Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Comtinued disruptive editing and POV pushing by HypVol

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

---

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1077 § Multiple IPs making possible unconstructive edits (second round)

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

I previously reported this user's disruptive editing in the thread linked above, where they were attempting to get some IP users that were reverting their edits blocked. User:Shibbolethink responded saying that they found the edits troubling, but ultimately no action was taken. Following this they seem to have developed a case of the ANI flu and vanished for a couple of weeks so I didn't press the issue further, but now they're back, re-inserting their disputed edits into a number of categories, articles and templates.

A review of this editors contributions will show a distinct pattern of disruption and POV pushing with regards to Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan that demonstrate that they are WP:NOTHERE to build a neutral encyclopaedia with regards to those topics. For convenience here's a small sample of some of the problematic edits this user has made (partially copied from the previous report, now updated with extra diffs):

• Replacing neutrally worded 'see also' notes with ridiculous 'Hong Kong belongs to China' POV pushing in templates: [1] [2]
• Replacing the flag of Hong Kong with the flag of china in a list of universities, next to the university of Hong Kong: [3] [4] [5]
• Systematically whitewashing articles to remove all mention of the Special Administrative Region status of Hong Kong: [6] [7]
• Sorting a huge number of articles on various things in Hong Kong into "China foo" categories: [8] [9] [10]
• Recategorising people from Hong Kong into the categories for mainland china: [11] [12]
• Across a huge number of templates removing all mentions of Hong Kong being a SAR and merging their topics into the sections on mainland china: [13] [14] [15] [16]
• Changing a huge number of "Hong Kong Foo" categories from being "Foo by nationality" categories to being subcategories of "China Foo": [17] [18] [19] [20] ][21]
• Describing the flag of Macau as a "regional flag": [22]
• Modifying the location of Macau to imply it's uncontroversialy a part of mainland china: [23]
• Adding some rather POV-pushy leads to a couple of articles on Taiwan's international relations, stating how country X does not recognise Taiwan, it's part of china: [24] [25]

While individually some of these edits may be acceptable taken as a whole they demonstrate a distinct pattern of POV pushing with regards to these topics, at the minimum I think a topic ban from china related topics is required, but a straight up block may also be suitable. I also find this editor's use of their user page to construct a "hit list" of IP's that have been reverting them to be inappropriate. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd fully support an indef. Shilling for Winnie the Pooh and his buddies is an especially unpalatable way to be a POV pusher here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the shitlist from their user page per WP:POLEMIC. – ².O.^Boxing 19:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

There is also a concerning post left on their talk page by another account whose only activity is reporting IPs to look out for to HypVol. Slywriter (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: INDEF HypVol

Block for disruptive editing and POV pushing as described above. As far as I can tell, this user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. They are here to remove any mention of HK as an autonomous entity from Wikipedia. They also appear to be (possibly) socking or meat puppeting [26] with WenningHehn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Support I think it seems pretty clear here this is blatent POV pushing with no regard for building a legit encyclopedia. indef ban seems appropriate if not a broad china-relate topic ban. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Support (OP) Something like this is definitely needed. Could some uninvolved administrators weigh in here please? 192.76.8.74 (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I've unarchived this thread so that hopefully it can get some kind of closure 192.76.8.74 (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Support – would be nice if HypVol were to chime in themselves, given their sporadic editing it's quite possible this hasn't yet been seen by them, but the presented evidence to me is clear enough for that not to be a requirement. AngryHarpy‍^talk 14:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support indef, the editor clearly does not seem to be here to build a general-purpose encyclopedia. BD2412 T 04:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef, editor has shown clear POV pushing. Link20XX (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support, this is a long time coming... I do not feel that it is in the community's interest to continue to have to exert time and effort either teaching HypVol how to contribute productively (they appear teachable at this point) or cleaning up after them. No longer convinced that they’re here to build an encyclopedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

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

IP edit warring

An IP editor is edit warring at United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. It's believed to be the same editor that was blocked several months ago and has occasionally sought to IP-hop to reinstate changes to some specific sections of the page. A previous investigation identified a couple of the IPs and the article was protected. As there is now extensive edit warring can the IP address please be blocked: [27][28][29][30][31]. Another editor has requested page protection as the individual has hopped IPs a couple of times over the last few days. Cambial foliage❧ 16:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Cambial and your likely meatpuppet FDW777 are the ones edit warring. I'm just adding to the article to improve. I would point admins to Cambial edits all reverts of anyone that disagrees with him which is everyone but his meatpuppet FDW777. If you can say what's factually wrong in what've I've added but ye probably can't wee fella as you just want the article to remain in stasis as if you own it.

Seems a bit wobbly grounds for a sockpuppet claim, just everyone they don't agree with they claim is a sockpuppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.2.89 (talk • contribs)

Please refrain from aspersions of other editors. If you have concerns about Sockpuppetry or Meatpuppetry then file a claim against the one you suspect, provide evidence and let a CU and/or admins determine this. Claiming another editor is doing this is a very serious charge. Please use it sparingly. Please stop the edit warring and disruptive editing. According to WP:BRD if you add something and it is reverted the next step is to take it to the articles talk page to try and prove your position. Please do so and cease trying to re-add the edits. --ARoseWolf 17:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why it's so hard to be kind to others and not immediately assume the worst. Try to exhaust every option of resolving the dispute before coming here. --ARoseWolf 17:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. My protection summary reads: Per Roy, but for longer. Sock or not, too much WP:BATTLEGROUND from multiple unconfirmed accounts. Anyway, I remember this (vaguely). IP, I can personally attest that Cambial Yellowing and FDW777 are not MEAT editors, and that their contributions span far beyond this page or even general topic. El_C 17:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, El_C. --ARoseWolf 17:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, but all i've seen is them making the exact same revert of edits, there's no difference in approach, just wholesale reversion of any edit they haven't made. They seem like friends. When I saw Jimbo Wales talk about wikipedia he said every editor is treated equally and that everyone owns wikipedia and no one owns any article they for everyone to contribute to. Why keep supporting people who just gatekeep articles reverting any updates or changes. As you've locked us regular folk out. you should update the page to include more recent analysis I was planning to do it tonight. Lots of good stuff in there fella. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/uk-internal-market.pdf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.2.89 (talk • contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.2.89 (talk • contribs)

IP, I'm not going to do that. This isn't a subject with which I am familiar or even that interested in. In any case, it's best to be straight forward: WP:ASPERSIONS are unwelcome and are, in fact, prohibited. In a broader sense, content dispute are expected to be resolved on a respective article's talk page. If that effort reaches an impasse, there are dispute resolution requests (like a Request for comment), that one could avail themselves of. Not sure there's really much to add to this explanation; straying from this crux seems kind of pointless, tbh. El_C 18:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding request for comment or similar, we had Talk:United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020#Structured lead moderation where the current lead was agreed. In fact, the key fact regarding the lead (that the only way the act can prevent internal trade barriers is by restricting the power of the devolved governments to create them in the first place) was never refuted. FDW777 (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Glad to see the discussion. I'm sure this can be resolved on the article talk page and if there are changes they can be added at the end of the protection phase. I left a welcome message and some helpful hints for the IP and they have been instructed of the proper way to resolve disputes without edit warring. Not sure there is much more needed at this time. Thank you for the quick action, El_C. Happy editing everyone! --ARoseWolf 18:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

El_C I'm didn't start throw aspersion around now did I? Has FDW777 made any constructive edits to the article or have they just done the exact same reverts Cambial has? look at the article history page fella, its clear FDW777 has literally continued edit warring by reverting the article yet again. If you are not interested in the article why lock it so only FDW777 and Cambial can edit it? and isn't that unhelpful since they never update the article or correct its problems and even delete tags others place to help in the improvement effort. Seems a bit one sided fella, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.2.89 (talk • contribs)

Please WP:SIGN and WP:INDENT your comments, IP. I've been doing it for you for a while now, so maybe it's your turn to account for your own comments...? Otherwise, I'm finding you to be unresponsive and evasive and I am not inclined to repeat myself again, sorry. El_C 20:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

IP, the aspersion was calling a fellow editor a "wee fella". I understand that may be a cultural thing where you are as you have continually used "fella" to refer to many other editors, myself included, but its important to note that not everyone comes from the same location or has the same experiences in life. For me it was not necessarily the fact you called them this but the way in which you used it that made it an aspersion. You were talking down to them when all they were doing was upholding Wikipedia policy. You may not like it but WP:BRD is non-negotiable with the only exceptions being noted in the policy. You MUST take the edits you want to include or remove to the article's talk page as you were the one that initiated the changes to a stable article according to the history. --ARoseWolf 11:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious this is PlainAndSimpleTailor (eg previous IP: 79.66.51.226 (talk · contribs)) and this is block evasion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Whomever indeffed PlainAndSimpleTailor, they are not to be trusted! El_C 12:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

El_C, Exactly! Now we are getting somewhere. --ARoseWolf 12:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Tagging ettiquete

I added the POV tag to the header of the Nicholas Wade article and the FV tag to a sentence in the lead, which were removed, first with the accusation of "edit warring" [32], and a second time with the reason being that there is "no consensus" to reinstate it [33]. Yet there has been no discussion with consensus on if/how the sentence is due in the lead, and also how it is not supported by newer better sources. What is the relevant policy on how tags should be added and removed from articles? I have added many CN tags to articles over the years and editors usually just fix the problem instead of removing them. 79.70.173.174 (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there's been discussion on the talk page, were you are in the one-against-many situation. Re-introducing tags at this point (and then running off to the dramaboard) seems like a WP:POINTY way to go about things. FWIW, this editor was warned about the DS in the topic area under their previous IP; diff. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

One against many? Thriley shares my concern. There are many earlier discussions on the page with similar concerns, some of which were successfully resolved. 79.70.173.174 (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Thriley doesn't have quite the same concerns as you (and for one, they haven't been edit-warring to disruptively tag the article because they don't like it). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I have similar concerns. I believe the article needs significant overhaul and oversight by more editors other than the core group who have largely determined the content and tone over the last year. Thriley (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Then you're free to follow the advice given by WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:SCHOLARSHIP (the kind of sources listed at WP:NOLABLEAK) instead of supporting the disruptive addition of tags to prove a point. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, this is not the right noticeboard for sourcing policy. The main topic of discussion here is tagging policy/etiquette. 79.70.173.174 (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that Thriley. I would like a senior editor or administrator to answer my question here about tagging etiquette. I always thought that the tags were supposed to notify readers of issues while editors sorted things out. 79.70.173.174 (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Tags are to notify editors that there is a genuine problem with the article. One or two persons disagreeing with a larger majority (and no, you can't ignore the larger policy issue surrounding the topic) are not good reason to put what are effectively "badge of shame" tags on an article; especially when it's an issue which happens to have been discussed multiple times in the past. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

This is not just two editors by my count. I see many editors with concerns about the neutrality of this article. Feel free to tag the last twenty or thirty editors of the article here or there. 79.70.173.174 (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Think of a maintenance tag as a "wet paint" sign. If the paint is dry, if most editors agree that the paint is dry, and the overwhelming majority of third-party literature explains exactly why the paint is dry, the sign is not needed and you shouldn't keep putting it up. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

There have been a few editors guarding this article who in my opinion have a specific opinion about Wade that has tarnished the encyclopedic value of the article. The paint is not dry. Thriley (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

If you can't support your assertions by showing how the editors you are accusing of being biased are indeed so (for example, by showing good sources which were missed, or showing that some important elements from existing sources are not accurately represented), then your comments are not particularly helpful to fixing the perceived bias. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

There is very little detailing Wade’s actual writing/reporting. Much of the article is just rebuttal or criticism. For this article to be encyclopedic, much more work has to be done detailing what Wade actually said. You can tell me to go do that, and I may, but you and others have shown little to no interest in doing so. Thriley (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Thriley: Here's my suggestion: go find some indisputably reliable secondary independent sources describing Wade's reporting, paraphrase them, and then show how that content is WP:DUE for inclusion. (see also WP:RSUW).

The way we write articles on wikipedia is based on what independent sources say about a subject, in due proportion to the mention of that content in those sources. We don't just write articles based on what we feel in our hearts to be true. The Wade article is based on what RSes say about the subject. You may not like it, but it is what RSes say.

If you have a problem, you can find other perspectives, show how they are due in good RSes, and then add them. Even if you think other editors of the article have a POV, they very likely would not remove well-sourced content that is NPOV.

Don't be surprised if others disagree with you about those sources being reliable, though. That's why I say "indisputable." 99% of the time, the reason why content isn't added when someone wants it to be added and everyone else disagrees, it's because the source is unreliable.

@79.70.173.174 This board is not for content disputes. Don't bring content disputes here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, I think you misunderstand. I am not saying I do not like what the sources say. I am saying I dislike that the editors who have added the critique and criticism have not bothered to detail any of the claims made by Wade. If the intent is to shine light into the subject, the best way would be to detail the claims as much as possible and then in a second paragraph, go through those claims one by one with specific responses by experts. Wade’s publication had a massive effect on COVID-19 coverage in the media in the United States and globally. It would make sense to flesh it out more. I think eventually a stand-alone article about the subject will probably develop as the years go on. Thriley (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I dislike that the editors [..] have not bothered to detail any of the claims So, you want specific material added. Fine. Then, to repeat what Shibbolethink wrote above, give us secondary sources which can be used for adding that material. If you cannot find them, tough. Wade's ideas are WP:FRINGE, and there is no compulsion to explain them in much detail, so there is nothing relevant missing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@79.70.173.174: The answer to your question is pretty simple. Consider the following facts: many articles concern controversial topics; tags are purposefully ugly; tags indicate someone's discontent with what an article says; editors will probably never unanimously agree about what a controversial article should say. Thinking about that shows that tags are useful when a passing editor notices a precise problem that they are unable to solve on an article that is not being actively maintained (if it has active editors, just put a note on the talk page). Tags are not a weapon that allow passers-by to permanently mark their discontent. If others don't agree with you, see WP:DR. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq thank you for providing the requested guidance. I just found WP:TAGGING which seems to diverge from your advice, saying you should not remove the POV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Since this page seems to be the consensus on this matter, please can you provide further guidance on this issue, as I think this article suffers from a problem. 79.70.173.174 (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Johnuniq, editors keep on removing the POV tag when there is a clear dispute on its neutrality. What is the policy here? Francesco espo (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Please think about what I wrote above for a moment. Suppose I thought Donald Trump needed a POV tag. So I add it to the article and put a note on talk saying "I'm trying to improve this encyclopedic value of this entry by expanding it...", then I edit war to replace the tag when others disagree and add comments like "this article does not look like a balanced BLP" on talk. Do you think that is a sustainable approach to tagging? A tag is to alert uninvolved editors (people who aren't actively following changes to the article and engaging on talk) that there might be a problem that the person adding the tag is not able to solve at the moment. A tag is not a weapon to show dissent. When there is disagreement, participants need to focus on actionable proposals to improve the article based on reliable sources—discuss content, not whether a tag is warranted. Then follow WP:DR and perhaps hold an RfC about an actionable proposal (not whether a tag should be added). Johnuniq (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

IP 204.174.106.14

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

IP is clearly WP:NOTHERE, as evident by his/her tendentious editing which has been ongoing for a whole year;

28 August 2020 - Removed the Georgian and Kurdish connections of the dynasty, kept the Armenian one

26 October 2020 Added 'Armenian' and replaced 'Iran' with 'Armenia'

5 December 2020 - Replaced 'Persian' with 'Armenian'

12 March 2020 - Replaced 'Iranian' with 'Armenian'

12 March 2020 - Replaced 'Iranian' with 'Armenian'

13 May 2021 - Removed information regarding the Parthian connection with the Armenian god Aramazd

20 June 2021 - Removed mention of other ethnic groups from the Caucasus, added Armenian

6 September 2021 - Replaced 'Iranian' with 'Armenian'

6 September 2021 - Replaced 'Iranian' with 'Armenian'

6 September 2021 - Added 'Armenian'

13 September 2021 - Replaced 'Georgian' with 'Armenian'

15 September 2021 - Replaced 'Iranian' with 'Armenian'

15 September 2021 - Replaced 'Persian' with 'Armenian'

15 September 2021 - Removed mention of Persian culture

18 September 2021 - Replaced 'Iranian' with 'Armenian'

--HistoryofIran (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 6 months. A history of long term disruption from this IP. El_C 12:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

CIR disruption at Adrian David Cheok

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

---

• Tianle.louis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Above is persisting in adding a reference to a junk paper (which doesn't even appear to have gone through basic copy-editing and makes a farcical claim of "double blind peer review") in a predatory journal from a publisher which is listed on Beall's list (as explained on their talk page). This is despite being reverted by me and other editors (@Lord Belbury and Bilby:). At this point, given their latest edit summary seems to not acknowledge this issue at all, it's either a case of CIR, or NOTHERE, or both; and someone should probably at least hand out a partial block from the relevant page (which is also a BLP). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Now coupled with a very obvious 3RR violation, [34] despite a previous warning on their talk page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Surely an undeclared COI, as it has been going on for literally years. Indefinitely page blocked from the article. Bishonen | tålk 09:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC).
  • @Bishonen: Very likely that Special:Contributions/2001:8003:A082:EC01:39A2:D98A:5714:666B is block evasion by the same person. Mind giving semi-protection to this page AND a rangeblock for that IP? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Third sock semiprotection in the span of a year or so. El_C 12:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Already semi'd by El C. I've partial-blocked the 2001:8003:a082:ec01::/64 range from Adrian David Cheok for six months. If there's more disruption from either the account or the range, they can be blocked sitewide — please let me know if you see something, RandomCanadian. Bishonen | tålk 13:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC).

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

Renewal6 and Bkatcher being disruptive and uncivil

Renewal6 disruptively closed a deletion discussion not one but two times (see history of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_notable_surviving_veterans_of_World_War_II_(2nd_nomination) and Bkatcher blatantly insulted me on the former’s talk page: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Renewal6) Dronebogus (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Renewal6 has been on WP for 4 days and only made edits on that one AFD, I smell a WP:SOCK. Mztourist (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: Just a reminder that you must post a warning at the users' talk page when you open a new thread about them on ANI. I've done so for you. Isabelle ^🔔 17:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• • I was just doing so but you beat me to it. Dronebogus (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I sincerely and humbly apologize for calling Dronebogus a jerk. Bkatcher (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

That's better, Bkatcher. Thank you. We have to be careful to address the actions of other editors without directly addressing the editor's character as a person. It's hard sometimes because we get very frustrated and angry but WP:AGF and WP:CIV are non-negotiable policies here at Wikipedia. Kindness, especially in the face of adversity, is crucial to the collaborative goals of the community. --ARoseWolf 19:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

My apologies @Dronebogus, I didn't mean to ping you above. I had one of those moments in life. It was corrected but I wanted to explain. --ARoseWolf 19:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

If you used the ping template you have to add a new signature in order for the user to be notified. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 19:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that I hadn't this time. --ARoseWolf 19:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack (claims about extra-WP activities)

Skylax30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Skylax30 (talk · contribs) has made a personal attack against Kalogeropoulos (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Execution of 42 policemen in Achaia (Greece, 1944) (Kalogeropoulos is an admin at el.WP, the one who closed the deletion proposal in Greek Wikipedia with deleting the article). Skylax30 wrote: "Yes, and I have to add some about the deletion of the Greek article. The user/administrator who deleted the greek article user:Kalogeropoulos just today deleted the greek translation of the article Russian political jokes few hours after I published in the Greek WP [35], arbitrarily, without any discussion. He is a known advocate (see WP:ADVOCACY) of communism by authoring articles in the communist internet site (greek) https://atexnos.gr (search for Kostas Kalogeropoulos). He is involved in a team who declares that they pursue the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and the rest. Normally, and according to WP rules he should declare that, and abstain from administrative acts on articles related to communism, greek civil war etc" [36] I wouldnt call Kalogeropoulos and "advocate" of any kind of dictatorship, certainly he is not "a known advocate". A Gsearch at atexnos.gr using the term "Kalogeropoulos" yields 5 results about "Nikos Kalogeropoulos" [37]. Searching "Kostas Kalogeropoulos" yields one result [38], an article that mentions a Kostas Kalogeropoulos (apparently not the same person). Skylax30 is an experienced user and should know that WP shouldn't be a battleground. Making such kind of accusations is not constructive to say the least. Cinadon36 20:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Kalogeropoulos got frustrated when I translated from english to greek an article about ... jokes! He deleted the greek article within hours of its publication, without calling for a discussion or anything. This is the first time I see this phenomenon in my 15 years presence in WP. The fact that the jokes were a kind of resistance against the formern soviet regime, says all. Previously, he hastily deleted the greek article about the execution of 42 policemen by communist guerillas, although there was not a consensus for deletion (User Diu also criticized this).

I would call the above user to explain what makes him think that "apparently" Kostas Kalogeropoulos of the communist site is not the Kostas Kalogeropoulos of w.p. (his real name became publicly known because he participated in a public trial related to w.p. in Greece). If, however, is not the same K.K., he doesn't need any intermediates to clarify this in this discussion. Where is the "personal attack"?

As for the "extra-wp activities", yes, we have life outside wp, and wp is not a regime. Wp is actually part of modern life, wp community is part of the wider real peoples' community, we have citizen's rights to discuss whatever we like, and anybody can discuss and criticize it in the public sphere provided he/she doesn't violate any laws. To be exact, I discussed about this user with a third person only once, some years ago and that's all. Kalogeropoulos himself had give me his mobile telephone number about 10 years ago and proposed that we meet, which I declined because I didn't care to know more about him. May I also remind everybody that Kalogeropoulos was not elected as an administrator, but appointed by one user with the consent of one more.

Although this is not the issue in this discussion, I would appreciate a brief commend by any other user or administrator on the fact that an english article was translated to another language and was immediately deleted with no discussion. Could someone delete without discussion the english article Russian political jokes, too?--Skylax30 (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't wish to delve any more into the background, but would point out that what happens to Greek Wikipedia articles is no business of the English Wikipedia, and that this is an encyclopedia, not a place to exercise "citizen's rights". Phil Bridger (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Of course. This had been pointed out to certain ruf.. users in the Greek WP (not by me), but they wanted to verify it.--Skylax30 (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Making things worse, Skylax30 is utilizing a Greek insult, ruf which stands for rufianoi (rufianos-ρουφιανος in greek- means an unethical kind of informer to the authorities). He striked the the word though, I wonder why...Cinadon36 06:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment: For the meaning of the above-written ruf.., cf. wikt:en:ρουφιάνος. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 07:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

List of Grand Designs episodes

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

---

Can someone restore Series 21 and Series 22 to List of Grand Designs episodes? A lot of work has been lost. It was only the summaries that needed to be deleted. Khiikiat (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Khiikiat: please address this directly with the administrator who deleted the copyright violations, at User talk:Justlettersandnumbers. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Daniel: I have already done that, but the administrator has not responded. Can someone else deal with it? Khiikiat (talk) 06:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

You waited 24 hours. This isn't a super-urgent issue, please give them another 24 to respond before asking for outside assistance. Daniel (talk) 06:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Khiikiat and Daniel: it wasn't really necessary to wait for Justlettersandnumbers here: revisions containing copyright violations cannot be restored, period. This article had copyvios going back to July 2020. We can't selectively delete content from a revision, so it's reasonable and a normal approach to simply restore the newest revision before the copyvio occurred, which is what happened, although that does result in some lost work. I've reviewed just now and took a different approach: I've partially restored the most recent revision but removed the episode summaries which were copied from the show's website, which also includes the series 21/22 tables. I think that should get you to where you need to be. Anyone please feel free to review my work. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Khiikiat, please excuse me for not answering you promptly; I did in fact look at this, saw that it involved a good deal of editing, and delayed replying. Please thank Ivanvector for doing that work (thanks from me too, of course). Oh, and please don't bring this sort of routine matter to this board, which is for serious stuff. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

"Oh, and please don't bring this sort of routine matter to this board, which is for serious stuff" - kinda exactly the point I was trying to make. Daniel (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Carmena Seoul

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

---

Carmena Seoul has repeatedly made edits capitalizing job titles contrary to MOS:JOBTITLES and has persisted even after I directed them to the guideline and explained how it applied to their edits. Wallnot (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but edit-warring against what's been established at/by WP:JOBTITLES won't get you anywhere, accept a block. GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Edit warring “against what’s established” by JOBTITLES? When did I do that? Wallnot (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

My indenting mistake (after all my preaching), I meant Carmena Seoul. PS - Be prepared for his possible ips, socks. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Also known as User_talk:74.221.181.177 & User talk:66.18.33.12. -- GreenC 00:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, GreenC, and now CU-blocked; please also see User:Kyle Simmens and User:First Lady of The Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: Perhaps User_talk:96.4.231.83 as well? Wallnot (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editor continues to add unreferenced content after multiple warnings

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

---

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

The title kind of says what the problem is. This unsourced addition followed yet another specific plea to use references on their talkpage. I have to say I don’t know if they are reading their talk page. They have never posted to user talk space as far as I can see.

The subject this editor seems to be a SPA towards is beauty pageants, under general sanctions. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Alright. If Felipevmvillalobos wishes to return as an editor, they can start by responding to talk page messages, to proclaim their adherence to our guidelines for sourcing, and to acknowledge that in a collaborative project they need to ... collaborate. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Sounds reasonable to me. I might be coming back ... we have many editors very much like this in 2021 pageants right now – most acutely Miss Universe 2021 – and Miss Earth 2021 and a strong history of sockpuppetry. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Persistent WP:TENDENTIOUS editing by user:Afroditeiraq

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

---

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

1. Given a DS warning by admin El C[39]
2. Been already once reported at ANI.[40]
3. Given separate warnings by me, Loafiewa, Semsûrî, HistoryofIran and Shadow4dark[41]-[42]
4. Added "Iraq" to the Achomi language page. No source, edit summary or explanation.[43]
5. Changed "Saudi" into "Afro-Saudi" on the Mustafa al-Darwish page. No source was added.[44]
6. Added unsourced material to the Anti-Arabism page. No edit summary/explanation.[45]
7. Changed "Iranian" into "Iranic" at the Kurds page without WP:CON, sources or whatsoever. Also added unsourced figures.[46]
8. Moved "Kurds in Iraq" to "Southern Kurds" without using WP:RM, etc. Edit summary: "Because Iraq is our home and Kurds in Iraq makes us sound foreign"[47]
9. Accuses veteran editors of "edit warring with him" when they are reverted for adding unsourced figures and changing sourced content.[48]
10. Added "Alcohol in Iraq" to the Alcohol in Iran page. No edit summary/explanation.[49]
11. Changed "Zanj" on the Afro-Iranians page into "Persians" and "Shirazi people". No source, edit summary or explanation.[50]
12. Added "Arab-Kurd" on the Abd al-Karim Qasim page. No source, edit summary or explanation.[51]
13. Changed "Iraqi citizens of Persian background or descent" into "ethnic Persians from Iraq" without reason.[52]
14. Account created on 23 July 2021[53]

Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that said editor's editorial pattern is not a net worth to this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. I guess the warning didn't take. El_C 12:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Persistent overlinking by Nadhif Altafy

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

---

Nadhif Altafy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been asked many times by several different editors (see here, here, here, here, here, here and here) to refrain from linking years, adding links in section headings or duplicate links. They have failed to reply to any of these messages (they've never edited an article talk page or a user talk page), and have chosen to continue the disruptive editing. FDW777 (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Warnings going back more than a year. I've blocked them indefinitely with a note on how to take care of that. Tiderolls 12:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Not sockpuppetry, or maybe sockpuppetry?

I'm bringing this here because I'm not clear if it is sockpuppetry as in active block evasion, or just plain disruptive editing. Yesterday I spotted a number of accounts that followed a naming pattern (all beginning with an Asian-sounding name and ending in a couple of numbers) and the same contribution pattern - pasting large amounts of Tamil language content from what looks like some sort of academic paper on horticulture onto their individual user pages. I discussed this with admin @Longhair on his talk page (link to discussion) and later put them to WP:AIV when @Materialscientist blocked one of the users and put a sockpuppet tag on the user's page. However none of the other users were tagged and no SPI case was created. Today another tranche of accounts has been created.

Materialscientist's possible original sockpuppeteer account registered in 2011 with no contributions to date:

• Sowmiya PS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Yesterday's accounts:

• Rupaa02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Muthuveni .M0812 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rithika02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Yuvasree243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PS SOWMIYA 095 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (this is the one Materialscientist blocked and tagged as a sockpuppet of a very old account, and the only one to re-create the user page after CSD)

Today's accounts:

• Yuvashree.L(118) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SANKAR C 81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SNEGAN S 94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MOHANRAJ 222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RAMIASHREE(076) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SANKARAN.C 80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• VIDHYA.L(115) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Elakiya.M(023) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vivin Michael (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Srinithi.K(095) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not something I have seen before. I'm not an admin but am a reasonably experienced vandal fighter and sometimes sockpuppet spotter, but this has me beaten. Really odd. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: I just added three more to today's list --10mmsocket (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: And another one --10mmsocket (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: And another highlighed by @Extraordinary Writ --10mmsocket (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: And another one --10mmsocket (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

SANKAR and SNEGAN might be connected because of how similar their usernames are. However I"m not sure about the others. If their edits are similar enough then we might have a duck that's quacking quite loudly here. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 15:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The content added all looks like it is from the same paper (or website) but because it's in Tamil not English it's hard to pinpoint the exact source - it's detailed information about horticulture and science of seed propagation. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Vivin Michael (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) follows the same pattern, with more userspace-based Tamil horticulture. Not sure what's going on here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

They are clearly all connected, but I think this might be a rather misguided wiki-ed like thing? --Blablubbs (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Has anyone tried talking to any of these accounts? And I don't mean posting a template, I mean actually talking. Could it be an edit-a-thon? Could it be a class? Even if it's one person, has anyone explained to this person (or any of these accounts) what the problem is? Deleting the pages and blocking the accounts might be what's causing new accounts/pages to be created: the person(s) might think their edits aren't being saved, or it's a technical problem. I'm also confused about why the pages are being deleted... not a webhost? I mean, if people want to draft an article on their userpage, that's allowed, isn't it? Is it copyvio? (I couldn't find a putative source for the text on Google, but then it's in Tamil.) I don't really see disruption here, but I see a lack of WP:AGF and some seemingly heavy-handed responses to what may just be confused new user(s). Levivich 15:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I keep monitoring new accounts as well, spotted a few more users-

• Rithiksha0718 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dharaneeja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nivetha.v(60) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• D.SUGANTHRI 098 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• L V THANISHA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• A.SUMIYA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sangamithra012345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• G.Brindha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SUNDARAPANDIAN K 101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Abinayarajasekaran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Manjulaarivazhagan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nithishkumar5678 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Prabavathi V(064) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NOMARYS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vinotha12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lavanya.E(047) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Meera2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Preethika.R(067) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sujitha Rajendran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Noted them to be botany/biology articles upon translating a few. I was under the impression that it might be some kind of informal WikiEdu project that a professor might've instructed students to complete, but having it in Tamil on the English Wikipedia doesn't make sense. This is just a guess though. MT Train^Talk 15:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

These PDFs uploaded to Commons yesterday and today could be related. However, none of the users have edited the English Wikipedia. File:Anusuya tamil ass.pdf, File:Kokila sree tamil assignment.pdf, File:Sheela tamil assignment.pdf, File:Shifanaa tamil assignment.pdf, File:Urmila tamil assignment.pdf. Johnj1995 (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm actually concerned that the user pages may actually be copyright violations. They're clearly not typed user pages, but copy and pastes from textbooks. Is it a class teacher's notes that are being inserted, or is it copy and paste from a textbook source? Dunno. Canterbury Tail talk 23:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Good point. I ran some of the user pages above through Earwig's Copyvio Detector, a tool I believe a number of Wikipedians use, and it came up with nothing, i.e. 0% copyvio 10mmsocket (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Are the PDFs related? All of the PDFs include "translation in Tamil" in the file description and were added to the Commons category "Translation". If they are related, does this indicate that the user pages are translations from a textbook? Johnj1995 (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Additions 21 September:

• Muthukumar M 048 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 10mmsocket (talk • contribs) 12:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Try {{subst:contrib-ta1}} ~~~~ -- Cabayi (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Jayashree1320 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a part of this. Notfrompedro (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• New PDF upload, File:Ravindhran tamil assignment.pdf. Also see my previous comments for more information. Johnj1995 (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Venbaa2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added another --10mmsocket (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Still no closer to sorting this. I see today (Wednesday lunchtime (UK)) that Yuvasree243 (talk · contribs) has re-created his/her deleted user page with the same type of content. I have asked them why but have received no response as yet. Ditto the same question on those who posted files to Commons. --10mmsocket (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@10mmsocket: I've found some breakthrough on this— these users appear to be students at [specifics redacted] This does appear to be some kind of misguided academic project. MT Train^Talk 12:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Really interesting. Any idea what to do, or how to stop it? They keep coming b.t.w. --10mmsocket (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Two new ones 22 September

• K.SARANYA (082) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ABINAYA.M(002) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Added File:Naveen tamil assignment.pdf. Johnj1995 (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Blablubbs: Please see my comment above. Is there any way an admin or folks at WikiEdu can get in touch with the university to guide them in the right direction and stop the influx of these (potentially copyrighted) articles on EN-WP? There's an email address at the bottom of the webpage at [specifics redacted] to contact them, since the articles are relevant to this department. Thanks! MT Train^Talk 14:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

At this point, copyrighted or not, it appears that the PDF files and the user pages are just using Wikipedia as a webhost and should just be deleted. Sorry if this messes with a class project, but I find it doubtful that this university assignment, if it is indeed, is going to be creating good articles in English on the English Wikipedia. It seems that they may well be in the wrong place, or at least the wrong project. Canterbury Tail talk 15:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

We don't know how many more users are there, so at this point contacting a person in authority at the university to notify them seems better. Few more detected-

• User:Satheeshkumar MV(083)/sandbox
• User:Deepak0910/sandbox/ஈரமான நிலப் பயிர்களுக்கு நாற்றங்கால் வளர்ப்பதற்காக
• User:Satheeshkumar MV(083)/sandbox
• User:Jashwanth2003/sandbox/பல்வேறு நீர்ப்பாசன முறைகளைக் கவனித்தல்
• User:Krishore0508
• User:Nivethitha Munusamy
• User:Vasundraramajayam(112)
• User:Sarumathi.k(083)
• User:Aakash Kamal

An admin can advise if CSD is the way forward. MT Train^Talk 16:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

And another two --10mmsocket (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Aakash Kamal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Deepak jai agri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• @10mmsocket: I suggest opening a SPI report on the oldest account. WP:DUCK applies, it is obviously the same individual, and furthermore some of them have CU blocks by Materialscientist which means there is technical evidences allowing to connect them. When CUs make a block, they don't always open a SPI, but given the amount of accounts you are documenting a SPI is the way forward. It is also obviously a copy of something (possibly offline, possibly machine translated to Tamil), it is not being typed up this fast. A single CU check might be able to whack the bunch, and then G5 the creations.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I have a couple of concerns.

1. Some of these editors are blocked. If this is by now clearly a class of some kind, shouldn't they be unblocked? I strongly disagree that this is "obviously the same individual". Pinging @Materialscientist:, since it is a checkuserblock and maybe I'm missing something.
2. If there is a legit copyright issue (is there?), then I can understand deleting the pages and leaving explanatory notes on their user talk pages, but otherwise, there's currently no reason to believe these pages aren't going to be used for eventual translation or something. Certainly doing no harm right now (unless, like I said, it is a copyright issue).
3. I realize it's done in good faith, trying to be helpful, but... isn't User:Mark the train's research and apparent discovery of the actual class and associated names outing? We certainly wouldn't let someone identify User:John Doe as the John Doe that lives in Ames Iowa and goes to ISU, if they didn't do that themselves. If someone doesn't give me a good reason not to very soon, I'm going to have to revdel a whole bunch of versions of this page. Or more likely ask Oversight to do it.

I realize there's a good chance that no productive articles in English might come of this, but maybe they will. Aren't we kind of micro-managing how other people choose to edit here? Shouldn't we wait, see if anyone answers the questions being asked of them, and see what they do next before trying to "resolve" this? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Floq. When I wrote up above three days ago asking if this was a class I had already googled the names and figured that much out but didn't want to violate outing by revealing that. It is very obviously not the same person, it's a class, clearly some kind of assignment, which means it's almost certainly not copyvio. Also, they're not mainspace articles, so it's not that kind of disruption, and I don't get how anyone thinks this is using Wikipedia as a web host (hosting what? Class assignments?), especially since user pages aren't indexed and the PDFs aren't OCR'd. In other words, no offense, but a lot of the speculation in this thread is just wrong. There's no need to block users or delete these pages. Reaching out to them (as has already been done) is the right move, let's just see if they respond. Remember: what they're doing isn't harmful. Levivich 14:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with both Floq and Levivich. They haven't harmed any article in mainspace to this point. There doesn't appear to be any copyvio issues and its a serious stretch to label it web hosting. Is it misguided? Perhaps. I guess that depends on what the real intent of the assignment is. Regardless it appears to be harmless at this time. --ARoseWolf 15:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• I must say that a few people do not seem to be applying WP:AGF to editors from South Asia. Some of the editors above are looking very hard for a policy that may have been violated rather than looking for a way to help. The user page creators should get the same respect as editors from the US or the UK. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

204.109.64.0/19

Please revoke talk page access for 204.109.64.0/19. Please see the filter log for 204.109.64.87, which resulted in a bot report at AIV (which was immediately removed, because this range is currently blocked) and this edit. Johnj1995 (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing (and seeming vandalism) by IP User:142.247.123.180 at Haplogroup E-M123

An IP (142.247.123.180) keeps deleting sourced information (sourced in the body of the article) from the infobox if Haplogroup E-M123 regarding the origin of that haplogroup, each time with no explanation for their changes. I reverted them twice explaining why but they continue to edit war. Their first deletion here: [[54]] And their second deletion (after reverting my restoration of the material and ignoring my explanation): [[55]] They then reverted me again here: [[56]] (still ingoring my explanation). I warned them that I would file a report if they continued.

I have just left a notice of this report on their personal Talk page here: [[57]].

Here is the page's edit history for reference: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Haplogroup_E-M123

Any help is appreciated. Skllagyook (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: I semi-protected the article for a week. If further issues arise, please put a new section on article talk with a brief explanation regarding why the article content is correct and why the changes are undesirable. Don't mention the IPs. Ping me from the talk page (if needed) and I'll have a look. Johnuniq (talk) 06:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I will. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Actually, this could be an LTA. We’ve been tracking a group of editors coordinating off wiki and this is - broadly speaking - one of their known areas of operation. If the chance presents itself I’ll look closer at this later today, otherwise if you want to reach out to the spi people I can give them what I suspect may be one of the two LTA accounts editing from this address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:b114:32a1:b16d:eb1:284:b30c (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Alright, I took a look and though the M.O. is similar to what I'm looking for, it doesn't match enough to warrant a follow up or additional surveillance at the current time. In a look through the history though I did find one suspect isp address which edited some time back, and I've checked the contribution history of User:Skllagyook and found nothing in their contributions to suggest a good hand / bad hand account. I note for the record that the Arbcom authorized Discretionary Sanctions for the Horn of Africa area (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn_of_Africa#New_alternate_motion_(3-month_DS_trial)) are still active, so if this problem comes up again you may consider placing the page under DS to help curb this kind of behavior. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: and @TomStar81: Hello. I just received a ping/notification and am a bit confused. Am (or was) I suspected of some kind of abuse or violation? (The IP user above mentioned the SPI people). And what is a good hand / bad hand account? When they mentioned tracking "a group of editors coordinating off wiki" who does that refer to? Have I done something wrong? I am neither a sock nor a meat puppet. I have never had any account but this one, and I don't coordinate with anyone off wiki and never have. I'm a little alarmed and confused that I was mentioned (Maybe I'm overreacting or misunderstanding?). Any explanation is much appreciated. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Johnuniq, Also, as you instructed, I have posted an expanation (with quotes from the sources) on the article's Talk page of why the article content is correct (and also made some changes to more closely follow the sources, having reviewed the sources). (I posted it also partially in response to a new account who had posted in the Talk page seemingly defending the disruptive IP's edits, who did not seem to be aware or WP:NOR - perhaps the same person as the IP?). My explanation to them here: [[58]]. Skllagyook (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I noticed the gratuitous mention of your username. My assumption is that TomStar81 has in mind some LTA who has used good/bad-hand accounts and therefore investigated. I would have written the conclusion in a positive sense, for example, that Skllagyook is an established editor in good standing (which implies not connected with the LTA) without any suggestion that such a connection might exist. Re the article, thanks. The new editor is standard for these kinds of events—it might be a sock but it's possibly a meat puppet with some off-wiki site promoting a fringe idea. There is no need for any further comment you add to be as long—just stick to "need a RS" or "that is not an RS" etc. Let me know if disruption occurs. Johnuniq (talk) 07:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq:. I see. I thought that might be the case but wasn't sure. I will do what you suggest. Thank you again. Skllagyook (talk) 08:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I apologize if the original post of mine was confusing, I don’t get a lot of free time these days since I’m classified an essential worker so it’s essentially eat sleep and go back to the grindstone. @Skllagyook: as Johniq stated, you are an established editor in good standing and nothing I see in your contributions shakes my faith that you are net positive to the project. In this case, based on hard learned lessons from the past, we’ve learned to look at both the account or isp address being accused and the account or isp address doing the accusing in order to ensure that the two are separate entities and not one person attempting to bolster stock in one account at the expense of another. I don’t see that in this case, and I see nothing that is or should shake my belief that you’re an honest editor working to further the goals of the project. In short, keep calm and carry on :) 2600:1011:B114:32A1:2D17:DFEE:8C1F:BD35 (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I see. That makes sense. Thank you for the explanation. Skllagyook (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

IP Back just making disruptive edits

I previously had reported IP Ranges 88.232.168.0/21 and 85.107.107.46/21 for disruptive editing where they will change the size of non free logos or delete/change history dates of clubs. The ban appears to be over and you can see edits under range 85.107.107.46/21 for 85.107.105.94 have all been reverted. I also found 95.10.7.234 which I'm suspicious off and seems WP:QUACK because its the same edit and what brought them to my attention to these edits before. Not sure what can be done here, can the range be banned again?— NZFC^(talk)(cont) 17:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Unblock request of Saotura

As a courtesy I have transferred the unblock request of Saotura here. I make no endorsement in doing so. 331dot (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Greetings. In late 2020, I was site banned by the community after an argument on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. The ground of my ban was that since I was trying to push a political agenda, I wasn't here for building an encyclopedia and some other things on the same path. Now, when I look back, even though I denied them at that moment, I accept most of these accusations. However, my point is not that my block was unjustified. In this period of time, I changed. I see how and why what I did was wrong. After being banned from English Wikipedia, I started editing on Turkish Wikipedia. Since that time, I have made more than 5.000 edits and created dozens of articles on many different subjects. I also promoted three good articles, with another one currently waiting at nomination. I even created some articles that were directly related to the Armenian Genocide (one of the grounds of my ban at that moment was that I tried to deny it), for example, one about its terminology. My attitudes and the way I look at Wikipedia have widely changed since the date I was blocked, and I started using it to actually build an encyclopedia. I would be more than happy to return to English Wikipedia and this time start making constructive edits with the purpose of helping the spread of information, instead of trying to build a political agenda, and I appeal to your generosity about it. Thanks.--Saotura (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It would be nice if a Turkish speaker could review tr:Ermeni Kırımı terminolojisi. Is it as neutrally worded as our own Terminology of the Armenian genocide? If so, I'm inclined to endorse a second chance in this case. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 18:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Psiĥedelisto, for the most part it's a direct translation of the English revision, but there are two deviations that don't bode well: Saotura's Turkish version is missing the claims regarding historians' rejection of claims of anachronism (in the sub-section titled Genocide/Soykırım), and the line at the beginning of the English/İngilizce section Contemporary observers used unambiguous terminology to describe the genocide, including "the murder of a nation", "race extermination" and so forth has been translated as Dönemin gözlemcileri Ermeni Kırımı'nı tanımlamak için "bir ulusun katli" ve "ırk imhası" gibi belirsiz birçok terim kullandılar (emphasis mine). Other Turkish speakers can check me on this, but I'm fairly certain that this changes the meaning from [observers...] used unambiguous terminology to [observers...] used various ambiguous terms, inverting the meaning. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll note that Saotura pinged me from their talk page to offer an explanation regarding the content I pointed out. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• link to the original community ban discussion. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Honestly it kinda reminds me of what happened with me after I was banned from Fandom. I got banned and about a year later I looked back on my ban and saw that they were right for banning me and so I requested I get another chance stating this and also that I had changed in that year. If the user has made edits that are within the rules of Turkish Wikipedia (which I suspect have some similarities to the ones on English Wikipedia) then I would definitely say they deserve another chance. The user definitely seems to have admitted that they were in the wrong (even though they denied they were in the wrong at the time of being banned) and they definitely seemed to have changed. If they do return I would definitely be willing to help them out. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 19:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Saotura supplied links to four higher quality articles in Turkish Wikipedia, and they look okay to me. With the goal of seeking to confirm an improvement in Saotura, I wanted to see some other recent edits, ones that were not chosen to prove a point. I looked at tr:Türk Kurtuluş Savaşı Batı Cephesi which is represented in English at Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922). The first addition by Saotura[59] added a massive 640,000 deaths of Turkish civilians killed by Greek regular soldiers and Greek rebels, cited at first to a GIF image of statistics hosted on Hawaii.edu, and also to a book by Justin McCarthy that says "From 1919 to 1922, about 640,000 Muslims died in the region", but doesn't specify that Greek fighters killed these people. In the English version of the article, the number is challenged by Konstantinos Travlos who says that Justin McCarthy "arbitrarily" assigned 640,000 deaths to the Greek sector of fighting, calling the figure into question. I'm concerned about an edit that was initially based on figures tallied in a GIF image, and I'm concerned that a much larger number is featured more prominently in Turkish Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) @Binksternet: Our version doesn't seem to try to enumerate civilian losses in the infobox at all, instead preferring to explain the situation in prose: Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922) § Atrocities and claims of ethnic cleansing by both sides. I agree that the situation is stated very differently on Turkish Wikipedia than in the sources which it cites. Given Saotura pinged Rosguill to clarify their comment here, a similar ping would be welcome for this one. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 00:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support unblock (Non-administrator comment) - the attitude expressed above aligns with the idea that blocks aren't punitive, and are instead designed to prevent disruption. Not only has disruption seemingly been prevented (as intended), the editor in question has undertaken some self-assessment, reflection, and rehabilitation. The interaction with Rosguill above (one mis-translation was highlighted and the response was an apology and pledge to fix it) is encouraging. Ultimately, if its all an act and they haven't changed their ways, a diligent mop'ist can turn their editing privileges off again. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support unblock (Non-administrator comment) Judging from the way he is requesting the unblock, I am for it. If he is involved in disrupting WP once more, he can be blocked again and "fooled me once, shame on you, fool me twice, the block will end when the sun gets cold". I haven't seen his articles in Turkish WP nor I think it is hugely significant. Everyone can build an encyclopedia, the q. is if he is causing mess/wars while doing so. Cinadon36 06:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support unblock, Saotura seemingly understands why they were blocked and has also seemingly amended their behavior. The block no longer serves a purpose. -- Mike 🗩 13:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• No support for unblock: considering the amount of tendentious Nationalistic editing leading to the original block I'm worried 9 months isn't enough for anyone to change their perspective that much, comments by Rosguill and Binksternet support this too. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support unblock: In reviewing what Rosguill and Binksternet wrote I see something completely different. I see an editor being bold and, yeah, making mistakes but willing to correct those mistakes. ANY dogmatic approach to ANY subject is bad no matter what that subject is. We have to get out of the mode that someone that may have a view we don't like can not learn from their interactions with us. They may still hold their views and thats okay but they must be willing to follow policy, collaborate and follow consensus. If the point is to educate through knowledge and experiences then we are seeing an improvement. If anyone has evidence to the contrary then please present it--ARoseWolf 14:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  I completely agree. Basically everyone will have some opposing view to something on Wikipedia, but that doesn't always mean that they won't follow policies. There's a bunch of stuff on WIkipedia I don't necessarily agree with, but I follow policies regardless. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 14:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  ANY dogmatic approach to ANY subject is bad no matter what that subject is. I would like to propose that having a dogmatic approach to the subject of source falsification or misrepresentation, as in the example documented above by Binksternet, is definitely not bad. --JBL (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  JayBeeEll, that comment was in reference to the original dispute over a pro-Turkish vs pro-Greek POV and was more-or-less directed at the subject of this discussion and meant as a warning that a return to that type of editing could lead to further sanctions. That was not in reference to anything brought up by anyone else including Binksternet. I should have clarified that further. My apologies. --ARoseWolf 20:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Not an admin, but, if it's worth anything, I'd be prepared to extend this editor some rope with provisos. A community ban, broadly construed, from the subject(s) that caused the initial problem, for six months or so. Not from Turkish-subject articles in general – clearly they have something to add here that we would benefit from. But genocide and mass-murder and Greco-Turkish relations and the like being off-limits for a period would seem a way of them proving they have grown up (I'm inclined to believe that this happens, having been an idiot, albeit not on WP, when I was younger) and for en.wp to benefit in a subject area we could use more on-the-ground editors. ◦ Trey Maturin 17:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

That is a reasonable intermediate step to take; impose a topic restriction to give Saotura a trial period. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support unblock - Saotura seems to have been productive elsewhere whilst banned on en-Wiki. Unblock request seems genuine and a return to editing should be allowed. It should be understood that a return to past ways will lead to another CBAN which will be much, much harder to get overturned. Mjroots (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support The original CBAN discussion focused on Saotura not being here to build an encyclopedia as shown by their POV pushing and persistent denial of the Armenian genocide. Since the ban, Saotura has contributed productively to another Wikipedia and even translated our content on the Armenian genocide while maintaining a neutral tone (I'm willing to AGF that the "unambiguous" -> "ambiguous" issue Rosguill brings up really was due to a translation error). These suggest that Saotura would benefit our coverage of Turkish topics and that the concerns leading to the original ban are largely resolved. For this reason, I'm willing to lift it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

CatCafe edit warring immediately after block

Astonishingly, within a week of egregiously violating 3RR at Amanda Stoker, CatCafe has decided to go and edit war at Grace Tame. The history is a bit complex but these look like 4 reverts (possibly it's 3): 1234. Recall that 3RR applies whether involving the same or different material and that 3RR need not be violated for something to be edit warring (as it is here, edit summaries with the gist "okay okay I'll take it to the talk page but I'm just going to do this one revert first" are evidence that CatCafe knows this is edit warring).

CatCafe alleges that the two other edit warring users are the same person, which could be true but is still immaterial as to whether edit warring is acceptable. (Accusations of sockpuppetry like this do not count as sufficient for WP:3RRNO#3.) In this case, Brodiebrock is edit warring also but if they are genuinely a new user then I've just left them a notification explaining what 3RR and edit warring is, and if they're a sock then they'll be blocked at SPI. — Bilorv (talk) 09:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

While I've had some challenging times with CatCafe at AE (though admittedly my recollection of the details there are foggy), in fairness to them, Brodiebrock is failing to explain themselves beyond just staccato claims that are left hanging there. They express concerns regarding POV, but provide no follow up (POV how?). They also express concerns regarding policy adherence, but again provide no follow up (which policy?). I noted this much on the article talk page, using the {{admin note}} template to emphasize my role as an uninvolved admin in this matter (diff). El_C 12:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Looking at Brodiebrock's editing history, the first edits were on 29 August 2021:

• Edit 1 removed material from The Australian with the edit summary: "Restored text to consensus reached on talk page. Please do not restore this point of view without discussion on talk page." This appears to be in reference to this 2019 discussion and removed material added by Polyshine the day before.
• Edit 2 undid an edit by Polyshine on the article of Tanya Plibersek, with the edit summary: "Restored original text. Please discuss on the talk page if you want to make such changes." This text concerns Australian Labor politician Plibersek's husbands criminal conviction from before they met.
• Edit 3 blanked a section from the Morrison Government article about a $600 million+ pork-barelling scandal, with the edit summary: "This is not notable. Please discuss at the talk page if you want to add such controversial text." This was also removing content added by Polyshine, and it has since been restored.
• Edit 4 undid another Polyshine edit, this time removing favourable comment (though questionable on DUE grounds) from the article of Mark Dreyfus, another Labor politician.
• Edit 6, made 22 minutes after edit 2, added Plibersek's husband to the lede of the article. I have just removed this addition, pointing to the talk page consensus against its inclusion.

The more recent edit war at Grace Tame has removed content relevant to her activism. Tame has been a critic of the Morrison Government on abuse-related issues. So, Brodiebrock is a "new" editor ​who:

• uses edit summaries the cite prior talk page consensus in their first edit;
• is performing changes all in one political direction - minimising criticism of the Morrison Government (and The Australian is very much a supporter of this Government and anti-Labor), including in distorting the activism of Grace Tame, adding negative emphasis to the Plibersek WikiBio (in the face of an existing talk page concensus), and removing positive material from Dreyfus' WikiBio
• knowingly edit warring with CatCafe (who should not have edit warred back) - this is Brodiebrock's (at least) fourth revert in 24 hours on the Grace Tame article and has the edit summary "Please take this to the talk page rather than edit war your entry into the article page."
  • Bold removal
  • 1 h 48 min later, revert 1
  • 12 min later, a complete undo of CatCafe (revert 2)
  • after a further 5 min another complete undo of CatCafe (revert 3) - this one with the edit summary "You've changed the text. You take it to talk" in response to CatCafe's summary "Take it to talk. This topic is about Tame, and the reason why she became an activist. It is central."
  • even after that, another 5 minutes later, Brodiebrock's fourth revert and all in just over two hours!
• making claims of personal attacks and harrasment [60] [61] and appears to have been following Polyshine at first
• sees a quote from LGBT activist Sally Rugg about her coming out as not passing the notability test for inclusion in her WikiBio.

It seems obvious to me that Brodiebrock is a SOCK, and has a POV that is inconsistent with the pages they are editing, questionable judgement, and is edit warring and accusing another editor who posts a warning about it as engaging in harassment. Bilorv, in posting about CatCafe, did you not notice (a) the edit warring from Brodiebrock and (b) the bias / POV pushing? Has Brodiebrock shown enough to earn a NOTHERE indef? 112.213.147.109 (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

There's already an SPI open, where your comment would better fit. Brodiebrock being a sock would not justify CatCafe's behaviour. — Bilorv (talk) 06:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I have added a note to the SPI, Bilorv. I do think it is sad, though, that you are so intent on CatCafe's edit warring (which I wasn't defending) to not have any concerns about POV-pushing and bias in article space editing, whether done by a confirmed sock or not. Article space is supposed to be important, isn't it? 112.213.147.109 (talk) 08:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

This AN/I discussion is about the behavior of @CatCafe. It is not to discuss any SPI cases. That is why @Bilrov is focused on this topic here. There are proper venues for every discussion. Edit warring usually involves at least one side pushing their own POV so whether its a sock or an established editor doing it doesn't really matter. Neither are a positive for the encyclopedia. --ARoseWolf 12:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

A while back CatCafe was pretty confrontational toward me and a few other editors in the Jessica Yaniv article. I don't remember any editing warring being involved, but they did accuse me of being a raving transphobe. Plus, they said me and the other editors were "wikisplaining and working overtime in order to whiteant the article." Among other things. So there's clearly some behavioral issues that should be dealt with. Regardless of if Brodiebrock turns out to be a sock. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Neverrainy

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

Despite numerous warnings and blocks, Neverrainy continues to be a problematic contributor. Recent offenses include blanking sections of their own talk page instead of communicating, unexplained deletion of referenced material, and refusal to use talk pages to get a consensus. As Swarm put it, the only option eventually becomes to block them indefinitely. Stewartmurdock (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The fact that he's blanked his AN/I notification kinda speaks for itself. Is there enough grounds for at least a semi-permanent block here? Stewartmurdock (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Anyone is free to remove content from their user talk-page, including ANI notices. This report (with exactly one potentially problematic diff) does not do an effective job of illustrating a pattern of disruption. If there is a genuine pattern of disruption here, it should be easy to document it. --JBL (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Dineshs01102000 using many IP and account to edit

Today 2401:4900:606f:e05:1062:e32d:eacc:6d29 deleted content of her corruption of J. Jayalalithaa two times.12. The page protected because of his vandalism and now User:Dineshs01102000 came to delete the same content with account by telling untruth "Already Given below in the section".3 It is untruth because no info about her corruption is given in the section below. He is reported before for doing this in Jayalalithaa page with same IP address.4....2409:4072:782:9FF8:FBEF:CC5B:926:F96D (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@2409:4072:782:9FF8:FBEF:CC5B:926:F96D: What? There's a whole section J. Jayalalithaa § Corruption cases. Also, if you report someone here, you have to warn them on their talk page. This AN/I report seems premature. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 18:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Some content must be at top about it. He is using many accounts. 2409:4072:71F:882A:9B35:7175:9B8:8C20 (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Possible sock/meat puppetry or block evasion on AfD

Could we please have an administrator have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rockin Rose? There seems to be several socks with no or few other edits to the encyclopedia - mostly IPs, some who share specific behavioral similarities with the indef'd article creator. Thanks in advance! Netherzone (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment I've struck the disruptive keep !votes. dudhhr_Contribs 18:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Dudhhr. I wasn't sure if it was ok for a non-admin (which I am) to do that. Netherzone (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Netherzone and Dudhhr: There's still more for an admin to do here if one wishes—I've requested on the WP:AfD that as the article has not a snowball's chance in Hell for surviving the entire process, it need not be run through the entire process, which will just invite more abuse of the process; also sending a message that this abuse does not help bring about its aims. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 22:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• The AfD has been closed by Ritchie333. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 12:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Yogeshpahade9

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

---

• Yogeshpahade9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• G. H. Raisoni University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• G. H. Raisoni University, Saikheda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user is actively causing disruption on this article, from performing controversial page moves to making controversial edits, and now resorting to making cut&paste page moves on the subject. Talk page warnings from both me and Muhandes have all been ignored, and the user has refused discussion. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. The user has been here for two years, their talk page is full of warnings, which literally ask them to stop disruptive editing, inform them that their edits were reverted because they did not appear constructive, promise that they get blocked if they continue disruptive editing, but I do not see many explanations why their editing is disruptive and why were the reverted edits not constructive. They are currently trying to perform cut-and-paste move, but nobody cared to explain them what it is and why it is a bad idea. Probably they get blocked anyway, still without much understanding why.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I tried to explain to them multiple times. Here I am asking them to write the article first, and then create a dab page. Later I specifically asked them what they are trying to achieve and implored them to stop disruptive editing and discuss. I asked them multiple times to stop the disruptive editing and discuss things, e.g. here and here. This does not even counting edit summaries in which they were asked multiple times to discuss things, e.g. 1, 2, 3. If they will not understand why they are blocked it is not by lack of trying to explain but because they refuse to engage. --Muhandes (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

the username sounds extremely familiar, but the talkpage history doesn't show my name. Can't recall where I saw them. —usernamekiran (talk) (guestbook) 00:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done, they continued edit-warring using IP which is beyond the pale in every situation. Blocked for a week, the page and the redirect semi-protected.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

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

User:SlimJim20013 and The Manorial Society of England and Wales

This is a SPA pushing links to this newly created article and organization https://www.manorialsociety.co.uk/ . A quick search of Google finds it is a front for a scam operation selling fake Barony titles (section 4). They are also creating fake history on Wikipedia to support their fake titles: Barony of Eye is debunked here (search on "Barony of Eye"). I'm reverting in mainspace but need help deleting the article and draft they made and whatever else is appropriate. Royalty for a fee is similar to vanity awards. -- GreenC 19:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

SlimJim absolves knowledge it was a scam operation or having a personal connection, they may in good faith be the victim of the scam themselves; their entire history on Wikipedia is adding content surrounding to this organization. -- GreenC 19:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

We've had issues over the past year with a couple of phony UK Barony titles, one of which had existed for several years. Maybe we could enlist folks from WikiProject British Royalty to give new articles some additional scrutiny. I've posted a notice on their talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Request for Intervention against Vandalism by User.

• Kisii people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wojak6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nyanza Cushitic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Moved from AVI ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 22:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Wojak6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Keeps on blanking sections and/or deleting content from the Kisii people article without providing adequate explanations and keeps on repeating despite efforts to undo his destructive edits. His edits are destructive in most of the other articles he has edited. He has continuously edited without leaving edit summaries despite being warned about that. His edits for most articles constitute vandalism as he changes or deletes content without providing good explanations for doing so. For instance, he has attempted to interfere with languages families by creating new non-existent language families within the Niger-Congo/Bantu languages articles which he has edited. He keeps on repeating such actions even after his edits are reversed. User needs to be stopped from vandalizing articles and all his edits need to be reverted as they are all fraudulent. This user seriously need to be blocked indefinitely from editing to stop his destructive editing activities. It is disturbing that he has not been blocked yet. Serious intervention needed to stop this actions. He is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather clearly vandalizing articles as shown by his edits on the "Kisii people" article and other articles. Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nyanza Cushitic: Wojak6 seems willing to discuss the content dispute on the article talk page. Maybe you should try that first? 2601:5C2:200:BEB:51B1:1AFD:9FA5:5EEF (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Blaza The Wolf: Wojak6 abruptly started editing the Kisii people article yesterday and has never edited the article before and/or has only edited a few times. He suddenly started blanking sections of the article without providing sufficient explanations. I reverted to an earlier version to take care of the damage and then reached out to him on his talk page suggested that he provides edit summaries with clear and logical rationales and stop vandalizing article. I also noted that some other editors have reached out to him and he ignores them and repeats the same. He also ignored me and repeated the same thing of blanking the Kisii people article today and I went back to the article is reversed his destructive edits and still reached out to him on his talk page and he still ignored me and repeated the same later today before the page was put on full protection and I still reversed to an earlier edit also before full protection was put on the Kisii People page. I'm sure, if the full page protection was put on the page he could have still repeated the blanking actions. Wojak has done the same mistakes on most of the other articles he has edited. I don't believe that Wojak6 is willing to discuss content dispute because he has ignored me on his talk page and has also ignored some other editors with similar concerns on his talk page. Its Wojak who started the whole issue by blanking the Kisii people article and ignoring the concerns on his talk page. Wojak seems to have started a thread on the article talk page that the Abagusii are Bantu and seemed to have some misconceptions which I have tried to clarify. Refer to the thread for more information. some of his claims are misconceptions and lack of understanding what the article is all about. Some of his claims about the article are not true and the article has been edited by many people and not just me. Wojak has done destructive edits in most of the articles he has edited and there is no way he is willing to discuss a dispute which he started. An intervention is needed to stop him from vandalizing articles because he is going to continue doing so since he has done that to other articles. He has mostly done destructively edited articles and most of his edits are reversed several times for most of the articles he has edited which will cause more editing wars with other people in the future. Wojak6 needs to be blocked. He has done enough destructive edits and most of his edits cause an edit war due to multiple reversions by other editors and his lack of willingness to stop his destructive editing. Please block him.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nyanza Cushitic: Leave me out of this please. I've only moved this from AIV and do not wish to be part of this discussion. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 23:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: I'm sorry, I thought you are the one resolving the issue. Is there someone else resolving the issue then?Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nyanza Cushitic: Not at the moment. Wait for an actual admin to assess the situation. I'm not an admin. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 00:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: Thank you for letting me know. How long does it take for the administrator to resolve the issue? Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nyanza Cushitic: No clue. Best to just be patient. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 00:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The page at Kisii people has been fully protected three days by User:Liz due to the edit warring. Please use the talk page to work on the dispute. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nyanza Cushitic: pinging ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 20:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: You said you are not an administrator, when is the administrator resolving the issue? Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I requested for intervention to stop Wojak6 from Vandalizing not only the Kisii people article but also other articles he has edited. I cannot resolve a dispute that does not exist. The editor was vandalizing the Kisii people article and I reversed his edits to earlier versions and even reached out to him on his talk page requesting him to stop vandalizing articles since he has repeatedly done that for many articles he has edited. He ignored me and again repeated the same mistake which I had to reverse again since he was literally blanking the article which is vandalism and still reached out to him to stop vandalizing the Kisii people article. He still ignored me and repeated the action of blanking the article which I reversed again and then User:Liz intervened by reinstating the full protection of the page which was necessary since the editor was going to continue vandalizing the article. I was simply trying to safe the article and not engaging in any edit war with the editor. The AnomieBot also tried reverting his edits without success as the editor was simply ignoring everything and repeating similar mistakes. Wojak6 has also ignored other editors expressing concerns about his edit habits on most articles which could be considered vandalism since he deletes content and/or makes changes on articles without providing any summaries for most of his edits and if he provides any summary, it is very inadequate to justify his destructive actions. Temporarily protecting the article is not a solution because once the protection is removed, he will still repeat the same mistakes. What about the many other articles he has vandalized? did they get any protection? Protection is not the solution. An intervention is needed to stop Wojak6 from vandalizing articles. This editor needs to be blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia articles. That is the only way to protect Wikipedia articles. The editor is still going to run into more edit wars with other editors given that most of his edits end up being reversed several times due to his destructive edits. An intervention is needed to stop Wojak6 from vandalizing articles. This user needs to be blocked urgently. There are no disputes to resolve here. Help is needed to block the user. Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed

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

---

131.226.64.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Hi, this has been posted to AIV for a while with no response. A rangeblock is needed for the IP range of 131.226.64.0/22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). There is vandalism coming from the entire range, so a more narrow block would not be sufficient. Thanks! Elli (talk | contribs) 04:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Note that per their contribs, they have a particular fixation on Fire Emblem characters, as well as General Mariano Alvarez and Reiven Umali. This has been going on all last night, and today as well. Action would be appreciated (each individual IPv4 address will only get used for a couple vandalisms and then abandoned). jp×g 04:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 year. That range just got done a few hours ago with a 3 month block by Bongwarrior. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Editor keeps uploading high-resolution non-free content

A new editor, Bravetubby persists in uploading non-free images at a resolution far higher than is necessary for the article or justified by the FUR (see WP:IMAGERES). These are the files affected:

• File:AsphaltUrbanGT.jpg
• File:Asphalt Urban GT.jpg
• File:Cars 2 Poster.jpg
• File:Cars 2006.jpg
• File:Paddington poster.jpg
• File:PaddingtonPOSTER.jpg
• File:Paddington2POSTER.jpg
• File:SummerSlam (2021) poster.jpg

He has been asked not to do it on his own talk page and at mine, but yet he continues to do so. Betty Logan (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

This doesn't seem worthy of ANI. They did something that they thought was helpful, and you reverted, and I haven't seen them reinstate the changes.

The only place where they have reverted more than once is at File:PaddingtonPOSTER.jpg which isn't an imageres issue - you support different images (they support a portrait one, while you support a landscape one). This is made clear by them saying How about I keep those posters on wikipedia (because I think they're much better), But I can lower the mb size because it's a non-free file, so it seems like they're completely willing to avoid high-res files, they simply prefer the portrait oriented image to the landscape one.

Also please keep in mind that there is a bot that automatically reduces image resolution so when someone uploads a new file, the resolution they upload it at does not matter (and the images they uploaded would've been automatically downscaled in a day or two anyway). Elli (talk | contribs) 04:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

They are being disruptive by continuing to upload images are far higher resolutions than is justifiable for non-free content. They have repeatedly done this several times despite being asked not to do so, most recently at File:Cars 2 Poster.jpg. We don't need multiple versions of non-free content scattered all over place. An editor who shows completely disregard for copyright policy is not being helpful. I have no preference for a landscape or portrait versio; I simply restored the original FUR compliant versions, regardless of their portrait/landscape format so you are not being particularly helpful by mischaracterising my actions. Perhaps it would be best if we let an administrator review the situation. Betty Logan (talk) 04:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like they're intentionally disregarding copyright policy to me, merely that they didn't understand the policy. As long as they stop - which I think they will, or at least will once they understand the policy clearly - I don't see any need for an administrator to implement sanctions here. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

They are aware of the policy as I have explained it to them and provided a link to it on their talk page. Therefore they are choosing to ignore it. Just because a bot will come along at some point and provide a technical fix, that does not address the behavioral issue of violating it in the first place. Also, I have not requested sanctions, I have requested administrator intervention. Personally I would block them from uploading files for a couple of months and see how they progress, but that's for an admin to decide. Betty Logan (talk) 05:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Being linked a policy doesn't necessarily mean they understand the policy. On their talk page, before linking to WP:IMAGERES, you linked to

• 1 2 explanatory supplements
• 1 2 3 4 5 guidelines
• 1 2 help pages
• 1 2 3 4 other information pages
• 1 essay
• 1 policy
• and a few other project-space pages I didn't count, such as the Teahouse

considering this is it really a surprise that someone might take a while to understand exactly what policies and guidelines they must read? Given what they've said, I don't think they are intentionally disregarding the policy here. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

If you really believe they don't understand the policy then I suggest we take the necessary actions to help them understand. Betty Logan (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Bbb23 has sock-blocked them indefinitely (just after I put a capsule explanation on their talk page, hey-ho). NebY (talk) 13:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Isn't a bot taking care of non-free too-high resolutions these days? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

We should not expect editors to rely on the bot to fix images because that still creates work that an admin has to go through and delete the high res image after the fact. A one-off mistake of an oversize image is not the problem, but here when the user has been told multiple times, and their response is "but these are better quality" and not referring to policy, is an issue. --Masem (t) 13:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Masem. I was beginning to wonder if I was over-reacting, or at least becoming outdated in my views. Looks like it has been resolved by Bbb23. Not surprised: [62]. Hopefully this will be a useful reminder that technical fixes are not behavioral solutions. If somebody shows such disregard for copyright law and fair use policy then we cannot be sure these problems do not manifest in other activities, such as copyvios. It's been a very weird day on Wikipedia so far. Apart from this case I am puzzled by another editor with a highly respectable editing history making very out-of-character edits by restoring super-old versions of articles. Could be a case of account hijacking so I'll wait and see... Betty Logan (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Masem: fyi, there is an admin bot that already does this too. The process is entirely automated. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Even though we have bots that are meant to handle all that automatically, this should not be taken as an implicit sign to uploaders they can upload images at any resolution they want. We still want editors to think and carefully consider all NFC elements on uploading - the bots are there to handle missteps in the process, and not meant as general purpose cleanup. As I mentioned above, for this specific editor, they clearly seemed to ignore the policy in that they wanted to keep the higher resolution images, so they were purposely uploading against policy. --Masem (t) 16:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Noting that I ECP'd File:PaddingtonPOSTER.jpg for one week independent of this report (by way of WP:RFPP), of which I was unaware at the time. El_C 16:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

TCssss34, NOTHERE block required

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

---

TCssss34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user removed comments at a FAR review [63], I reverted and gave a warning on their talk page per policy WP:TPG. However, after looking at their contribution history they did this on another talk page eg [64]. They appear to be targeting @Chipmunkdavis:'s contributions [65], [66] and have posted a frivolous warning to their talk page [67]. I presume the warning was from this revision referring to WP:LTA. I believe a WP:NOTHERE block is required. WCM_email 07:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Part of a current quite significant backlog at WP:SPI. I believe Checkuser applications are being looked at, so hopefully it will have more help soon, but my understanding is any uninvolved administrator may block on a behavioural basis with or without a technical check. CMD (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinite. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP editing

There has been, and continues to be, disruptive editing - mostly falling just short of vandalism - at Hess toys, and by apparently the same IP-hopping editor (locating to Enola, Pennsylvania) on a variety of other articles. Examples of IP accounts used below, but I'm sure there are others.

2601:981:4401:1CC0:9454:6DD:AABF:4692 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

2601:981:4401:1CC0:25E8:7D78:9F33:2CB6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

2601:981:4401:1CC0:271:47FF:FE6B:C074 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Can an admin look at this and take some action? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC) PS: Seems to be identical to blocked 98.235.155.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Request for a partial blocking for User:Assifbus

User:Assifbus,On User talk:Jimbo Wales. Assuming bad faith on other editors, politics promoting, keep disturbuting on the page and attack other editors even Wikimedia Foundation and even after more than one editor trying to persuade him to stop.

This user was already banned recently in zhwiki for his disobey the principle of wp:civ and happened here again.

Hope some sysops could take a look of User:Assifbus, thanks. Pavlov2 (talk) 13:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I declined a report filed by Pavlov2 against Assifbus at WP:AIV. I see no reason to take any action against Assifbus, who hasn't edited in the last couple of days, based on a discussion at Jimbo's Talk page, which, compared to some discussions, is relatively mild, and whatever issues there are at zh.wiki should not trigger any action against Assifbus, whose behavior here has not been sanctionable.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

My English is not great to explain the things clearly. Could I ask some editors involved in the discussion to summarize this incident?@Sanmosa, Cbls1911, 1233, and ARoseWolf: Pavlov2 (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• While I may believe that Assifbus's comments and actions on Jimbo's talk page are uncivil, I have to agree with Bbb23. Jimbo wants his talk page to be a place where people can vent a little. Personally, I think its good as long as they don't engage in personal attacks. I don't think it should be the business of admins on en.wiki to be sanctioning someone for actions mostly pertaining to and surrounding zh.wiki. Jimbo gives more leeway for discussions on his talk page and that is his prerogative. I just don't see enough on en.wiki to warrant a block or ban of any kind. --ARoseWolf 14:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

What I want to say is that if nuisance appears again, then actions should be taken at that time. I do not expect to explicitly express anything if I have done nothing related to that before, so I actually don't have much comment on this issue. Sorry again for disturbance. Sanmosa _Outdia 14:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• That exchange at Jimbo's talk page (of which Jimbo is aware since he's responded to Assifbus' OP) is ordinarily mild as far as personal interactions go. Also quite mild as far as CCP propaganda goes. Perhaps it'd be actionable if there was something like Uyghur genocide-related (GS) denial and so forth, but this is extra meh. If anything, Wikipedia would look layers-of-irony silly for taking action on the basis of Assifbus' comments there, as the levels of bias/advocacy are, in fact, the most damning thing in that discussion, which sanctioning them would work to diminish. El_C 15:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Heads up everyone

Not sure if I'm posting this in the correct venue, and apologies if it isn't. There will probably be huge off-wiki collaboration and influx in AA area because of this. Don't read too much of the comments if you don't want your day to be spoiled.

A new reddit account spamming same post in different subreddits, instructing others how to edit and "Spreading POV". They're also asking others to vote in "big" RfCs. My guess is an experienced user that was/is banned couldn't hold the hyper-nationalism for a lot longer, so they just went full on off-wiki collab and meatpuppetry mode. The post is getting high traction and is also pinned in the subreddit itself, which has over 55K users. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) There's a chance that this guy is simply just bluffing and is saying he's going to have people do these things but really he won't. However in case it does happen I think people should be on high alert. The ban hammers might need sharpening/polishing though.^[Humor] ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 15:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf I think there is already one. User Wertuose (talk · contribs) has made 20 edits this year and is now edit-warring in one of the mentioned pages in that post, see Shusha and diffs: [68] [69]. There is an ongoing discussion in talk which I told them, but to no avail. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

There's a chance that's just coincidence unless we can somehow tie them to seeing it from the reddit post. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 17:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

This would be better at WP:AN. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

---

Could someone please deal with this legal threat? Thanks.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Got it. El_C 15:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE

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

---

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

Hi. This user has sent Federated States of Micronesia at the 2008 Summer Olympics (a Good Article) to AfD with their very first edit with the deletion rationale of Just completely worthless. Guessing it might be a block evasion too. Please can someone help with this? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Got itttt. El_C 16:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, El C. Gold medals all round. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Except for poor Micronesia (0 silvers and bronze, too, ever). But one day. I have faith! El_C 16:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, the real medal is the friends we make along the way. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

San Marino broke their streak this Olympics. Bkatcher (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Nobody figures out AfD on their first edit. Even those of us who have been around 15 years+ still need to refer to the steps for what is a rather complex process. Smells a little. Canterbury Tail talk 18:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Though it stands to reason that the public affairs officer for the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade would be adept at RfPP, because... army Marine stuff. El_C 22:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Gaming auto-confirmed for promotional edits to Qnet

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

---

Business Facilitator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Qnet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Business Facilitator made exactly 10 edits, adding periods after some entries on disambiguation pages, then immediately went to Qnet and tried to edit. This led to this edit request, which shows an obvious COI with an article that his a history of such edits. It seems they may not have been aware of the time requirement as well. Additionally, their requested edit was a direct copy/paste from the company's website. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

If they're attempting to autocon-bust, see if XCP is viable. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 18:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Might be worth temporary page protection on the talk page, since this is the second copyvio edit request this week from a recently registered account. Politanvm ^talk 18:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of the larger picture, I have indeffed Business Facilitator as an advertising only account since his goal is promoting official messaging. Star Mississippi 15:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a ton. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Fixing redirects

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

---

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

Today I noticed this edit where TMProofreader changed the link from Atlanta, Georgia (a redirect) to Atlanta, Georgia (a direct link). I looked through their talk page, and this editor has had numerous requests to stop fixing redirects:

• warning
• warning
• blocked
• blocked
• warning
• warning
• warning
• warning
• warning
• warning

Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

It should be noted they've already been blocked twice for precisely this editing pattern. Canterbury Tail talk 18:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Three times, courtesy of Ymblanter. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

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

"Happy Tree Friends" LTA

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

---

173.168.252.137 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP is being used by the "Happy Tree Friends vandal" in evasion of several blocks, including 173.168.76.33, 144.178.6.34, 32.140.177.66, and 2603:9000:F407:8000:0:0:0:0/50 (likely many others but I stopped keeping track). Can an administrator please block? So far the only contributions under the IP address are from this user.

Prior ANI threads: March 2021, April 2021. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive and COI editing by User:Chrashley

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

---

User:Chrashley has admitted they are one and the same as Christopher Ashley [70], and has engaged in edit warring to change the page to a version they prefer, both with their account and with an IP [71]. They have been warned multiple times [72] but just refused to get the point. At this point an indef block is needed to get them to stop their disruptive editing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

They have continued to edit war since I posted this here: [73]. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article to start with--Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately this seems like a case of refusal to listen. They were told how to handle this at the Help Desk and in -en-help and refused to accept it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Jauerback has blocked the named account on the basis of their username. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 22:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Repeated disruptive editing by User:Daiichi1

User:Daiichi1 repeatedly reverted the addition to Japanese Wikipedia , even though no agreement had been reached in Talk:Japanese Wikipedia which regarding the removal of statements sourced from credible sources. Daiichi1 have already been warned to be blocked the next time (User talk:Daiichi1), but this time reverted my additions: Special:Diff/1044842684/1045605795.(WP:DE) --UikiHedeo (talk) 07:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my edit summary there has already been 2 lengthy discussion in the talk page with a clear consensus reached each time. This is not a matter to take to the Administrators noticeboard. If your going to continue with this your free to make your arguments in the talk page but as this has already been discussed extensively im not sure it would give you the results you want. This has likely been told to you countless times including on your other account where you were permanently banned from the Japanese version of Wikipedia but refrain from accusations against other users like you did in your edit summary [74] where you insinuated I was a vandal. I've left a message on your talk page over this [75] and I'd like to request any administrator reading this to consider banning this user, temporarily at least over this history of egregious behavior spanning multiple Wikis and persisting even after a permanent ban. The block request and discussion on his other account can be found here (in Japanese) [76] for reference. This user has tried appealing this ban on the English Wikipedia here [77] which shows a complete lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works, users there quickly informed him the two Wikis are separate and have no authority over each other. This coupled with him completely ignoring the talk consensus on Talk:Japanese Wikipedia even when informed of it and then immediately taking this to the Administrators noticeboard make this even clearer and indicate a lack of capacity to contribute constructively to this project. Daiichi1 (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The reason of reverting my addition about Oyamada's bullying with credible sources never discussed or mentioned in Talk:Japanese Wikipedia. So I regard Daiichi1's reversion belongs to WP:VAN. And about reverting of Yumiko Sato's criticism, we had never reached to a concensus that Daiichi can revert sentences with credible sources ignoring wikipedia's basic rule ( WP:CITE). I think Daiichi's editions are destructive and sentences in talk pages very agressive.(WP:DE)

The Japanese Wikipedia is administlated in different rules from en-wiki rules. They are very friendly with Netto-uyoku and very rigorous with whom criticise them. WP:DE is still not validated. --UikiHedeo (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC) Users easily banned by Netto-uyoku administlators. --UikiHedeo (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Close reverted

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

---

Yesterday, I closed this RM with consensus not to move. A few minutes ago the proposer reverted my edit with edit summary "Sorry but consensus is not clearly obvious as yet." Regardless of the underlying merits, this seems to me clearly irregular, but I am not sure how to proceed. Havelock Jones (talk) 10:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

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

I've blocked Username006 for a week for disruptive editing. They are under an indefinite community move ban for past behavior in this area, and while their edit was not a direct violation of that sanction, it is clear boundary-testing in continuance of the disruption that brought about the ban, that must stop. This isn't a first-time issue. with them, there have been other disrutions to move discussions along these lines. This is a normal admin action, not enforcement of a community sanction.. Acroterion (talk) 11:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Havelock Jones: it's subpar to have the closing summary just be an announcement of the outcome and nothing else. Next time, please aim at providing some sort of summary, even a very brief one, that accompanies the result. Thanks. El_C 16:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Repeated removal of cited material by user:Homogenie

• Homogenie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Reverts: [78], [79], [80]

Repeated removal of cited material. Need help with this behavioral problem with this editor. I tried to restore the cited text twice ([81], [82]), giving the rationale in edit summaries and in the user talk page ([83], [84]), but the editor would not listen. The relevant issues could be WP:EW, WP:IDHT, WP:OWN. The editor has also been made aware of the IPA Discretionary Sanctions [85]. Chaipau (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Long-term IP-hopping Hong Kong MTR editor

I am struggling with an edit warring, IP-hopping individual whose habit is to add slightly erroneous information about Hong Kong's MTR transit system and other Hong Kong topics. Based on consistencies in their editing behaviour, I believe they have been doing the same thing with other IPs for years, but will focus here on the latest batch:

• 203.145.94.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 219.76.24.209 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.64.47.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 64.229.90.53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 112.120.101.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 202.130.98.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Their latest pet project is to add links to a so-called "Harbour Crossing Tunnel" to various articles. (The tunnel exists – the name "Harbour Crossing Tunnel" does not. There seems to be one PowerPoint in existance that uses the term and that's the evidence that IP has provided that this is the tunnel's name.) I tried to resolve the problem by requesting protection of pages such as MTR and Modified Initial System but they keep moving to other articles, such as Cross-Harbour Tunnel. I would report them for vandalism but I don't think persistently adding slightly erroneous information qualifies as blatant vandalism. Citobun (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

This edit is evidence of their intention to disrupt, as they are intentionally misrepresenting the nature of my edits to another user. Citobun (talk) 12:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe it's your (and indeed everyone's) duty to preserve what anyone would have to agree. That's how the Wikipedia project works. It's all about collaborations and agreeing with each other on whatever apparent. 203.145.94.110 (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

As you've been told in my user talk page, what I referred to was something like a journal paper, not the PowerPoint slides. You may have a different opinion but everyone's duty on Wikipedia not to misrepresent what'd actually happened. Meanwhile there are many different editors who don't edit from registered accounts because of the situation in Hong Kong. From what I can tell they certainly aren't the same person. 203.145.94.110 (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

All you have to do is provide reliable sources that suggest that "Harbour Crossing Tunnel" is the established name of this tunnel. You haven't. Having been told that so many times, and having made no effort to produce such sources, it's clear you're just trolling at this point. Citobun (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

You've been told in my user talk page that I don't agree there isn't reliable source, and that name has been on Wikipedia across quite a handful of pages for ages. It wasn't me who introduced that name to Wikipedia and the one who did so didn't do it just recently. That'd happened long time ago. You may have your different opinion but that doesn't mean you're always right. As I said you can probably tell from my recent edits that I am ready to use whatever names to refer to that particular tunnel until you are able to agree on anything, something which you apparently don't. All what you are doing is to revert all edits altogether, regardless of what those edits are. It's you who keep mixing things up. And you're the one to complain it's tiring. That's hilarious. 203.145.94.110 (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

You haven't provided any reliable sources. Citobun (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Why you would simply deny the existence of the paper, e.g.? 203.145.94.110 (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• The established name based on the references/sources is "Cross-Harbour Tunnel". The IP's are making bold changes and they have been reverted, a few times now. Now it needs to be discussed on the article talk page. If the IP above doesn't agree that there isn't a reliable source that calls it "Harbour Crossing Tunnel" then provide the reliable source. That's all that is being asked and it seems a reasonable request. --ARoseWolf 15:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Cross-Harbour Tunnel is a road tunnel. The one in question under this section is a railway tunnel. Please make sure you are able to comprehend what's going on before you chip in. As for "If the IP above doesn't agree that there isn't a reliable source that calls it "Harbour Crossing Tunnel" then provide the reliable source. That's all that is being asked and it seems a reasonable request.", please go and read the paper, e.g. (well Citobun has deleted its hyperlink along with the rest of the entire article on the Modified Initial System; you gotta look that up in the article's edit history.) 203.145.94.110 (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf: The IP is actually referring to the immersed tube railway tunnel built as part of the Modified Initial System, the very first phase of the MTR network (not the Cross-Harbour Tunnel). Today it is simply regarded as a part of the Tsuen Wan line. During planning and construction it was called "the immersed tube". If an article were to be made about it today, I would title it "Tsuen Wan line immersed tube" to differentiate it from other immersed tubes since constructed in Hong Kong.

Anyway I basically regard all of this as beside the point: the IP editor is a troll. They keep insisting there are reliable sources using the term "Harbour Crossing Tunnel" but won't provide them. They keep editing warring to maintain their own slightly incorrect revisions even after the errors have been pointed out, most recently this (the station in question was called West Kowloon, not Kowloon West). They are trolling. Someone please ban the troll. Wasting time and energy on this kind of low-level, long-term disruption truly saps my will to contribute to Wikipedia. Someone do something please. Thank you. Citobun (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• It's so happened that I've come across another paper by co-incidence, in addition to the paper (a paper, not a set of presentation slides) cited in Harbour Crossing Tunnel an entry which Citobun has tried hard to kill along with Modified Initial System, at [86][87], published in the Civil Engineering journal in late 2016. 203.145.94.110 (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Noting that I sprotected Cross-Harbour Tunnel for one week (by way of WP:RFPP) independently of this report, of which I was unaware at the time. El_C 23:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Potential conflict of interest situation

For the past several years at Barry Peterson (cinematographer) there would be an IP editor that would swap out the city Peterson resides in despite this going against what is said in the source. I would restore it back to what was in the source. Recently this started back up again and the most recent change, the IP editor wrote in the edit summary I live in Los Angeles, not Edmonton. Of course it could just be an anonymous person claiming to be Peterson to try to get their switch to stick but I thought it might be worth having it noted Peterson might be editing their own page. Rusted AutoParts 15:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree it's hard to know whether this is actually him. I guess the thing that occurs to me - which is not really what RAP is asking, and is a problem on many, many articles like this - is that the reference doesn't show that Mr. Peterson lives in Edmonton, it shows that Mr. Peterson lived in Edmonton 13 years ago. I'd be inclined to just remove "He resides in Los Angeles" and "He resides in Edmonton", as one could make a case that we don't really have a source on where he lives now, and it's not really useful info anyway. But in the absence of proof this is actually Mr. Peterson, I understand the hesitation to look like we're just taking some random IP's word for anything. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this being not useful information anyway. It's up there with how many dogs someone has, and whether they own their own home. Where their address is isn't particularly important unless there's a strong connection to the community and it's an important part of who the article subject is. Canterbury Tail talk 15:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Over-finite detail in a BLP article, including the exact community in a metro where the BLP subject lives, is really something to be discouraged for privacy reasons. Nate • (chatter) 16:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Zero issues with the residence being removed on my end. Rusted AutoParts 16:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Completely agree about the relevance of the information. Since we can't prove the IP is Mr. Peterson and since we don't have a source it seems logical to remove. On another note, we have 42 dogs. That isn't really relevant either but there it is. --ARoseWolf 17:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

42? Of course! Narky Blert (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• That's a good reference right there. Yes, it's actually 42, 30 of which are Huskies. The other 12 are Malamutes. Our trainer, who was my fathers wilderness guide, is former competitor in the Iditarod. --ARoseWolf 18:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • IMO, anyone who competes in the Iditarod falls in the (British English) 'mad sod'#2 category. Narky Blert (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)>

• Oh, he's a nut so I agree with you. He'd agree too. But he's saved my life a time or two so I guess he can be a nut all he wants. --ARoseWolf 20:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) We have far too much "resides in" cruft for small (and large) places, which is of no possible interest to anyone except close family and friends unless the subject has done or did something relevant there. Such places forever keep turning up in Disambiguation pages with links. In general, the only problems which are easily solvable are US state politicians, who tend to reside somewhere in the constituency they represent. Narky Blert (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I removed the content, as well as the source, which was an opinion piece and thus shouldn't have been used, especially in a BLP. Levivich 17:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

User:ZX2006XZ repeatedly resubmitting drafts without any improvement

ZX2006XZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (formerly known as S9105974 until a rename on the 22nd of this month [88]) has repeatedly resubmitted Draft:Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film) and Draft:Ice Age: Adventures of Buck Wild without meaningful improvement or addressing the issues raised by AfC reviewers. This is disruptive and wasting the time of AfC reviewers.

• ZX2006XZ's edits to Ice Age: Adventures of Buck Wild started when they decided to duplicate the already existing Draft:Ice Age: The Adventures of Buck Wild and minorly improve it. [89] [90] They then did some more improvements and submitted. [91] After being declined, they made minor rewordings and submitted again, failing to even attempt to add in new sources. [92] After being declined for the second time, they changed one of their sources from a tweet to the WordPress blog that the tweet was linking to. [93] After their third decline, ZX2006XZ added in a non-free poster (for the second time) and did more minor changes. [94] Here is the sum total of ZX2006XZ's improvements to their draft over the course of three reviews. [95]
• Moving on to Draft:Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film) (which is how I encountered ZX2006XZ), the same pattern repeats itself with more egregious behaviour. The article for this draft was draftified over a year ago after an AfD. The article was then recreated while the draft was still a draft, and the article was sent to AfD on September 4th which came back with a consensus to draftify on September 17th. [96] During this discussion, ZX2006XZ resubmitted the draft for their third time with no improvements to the draft since their last submission beyond adding a copyrighted image, even after User:Robert McClenon told them not to repeatedly submit during the AfD. [97] This led to what is possibly the only MfD of a draft closed with the "draftify" consensus, as the MfD was opened during the AfD due to the resubmissions. [98]
• After the AfD closed with a consensus to draftify, the mainspace page was moved to draftspace as a secondary draft in what may have been preparation to merge the mainspace content with the draftspace content. However, ZX2006XZ apparently waited only four minutes since the closure of the AfD to resubmit with what appears to have been 0 improvements. [99] This led to their most recent resubmission of Draft:Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film) in which they didn't make any changes whatsoever before resubmitting. [100]
• What brought me to dive deeper into this user's history is that when I left them a message on their talk page telling them not to resubmit [101], they left a message on my talk page claiming they didn't do the last submission. While initially it appeared to me as if they typed in a different username, after more research it appeared that they had their username changed in between submission and now. After digging deeper into their history, it appears my warning was misplaced. ZX2006XZ has had many warnings in the past about their behaviour. They should be aware after the numerous comments left on their drafts that what they're doing is not allowed. It is illogical to claim that they didn't remember or didn't know they submitted a draft two days ago when they clearly know how to submit drafts, understand how the process works, and have repeatedly submitted the same draft over and over again.

I'd like to see some kind of partial ban from the draft namespace and from the AfC process. ZX2006XZ's behaviour in draftspace so far has been disruptive, wastes time, and has been subject to numerous warnings. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 15:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for repeatedly submitting drafts without improving them. I will work on improving the drafts. ZX2006XZ 17:09 23 September 2021 (UTC)

User:ZX2006XZ - You say that you apologize for repeatedly submitting drafts without working on them, and that you will work on improving them in the future. You have already been warned. What is even more important than working on your drafts before resubmitting them is discussing them with the reviewers, and you do not seem ever to discuss with reviewers or with other editors. Your edit history shows that you have apparently never used talk pages. If you do not know how to use talk pages (and we know that some mobile editors have difficulty with talk pages), you can ask at the Teahouse, which, like WP:ANI, is a project page.

User: ZX2006XZ - The real problem with the drafts in question is not that the drafts need improvement, but that the films have not been released. You were told to wait until the films were released. Even if you think that the films are notable before release, you should discuss rather than just resubmitting the drafts.

I don't like the idea of imposing any general sort of restriction on the use of draft space. It is less disruptive for an editor to resubmit drafts than to misuse article space. If there are problems with specific drafts, the editor can be partially blocked.

I will note that the two topics in question are unreleased films, and unreleased films that are in or out of production (principal photography or animation) are a contentious topic because the film notability guideline is poorly written. However, that does not excuse repeated useless resubmissions with failure to discuss.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Block evasion of IP editor User:166.216.158.14

The above mentioned IP is making unconstructive edits to article Dr. John in a habitually abusive manner. They began as 166.216.158.150[102], and proceeded to ignore warnings regarding their disruptive behavior. This led to their being blocked. Not two hours later, an IP[103] from the same range started contributing in the same non-conducive manner. Since the editing picked up within the 31 hour period block on the .158.203 IP, that's clearly a case of ban evasion. A third IP[104] under the same range was also used by this same editor. A range block many be necessary, as it's clear they're intent on adding their unproductive contributions come hell or high water. Thank you. CosmicJacuzzi (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Already protected by administrator Widr. RIP Dr. John. El_C 18:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

El_C I'm confused. The editor still did evade their block. Wouldn't that warrant administrative action? I'm not trying to make waves or anything, I just want to better understand the process of how this determination is made. That way I'm not clogging up ANI with unnecessary notices for administrative actions. CosmicJacuzzi (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

CosmicJacuzzi, I just brought to the attention of the noticeboard the fact that the page in question has been protected, is all. El_C 20:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Page protection is administrative action, and, given that the editor(s) at the IP addresses identified have only edited that article this year, and other innocent users may pick up those addresses, it seems like the best administrative action. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

IP 92.4.183.64

IP 92.4.183.64 has been adding unsourced material as well as poorly sourced material to Jakob "Jackie" Gerlich. I have asked them multiple times to stop adding unsourced and poorly sourced info to the page. Geni is not an acceptable source per WP:RSP, which has been pointed out to them multiple times. Admin OhNoitsJamie warned them on their talk page they could be blocked from editing they added the material back, yet they did anyway. --Kbabej (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week (partial). El_C 21:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. --Kbabej (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

79.66.209.148 making multiple weird edits on multiple articles

Please could someone have a look at this IP's contributions [105]. They've been doing bizarre things at Sebastián Sichel for which they've been warned, but I suspect they don't know about talk-pages. Unfortunately they've also been editing a lot of other pages, and the problem is that some of their edits look quite sensible at a glance, while others are clearly outright vandalism, so it's very hard for anyone outside the subject matter to know whether they're inserting complete rubbish, or improving, or what they're doing. I'm worried they're leaving a trail of semi-disaster behind them that's going to be hard to clean up. Since they're editing multiple articles, page protection won't do the job. Sorry about this. Elemimele (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

== Copy and pasting direct from article

Buckey2015 copied parts of the Flight section from American Airlines Flight 77 and pasted it into Pike County, Ohio. Once I noticed, I removed the section as it had no interest to the article and was a copy from the AA77 article. The user reverted this edit without an edit summary. I then reverted the version back to my original, adding a new section to their talk page explaining why. Today, they reverted it again, without an edit summary explaining why.

I brought this here considering I do not want to start an edit war. I am somewhat new to this side of Wikipedia, and therefore do not know the correct protocol. I am only asking the section be removed as it is of no interest to the article. Kellis7 22:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

This is of direct interest to the article. Flight 77 was hijacked over the Pike County area and has even been written about in our local newspapers, including the 9/11 20th anniversary newspaper from this month. The locals like to see these two tied together. There's no need for you to be removing this part of our history for no reason. Buckey2015

IP hounding me

Hello! An IP, 24.104.193.125, is hounding me. After they were apparently displeased with edits I made to Sukumizu, they removed a talk page warning I had made on another user's page (diff). When I reversed this, they did it again with a mocking edit summary (diff). Now they have reverted two of my recent edits, apparently for no other reason than that I made them (diff and diff). I suspect this behavior will continue unless action is taken. Thanks for your help. I'll go add the necessary notice on their talk page now. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks for harassment, including hounding. El_C 23:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

IP hopping around and vandalising

Hi administrators, these IPs has been hopping around and vandalising Cheongju and also Chuu (singer). They are adding the same thing like "smiling like penguin" and "she dives into the sea, hunting and eating fish, squid and krill with her beak and is afraid of being preyed upon by her predators leopard seals and killer whales". While using some IPs, they go add non-NPOV content like "Her nickname is also known as Chyuyeyeo" while it are pretty much trivia and non-encyclopedic. They have previously did the same thing to Draft:Running Girls which has been temporarily protected till 7 October 2021.

• 106.131.65.224 (talk · contribs)
• 106.131.67.27 (talk · contribs)
• 2001:268:9002:F116:8400:4937:EDA1:B97D (talk · contribs)
• 2001:268:9001:5E73:D58C:9B95:413E:6800 (talk · contribs)
• 2001:268:9007:5CAF:2378:899A:BC3F:13E3 (talk · contribs)
• 2001:268:9007:2082:7B2F:AC4A:F497:675 (talk · contribs)
• 2001:268:9008:CA9B:AE3F:7558:2F62:5660 (talk · contribs)
• 2001:268:9009:100:CB93:E6AC:38B:287B (talk · contribs)
• 240F:7A:F3A3:1:1DC2:23CC:7246:1B3 (talk · contribs)
• 106.131.60.83 (talk · contribs)
• 106.171.51.13 (talk · contribs)
• 240F:7A:DBE0:1:896D:D819:746:8316 (talk · contribs)
• 106.171.45.90 (talk · contribs)
• 2001:268:9004:5664:4171:989F:E8FA:837 (talk · contribs)
• 240F:7A:D5D8:1:14CA:6C2A:D868:698E (talk · contribs)
• 2001:268:9000:CEE9:C4F3:E4C6:DF50:89A4 (talk · contribs)
• 2001:268:9003:A15E:C18:3182:2F57:447F (talk · contribs)
• 2001:268:9009:2938:FFD9:6011:F7B1:786B (talk · contribs)
• 106.131.65.40 (talk · contribs)

GeoLocate check shows all of the IPs points to various parts of Japan hence suspecting user may be using VPN or proxies. In fact, on User talk:106.131.67.27, my suspicion is likely correct as they quickly changed to 106.131.65.40 and replied using it. Please help to block all of them or range block if possible. Thanks you and Regards — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 02:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)