not they're a Wikipedia editor—of being an ISIS supporter without evidence, you're indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia.  Iridescent 09:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Think it's about high time he gets banned regardless. I logged in to 19 notifications or so on multiple talk pages , where I have been called (I'm not only one to receive these honors by him) a goat (?), member of ISIS (??) and a traitor (???). He clearly lacks WP:COMPETENCE big time, and is unable to behave properly. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@Iridescent: The editor has followed up by calling editors (or just you?) discriminatory and paid on their talk page. — MarkH21talk 10:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that was the last straw. I've blocked indefinitely. --Kinu t/c 10:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Kinu. I have really tried to explain things in good faith (though I know I got it wrong once or twice), but I was pretty much at the end of my tether with this user. Even though I wasn't awarded a goat (goats are awesome, but I don't think that was the intended meaning when GI posted them...) --bonadea contributions talk 11:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • If I have said some of what this editor have said, I would have been blocked and my talk page access would have been revoked. What he is saying is also disrespectful to my religion and clear trolling. This editor is clearly NOTHERE. He/she can't work collaboratively with other editors if he/she considers them as ISIS editors.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
    It wasn't that long ago though, was it, that an administrator instructed you to "dial it down immediately" for, err, comparing things to ISIS :) ——SN54129 10:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
    It's even less long ago that an administrator warned SS about, er, making unsubstiantiated allegations about other editors on the admin noticeboards… Glass houses/stones.  Iridescent 11:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
    Ah yes, I missed Liz's comment. ——SN54129 13:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
    See the link in the OPs comment labelled Iranian and Islamic users. It is a piped link to the ISIS article. So the OP is indeed referring to users as ISIS editors. That is fairly evidenced. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
    @Mr rnddude: Indeed I (and it's probably safe to say, we) have, and it's of course outrageous behavior for which a block is the only possible immediate outcome. I was also, though, pointing out to SharabSalam, that although he argues If I have said some of what this editor have said, I would have been blocked, he has indeed said some vary similar things, and been called out on them. Hence Iridescent's reference to glass houses. Hope all's well, ——SN54129 13:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
    All is well Serial Number 54129. My apologies, I was misdirected by Iridescent's comment about unsubstantiated allegations. Hope you're well too, Mr rnddude (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

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

THE user is so curious to delete a page

I even can't understand why [user:HighKing this user] so curious to delete a notable Wikipedia article. It seems like there is some connection between User:KartikeyaS343 and user:HighKing.

I researched few facts here.

Fact1: The HighKing is desperately saving the article in both deletion discussion:[1st deletion 2nd deletion and this article is created by User:KartikeyaS343.

Fact2: GREENSOLE, this article is recently nominated for deletion and the result was keep but user:HighKing again nominated it for deletion within few days.  Preceding unsigned comment added by GRIPK (talkcontribs) 13:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Normally re-nominating an article so quickly would be frowned upon, but the rationale provided by HighKing for this 2nd AfD is so detailed and well-researched that I think it should stand. Also, I suggest you don't insinuate sockpuppetry between users without any evidence. Black Kite (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)