Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1172

Techiya1925

This most likely belongs to AE, but I'm not ECR so I'm not sure if I can report there. Apparently Techiya1925 committed several 1RR violations in Talk:November 2024 Amsterdam attacks (which is not even why I'm reporting this here), once confronted with that he began casting aspersions and even doubled down after being told to AGF by an admin.

In his talk page, I got the impression that he's accusing everyone who goes against his POV of being either radical Islamic propagandists or “they/them” computer geeks who hate Jews. Previously today he got warned for engaging in an edit war. I don't think that such WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour is useful for the encyclopedia.— 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 17:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Please make sure that when you are doing your investigation, you look at everything. From the beginning, to the end. In various discussions on the talk page of the article. Techiya1925 (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked the editor for 24 hours due to their continued personal attacks of fellow users. Considering this has been happening on a CTOP, and their clear battleground behavior, I'd support an indef tban from the topic. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• I think that was very lenient. I might well have blocked for a much longer time for this. Black Kite (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, they should be indefinitely blocked until they can prove otherwise for nonsense like that. C F A 💬 20:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Huh, I completely glossed over that part of the comment. That's my bad. I've upgraded the block to indef as an individual admin action, although there is some consensus here for such. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Is anyone going to point out the random, completely unprompted, transphobia? Iostn (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Iostn, do you have any diffs of this behavior? Because I've looked over their talk page comments for the past two days and aside from this diff shared by Black Kite, I can see them getting upset over a contentious subject but that's the only attack I can see. I know there is a no tolerance rule for attacks based on race, gender, gender identity, ethnicity and religion but this does seem like an isolated incident. They should have stepped away from the article and its talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Liz, I could be wrong but I interpreted "they/them" computer geeks who hate Jews as a thinly veiled and staggeringly unfriendly allusion to transgender editors. But perhaps they are only mocking antisemitic editors who prefer the singular they. Anything is possible in The New World. Cullen328 (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz basically what Cullen said, although the main reason I mentioned it was because although it was quoted the whole unprovoked nature of it is probably something worth at least noting Iostn (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Iostn and Cullen, thanks for pointing that out. Stating pronoun preference is so common in my little part of the world that I can sometimes be oblivious when it is used as an insult. I don't know if that qualifies a person as transphobic but it was definitely not appropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

It's a collective insult, like he-she before it. Brazenly weaponized this year, no less. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a new right-wing talking point. Basically a combination of anti-nonbinary prejudice, but also transphobia as TERFs seem to think nonbinary is a stepping stone to being trans (a la the old canard that bisexuality is a stepping stone to being homosexual). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort to look at the nuances here, but I would have to respectfully disagree with the idea that this was a light or ambiguous violation. Plenty of users have felt angry and frustrated at times on WP, but it had never descended to a low of making explicitly discriminatory, both Islamophobic and transphobic, comments towards other editors. Connecting transgender people as a whole with hating Jews, is transphobic. Connecting anyone they disagree with on Israel as a "radical Islamic propagandist", a four-fold assumption of them being: 1- Muslim in religion 2- Islamist in thinking 3- radicalized and 4- propagadanist. I have been editing on WP for a decade and I have never encountered this level of unfiltered hate speech. This should be taken extremely seriously. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban from the Israel-Palestine conflict and antisemitism

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

---

Given the unacceptable comments, I think this is the bare minimum, and have no issue with an indefinite block . Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppetry, Edit Reversion, and Harassment

• Suspected IPs:

1. 76.68.24.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
2. 2607:FEA8:571E:CE00:D81A:9C9D:4833:65A4 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
3. 2607:FEA8:571E:CE00:D8C:6DE5:FF66:5C6C (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• Evidence of Sockpuppetry:

1. Identical Edit Reversions Across IPs: All three IP addresses reverted my edits in identical ways shortly after each other, suggesting coordinated activity. Contribution Links: 76.68.24.171, 2607:FEA8:571E:CE00:D81A:9C9D:4833:65A4, 2607:FEA8:571E:CE00:D8C:6DE5:FF66:5C6C

1. Editing the Same Articles from the Same Location: All three IPs have edited the same articles from what appears to be the same geographical location. IP Location Verification Links: 76.68.24.171, 2607:FEA8:571E:CE00:D81A:9C9D:4833:65A4, 2607:FEA8:571E:CE00:D8C:6DE5:FF66:5C6C

• Harassment and Violation of Civility Policy:

The user has made personal remarks that could be considered harassment, including comments about my location. This violates Wikipedia’s Civility and Personal Attacks policy. Diff Link: Evidence of personal comments

• Description of Disruptive Edit Reversions:

This user has been consistently reverting my edits across multiple articles without clear reason, preventing constructive updates.

• Request for Admin Investigation:

Please investigate this suspected sockpuppetry and harassment. The user’s behavior is creating a disruptive environment and obstructing contributions. - Cerium4B • Talk? • 20:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi! It happens that IP users will involuntarily jump across different IPs, and that is not considered sockpuppetry if not done to break policy. In fact, the last two IPs are from the same /64 range (the first half of the IP, which depends on the device, is the same, while the second half can often change randomly). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby ok

but other extended confirmed users are considering that those are different user. And they are saying that the three ip users are not agreeing with my edit.

is it fair?

That IP user is not letting me update articles. what should i do? - Cerium4B • Talk? • 20:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

As always, the best thing to do when someone is reverting your edits is to discuss it with them. As /64 ranges don't have a unified talk page, and the reverts happened on multiple articles, it might be difficult to find a place to discuss, but I see that they replied to another user at User talk:2607:FEA8:571E:CE00:D8C:6DE5:FF66:5C6C, presumably talking about their reverts of your edits. It can be good to use that as a starting point to discuss the reverts there, especially since they seem to mention policies such as WP:OR. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby, I tried to discuss but he cleared the topic from his talk page from another IP address.

in most edits he mentions this WP:OR policy.

and what about this ? - Cerium4B • Talk? • 21:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Their edit summary isn't very respectful, but the IP is right that this addition was OR and shouldn't have been added without sources. Also, you've both been edit-warring on that page. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Cerium4B: The unregistered user should not have made that gibe about a "poor place", that was uncivil. But as Chaotic Enby says, they have a point. Verifiability—providing references—is one of our basic policies, and that's what the IP is referring to when they talk about WP:OR. Can you find a reference to cite that says Nawabganj National Park is a small forest of Sal trees? Yngvadottir (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir

I’ve added references in that article.

also giving here — https://www.kalerkantho.com/online/country-news/2019/06/06/777199

Isn’t 517.61 Hector a small forest?

I have visited this place many times…! - Cerium4B • Talk? • 22:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Banned editor seeks to be unblocked: Rishabisajakepauler

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

---

• Rishabisajakepauler (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rishabisajakepauler/Archive

A person from Texas who is banned per WP:THREESTRIKES has asked to be unblocked. Rishabisajakepauler has used at least 16 sockpuppets and a wide array of IPs to evade his initial block. The bottom of User talk:Rishabisajakepauler contains his incorrectly formatted unblock request from yesterday, saying that he is older and wiser now.

Pinging active editors who have tangled with him in the past: Oshwah, Ad Orientem, Izno, Girth Summit, TheSandDoctor, Firefly, Callanecc, TheAmazingPeanuts, Muhandes, GeneralNotability, Blablubbs, Btspurplegalaxy, RoySmith, ToBeFree, AshMusique, ThedancingMOONpolice, Suffusion of Yellow, Sir Sputnik, CAMERAwMUSTACHE, Cabayi, JBW, Ponyo, Certes and NinjaRobotPirate. Perhaps someone could mentor him. I am not in favor of granting him full pardon at this time. He must earn the community's trust. Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Based on the sockpuppet investigation page they were socking as recently as October 26 of this year, so the standard offer would not apply, and they were also dropping racial slurs so I do not believe they have matured at all. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a bad sign. Binksternet (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

No To emphasize your point: October 26, 2024, they used a string of racial slurs to attack another user. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Older but not wiser it would appear. Still showing no potential to be an asset to the community. Sadly this is an all-too-easy decline. Cabayi (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose If a problematic editor comes back after a few years, with no recent history of socking, and they can give a clear explanation of what they want to do here and they understand why they were blocked, I'm all for second chances. Sometimes even a third. But there is too much history here. And too much of it is recent. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• Decline unblock per the not wanting to wait 6 months and imautrity. NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 00:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Iranian Zazaki uncivil and WP:NOTHERE

Iranian Zazaki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please consider blocking User:Iranian Zazaki. I think this racist nonsensical response to a general notice on their talk page makes it sufficiently clear that they are WP:NOTHERE. Aside from that, their edits so far, nearly all reverted, have been non-constructive, unsourced, and in one case WP:UNCIVIL: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. R Prazeres (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Bbb23 has blocked this editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Gachago

See [6] [7] Andre🚐 22:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. No objections to another admin lengthening the block. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

"Ziobitch" is a particularly vile form of ethnonationalist harassment. I have extended the block to indefinite. Cullen328 (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

IP Hopper adding the same number all over.

Normally would give a warning or even 2 then report the IP for vandalism... but we have an IP Hopper going around changing racial figures to the same number everywhere.. I think we may need a range block or something as their using different IPS ....example one - example 2 - example 3. I'm unsure how many articles are affected as I'm just noticing the ones on my watch list.Moxy🍁 02:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

That is two IPs. The /64 ranges are Special:Contributions/2a01:cb00:607:a00::/64 and Special:Contributions/2a02:8440:2502:5da1::/64. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I've hardblocked those two /64s for two weeks. Bishonen | tålk 10:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC).

I've now been alerted to similar disruption on my page for User:2a02:8440:250c:aaa4:5c9d:4864:f7c3:27f5 plus an account, Ydududu, so I've blocked those also. Not sure I'm doing any good with this: are you able to block a larger range, Johnuniq? Bishonen | tålk 13:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC). PS: No, this is not about "disruption on my page"! Bishonen | tålk 15:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC).

@Bishonen: The range Special:Contributions/2a02:8440:2500::/44 includes 2a02:8440:2502:5da1::/64 and 2a02:8440:250c:aaa4:5c9d:4864:f7c3:27f5 but it has no other recent bad edits. There are some apparently constructive edits at 2024 World Wrestling Championships. Perhaps someone here could report if the /44 range is used for more of these changes. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I blocked the /44 for two weeks because 2A02:8440:250D:86B5:1052:608B:EB90:8302 made two more of these unexplained/unsourced number changes. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Persistent unsourced birth date changes by 2001:448A:50E0:0:0:0:0:0/48

2001:448A:50E0:0:0:0:0:0/48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - /48 has been making long-term unsourced/unexplained birth date changes, and hasn't responded to warnings. /48 has been blocked 3 times previously, most recently in July 2024 for 3 months for "sustained date vandalism". Recent examples of unsourced birth date changes: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I've re-blockd the range for a year. It looks like it's been the same editor on there for years.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ponyo: The same vandalism has continued from Special:Contribs/2001:448A:50E0::/46. Could you apply a wider block? Thanks. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Another IP editor engaging in disruptive editing

This IP user has received numerous warnings - from what I can see here all of their edits are disruptive and being reverted... their current target is floodplain Artem...^Talk 06:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Artem P75, you are not correctly linking to pages. You don't need the entire "https://en.wikipedia...etc" if you are linking to a page, not an edit. That said, most of these notices that were posted happened some time ago and you have to supply "diffs" or edits that make you think this is an "urgent" or "intractible" case that belongs at ANI. You can't just link to their contributions, you have to point out diffs that violate our policies.

Also, you have now brought two cases to ANI tonight. As I said, this is a noticeboard for some urgent problems that need to be immediately addressed (like WP:AIV. You haven't demonstrated why this case needs administrator attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

For example, link to their User talk page with a simple User talk:165.228.39.86 rather than the entire URL. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay @Liz Thank you for letting me know! I will take that onboard for the future :) Artem...^Talk 10:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit-warring IP refusing to WP:LISTEN and accusing others of political agendas

176.88.165.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been disruptively and tendentiously editing across multiple pages, arguing that those who disagree with them have political agendas or do not understand policy (or both!). Classic WP:IDHT.

At this talk page discussion, three users (myself, HistoryofIran, and Remsense) attempted to convey to this IP that unreliable sources do not fall under WP:RSOPINION. They refused to listen, and resorted to incivil comments, such as: "sabotaging for political agendas/to suppress opinions", "sabotaging for arbitrary reasons", and around four personal attacks in one diatribe. In the end, we got fed up with their refusal to understand WP:PAGs, and I advised others to move on from the merry-go-round of their WP:LISTEN behaviour.

The IP also started this discussion at RSN to argue the same point. First, ActivelyDisinterested responded, and three times answered whether RSOPINION was a good argument. This was of course not good enough for the IP: "You have not answered". ActivelyDisinterested grew uninterested(!) because of the IP' refusal to WP:LISTEN to others explaining WP:PAGs, and moved on. FactOrOpinion also participated in this discussion; I'd like to say that they and the IP found common ground, but that of course didn't happen. Instead, FactOrOpinion moved on, saying "I've read the relevant policy, and it seems I understand it better than you do...You've had several people tell you "no." At this point, this is a case of WP:LISTEN".

Then, the IP decided to edit war and was blocked for 31h (but not before filing two unfounded, retaliatory reports). Upon their block expiring today, they filed another EW report, once again alleging that everyone else's edits were political in intent. When Crazycomputers declined this report, the IP accused them of taking sides, and claimed that they were "corrupted" and that they, HoI, and myself, are "racists". Crazycomputers grew tired of their refusal to listen to policy, and moved on, saying "this clearly is a case of I didn't hear that".

Anyone else see a pattern here? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for one week for making personal attacks. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Voorts, is it okay if I ping you if this behaviour resumes once the block expires? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You can, but post something at AN/I so other admins can jump in if I'm not there. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I only interacted with them once at the ANEW report and was completely unaware of the rest of this. Having only talked with them briefly, I have to say I'm not terribly surprised at the IDHT trend. After linking them to WP:ONUS and WP:BRD their conclusion was that these pages don't say what they plainly say. (Nor WP:ONUS neither WP:BRD has such policy. Otherwise, you could revert any edit and then that editor would have been expected to open discussion.) I strongly suspect that when this user comes back they will return to their previous behavior and simply refuse to listen to anyone about anything. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Assistance in cleanup of Hamish Ross LTA puppet damage

NOTE: User intentionally not notified of this, as it appears to be an LTA. Please correct me if I'm wrong for not notifying.

I've blocked Seawolf35 HGAV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a very likely Hamish Ross puppet. As usual, lots of inappropriate warnings. This account has made a lot of edits and I could use some help in cleanup. If someone wants to jump in, please notify here. In the meantime, I'll start from the bottom of the list of edits and work up from there.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I just ran a mass-rollback on all of that account's edits. Any remaining edits are probably page creations that will need manual reverting. I'll start looking through those now. Home Lander (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm also starting to wonder what exactly I'm looking at. This user is acting like Hamish Ross but has other edits that are not like that. Would like an experienced admin to review what is going on. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Some of the mainspace edits were ok (reversion of actual vandalism); any that got caught by the mass-rollback I did have been self-reverted. Home Lander (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Had me worried that I misidentified the LTA. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Not saying for certain this is Hamish Ross, but from the limited involvement I've had with them, it seems like it. Home Lander (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Home Lander, in the future, please wait for more confirmation before you mass rollback a user's edits. Mass rollback, like mass deletion, should only happen with obvious vandals and confirmed sockpuppets. Mass rollback is a drastic action to take against an editor. Have you reverted your reversions? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe: what makes you think this is Hamish Ross? This is the legitimate alt of a user with 8k+ edits. Just from a quick review of this account's reverts, they all look fine. —Ingenuity (t • c) 17:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Checkuser agrees this isn't Hamish. No comment on anything else at this time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Was opening and closing lots of edit requests, templating IP users, at a rapid rate. As a said above, I started to have some misgivings after going through the edits a second time, looking at the mix of good and bad actions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

See, for example: User talk:Book millstones#November 2024.

However, does look like I was wrong. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to reverse the block and/or invite the editor here to discuss. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Y Unblocked. Came here to say the same thing as Ingenuity. SilverLocust 💬 18:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks,SilverLocust, about the PAID warnings claimed inappropriate. That user created Uplifting Service, which was basically a sourced promo piece for a book, combined with their username, which led me to seek clarification from them, which I got. Seawolf35 HGAV (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Seawolf35 HGAV, could you please discuss here with Rsjaffe about your edits that led to this block, and maybe sort out the problems that you two had? Fathoms Below (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

There’s not anything to sort out. I’ll just flat out apologize and explain my, in retrospect, incorrect actions. I’m on phone, so this might take a few minutes. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I noted the automated edit filter report indicating a possible Hamish Ross puppet. I then looked at the editing pattern and saw some odd patterns. Closing others edit requests, rapid templating, often IP addresses, and some unusual activity (e.g. the double template noted above. I then blocked as I was concerned about continued disruption and came here for help. However, after I started delving deeper into the edits to start reverting them, I found that I agreed with more than I disagreed with. At that point, I came back here to say I may have made a mistake, and asked for experienced help.

Agsin, my sincere apologies for blocking based on an unusual pattern of editing rather than sreviewing each edit. I was over concerned with disruption, as Hamis Ross’s edits cause lots of puzzled and upset reactions. The though this might be that LTA led me to react faster than I normally do and is a lesson learned. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the explanation and it is an understandable mistake. Best, Seawolf35 HGAV (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You too. I hate messing up, and as an admin, the mess ups become very public. I appreciate your graciousness. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Now where can I get me one of those accidental block userboxes. Seawolf35 HGAV (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

User:136.38.220.43 repeated vandalism after block - requesting speedy block

diff 1 diff 2 diff 3 diff 4 diff 5 diff 6 diff 7

User has just come off a block as per their talk page and are spamming "awesome" into various horse related articles(?) extremely quickly.

@Liz I am tagging you in hopes of a fast resolution as you seem to be the most active here... sorry if not appropriate this is my first time raising an AN/I request Artem...^Talk 04:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

They have just posted on my talk page Artem...^Talk 04:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for vandalism for 1 week. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for a fast response @Voorts Artem...^Talk 04:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I was busy elsewhere on the project but luckily Voorts is just as active as I am! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Artem P75: Next time, you can use Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism to report users with a blatant need to get blocked. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 16:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I see Liz has already told you about this below, happy editing! ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 16:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries @ExclusiveEditor I appreciate your help, thank you! Artem...^Talk 21:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

2409:40E3:103D:8274:D9A9:8FA1:ED7F:C05E

Requesting evaluation of 2409:40E3:0:0:0:0:0:0/32's contributions, and recommending a NOTHERE block, upping Black Kite's page block for disruptive editing to indefinite, based on their sketchy contribution history, high revert percentage, and PA's attacking Ocaasi in edit summaries (diff) and on their Talk page in response to an admin warning (here; diff). Mathglot (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

IP addresses should not be indeffed. Requesting indef IP block is not worth it as IP addresses are subject to change. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for one week and revoked their talk page access. Cullen328 (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

96.83.255.53

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

---

... probably needs a short block for various personal attacks. C F A 💬 02:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Trump nominees

There is lots of edit warring (much of it unintentional) at the pages of the recent Trump nominees (Kristi Noem, Pete Hegseth, etc.) as to how to designate them: "nominee", prospective nominee", "presumptive, nominee", etc. I would love a centralized discussion with guidance from someone who knows the correct terminology, but I don't know where to start such a discussion. I checked relevant pages from four years ago, but the same sort of uncertainty existed then, too. StAnselm (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest a request for comment at one of the village pump pages, with incoming links from all affected pages. Also, feel free to request protection on pages experiencing repeat edit warring. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 03:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

IP User disruptive behaviour

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

---

2600:4040:4522:2100:6C29:7904:43C:A130 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - This IP user is repeatedly engaging in edit wars and vandalizing articles, disrupting content quality and accuracy.

---DelphiLore (talk)

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

Bigamy?

According to Liz Lloyd's BLP, she married Ed Miliband in 2002. His bio has him married to someone else. Someone may like to fix this. I would, but I've forgotten how. Scott Mac 18:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

ANI isn't really the place for this - WP:BLPN would be a better place. It's no secret that Lloyd and Miliband dated early in their careers, but they were not married. It looks like this assertion started life as two separate assertions (e.g. in this version from 2017), and presumably some helpful but careless copyeditor merged conflated the two facts. I have removed the assertion that she used to be partners with Miliband - it's true, but it's trivia. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Possible Gaming of Permissions Ethiopian Epic

@Ethiopian Epic Only has 13 edits[8] all made in under an hour. 11 were to Government of Japan and the last two were made to Samurai, a semi-protected article. The changes made at Samurai are controversial, and were the subject of a Talk Page discussion. The dispute was also evidence in the Yasuke ArbCom case. The changes to the Samurai article are largely reverting to an earlier version, but done manually. It is unlikely that a new user would rewrite the article using earlier phrasing. It also removed cited material. Tinynanorobots (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't look like autoconfirmed gaming, it just looks like editing. I don't see anything in the recent arbcom case that applies here, either. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Really? 11 minor edits and then a big edit on a protected article? I find these two especially suspicious:[9][10]

I just mentioned the ArbCom case for context, full disclosure etc. The T-ban on Yasuke, broadly construed, doesn't affect Samurai, right? Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The topic ban could, depending on the exact edit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I would argue that a textbook example of "broadly construed" would be that a ban on Yasuke extends to the samurai article as well; otherwise "broadly construed" has no meaning. It means "give the topic the widest possible berth." EEng 16:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I see nothing about race in this, it just looks like a content dispute. Secretlondon (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Race had little to do with the Yasuke ArbCom case. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Tinynanorobots: can you provide a link to the revision of the article you are saying that they have largely reverted to? I tend to agree that that would be an odd coincidence, but without a version to compare against it's hard to evaluate (and I don't particularly want to start guessing). Girth Summit _(blether) 14:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure, here is a change I made on 5. October[11]. It was changed by a different editor again in October [12] Ethiopian Epic then restored the version from before 5. October, as well as restored the disputed line about retainers. Since I had added some of the stuff that existed before 5. October, this did restore some of my edits as well as revert other contributions. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

This is the version that I think is closest to the last version by EE[13] Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused: that literally is the last version by EE. Which version from the past are to compare it against? If giving a link is a problem, just give us a date/time stamp that you are saying they are effectively reverting to. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry, diff 37 is supposed to be a side by side comparison between the last version by EE and the version at 05:17, 11 September 2024 [14] Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I had a look around, and I can see what you're getting at - they have pretty much undone a number of edits that you and others have done at that page. However - 'gaming' autoconfirmed isn't really a thing - the bar for getting an autoconfirmed account is intentionally very low, it's really just there to make it slightly more burdensome for high-speed vandals to be able to target their preferred pages. That article is semi-protected (indefinitely, which is unusual) because of high volumes of anonymous vandalism. Whatever this is, it isn't obvious vandalism. I don't think it's a particularly big deal - they reverted some changes, you have reverted their revert - let's see what happens next. They might not return, or they might engage on the talk page - it's a bit early to be talking about blocking anyone. If you think it's a sock of another account (blocked or otherwise), head over to SPI and put some meat on the bones of your suspicions. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much for looking at the situation and explaining things. At this point, I think I will wait and see what happens. Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I must say that I agree with Girth Summit here. Confirmed status is no big deal - it is easy to get the "proper" way, so gaming 10 edits doesn't mean much. If you have suspicions about this editor, or they are being disruptive, then you should pursue other avenues. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Legal threats?

Earl of Arundel was blocked by Bbb23 for one week for Edit warring at Talk:2024 United States presidential election based on a report at WP:AN3; WP:BATTLEGROUND; WP:RGW; using Wikipedia as a soapbox. In response, they have twice ([15][16]) posted about the need for Congressional action to stop Wikipedia from "censorship" of conservatives, and to hold organizations such as this one accountable for their actions.

I interpret this as a violation of WP:No legal threats, which states A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an off-wiki ("real life") legal or other governmental process that would target other editors or Wikipedia itself. Emphasis added. Bbb23 says they are on the fence about that. Do other admins think this constitutes an ongoing legal threat? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Any sort of threat made to force a specific action should be regarded as a summarily-blockable offence. I'd up the block to indef; even if it isn't strictly-speaking a legal threat the intent is very obvious. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

They have made a third call for Congressional action, insisting it is not a legal threat, while accusing us of libel and lamenting the lack of laws to punish private organizations like the Wikimedia Foundation.[17] I guess they WP:IDHT when I tried to point out that the First Amendment applies to the government, not private entities. I would have indeffed them already but for being WP:INVOLVED. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Typically I won't care either way since we would usually laugh it off that it would be hard to find a way to force it through the Congress, but this is a concern, so yes. – robertsky (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I think the best course of action would be to apply WP:TNT to Talk:2024 United States presidential election and just blank the whole page. Ooooof. WP:NOTFORUM is just gone. Simonm223 (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I would say that interest in the talk page has increased in line with the election. I doubt it will fully quiet down until February, but we will see. I will say that even attempting to archive one off-topic and then duplicative discussion didn't work out, given this discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Bbb23 revoked TPA. MiasmaEternal☎ 01:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a stretch as a legal threat. But it's a giant bucket of WP:CIVIL, WP:IDHT, WP:EW, and all sorts of related goodies. And I'm slightly sympathetic philosophically in at least one regard (I think we're too lax about MSNBC), but if this editor doesn't realize after eight years that a project based on consensus requires accepting that you may be on the losing side of an argument, I'm not sure how you go from there. Given that the editor has made useful contributions elsewhere before, why not consider simply a topic ban on WP:CT/AP? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I think what bothers me is the support an editor like this can receive from a few editors who agree with them ideologically. Here, they have gotten themselves into trouble through edit warring and legal threats and other editors are thanking them for their good work on the project. I think it can have the effect of making the blocked editor less willing to admit to their mistakes so it really does them no favors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Ruthen Pagan

I cannot tell if this is a vandalism-only account, but some of the edits are purely disruptive while others look fine (at least not obvious vandalism). In this edit to Lithuanian–Bermontian War they replaced the flag to the gay pride one and in a subsequent edit they wrote: "According to some sources, Pavel Bermondt-Avalov was homosexual, and the flag of his army was rainbow, which corresponds to LGBT". I gave them a vandalism warning as a result. After this, in their edits to Pavlo Lapshyn, they changed "Ukrainian white supremacist terrorist" to "Russian white supremacist terroristwho citizen of Ukraine" in this edit. I also gave them an EE CT alert earlier. Mellk (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

They haven't edited in 4 days and have never posted to a User talk page or Talk page. Their only discussion edit was one post at the Teahouse so this discussion might have to occur without their participation. At this point, they seem like a typical inexperienced editor but they are editing in some Contentious areas. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: They are still continuing to make unexplained and unsourced changes. For example here they added a unit to the infobox with "maybe" in parentheses although there is no mention of the unit in the article. Here they change figures without explanation. I am not sure if they speak English but most of their edits have been reverted for the same reasons. Mellk (talk) 06:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

GoodDay, Donald Trump, and WP:OWN

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

---

At least three times, user GoodDay has made edits like this one, commanding editors to refrain from adding a word they don't like. There is no supporting consensus, but this will not be clear to other editors who see the hidden comment. Thus, GoodDay is exhibiting WP:OWN behavior at this article.

For GoodDay's position on this issue, see User talk:GoodDay#Unauthorized hidden comment and User_talk:Mandruss#Trump 2. Thank you for your attention to this matter. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

IMHO, Mandruss has ownership issues at Talk:Donald Trump. That being said, I'm disappointed he's taken a dispute between only us, to this level :( GoodDay (talk) 05:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I tried other avenues first. I reverted you with edit summary explanation. Twice. I posted at your talk page. Nothing worked. What, exactly, did you want me to do to avoid disappointing you? ―Mandruss ☎ 05:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

So GoodDay has now self-reverted.[18] And the only thing that changed in the interim was an ANI complaint. Apparently they knew they didn't stand a chance of prevailing here. That is simply bad faith editing and warrants a sanction in itself in my opinion. We simply can't keep misbehaving until a complaint is filed. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Will you stop with the personal attacks, please. GoodDay (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPA is not a suicide pact. It ain't PA if it's warranted, and any editor with 16 years should know that. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I reverted (4:54) before your report was posted (5:01) here. GoodDay (talk) 05:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, you got me there. I was too busy filing this complaint to watch the article. Given the history of the issue and your UTP response, I think my error was understandable. Done, this time. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no malice towards you. But, if it'll lower the heat between us? I'll volunteer to stay away from the Donald Trump page & talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 05:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't harbor grudges; every day is a fresh start. The "heat" ends when the issue ends. No need to back away from the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I've already removed the page from my watchlist. GoodDay (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Unreferenced edits of Tyrhonejustinemarasiganmartinfloresmallari

I am reporting User:Tyrhonejustinemarasiganmartinfloresmallari for continuous addition of unreferenced materials.[19][20][21][22][23][24] The editor has been told many times directly in their talk page, to include reference in their edits. They don't communicate in their talk page and rarely explain their edits through the edit summary. Another editor have discussed this issue in their talkpage as well.[25]Hotwiki (talk) 07:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Pov pushing on the tigris page

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

---

On the tigris page an editor is accussing me of racism for reverting unexplained content removal. While I personally don't fully understand the exact POV being pushed, I have seen cases similar to this before and it seems to possibly be related to anti-armenian sentiment. The editor in question is User:78.174.74.155. Gaismagorm (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay I was going to give them a warning but the moment I posted this they were blocked. Should I still post the ANI noticeboard template? Gaismagorm (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Users TracyVaghmare91 and Hemacho328wsa are NOTHERE

These two recently created accounts, TracyVaghmare91 and Hemacho328wsa have not contributed any edits to any Wikipedia articles, and spend their time defending the Indian government/courts in the discussions regarding the Wikipedia/ANI court case and the reaction of the community to it. They are not here to build an encyclopedia. Cortador (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

This edit to the user talk of User:Zubehamoreha, another seeming SPA, may indicate some form of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it. Looking at the report about Upd_Edit above and the ban of Djano Chained (another SPA), this seems to be a wider issue. Cortador (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Gonna suggest we also check out User:Dzień dobrry who has a similar editing pattern. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk page abuse: User:Krpzy

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

---

Krpzy (talk · contribs) is abusing their talk page after block. Please revoke TPA. --Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 16:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

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

POV pusher at Naidu

Filmpassion6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Naidu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Filmpassion6 has been persistently adding/modifying material on Naidu that consist of their original research based on unreliable sources, including Wikipedia articles, despite being clearly warned not to and having had their edits repeated reverted with edit summaries indicating the same. Their edit summaries, their comment on the talk page, and their comments on my talk page also indicate an intention for POV pushing. I do not believe that they are capable of making positive contributions, either due to their POV or an inability to understand Wikipedia's policies, hence a block may be required. Liu1126 (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked by Bbb23. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Dustfreeworld and CIR

The aforementioned username:

• believes that others linking policies to them is vandalism,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADustfreeworld&diff=1252277372&oldid=1252276097 ES

• believes that it is inappropriate for experienced editors to send them warning templates,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADustfreeworld&diff=1252285615&oldid=1252285101

• preassumes incompetency I hope people can do some basic research,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1252273709

• drags on issues (especially in the case of the topic ban, where the editor did have a right to have the discussion reopened),

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1248110819

• doesn’t take the effort to understand policies (when they link numerous policies themself),

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1245659975 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1252257961 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1252186545

• is against collaboration in numerous forms,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1244278039 (waited by edit-warring until the other user created a talk page message, when they could have just done it themself) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suicide_methods&diff=prev&oldid=1223141686 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1241187286 (everything in the blue block)

• likes to own articles,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhatamIdoing&diff=prev&oldid=1250023023#Hey,

• respects and admires people who can correct their mistakes,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1248110819

• yet sees their own mistakes as difference in opinion,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suicide_methods&diff=prev&oldid=1222337976 (in the case of NPOV) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1244280753 (everything in blue block)

• uses ES to attack other editors,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1244387015 (editor was dispute with the other on IsraelHamas war and suicide articles)

• disregards replies with excuses that they are too long.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Karnataka&diff=prev&oldid=1244269909 (especially when their own messages are very long)

It’s also weird how Dustfreeworld blanked both their user page and talk page wanting some privacy for forthcoming edits as if they knew the dispute currently on the talk page would happen.

I’ll mention those involved: @Dustfreeworld @Hiobazard @Kingsif @Karnataka @Adolphus79 @ScottishFinnishRadish @Jannatulbaqi @WhatamIdoing 2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:E5C3:B700:ED2A:2E22 (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

A comment on my talk page has been linked above. I have a very different interpretation of the comment, and I suggest disregarding this IP's claim that it's a sign of Wikipedia:Ownership of content.

I also respect and admire people who can correct their mistakes, and especially the editors who can publicly admit that they've changed their minds instead of doubling down on their original mistakes. For example, the alleged "ES" isn't an WP:ES, so maybe you'd like to go correct your error. (It's an HTML comment.) While we're on the subject of that point, I'll add that I was raised to believe that telling someone to shut up is not a polite way to communicate a wish for a conversation to end, but it's not actually a WP:Personal attack, and I suspect that quite a number of editors cheerfully use that phrase without thinking themselves to be behaving rudely, much less violating our Wikipedia:Civility policy. If it were, we'd have a bigger problem, because that phrase appears in significantly more than 10,000 discussions on wiki.

The only edits from this IP address are to post this here. I wonder which content dispute this logged-out editor is trying to gain an advantage in? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to show the ES, not the HTML comment. The ES shows the reason why the shut up HTML comment was added, in reference to a user. 2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:60B7:4D35:8B6C:93FB (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, this IP is also me the OP, I should have clarified it but I didn't know that the IP would change. I did not care about the "shut up" in the HTML or the ES, or anywhere in general (hence I didn't bring up https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asian_News_International&diff=prev&oldid=1252101002), but rather the content that follows in the ES only. Especially the harassment accusation through the "forgetful" link. However what I would like to bring up in that diff I just posted is the editor's unwillingness to discuss their edits. Dustfreeworld states that BOLD is a lie to children, but it isn't if one is willing to explain your edits instead of where I quote "throw uppercase" to editors who then revert. During a content dispute with another editor who reminded the user of importance of discussion through BRD, the response completely ignored the point https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Venezuelan_presidential_election&diff=prev&oldid=1239933205 showing how the editor is incompetent to judge when using BRD-is-optional arguments are appropriate.

I'm sure that almost everyone appreciates people who can correct their mistake. The editor is highly appreciative when things go according to plan https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AChirpy-slirpy-BURPY&diff=1247861443&oldid=1247579736 like shown. But when this doesn't happen allegations of blanking begin to appear https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1244258719 after a first revert of a revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1243854852.

As I showed in my original post, the editor calls "uppercase" vandalism. The following edits are a selection of edits with ES that has 3+ Wikispace links. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Pui&diff=prev&oldid=1244257726 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1243854852 (an example of viewing their own mistake as difference in opinion). An editor has wanted to distance themselves from the editor that I have brought here due to the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1247717981 aggressive and obsessive response to other editors that the editor gives. Notably through the Wikispace linking that the editor themselves have called vandalism. 2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:391E:173F:4FCD:20A4 (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be claiming that a note posted by this editor, on their User: page, that doesn't mention you or anything about you, is a message to you. I think that's unreasonable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Since I really want to get my point across that the ES was targeted towards a specific editor, I’ll clarify. The ES was They want you to shut up. Whether it’s about war, about suicide, about PRESERVE, maybe even racism/inclusion, whatever. They want you to shut up. So you should. How forgetful I am. and I’ll focus on the bolded parts of this.

Firstly, They. The editor is clearly referencing someone/a group of people.

Secondly, war/suicide/PRESERVE. The editor had a dispute with User:Karnataka against all three issues (Israel-Hamas war, various suicide articles, and a Preseve policy). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Karnataka&diff=prev&oldid=1244267146

Thridly, the racism/inclusion. I’ve also bolded the maybe as I was unable to find an occurrence of this, so I’m guessing that the editor was presumptive about the intentions of Karnataka.

Finally the attack in the form of the “forgetful” hyperlink. 2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:B99D:6BAD:5DDA:69EA (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• You are right WhatamIdoing,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adolphus79&diff=prev&oldid=1153898457 2A01:B747:412:344:D444:3B76:D8E5:AA37 (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what an unrelated comment on my talk page has anything to do with the editor in question, and have purposely stayed uninvolved in this conversation due to my recent interaction with them. I would like to clarify, though, that in my diff'd comment, I was not telling John M Wolfson to shut up, I was acknowledging his "sit in the corner away from the mop" statement. That being said, regarding the WP:OWN complaint, I would like to point out this edit, including the statement "Your comment makes me wonder when have you put the ANI article on your watchlist. I didn’t remember inviting you to watch and then revert my edits there. I didn’t invite you to come to my talk to waste my time either."... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Would an admin or experienced user please assess if this report above violates WP:A/I/PIA (by mentioning 2 diffs from discussions about the topic)?

Additionally, I would very much like to know how you, IP, came across these interactions, seeing as you have not clarified who you are and I do not see any obvious related edits in your /40 and /32 ranges (the /64 range is empty, but that's common).

So that I'm not an hypocrite: I edit from my entire /32 range, where 99% of the edits are mine, except for, I believe, less than 10. – 2804:F1...ED:5881 (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Note that "rv" does not mean "revert vandalism". It just means "revert". "rvv", with two V's, means "revert vandalism". See Wikipedia:Glossary § R. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I am aware? (OP again) 2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:B99D:6BAD:5DDA:69EA (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Then why do you think that Special:Diff/1252277372 indicates that Dustfreeworld thinks that Special:Diff/1252276097 was vandalism? jlwoodwa (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe it is a reference to this edit, calling my note about WP:OWN "vandalising my talk page with WP:UPPERCASE". - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Some editors feel strongly about Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars, and our WP:UPPERCASE jargon (please click that link if you've never read that page) can be off-putting. We use it as a way of signalling that I'm in the in-group (and probably you're an outsider), as a way to avoid thinking and explaining clearly, and as a way of trying to "win" disputes. I wouldn't call it vandalism myself, because I have a pretty narrow understanding of that word, but if it's upsetting, even if you believe it "shouldn't" be upsetting, then it's best to find a different way to say what you mean.

I don't know if you're familiar with Postel's law, but following the general principle on wiki is helpful: Editors who want to communicate successfully should avoid communication styles that are objected to often enough that you wouldn't be surprised if someone complained (e.g., no profanity, not because we have a firm rule against it, but because you have real things to communicate, and you don't need your real point ignored while we have yet another discussion about whether profanity is always a blockable offense or only sometimes a blockable offense. [It's the latter, by the way]), and if someone indicates a less common but still workable communication preference, then respect that as much as feasible (e.g., to the extent that you remember this preference and have functional alternatives). If you happened to become aware of someone's dislike for the WP:UPPERCASE style of communication, then it'd be nice if you could avoid that. But, of course, if you don't know that, or if you happen to forget, then that needs to be okay, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The difference here is that Dustfreeworld’s handling is highly hypocritical. You will find WP links in almost every one of the Dustfreeworld’s talk page messages and many of ES, so how is it vandalism when it’s done only towards Dustfreeworld? As Dustfreeworld is consistently using WP links, surely they are actively indicating that the best way to communicate with them is also with WP links.

By WP links I am referring to the UPPERCASE. 2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:B99D:6BAD:5DDA:69EA (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

That was my understanding also. Considering how many WP shortcuts Dustfreeworld throws around, in almost every message they post, I assumed that they were part of said 'in crowd' and responded in kind. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

2A02:6B67, I regret that I must apparently be the one to break the unfortunate news to you, but: humans are not perfect. And Wikipedia editors are humans.

Complaining about ordinary human beings – with their ordinary human frailties, faults, and self-contradictions – is not the intended purpose of this noticeboard. Admins have no tools to make humans be perfect, and if we banned everyone who made an occasional mistake, or who discovered that they didn't like a particular behavior once the shoe is on the other foot, there would be nobody left to write articles.

While we're here, may I invite you to go to Special:CreateAccount and register an account? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The specific issue I have brought to ANI is civility and a potential CIR issue, not baseless complaints without any diffs at all. 2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:B19C:D275:9885:CEE7 (talk) 05:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I am here because I was pinged by the OP. I am not experienced enough to sling around a lot of WP:(whatever) policy quotations, but did want to leave my opinion here.

The editor mentioned by the OP has already received a broad ban from editing medical topics, which is clear evidence of prior repeated problem behavior. They came to my notice because of the Joss paper article, which had some errors in correctly paraphrasing at least one source (primary, actually,) as well as blank section headings and references which strongly implied significant health issues existed, etc., without proper sources or even any actual text at all. After some back-and-forth reversions, I discovered the medical topic ban and reminded the editor thereof. In the process, I came across numerous edits and talk page postings that persist in the same pattern of incorrectly citing policy and using dozens of allcap WP: links to basically smother disagreement.

Succinctly, the editor in question has a history of tendentious editing - just looking at the Joss paper editing and the username shows a likely problem with NPOV. There is a further unwillingness to engage properly in generating consensus; accurate complaints about problem behaviors/edits are met with hundreds of words quoting dozens of often inapplicable policies, or with "I don't have time for this," instead of reasonable replies.

Wikipedia has a lot of rules, for reasons, but I am a firm believer that if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, full genome sequencing may be unnecessary in determining which of the Anseriformes it is. This is clearly a problem editor.

I was going to link to a diff of the ~15:00UTC OCT 20 post by @Adolphus79 on the problem editor's talk page, but it's now in a purple box of some sort that I am too inexperienced to manipulate properly; I agree with it wholeheartedly. Hiobazard (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hiobazard: This edit? - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Exactly; thank you.Hiobazard (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

hi, I'm here because I was invited on my talk page. I don't have a good history with Dustfreeworld - we had some issues in multiple articles and I essentially wrote what I wanted to say to him in a long reply. I've attached the last edit made to the discussion before I removed it from my talk page Special:Diff/1244386082 and even though I was quite harsh I didn't know how to counter the WP:PA, WP:HOUND and the repetitive WP:PRESERVE argument that Dustfreeworld sent to me (and he was not using properly - see also links instead of content) to the point where I had to use shortcuts which is something I rarely do. — Karnataka 17:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that the OP is someone with whom I have content dispute recently, thought that they have lost, holding a grudge, and post as IP in order to evade boomerang. They also hope that pinging others (who also have content disputes with me before) to this discussion can increase their chance of “winning”. There are much representations in the diffs they posted, many of them are either aged or tangentially-related. They posted those diffs in the hope that they can get rid of another editor by sheer weight of numbers, especially where said diffs involving other editors (aside from Adolphus79) were only about content dispute discussions that had either died or already been resolved. There are too many misrepresentations that would need much efforts to debunk. Anyway please see the new section below. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

If I may quote myself: 'or with "I don't have time for this," instead of reasonable replies.' The lack of self-awareness here seems profound. Hiobazard (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment, @Hiobazard. FYI, almost all the 16 diffs posted by the IP are misrepresentations that are either cherry picked or quoted out of context, in the hope that they can get rid of another editor by sheer weight of numbers; not to mention the 20 links to policies and essays with untrue claims that Adolphus79 posted on my talk page. Even if I can find the time to respond to all the 36 instances, I’m afraid that I don’t know how to, because most are misrepresentations that are not talking about what the issues really are (e.g., it’s like someone pointing at a dog and asks you do you like cats). If someone is determined, it won't be too difficult to cherry pick 16 diffs out of an editor's thousands of edits.

I have never heard that “don’t have time” is something that the community disallow voluntary editors to say. I have heard that wasting the community’s time *is* a problem. If I may ask, how many times are you going to quote yourself? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dustfreeworld I have been following this thread and I think that it s unreasonable to complain about the links to policies and essays that @Adolphus79 when you use them a lot too for example with my edits and WP:PRESERVE. you didn't care about my response and linked another essay Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read at special:diff/1244269909 where the second paragraph in that essay says "It can be misused as a tactic to thwart collaborative editing", which is exactly what you did by not even responding to my point - that sometimes revert/removal is the only option. I also did my job and did inform you of the removals at Talk pages, but you chose not to rea-dd the images or dispute the removal and accused me of trying to "WIN"? — Karnataka 16:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that it’s nothing wrong to link to policies and essays. That helps facilitating discussions. However, I don’t think linking 20 of them in one single comment (like the other user did) is an appropriate use. That’s absolutely not something I will, or have ever, do or done.

Re Tldr, I linked to it in response to your preceding comment (last sentence) that “I do hope that you read the entirety of this reply.” I interpreted that as you thought your comment were too long for me to read. But, that said, I can be wrong and there could have been misunderstanding or language barrier. I don’t think it’s true that I didn’t care about your response. I didn’t reply or edited the article further because I was conforming to the tban (which IMO not aligning quite right). Plus, since I decided that I would let go and unwatch that article, I just didn’t feel the need to response further (I won’t / can’t edit that article anymore why should I continue a content dispute with you?). Also, from our interactions I had the impression that you had dug deep into my contribs / talk page and should have known about my restrictions, so I was annoyed when I was pushed to response while I really couldn’t. That said, again, there might be misunderstanding and I might have misunderstood. If you are unhappy about my notion about WIN, I’m more than happy to retract that. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dustfreeworld Sure I don’t really mind about retraction because what’s said has been said. I added that because it was the first time that I remember writing a long comment like that and didn’t want my efforts to be wasted but your response to my reply clearly showed that you dismissed it (certainly not a misunderstanding), calling it a “time sink”, and I did quote what the essay said about this in the link above. — Karnataka 14:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dustfreeworld But I’m confused because none of the topics we had dispute on were related to medical topics… I don’t know how Israel-Hamas war and David Pui could ever be linked to medicine (suicide could be somewhat medical-related but you rea-dded the topic on my talk page after my Israel-Hamas war article reversions so I don’t see that as a valid excuse) — Karnataka 14:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

While I’ve already said my linking to an essay isn’t a “tactic” as said, I don’t think my comment above is “excuse” either. To be frank, as those content disputes were weeks or even months ago, I don’t think our memories serve perfectly and I don’t think I can clearly figure out where the misunderstandings are. Can we just be more friendly and collaborative and AGF? I do believe we did AGF, as I remember I have made an edit summary that has earned a thank from you not so long ago. It’s really not worth our/ the community’s efforts/time to dig up those dead discussions/ content disputes again just because someone pinged you here because they hold a grudge against me ... I hope you understand that. Thank you. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dustfreeworld I don't think they were misunderstandings, and I do hold my reservations about this entire thing but I think it would be best if I just stopped replying here as our main editing topics are completely different and it isn't the best idea to keep dragging this, even though I don't think that this was resolved. I'll monitor this for outcome like what Hiobazard said he'll do too, but this was an experience and I don't think I'll comment here further unless I'm brought up again as you have suggested since it will be the best for both of us. thank you — Karnataka 22:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

(EC) After 4 days, you haven't had time to make a single comment regarding the content of the original report against you, but have had enough time to file two additional retaliatory "reports" attacking me? - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I’m still studying the 36 links and pages. That said, I believe that even if I did make a single comment regarding one of the thirty six misrepresentations, it will not be enough to debunk it, and, there are still thirty five left (and, I won’t be surprised if someone continues to add more.) I figured that I’d better spend my time in filing two reports stating the true claims about the misbehaviours of an editor so that everyone can know and understand them. By the way, you declared that you are not the OP, who would you say that my reports (against you, not the OP) are retaliatory?

PS. I don’t think my reports that written based on facts “attack” you. I hope that comment is not another attack against me. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Baselessly accusing me of using the OP IP as a sock, and filing 2 retaliatory reports against me trying to deflect from your own report, those are personal attacks. It also further proves the points made by the OP IP and every other commentor. BTW, me calling you out on your obvious personal attacks against me is not a personal attack itself, so please drop that stick also. This is your chance to defend your statements and actions, to give the community a reason to believe you are a useful and worthwhile member or can at least make improvements, but instead you are using it to attack others and only furthering the case against you. I'm not sure what you think you are going to "debunk" by continuing the same course-of-action that got you here, but you had better hurry before this report gets closed. - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I repeat: “you declared that you are not the OP, why would you say that my reports (against you, not the OP) are retaliatory?” It’s a query, not attack.

And again: “I don’t think my reports that written based on facts ‘attack’ you. I hope that comment is not another attack against me.”

• Report 1
• Report 2
• This is your chance to defend your statements and actions, to give the community a reason to believe you are a useful and worthwhile member or can at least make improvements ... you had better hurry before this report gets closed.

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Please note: I had already responded to both of these "reports", 3 days prior to this comment... - Adolphus79 (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

“There is no reason for me to make any further comments. CalGon, take me away!” - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC) [26]

Yes, we all know how trustworthy you are. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me? Just because I ended one conversation with you, means I am not allowed to make other edits elsewhere now? How very hypocritical of you. - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know what do you mean by “elsewhere” as we are talking about this same discussion thread.

Aside, I’ve never said that I won’t make further comments here (even in the diff that you linked to); it’s *you* who said so. Please stop making comments like ”How very hypocritical of you” on other editors. I believe that kind of comments can get you blocked. Thank you. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 05:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, OP again. I pinged every user who I planned to add a diff from and adding a talk page notice to Karnataka (as I had to describe a dispute regarding you and them to WAID), including SandyGeorgia and WAID who you supposedly have good relations with so they can all see the ANI. I recognise that you don't know them, but you also supposedly have a few supporters https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1252453886 in which several users who have a high edit count are mentioned. Unlike described below, I am not using a VPN and even though I seem to have multiple VPNs they are all from the same area. I will continue to keep who I am ambiguous. 2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:19A5:EA39:9B52:10CC (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know why you are pinging so many people here. Sometimes you implied that I was having disputes with some editors, and then later you said I have “good relations” with some of them. I hope your pings have nothing to do with this (quote: “When notifying other editors of discussions ... don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions.”). I don’t know why “my relations with other editors” are relevant to this discussion (unless people are trying to telll those who disagree with your untrue claims, or those who agree with my edits, not to post here). I’ll never be able to know your relations with other editors, as you are not disclosing who you are. Again, people who are seeing this please also see the new section below. Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m OP, like I just said I didn’t preselect based on opinion I just pinged everyone who I planned to link diffs to. 2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:A16E:DF9E:D908:F02F (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Wait, is this yet another accusation that I am the OP IP? You just don't know when to stop attacking others, do you? - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think I have mentioned you in that comment of mine.

• You just don't know when to stop attacking others, do you?

I see that as an attack towards me. Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

RE to the IP's I will continue to keep who I am ambiguous

Which of the legitimate uses of sock accounts (in this case IPs) are you operating under?

It certainly seems hard to scrutinize your edits, as is expected when you comment on this board, when you have hidden your edits by editing while logged out - there's certainly good reasons for us wanting to be sure that you are not also involved in any of these or related discussions as another IP range or account.

Please address these concerns. – user in this /32, currently 2804:F1...58:A5F8 (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I declare it's not me, I don't know squat about domains or proxies or VPNs or whatever, which is why I always edit logged in cuz I'm stuck on the same redneck POS DSL I've been using since 2009... also, I know how to spell 'behavior' and 'apologize'... (haha) - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:UOWN indicates a user may delete anything they want from their userpage.

I see nothing wrong with diffs of his user pages that are deletion of content. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I have had encounters with DustFreeworld previously as well. I believe their edits are, for the most part, those of an advocacy group rather than encyclopaedic. It's quite obvious they're here on a focused mission to bring their advocacy against pollution into Wikipedia. Many of their edits are not encyclopaedic and are akin to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or WP:SOAPBOXing. They put the same content in many articles, use live articles as sandboxes and drafts, spam their images that fail MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, add irrelevant content and twist the narrative to push for their clean air advocacy. It's an admirable advocacy, don't get me wrong, but it's not encyclopaedia building. Canterbury Tail talk 18:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

OP here. Thanks for your input, I’d really appreciate it if you could also include some diffs so we can all see the nature of the edits by the editor. I included diffs from the other editors above in my original post but I didn’t come across this scenario, although the username Dustfreeworld does paint a picture for a start. 2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:A16E:DF9E:D908:F02F (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

=== User:Adolphus79 and aspersions/ attacks ===

On 20 Oct, at the end of a content dispute, Adolphus79 posted a comment on my talk with twenty Wikipedia UPPERCASE policies shortcut https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1252257961 They added profanity to my talk page, which is a type of vandalism https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1252257961 (”Shit on” twice (e.g., "gets shit on like I did")) Potential aspersions, even during this discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1253734154 ("How very hypocritical of you") Failed to assume good faith and cast potential personal attack https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1252171189 (“am done playing your silly games.”) Again, failed to assume good faith and removed the peace message with appologies that I posted on their talk page with an ABF edit summary https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adolphus79&diff=prev&oldid=1252279683 (with ES: “revert bad faith ‘peace’ message...”) All these refute the above accusations and explain why I removed their problematic posts (which were posted after the discussion was closed) on my talk. There are probably more diffs, but I think the ones we have now are enough for a boomerang possible sanctions. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC) Excuse me, are you openly accusing me of using the OP IP as a sock on AN/I? Anyone that knows me knows better than that. Could I please request an admin checkuser to verify that's not me? - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC) Please kindly note my use of words “it *seems* to me”. While I’m won’t oppose a checkuser procedure, I’m not sure if it can identity all users who are using VPN, proxies, etc. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC) WRT “Anyone that knows me”, I thought I “know” you too when I said on your talk page that “you are a reasonable person”. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC) "enough for a boomerang" implies you believe this will WP:BOOMERANG on me, implying that I am the OP. Accusing me of sockpuppetry. - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC) Again, “Please kindly note my use of words ‘it *seems* to me’”. Having doubts doesn’t mean PA (as you have linked to). Please AGF. That said, I won’t mind if you change the word boomerang into “sanction”. Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC) Nah, I'm gonna let your completely unfounded statement of "I think the ones we have now are enough for a boomerang" stand fully on it's own, especially after our recent interaction, I'm done... checkuser, please! - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC) I hope “your completely unfounded statement” isn’t an accusation against me. I hope the diffs I posted above can be looked into by ... someone (checkuser or whatever?) too. Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC) That edit summary cements it. Thank you. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC) I just want to make this clear, if I was going to report Dustfreeworld, I would have reported them, myself, immediately after our conversation on their talk page. And I would have reported only our interaction, I wouldn't have needed any other evidence from their past transgressions. I am (mostly) proud of my edit history, and would also want those edits to count towards my account. The fact that Dustfreeworld refused to comment on a single aspect of the report though, deciding instead to single me out and openly attack me without a single piece of evidence, says volumes about their behavior in regard to the original report. - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC) I do want to know why you aren’t commenting on my report about you, with all claims supported by diffs as evidence. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC) Evidence of what? That I used UPPERCASE just like you do? Or that I lost my cool? I've already apologized for saying a bad word (which, BTW, is mentioned 10 times on AN/I right at this moment outside of this thread), after you had tried to bully me for 2 days straight. Or do you want me to apologize for removing a message from my own talk page that was obviously left in bad faith considering your two edits on either side of that one being continuing to bully and attack me on your talk page? - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC) I don’t think what you said about me is true. Again, please calm down, and don’t take it personal. Thank you. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC) What did I say about you that you don't think is true? I'm confused? - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC) DFW, I think this post does you a disservice. It seems to support the above assertions that you cite and misapply policy you don't understand. I'm not sure what policy you're alleging was violated with your first diff, as WP:UPPERCASE is an essay, not a guideline. The second diff does indeed show some profanity... which is not inherently forbidden, and is CERTAINLY not vandalism. The third diff is the closest to what you say, but I can't say I blame Adolphus for getting heated. It's not great, but it's not the smoking gun you seem to think. The last diff is something that, again, would be better to avoid, but really doesn't seem something that would warrant sanctions, especially as it was removing a message form their own talk page. The above thread also doesn't impress. "it seems to me" is not a get out of jail free card to imply whatever you like. If we're in a content dispute, and I said, "Oh man, there's this really bad editor I've had a dispute with. Their username starts with D, but that's all I'll say", you'd be right to accuse me of WP:NPA even though I didn't explicitly say it. You often tell people to WP:AGF, but per WP:PACT, that has limits. Also, note that checkusers don't connect accounts with IPs, and even if they did, WP:CHECKME explicitly forbids it. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC) Thanks for the reply. Hmm, I think I’m not the one who suggested the checkuser procedure. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC) If ever asked, I would have happily apologized for the naughty word, but it was not directed at the editor themselves, and its nothing worse that you hear on broadcast TV anymore. @Dustfreeworld, I'm sorry that I was so weary of our conversation that I said a naughty word in my final message to you. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC) Add one more example of “sh*t on” https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1252257961 (perhaps “describing something as shitting on them” is not sanctionable, but I believe describing an editor as “continue wanting to shit on them” is) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC) Since we now know that no one is going to do anything about this report, what's the point of adding a redundant (second) complaint about what you've already complained about above ("he said it twice")? - Adolphus79 (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

CIR and User:Adolphus79

• Misunderstood WP:NBASIC, which is a section of Wikipedia:Notability (people), and wrongly think that it’s used to decide article content (while in fact it’s used to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article)
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1252136646 (and failed to admit that they are wrong even after the policy has been clearly explained to them “You are citing WP:NBASIC, which is a section of WP:Notability (people), but have you read the very first part of it? On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article.”)

• After other’s patient explanation, they continue to misinterpret policies such as WP:N, saying that it’s used to determine “how the person is notable enough for inclusion”, while the guideline actually says, “The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article”. Instead of admitting their mistakes, they chose to post warning template and more Uppercase, etc. on my talk page later on
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1252257961 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustfreeworld (talk • contribs) 22:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Dustfreeworld: I think you're misrepresenting the context for the first diff. Yes, WP:NBASIC doesn't usually decide article content, but when you add a non-notable person to a section titled "Notable journalists" it definitely applies (per WP:LISTPEOPLE). jlwoodwa (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  jlwoodwa, please kindly note that the page you linked to (WP:LISTPEOPLE) is a section of the page Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. At the top of the page it says, “Stand-alone lists (also referred to as list articles) are articles composed of one or more embedded lists, or series of items formatted into a list.” I think that guideline is for stand-alone “list articles” only (but not the article in question which also has other content). Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  See WP:LISTBIO, which applies policies like WP:DUE to embedded lists. I don't see any discussion on the talk page making a case that it's due weight, and it's up to you to convince others it should be there, not them to convince you it shouldn't. But we're getting into the weeds here. I think it's clear that Adolphus, whether mistaken or correct, had reasonable cause for their interpretation. Even if mistaken, I don't know of any policy that requires someone to admit that they are wrong. Rather, an essay seems to suggest the opposite. It's okay to have been mistaken, and laudable to learn from it and become more correct in the future. I suggest you drop what looks like a retaliatory filing; I think it is only working against you at this point. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  If Dustfreeworld had simply provided additional sources that showed the person in question was in fact notable for inclusion in a "notable person" section, anything other than "he died", with barely a mention of his name in a news article about someone else, I would have happily rescinded my opposition. Instead, they told me to find more sources to prove their point, that ONUS didn't apply to them, and tried to bully me to get their way (WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM trumps all P&G, WP:NOBLANK says I can't revert their changes, etc.). I never implied UNDUE, never said "he can't be included", I only tried to point out that Dustfreeworld was adding a "notable persons" section with a single occupant, without providing any signs of what the person was "notable" for (other than "he died"). I was genuinely hoping that Dustfreeworld would find the additional information, come back and add the individual again with some source that showed he was an award-winning journalist, that he had published a book, anything that showed a hint of passing notability concerns; instead, I had WP shortcuts thrown at me that Dustfreeworld obviously hadn't read before citing, was bullied, and continue to have attacks lobbed at me even now. All because I asked for more than "he is notable because he died". - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  @EducatedRedneck, again, thank you for the comment. Yes, it’s good to apologise, and that’s what I’ve done. Although it was described as “bad faith” by the other user.

  I think it’s normal for editors to have different opinions/ interpretations on policies. I’m totally fine with that. No, I didn’t ask for their apologies. I just hoped that people can cool down a bit instead of throwing twenty policy shortcuts at me and adding profanity (e.g., “sh*t *n”) to my talk page. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I think that any chance of reducing the recalcitrance and wikilawyering by this problem editor via discussion or consensus building is close to zero. Every rational argument, or reiteration thereof, is just met by delay and another (incorrect, typically) reference to policy with no admission or recognition of their consistently problematic and tendentious actions. @ScottishFinnishRadish: is a well-respected editor and administrator who has already been closely involved with this editor's problem behavior in the past and may be able to put this to bed - one way or the other. Other than monitoring for outcome, I won't be commenting further. Hiobazard (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support - This discussion is going nowhere fast. I submit all of the above as evidence, and move that this report be closed as Dustfreeworld has failed multiple aspects of WP:NOTHERE, and shows no signs of future improvement. - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  Support what? - I submit all of the above as evidence, and move that this report be closed as Adolphus79 has failed multiple aspects of WP:NOTHERE, casting aspersions failed CIR and shows no signs of future improvement? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

So you learned a new WP shortcut, and once again want to show that you failed to read it before citing it. WP:ASPERSIONS "is a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence". What did I accuse you of that you didn't do openly with plenty of evidence? Also, the original report is not about me, so why would it be closed with a comment about me? Unless you are once again accusing me of using the OP IP as a sock? - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Adolphus79, Wikilawyering again? Thanks for teaching me new WP shortcut. I’m always happy to learn new things. FYI, misrepresentations aren’t evidence. Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm done... I do not believe you are incompetent, I believe you are simply NOTHERE. You know HOW to edit just fine, but your disdain for any comments not strictly following your "interpretation" of the P&G means you just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper. There is no reason for me to make any further comments. CalGon, take me away! - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m done too. Thank you.

P.S. For the record, I had waited for almost two days for your reply about the discussion (Indoor air quality) you initiated on my talk page before I blanked the page for privacy [27] [28] (for my forth-coming edits at another unrelated article Asian News International). You were more than welcome to comment on that discussion to correct my “disdain”, although you didn’t. Instead you chose to comment/follow my edits to the unrelated ANI article and start another content dispute with me (with grudges?) ... --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Reply to Hiobazard. I’m glad that you have removed that ABF comment (which says “any further interaction with Dustfreeworld here will likely be useless”) Thank you.

I suppose by “wikilawyering” you mean the linking of 20 policies or essays in one single comment by Adolphus79? For the record, you didn’t reply to my (only) comment on Sep 27, which was a response to the discussion you started on my talk. I left the discussion opened until Oct 17before it’s closed. I don’t think that not responding to comment, and then, thought that they had lost the discussion and holding a grudge, later (when pinged) accusing another editor with claims like “consistently problematic and tendentious actions”, is a good example of consensus building or collaborative editing ...Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Request 31 h block for Dustfreeworld Regretfully, DFW doesn't seem to be getting the message that they need to disengage and perhaps reevaluate their interpretation of policy. The original report was disorganized and did not convince me there was a problem. It's only DFW's response, including two retaliatory filings and several personal attacks in this thread, which changed my mind.

Discussion has not seemed to change DFW's mind, and they have passed up several opportunities in this thread to let the matter drop. If this were closed with a warning, I suspect DFW would avoid this specific conflict, yet would continue to misapply policy (or modify essays to suit their interpretation). I hope a short block would convince them to consider others when they disagree with their novel policy interpretations rather than continue to edit disruptively based on them. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

”The original report was disorganized and did not convince me there was a problem. “ Thank you.

Aside, you said my filings convinced you there was a problem. Can you tell us more? Do you think Adolphus79’s accusing me of being “silly”, “shit on them” or explicitly failed to assume good faith (supported by their ES) when removing my message to seek peace on their talk, etc., were what convinced you? Or, do you think that citing/misrepresenting policies which were irrelevant to the situation under discussion (we were talking about embedded list, but the policies that Adolphus79 linked to were about stand-alone lists) repeatedly , was what convinced you?

PS. I urge you to retract your potential aspersion “misapply policy (or modify essays to suit their interpretation)” and "edit disruptively". That edit of mine has been standing for over a month. I don’t think the editors who have been watching that page will agree with your potential aspersion. I don't think an edit of mine telling editors to follow our editing policy is "disruptive" (if you really think so, I would start to wonder if it's a sign of WP:NOTHERE). BTW, please kindly note that it seems to me that you are making a no-edit order to tell others not to edit that page. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 07:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

This response is an excellent example of why I think there's a problem. I begin to suspect 31 h is indeed too short, and an indef would better serve. Hiobazard seemed to be correct that discussion is not productive. I'll give it one last shot anyway. Why do I think some sanctions are needed?

You're harping on Adolphus instead of addressing your own behavior (a Red herring), implying that Adolphus describing something as shitting on them is somehow sanctionable, asking leading and argumentative questions that seem designed to score points rather than gain understanding (WP:BATTLEGROUND), claimed that a criticism of your behavior on a behavioral board was a potential aspersion yet somehow not realized that you're doing exactly the same thing. And claiming I'm WP:NOTHERE is particularly rich.

You also either missed the point (WP:CIR) or deliberately avoided it (WP:IDHT) regarding the essay. Consider: WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM which you tout and linked to states fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't. (Emphasis mine) Your edit read Always follow the editing policy and revert only when necessary which both gives the impression that one must ALWAYS fix the problem, and also the impression that your interpretation, which is not supported by the policy page, is ironclad. That is deceptive and disruptive.

Finally, if you really don't see the difference between "you shouldn't change an essay to reflect an interpretation that has no consensus" and "don't edit that article", then that's on you. Your claim of "I didn't refute that point" also doesn't convince me that you understood the problem. And your Tu quoque of "Well if you believe that then you have to fix this other article" doesn't strike the zinger of a point you seem to think it does. In fact, it shows you still don't understand the policy. Only one entry would be removed from that list; the rest have their own articles, and therefore meet WP:LISTBIO.

It doesn't seem that discussion will be fruitful, so like Adolphus, I'm going to sit back and see what other editors think. I was originally trying to get this resolved without sanctions, and if no admin is convinced by this, perhaps that's what'll happen. I just expect we'll end up back here soon enough. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't bother... After 8 days, it's obvious no one is going to do anything. They are just going to ignore this, letting it get archived without any action. Dustfreeworld seems to enjoy impunity here (check the archives), free to carry on their behavior with a new set of WP shortcuts to misuse when they bully their next victim... - Adolphus79 (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

EducatedRedneck,

”I begin to suspect 31 h is indeed too short, and an indef would better serve.” Because you can’t win the discussion?

”That is deceptive and disruptive.” So you are determined to join Adolphus79’s smear campaign?

What’s the problem to tell editors to “always follow the editing policy”, with a link to the policy in which it says “fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't.”?

The link was added so that editors can click on it and read the policy themselves, read that line “fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't” and follow it. How “deceptive and disruptive” can that be? That is aspersion.

You are linking to at least six WP shortcuts (i.e., wikilawyering), misinterpreting/ misrepresenting my edit, failed to assume good faith, escalating disputes, in an attempt to remove an editor. You're harping on me instead of addressing your own behavior (a Red herring). Your comment is making it obvious that you are WP:NOTHERE.

Aside, the person I added to the ANI article was well sourced. I did provide more sources on my talk page to support that upon query. Even if, I say if, someone really thinks that entry isn’t notable enough, removing the whole section outright (which Adolphus79 had done) is *not* following “tag or excise them if you can't [fix them]”. This further shows that how common editors misinterpret our ES and that my edit to BRD is essential. (FYI, that section of the ANI article needs *expansion*, I can’t do it because I was dragged here. They should do that. You should do that. But you decided to escalate here. Another proof that you are nothere.)

That said, let me repeat: this is not the right place to discuss policies or article content, unless you are nothere and want to use that to remove another editor, which you are trying to do now. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

FYI, I didn’t refute to your comment on WP:LISTBIO because a) I don’t think this is the right place for policy discussion, b) I want to avoid battles in discussions, which is exactly complying to WP:BATTLEGROUNDS. But that doesn’t mean I agree with you on that. As I’ve said, “I think it’s normal for editors to have different opinions/ interpretations on policies. I’m totally fine with that.” (but I don't think I will ever cast aspersions on editors because of that) I suggest you reread. (BTW, if you still insist that I my interpretations of policy are “novel”, I suggest you edit this article and remove this whole section. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck, are you sure 31h is enough, considering the editor regularly takes 2 or 3 days between editing? - Adolphus79 (talk) 07:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Adolphus79, how long do you think your block should be, for a continual smear campaign like this one? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 07:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not even sure how to respond to that. I didn't post that retaliatory report, I didn't baselessly accuse anyone of sockpuppetry, and I didn't show how oblivious I am to the P&G (or that I haven't even read the WP shortcuts that I do use). - Adolphus79 (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Your comment is telling us that you won’t stop that campaign of yours.

Are you sure how to respond to these?

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Adolphus79 and aspersions/ attacks
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#CIR and User:Adolphus79

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I give up, you make Wikipedia not fun anymore. I am tired of your attacks, your harassment, your complete lack of couth. You haven't made a single edit in the last week that wasn't attacking me in some way, and I genuinely hope someone puts an end to this before I just leave the project for good. You win, I'm the worst editor in the history of the project. Now, please, leave me the fuck alone. - Adolphus79 (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC) - Sorry, don't want to upset the babies... - Adolphus79 (talk) 08:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC) - we all know no one is going to stop this, 6 days of this BS without a single word from an admin about your behavior or actions just reminds me how unwelcome I am around here... you win, you can say whatever you want about me, they won't stop you, I should've known better than wander out of mainspace... I hope you figure out who the OP is one day, to focus all your misdirected hate on them instead... I'm going back to my corner... thanks for nothing ANI... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked Dustfreeworld (talk · contribs) for one week for casting aspersions, wikilawyering, and tendentious editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

For the record:

The OP (and all the related IPs) who filed this ANI complaint is now blocked (CheckUser block):

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:0:0:0:0/64

User:Karnataka officially warned for engaging in sock puppetry [29], "The only reason that you're not currently blocked is because I didn't notice it until now, and blocks aren't supposed to be punitive."

More information can be found on my talk page (perm link)

In this discussion I was described as a “very hypocritical bad faith incompetent deceptive editor who sh*t on others”, and then was blocked with reasons: “persistently making disruptive edits, casting aspersions, wikilawyering, showing classic WP:TE”

Sorry I really can’t accept/admit these claims. If the blocking admin wants to sustain them, I’m opened to further discussion with concrete diffs provided for each claim.

I’m not going to hold people who made untrue claims about me accountable, I still believe those are just misunderstandings; but I believe this discussion should be closed/archived with the significant additional information (OP blocked a user warned for sock puppetry) mentioned, and with the right conclusion.--Dustfreeworld (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Closure request

Proposed closing statement: “OP rangeblocked for a month (CheckUser block).” --Dustfreeworld (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Oddly specific targeted vandalism

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

---

Do admins have the ability to block the word "Ponyo" on January 8–10, 2024 North American storm complex? There's someone who appears to have a grudge against User:Ponyo hopping IPs while editing that article. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

It's just a sock, exposing their IP addresses that will inevitably be blocked for longer and longer periods. Not very clever, and WP:RBI works.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

To answer the question, short of an edit filter I don't think that's possible, but I did restore the protection that expired earlier today. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both for your responses. Would one of you two be kind enough to mark this as closed? Wildfireupdateman (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Lovemuhcko and IDHT

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

As shown on their talk page, Lovemuhcko (who began editing in 2019 and became more active in 2023) has recently showed issues with IDHT and competence:

• Moving an unfinished stubby draft to mainspace: [30]
• Removing stub tags from obvious stubs despite warnings from two other users: Special:Diff/1251968647
• Adding unsourced content (to BLPs) despite a warning in March: Special:Diff/1251250442, Special:Diff/1251250325, Special:Diff/1251250172
• WP:NOTBROKEN violations despite a previous warning at User_talk:Dekimasu#Any_a_favor?: Discussion here

While they are sometimes good at giving me ideas on what articles to create, they have still continued their disruptive behavior despite being warned that this could get them blocked, so I'm concerned they're WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE with this project. ミラP@Miraclepine 01:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

So I not edits for in the future and I will limit these edits anymore and please not been blocked or banned to edits and still continue to editing will to limited from now. Lovemuhcko (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lovemuhcko: I don't think promising to restrict your edits is enough here. The general issue here is that you've repeatedly ignored people's concerns about your editing, so there's a substantial chance that it might later spill over to other areas on this project, leaving us with more work to clean up afterwards. ミラP@Miraclepine 02:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I remember this editor. My first encounter to them was on April 2023 when they removed the Stub tag on Madoka Asahina article without an explanation. I restored the tag, explaining that the article was currently assessed as Stub, and warned them on their talk page. Since then, I restored the Stub tags that they removed from other articles, to the point I got exhausted and just removed those articles from my watchlist or just started ignoring them even if I know what they did was wrong. It seems that their editing involving Stub tag removal doesn't stop, with recent being this week. I hope this ANI will get the editor's attention: they can expand the Stub articles instead before removing the template. Centcom08 (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Post-archive update

After this thread was archived as inactive, they returned to editing and continued removing stub tags from obvious stubs (Special:Diff/1256464176, Special:Diff/1256464167), both of which I've reverted. I'm unarchiving it due to concerns about their behavior. ミラP@Miraclepine 23:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked them from mainspace due to the resumption of the same problematic editing despite a promise above. I also question whether they have the English language skills to edit here, but they're welcome to use draftspace. Star Mississippi 01:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Star Mississippi, a stub is an article too short and incomplete to provide more than rudimentary information. When I look at The Case Book of Arne, I see an article that should be assessed as "Start" rather than "Stub". Take a look at the article, which has nine sentences of prose and six references. Then, take a look at how Wikipedia:Content assessment describes stubs and start articles, and explain to me how this article is a stub? I see far more than "rudimentary information". So, why is is removing the stub tag being held against this editor? Cullen328 (talk) 02:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

That one is more borderline than Murder Mystery of the Dead which is a clearly wrong de-tagging IMO. Personally I'd have left Arne as a stub but I also don't think this editor has the experience to be assessing article quality. That said, zero objection to you or any other editor lifting the block if you think it was wrong @Cullen328. I'm about to log off so please don't wait on me for any action. Star Mississippi 03:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Star Mississippi, I do not object to the block from mainspace because the editor's contributions clearly have some significant competence issues. What I've done is upgrade The Case Book of Arne to start. This editor can demonstrate competence through well-referenced edit requests on article talk pages. Some competence issues are intractable. On the other hand, "English language skills" is an area where serious effort, study and ongoing day-to-day experience can accomplish wonders, although it takes time. Cullen328 (talk) 03:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Long-term problem at Robert Hale Merriman

Since April, someone editing from the IP range 2600:1700:2320:4780::/64 (talk · contribs) has been making large, unsourced additions to the page Robert Hale Merriman, totalling more than 500 edits. They've been reverted and warned by about a dozen different other editors over those seven months and are not taking the hint. Indeed, at no point in that time have they so much as acknowledged any of those warnings, posted anything to any talk page, or given a single edit summary. I believe a pageblock for that IP range is warranted and appropriate at this point, given the failure of reverts and warnings to have any effect, the long timescale, and the fact that the problem emanates neatly from one /64 block. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

A block against an IP range is usually enacted as a temporary solution. I think a short-term range block is in order while making a request for page protection. Peaceray (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

A /64 IPv6 range is usually equivalent to a single IPv4 address and can be treated as such. The first half of the IPv6 address usually identifies the device, while the second half often varies randomly. So blocking a single /64, unlike a wider range block that could affect multiple users, would be preferable to having the whole page be protected. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

My concern about page protection as a solution is that this person is clearly incredibly persistent and I can't imagine anything except very long term page protection being effective against them, and that seems like an outcome it would be preferable to avoid.

I'm pretty sure I remember seeing long-term partial blocks against IP ranges used in the past - am I misremembering? It seems like the risk involved is quite low; the chances of another, uninvolved user having an address in the same /64 and wanting to edit that one specific article are small enough. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

. I am new to adminship (about ten days ago) & have never done a range block or a for a specific article. Perhaps someone at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make range blocks can help Peaceray (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, I meant to congratulate you on your election!

Anyway, @Drmies has just protected the page for a month. I've added it to my watchlist too. If they return after expiration of the protection, I suppose this can be revisited. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem here: just block. Peaceray, if you go to the IP's talk page and click "block", it automatically gives you the option to block the /64. Then again--the ONLY time someone ever said anything about the IP's edits was when Casiopea said "unsourced". User:AntiDionysius, I appreciate what you are doing here, but I don't see where you explained your reverts, or left a talk page message, or talked to them--clearly they are interested in the topic and don't know how we operate, so maybe you can explain that. So, Peaceray, hold off on blocking, if you don't mind--I semi-protected, but we're here at ANI like we're dealing with some terrorist vandal, which we are not. User:Chaotic Enby, judging from the history there's no other IPs really interested in editing the article, so I semi-protected, which has the same effect for us, but doesn't kick the IP editor in the shins. One of you, PLEASE talk to the IP editor, on their most recent talk page, and explain, without a template, what they are doing wrong and how they could do it right. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The only reason I didn't leave them a talk page message this time was because it seemed like such messages had proved ineffective for whatever reason. I have left messages before, and then watched them make more such edits from the exact same IP a few minutes later. But I'll try again - as you say, without a template this time. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Try on the article talk page too, just in case. -- asilvering (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Good plan, thanks. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Right. Drmies (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Partially blocked (from Robert Hale Merriman). I have partially blocked 2600:1700:2320:4780::/64 from editing Robert Hale Merriman for a period of six months. Peaceray (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi! @Drmies, sorry for implying that blocking the IP editor was necessarily the better choice. My comment really had the technical aspect in mind (of one /64 range being equivalent to a single user/device, except in very rare technical cases), and I didn't think to check whether the IP user had been warned before. Happy to see that AntiDionysius left a message since!

The issue with IPv6 is that, since a user's potential addresses are distributed along a /64 range, there isn't a single talk page on which we can have a consistent conversation with them. I believe the idea of /64 talkpages has been considered by MediaWiki, but I'm not sure how far in development this is for now. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Chaotic Enby, I hear you--I usually just pick the most recent one, knowing that it might not always do the trick. But if someone has been doing it for so long, I kind of would have expected a number of talk pages with notes/warnings. Preferably notes since it seems that the editor was trying to contribute. Perhaps the block notice will prompt them into looking at a talk page; I'll try to click on the range a few times in the next few days just to see if they said something. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: Good news – temporary accounts will be coming to the English Wikipedia soon(ish), and one of their effects will be that anonymous editors using IPv6 connections have much stabler identities (including, but not limited to, their talkpages). jlwoodwa (talk) 07:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Persistent IDHT and disruptive fabrication of Wikipedia policy

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

---

Note: Intitally posted on AN, now moved to ANI at 16 November 17:18

I'm currently dealing with a ridiculous situation in which an editor is supposedly propagating their own wishes of what Wikipedia policy should be, demanding that I abide by it, refusing to acknowledge actual Wikipedia policy guidelines, and what very clearly appears to be playing dumb to elicit frustration.

This is the relevant t/p discussion and here I laid out a comprehensive case on why the figure at hand objectively as per Wikipedia policy does not constitute a low profile figure on the basis that they have actively sought media attention, giving interviews in which they themselves claimed to have been engaged in criminal activites. These interviews were detailed in length in The Globe and Mail and CTV and various other Indian news outlets, which I explained on that talk page. I also explained there was extensive media coverage surronding the figure in question dating back at least January 2023, fulfilling another requriement of WP:PUBLICFIGURE.

Simonm223 posted on my talk page alleging that in order to write about accusations or charges laid against a person not yet convicted of a crime (aka where the person may have been arrested and charged but the case had not yet get gone to trial or a conviction in the trial was pending) , I first needed to establish that the person was notable independent of any reports of accusations of wrongdoing or alleged criminal activity. I repeatedly asked Simonm223 to provide me a policy page or quotes from a policy page which backed that up, but was met with radio silence each time. Instead of doing so, he just threw out various accusations of IDHT, despite that fact that I had provided 2 key elements of WP:PUBLICFIGURE (extensive coverage from reliable sources) and WP:LOWPROFILE (figure in question seeking out media attention), whereas he did not provide any relevant quote.

I also detailed examples where we do indeed name and detail accusations/charges against a person who had not been convicted of a crime; on my talk page, I brought up how we named Derek Chauvin and the charges laid against him in the George Floyd page a few months after the page was created, despite the fact that he was a private citizen, not yet convicted of the crime at that time, who did not attain any notability outside of the killing. In a high profile case like that with thousands of editors, naming Chauvin and the charges against him would have required overwhelming consenus, thereby demonstrably disproving Simonm's claims. A look at 2024 murders in the US shows numerous pages in which a person, who obviously did not attain notability independent of their crime, are named, described as suspects in a criminal act, and have their background exhaustively detailed. A poigant example would be-this case in which a conviction is pending. It cannot be that all of Wikipedia is wrong and violating BLPCRIME on a regular basis and Simonm is unilaterally correct.

Both on my t/p and the article talk page, Simonm repeated these claims Absolutely not. As I mentioned at arbitration enforcement and at your user talk page it is a direct contravention of WP:BLPCRIME to put content up on Wikipedia that indicates a non-WP:PUBLICFIGURE is suspected of crimes for which they have not been convicted. Furthermore, as detailed at arbitration enforcement, one cannot be a WP:PUBLICFIGURE simply for having been accused of a crime. Based on these two statements we should leave out anything that would imply that any person associated with Hardeep Singh Nijjar is accused of crimes until such time as they stand trial or they become a politician, celebrity or other independently well-known person. despite the fact that the policy in WP:BLPCRIME is contingent on WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:LOWPROFILE and nowhere does it say in WP:PUBLICFIGURE that someone cannot become a "public figure" solely through criminal activity which has not yet secured a conviction. Literally nowhere.

After I demonstrably proved how the figure in question did in fact receive extensive media coverage for years and objectively cannot be considered a low profile figure, Simonm then claimed I gave you the policy in question. Your response is a text wall that boils down to "they do it on other pages" which is not a compelling point on Wikipedia. Lots of stuff happens on other pages that shouldn't.

I don't believe Simonm is acting in good faith here, he seems to be knowingly ignoring the policy I'm citing, he's repeatedly spouting off nonexistent policy and not backing it up despite multiple requests and demanding that I just abide by his own personal preferences. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Globe report-"(Arsh Dalla) Mr. Gill, who attended Mr. Nijjar’s temple, could not be reached for this story. In an interview this past April with a Punjabi journalist, he denied supporting the Khalistani militancy, but said he killed a Hindu leader who desecrated a Sikh holy book."

CTV report-Speaking to CTV News, Ritesh Lakhi, a well-connected independent journalist in India, says Dalla is “a very prominent player, as far as organized crime in the north state of Punjab.” ... Lakhi says that during previous conversations with Dalla, he even admitted his role in some of the murders, telling CTV News that Dalla “would simply call me up. I did a few interviews with him, and he would tell me why he killed this person. We've been watching his activities for the last three and a half years.” Lakhi goes on to add that in some cases in India, “there are certain gangsters who’ve been designated as terrorists, and Arsh Dalla happens to be one of them.” Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 11:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

This undeniably proves that Dalla actively sought out media attention, thus making him a high profile person. Simonm ignored that on the t/p and instead claimed I only invoked OSE, which is egregiously insulting and disruptive. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Two things:

1. this is the wrong noticeboard for what you are trying to do.
2. If you take a content dispute to the noticeboard that takes these sorts of complaints when there's already literally two arbitration enforcement cases about the same issue and against a person who has literally just said "we don't accuse plumbers from surrey of being gangsters on Wikipedia pages about alleged known associates," (like I literally haven't even done any edits to the page, you just don't like what I said about Wikipedia policy at article talk) you're going to catch a boomerang for these antics. Could an admin please close this thread?

Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Nope, this is well beyond a content dispute- you're spouting off non existent Wikipedia policy and refusing to back them up despite multiple requests, consistently and knowingly ignoring me providing actual Wikipedia policy elements and backing them up, making hurtful accusations against me claiming a paragraph in which I highlighted numerous sources and policies was merely "other stuff exists" which is an egregious violation of decency and clearly intended to frustrate me, and gaslighting me by claiming that I'm the one who's ill-informed (you first lobbed the IDHT insult against me-[31]).

This is clearly not a content dispute, but a competence is required and IDHT problem on your part.

The fact that you cannot even address any of the claims I made above regarding WP:PUBLICFIGURE or WP:LOWPROFILE, either here on the article's t/p or on my t/p is telling. I engaged with you respectfully in the very beginning and was willing to have a conversation based on policy, but all you've done is make petty insults against me, insult my intelligence, demanded that I abide by your personal interpretation and preferences of Wiki policy, lied about what a policy section states, and ridiculed my arguments and brazenly straw manned them. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Relevant background: I filed a Arbitration Enforcement request against Southasianhistorian8 on November 14 due to conduct issues in the India-Pakistan-Afghanistan topic area (specifically Sikh topics). Simonm223 provided a statement as an uninvolved editor to that AE request,[32] then attempted to engage SAH on their user talk page.[33] This interaction ended with Simonm223 adding to his AE statement, saying "Honestly my attempt to provide some friendly help regarding the BLPCRIME issue has left me a bit more concerned about WP:IDHT than I was at the outset."[34]

SAH appears in that interaction to try to WP:BADGER Simonm223 into agreement with walls of text, both on their user talk page and at Talk:Hardeep Singh Nijjar, despite Simonm223 only wanting to keep the discussion at the user talk.[35]

This filing appears to be lashing out at Simonm223 for not agreeing with them. This is in-line with SAH filing a retaliatory AE request against me 7-hours after the one against them.[36]

Both the retaliatory AE request and this AN filing demonstrate both a clear non-understanding of WP:IDHT and a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that is not conductive to editing in this topic area. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Admins, GhostofDanGurney has a very long history of making hasty, ill researched claims about me, in a previous A/E, he falsely accused me of plagiarizing his work, ScottishFinnishRadish concluded that Ghost made inflammatory edit summaries against me and others and engaged in a tendentious interpretation of a primary source, he also falsely claimed I edit warred citing a grand total of one revert, and has now been told by 2 admins that his reports at A/E are based on content disputes. He's literally throwing anything and everything on the wall, hoping something sticks. I urge admins to look at Ghost's egregious conduct for themselves.

Now he's claiming that I badgered Simonm23 on their user talk page, which again is a straight up lie, the only post I made on Simonm's t/p is the notification for this AN post. Simonm also first stated that he wanted to relegate the discussion to my t/p then 9 minutes later posted on the article's t/p despite that fact that I never pinged or initiated a discussion with him there. So again, a brazen lie from Ghost.

This is also clear tag-teaming from 2 editors who clearly are on each other's side.

Nonetheless, there are severe issues about Simonm's conduct, and I urge admins not to fall for tricks that are intended to digress and take attention away from that. These conduct issues laid out here specifically pertaining to Simonm's conduct on my t/p and article t/p deserve to be addressed. 15:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC) Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

This is straight up bullying now-[37] and the lack of self-awareness and brazen tag teaming is bewildering. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

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

156.146.153.231

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

---

Nearly all edits of 156.146.153.231 (talk · contribs) were reverted. Plenty of warnings, was blocked for 31h. Time to take a closer look. --Altenmann >talk 00:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Possible block evasion by sockpuppet User:MaralagoPawn

• Special:Contributions/83.6.206.183 blocked for 1 month for block evasion by Special:Contributions/Meellk (still blocked) on 9 October 2024 Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1168#Possible_block_evasion_by_83.6.206.183
• Special:Contributions/MaralagoPawn created on 9 November 2024, immediately proceeds to continue same pattern of edits on Poland -- Svito3 (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm negating these accusations. This is my first account on Wikipedia. I have run over sources and what's in them on several pages already, such as Angela Merkel. The sources listed for Poland being a semi-presidential system simply don't match up, except for 1. Mr. Maralago pawn (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  How would new Wikipedia user use same arguments that WP:Consensus is a math equasion/vote and doesn't involve consensus building?

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_system_of_government&diff=prev&oldid=1249401895

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poland&diff=prev&oldid=1257166072

  Not to mention specifically describing one source as outdated and pushing Encyklopedia PWN source e.g. "Polish source". It's unlikely. Svito3 (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that this user does look like yet another sockpuppet of Urabura/Galehautt. All accounts ran by this person sooner or later come to the Poland article and get into an edit war over some detail in it. NicolausPrime (talk) 23:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Also of note is that, rather conveniently, an anon recently appeared and made the exact same kind of edits to various pages related to Poland – including, you guessed it, semi-presidential -> parliamentary on Politics of Poland, with the edit summary stating "removed outdated/faulty sources". Very similar to what MaralagoPawn stated on their edits related to Poland.

  I will not jump to conclusions, but this looks suspicious. LVDP01 (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  That anon is me. Just aligning with the Poland page. It's permitted to not be logged in at all times. Instead of calling me names, acknowledge the sources' faultiness. Mr. Maralago pawn (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  Um? I just went over the source listed on the Polish wikipedia (where the system of the country is described as parliamentary) and, as any reasonable editor, checked out the discussion on Talk. And after revising the sources placed on the page, I found all of them except for 1 to be faulty. I had to remove them. Is anything abnormal? I'm trying to stick to the rules as a new user. Mr. Maralago pawn (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Ardyjofry

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

---

User:Ardyjofry, who was recently blocked for a week for vandalism, has in recent days been repeatedly posting the same unsuitable article to mainspace. I originally draftified the article as it was blank, which they rejected by returning it to mainspace but did not actually improve it, merely adding two sentences copied from another article. I nominated for CSD, User:Pppery changed it to a redirect, all fine until they then deleted the redirect and replaced it with the same bad content, necessitating a full lock be put on the redirect. They then proceeded to vandalise my userpage, which was honestly not that big a deal so I simply left a warning and carried on, but today they posted a hoax article and then left a very low-effort personal attack on their talk page in response to me.

I think at this point, whilst not a clear-cut vandal for AIV, they are very clearly not getting it and it's probably worth another block.

CoconutOctopus talk 20:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

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

User:MxLoko apparently WP:NOTHERE and engaging in personal attacks

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

---

User:MxLoko is an account created on October 20 that, as of this writing, has made 35 edits. Of those, 25 are on two talk pages involving soccer-related articles and another five are either to the user’s own user page and talk page. (The other five edits are substantive edits to soccer-related articles.) The user's talk page contributions consist primarily of constantly repeating the same talking points to complain when other users are not agreeing with proposed edits. Let me add that I have no idea what this person is talking about regarding "exposing" a group of three or four users and their alleged "methods" (whatever those are), although it sounds vaguely like a threat to me.

diff 1

diff 2 basically says the same thing

diff 3 repeats it again

diff 4 then says the same thing again

I firmly believe MxLoko is displaying WP:NOTHERE behavior by refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK and by repeating the same talking point about "exposing methods" over and over again.

MxLoko has also engaged in personal attacks on me in edit summaries and on the user's user page and talk page, as follows:

Original version of the user page—take note of what it says at the end and take note of the edit summary. WP:ES very clearly states, quote, "As with any other Wikipedia space, do not express opinions of other users in edit summaries." MxLoko very clearly violated that. The system, of course, notified me about it and I demanded that the personal attack be removed from the user page. Another user took care of that. In response, MxLoko very disingenuously claimed there was no personal attack—obviously a ludicrous claim—and essentially expressed an intent to continue the behavior. The user then revised the user page to retain the attack without mentioning me by name, although the new personal attack is wrong because I wasn’t born in 1995 (I’m not going to divulge my exact age except to say I’m well over 40 years old).

I have no problem with a user disagreeing with me. That happens all the time. But under no circumstances am I willing to tolerate a user engaging in personal attacks against me on the person's own user page. The user's claim that there was no personal attack is irrelevant. WP:NPA very clearly says, quote, "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." (Emphasis in original.) MxLoko's claim to have believed that I was a "fan" does not pass what is sometimes called the "straight-face" or "laugh" test—no reasonable person could make that claim while keeping a straight face. 1995hoo (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Sock blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I saw the block show up and I tried to delete this report so as not to waste anyone’s time, but you beat me to it. Have a nice weekend. 1995hoo (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks and disruptive behavior from Lgnxz

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

---

For some context on the situation, on November 9, User:Lgnxz began a large-scale removal of the term "J-31" from the Shenyang J-35 article on the grounds that it was a "misnomer" (see this group of 14 edits). While this assessment is partially true in the case of the prototype, which is officially designated FC-31 and was sometimes called "J-31" by western media, this does not extend to at least one enlarged variant of the aircraft promoted by manufacturer Shenyang Aircraft Corporation and the Chinese state media known as the "J-31B". I confronted Lgnxz about this misconception on November 10, but Lgnxz repeatedly insisted that the video released by the aircraft's manufacturer, promoted by the Chinese media, and heavily analyzed by western media was somehow a mistake, citing nothing but WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and the fallacious argument that the revelation of the J-35 designation disproves the existence of the enlarged J-31B which had already been confirmed by Chinese state media ([38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]). I repeatedly asked for reliable sources confirming that the J-31B and J-35 were the same variant, but only got more WP:OR and claims that that the sources were already in the article (I was unable to find any such sources in the article). On top of that, Lgnxz dropped several personal attacks, first calling me an "avid wikipedia fundamentalist" and then saying that I was "clearly unwell". After I warned them about the second attack, they responded with this confusing, dare I say trolling comment.

Earlier today, an IP removed sourced information about the J-31B from the article. I of course asked Lgnxz if it was them, to which they responded that "your paranoia would be very amusing for months to come". Given the repeated WP:IDNHT behavior and personal attacks, I think this is a case of WP:NOTHERE. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

ZLEA, this is clearly primarily a content dispute. Has this been discussed on the article talk page? Can you provide a link to any discussion? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Liz This is primarily about the attacks and the disruptive behavior, not the dispute itself. I included details about the dispute as it gives context to the actual problem. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

"I of course asked Lgnxz if it was them" And what would be your reason for accusing me? A baseless prejudice of course, given that despite the clear personal difference between us, I didn't do any petty vandalism or edit war in the J-35 page with you or any other people on any page, nor do I want to 'troll' you by extending this overextended topic any longer; I've said what I need to say about the J-31B. It just seems very ironic how you're accusing me for being 'disruptive' given how you try to accuse me without evidence that I use different IP to 'stealth edit' the J-31B section from the J-35, and with further attempt to escalate the matter to an Admin. Lgnxz (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

If you didn't want an escalation, you should have stopped your personal attacks at the final warning, or better yet never made any attacks to begin with. I also made no accusations of sockpuppetry, I only asked if you were the IP based on a reasonable suspicion (not "baseless prejudice") since the IP performed an edit similar to one you made only a few days ago. It wouldn't have been the first time I caught such sockpuppetry, especially after the original account had supposedly dropped the subject. - ZLEA _T\^C 06:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

"Editing while logged out can be considered sockpuppetry if used inappropriately. If it was you, please don't do it again."

That sounds pretty accusatory to me. But please, keep bringing this up personally to me and about me instead of having a talk page in the J-35 page on the J-31B as mentioned by the admin. That'll truly show how disruptive and escalatory I am instead of vice versa, right? Lgnxz (talk) 07:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd be glad to have such a discussion on the article's talk page, but not with someone who throws around personal attacks as freely as you have these last few days. - ZLEA _T\^C 07:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, Lgnxz and ZLEA, if everyone can agree on no personal attacks or passive aggressive comments, can this discussion move to the article talk page? I've found when two editors are in a dispute like this, it really helps to get other knowledgeable editors to participate in the discussion so it's not a "me vs. you" situation. How about we try to move forward? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I can agree to that. - ZLEA _T\^C 08:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

And you, Lgnxz? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure Lgnxz (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Then go forth and discuss! With civility. And I hope not to see a return trip to ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Gorabels147

Hello, I'd like to report Gorabels147. This edit alone warrants a permaban. Every contribution they have made is tagged as being reverted. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

You might want to take it here instead. A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 09:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

If someone wants to move the thread there I won't object, but they haven't had a 4th vandalism warning recently (which the page requires) so I assumed it'd just get closed (or sent here!). OXYLYPSE (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Self-talk page vandalism?

I haven't encountered an instance of anyone vandalizing their own talk page before (without having been blocked with TPA), but 216.138.20.167 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has achieved that dubious honor. I frankly do not know if this kind of activity is prohibited, which is why I haven't issued any warnings as yet. JJP_Master (she/they) 00:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for disruptive editing and TPA revoked. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts: Thank you. In the future, can this kind of thing just be reported to AIV instead? JJP_Master (she/they) 00:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I think this fits within the definition of vandalism. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I think Zlillyann might be this IP's registered account so keep an eye on them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I thought the same; their userpage was already on my watchlist. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Thekz Cos

This user keeps moving pages from the sandbox to the Wikipedia namespace. They have been warned twice on the talk page but continue to do so. Annh07 (talk) 11:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

In User talk:Thekz Cos § October 2024 they responded to the warning with noted. Since then, they've moved six more drafts to the Wikipedia namespace:

• Special:Redirect/logid/165534378: Nov 2, Wikipedia:Marko Podgornik Verdev
• Special:Redirect/logid/165577025: Nov 4, Wikipedia:Jordy Kool (Entrepreneur)
• Special:Redirect/logid/165595808: Nov 5, Wikipedia:Dr. Heiko Visarius (Medtech Expert,Board Member, Moderator)
• Special:Redirect/logid/165666334: Nov 8, Wikipedia:Outlook Travel Magazine
• Special:Redirect/logid/165726593: Nov 11, Wikipedia:Laurence Kemball-Cook
• Special:Redirect/logid/165814944: Nov 15, Wikipedia:Lab Interior GmbH

jlwoodwa (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

What's going on? Thekz Cos (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing up the matter regarding the movement of drafts to the Wikipedia namespace. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify this process and its compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines and broader legal considerations.

The migration of drafts to the Wikipedia namespace is a standard practice and fully aligns with Wikipedia’s purpose of collaboratively building an encyclopedia. The following points address your concerns and provide context:

1. Legal and Community Compliance Wikipedia operates under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 (CC BY-SA 3.0) and GFDL licenses. These licenses explicitly allow the sharing, modifying, and publishing of content, provided proper attribution is maintained. Moving drafts to the main namespace does not violate these licenses as it remains within the scope of Wikipedia's content-sharing policies.
2. Editorial Review and Process The drafts moved to the Wikipedia namespace are subject to Wikipedia’s robust editorial processes, including community oversight and adherence to notability and sourcing guidelines. This ensures the integrity and quality of the articles, maintaining the platform’s credibility and mission.
3. Transparency and Traceability The edits and actions, including draft movements, are transparently logged in the platform's history. This allows the community to review and discuss any concerns openly. The action of moving drafts reflects consensus-driven contributions rather than unilateral decisions.
4. Encouraging Collaboration Moving a draft to the main namespace often signifies its readiness for broader community input. This step is critical to engaging a diverse editor base for improving, expanding, and refining the content collaboratively.

If you have specific concerns about a particular draft or process, I’m more than willing to discuss further and address any issues. I am confident that all actions taken align with Wikipedia’s guidelines and legal framework. Thekz Cos (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The concern is the particular process: you're moving pages to the Wikipedia namespace, not to the main namespace. —C.Fred (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the concern regarding the process of moving drafts to the Wikipedia namespace instead of the main namespace. I understand the importance of adhering to proper workflows and ensuring that all actions align with community norms.

The movement of pages to the Wikipedia namespace is typically used for internal pages or supplementary content that supports the encyclopedia's infrastructure, such as policies, guidelines, and administrative tools. If my actions of moving drafts to this namespace are perceived as inappropriate or inconsistent with its intended purpose, I sincerely apologize for the confusion caused.

That said, I would like to provide clarification:

1. Intent of the Moves The decision to move drafts to the Wikipedia namespace was made to allow further collaboration, refinement, or discussion among editors before publishing in the main namespace. It is not my intention to misuse the Wikipedia namespace or disrupt its purpose.
2. Corrective Steps Moving forward, I will ensure that drafts, once ready, are moved directly to the main namespace unless there is a specific, community-approved reason to do otherwise. If any of the drafts currently in the Wikipedia namespace need reassignment, I am open to addressing them promptly.
3. Community Consultation I am happy to discuss this process with the appropriate editors or administrators to ensure alignment with community guidelines. Constructive feedback will help refine my understanding and adherence to the expected standards.

If there is a specific protocol or workflow I should follow for such cases, I would greatly appreciate your guidance. My goal remains to contribute positively and in accordance with Wikipedia’s best practices.

Thank you for your understanding, and I look forward to resolving this matter collaboratively. Thekz Cos (talk) 12:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Jlwoodwa. Also there are currently 18 pages in the Wikipedia namespace: [45]. Annh07 (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Looking at the text of what is now Draft:Marko Podgornik Verdev, I have concerns that there may be paid editing going on here that has not been disclosed. —C.Fred (talk) 12:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  I mention on every page that these are paid contributions. Thekz Cos (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Good point. Draft talk:Outlook Publishing Ltd, for example, does contain the required paid-contributions disclosure. —C.Fred (talk) 12:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Can I move these pages to the mainspace with the paid contribution disclosure? Thekz Cos (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  No. None of them are suitable for mainspace at the moment; they are unsourced, poorly-sourced or sourced to primary sources, and much of the language is promotional. If they are moved to mainspace they would be deleted very quickly. You will need to fix the problems with them and present them through the WP:AFCREVIEW process. Black Kite (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Thekz Cos Not only is you moving the pages a violation of WP:Conflict of interest, but having to clean up messes like User:Thekz Cos/sandbox/Laurence Kemball-Cook → Laurence Kemball-Cook → Draft:Laurence Kemball-Cook is also a drain on administrative resources. —C.Fred (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  If Thekz Cos could respond without copy and pasting a large AI-generated spiel this time we might make some progress here. Right now I believe we've only received two, short, human responses. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Pickersgill-Cunliffe They do at least seem to be more responsive than the typical paid editor. They've undone their mistakes as best they could, and they made the paid editing disclosure in the first place. I'm willing to give a little benefit of the doubt with the AI response—I used AI to refine an email in the workplace recently, and I'm a native English speaker. I think the immediate concern on pages going into Wikipedia: space is solved; I don't think immediate administrative actions are needed, but at the same time, it's probably worth peeking in on their contributions from time to time and making sure they're moving in the right direction. —C.Fred (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  If there is any admin action here it should be to block based on incompetence. Thekz Cos, understand what people are saying and respond in your own words. You are being paid for your competence rather than an LLM's incompetence. And the description above of why you moved these to Wikipedia space almost exactly matches our use of Draft space. You were told, and agreed, to use it back in August. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Phil Bridger And now they're moving pages out of Draft: space back to their user space. I just gave a {{uw-move4}} warning and strongly suggested they not move any more pages without asking for assistance. —C.Fred (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  User partially blocked from moving pages for one week. —C.Fred (talk) 12:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hindu News

Ther are legal and physical threats over at RSn being made (apparently) by representatives of Hindu News [[46]], but they have a fluctuating IP, so is there anything we can do to stop this? Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes please, multiple clear NLT violations. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

These are the IPs that have been used in the discussion: Special:Contributions/47.31.153.39 Special:Contributions/47.31.133.164 Special:Contributions/49.36.183.2 Special:Contributions/49.36.183.2 Special:Contributions/47.31.153.221. The last one is blocked but needs TPA pulled, too. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

And this [[47]] means it needs to be a perinant block, as this is a direct threat to target WMF staff. Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

This is not the first time this organisation and it's IPs have been brought to ANI see also [48] [49] - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

And it needs to be applied to every involved IP. Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think perinant is a word, which is a shame because it should be. EEng 14:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Considering the diff provided by Slatersteven, I blocked the IPs that were clearly identified as employees of the company due to legal threats. I don't think TPA is needed right now, though. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

There was no LEGAL THREAT. It is a clear and direct caution that aggrieved Hindu Raksha Dal cadres, acting on their own and individually, may physically discipline WMF employees and users in India if there is any abuse or disrespect to our HINDU organization/s and project/s on your web portals - as they have done in the past. WMF Legal and WMF CEO is very well aware of considering the past LITIGATION between our organisations, DMCAs, Office Actions etc. Anyway, what we say here is previously publlshed by us on the ICANN website [50] and can be verified from WMF and also from WP:/LTA. The LTA will show we have unlimited supply of IP addresses, so blocking is a waste of both our times. We suggest you get WMF to impose a GLOBAL BAN on us if they dare. Have a nice day.

Somebody responsible should report this discussion to WIKIMEDIA EMERGENCY email ID also. 47.31.183.210 (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Noting that there also appears to be a threat of physical assault on WMF employees there. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey, but it's not like anything they say at [51] is crazy or anything. Stuff like ...

IAC says the present UDRP is grossly biased in favor of trademark holders. The domain name holders are subjected to RDNH akin to the Jews of Europe being eliminated in Auschwitz gas chambers. IAC demands a DENAZIFICATION of ICANN and the UDRP along with its NAZI collaborators like WIPO. It seems WIPO selects their panelists for their stupidity and for strict obedience to follow WIPO's self created gas chamber operation rules. It is no coincidence that WIPO is located in Switzerland where the bulk of the Nazi Gold was stored. IAC shall list out a few of WIPO's tricks to RDNH IAC's domain.

... make perfect sense to me. EEng 14:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Certainly wasn't on my bingo card for today. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

They make extensive use of legal threats directed at individual editors, the WMF, and the Wikimedia India chapter; they also engage in serious harassment, both on- and off-wiki. Whack-a-mole is so tedious, lets smash a few pumpkins instead. 47.31.148.206 (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

This may need escalation to a global ban, and maybe more as they are making direct theats, and an outright threat to sock. Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The IP's references to IAC suggest a relation to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/India Against Corruption sock-meatfarm. MrOllie (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. That is correct. I provided the tq to assist you. HINDUNEWS.STREAM is a property of the Hindustan Republican Army (check its Whois). IAC is an affiliate of HRA. The brand name IAC is owned by HRA. The Hindu Raksha Dal and Hindu Rashtra Dal are armed military wings of HRA to protect peaceful/defenceless Hindu religionists in India. Let's have a civilised conversation and ignore the trolls.47.31.162.201 (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

If you want a civilised discussion, stop making threats. And stop wp:socking wait till you block expires and come back without the attitude. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Hindustan Socialist Republican Association? So it very much will not be an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Coming off of your threat to have your stormtroopers assault WMF staff and Wikipedia users if WP doesn't do your bidding, I'd say that civilized discussion has up and left the building. Count me very much in favor of a range block wide enough to chop these IPs down. Ravenswing 21:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Soooo did anyone actually contated WMD about the threats of violence? --Trade (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

(Redacted) Blaxstocatamazon (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Blaxstocatamazon: I'm not sure who you're replying to with this message but please read WP:NOTFORUM. This website's discussion boards aren't meant to be used to list a ton of controversial claims that, if they're not sourced, will never be added to any article. City of Silver 18:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

While WP:BLPCRIME does not apply here, I have redacted the frankly explosive claims made by Blaxstocatamazon above on the grounds that the accusations made, with no evidence presented, are wholly inapproriate regardless of what the subject is, and because the edit itself implicates multiple CTops. IP editor: Anything said specifically to attempt to intimidate other editors into compliance is generally grounds for a block (if not for it being a legal threat, then because you are attempting to force article content). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Did anyone besides EEngs read through the link EEngs provided? The comments are pure insanity. It talks about assassination, for God's sake. For editing an encyclopedia? This goes beyond legal threats. I'm surprised that there was no response from ICANN as it was posted on their website. To me, it matters whether IAC is an actual organization or just the rantings of one crazy, zealous person. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• This was an earlier warning about this group, Hindu Raksha Dal. Hard to know how much is real and how much is exaggeration to attempt to intimidate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I tried to tell earlier but got deleted. (Redacted) Blaxstocatamazon (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

In mitigation, they're nice to bovines. EEng 13:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

How about buildings with windows? But yes, bulk of the Nazi Gold was stored there, wasn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Nice storyline. But it's clear that you are related to this LTA in some way as noted before on your talkpage by me long ago [52]. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The medical NGO I advice sometimes uses their assistance in certain places of India to operate safely, as also their networks in goverment when needed for advocacy or governmetal action. eg like 2024 Kolkata rape/murder. So something about their storyline is known. Blaxstocatamazon (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

You were essentially repeating same claims about filing a report with the national task force for doctor safety/Supreme court[53] as the IPs of hindu rashtra dal did on the talkpage of Kolkata rape incident. [54][55][56] Making legal threats on the same page also led to your block.[57] I have no doubts that you are related to them in some way, given how the first thing you did after getting unblocked is comment in this thread. - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Col. Rajendra Singh Dalvi [1][2] who claims to be secular and liberal - The links you cited all points to the opposite of what you wrote, are you trolling? - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Aaaaaand I've redacted the new claims for the same reason I redacted the old, plus a dash of blatant BLP violations. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The only partially veiled threats of violence are among the most alarming things I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Holy shit... Tavantius (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry -- it's really just these guys [58]. EEng 22:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll just mention this related ANI discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#SumoAvocado is seeking to intimidate a long term admin. The editor who came to my user talk page asked me not just to remove this discussion (and other discussions of Hindu News) but to revision delete all edits that made up the discussion. That account has been blocked. But I have the feeling that they will be back. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I am kind of wondering if it would be wise to advise the WMF of the threats of physical violence that have occurred within this conflict. Simonm223 (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course it would. It would also be a good idea to inform them that various people feel empowered to make such threats by the WMF's seeming willingness to roll over in the Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation case. I'm sure we'll see much more of this. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Is the any more than this we can actually do, just be vigilant? Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

These accounts should be globally locked, to make it clear that we don't tolerate any of this anywhere on Wikimedia. I submitted a few on m:Steward requests/Global. Yann (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

(Redacted) 47.31.186.213 (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks like we have another. At this stage just socking.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

No edits outside of the ENWP. Just re-report if those blocked accounts have activity on other projects. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks, edit war in contentious topic

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

---

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

Special:GoToComment/c-CmsrNgubane-20241115171700-Manyareasexpert-20241115135300 personal attacks - Your responses are clearly emotional, you refuse to accept the reality, This is a classic display of cognitive dissonance, your bias really blind you this much

Some kind of threats? I really wanted to avoid being aggressive but it seems this is the only language you'll will understand. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit war: adds contested content [59] , pushes it with edit war [60] claiming "vandalism", again [61] , adds [62] WP:TASS, removes [63] no relevance tag. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Partial blocked indefinitely from BRICS, as this seems to be the main locus of the disruptive editing. However, looking back through their contributions, I'm not sure if this will be enough to stop the disruption. I'm considering this a normal admin block, though it does seem to arguably fall under CTOP/EE.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, you might consider extending this partial block to Talk:BRICS as this is where personal attacks are happening. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm waiting to see what happens when he next edits. If anyone sees the need to broaden the block before then, I don't mind. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for losing my temper yesterday, I think I was frustrated that nobody was willing to hear my point of view, nonetheless I admit now that I went out of line with some of my responses and I deeply regret that. I just want to appeal directly to you to reverse the block as I am deeply passionate about the BRICS project and I believe I can contribute a lot to the article for years to come.

Best wishes CmsrNgubane (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I want to express my deepest of apologies, I regret losing my composure in that manner. CmsrNgubane (talk) 05:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I've been doing some thinking and I've realised that I owe you nor any another stranger on this platform no explanation, if you don't like my factual editing then the problem lies with you, claim personal attacks all you want, it changes nothing, the truth is universal, live with it. CmsrNgubane (talk) 06:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

After taking time to think about this clearly, I've decided to withdraw my request to be unblocked because I know that I will end up in another battle because I do not cower to any man , I fight for what I believe in and do so feverishly and it's a trait of mine that I am proud of, therefore I will not change my personality for anonymous people on Wikipedia and if this statement that I've just made earns me a total block then I am prepared for that, infact I've just realised that I've been wasting precious time guarding articles for what reason actually?, it's been good being part of the community for awhile but it's now time for me dedicate my free time on endeavours that actually pay money. CmsrNgubane (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Also noting edit-warring at Cape independence with bizarre summaries. Borgenland (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Good morning sir, I just want to take this time to clarify the contentions on the Cape independence article, I believe that it is correct to classify the group as a separatist organisation since it seeks to break apart from South Africa, furthermore I would like to inequivacally stress that none of my edits are made with the intentions of disrupting, I make the edits based on approved citations, I have recently developed a passion for editing and I want to help contribute to making Wikipedia better for the reader.

Kind regards CmsrNgubane (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I've been doing some thinking and I've realised that I owe you nor any another stranger on this platform no explanation, if you don't like my factual editing then the problem lies with you, claim personal attacks all you want, it changes nothing, the truth is universal, live with it. CmsrNgubane (talk) 06:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Everything I said is true and factual, you are just soft as hell, yes this is a personal attack, now go cry to Mommy and Daddy and tell them to block me completely. CmsrNgubane (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Request granted. Sitewide indef block. —C.Fred (talk) 06:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CmsrNgubane. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Please also block the range of obvious IP socks editing BRICS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I protected the page to start with. Ymblanter (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Legal threats

User:TomW1212 making legal threats after being warned on their talk page - see diff. CoconutOctopus talk 17:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Now blocked for vandalism indefinitely so probably safe to close this! CoconutOctopus talk 18:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I have revoked this person's talk page access. It is crystal clear that their intent is malicious. Cullen328 (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

They clearly have no actual connection to the person in question, and their edits are blatantly deliberately trolling and disruptive. Canterbury Tail talk 16:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

"Jolly J" Fennimore making accusations of criminal activity

"Jolly J" Fennimore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making various claims of criminal activity on Lackawanna Cut-Off Restoration Project (diff). These accusations apparently originate with him (not from the press or government) and certainly fall afoul of WP:BLP. He appears to be editing primarily to publicize these allegations (see edit summary here of I added several serious crimes that have occurred during the restoration of the Cut-Off. I have many more still to add. I have become an investigative journalist and have a newspaper with stories related to this (and exposing [person]) coming out early 2025. While his edits cite some sources, they don't support 90% of the screed, including all of the criminal allegations. His talk page comments here and here indicate a total lack of why his editing is inappropriate. I unfortunately did not leave an edit warring notice until after my second revert and his third of the day, but given these allegations, I think admin action may be needed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Why do you claim I didn't cite my sources? "Jolly J" Fennimore (talk) 07:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

You claim falsely that 90% of what I wrote is not supported. You pulled this percentage out of thin air. Nonetheless, if you do not believe that 90% is supported- Why did you remove 100%? Is being an investigative journalist and being on Wikipedia non-compatible? I could cite many more sources and add much more, but then the page would be a mile long. If you need me to clarify or give more substantiation- let me know where you need more clarification and more citations and they will be added. All I know is my work on Wikipedia was deleted and you did so claiming that I didn't cite sources. Like I said, if you can point out what I didn't cite, I will add citations and if they aren't readily available, I will remove those sections for a day, before I can find them in my notes. I am a fairly easy-going person, there is no reason to bother administrators, they do enough work already. "Jolly J" Fennimore (talk) 07:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@"Jolly J" Fennimore: Most of what you added is improper synthesis: you improperly drew your own conclusions not explicitly stated by any of the sources you cited. Please also read WP:RGW: we are not a place to post new investigative journalism, only a place where things that have already been reported by a independent reliable source can be given their due weight, not more not less. If your goal here is to make new reports of misconduct, then I'm afraid Wikipedia is not the place for it. Remember, the people you are mentioning are living, so we must be very careful about what we say about them.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

There is also edit-warring going on here. I've warned the editor (who has now been warned twice) but they might cross the 3RR line. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, I am still fairly new here and still don't know why anybody is talking about "War"? I didn't start any war. "Jolly J" Fennimore (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@"Jolly J" Fennimore: Edit warring is not a war per se but has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. Please refer to that link. Essentially, you were repeatedly reinserting content when others have shown their opposition by taking it back out.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• I have indefinitely pageblocked "Jolly J" Fennimore from Lackawanna Cut-Off Restoration Project due to violations of our policies regarding biographies of living people, no original research and edit warring. The editor is free to make well-referenced, policy compliant edit requests at Talk: Lackawanna Cut-Off Restoration Project. Cullen328 (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

BrocadeRiverPoems behavioral issues

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

---

I am making this report because I recently found this post (found by searching up the username of the user in question), where the suspicious editing patterns of this user was brought up in a similarly contentious article with another user complaining about the exact same patterns of hostility and dogpiling: [64]. This report was made through the lens of someone involved in the article 15.ai, so if anyone who was involved in the maintenance of the article Yasuke could chime in, that would be very much appreciated.

The user User:BrocadeRiverPoems has demonstrated a clear pattern of editing that prioritizes ideological alignment over adherence to Wikipedia's core policies, including neutrality, reliable sourcing, and civility. In multiple contentious discussions, such as those surrounding the articles on Yasuke and 15.ai, has engaged in aggressive and accusatory behavior that discourages meaningful collaboration among editors. Their edits often involve the use of unreliable sources or misrepresentation of reliable sources or deletion of sources they deem unreliable, which are then used to support their preferred narratives ([65], [66], [67]). These actions have not only disrupted the editing process but have also led to a hostile environment on talk pages, alienating other contributors and stalling productive dialogue ("I suggest stepping back and seeing how presumptuous (and frankly alienating) your comments are. You’ve crafted an elaborate theory about coordinated editing and suspicious motives based solely on contribution patterns. Not every editor needs to be constantly active to make valid contributions, and returning to defend an article I reviewed from deletion is perfectly natural. Occam’s Razor applies here, and I hope anyone else who reads this can see it for themselves as well." from Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/15.ai/1). Anyone who dares to disagree with this user are met with harsh accusations and hounding, and despite being a relatively new user to Wikipedia themselves, the user is happy to scrutinize the editing patterns of anyone who isn't active on Wikipedia 24/7 ("With all due respect, your continued penchant of vanishing from Wikipedia and returning only for championing the existence of this article is highly unusual." from Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/15.ai/1; "It is not, frankly, presumptuous or absurd to suspect something is suspicious about an editor who erroneously assesses 2 articles as good, one of which is full of copyvio, and then disappears for an extended amount of time and returns only to defend this article." from the same page, "Whether you yourself were involved in the coordination is immaterial, my point is that because there was demonstrable coordination it is not unreasonable to view your assesment, disappearance, and return solely to defend the article, subsequent re-disappearance, and subsequent re-return to defend the article"). (see: the entire discussion at Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/15.ai/1 and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#15.ai_behavioral_issues. where I and several other users were accused of single-purpose editing by BrocadeRiverPoems). Hypocritcally, they consistently spend a great deal of time and effort dissecting the verbiage of every editor that disagrees with them down to every individual word, but are also happy to offer circumstantial evidence to support their argument, such as accusations of off-wiki coordination ("The AfD for the article was interfered with by WP:SPA vote-stuffing", "Yes, RocketKnightX and HackerKnownAs are tag-teaming to keep the article against consensus.", "Coupled with demonstrable evidence of off-site coordination in editing the article on 4chan (which is demonstrable in the archived 4chan thread used as a source in the article) and the apparent failure of the WP:DRN and the continued edit warring by User:RocketKnightX and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR from User:HackerKnownAs, I am raising this concern to the Admin Noticeboard." from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#15.ai_behavioral_issues. and "See Editor Interaction Analyzer on 15.ai. [...] This is insanely quick, and is a sign of co-ordination." despite my insistence that I have never participated in off-wiki manipulation). For example, they stress that they have "pointed out numerous flaws with the article, and corrected many of them", and yet were happy to make edits that unashamedly violate WP:YESPOV like [68], which I had to edit (before my edit was eventually reverted).

Several people have been affected by this user's hostile behavior, myself included ("I felt bullied by this user to the point where I logged out of Wikipedia, planning to never to come back." from this very thread). Their confrontational approach to editing and discussion has created an intimidating atmosphere that discourages constructive dialogue ("As for some mysterious "circle of sockpuppetry", bullshit.") and the condescending attitude towards those who take breaks in between editing Wikipedia (" Which is to say, you made few edits after you assesed the article and then you left for 6 months and returned only for the AfD and then departed again.") does not help at all, and violates WP:DEADLINE. For instance, in my interactions with them, I was met with accusatory language and baseless claims of single-purpose editing, despite my efforts to engage respectfully and in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Other editors have similarly expressed frustration with this user’s tendency to dismiss opposing views outright and escalate disagreements into personal attacks or relentless scrutiny of editing patterns.

Furthermore, it was brought to my attention in Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/15.ai/1 that this user possibly belongs to a Discord server that has been allegedly coordinating off-wiki efforts to influence the content and direction of certain articles for months, including 15.ai. This raises serious concerns about violations of Wikipedia’s policy on COI and potential breaches of neutrality and good faith editing, especially with IP users like 180.129.92.142 suddenly coming out of the woodwork and virulently attacking me and throwing several serious accusations at me.

To summarize, editors have expressed that the user in question has violated the following Wikipedia policies:

• WP:GOODFAITH
  • "You've crafted an elaborate theory about coordinated editing and suspicious motives based solely on contribution patterns"
  • Made accusations about single-purpose editing without evidence
  • Claimed "The AfD for the article was interfered with by WP:SPA vote-stuffing"
• WP:CIVIL
  • Made hostile and condescending responses that led one user to say "I felt bullied by this user to the point where I logged out of Wikipedia, planning to never to come back"
  • Created an environment on multiple discussion pages where editors felt their contributions were viewed with suspicion just because they took breaks or haven't contributed to Wikipedia as much as the editor in question
• WP:HOUND
  • Followed and criticized specific editors' break patterns: "With all due respect, your continued penchant of vanishing from Wikipedia and returning only for championing the existence of this article is highly unusual"
  • Continuously questioned others' editing motives
• WP:DEADLINE
  • Criticized editors for taking breaks: "you made few edits after you assessed the article and then you left for 6 months"
  • Used breaks as evidence of suspicious behavior: "returning only for championing the existence of this article is highly unusual"
  • Questioned legitimacy of contributions based on activity patterns
• WP:NPOV
  • Made edits that blatantly violate WP:NPOV (e.g. [69])
  • Misrepresented sources to support preferred narratives
• WP:RS
  • Deleted sources they personally deemed unreliable
  • Misrepresented reliable sources to support their preferred narratives
  • Deleted a number of sources used in the article (not all sources must be perfectly neutral; see WP:BIASEDSOURCES, which says "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.") and then claimed that the subject did not meet notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by HackerKnownAs (talk • contribs) 07:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Possible WP:SOCK and WP:COI manipulations
  • Allegations of off-wiki coordination with IP users (via Discord or elsewhere)
  • Allegations of sockpuppeting on an unrelated article but with similar behavioral complaints raised by other editors (see [70]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HackerKnownAs (talk • contribs) 07:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I have never made a report like this before on Wikipedia, so I do not know if this is the proper way to do this. I have always attempted to be cordial when interacting with editors on Wikipedia. I have also tried to always assume good faith, and I am hoping that this incident can be resolved. Thank you for your time, and I hope to continue contributing to Wikipedia. HackerKnownAs (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

This, of course, completely disregards the fact that most editors agree with BrocadeRiverPoems's edits. 180.129.92.142 (talk) 04:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

You know @HackerKnownAs, you haven't participated I can't find any traces of you in this RFC, which took place at the bottom of the page. This RFC has been up since 4th of November , and the discussion whether 15.ai should be in the past tense is since 7th of November. At least discuss there before reverting other editors consensus. 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 13:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Even @BrocadeRiverPoems has discussed there, why haven't you done that too? 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 13:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Admins please ban HackerKnownAs! Its so obvious his edits are only to make trouble. Andthewinnerisme (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Collapsing personal attacks. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 01:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

brocade is a serial gaslighter on discord, please dont trust them because their discord server will team up together and find the best way to make them look good while making everyone else bad this has been going on for months now and theyve been doing this for any articles they dont like (theres a channel for this) i was in that server before and i should have left a long time ago, the gaslighting on wiki is insane and i feel bad for the editors Rin6626 (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware that an RFC was up, let alone know what an RFC was. I apologize for my ignorance, but I've largely stayed away from Wikipedia politics in favor of making edits that I believe contribute to the betterment of Wikipedia. HackerKnownAs (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@HackerKnownAs: Firstly, you are required to notify the user you are reporting on their talk page, using the template provided at the top of this page.

Secondly, can you explain this edit where you appear to further an edit war in order to make a point?

Thirdly, can you explain why Wikipediocracy is being used as "evidence", both here and in the previous diff? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  04:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

My apologies. I have never made a report like this before, so I was not aware of the first point. I will make that notification after I finish writing this.

For the second point, I was under the assumption that being bold and making changes yourself was encouraged on Wikipedia, as per WP:BOLD. Again, I am sorry if this was seen as furthering an edit war; that was not my intention. My intention was to revert the article back to a stable point before all of the edit warring occurred.

For the third point, I am not using it as evidence, but as supplemental material. I was not aware of this forum before I found this discussion, and I found it interesting and relevant that the exact same complaints that I and various other editors have had about this user were restated in this forum. HackerKnownAs (talk) 05:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Having taken a look at the talk page and the edit history of 15.ai, you are repeatedly restoring your preferred version against the consensus of multiple other editors, who have complained about this behaviour on the talk page.[71][72]

I'll be blunt; this looks like a retaliatory, frivolous report full of WP:ASPERSIONS and I'd suggest to the admins that this be closed quickly with a WP:BOOMERANG. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Special:Permalink/1257688676#15.ai behavioral issues., filed by BRP, may be relevant background to this filing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

HackerKnownAs, each one of your many accusations has to be accompanied by a "diff" or edit illustrating an example of the behavior you are identifying or this report could be seen as casting aspersions. Evidence, not just suspicions, have to be present in a report. Also, if you have evidence of misbehavior in an off-Wikipedia platform, please send it to the Arbitration Committee, there are privacy concerns that make it inappropriate to be shared here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Without commenting on the underlying merits of this either way, I am pretty sure that everything here just had a whole ArbCom case about it. As such I'd support quick closing this as moot: if you go through a whole case where you were a party without sanctions, I don't think that bringing that same person to ANI right after for the same behavior is appropriate. Loki (talk) 05:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I might be a little sensitive to the whole "retaliatory-report-based-on-old-evidence" thing right now, but I'd think that alone should merit a BOOMERANG here. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

In the previous discussion, the editor who posted in the AN was advised to bring it over to AN/I. I apologize if this was not appropriate – I was not aware. HackerKnownAs (talk) 06:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm the admin that stated that ANI was a more appropriate noticeboard for this level of specific complaints than the discussion that was started at AN which I closed. But, as I said, you need to start adding diffs soon to support your accusations or this could backfire on you. It's a risk of posting a complaint on a noticeboard that all parties are under scrutiny. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I have added my diffs. I apologize again for not following the appropriate formatting for this report. I will continue to edit to bring some more context. HackerKnownAs (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

HackerKnownAs, I feel like I'm throwing a lot of advice at you tonight but it is really distracting to editors who are approaching this case with fresh eyes to have so much content BOLDED. Using Bold or Italics can be used for highlighting an individual word but having half of your comments in Bold font will just turn readers off. It's a little overwhelming. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I apologize, but I attempted to follow the same formatting style as in the last AN report, where the relevant quotes were formatted differently from the original text. Is there an easier way to do this? HackerKnownAs (talk) 06:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Consider {{tq|q=y|Quote goes here...}} which renders as Quote goes here... EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this. To User:GhostOfDanGurney and User:Liz, I’m one of the many editors that BrocadeRiverPoems has accused of single-purpose editing by scouring through my edit history and ignoring my contributions because I took a break in my Wikipedia editing months ago. I felt bullied by this user to the point where I logged out of Wikipedia, planning to never to come back. It doesn’t surprise me that BRP has a history of bullying others, and I’m not surprised that the GA thread was brigaded by her cronies. Even if no decision is made here, I hope that my statement brings some context to the situation and explains that this isn’t just User:HackerKnownAs posting out of retaliation, it’s all of us affected by it behind it. ~~ SirGallantThe4th (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Once again, SirGallantThe4th, you have to provide diffs to support these claims of bad conduct. Other editors have to be able to review them to see if there is a basis to your allegations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/15.ai/1

I suggest you read this please. This whole page is chock full of BRP saying that my GA approval was illegitimate because of my contribution history. Why would a Wikipedean already taking a break due to personal life issues want to come back after reading that their contributions are meaningless because they weren’t making enough edits? It’s especially weird when someone goes through my history to try and prove my motives were evil. Bullying doesn’t have to be via name calling, it can be as simple as being cast as suspicious just because someone with more power or influence says so. ~~ SirGallantThe4th (talk) 07:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

SirGallantThe4th, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/15.ai/1 was chock-ful of strange accusations about off-wiki collusions, I think if an admin had seen this, they would have shut this down before it went so far. First, I think you are mistaken that this editor has power and influence as they are a relatively new editor although they do have all of the terminology down. I'd just advise you that if someone is making unfounded allegations against you, don't feel like you have to spend your time on the project defending yourself. Explaining yourself can be useful in discussions like this one on ANI but this page was a review of an article, not an examination on the motives of the editors who worked on it and this discussion went completely off-the-rails.

I will say though that it is very unusual for an editor with your level of experience to be doing GA reviews. How did you find yourself in this area of the project? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Given my suspicions have apparently been proven correct, can this be put to rest? User:SirGallantThe4th admits in their block appeal that they know HackerKnownAs [73] and have even met up in person. My suspicions about the GA assessment were, as it turns out, completely warranted. They also admit in their unblock request to essentially orchestrating harassment against me simply because they thought it was unfair that other editors were agreeing with me[74]. They specifically mention in their appeal that they were apart of a Discord together. It is not possible that an article submitted and primarily written by HackerKnownAs which was reviewed, evidently, by their friend SirGallantThe4th, to be neutrally reviewed and assessed as Good. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Collapsing personal attacks. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 01:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

brocade is a serial gaslighter on discord, please dont trust them because their discord server will team up together and find the best way to make them look good while making everyone else bad this has been going on for months now and theyve been doing this for any articles they dont like (theres a channel for this) i was in that server before and i should have left a long time ago, the gaslighting on wiki is insane and i feel bad for the editors because theyre taking advantage of new editors who are new to wiki to make them look like idiots Rin6626 (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC) At the risk of being told I am bludgeoning again, the accusation that I am running a specifically transgender Discord that is dedicated to taking down MLP on Wikipedia is plainly absurd. I mean, if it pleases the jury I can record a video of me going through my Discord, you'll find no such existence of me owning this alleged Discord. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 14:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I would like to ask, very politely, how you even came upon this ANI Discussion about me before even I did? It was posted 04:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC) and you joined the conversation at 05:51, 16 November 2024. You were not, to my understanding mentioned directly [75] in the complaint, nor were you notified on your TalkPage about it (you very well should have been, but then, so should I have been, and some other individuals as well). I'm just confused by it, I suppose, since you stated that I had made you feel so bullied that you logged out of Wikipedia, planning to never to come back. Given that you surely had 0 knowledge that there was going to be an ANI complaint posted about me, and you've never participated at ANI before, I'm just unsure as to how you go from never logging in again to happening upon an ANI discussion about me? Of course, you're totally free to complain about whatever conduct of mine you feel is egregious, I fully encourage and support it. As I said in my post below, I apologize if you feel that I bullied you, and I struck through the relevant comments. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I will state that the reporting user is currently using WPO in an edit dif [76] for a reversion. Moreover, the WPO evidence that is being used against me is essentially a duplicate of an attack page which was G10'd [77] which pretty grossly misrepresents my activity on Yasuke at large. It's so much so of a misrepresentation of my activity that I didn't even warrant a Finding of Facts on the ARBCOM case at Yasuke Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Yasuke/Proposed_decision. My apologies for the length of my reply, but there is a lot of ground to cover in the accusations.

Regarding Sources

Their accusations against me here include a statement Their edits often involve the use of unreliable sources or misrepresentation of reliable sources or deletion of sources they deem unreliable, which are then used to support their preferred narratives. The offending sources I removed were mostly deemed unreliable by consensus, were WP:SPS, or were misrepresented. For instance, the wording of the article currently reads Lauren Morton of Rock, Paper, Shotgun and Natalie Clayton of PCGamer called it "fascinating,", however, reading the sources they don't actually say that. Lauren Morton actually says Machine learning is absolutely fascinating[78] and, as I mentioned, doesn't mention 15.Ai specifically in terms of "fascinating", while Natalie Clayton says It's all very fascinating to read about[79].

Andrew Ng's The Batch was declared an unreliable source when 15.ai was still a draft. Gwern describes itself as someone's personal website they use to remind themselves of stuff. I'm hardly the only editor that has found issues with the content of 15.ai.

SPA Explanation

where I and several other users were accused of single-purpose editing by BrocadeRiverPoems

By myself, an others, historically, even[80]. And, as indicated by your edit history [81] as I linked in the Admin Noticeboard. The only reason I even brought this to the Admin Noticeboard initially is because of the blatant WP:STONEWALLING. Consensus was reached about issues regarding the article and you continue to ignore said consensus and make reverts to your preferred version. In our exchange, I reverted your reversion of an edit that had been developed as a DRN solution to a content dispute [82][83] and after your second revert in that exchange, I stopped.

Discord Accusation

As for the accusations leveraged against me elsewhere that I'm on some discord trying to get 15.ai deleted, there's no reality or merit to that statement. I came upon 15.ai browsing random articles, saw that an edit war was transpiring, and started noticing peculiarities about the article and made note of them and fixed what I could about the article. Notably, BrocadeRiverPoems is an identity that I use exclusively for Wikipedia and nothing regarding my Discord or my life outside of Wikipedia can be linked to my editing of Wikipedia. The most I will reveal about my real life is that I had a roommate who attended the same MA Program as I, and my former roommate would edit on Wikipedia. Said information is fully disclosed on my profile. Said roommate moved out, and I haven't really spoken to them since. As I have freely admitted elsewhere, I was an IP Editor for a time, and I made the account so I could make a post regarding the historical usage of the word "sayamaki" when editors were translating the mention of Yasuke being given a sayamaki.

Hounding Accusation

by scouring through my edit history and ignoring my contributions because I took a break in my Wikipedia editing months ago

Scouring through your edit history is a bit of an exaggeration. When I was looking at the Good Article Assessment after I found several problems with the article, I looked at the edit history of the Good Article Review process and discovered that you had only assessed one other article, and that that article had been deleted for copyvio. It isn't scouring your edit history to see and note that you assessed the article, that you left, and that you were specifically canvassed back[84] for the AfD and returned to vote keep at the AfD. All of that is on a singular page of edit history.

Brigading Allegations

It doesn’t surprise me that BRP has a history of bullying others, and I’m not surprised that the GA thread was brigaded by her cronies.

I am unaware that I have such sway over anyone?

It doesn’t surprise me that BRP has a history of bullying others

Again, these are false accusations that originate from a user who got blocked after harassing myself and others[85].

AfD SPA Evidence

As for my claims that the AfD was interfered with by SPA Vote Stuffing, it plainly was. [86][87][88][89]. These individuals had limited activity on Wikipedia usually only editing 15.ai or 15.ai's competitors before voting Keep in the AfD and then disappearing from the site. One account is even named "Throwaway" indicating it was created for the specific purpose of voting in the AfD. Considering your participation in an AfD to delete NovelAI[90] which was put up for deletion by an account similarly named [91], and NovelAI is a competitor to 15.ai in that, to my understanding, NovelAI offered TTS features, it looks as if accounts were created solely to influence the 15.ai vote.

GA Discussion Rebuttal

This whole page is chock full of BRP saying that my GA approval was illegitimate because of my contribution history.

The page is chock full of me saying your editing contribution was suspicious because of the irregularities surrounding the article, and that regardless of that, the article should have never been assessed "Good" because it had numerous glaring issues including a source that is considered generally unreliable WP:WEGOTTHISCOVERED. As you can see in my initial statement, where I pointed out the unaddressed COI concern from 2022 that had been purged by a drive-by IP Editor and never properly addressed as one of many reasons the article should not have been assessed as good. My statements regarding your activity were to highlight that you were an inexperienced reviewer whose only other Good Article assessment was an article that was deleted because of copyvio, which is not a good sign for the other article. I likewise noted that your activity ceased and resumed only to defend 15.ai, as Good Article reviewers are supposed to be uninvolved in the articles which they assess. Your later statement It pioneered accessible neural voice synthesis, was widely covered in tech media, and influenced numerous subsequent AI voice projects. I would not be exaggerating when I say its advent was one of the biggest news in the AI space in 2020 and 2021 only further solidfied my belief that you shouldn't have reviewed the article, because you seem to have an interest in the topic.

If you feel that I have hounded or bullied you, than I apologize and I'll go strike it out right now.

Off-Site Manipulation Evidence

As for statements that I make baseless claims about off-site manipulation of the article, Anonymous uses at PPP discuss fabricating sources [92]. When the article was published, it was announced on the PPP according to the archived discussion that was used as a literal source in the article [93]. Likewise, [94] and [95]. When the image was deleted from the Wikimedia commons for copyvio, they re-uploaded it as non-freeuse which I put up for deletion because it didn't fulfill the non-free use policy requirements [96]. The Level of the Pony Preservation Project's involvement in 15.ai is apparently to such an extent that HackerKnownAs created an entire redirect to 15.ai of Pony Preservation Project[97] [98]. Here are people claiming the Wikipedia article is someone's reputation [99] Here is a post directing people to use 15.ai for the history of the PPP [100]. Here is a post discussing even creating the article [101], dated 07 Mar 2020, with the article being created 05 Apr 2020 [102].

Talk Page COI Deletion

As for the argument that I only push things that support myself, the user who seems vigilant about vandalism did not bat an eyelash in regard to the deletion by an IP Address that other than apparently engaging in BLP Vandalism, only removed a talk page discussion about their potential COI editing [103][104] shortly before the article was nominated for GA Status.

Unconstructive Edit Rebuttal

As for my edits being "unconstructive", I removed a Medium link that was members only, and a Gwern link that directly referenced the Wikipedia article [105], I removed a cited tweet that didn't say what it was being cited for as well as a Gwern link that didn't mention the PPP or 15.ai directly [106]. Here, I removed Andrew Ng who was being misrepresented and Tyler Crowen's blog because the blog is a WP:SPS and Tyler Crown is an economist, not an expert in AI. [107], I later found out that Andrew Ng was declared an unreliable source when the article was a draft, but was re-added after the draft was released as an erroneously flagged minor edit [108] and I removed WeGotThisCovered and more Andrew Ng [109]. Beyond those edits, I reverted HackerKnownAs when he undid the compromise that was decided at DRN which HackerKnownAs reverted and I did not further contest.

My next edit on the main article was undoing a user randomly changing the dates of maintenance tags and in the article [110].

Misrepresentation Evidence

At the Good Article Reassessment when I pointed out flaws in the reviews, I was asked Are you able to fix these issues by AirshipJungleman29 and so I did [111]. I also corrected the contents of the Japanese sources since they seemed to be google translated and were wrong [112]. Roughly translated, the Japanese actually states Some users used 15.ai to show a demonstration of their use of GLaDOS for an assistant by using the tool “VoiceAttack,” which enables a PC to be controlled by voice. At this point, it looks like Siri-esque sorcery. Perhaps in the future, through the power of such services, there may be an assistant that can assist the user with a voice of his/her choice!, which is not quite the same as saying "15.ai is like magic". Brocade River Poems (She/They) 11:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I want to also include in this discussion as this post by User:RocketKnightX has occurred after I posted my initial statement [113] that these defamatory accusations harvested from an attack page that was recreated on WPO are continuing to be thrown around. Noting, again, that the original content of this so-called evidence used was originally created by a user who engaged in a campaign of harassment against myself and other editors, see User:Nocomputersintexas and [114], specifically, the removed edits from the IP Editor specifically mention 4chan and directing individuals from 4chan to harass me. This coming from User:RocketKnightX who, during the edit warring, canvassed other editors to report another editor [115][116]. Given the user's edit warring at 15.ai [117][118][119][120][121] and their continuing edit warring [122] [123] I suggest at least a temporary TBAN for User:RocketKnightX.

Likewise, as per above, I also propose WP:BOOMERANG on User:HackerKnownAs, and would request the defamatory edit history of [124] be expunged for WP:NPA. User:HackerKnownAs continues to ignore TalkPage consensus [125][126]. Looking at their edit information, they rarely engage in talkpages and have extensively edited 4chan and 15.ai in particular, which I feel qualifies them as a WP:SPA [127] defined in WP:SPA as A single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose and that single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project. Their statements about 15.ai show a strong personal opinion about 15.ai to the point of accusing a nomination at AfD as being badfaith [128] and stating themself that was extremely crucial in the development of TTS voice generation[129]. However, despite a few editors making this claim, no substantial reliable source has ever been provided to support this claim. Furthermore, User:HackerKnownAs has made numerous wide-sweeping reversions in the name of fighting vandalism that indiscriminately remove constructive edits to return to the article to a state they personally approve of [130][131][132].

They also misrepresented the sources[133] that they added to the reception section in what amounts to editorlization. As noted above, neither of the articles cited actually refer to 15.ai itself as fascinating. The user also shows WP:OWNERBEHAVIOR in their constant reversion to their preferred version and their refusal to participate in consensus building [134] or Dispute Resolution despite being invited to participate after their reversions [135]. As you can see here [136] they have not participated in any meaningful discussion on 15.ai's talkpage since 2022. During the AfD for the article, HackerKnownAs WP:CANVASSED User:SirGallantThe4th, and SirGallant alone, to the AfD [137] at the time this occurred, the AfD was leaning toward Delete. Afterward, the SPA's I noted above also arrive and vote Keep. I do not know what manner of sanction would be appropriate, but I do feel that edit summary should be expunged if possible.

I also would like to propose that User:Rin6626 is blatantly WP:NOTHERE, as all they have done is make baseless accusations [138][139][140] since creating their account. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 14:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

User blocked. Collapsing personal attacks. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 01:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

brocade youre literally a mod in a trans discord server where you ask for people to come help you “wipe these pony sh*theads off wiki and tell random people to agree with you to help you i wish i had more screenshots on me before i left that server but youre mistaken if youre gonna get away with this to the admins of this place brocade is known for gaslighting people on discord, theres a reason they are a new user but seems to know everything about wikipedia rules (theyre not new and its not one user doing it) Rin6626 (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC) brocade youre literally a mod in a trans discord server where you ask for people to come help you “wipe these pony sh*theads off wiki and tell random people to agree with you to help you I can assure you this is completely untrue. theres a reason they are a new user but seems to know everything about wikipedia rules (theyre not new and its not one user doing it) The amount of times I've been reprimanded sorta runs afoul this theory that I know everything about the Wikipedia rules, does it not? Brocade River Poems (She/They) 14:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC) Just as an aside, I've blocked Rin6626 as WP:NOTHERE. The allegations above, mixed with the fact that this is a brand new account, tells me at best they are here to stir up trouble, and at worst this is a sock. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

So is no one going to address the suspicious circumstances surrounding User:BrocadeRiverPoems and X0n10ox (now [141])? They admit to sharing the same IP address and display identical editing patterns as documented in [142], with the questionable explanation of being "roommates" during the Yasuke-Wikipedia controversy just four months ago.

Consider the sequence of events:

1. X0n10ox makes multiple Yasuke-related edits
2. They delete their account claiming "their username was posted on 4chan"
3. Days later, BrocadeRiverPoems appears, makes minimal edits to bypass semi-protection
4. BrocadeRiverPoems then advocates the identical position as their supposed roommate, exhibiting the same confrontational attitude that other editors have noted concerns about

This pattern should raise serious WP:SOCK concerns. The coincidences are difficult to ignore:

• Same IP address
• Similar editing style
• Same topic focus
• Similar behavioral patterns
• Suspicious timing

What's particularly ironic is that this user has a history of challenging other editors based on suspicious editing patterns. I anticipate they or their cronies will attempt to dismiss this analysis based on the fact that I'm posting as an IP editor.

Furthermore, we're now seeing IP editors consistently defending BrocadeRiverPoems across multiple discussions. The first reply to this thread is a perfect example. These patterns warrant closer examination. 12.188.169.2 (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

If the supposed alternate account never edits it does not matter. Per WP:CLEANSTART this is allowed. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The issue isn't about WP:CLEANSTART itself -- it's about the pattern of behavior continuing unchanged. While users are allowed fresh starts, the concerning aspect here is that the same confrontational editing style and topic focus immediately resumed under the new account. WP:CLEANSTART is suppose dto give editors a chance to start fresh with better practices, not to simply continue problematic and alienating behavior under a different name. To quote,

• "The old account must be clearly discontinued and the new account must avoid editing patterns or behaviors that would allow other users to recognize and identify the account. It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas, will avoid old disputes, and will follow community norms of behavior."

We should also note that this isn't just about past behavior - we're seeing active patterns with the IP editors consistently appearing to defend BrocadeRiverPoems's positions. This suggests the account may not be operating independently, which goes beyond the scope of a clean start. 12.188.169.2 (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Just look at this diff [143] (out of many, many of them -- I just chose one at random) where he berates an editor for not responding within a week, stating "Those who are opposed to its inclusion, and those that believe it should be a minority view, have had ample time in the past week to furnish any reliable source that would substantiate their claims." This shows a problematic assumption that Wikipedia editors should be constantly available and able to respond within an arbitrary timeframe. It fails to acknowledge that editors are volunteers who have lives outside Wikipedia and may not be able to participate in discussions on someone else's schedule. This is blatant WP:BATTLEGROUNDING and a continuation of the past problematic behavior. 12.188.169.2 (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

If you post the evidence here or at an WP:SPI, instead of in an external website, maybe a response will come faster. – 2804:F1...C6:3070 (::/32) (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, anyone with a brain see that the roommate excuse is BS. Question is will the admins do something about it or let it happen and let them go round bullying more people because he is a special group. 198.136.190.5 (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

A lot of "please block me" going on in this thread. --JBL (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

So, CLEANSTART does not apply here for two reasons: One is that X0n10ox appears to have vanished. Vanishing is a deal you make where you are promising that you are going away, permanently, and your account is renamed to something gibberishy.

The other is that if the new account displays the same behaviors of the old account, it is not a clean start.

I would also add, following along from comments way up the thread, that putting a link to WPO in an edit sumarry to "prove" someone is a sock and therefore justify a revert is way, way out of line. That's absolutely not valid proof of anything, and if you are going to accuse someone of socking, gather your actual evidence and file an WP:SPI. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I feel like I shouldn't have to point out that deliberately misgendering me and saying I'm part of a "special group" is pretty incivil per WP:EDPRONOUNS which notes ARBCOM here[144]. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

This is hopefully the last time I have to post about this. The entire argument that I'm a sock hinges on the fact that I disclosed I had a roommate as suggested by WP:ROOMMATE which says Editors in this position are advised to declare such connections on their user pages to avoid accusations of sockpuppetry., the same page reads When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account. If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics..

Roommate Note

I did not participate on Talk Yasuke while my roommate was still active on Wikipedia. My roommate was also quite vociferously in support of a particular position [145] [146].

My first involvement in Yasuke as an IP Address was in relation to sources and interested me because of a mention of the Tang Dynasty [147][148], as my edit history shows, I have a wide interest in Ancient Chinese history. Compared to my roommate's rather vocal support to Yasuke being definitively declared as a Samurai, my own activity has been more moderate [149] and I created an RFC that quite literally supported the opposite position of my roommate [150][151]. Again, notably, at the ARBCOM case there were no sanctions or findings of fact relating to me. However, the evidence that was submitted about my participation shows that my editing differed from that of my roommate[152]

Complaint Origin

The user who created the original attack page accusing me of being a bully and a sockpuppet of my roommate had their talkpage comments removed by another editor [153] for NOTFORUM. As the user had already been warned [154] I had posted [155] another warning because I felt that they at least deserved to receive a warning notification since their talkpage activity had been deleted.

The editor in question proceeded to claim I was ganging up on them with Symphony and Gitz[156] and then created an entire narrative about all three of us that was later G10'd. Said user, after being blocked, started posting on 4chan directing people to harass me with one post reading On their own userpage they admit they have the SAME IP as "X0n10ox". It's obviously the SAME person who has created a new account to hide their past history. Outside of that, I was mentioned semi-favorably [157] where my editing at Yasuke was described Though we have disagreed strongly at times, their contributions to this topic, while occasionally verbose, have been cogent and constructive, which does not seem to align with the narrative that I am bullying people off Yasuke and heavily patrolling it. Accusations, again, which the ARBCOM did not see necessary to address. In my last trip to ANI, it was under the accusation that I was an anti-Yasuke sockpuppet master [158] which was ultimately closed by the complaining party after a handful of people opposed their proposal.

Re:Sock Activity

So my question is if I am a sockpuppet of my former roommate, what, exatly, of the criteria of being a sock have I met outside of disclosing that we shared an IP Address for a time? My roommate wasn't blocked or subject to any sanction, my participation in Yasuke came after he departed Wikipedia, and his stance was firmly "Yasuke was unambiguously a Samurai" while I have expressed reasonable doubt based on available sources and was brought to ANI for essentially having the opposite stance? The sole basis of the accusations on the attack page and on the subsequent WPO thread is the fact that I did what WP:ROOMMATE told me to do to avoid accusations of sockpuppetry. Since doing that, it has done nothing but result in said accusations. The entire farce of a complaint that was deleted was petty retaliation because I had posted a warning on a user's talkpage for WP:NOTFORUM as the user in question had posted a bunch of stuff about Symphony Regalia on Talk Yasuke that Gitz removed. The "bullying" which they refer to is the fact that Gitz removed the offending content, and that I felt it was only appropriate that the user in question should be notified of what they'd done wrong.

Timeline

As for the accusation I appeared "days later", my roommate departed [159], I created my account over a full month later on 27 July 2024[160], I first posted in Yasuke on 19 June 2024. I created the account because Talk Yasuke was rightly locked to IP Editors, and I was trying to relay information about the historical usage of sayamaki [161] as users were making incorrect statements about what a sayamaki could mean. I also find the characterization that I makes minimal edits to bypass semi-protection to be confusing, because I was using the suggested edits dashboard to take me to pages which I did my best to improve based on what the dashboard told me they needed, which in most cases were sources [162][163] [164][165][166][167][168]. This is activity which did not abruptly stop when I began participating in Yasuke, either [169][170][171][172][173][174][175][176][177][178][179][180] As you can see from many of those diffs, I was directed to articles as part of newcomer tasks, and if you look at my history, my usage of that suggested editing persists long after I was allowed to participate in Talk Yasuke myself.

Ongoing Harassment

These continually baseless accusations which are unfortunately part of a harassment campaign. Per the ARBCOM's Finding of Facts [181] Participants in the dispute have been subject to harassment, both on and off of Wikipedia. (BrocadeRiverPoems evidence, Symphony Regalia evidence) Passed 10 to 0 at 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC). The very WPO thread that is being used to lodge this complaint is a thread I submitted as evidence to ARBCOM[182]. It is worth repeating, again, that ARBCOM did not sanction me despite having access to the WPO accusations. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a very minor point but I just read through much of this dispute and I have a question: What on Earth is the "Pony Preservation Project" and what does this group have to do with Wikipedia and our article about artificial intelligence? Thanks for humoring me, it's my reward for reading all of this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, and this is advice to any editor, do not post 12-15 diffs when you can make the same point with 2 to 3 diffs. No one who is reviewing this is going to look at all of those diffs, that is just excessive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for over-supplying diffs, I just wanted to substantiate that the activity they were calling unusual was activity I long continued even after I had access to Yasuke. As for the "Pony Preservation Project" and what it has to do with Wikipedia and an article on Wikipeida, it appears to be a group of MLP Fans originating on 4chan /mlp/ board who supported 15.ai's development. I only know about them because I was reviewing the sources used on 15.ai and one of the sources directed me to a "desuchan" archive of the "Pony Preservation Project" on 4chan where they were actively dicussing editing the article, with one anonymous user asking another user to fabricate sources, even. The thanks section of 15.ai's archived website reads The importance of /mlp/ throughout the development of this project cannot be overstated – once again, I thank each and every one of you anonymous contributors.[183]. Considering their involvement with the development of 15.ai, and the fact that they were actively discussing in the source archive making changes to the article, I felt it prudent to flag the article for potential WP:COI. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 03:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

BrocadeRiverPoems, thank you so much for rearranging your responses in this complaint. They are much more readable and are more likely to be read by other editors or admins. Thanks for the explanation of PPP. I was lost there among the conspiracy theories. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Not a problem! Sorry again for the massive posts. I am trying to get better about that. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 22:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

** Are there any outstanding issues that need to be resolved before this complaint is closed? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: the OP has been CU blocked. M.Bitton (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I realize this, M.Bitton. But when the checkuser, Ivanvector, was asked to close this complaint (see below), he said that there still might be outstanding issues to resolve so that is what prompted me to ask if there were any. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The only outstanding issue is the original issue that caused this drama, the edit warring, which I shall repost in brevity here for the sake of ease.

I want to also include in this discussion as this post by User:RocketKnightX has occurred after I posted my initial statement [184]. User:RocketKnightX during the edit warring, canvassed other editors to report another editor [185][186]. Given the user's persistent edit warring at 15.ai [187][188][189][190][191] and their continuing edit warring [192] [193] and refusal to participate in dispute resolution on talk-pager discussion in a meaningful manner[194][195][196], I propose at least a temporary TBAN for User:RocketKnightX. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

It'll probably be helpful (for me at least) if you add a separate section with the TBAN proposal. MiasmaEternal☎ 01:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, will do. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The Underlying Content Dispute

Like many conduct disputes in Wikipedia, this started as a content dispute. The content dispute was over 15.ai, in particular as to what the infobox should say the status of the web site was. A request for mediation was filed at DRN. The filing editor was blocked indefinitely for conduct unrelated to the 15.ai dispute, but there were multiple editors who agreed to the ground rules, so I began moderated discussion. User:RocketKnightX was one of the editors who was invited to take part. They made a brief statement but did not take part in the following discussion. That discussion resulted in agreement to revise the article to state, in the infobox, that the web site was abandoned. They then revised the article as agreed, but RocketKnightX reverted with a brief statement. I asked them if they wanted to take part in moderated discussion, but they did not answer. At this point the other editors and I agreed that an RFC was the next step. The RFC is currently in progress, at Talk:15.ai#RFC_on_Status_of_Web_Site. The DRN discussion is archived at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_250#15.ai.

That was the 15.ai content dispute. User:HackerKnownAs also refers to the Yasuke dispute. Although User:BrocadeRiverPoems was named as a party in the Yasuke dispute, there was no finding of fact against her. HackerKnownAs could have entered evidence, and did not. The handwave by HackerKnownAs against Brocade is unsubstantiated.

The 15.ai content dispute appears to have been forgotten, or overtaken by personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for supplying this summary, Robert McClenon. Reading over the entire process, it seems like the dispute was resolved among participating editors on problematic wording but when it was implemented, the content change was reverted by editors who had not taken part in the DRN process. Hence the RFC that is going on. I hope you don't see your efforts as wasted as it does seem like a lot of ground was covered over the course of the DRN discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome, User:Liz. I consider a DRN to have been productive if it results in an RFC. In that case, the DRN provides the discussion before the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

This thread was a troll operation, and the trolls have been turned to stone by the light of a type G main sequence star and a special mirror that looks under bridges and in caves. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The troll who started this thread has been put to bed - why not do the same with their mess by closing it? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Sanctioning HackerKnownAs

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

---

I suggest that for constantly reverting against consensus, HackerKnownAs is indefinitely page blocked from 15.ai. 2400:79E0:8040:78D9:1808:A4BB:1E8:1F62 (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, an IP in your ::/42 range blanked User:Ltbdl/sandbox a while after Ltbdl was blocked following violations of topic bans... Ltbdl was involved in some things related to 15.ai. Now, far be it for me to acuse someone of being a block evader (without evidence), but the only obvious related edit that I see of your range as an IP edit is a single 15.ai talk page edit (diff) and seemingly no other participation.

It just makes me wonder who you are, how you found yourself here, why you decided to propose a sanction against another user who you've apparently not interacted with. – 2804:F1...C6:3070 (::/32) (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thats weird, but I can assure you that I am not Ltbdl. Im the 180 guy. 2400:79E0:8041:59B8:1808:A7C3:DF68:6EE0 (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, Admins please ban HackerKnownAs! Its so obvious his edits are only to make trouble. Andthewinnerisme (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

How on Earth do you think that the recommendations of accounts with 1 or 2 edits are going to lead to the block of an editor? You have no demonstratible experience editing this project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

 Checkuser note: The following accounts are  Confirmed to each other:

• HackerKnownAs (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• SirGallantThe4th (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Rin6626 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Andthewinnerisme (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Since Rin6626 is already blocked, and all of the accounts have commented in this thread, all will be blocked indef per WP:BE, WP:GHBH, and WP:PROJSOCK. I'll create an SPI shortly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Ivanvector, can you also close this thread? I think we are done here. 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 14:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I should - there have been concerns raised in good faith by and about editors who aren't part of this sock ring, and I'm not really familiar with what's been going on here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Proposed TBAN of RocketKnightX

User:RocketKnightX has continued to engage in an edit war at 15.ai despite having been warned for it in the past [197]. User:RocketKnightX during the edit warring, canvassed other editors to report another editor [198][199]. Given the user's persistent edit warring at 15.ai [200][201][202] and their continued slow-edit warring [203] [204] and refusal to participate in dispute resolution or talk-page discussion in a meaningful manner[205][206][207] and noting that the user seems to have competency and maturity issues as demonstrated here [208][209] I propose at least a temporary TBAN for User:RocketKnightX from editing at 15.ai, if not an indefinite one. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Support indefinite topic ban. I doubt that they wont cause issues on 15.ai if left unblocked. 2400:79E0:8070:6AE:1808:F1BB:1DB:E998 (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I will stop. Happy now? RocketKnightX (talk) 05:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

While I do not think it is up to me, if you say you're going to stop edit warring, that's good enough for me. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Croystron failure to communicate

Hello. Croystron, who has over 4,000 edits, again refuses to respond to his latest talk page entry here. I have also pinged Croystron on his talk page on the entry, and now ping the editor, again, here: Croystron, plus putting the ANI-notice on his talk page. He was previously blocked for two weeks for the failure to communicate with no apparent effect as the editor, again, refuses to communicate. Perhaps a longer block is necessary to provide a significant downside for Croyston's repeated and persistent failure to communicate. Thanks, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 08:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not he "refuses to respond" which is implying you know his motivation. They may not know that they have a talk page, we don't know. But the fact is that they have never made a single post to a Talk page, User talk page or noticeboard. So, I don't think we can expect them to respond here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Well Liz, I would think Croystron would notice the prominent talk page alerts on the top of each page when editing, specially since besides a talk page entry showing up, Croystron was separately pinged. Also, I would think his previous two week block would cause Croystron to wonder why. Is it your view that failure to check a talk page after multiple alerts on the top every page when editing relieves an editor of a need to communicate? It seems to me the editor should be required to communicate and, specially since Croystron has over 4,000 edits, ignorance is not an excuse. Also, not previously discussed is the basis for communication, that Croystron is violating Wikipedia's editing policy and consensus policy by not providing edit summaries. Regardless, a significant block of a month should serve Croystron well, either alerting that communication cannot be ignored, or alerting to start attending to the talk page. Otherwise, how do you suggest a 4,000 edit editor be further alerted to respond to an editing policy violation? Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there a problem with the editing besides not providing edit summaries? Is there a way of forcing edit summary use in mainspace? I note they have edited draft talk once, but I think that might have been an automated edit. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

What is the "editing policy violation" that Croystron is guilty of? I see that since 1 October Croystron (talk · contribs) has been pretty good about adding edit summaries. Not perfect but they are making an attempt which makes this comment a little out of place. Plus they haven't edited since 12 November so they may not have even seen any of the recent notices. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• P-block from article space to try to get this editor's attention. This editor was blocked previously for MOS violations + refusal to explain. People have asked them to use edit summaries multiple times, and they've never bothered to respond. Not providing edit summaries wastes other editors' time, even when edits are clearly good. When someone won't respond to queries at their talk, I think a block is completely reasonable to try to get their attention. Valereee (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  Since 1 October they have made 143 edits. Of these 25 are listed as "No edit summary". And so because of that they are now partially blocked. I think that's a bit of an overreaction. They complied with the request to add summaries and still got partially blocked. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  This seems like an overreaction, especially considering what CambridgeBayWeather noted above about their edit summary usage. I am still unclear about what the actual policy violation is supposed to be here. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 20:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'd forgotten about Analysis of edit summary usage. They have made 337 edits since September and 203 (60%) with summaries a huge improvement over their first year, but it could be better. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  I would note that when they were previously blocked, the blocking admin said Please understand that, due to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, you're required to communicate when requested. You're welcome to resume editing after the block expires, but I do wish you'd be more cooperative with those editors with legitimate concerns if you'd continue to be here.. So saying edit sumarries are the only issue seems to ignore this. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  But that's what this seems to be about. From Valereee "This editor was blocked previously for MOS violations + refusal to explain. People have asked them to use edit summaries multiple times, and they've never bothered to respond. Not providing edit summaries wastes other editors' time, even when edits are clearly good. When someone won't respond to queries at their talk".

  The last time communication was mentioned was User talk:Croystron#November 2024 Why won't you provide edit summaries? on 12 November (the last day that Croystron edited and being P-blocked three days later does not look good), and that wasn't so much about communicating but about edit summaries, something that they have been doing for a while. There is currently three comments about communicating on Croystron's talk page. Two from Quaerens-veritatem about edit summaries! One from Valereee when she P-blocked them.

  So really until now nobody has explained what is meant by communication on Wikipedia. Taking Wikipedia:Assume good faith at face value they may well think that the only problem was the edit summaries and that is an acceptable means of communication. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Don't know why this ping never came through, but it didn't. Valereee (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Bad block: The only issue identified here is that Croystron hasn't responded to a four-day-old post on their talk page about how they were not using edit summaries when, in fact, they were using edit summaries. Croystron also hasn't edited for four days at this point, so I'm not seeing why a P-block from mainspace is currently necessary. Blocks are preventative, and there's been no evidence presented here that Croystron has been making any kind of disruptive edits. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  If you think we should unblock, it's fine. For me a p-block from article space for someone who has basically never found talk space is helpful to getting them to realize there is such a thing, but I'm open to objection to that. Valereee (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  If there was something that needed urgent discussing with this editor, I would agree that a P-block would be appropriate here. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Like I said, if you think we should unblock, it's fine. I think a p-block from article space when someone has been editing for over a year, has never used a talk page, and hasn't responded to multiple concerns expressed on their talk is appropriate. I tagged the block as anyone should feel free to unblock, with or without a properly formatted unblock request. I'm not trying to be a hardass, here. I'm just trying to get an editor's attention to the fact other editors are trying to communicate with them. Valereee (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Given that they started using edit summaries three months ago I'm sure that they know of the existence of talk pages. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 01:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Good block: The block would be for failure to communicate, including not just for absence of talk page replies and non-response to ANI-notices, but also no response to multiple pings. The editor was blocked before for failure to respond. Block may now gain the editor's attention to start communicating. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Quaerens-veritatem, considering the editor hasn't edited for 4 days, I don't think they can be charged with "non-response to ANI-notices". You just posted this complaint today. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Well Liz, the editor did not respond to an ANI-notice provided before the first block way back on 22 September 2024, or talk page entries, or several pings. The editor continued not to respond. Again, how do you suggest an over one year editor with 4,000 edits be otherwise alerted to respond to a failure to respond violation (which has continued from way before 22 September 2024)? Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Quaerens-veritatem, I think you have done everything possible to inform this editor of existing problems, you have done your due diligence. But you can't control how other editors will or will not respond. There are editors who read each new message that gets posted to their User talk page and others who ignore their talk page beause they want to focus on article editing and not chatting with other editors. Then we have mobile editors who aren't even aware that they have a User talk page. We have to find ways to communicate with all types of editors including IP editors who don't have a stable User talk page and jump around to different IPs. You can only do your best which I think you have done. All I was asking in my original message is to Assume Good Faith and don't interpret a lack of immediate response as a sign of rejection or intentional avoidance. It could just be their temperament and editing patterns and have nothing to do with the message you posted. But, of course, if the editor came to participate here, we could learn more about their reasons. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Given that there's clearly a difference of opinion on how to handle this, I've taken a step back by unblocking and instead requesting the user communicate before editing again. Valereee (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  They commented. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Wow, that is unexpected. A first. Now, if we can get them to come here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

User:NigelPorter and User:Bjcook; potential COI and/or SOCK

I recently requested a review of the article Brendon Cook as I believe that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards, reasons for which can be found here. This article already has a COI cloud under it, as User:Bjcook (a direct reference to the subject's name) created the article and continues to edit Wikipedia regularly.

User:NigelPorter then stated his opinion, however did not reference any Wikipedia policies or even clearly state whether they supported or opposed the AfD. Having replied to them with valid reasons as to why their suggestions did not meet Wikipedia's criteria, they then proceeded to claim that I had some sort of "personal agenda" against the subject of the article due to my user name - despite their user page containing userboxes indicating similar interests. This user then immediately copied the contents of the article into their sandbox, indicating that they will immediately resubmit the article if it is deleted.

Their actions towards the proposed deletion of the article suggest a potential COI or an attitude of article ownership, or even a potential sock puppet of User:Bjcook, that is in disregard to Wikipedia policy. MSportWiki (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Three main things:

1. I am going to note that Bjcook has not edited Brendon Cook since 2007. While there might be a COI concern with respect to that, I don't really think that alone would be cause for action.
2. We then move to the sockpuppetry allegations: Both Bjcook and NigelPorter have an interest in Australian racing (and sport more broadly), and they are both infrequent but longtime editors. I don't see enough to block here on mere comparisons of topic interest, though it might be worth a checkuser taking a look. I'd suggest you lodge that at WP:SPI, which is more competent to handle those concerns.
3. As for civility and WP:OWNERSHIP, I agree that this is unnecessarily inflammatory, and I would note that this is a WP:COPYWITHIN violation in addition to a clear attempt to skirt the AfD by unilaterally userfying the page.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

An SPI has been opened here, thank you. MSportWiki (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

EDIT: Both editors have contributed to Queensland netball-related articles in the last few months (Bjcook and NigelPorter) whilst Brendon Cook sits on a board for Indigenous netball in Queensland (sources 1 2) – clear evidence of COI and sockpuppetry. @Acalamari, Discospinster, Finlay McWalter, Graeme Bartlett, Joe Roe, Liz, Mjroots, Pppery, Tassedethe, and Voorts: pinging some randomly active editors to kickstart the procedure. MSportWiki (talk) 13:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

You'd be better off taking the above to WP:SPI. TarnishedPath^talk 05:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Done (here), thank you. MSportWiki (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

You will see that we both attended, with many other Wikipedians in Brisbane, meet ups advertised and encouraged. Just because I became wiki friends with many of the attendants and share common interests, is not sockpuppertry. There is no COI because User:Bjcook is not Brendon Cook. His name is Brian.

You will also see that we have different IP addresses. We don't live or work with each other.

I find it distressing that the first person to disagree with you has a case opened against them. This is an attack on me. NigelPorter (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

NigelPorter, I know it is disconcerting to be included in an SPI report. I know it was for me when I first started editing. And it's happened to many other editors. Just let the process work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Erobran

This user continues to add new flight service at Jorge Chávez International Airport (Turkish Airlines will start Lima to Istanbul flights in June without providing an exact date as per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. Left messages regarding and left him a link to the discussion but continues to argue and be nasty about it. 2600:1700:8544:D000:58A7:9DD1:E885:7BD4 (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Dude.

Is it you who removes useful relevant information? In doing so, it is you who is vandalizing.

the wikiproject referred to is NOT the official wikipedia rules!

the rules for wikipedia are simply that there must be a source when something is published. NOT ALL THE ELSE!

I have as much right to write as I do as you do! In addition, it is vandalism when you and the other person constantly undo my edit around a legal edit with sources!

if you also read the project it is also there. "Are not official guidelines"! Erobran (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:DR has lots of suggestions for resolving disputes. I suggest both OP and Erobran look at those.

And, Erobran, while it is natural to get upset in this situation, putting your emotions into your replies does not help, and probably hurts, the process of coming to a satisfactory resolution of an online disagreement. Please focus on the facts of the disagreement. Thank you. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

the rules for wikipedia are simply that there must be a source when something is published. No, this is completely wrong. Wikipedia has a massive number of policies and guidelines regarding what should be included, of which WP:Verifiability is only one small part. That page explicitly states that Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion and The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content (WP:VNOT). You should also read up on what WP:Vandalism is, it has a specific definition on wikipedia and mislabelling good faith edits as vandalism is going to get you into trouble. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Erobran - while I don't think this needed to be brought here (it's a bit of an escalation of a content dispute), can I suggest you take a look at WP:EW? If a bunch of people are reverting you, you need to go to the talk page and discuss your changes and get consensus for them. Don't just keep reinstating them or you'll end up blocked. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Girth Summit: User reverting at Istanbul Airport [210]. 2600:1700:8544:D000:9D0E:3239:A3E:70F8 (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Just being clear their last revert at Istanbul Airport was prior to the submission of this incident so this is part of the original reported behaviour and not new behaviour after the report, right? Simonm223 (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Correct. 2600:1700:8544:D000:58A7:9DD1:E885:7BD4 (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• I've given Erobran some advice on why edit warring to force through their preferred version of these pages is problematic. I don't think that this needs any further action immediately; their editing seems to be somewhat sporadic, but if they continue in the same vein when they resume editing feel free to ping me from here if this hasn't been archived, or report at WP:ANEW. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • What I find problematic is his blatant disregard of community guidelines. The Banner talk 13:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

    Hi again "The Banner"

    Now I have read the elaboration. I am partially right in my claim that a WikiProject does NOT define when an edit is correct or incorrect. That would give me the right to edit as I had done WITHOUT specifying a start date. (If you read several other pages about airports, a start date is also not specified) That is why I took it as personal harassment!

    However, it must be said that I have NOT approached the matter sufficiently. What I should have done was to justify the decision instead of simply reversing an edit. I will do this in the future on the talk pages instead. Erobran (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Isles of Scilly edit war

86.184.52.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and Uness232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are engaged in an edit war at Isles of Scilly about climate classification. There is ongoing discussion/argument on the talk page, but it hasn't stopped the constant reversions. DuncanHill (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Uness232 is adding claims that the Scilly Islands, Bordeaux and Istanbul are "sub tropical" without providing any sources or gaining consensus on the talk page first.

Trewartha's climate classification clearly states that marine locations have to be frost-free. I've provided sources for this.

None of Uness232's claimed 'subtropical' locations are frost-free. Suggesting Scilly Islands, Bordeaux and Istanbul are 'subtropical' also defies common sense - look at the climate data for these places in winter! They are not subtropical by any definition.

I'm happy to stop editing.

But please consider the article history and the nature of Uness232's claims carefully before you pass judgment.

Allowing unsourced claims that places are "subtropical" when they are clearly not makes Wikipedia look unreliable and untrustworthy. 86.184.52.46 (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Both editors have been partially blocked from the article for 31 hours for edit warring. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to chime in here to say that there are some serious bludgeoning issues as well in the discussion beneath the RFC, which doesn't seem to meet the neutrality requirements. I'm not really sure [211] this is productive discussion behavior, and the IP editor also seems to have strangely used ChatGPT to try and prove their point? [212]. I was browsing the RfCs in the history section, as I sometimes do, and I came upon the RFC and saw the strange discussion underneath. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 07:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your observations. I’d like to take this opportunity to refocus the discussion on the core issue at hand: the addition of contentious claims without reliable sources, particularly regarding the Isles of Scilly, Bordeaux, and Istanbul being "subtropical."

=== The Onus to Provide Reliable Sources ===

Per Wikipedia's Verifiability Policy (WP

), any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable, published source. The claim that these locations are subtropical clearly falls into this category, as it has been disputed and does not align with widely accepted climate classifications. Therefore, the onus is on Unes232 to provide reliable sources that explicitly support this assertion before adding or reinstating it into the article.

=== Adherence to Established Climate Definitions ===

The Trewartha climate classification, which appears to be the framework at issue, has specific criteria. If sources (like those already provided) indicate that frost-free conditions are a requirement for a subtropical marine classification, any proposed subtropical designation must align with this criterion. Otherwise, it constitutes original research, which is prohibited under Wikipedia's No Original Research Policy (WP

).

=== Consensus and Edit Warring ===

Unes232’s additions should have been discussed on the talk page prior to being added to the article, as required by WP

. This ensures that claims are properly evaluated by multiple editors before becoming part of the mainspace. Instead, repeated unsourced edits have led to edit warring, which disrupts collaboration.

=== Maintaining Wikipedia’s Credibility ===

Allowing poorly sourced or unsourced claims to remain damages Wikipedia’s reputation as a reliable reference. Per WP

, climate-related claims must be sourced from peer-reviewed literature, expert publications, or other authoritative sources. None of the disputed claims meet this standard, and relying on "common sense" or vague reasoning does not substitute for verifiable evidence.

=== Addressing the RFC and Discussion Tone ===

While I understand concerns about the RFC’s neutrality or discussion behaviour, these issues are secondary to ensuring that the article adheres to Wikipedia's core content policies. As editors, we are all responsible for improving articles, which includes removing unsourced or poorly sourced material and focusing discussions on the policies and evidence at hand.

I respectfully suggest that we redirect efforts toward sourcing robust, verifiable evidence for any disputed claims. If no reliable source can be found, the material cannot remain in the article. This is not about “winning” an argument but upholding Wikipedia's standards and credibility. 86.184.52.46 (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

This is ANI, which is about editor conduct, not content. Also considering the fact that you used ChatGPT as a source, I kinda heavily suspect this is AI Generated... Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. While I appreciate your input, I’d like to refocus on the actual issues here: proper sourcing, adherence to Wikipedia policies, and the conduct surrounding these edits.

=== The Core Issue: Unsourced Material and Policy Violations ===

The main concern is that Unes232 has repeatedly added unsourced material to the article, claiming the Isles of Scilly, Bordeaux, and Istanbul are subtropical under Trewartha classification. These additions:

• Lack reliable sources.
• Contradict existing sourced material, which defines subtropical regions under Trewartha as requiring frost-free conditions.
• Constitute original research if derived from editor interpretation rather than explicitly published material.

Furthermore, repeatedly re-adding contentious material without building consensus on the talk page violates WP policies.

. This pattern disrupts collaboration and undermines Wikipedia’s credibility.

=== Personal Attack and False Allegation ===

Your accusation of "using ChatGPT as a source" is both false and unsubstantiated. It is inappropriate to suggest that an editor’s arguments are invalid based on unfounded claims about how they were generated. This amounts to a personal attack, which detracts from constructive discussion and violates Wikipedia’s principles of respectful collaboration. Please focus on addressing the arguments and evidence presented rather than speculating about motives or methods.

=== Editor Conduct and ANI ===

This discussion is indeed about editor conduct. In this case, the conduct at issue is not the IP editor’s but rather Unes232’s repeated addition of unsourced material and removal of sourced content. These actions go against core content policies and have directly caused the edit war. My actions have been focused on enforcing Wikipedia’s guidelines by removing unsourced claims and ensuring that disputed content is backed by verifiable evidence.

=== Moving Forward ===

To resolve this, we must ensure that all claims about the Isles of Scilly's climate are:

1. Based on reliable, verifiable sources.
2. Added only after reaching consensus on the talk page.
3. Evaluated against established policies.

I invite all editors to focus on these principles and avoid personal attacks or unfounded accusations. Wikipedia thrives on collaborative, policy-driven discussions, and adhering to these standards will help us improve the article constructively. 86.184.52.46 (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Please stop writing essays with ChatGPT. qcne (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

86.184, please consider this an only warning: If you continue posting LLM boilerplate here (or at the article talk page [213][214], or in any other discussion venue) in lieu of actually engaging with your fellow editors, I will impose a sitewide block. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Blablubbs more LLM boilerplate posted here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, AirshipJungleman29. Blocked one week. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Ustadeditor2011

Ustadeditor2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is repeatedly disrupting content at All We Imagine as Light. Among other changes, they are continuously suppressing a limited theatrical release date that is supported by reliable sources and claiming the release never occurred, providing no sources to back their claim. I opened a talk page discussion for consensus-building and have repeatedly warned them against restoring their desired versions to the article. They have ignored all warnings and continued to edit the page back to their version. They initially reverted my reversion by claiming to be reverting vandalism when the edits are not vandalism. They were previously warned by Toddy1 about making such claims, as well as receiving many other warnings about disruptive behavior and attacking users. Their previous behavior prompted an AN discussion which resulted in a partial block.

I have warned them against edit warring on their talk page here, same here, here and here. I have also warned them against edit warring in my reversion here and repeatedly in discussion at Talk:All We Imagine as Light#Re: edits by Ustadeditor2011, to no avail. After a final user talk warning in which I very clearly appealed for them to utilise the talk page of the article to demonstrate that their claims are verifiable by way of being supported by reliable sources and I requested that they not change the article without getting consensus first, they balked and reinstated their preferred version for the fifth time. Jon698 once again reverted these edits. Οἶδα (talk) 06:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Οἶδα: If he/she is edit warring, it would be better to close this report and make a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Such a report would require diffs showing that they were repeatedly reverting other editor's edits. -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Toddy1: I did not report this user at the edit warring noticeboard because their four reverts were performed in a 1-day 19-hour period. I figured that it would not qualify as being "just outside" the 24-hour period as stated at WP:3RR. Οἶδα (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Both the above and Talk:All We Imagine as Light#Re: edits by Ustadeditor2011 suggested that your complaint was that he/she was edit-warring.

Ustadeditor2011 made an initial edit^[215] and four reverts^{[216][217][218][219]} on the issue of the Indian release date in the infobox between 16 and 19 November. Talk:All We Imagine as Light#India release date is clear evidence that in addition to making reverts, he/she has used the article talk page to discuss the issue with you and Jon698. My advice is that if he/she continues reverting over that issue, then go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. And if he/she does not, then the problem has solved itself.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

EX Centre from Star Avenue 2018

EX Centre from Star Avenue 2018 (talk · contribs · count) uploaded a number of low quality images on Commons. When a DR (Commons' version of FfD) was opened for those files, the user started replacing currently in use files on this and other projects with their [lower quality/less relevant] ones, then suggesting the files they just removed be deleted instead of their own uploads. We take a dim view of that on Commons and Yann, a fellow Commons admin, blocked them on that project for two weeks, but since a lot of the recent edits are here, I figured I'd let the admins here know and let y'all decide if it warrants a block here as well. Cheers, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Upd Edit - project sock?

Upd Edit (talk · contribs)

This account has no edits beyond the open letter talk page and offer nothing constructive. I think this is a project sock. I seek a block on the account as such. I would considered myself being WP:INVOLVED given my participation in related discussions. The account has been notified. – robertsky (talk) 09:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

This diff Sounds like something an admin with very specific skills may be able to deal with. @Smartse do you think you'd be able to help out? A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 09:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean. SmartSE (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

What leads you to the conclusion that this is a sock, rather than, for example, someone who has been editing unregistered but has decided to register in order to comment on that talk page? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a possibility that an unregistered editor registering an account to comment on the page, but the likelihood would be low in my opinion. The open letter is publicised mainly to registered editors via the the watchlist notice. The talk page isn't restricted in any manner so anyone can comment, even when unregistered. – robertsky (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

As an IP editor I can say I saw this the same day it was created, it was very attention grabbing with all the people editing, no watchlist needed. I see now that Phil Bridger announced the open letter at the village pump too, afterwards. That is to say, this is not some obscure thing (not that you claimed it was).

Here is a question: if this is the sock of someone, IP or not, would it not be a valid reason for creating a single sock(privacy)? – 2804:F1...F5:391A (::/32) (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

This strikes me as a valid type of sock account? -- asilvering (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

If it is unregistered editor trying to shield their IP addrees, sure. But if it is a registered editor? How so? WP:PROJSOCK only allow project sock accounts if the discussion affects their account directly. The issue, the court case, at hand affects only three editors. It may not be beneficial of them to participate in the discussions in any manner as we already have seen that the plaintiff's lawyers had tried to bring in last minute arguments such one of the three editors participating in the open letter and paint everyone here in unfavourable light. Any claims that this case will affect one's privacy of others in the future is WP:CRYSTAL as it is open ended at the moment. – robertsky (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I would say that responding to an open letter on a sensitive political subject would be a legit sock in the spirit of "privacy" (and maybe "security"), and the fact that the discussion has hundreds of participants means that the negative effects of a project sock are vastly reduced. I'd change my position on that if they were obviously tag-teaming with a regular account, or if they were trying to dominate the discussion in some way. -- asilvering (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Without knowing whose sock they are, there is not much to be done here unless a Checkuser drops by and decides they should investigate. But I don't see this editor's 5 edits as being disruptive and warranting a block. They might be an SPA and just be interested in this court case but but being an SPA doesn't violate any policies. Many of our current editors started off as SPAs and grew to be interested in other subjects as their skills improved.

But there is another case brought to ANI (see below) about suspicions of editors participating in this discussion about this WMF mess and what POV they might be pushing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

This may not be “dominating the conversation” but it does have some features in common. (On the other hand they haven’t edited in more than a day, so this is probably moot.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

This complaint seems related to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Users TracyVaghmare91 and Hemacho328wsa are NOTHERE right below this one. I was just reviewing the Open Letter talk page, to try to answer a question for ACE2024, and I noticed a number of brand new accounts stirring things up there. I'd say, let's see if this behavior continues into this week and then see if it still needs to be addressed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

As Liz already pointed out, there's a number of users like this. In addition to TracyVaghmare91 and Hemacho328wsa, this also includes Zubehamoreha and Dzień dobrry. Cortador (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism at Battle of Yultong

Request block of IPs and page protection due to persistent vandalism: [220], [221] and [222]. thanks Mztourist (talk) 07:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Since it was rotating IP accounts, I've semi-protected this article for two weeks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Mztourist (talk) 10:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

AI-generated articles by Tatar Russian

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

---

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

Tatar Russian has created eight drafts that were accepted and moved to mainspace:

• Mongol Conquest of the Caucasus
• Mongol invasion of the lands of the Abaza and Circassians
• Arab invasion of Abasgia
• Timur's invasion of Circassia and Abazgia
• Battle of Kyzburun
• Circassian feudal wars
• Circassian expeditions in Astrakhan
• Military campaigns of Temryuk Idar

They have also created ten pages that are still in draftspace:

• Draft:Battle of Pecherniki Oak Forests
• Draft:Crimean-Circassian War (1558–1561)
• Draft:Great War against the Crimean Expansion
• Draft:Timur's campaign against the Abaza and Circassians
• Draft:Northern Caucasus Policy of the Crimean Khanate
• Draft:Battle of Farce (1841)
• Draft:Dagestani campaign against Kabardia
• Draft:Circassian-Kumyk Wars
• Draft:Karcha's Movement
• Draft:Circassian raids on Karachai and Balkars

These all appear to have been AI-generated, and beyond the tone issues, I think they may be factually incorrect. The citations are mostly in Cyrillic, which makes them hard to verify, but the few non-Cyrillic citations seem to be mostly hallucinated. For example, Mongol Conquest of the Caucasus cites:

• Ibragimov, I.G. (2011). "Aguls' Struggle with Tatar-Mongol Invaders in the First Half of the XIII Century". North Caucasus Regional Studies. 3: 35–36. I couldn't find any indication online that either the author or the journal exists.
• Gutnov, F.Kh. (2010). Mongolian Campaigns to the North Caucasus. Vol. 6. Кавказский сборник. p. 32. At least the author does seem to exist, but the article does not, and Кавказский сборник was published from 1876 to 1912.
• Rubruk, William of (1957). "Journey to the Eastern Countries". Publications of the Academy of Sciences. Moscow: 88–95. This is just impossible – William of Rubruk died several centuries ago.

Given this, I think we should presume that the harder-to-verify parts are also hallucinated. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

These should all just be deleted, and the creator blocked for AI abuse. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

This remind me of a previous banned user. PlanespotterA320 (talk · contribs), and their username alerted me. Is there anyone who want to done a check? -Lemonaka 05:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Blablubbs@Tamzin Since who may be familiar with the banned one. -Lemonaka 05:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we should ping the AFC reviewers who okayed these articles and get their opinions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Good idea. @Robert McClenon, Memer15151, and Ratnahastin: Please see above. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for the misunderstanding, I accidentally brought the wrong literature. It won't happen again Tatar Russian (talk) 09:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Genuinely curious about what you mean by "wrong literature" – do these works actually exist somewhere? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, in the Russian archives Tatar Russian (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a link to any of the three sources mentioned above? Not necessarily the full text, just a mention of the publications in the relevant journals would be enough to confirm that they exist. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

see what the joke is, I have reliable sources, why should my articles be deleted and then block me? I follow the rules of Wikipedia and I didn't break anything Tatar Russian (talk) 12:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Fictitious references introduced by User:XXzoonamiXX around 2014

I don't know whether this editor has turned over a new leaf since, because this is about events over ten years ago, but the offending edits are still present in a number of articles so I'd like some help to review and remove them. This relates to a number of edits the user made on articles relating to war crimes or chemical/biological weapons. Example edits are:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_biological_warfare&diff=599166333&oldid=598601119 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chemical_weapons_in_World_War_I&diff=prev&oldid=596378942 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geneva_Protocol&diff=prev&oldid=596400711

A number of references are used by the editor:

Max Boot (August 16, 2007). War Made New: Weapons, Warriors, and the Making of the Modern World. Gotham. pp. 245–250. ISBN 1-59240-315-8. ---- This is a chapter about Pearl Harbor. Randomly used to justify edits made in a range of random places. Proof: https://catalog.sbplibrary.org/Record/113641?searchId=4240028&recordIndex=3&page=

D. Hank Ellison (August 24, 2007). Handbook of Chemical and Biological Warfare Agents, Second Edition. CRC Press. pp. 87–100. ISBN 0-8493-1434-8. ---- This book is about advice for first responders. The cited pages seem chosen at random, for example this page ref is used in an article about smallpox but actually relates to nerve agents. https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Handbook_of_Chemical_and_Biological_Warf/E58GAKMgcR4C?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=RA1-PA3&printsec=frontcover

Joel A. Vilensky (1986). Dew of Death: The Story of Lewisite, America's World War I Weapon of Mass. Indiana University Press. pp. 78–80. ISBN 0-2533-4612-6. ---- This book is mainly about later developments in Lewisite, the page ref relates to WWII development in anti-Lewisite treatment. https://archive.org/details/dewofdeathstoryo0000vile/page/78/mode/2up?view=theater

L. F. Haber (1986). The Poisonous Cloud: Chemical Warfare in the First World War. Clarendon Press. pp. 106–108. ISBN 0-1985-8142-4. ---- This book is actually potentially relevant to the topic, but the page reference is incorrectly chosen for a article section on civilian casualties of WWI. In this case editor's edit grossly misrepresents book. https://www.fulcrum.org/epubs/bn999951q?locale=en#page=120

"Crawford, Native Americans of the Pontiac's War" ---- Book does not exist. Google search only turns up wikipedia articles. Closest is Michael H. Crawford's books on the genetic origins of Native americans, which is clearly irrelevant.

These are not innocent errors. Editor appears to for example, manufacture quotes out of thin air (see Haig quote in the chemical weapons example) or manufacture numbers (up to 260k civilian casualties) that directly contradict values given in Haber (when Haber actually discusses casualty figures, on pages 239-253)

In addition to the editor's contributions, other editors have copied and pasted the offending sections to other articles (which is what drew my attention). So it's really getting to be quite a substantial issue. I've fixed some of it (the ones relating to chemical weapons in WWI) but I need help - these are just the instances I've looked at and there are likely others. I also haven't verified whether the editor has continued to use fictitious references in their edits since. There is an erroneous page ref in a recent article but that might just be a simple error. -Fangz (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Also note that the editor is surely aware that they did this and has not corrected the articles since, despite being still active (at least until October 2024). Fangz (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

User:176.113.180.173

Persistent WP:NOTHERE. First time doing this so don't know if I need to provide specific diffs, but you can see the page history at History of Africa. I've tried to draw them into discussion at Talk:History of Africa#November 2024, and even compromise with the changes they keep trying to make. Their edits are substantially similar to the edits of User:NutmegCoffeeTea (notification of NCT) made a couple of days before, so it might be worth a check user, but I doubt it is her. The IP is clearly taking the piss and having fun, I templated them and they just templated me back. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

notification of IP Kowal2701 (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I've not been in this situation before, and haven't found access to all the different templates to use with newbies. I don't know what I could've done differently. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

General comment:Kowal2701, in a noticeboard complaint like this one, the OP is expected to supply diffs/edits that illustrate what the problem is with the editor's conduct. Otherwise, editors have to go looking for them which will lessen the chances that you'll get much feedback here. You want to make it obvious to others what the problem is but you haven't even stated what the issue is with this account's editing by identifying what guideline or policy they are violating. Assume your fellow editor is devoting 3-5 minutes to reviewing your complaint, can they easily see what's going on here? If not, they are likely to not offer you a response.

You don't need to apologize, no one expects an editor to make a full and comprehensive report the first time they open a complaint on ANI and, if you are lucky, an editor will tell you what your report is missing. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The IP is clearly WP:not here to build an encyclopedia and keeps WP:edit warring for their preferred changes (their edits: [223][224][225][226][227]) while resisting attempts from others for collaboration (see [228]). They've been reverted by four different people (including me) for a total of 5 times (others' reverts: [229][230][231] my reverts: [232][233]). They have been templated three times by three different people (including me) for unconstructive editing, vandalism, and edit warring (see User talk:176.113.180.173).

The edits are very similar to User:NutmegCoffeeTea's made two days before which I reverted (her edits: [234][235][236][237][238][239]). I want to clarify I'm not accusing NCT of anything, I just can't ignore the similarity of their edits, and wonder whether a check user might be warranted? Kowal2701 (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

This has been resolved with the page being protected, please feel free to archive this Kowal2701 (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the report – I hope semi-protection solves the disruption for now. Checkusers won't publicly connect IP addresses to accounts, so requesting a check wouldn't result in a different answer than " No comment". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay thank you. I'll apologise to the user. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

This is very kind, thank you! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The user's response to the edit war notice on the user's talk page was to retaliate with an edit war notice on the other user's talk page. 172.56.235.58 (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikimicky1, Armenian genocide denial, personal attacks, disregard of Wiki policies, WP:BLOCKEVASION

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

---

Wikimicky1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wikimicky1 has not only engaged in several attacks despite being told no to, they have also disregarded our policies. This includes openly admitting that they don't care about this site and that they were blocked for being a sock of indeffed Armenian genocide denier User:Ungitow, while simultaneously denying the Armenian genocide.

They said this in one of their first edits on 7 May 2022: Hi, apparently I have been blocked along with user:Ungitow. Some donkeys (admins) thought I was associated with the editor. Hilarious. These admins are lowly cowards and they surely don’t care about justice or the truth. I don’t care about Wikipedia a bit anymore. They can block me as much as they like. They can’t silence me in the real world! No, I don’t believe in the so-called Armenian massacres also referred to as by another name. Call it denial. It never happened the way propagators say it did. The truth shall not be silenced. Peace.

Personal attacks:

• 14 July 2022: No dear, your answer is clear evidence you are ideologically biased. Who is Cambridge? Are they the final say on religious subjects? So a source is considered reliable le by you if it’s published by Oxford or Harvard. I see. Hmm, most of Wikipedia is garbage then, according to your flawed logic. Anyway, you probabablu don’t speak Turkish. Chances are you’re just a pro-Persian person living in the West. No I’m not personally attacking you. I’m just saying things as they are. Your profile is enough to show how partial you are.

• 11 November 2024 If some pro-Iranians want to push the agenda...

• 12 November 2024 But one of those I referred to is definitely you and your actions. Please apply the same standards to your own editing and stop being biased and your POV editing. Thank you. (the first line refers to the previous attack a day earlier)

Keeps disregarding (WP:IDHT, WP:TENDENTIOUS) the plethora of WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS based on it [240] regarding the ethnicity of al-Biruni, resorting to edit warring [241] and openly disregarding it in the articles talk page [242]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I am a bit surprised to see this on the verge of being auto-archived. Am I missing something here? I tried to make the report as reader friendly as possible. Wikimicky1 literally openly admitted to being blocked for socking as an Armenian genocide denialist, while simultaneously denying the Armenian genocide, i.e. WP:BLOCKEVASION. HistoryofIran (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I guess an admin didn't see it? 172.99.146.47 (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not associated with the other user/editor. The above allegations hold no truth. HistoryofIran is trying to frame me because he could not deal with my logical argument and the reliable sources I provided. See Talk:Al-Biruni. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimicky1 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment : Anybody who takes a look at the talk page of Wikimicky1 may see a wall of warnings, this editor is all but a net positive to this project, support indef as per WP:NOTHERE.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• This is a difficult situation. The behavior of the editor was clearly not exemplary, and they had a bunch of warnings at their talk page. However, in the Al Biruni episode, when they were pointed out to the RfC they stopped edit-warring. They have never been blocked, and imo in this situation blocking indef only makes sense per WP:NOTHERE - and while they clearly exhibit indications of NOTHERE, they are here not only to push pro-Turkic POV, but also to make positive contribution. (I can not comment on the statement that they are a sock of blocked user, the best is probably to open a SPI - if they are a sock they of course need to be blocked). More appropriately, one would start with short blocks and escalating them, eventually to an indefinite block - but blocking for the Al Biruni episode would look like punishment at this point. Every admin if welcome to disagree with me, but I think the only reasonable course of action is to wait whether this behavior comes back, and, if yes, block. I will add their talk page to my watchlist and see whether I can this myself (though I am generally busy these days in real life).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Ymblanter. Unfortunately the SPI will probably come out stale, since it was two years ago. I had already mentioned the RFC twice to Wikimicky1 [243] [244], only to be met with insults and edit warring, which wasn't the first time they've done that. Heck, even right now in this very thread they're saying that "above allegations hold no truth." and "he could not deal with my logical argument and the reliable sources I provided." showing that they haven't learned anything. This user is WP:NOTHERE imo. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe they had some few "positive contribution", but this editor is all but a net positive to this project. Another case of WP:NOTHERE.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Reid Kennedy and probably competence problem

Reid Kennedy (talk · contribs) created autobio on their userpage twice, however, their contested on their talk page seemed all a mess. And they have showed an attitude of WP:IDHT and possible inclining of didn't want to comply with the rules of Wikipedia:Autobiography, I tried to invite them to WP:TH for help, but they replied with

Actually, less of any kind of academic question whatsoever.
This is well-researched, boldly presented, and thorough in its revelation of this young man's life and work.

-Lemonaka 11:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

We appear to have edited in response to this at two different pages Lemonaka. I added a level 3 warning which reflects where we're at in my opinion. I have little doubt that Reid Kennedy (talk · contribs) is rapidly heading towards a WP:NOTHERE block but not just yet. He may yet show the wisdom of the supreme court justice he claims to be. Cabayi (talk) 11:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Mm, took a swing at it myself on his talk page. We'll see how it goes. (sighs) Someday I'll figure out the motivation of those who are perpetually astonished that (a) rules exist, and (b) applies to Them!. Ravenswing 13:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• I've indeffed the user. Ridiculous tripe and then combative about the propriety of the garbage he created.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes that was a spectacular load of garbage wasn't it. I just had to go and read it. Canterbury Tail talk 19:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks a little bit like Chat-gpt generated replies. Anyway, good block. -Lemonaka 05:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Would TPA revoking be warranted? The user's entire edit history, aside from the attempt to create that user page, was to try to argue one's way into making that page on the user's talk page. 172.56.235.58 (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@172.56.235.58 no further edits, no action needed. -Lemonaka 03:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

User:GAMERBOY102 is trying to game Today's Featured Article Process

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

---

• GAMERBOY102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am not familiar with the Today's Featured Article process, but it should be a matter of common sense that an editor should not try to game the process after they have already received a warning about gaming the process. Common sense would also indicate that only Featured Articles are eligible for this display. On 10 November 2024, GAMERBOY102 made an entry in the TFA queue to display Gateway Mall (Quezon City) as the featured article on 1 January 2025. That was nominated for MFD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 1, 2025. Other editors cautioned them not to game the process. The MFD was closed as Delete on 17 November 2024, and should have been a warning.

A review of their user talk page shows that they have been repeatedly warned by User:Ohnoitsjamie for adding vertical headers. A review of their talk page also shows that they asked why they were blocked on Commons, which was for out-of-scope editing. I cautioned them that further experimentation or testing on the English Wikipedia might result in an indefinite block.

GAMERBOY102 has now created Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Gateway Mall (Quezon City). The article still is not a featured article, so this seems to be an editor who is not learning from their mistake and not using common sense. User:SchroCat has (in my view, reasonably) nominated it for deletion.

Is a partial block from project space in order? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, as well as template space.  Done OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• If they are not understanding the fact that Today's Featured Article actually needs to be a Featured Article, then there's an element of WP:CIR here. However, I can't see where they have been empirically told that, especially given that their grasp of English appears to be a bit shaky. Black Kite (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I left them a message this morning (which was after they posted at WP:TFAR), so there is no excuse in the future for this to happen once the PB ends. - SchroCat (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked as a sock. All the nonsense they created is G5'able (unless useful and/or edited by others).-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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

USER:CleoSpar

This looks like someone's burner account that they're just using for trolling would-be admins (firstly giving Marcgarver this rather facetious cookie after the AELECT, then deleting Grahm87's admin flair after his RRFA). Asides from some cosmetic user-page edits no other edits. Appears to be WP:NOTHERE. I did think about simply blocking this account myself but it would be my first block and I'm not even sure how to do it, nor do I want to get a reputation for trigger-happiness if it wouldn't actually be a kosher block. FOARP (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

They also gamed autoconfirmed with several trivial edits to their userpage in order to edit Graham87's userpage. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for trolling.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Also note that account creation is currently blocked on their range, so they're hauling out sleepers. In my experience, they probably have a bunch of other accounts in the wings if they're willing to sacrifice sleepers from 2021.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, probably next time I see an account like that I should just straight block? FOARP (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, or you could always kick it here for a sanity check if you want. Or drop me a note, I'll be happy to give you a second opinion on anything admin related while you get used to the buttons!-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Or the discord server. I just had a nice discussion there that answered my questions about IP blocks and open proxies. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@FOARP, if you haven't found WP:ADMINGUIDE yet, now you have. If you use Twinkle, it'll also drop the talk page notices. -- asilvering (talk) 08:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Concerns Over Negative Content on Bunq Article and Potential Promotion of N26

"There seems to be an ongoing edit war on the Bunq page, with new autoconfirmed editors such as @Snarkyalyx, @Partydoos, and @Partylix making frequent changes. Despite reverting there changes and explaining other stuff exists. These editors doesn't seem concerned. Pridemanty (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Notices which Pridemanty overlooked have been placed, including to Partlyx whose username is misspelt above. Cabayi (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

As I've mentioned to an admin, for the record:

There's weird editing behaviour happening and me and other editors do believe there are users being paid for editing. I removed what I believe was puffery and re-introduced a removed controversy section. After I did that, a new user "Partlyx" was created to seemingly cause confusion; that user seems to be a combination of my name and the username of the person who first introduced a controversies section under "Partydoos". User Pridemarty keeps edit warring, committing changes to the page instead of properly discussing it with others.

Pridemanty responding "While highlighting achievements is important, it shouldn’t cross into promotional language or create unwarranted hype, as seen with terms like ‘landmark’ or ‘innovative’ without proper context." is extremely weird because I was there to remove that while they reverted my changes. They clearly don't read what I said, nor the contents of my edits. I believe there's COI.

Imo, there's a few giveaways that the article is written by Bunq themselves like citing where an info comes from in the body text.

Pridemanty has ignored many warnings and different editors asking for a proper discussion in the talk page.

It's also good to look at the talk page that points out other suspicious things about Pridemanty.to highlight: Snarkyalyx (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

to add, the whole N26 thing entirely came from the suspected sock puppet account of Pridemanty Snarkyalyx (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I would like to point out User talk:Partlyx where both Partlyx and Pridemanty wrote a comment in an unusual way, with "quotation marks" around the whole comment. I am completely unfamiliar with sockpuppet investigations and do not want to accuse anyone of sockpuppetry, but I wanted to mention this for others here. win8x (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I've noticed this as well a few hours ago upon taking a glance at their user talk page. This compounds with the suspiciously close edit/revert times between 1258369954 (Partlyx) and the following 1258369979 (Pridemanty), only 20 seconds apart. With the usual latencies in MediaWiki (incl. watched page notifications), this seems too short to be organic. ElementW (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Pridemanty, can you link to the article you are talking about? And what is N26? You have named editors but haven't provided any context of diffs for other editors to review. You're not going to get a lot of response if you don't better explain what the problem is and provide examples of problematic editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Liz The article is just Bunq. I'll leave the other questions to Pridemanty. win8x (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you, win8x, it looks like there has been a lot of edit-warring on this article today and now it is protected and editing is limited to extended-confirmed editors. This might serve to quiet things down for a while. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  One notable issue with this protection is that Pridemanty is an extended-confirmed user that has been engaging in continued warring, deleting a Talk-disputed "Controversies" section that was WP:QUO even after it was restored by another XC user on multiple occasions (1, 2-2). Considering their refusal to meaningfully engage in resolution on the talk page, this might not be sufficient. ElementW (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• I'm a bit confused as to the why the filer is stating that anyone here is directly promoting N26, which has had one revision (changing "Berlin, Germany" to "Berlin") since July. That feels like a bit of a stretch. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  I (and Snarkyalyx) highly suspect that now banned user Partlyx, who authored the only revision mentioning it, is a sockpuppet of Pridemanty, who would be trying to use the reference to N26 as a red herring to discredit the entire sequence of edits that led up to this. That seems like a reasonable explanation as to why they insist so much on it. ElementW (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  As I said above, I also believe this. I do not think Pridemanty was checked during Snarkyalyx's SPI investigation (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Snarkyalyx, filed by Pridemanty), which is why it was inconclusive. Pinging @Izno as the CheckUser who investigated. win8x (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  No, I did not check the filer. Izno (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  Alright that's what I thought. Thanks, the comments by other users confused me. win8x (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the precision. Could it be possible to check them as well as this, from my perspective, is a retaliatory SPI, and if I understand WP:BOOMERANG correctly you should have checked them too. ElementW (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  That's not how I think it works. SPI investigations are something else, evidence is needed, and there was no evidence of socking by them. WP:BOOMERANG doesn't apply (at least that's what I think). win8x (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  I strongly suspect that WikiFirm WikiBusiness, is involved in adding controversies using multiple accounts. While a recent SPI (Sockpuppet Investigation) didn't reveal technical similarities, it’s highly likely they are employing advanced technical measures to avoid detection.Pridemanty (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  The very fact that you are the one insisting on the removal of sourced controversies and the re-introduction of clear puffery under the virtue of "WP:ATTACK" - Puffery like "landmark court case" which is text that only ever comes up on bunq's websites press section here; where some of the comments you have written also show up as 100% ChatGPT generated in detectors (although they may be unrelated), and as an extended user engaging in an edit war instead of properly discussing this (when I asked you to multiple times!) - now accusing me of "meat-puppetry" even though my friend never touched the actual article - I doubt I am the one being paid. Your primary goal has constantly been removing negative press, even if sourced according to WP:RS Snarkyalyx (talk) 10:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  I feel like I'm getting to be a parrot but I will, once again, reiterate that I have no idea who these other editors are and I'm only involved in this because I don't like it when editors attempt to white wash pages. Also: we're also all still waiting for a proper explanation as to why Pridemanty wants the entire controversy section removed. Constablequackers (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Promotional editing and IDHT

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

---

I would like to bring the behavior of User:Sarim Wani to the attention of administrators for review. This user, who has been editing for only three months, has been repeatedly disregarding community advice and attempting to apply his monopoly over several topics. Despite advice from numerous editors, including administrators, he continues to stick on certain subjects, and tries to give a justification. Notably, the article about "Mission Swaraj," a term popularised by YouTuber Dhruv Rathee.

• Key Concerns:

1. Disregard for Advice: Despite receiving detailed and valuable advice from experienced editors, including DoubleGrazing, who took significant time to guide him about notability criteria and proper article creation, he continues to disregard him. For example: WP:Teahouse participants advised him to create a subsection on Dhruv Rathee's page instead of creating a standalone article, as the topic lacks independent reliable sources (infact the subject doesn't have even one reliable source). Despite thanking DoubleGrazing for their guidance, he continues trying creating standalone content on "Mission Swaraj" (which literally doesn't have even one independent, reliable source). Here's the link to the Teahouse discussion where this was addressed, it is with the Topic named "Promotional Material in Mission Swaraj" at the bottom.

2. Promotional Content: The user's drafts and articles frequently contain promotional material, which violates Wikipedia's policy against promotional editing and he has been told about this several times but continues to do so and that is why is suspected of using Chat Bots for article creation. This can be seen here and in his userpage and talk page, the use of non-independent sources like YouTube videos (from the same channel), Twitter, and other unreliable platforms. A complete absence of independent, reliable sources as required by notability guidelines of Wikipedia.

3. Behavioral Patterns: The user has repeatedly shown attempts to bypass the advice of senior editors and AfC reviewers. Reluctance to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sourcing and content neutrality.

It is to be noted that his account is only 3 months old. I request administrators to review his account, edits and drafts thoroughly and evaluate the user's behavior, including the suspected misuse of chatbots. Take appropriate action, including blocking the account (if necessary) to prevent further disruption. I believe this step is necessary to give him a lesson on Wikipedia's standards of neutrality and reliability and listening to the considerations of experienced editors seriously. Thank you Regards AstuteFlicker (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

His user page is terrible! Secretlondon (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Watching on from a distance, I found their communication at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 November 17 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 November 19 to be both poorly constructed and disruptive to reaching a consensus, in that it was veering into bludgeoning territory. There's a lot of very good advice on their user talk page from experienced editors ("How deletion discussions work", "Your User page", "Advice on article creation"), but I'm not sure it's being taken on board and put into action. Daniel (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @AstuteFlicker deeply sorry for the trouble caused I will keep going to the deletion review pannel if I think my article was not judged properly I will clarify that I do use chat bots (i.e chat gpt and stuff) but that is to not have word mistakes as I am diagnosed with Dysgraphia I would further like to say id my account is 3 months old you're is only barley 1 while I have contributed to wiki a lot (it is mainly on controversial topic because I like "debates" i.e improves my debating skills) and as regards to my "Promotional Content" thing I have gone to "Teahouse" to go and get advice and also try to fix it ( some helpful editors are also helping me in my talk page)

to try and fix it it is also to say I have been regarded as using an "promotional tone" not "Promotional Content" both are very different as one user said "Overturn G11, send to AfD. Definitely promotional in tone (and non-encyclopedic) but I don’t think it could be described as unambiguous advertising." I rest my case (and I have used YouTube and x not as "sources" but as proofs that the user said that thing) Sarim Wani (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

please note the following user was blocked for "Repeated promotional editing, likely UPE" (and likely holds a grudge to me for following the rules) Main public logs - Wikipedia Sarim Wani (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

and upon pasting his "query" on quillbot.com comes with 68% of text is likely AI-generated (don't believe be see for you're self!) Sarim Wani (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I instantly thought it was LLM-generated too, however when I looked into it, their complaint has some merit — which is the most important thing. Further, I'd rather it be AI-generated than similar to the garbled comments you're currently putting forward at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 November 17. Rather than deflecting onto the reporting editor (leave that for others to do), please reflect on your own conduct. Daniel (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I just scanned the initial complaint. ZeroGPT and Quillbot both said zero percent AI. IMO while there's passages that look suspicious, it also includes a bunch of idiosyncratic errors, and details that an LLM would not have been able to quickly infer from being asked to concoct a case against someone, so I'm inclined to trust the 0% results. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for that. Similar to Departure– below, the structure was what made me instantly think of it. But, regardless, per my last reply, I don't really care either way — there is substance to their complaint and it should be handled on that basis, not dismissed as Sarim Wani was attempting to do so on that basis. Daniel (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I've got no comment on the substance of this ANI report, but I will state from a glance this is blatantly in line with the AI structure, especially the bolded "Key Concerns" and the bulleted but improperly indented examples. The bold requests for administrators to review and then the generic list of administrator actions did it for me. Anyway, it may be time to get a formal LLM-in-talkspace policy because this is the second time this week on ANI. Departure– (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• The failure to take on board concerns from the prior ANI complaint and Liz's notice on their talk page makes me concerned that we may have reached the end of the available rope here. Sarim Wani, unless you make a serious effort to hear and address the concerns that editors have raised, starting with removing WP:BATTLEGROUND content from your user page, you are heading towards being blocked. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed "any man is not perfect" ~ unknown I will see to it right away Sarim Wani (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Rosguill please re-review my talk page Sarim Wani (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  It's clear that you are responding very quickly right now and have not understood what has been asked of you. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  I meant user page* Sarim Wani (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Rosguill (as I said prevously I am dignosed with Dysgraphia ) I mean to say smt else and type smt else (this is only sometimes) but still enough times to be anyoying (sorry :) ) Sarim Wani (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  The issue here isn't dysgraphia, it's that your user page still reads like a screed against other editors. You've addressed some of it, which is a step in the right direction, but it's not evident that you actually understand what the problem is beyond just reflexively doing what you think I'm telling you to do. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Thats the point... (edited)

  Sarim Wani (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Clarify I intend to document every debate I will have that's why I add it in my user page I have still added a waring for it

  Sarim Wani (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe it's just me, and maybe it's none of my business, but I find it oddly unsettling that you keep on your user page a running log of every fight debate you're engaged in, especially when that involves naming specific individuals. I don't know if that's against any particular policy, but I don't think it's exactly collegial, either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• I would contend that extensive use of Chat GPT - potentially for article copy - meets WP:NOTHERE on its own. Enough rope has probably been extended. Simonm223 (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Clarify I only use chat gpt for word mistake (like Grammarly but fast and free)

  Sarim Wani (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  "Despite thanking DoubleGrazing for their guidance, he continues trying creating standalone.... @AstuteFlicker I will further clarify that I am not extended conformed user and I will consider doing that when I am extended conformed (that is why I disregared the advise) Sarim Wani (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  Are you referring to the filer when you describe extensive use of Chat GPT, or to the respondent? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  no I meant @AstuteFlicker statement Sarim Wani (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm referring to the respondent - who has admitted to using ChatGPT. While the filer's reporting structure seems somewhat artificial I don't personally have any certainty that it isn't human-generated. That being said I concur with @Departure– that we need a formal policy controlling the use of "AI" text generation tools. Preferably with significant restriction. Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Simonm223

  • Clarifying again I only use chat gpt for word mistake (like Grammarly but fast and free)

  (please note if you think I am bulldozing sorry I am not I am just answering and clarifying) Sarim Wani (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@AstuteFlicker: Your entire post reeks of AI, something you've admitted to using in the past. WP:POTKETTLE much? OXYLYPSE (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Question Can I file an reverse complaint?

Sarim Wani (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

well this uno reversed very quick Sarim Wani (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The term used on Wikipedia is "boomerang". Departure– (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

can I "technically" create an article on uno reverse? Sarim Wani (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

It probably doesn't need an article, but might be worthy of mention on Uno (card game). Let's not derail this ANI any further. Departure– (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Departure– You are not an administrator to decide this. If the issue has been escalated to WP:ANI then there must be some reason. Let the administrators do their job and you do yours.. AstuteFlicker (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator and don't claim to be one. I'm just participating in clue building and making an effort to stay on topic, but if you'd rather I disengage from this ANI, I will. Cheers! Departure– (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Thanks.. AstuteFlicker (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to clear out things as the user Sarim Wani is trying to divert admin's attention from the main issue to me using Chat Bot to write this appeal. Let me clear it Loudly, I haven't used any Chat Bot to write this appeal the appeal is written entirely by my self. OXYLYPSE Yes, I have admitted that I used to use ChatBot to write in talk pages but never in the Article Space like this user does and I have clearly mentioned it there and would like you to read it also. I don't want to play a blame game here. I would like you to read all the conversation when I was blocked it's available intact in my talk page. Additionally, I would like you to read the section November 2024 on my talk page and match the grammar I have used their and I have used here in this appeal. An admin whom I am very thankful and who really helped me then was Valereee you can read the conversation in the same section where I had promised him/her that I won't use it anymore even though I was using it only in talk pages conversation. I would respectfully like to request you that if you are referring to those conversations then please read the full conversation and also match the grammar used.

Once Again, I would like to respectfully request the administrators to not to get diverted and review his account and take necessary action (if necessary). It's not that I have to take some personal vengeance from him, I don't even knew him before. Hopefully, after this I don't have to give any justifications as I believe the admins are much more knowledgeable and will do what will be necessary.

Sincerely Thanking You

Regards AstuteFlicker (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The main issue escalated to the WP:ANI wasn't just the use of ChatBots by this user. I would like to request the administrators to review my concern again. AstuteFlicker (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I would like to reply to @AstuteFlicker by fist stating that no I am not trying to divert but mention and all the problems he mentioned I have fixed/Struk down. Sarim Wani (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sarim Wani I ain't someone to decide this. There are much more experienced editors and this is a forum of such editors. So, they are the one to decide that what's necessary to do and they are doing it without any doubt. I have done my Job on my part and now they will be handling their part. I had to clear out my side of the story that's why I jumped in or else I hadn't even wrote anything after writing the concern. AstuteFlicker (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Please note if anyone has some more doubts about me (I consider all pervious doubts cleared) please mention them and ping me in the next 24 hours if no doubts are there in the next 24 hours I request for an indepent actor to end debate. I ask to rename this debate title as it is very inappropriate and also ask the user who raised this complaint to be banned for blantant use of AI tools like chat gpt

thankyou. Best regards--> Sarim Wani (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Section renamed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - This editor has already been partially blocked from one AFD for bludgeoning. They currently have two Deletion Reviews open. The first one is for an article that was deleted after another AFD which they also bludgeoned, and they are now bludgeoning the DRV. The second DRV is for a puff piece on a non-notable organization, which was deleted as G11. They say that it was deleted without discussion; that's how speedy deletion works. The debate at that DRV is whether to restore it and send it to AFD, where it will be deleted, or whether to endorse the G11 as Ignore All Rules because it will never make it through AFD. Unfortunately, I think that this is an editor who wastes the time of the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, this diff seals it. The combination of confrontational behavior and CIR is clearly not improving. Blocking. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  This may have been in reference to the header, that was changed in this edit. Regardless, I think it's a good block overall given the general disruption going on literally everywhere this editor goes. Daniel (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I was familiar with the original title and wasn't so much outraged by that as by the mere fact that they still thought it would be appropriated to note this dispute and name other participants on their user page while this discussion was underway (and the general trail of chaos without remediating qualities that you describe as well). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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

• Note repeated unblock requests: [[245]]. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Ezra Ben Yosef

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

---

I copied the complaint from WP:AIV, and will notify both parties. --Altenmann >talk 19:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Ezra Ben Yosef (talk · contribs) My name is Hellenyck, and I would like to clarify from the outset that I am only somewhat familiar with the conventions of the English Wikipedia, as I am predominantly active on the German Wikipedia. I have encountered an account that repeatedly introduces misinformation and historical distortions into the "Beta Israel" topic. Most of these edits have been reverted. Initially, I was inclined to attribute this user’s actions to a lack of understanding of the academic discourse (the academic discourse on "Beta Israel" fundamentally differs from the popular discourse in the media, and there is even a scholarly study by Kaplan on this). However, upon reviewing the edits, I noticed that the user is indeed familiar with the standard works on the topic but distorts and misrepresents their content beyond recognition. It is difficult to imagine that, despite extensive reading of these works, the core of recent academic discourse since the 1990s has escaped understanding (it is academic consensus that the Beta Israel are an autochthonous group that developed from Ethiopian Christianity from the 15th century onward; see, for example, Kay Kaufman Shelemay: Music, Ritual and Falasha History, East Lansing, Mich., 1986; Steven Kaplan: The Beta Israel (Falasha) in Ethiopia: From Earliest Times to the Twentieth Century, New York, 1992; Steven Kaplan: "Betä Ǝsraᵓel." In: Encyclopaedia Aethiopica, Volume 1, A–C, Wiesbaden, 2003, pp. 552–559). This user appears to deliberately spread misinformation, likely to express an apologetic worldview, which constitutes outright vandalism. Almost every one of his edits is a falsification of history. The user has previously been warned on the user page for apologetic edits in the Beta Israel article but has not ceased. Now, the individual has even invented a new term, "Judeo-Ge'ez". --Hellenyck (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• @Hellenyck: In order for your complaint to be considered, you have to present user's edits which you say are misinformation, preferably in the form of diffs, with comments. --Altenmann >talk 20:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
• From my side, I reviewed the page Judeo-Ge'ez, supposedly a dialect of Ethiopian Jews, and can confirm that all references cited by Ezra Ben Yosef are invalid: they do not speak about Judeo-Ge'ez. It is plausible that Jews in Ethiopia spoke their dialect, cf. Judeo-Tajik etc., but, e.g., the book The Languages of the Jews: A Sociolinguistic History (btw, which lists Judeo-Tajik) says that they spoke Ge'ez, rather than Judeo-Ge'ez. --Altenmann >talk 20:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  I myself will be busy this weekend and will therefore not be able to comment on the topic until Sunday evening at the earliest.

  For anyone deeply familiar with the subject, it's relatively straightforward to identify what the user is attempting here, where he is being dishonest, where he is fabricating sources, and where he is simply incorrect. I would, therefore, appreciate if another user with expertise in the field could review his contributions.

  However, I would like to make a few basic comments here.

  Fundamentally, the Beta Israel are an indigenous group that distanced themselves from Orthodoxy amidst turbulent historical events, rejecting the New Testament and adopting certain Old Testament customs (see Kaplan, Steven: The Beta Israel (Falasha) in Ethiopia. From Earliest Times to the Twentieth Century, New York 1992). Following their "defection," Christians labeled them with the term Ayhud—a term that indeed derives from yehudim but, in the Ethiopian context, means "heretic" (or "god-killer") and was applied to various heretical Christian groups (Kaplan, Steven: Ayhud, in: Encyclopaedia Aethiopica, I, A–C, Wiesbaden 2003, pp. 408–10). This term was rarely, if ever, used to refer to Jews, given that there were no actual Jews in Ethiopia. Ethiopian Christians viewed the Beta Israel as heretics, not as Jews, and likewise, the Beta Israel saw themselves not as Jews but as "Hebrews," a title associated with the royal dynasty. The original beliefs of the Beta Israel had no relation to Judaism.

  Later, from the 16th century onward, Europeans began arriving in Ethiopia, observing the customs of the Beta Israel. Due to superficial similarities (though there are substantial differences between the original faith of the Beta Israel and Judaism) and the Ethiopian designation Ayhud, these visitors mistakenly associated the Beta Israel with Jews. In the early 20th century, Beta Israel customs, especially due to the efforts of Faitlovitch, became increasingly aligned with Jewish practices, leading eventually to their migration to Israel. From the 1980s onward, scholarship—through careful analysis of sources—began to emphasize that nothing in the Beta Israel's original religion was inherently Jewish. This viewpoint is now the consensus in academic circles. Notably, however, this academic perspective has had little to no impact on political decisions. Discussions surrounding the "authentic Judaism of Ethiopians" are framed in fundamentally different terms from those in academic discourse.

  The user denies these facts and suggests (through genetic studies that are completely unsuitable for this question) that the Beta Israel represent a branch of ancient Judaism. Furthermore, he constructs a linguistic connection between “Judaeo-Geez” and Hebrew and a historical connection between Beta Israel and Judaism, deliberately misinterpreting and repurposing evidence in order to achieve his desired result. In doing so, he completely ignores the scientific consensus. Hellenyck (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, wall-of-text glazes eyes and makes this harder to understand. Multiple users have warned this user about problems. Please post three or four diffs that show those problems and explain in one or two sentences for each why those diffs represent a problem. Thanks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  This diff appears problematic. The citation to Chiaroni says Hammer, which could be just an innocent mistake. However, the study, appears to have been misrepresented. The word "Jew" or "Jewish" isn't in the study, so the conclusion about Ethiopian Jews appears to have been mis-stated. Andre🚐 01:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I know rsjaffe is asking for differences, but the issues here are more about content not matching the cited materials from the article's inception. These problems date to the article's creation. Would this be more appropriately handled at the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard? Essentially this is an WP:OR problem involving content... although repeatedly misrepresenting sources (ie citing material that doesn't verify the text) might be seen as a behavioral issue that needs addressing an ANI.

What is required is reading the cited sources and comparing them to the text in the article. In fact checking, the Kaplan source is used repeatedly and it never mentions "Judeo-Ge'ez" anywhere. It does address dialect in Beta Israel literature begins on page 103, but the author calls it an "Agaw dialect" (which we already cover as a people group and at Agaw languages). Kaplan as a whole argues that the Beta Israel texts were transcribed not from Jewish sources but Christian one, which is pretty antithetical to the point of view in this article which is working hard to connect the Beta Israel texts directly to Jewish literature. Clearly, there is no way anyone who has read the Kaplan article could come to the conclusions being made in the Judeo-Ge'ez article. They are clearly false citations that have existed from moment of article creation.4meter4 (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

4meter4, it sounds like, at the very least, a rewrite is called for if these mistakes have existed since the article's creation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz I think you are fundamentally missing the point that the term "Judeo-Ge'ez" itself is made up. None of the sources use that term. As a concept it is completely original, and there are no sources to support a re-write. It's rightly at WP:AFD. The question is what to do with the editor who created an article on a term not mentioned in sources being cited who essentially falsified references and was purposefully deceptive. For example, the Hebrew language that supposedly means Judeo-Ge'ez given in the article ( יהודי אתיופי ) is actually the Hebrew name for Ethiopian Jew. The whole thing is an odd original treatise not supported by anything that has ever been published. One could even call it WP:HOAX but I think the author is more of a sincere original thinker with a pet WP:FRINGE theory that has never been published.4meter4 (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

That's why I said "at the very least". You can also send this to AFD if you believe it is not fixable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

As 4meter4 said, the article is already at AfD (roughly 14 hours before your comment). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Liz, you are missing the point of the complaint of Hellenyck: a single OR article would be not a big deal, but this person apparently disrupts other articles with their theories. --Altenmann >talk 17:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about that. His edit history will need to be checked as he appears to have edited heavily in articles related to both Ethiopia and Jewish history. Given the false referencing in one article, we may need to investigate whether this has occurred in other locations as well. If he's introduced false referencing elsewhere, I would support either a topic ban or a block. That said, I don't know if that has happened as I personally have not looked. It might just be the one incident/article.4meter4 (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Show us the diffs. We are not experts in this field yet we may have to take significant action. Give us several examples of disruption, point to the online reference the user relied on and explain why the edit is a problem. I am inclined to believe you, but to take significant action requires confirmation. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• One thing is for sure: the editor was replacing Ge'ez with Judeo-Ge'ez (reverted everywhere already), e.g., [246] or [247].
• He uploaded and used an image with false caption, see edit summary [248] and I verified and placed correct data taken from reliable source.
• removed valid info claiming it is "misleading"
• Here he inserted a texh (maybe even valid) in front of a footnote, which I am 100% sure he did not read (BTW this footnote of suspicious provenance was added by an anon).
• False edit summary "Fixed minor grammatical errors" - no.

--Altenmann >talk 21:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, that's enough for a temporary block for disruptive editing. I have blocked from article space for 31 hours and invited the editor here to discuss. Other administrators feel free to extend this block if I have been too conservative or otherwise alter/remove it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Factoring into this decision was the observation that 1/3rd of the user's edits have been reverted. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Redux

Unarchiving this, as User:Ezra Ben Yosef's conduct remains completely unacceptable. I see no indication they care about establishing consensus or refraining from slandering other users.[249] Remsense ‥ 论 11:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked for two weeks for OR, unsourced content, and personal attacks/aspersions., among other issues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Judeo-Ge'ez

If you look in the edit history of the Judeo-Ge'ez article Ezra Ben Yosef is the only writer of the prose to that article. A few other editors added categories and did minor copy edits, but they didn't actually write content or add sources. This content can get really technical, so I'm just going to distill it down to the opening sentence of the lead because that opening is all that really matters to understand why this is WP:OR. The article states, "Judeo-Ge'ez (Ge'ez: የፈላሻዎች አፍ. Hebrew: יהודי אתיופי) is a historical Jewish dialect spoken by the ancient Beta Israel community that is derived from Biblical Hebrew."

In this difference at the AFD Ezra Ben Yosef is clearly saying that the content about the Judeo-Ge'ez language is supported by the sources he lists. He further states several facts in this edit:

1. "There's clear proof that the Judeo-Ge'ez language is different to Ge'ez and can be classified as a dialect."
2. "The language derives from a Herbraic source."
3. That the Beta Israel didn't speak "Agaw" and that they really speak a Cushitic language mixed with Hebrew called Judeo-Ge'ez.

These three points are basically the distilled version of the article, and they are also not supported in the sources that Ezra Ben Yosef lists. None of the sources ever use the term "Judeo-Ge'ez". This is a made-up language.

One of the main sources cited is Kaplan, Steven (2009). ""The Literature of the Beta Israel (Falasha): A Survey of a Biblical-Hebraic Tradition"".

When we look in Kaplan the author directly contradicts all three assertions made by Ezra Ben Yosef.

Kaplan writes on page 103, "Although the Beta Israel themselves claim to have once had Hebrew manuscripts and claim that examples of such texts are hidden in caves and monastaries in Ethiopia, most scholars do not believe that they ever possessed a knowledge of Hebrew. A small number of works, especially prayers, preserve word or even entire passages in the Agaw dialects once spoken by the Beta Israel."

So here we have Kaplan distilling for us in a literature overview the prevailing view that Beta Israel people had no knowledge of Hebrew, and identifying their spoken language as the Agaw language. This directly contradicts the claim of the existence of the Judeo-Ge'ez language; ie a Biblical Hebrew based language that is blended with Ge'ez that is supposedly the native language of the Beta Israel.

Kaplan then goes on to investigate the origins of Beta Israel literature and gives probably the most in-depth overview of the published scholarly lit in this field, ultimately drawing the following in his concluding remarks on page 119: Almost without exception, the sacred literature of the Beta Israel reached them through Christian channels. As has been demonstrated above in a surprisingly large amount of cases, this dependence on Christian sources can be proven through the retention of Christian terms, phrases, ideas, and names in the Beta Israel text." So basically Kaplan is saying, that the idea of Biblical Hebrew based language that connects the Beta Israel people back to the original Hebraic literature and directly to the Jewish people as their descendants is a false claim, and that their Hebrew literature came entirely from Christian sources, not Jewish ones. This is directly countering the claims of the article which is trying to use a language article to validate the historicity of a direct connection between the Jewish people and the Beta Israel people (something contested by most religious scholars and by most Jewish people). Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

But politically/socially they are seen as Jews and have emigrated to Israel. Is there literature that discusses this? Is there more than Kaplan talking about this? Secretlondon (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Our article on Beta Israel certainly doesn't contest their Jewishness. Secretlondon (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Ethiopian Jews are Jewish, I don't think that is really up for dispute, I think it seems like Ezra Ben Yosef was trying to bolster their claims of ancient origins from Yemenite Jews which I don't think is the currently accepted historical consensus. Nobody should be disputing that Ethiopian Jews are Jews Andre🚐 22:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely, they were officially recognized as Jewish after much debate in the 1970s, but Jewish identity and Jewish origin in this case are two different things. It's a very complex topic, and not directly related to the Judeo-Ge'ez topic (which is made up thing) which has to do with language and literature of the Beta Israel people. There's a really wonderful article here which goes into the ins and outs of the Beta Israel people and the shrowded mystery of their origins here; but this source is also very clear that most scholars believe they are of the Agaw people (see page 402). There's also the JSTOR article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24674566 which states " Academic research into the liturgical music of the Beta Israel suggests that they formed as a group under the influence of Ethiopian Christian monasticism in the fourteenth." In general the prevailing scholarly position is they developed from Christian groups at the time. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

See here, Ezra removed something [250] that appears to be accurate, adding someting unsourced here [251], and here changing the conclusions of the article to support the idea that Ethiopian Jews were Middle Eastern[252] and here [253] Andre🚐 22:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

FYI, this is a very contentious area to edit in because the outside scholarly work contradicts the Beta Israel community's oral history and myths about their origins. So fundamentally, the scholarly academic work may upset people from within the community because the historicity of the oral tradition is not accepted in the academic literature as being true. This is one reason why we see so much edit warring in that article. FYI, I am not a contributor to that page and don't plan on being because its likely to be a place of conflict, and with continuinng WP:POV and WP:OR issues.4meter4 (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Kingdom of Aksum

So it looks like Ezra Ben Yosef has been edit warring at Kingdom of Aksum with editors complaining he is introducing WP:OR. Looks like WP:3RR could be applied. I don't know whether it is OR or not because I haven't read the lit on this one but here are the edits: Reversion 1, Reversion 2, Reversion 3 Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Lingayat Vani

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

---

Report against: User:PerspicazHistorian article: Lingayat Vani

@Daniel Case, Bradv, Vanamonde93, Ekdalian, and Bobby Cohn:

The user created two article for same topic he is not a good faith editor please check below, how he manipulated Lingayat related article, he was blocked multiple times for his edit war, he is accusing other editors who removed his content as vandals,

• Draft:Lingayat Vani (caste) this article was created on 23 May 2024 by him, it was rejected by User:Bobby Cohn on 4 September 2024.

• The user created another article about same topic Lingayat Vani on 10 July 2024.

The Lingayat Vani is still not reviewed but it is indexed on search engine.

He created this article by adding some bullshit to his previous draft , from other unrelated article content, so that his Lingayat Vani article will become a well cited article, so he can promote his Hindutva agenda by calling other editors as Vandals .😂

I will give you some examples why the article is not related to Lingayat Vani

Infobox

• heraldic_title:Appa, Rao, Desai Both ref doesn't mentiones such titles
• population: 8.5 to 10 Million in Maharashtra the ref is about estimated total Lingayats in Maharashtra, if total Lingayats in Maharashtra is 8.5 to 10 Million than how can the subcaste also have same population ?

Lead

The Lingayat Vani community (marathi: लिंगायत वाणी) is an Indo-Aryan ethnolinguistic group who are native to Maharashtra in western India. They belong to Veershaiv sect of Hindu Shaivism and are also referred to as Veershaiv-Lingayat Vanik or Lingayat Balija or Vira Banajiga or Bir Vanigas. The name Vani is derived from the Sanskrit word 'Vanijya' which means trade.The Vira Banajigas were a trading caste. His own doctoral thesis WP:NOR

They rejected the custodial hold of Brahmins over Vedas and shastras but did not outright reject the Vedic knowledge. They worship all gods and believe them to be a form of Shiva only. The 13th-century Telugu Virashaiva poet Palkuriki Somanatha, the author of the scripture of Lingayatism, for example asserted, "Virashaivism fully conformed to the Vedas and the shastras." He copied this content from Lingayatism#Vedas and shastras without attribution, WP:ATTREQ

• Shiva article mentions history, mythology etc... can we copy Shiva article into every Temples articles of Shiva, does it make any sense?,
• Indian constitution is applicable to every place of India, can we copy Indian constitution into every state , district, city, villeges articles of India, because they follow same constitution. does it make any sense?
• The same logic applies here also no need this paragraph. It is not exclusive for Lingayat vani, Lingayat vani is just sub caste of Lingayatism

Origin

Starting in the thirteenth century, inscriptions referring to "Vira Balanjyas" (warrior merchants) started appearing in the Andhra country. The Vira Balanjyas represented long-distance trading networks that employed fighters to protect their warehouses and goods in transit.

These traders formed collectives called pekkandru and differentiated themselves from other collectives called nagaram, which probably represented Komati merchants. The pekkandru collectives also included members of other communities with status titles Reddy, Boya and Nayaka.

• The above content is copied from Balija#Origins,
• how it is related to Lingayat Vani, why he added it into lingayat vani.

The Five Hundred guild, known as Ayyavole in Kannada, Ayyavolu in Telugu, Aryarupa in Sanskrit operated in Southern India and Southeast Asia. They became more powerful under the Cholas. They were protectors of the Veera-Banaju-Dharma, that is, law of the heroic or noble merchants. The Bull was their symbol which they displayed on their flag; and they had a reputation for being daring and enterprising.

• The above content is copied from Five Hundred Lords of Ayyavolu lead section 2nd paragraph,
• how it is relevant to Lingayat Vani? Why he added random content to Lingayat Vani

A rock shaped like an axe on the Malaprabha river bank north of the Aihole village in karnataka is associated with the legend of Parashurama, the sixth Vishnu avatar, who is said to have washed his axe here after killing abusive Kshatriyas who were exploiting their military powers, giving the land its red colour. A 19th-century local tradition believed that rock footprints in the river were those of Parashurama.}}

• This above content is copy from Aihole#History second paragraph.
• how it is relevant to Lingayat Vani? Why he added random content to Lingayat Vani

Varna Status

The Vira Banajigas were a trading community. Historians like Velcheru Narayana Rao and Sanjay Subrahmanyam noted that the emergence of this right-hand caste as trader-warrior-kings in the Nayaka period is a consequence of conditions of new wealth produced by collapsing two varnas, Kshatriya and Vaishya into one.

• The above contact is copied from Balija#Varna status
• how it is relevant to Lingayat Vani? Why he added random content to Lingayat Vani

After being placed in the shudra category in the 1881 census, Veershaivas demanded a higher caste status. Lingayats persisted in their claims for decades. In 1926, the Bombay High Court ruled that "the Veerashaivas are not Shudras."

• copy from second paragraph of Lingayatism#Varna-status debates (19th–20th century)

RI ^talk 17:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Sources

What admin action are you looking for here? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, just want to clarify, are you saying that this editor is a sock-puppet of a blocked editor? Because most of this is just suggesting that Lingayat Vani should face and AfD for pervasive WP:SYNTH issues. Simonm223 (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Appears to be a sock, now blocked. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

1)The article clearly talks about Lingayat Vani community. I don't know how it is "hindutva agenda". I there is personal commentary going on then @RationalIndia is promoting his "communist" agenda.

2) If there is any error in the article, it should be discussed in the talk page and if necessary justifiably edited, rather than abruptly deleting the whole article.

3)If I stop a person from pushing his POV on a debatable topic, what's wrong in it.

4)The article contains many other information that do not exist on any wiki page and is pure research.

4)Those information copied from other wiki pages are just brief on that topic not the whole thing copy pasted.

5)"Lingayat Vani" is a legitimate topic that cannot be included in "lingayatism" article as they represent more than just "lingayats".

6) The user @RationalIndia has edited many articles relating to "lingayats" and pushing his POV everywhere despite the topic being still under debate in India. He also engaged in edit war by repeatedly deleting the whole Veerashaiva page and redirecting it to "lingayatism" despite it still being under debate between various scholars whether both are same or not. https://www.wionews.com/india-news/difference-between-veerashaivas-and-lingayats-36608

7)This is to clarify to all the administrators having their attention on the topic that I am a good faith editor, actively making Wikipedia a better experience. I look forward to coordinate in any manner to make the article Lingayat Vani better and useful for the readers.

8)Kindly also look into the issue of Veerashaiva redirects. The page needs to be brought back to avoid POV pushed by an editor by deleting an article which has been there since 2004.

Thank You to all respected Administrators. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@RationalIndiaThe paragraphs mentioned by you here are old version of the article. Every topic is well researched in the article. Most of the content were edited after discussion on the talk page of Lingayat Vani. They why putting it in noticeboard wasting time of administrators just to prove your point? PerspicazHistorian (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@PerspicazHistorian: Hi, RationalIndia cannot respond to you because they've been blocked by Ponyo as a sockpuppet. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Pickersgill-Cunliffe @Ponyo @Bradv , Wikipedia needs active administrators like you all. I appreciate that. Thank You ! PerspicazHistorian (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppets never seem to learn that they shouldn't post complaints on noticeboards. It's like putting your face on a billboard on a busy highway. You're going to be scrutinized. But it seems to happen over and over again on ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I seem to be getting unnecessary emails and pings. While I don't pretend to have an understanding of limiting talk page access and don't mind the pings as they're on-wiki, surely there's no need to be emailing me about this issue? Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk page abuse: User:DARealMrBeast

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

---

User:DARealMrBeast is abusing their talk page after block. See Special:Diff/1258455487 and Special:Diff/1258455951. --Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 21:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Floquenbeam (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Revoke talk page access for Clioos

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

---

Clioos (talk · contribs · count) has been making disruptived edits at their talk page, including insults and posting a fake approved unblock request. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done. PhilKnight (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Gwillhickers spouting COVID vaccine conspiracism

Gwillhickers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making disruptive conspiratorial arguments against COVID vaccines at Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.#Substituting one conspiracy theory for another?. They either need to agree to respect WP:IDHT and desist, or otherwise be topic banned from the topic of COVID vaccines. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

They have previously been warned about incivility at ANI, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1131#Incivility from Gwillhickers Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I have been distinctly reminded of something similar happening with another long-term editor way in the past. I annoyingly can't remember the name, something like wikiencyclopediaman? But they went full conspiracy as well and doubled down in the ANI thread about it. Silverseren^C 04:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Silver seren, perhaps you are thinking of User:Wikid77, an editor who took advantage for years of the open door policy at User talk:Jimbo Wales, where they made over 2000 posts that descended deeper and deeper into overt racism with little if any pushback from Jimbo Wales. It finally reached a breaking point and I indefinitely blocked that racist troll in 2018. Cullen328 (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Gwillhickers often pushes fringe views but I've never seen them not back down once it becomes clear that consensus is against them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

An administrator has left a contentious subject notice on the editor's talk page. I suggest we close this thread and if it becomes a problem to take it directly to AE. TFD (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Liz is wheel warring

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

---

Liz is wheel warring, and it's the third instance in the past six months. She deleted [REDACTED - Oshwah] citing WP:CSD#U2. It may seem that way, but as I noted in my edit summary when restoring it, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 195#User not registered, but has contributions and is blocked is a similar case. Accounts with certain levels of suppression appear to be unregistered, but are not. This is can be confirmed by going through Special:Block, which shows Special:Block/সেক্সি রসিক সেক্সি as being both locally blocked and globally locked. The same is true for [REDACTED - Oshwah]. That makes the userpage ineligible for speedy deletion under U2. Without acquiring consensus first, as WP:WHEELWAR requires save a few exceptions, Liz decided to delete the page again.

The first two previous instances were outlined at User talk:Liz#You are wheel warring, where she reverted my deletions and deletions made by Pppery, the latter of which violates Wikipedia's licensing terms to this day. Up to what point can violations of wheel warring be tolerated by policy, exactly? ✗plicit 08:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Well, Explicit, it is always a pleasure when you decide to complain about me at ANI. As for [REDACTED - Oshwah], if you look at this page, it says that it is "a nonexistent username". Not that it is a blocked editor but that it is a nonexistent account. And I deleted it as such. Where would I have gone to find consensus for what looked like an obvious CSD U2? What forum would handle this disagreement?

Besides this account repeatedly appeared on my Quarry query that catches unregistered user pages and I've found Quarry to be very reliable.

But, even if you are correct, are you arguing that there is value in retaining a user page for an editor whose every edit had to be suppressed, is blocked and has no contribution history? I could be persuaded that you are right on this narrow policy ruling (you are a stickler for the rule of law, not the spirit of the law) but I don't think the intent of the rule is to argue there is any purpose for retaining a unregistered user page for an account blocked under these circumstances. But I since you have decided this disagreement is worthy of ANI, I will abide by consensus here.

And regarding your own behavior, I'll just mention that on several occasions where I have deleted a category of files to be deleted under CSD guidelines, you undeleted all of those pages for no reason other than so you could delete them yourself a minute later. Seriously, who does that? But I guess it's by pulling these stunts that you reached the 1M+ mark in deleted pages. You are the King. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Since this is dealing with admin issues, WP:AN is probably a better noticeboard for this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Did you even bother reading the linked VPT thread at all? A suppressed account is still a registered account, regardless of what shows up on Quarry. Account deletions are impossible. Are you arguing that three different contributors posted notices on the talk page of a non-existent user? That Draft:Carter Treener and Draft:Fireman Sam (Seasons 1-4 were created with magic? That the signature by the account on its own talk page is witchcraft?

You need consensus to revert a reverted admin action. (Personal attack removed)

You are completely misrepresenting the situation, or you simply don't understand it. The account was suppressed, not all of its edits. I laid that out in the OP and I still feel like I'm responding to a brick wall. If there is no other valid policy-based reason to delete the userpage, then yes, it should be retained. Your deletion is not backed by policy otherwise, it's not pass for you to say "oh, well, whatever".

I find it interesting that you always feel the need to bring up my admin stats despite it not being part of the conversation. Every. Single. Time. You even mention me and your weird titles like "King" and "Czar" in a different administrator's recall. Why are you the source for me being updated on my stats? You've been wikihounding me for years, combing through my contributions and subpages, and keeping tabs nonstop. (Personal attack removed) ✗plicit 12:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

⭐ Awarded for best use of Respectfully
Folly Mox (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Explicit My finger actually hovered over the block button for a second there. Instead, I have deleted those personal attacks (the first one was a silly taunt, the second one was not acceptable) and will say "do anything like that again and you're blocked." If any other admin thinks I was too lenient here, please feel free to block. Black Kite (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Since the second PA has now been caught up in an oversighting, but was not on its own something revdellable, would it make sense to restore it in a hidden comment and then immediately re-remove, just so there's a log of what was said? Otherwise anyone who wasn't present (and isn't an OS) can't judge whether it was an ADMINCOND violation. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 13:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I saw it before it was removed and I think if I had said that about an editor I would have caught a swift and lengthy block. So in my opinion it's definitely relevant to people examining this. Magisch ^{talk to me} 13:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I am so tired of this goofy cloak-and-dagger shit where, specifically in the venue for debating what disciplinary action should be taken about a comment somebody made, nobody is allowed to know what the comment was. This is like a Monty Python sketch. jp×g🗯️ 18:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thank God, someone actually said what the hell it was. Must we do this silly rigamarole all the time? jp×g🗯️ 18:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

In this case @JPxG, that happened kind of as an unintended side effect of needing to redact other stuff in this thread. Other stuff that is now... back in this thread again? If anyone can link me to an explanation of how account suppression works and why, I'd appreciate it. It seems that very few of us know the rules on this one. -- asilvering (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering account suppression is rare so it's not well documented. Oversighters can block and hide an account (we have an extra tickbox on Special:Block) and doing so suppresses all edits (including the username, so their contributions will appear empty) and removes the username from special pages list Special:ListUsers. It leaves some trace but for all intents and purposes the account ceases to exist. Stewards can do the same globally but their version also locks the account. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

something regard to genitals. -Lemonaka 13:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Tamzin, sexual offensive, by all perspect. -Lemonaka 13:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Lemonaka, I saw the comment before it was removed. That's not what I'm asking. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 14:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

If you hadn't given an only warning I would have blocked for a week for a first offense of sexualized attacks on another editor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think the question is. If you saw this in the wild somewhere, made by a normal editor, would anything stop you from issuing a lengthy block based on that alone? If not, why is it only a warning when it's an admin saying it, a position ostensibly held to a higher standard of professionalism? Magisch ^{talk to me} 13:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying I would have blocked them, but given that another admin settled on an only warning I'm not going to override their judgement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I specifically said I would be happy for anyone else to override it. Black Kite (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

So it seems like everything is pretty much settled except for the personal attacks made by Explicit. From what little I can glean from the comments, it sounds like something I'd be willing to block Explicit over, for a week or two depending on actual horribleness. I'm not going to do that if I don't know exactly what was said, tho. SFR is not usually over the top; so based on BK's comment here, I'd encourage them to issue a block if they actually saw the attack, thought it was blockable, and only didn't because of BK's warning. Then we can put this thread to bed. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Well if we're just quoting it now, yes, it was "Respectfully hop of my dick". You can probably get an OS to confirm that, but I'm just about certain that was the words, down to the "of". No objection to this being redacted later once all is said and done, although personally I think that's often counter-productive in threads like this. (And just to be ultra-clear for anyone playing catchup here: The bit I've quoted was not what was oversighted, nor was it revdelled, just removed.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 15:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

There was a bit more off the end that gave it a bit more punch than just that phrase, iirc. fwiw, I found it pretty grossly inappropriate, doubly so given it was directed at a face-out female admin. But I'm not generally of the opinion that people should get blocked for saying something rude, if it's the first time. -- asilvering (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Tamzin for the context, that's not quite as bad as I'd imagined, but still unacceptable and skeezy. If I had seen this when it was fresh, from an admin or a non-admin, I'm honestly not sure if I'd have blocked or given a BK-like warning (probably thw warning, I suppose, if I'm honest?). If that warning stands and nobody blocks, I won't think it's egregious. If somebody blocks, even after the time that's elapsed, I won't bat an eye. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Didn't see the personal attack(s), and they're now suppressed, it seems, so just wanted to say the idea that a personal attack is so beyond the pale that it needed to be suppressed, but that absolutely no other admin action was called for, does not compute. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

AFAICT from the other comments, the suppression was only targetting the username. The personal attack was redacted due to being a personal attack and for that reason can't be seen but likely isn't suppressible. I'm not sure if it's even rev-deletable. You can see discussion above about restoring it then removing it so people know what's being referred to. Nil Einne (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

AFAICT from the other comments, the suppression was only targetting the username. The personal attack was redacted due to being a personal attack and given that the username was only removed after it was redacted, is affected by the suppression so can't be seen, but it doesn't sound like it's eligible for suppression. I'm not sure if it's eligible for rev-deletion. You can see discussion above about restoring it then removing it so people know what's being referred to. Nil Einne (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that discussed above, but the outcome was unclear. So I will presume, then, that it was not such a beyond-the-pale sexualized comment that others seem to be speculating it to be. Happy to defer to admins' judgment, then. Sympathetic to Tamzin's suggestion of having it restored, but also to the idea that it probably wouldn't be a constructive move to unsuppress an attack just because it wasn't bad enough to be suppressed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Rhododendrites Black Kite issued a final warning and ScottishFinnishRadish expressed they would have blocked for a week if they saw it first. I assume any normal editor that says something remotely similar would receive a lengthy block. Magisch ^{talk to me} 14:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Magischzwei Can we not make this another venue to complain about admins? The fact that Explicit is an admin was irrelevant here, I would have done to the same with the comments of any non-admin with 300,000+ edits and a 17-year clean block log. Others wouldn't. Be boring if we were all the same, wouldn't it? Black Kite (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Just a note regarding the exchange that started this: Regarding Quarry, you should be able to modify the query to also cross-reference the blocklog to remove false positives (assuming there's consensus to consider them false positive),. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The block log does not have show the user mentioned when opening this report; it can only be found when viewing the suppression log (limited to OS). Barkeep49 (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Or via the normal Search function because there are still talk page comments from the user on other editors’ talk pages. ThatGuyOnline (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not the only way. Of course I wouldn't expect an initial database query to provide this information, but I can think of at least three ways to discover if a hidden user exists (given the username). I can see how it might bypass an admin on first deletion, but getting into a wheel war deserves a bit more scrutiny, which is available. I also wonder if WP:CSD#U2 isn't entirely clear on the matter, as I've seen this type of thing before. Does a hidden user exist? That's pretty deep, init. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Maybe the best venue would be WT:CSD? I looked into the "first instance": the redeletion under C1 of several "Lighthouses completed in 16XX" categories before they had been reempty for a second week. Maybe this should have been G4? All subcats were upmerged into Category:Lighthouses completed in the 17th century (17) following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 5 § 17th-century lighthouses. No reason I'm able to see for restoring them, but I do get that reverting a revert of an admin action does describe WHEELWAR.

The level of disruption generated by this manifestation of wheel warring approaches the level of considering whether to throw a dead battery in the garbage or retain it for later with the intent to dispose of it properly in the hazardous waste stream, knowing in your heart that this will never happen, and all the dead batteries will be thrown in the garbage next time you move.

For an illuminating (😒) journey through the recent restructuring of Category:Lighthouses by century of completion (6), see also April, August, (related), September, and even more September. There might be more. Folly Mox (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The categories were tagged as C1 for being empty. G4 does not apply as they were not specifically discussed. Once the categories were repopulated, I removed the tag, but were emptied again after a few days. The clock reset, and Liz deleted them early anyway. For someone who lectures others not to delete pages hours earlier than scheduled, it's something she does regularly. ✗plicit 13:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Come on, that was hardly a lecture. And, as I admitted, it was trout-worthy on my part. -- asilvering (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I was the user who requested Oversight on the supressed user account last night. Utterly agog that this was brought to ANI, outing the supressed username, thus negating the entire purpose of the suppression. It suggests an utter lack of judgement. qcne (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be an instance of a busy admin not having noticed the prior history, rather than consciously choosing to disregard it; and whether that userpage should exist strikes me as a question of complete unimportance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: The deletion log and her response to this thread prove otherwise. Pretty sure the deletion policy has strict criteria and none were met to justify deleting this userpage. No policy was violated and no discussion had taken place to result in deletion, and it is out of process. ✗plicit 12:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe this may possible calling for an Arbcase. Since if @Explicit you said that Liz are hounding you for years and seemed nothing changed. -Lemonaka 13:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Liz, Explicit, Newyorkbrad (and any other users I missed): I've restored this discussion with the proper information redacted. Please do not add or restore it. Other than that, this discussion may proceed as usual. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

So, I guess my question to Explicit is: if you knew a username had been suppressed, what made you think it was a good idea to undelete the user page and then plaster it all over ANI? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: I was under the assumption that the account was suppressed, not that the username was suppressed. This distinction was not made clear to me until I was emailed about it after the thread was already under way. ✗plicit 13:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Why were you assuming anything about something suppressed? It seems to me when it comes to suppression it's a mistake to be making assumptions. If unsure check beforehand. If you're right, then little is lost from checking and waiting. If you're wrong but you've posted it all over, especially on one of the most watches pages, you've seriously undermined the suppression. Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The PA that is being speculated on was (IIRC) "get of my dick", which somehow[254] is only an insult if uttered by a heterosexual, according to Explicit. Worthy of a block indeed, and I still don't understand why Explicit is complaining about being stalked by Liz, while starting an ANI discussion about a page Liz deleted and Explicit undeleted without having as far as I can see any previous interaction with that editor? If you believe you are being stalked, then perhaps don't undo their deletions of pages you have nothing to do with and which serve absolutely no purpose at all? Fram (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• I don't know what the sexualised personal attack on Liz was, but it's really not acceptable and admins must be held to the same standard as regular editors, if not higher. Liz and Explicit are some of our most valuable editors in the administrative area and honestly it's incredibly disappointing to see this whole thread. AusLondonder (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Are they? Or are they two people addicted to deleting pages? Both might be true. I know it's not polite to say these things, but as I read this kerfuffle about U2s, and the recent hubbub over U5s, I can't help but think nobody gives a damn if user pages are deleted or not, so how can they cause so much trouble amongst the few all-time top userpage deleters? Wikipedia is a place where people do pointless things for 20 years, get in endless arguments over it, and this is called "valuable." Liz, Explicit: aren't you two embarrassed to be making such a big deal about whether a web page that nobody ever read is visible or hidden? Levivich (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  They're both highly experienced XfD patrollers so yes I'd say both are highly valuable contributors. Regardless of the merits of the dispute, the PA from Explicit was unbecoming so coming out of this I only think one party should be embarrassed and it's not Liz. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  I agree the focus on the exact minutiae of policy on userpages and the warring about who deletes what first and whether something was deleted hours or minutes before the correct time is pretty childish. But I have seen the good work they do in areas like categorisation, redirects and actioning PRODs. We'd be worse off without their work. AusLondonder (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  You're right, they are both valuable contributors in other areas. Levivich (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  I've spent a lot of time looking at AfDs, PRODs and CSDs. Liz is just about the most tactful, careful admin I've seen. She also takes the time to explain things to problematic editors. I'm patient but she's very patient. It's hard to imagine dragging her to WP:ANI. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Fully agreed. GiantSnowman 19:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  I concur. TheWikiToby (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Close as something that never should have been brought here to begin with for a multitude of seasons. Explicit, who I believe should have been blocked for that comment, you know that ANI isn't going to result in sanctions against an admin. Please raise this elsewhere if you believe this is actionable conduct. Star Mississippi 16:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• On the substance of such things, I agree with xplicit that there was wheel warring here on the now redacted userpage (which I can see as an oversighter). The material that was left on the userpage, is not, itself, suppressible in my opinion (and indeed was not suppressed by an OS after other material was removed). So after it was restored it became wheel warring to delete it again, with wheel warring being the third action (1-delete 2-undelete 3-redelete). However, this feels as clear of a time as any for IAR to apply. And so I'd have supported Liz, or someone else, deleting on those grounds rather than a mistaken belief that U2 applied. However, Levivich is also correct - getting into a wheel war about something that is unlikely to ever be seen (except by someone savvy enough to do something like run a quarry) and if anyone seems to be following anyone else, at least in this instance, it would be xplicit following Liz. There is clearly enough bad blood between these two that I am wondering if the right outcome here is an iBan between Liz and xplicit rather than just a close. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49 I believe the IBan would be almost literally impossible with their areas of administration. If neither could patrol, I think the project would be much worse and that would hurt more than help. Maybe a talk page/discussion iBan if something is really needed? Star Mississippi 16:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think it's impossible. They could each delete pages no problem if there was an iBan. They just couldn't reverse the deletion of each other if there was an iBan. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  There is clearly enough bad blood Agreed. Explicit has been rightly chastised over his language this afternoon, but the original point still stands: whether rightly or wrongly, wheel-warring took place and was presumably a symptom. SerialNumber54129 17:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed. Liz hardly helped things by starting with Well, Explicit, it is always a pleasure when you decide to complain about me at ANI. after having previously ignored explicit when leaving a message on her user talk. I think they can each work deletion without interacting with each other which seems like the best for each of them as people and for the project as a whole. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  You say "hardly helped," but given how quickly this escalated, I'm curious if that's a reference to something else that hasn't been brought to our attention here. SportingFlyer T·C 18:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  I feel like there may be ways to de-escalate here before an IBan is needed—and IBans here should be a last resort. For example, Explicit could apologize for the profane comments, and both could commit towards trying to work more civilly together.

  We are all adults here: even if we do not all like each other, I do think we can still come together around our shared mission of building a free and open encyclopedia and agree to cooperate more smoothly going forward. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 18:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• This whole thread, especially the PAs, is just a massive face-palm. FOARP (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose IBan. These are the two most prolific XfD/CSD/PROD handlers on en-wiki. They have to work with each other. We need them to continue checking each other's work, and--politely!--correcting each other's mistakes, rare as those may be. That said, the foul language was grossly offensive, and while Liz may have a thicker skin than I do, I'd like to see a prompt and full retraction from Explicit before we close this. No one gets a free pass on toxic masculinity just by virtue of not being heterosexual. Owen× ☎ 18:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• I'm trying to get worked up about the "wheel warring", but it isn't taking. Speaking not about Policy but about reasonable behavior, the undeletion seems dumber than the re-deletion. Meh. I would normally suspect a couple of trouts are in order, along with a recommendation to stay away from each other where possible. What would change my mind is if there's strong evidence Explicit is following Liz around. There's a hint of that here, but I just don't know. There certainly seems to be a history between them. What does seem relatively clear, at least so far based on what's been presented, is that Liz is not following Explicit around. Maybe something short of an i-ban to start, like "don't undo each other's deletions or un-deletions"? I'm not sure, OwenX, that it really is necessary for them to correct each other's mistakes. But I do agree a full i-ban would be difficult. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps catching each other's mistakes would be a better term than "correcting". I doubt Liz follows anyone around; she's way too busy for that. But she does review deletions by other admins, and rightly so. She caught a couple of my own suboptimal AfD closes and advised me on how to handle such cases better, for which I'm thankful. I love having another pair of experienced eyes review my work here. I guess Explicit doesn't share my taste for peer review. Owen× ☎ 19:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  As I implied above I'm also not bothered by the wheel warring in the instance around OS. It is for me an IAR situation, though I am slightly bothered by the fact that Liz didn't realize why it was a time for IAR - as far as I can tell she redeleted it because she thought she was right and explicit was wrong and that is precisely what WHEEL is designed to stop. And this wasn't a one off; I am bothered that she has ignored explicit in the past around other instances of potential wheel warring. To Owen's point, in this case it's not Explicit but Liz who has the deletion policy wrong, so that is who should be open to peer review about deletion, including the kinds of helpful comments left by Cryptic below. And I'm also bothered by the language explicit choose to use against Liz, and have commented separately about that. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Liz, if you're relying on a query that identifies সেক্সি রসিক সেক্সি as unregistered, you need to either fix it, let someone who knows how to fix it fix it (assistance available here), or actually look at what you're deleting so you stop deleting edge cases similar to it. A faulty query isn't an excuse for faulty deletions. —Cryptic 18:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly I'm still pretty confused about the whole thing, since I hadn't seen an account be suppressed before. When I visit that linked page it shows a banner that says "... is not registered on this wiki." It also doesn't show the typical notice at the top that I'd expect, indicating the page had been deleted in the past. I'd love to learn more if there's a relevant informational page anywhere because I think I'm at risk of making that same mistake some day based on what I'm seeing now and I'd like to avoid that. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Hey man im josh if you find a user page of a seemingly unregistered user where it was created by someone with a suppressed username, my recommendation would be to quietly reach out to a favorite oversighter and ask rather than deleting as U2. I would also check if there is a user talk page that would indicate that this was once a registered user. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'll keep that in mind, thank you! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  I wonder if it would be worth a Phab task to hide the "is not registered" message in cases like this to avoid further confusion. Or is that too likely to reveal that the account exists, when the intention is it should be hidden? Sam Walton (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  The latter. The interface is lying here, and it's doing it deliberately, because that's the least worst thing to do. —Cryptic 21:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  I... think?... this is a result of WP:Oversight#Actions #4. Except the notes there say that the username is also removed from Special:Listusers, and the example I used is visible there, as is the one still visible on the VPT thread Explicit linked. —Cryptic 19:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Gotcha. I received some helpful clarifications from a couple folks after I made this comment. I was mildly concerned I could make the same mistake because I used the same quarry queries as both Liz and Explicit and I think I'm now prepared to not make that mistake. Very much appreciate the help from the kind helpful folks! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• This thread has unfortunately mushroomed since I originally posted to it early this morning (my time). It'll take a while for me to digest it all and see if there are any questions I need to respond to. I have since learned that it was incorrect to post the page title of the user page that I deleted and for that, I'm sorry. I saw that the username was oversighted in the user page history but I didn't make the coneected to the title of the user page itself. At the time, I thought it was important for editors to see from the page that it was marked as a unregistered user account. That was my mistake. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for admitting your mistake and apology. Now, if Explicit would do the same for the personal attack, that apparently several editors and admins found block worthy, that would be great. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

This whole thread is simply ridiculous. Liz is one of a handful of admins that I can question without getting my head bitten off. If (and I emphasize if) she made a mistake here then it was simply that, a mistake, rather than something that shoud be reported here. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• My knowledge of both Explicit and Liz is that they are quite competent administrators who handle a great deal of unpleasant difficult work. Liz, in particular, I know as someone who is very receptive to even stupid questions, and who in the past has been quite kind in the course of pointing out that I've done very dumb things that broke a bunch of stuff. This whole thread seems confusing and sad. jp×g🗯️ 21:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• Liz and Explicit don't get along, and haven't for years. I can give the stack of diffs ([255][256][257][258][259][260][261][262][263]), but really it's obvious to anyone who watches the PROD report, where one will delete a page before it's eligible just so the other can't. I've long since given up on trying to figure out who was originally at fault, though Explicit is usually the one escalating things, as the vulgar remark in this thread suggests. I so very much wish that these two very good administrators would find a way to sit down like adults and resolve their differences. But if that's impossible, the community needs to find a resolution for them, even if it's something suboptimal like an interaction ban. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• (ec)The issue between us is that we both work in the same areas (handling CSD G13s, C1s, PRODs, AFDs, etc.), have different approaches to the work and how we interact with editors and regularly step on each other's toes for going on years now (at least since 2020). For the most part, we keep our distance from each other but, occasionally, we cross paths and complaints like this can arise. I apologize if our personal disagreements have spilled over to public noticeboards. While I disagree on some aspects of the work they do here, I'm grateful for Explicit's contributions to the project. I just wish the respect went both ways. Noticeboards can lead to behavioral changes, but can't mandate changes in attitude.

My opinion is that this is not really about different policy interpretations but about friction between different personalities and, in our cases, I don't think an IBan would be successful considering how much our work overlaps. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Extraordinary Writ, I agree that the "delete a page slightly early" approach is childish and should stop on both of our parts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

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

User talk: Gino March

time-wasting nonsense from a block-evading user. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Gino March (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) A high-threat vandal user named Gino March has been disruptively damaging all the Wiki articles removing the acquired programming aired by Philippine television and the all years of Philippine Television articles, and also with Movie Blocks in all years of Philippine Television articles -209.35.169.114 (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC) Note: I have removed the collapse top/bottom template because it doesn't make sense. This report is also very lacking in evidence, all I see is a few IP and account complaints at Gino's talk page history that Gino removed, please provide diffs/pages where the policy breaking behaviour happened so that users reading can decide on the appropriate response. Additionally, 'high-threat vandal' is a strong accusation that requires strong evidence, accusing someone that does not meet Wikipedia's definition of a vandal of being a high-threat vandal is considered a personal attack. – 2804:F1...BF:89C5 (::/32) (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC) I can't instantly revert of several edit contributions of Gino March, when Gino's talk page history that Gino removed is warning 209.35.169.114 (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC) No action is going to be taken here unless diffs or other compelling evendence are supplied by those asking for administrative intervention in this matter. You can't just make an accusation and expect others to do the research to find out if there is any merit to it. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC) Ah, this report's format (and a lot of the words) WAS copied from somewhere as I guessed when I removed the collapse top/bottom, it was copied from this 2021 report: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1078#Moved from my talk page Even 209.35.169.114's reply to me is very similar to what that initial report said... @209.35.169.114 please clarify what the violation is, are you accusing Gino of socking? What pages have they vandalised? – 2804:F1...BF:89C5 (::/32) (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Nothing to say about me really vandal

Please delete the user page of DianaDemaine94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), block them and consider following the instructions at the bottom of Meta: NTSAMR. Thank you! 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:4493:E642:C10F:CD4A (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked, deleted, reported on Meta. For future reference, this can go to WP:AIV + m:SRG. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 16:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Alas, I've been turned down on AIV a couple of times ("this page is for obvious vandals only" as most[?] admins are unfamiliar with the NTSAMRbot) and m:SRG is often protected against IP and new account editing. That leaves AN/I as far as I can tell. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:4493:E642:C10F:CD4A (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@2A00:23...0F:CD4A: At meta you can usually make edit requests, if a patroller agrees with your request they make it for you. – 2804:F1...BF:89C5 (::/32) (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that, but posting to AIV and getting turned down by an admin unfamiliar with the spambot and also making a Meta edit request and getting turned down by a patroller unfamiliar with the spambot vs posting once to AN/I… well, I know what the sane choice would be. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:4493:E642:C10F:CD4A (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I've spent a lot of time around edit filter 499, which does a good job of catching spambots like this. You might want to specifically flag it as tripping 499 to help those unfamiliar with the pattern. It's easy to spot. Most names are camelcase, often incongruously randomized, with a number appended, what passes for text often doesn't even use the same name and is usually on three lines, the bot is trying to learn the xylophone or Polish or something, and we are invited to "surf" (was this bot programmed in 1996?) to the target website, which is invariably spammy or phishy. Acroterion (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Margaret Sanger & User:Anotherperson123

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

---

As you should know the article Margaret Sanger is a contentious article. Despite the restrictions, User:Anotherperson123 is making strange edits on this article. I stop short of calling it POV-pushing and editwarring. I have the user advised to start a discussion on that talk page of the article to make clear what he/she is disputing and based on what. No discussion is started yet but the contested phrase is removed again (and restored by another user). Something has to be done here. The Banner talk 14:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Repeatedly removing the connection between clandestine abortions and illegality of abortions is POV pushing and edit warring. It is not actually controversial that illegality of abortion contributes to a higher percentage of abortions carried out in secret, and that those abortions are, on the whole, less safe. Not sure we need an ANI thread at this point, though, unless there's a pattern of fringe POV pushing elsewhere, too. Anotherperson123, heads up to use the talk page on these articles if someone reverts your edit, rather than reinstate it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

It might seem harsh to go to AN/I but I have no idea where to go for help at a contentious topic. The Banner talk 16:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The normal procedure is to warn the editor a couple times before taking them to the administrators noticeboard. This is an extreme measure. As for it being a contentious topic, I didn't think of checking. Your claim that I haven't opened a discussion is false, as I have opened a discussion. Anotherperson123 (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion is at Talk:Margaret Sanger#Reverted edit. Peaceray (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you could, instead of going for help, avoid claiming that no talk page discussion has been started when it was actually started many hours before you started this discussion? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no clue how I missed that sentence. But to be true, no answers on the follow-up questions as of yet. The Banner talk 14:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Marino13 and WP:CIVIL, WP:BATTLEGROUND

Marino13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi guys, I just stumbled upon the above user's repeated violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA in talk page replies and edit summaries, despite numerous warnings, and hence am making a report here. This is a rough timeline that is incomplete, just to give an idea. The user:

• 6 May 2024: makes edit with summary A meddler and still not giving users a break, following edit by User:Sbaio
• 8 May 2024: given level 2 edit summary warning by User:Sbaio for the above
• 15 June 2024: makes an edit with summary I won't be surprised if he comes out of hiding just to do a revert 🤦‍♂️
• 16 June 2024: given level 4im personal attack warning by User:Magical Golden Whip for the above
• 24 June 2024: responds to that PA warning with a message stating ... I don't enjoy being harassed by editors like yourself, and it's not a ship I want to board. Your history says a lot more about you than it does for me.
• 24 June 2024: declares a break from Wikipedia, reason: Tired of being treated like a lunatic!
• 4 July 2024: makes this edit with summary When you pull a move like that, now you're harassing me. That is NOT funny Sbaio! this time you are reallly getting on my nerves. ..., following an edit by User:Sbaio
• 4 July 2024: makes this comment on their own talk page, You just love messing me with me don't you Sbaio? Smart mouth me again, and I will report you if you continue this nonsense further, obviously you're calling for it. ... Bonus: check out the summary of that edit
• 20 July 2024: adds to that comment on their talk page, calling out User:Sbaio with words like coward, blindsided, narcissistic hypocrite
• 20 July 2024: 'retires' from Wikipedia editing
• 15 August 2024: returns to remove a comment from User:Sbaio on User talk:Busesobama, writing Harassment free zone bub in the summary
• 15 August 2024: removes a warning by User:Sbaio on their own talk page with an edit summary so derogatory that I'm not even going to paste it here
• 31 October 2024: makes an edit following an edit from User:Sbaio from several days earlier, with summary I wonder how Snoopy keeps getting away with harassing users? 😒 Today is Halloween, don't rain on others' parade.
• 8 November 2024: given another level 4im personal attack warning from User:Sbaio, for the above edit from 31st Oct.
• 9 November 2024: removes said warning above, with summary Stay out of my business meddler, ...
• 21 September 2024: makes edit with edit summary already having second thoughts about you too busesobama
• 21 November 2024: removes MfD template from User:Sbaio placed the previous day with summary You don't scare me Sbaio. Now you crossed the line bum!

To add to that, I found this previous AN/I report on the user from November 2023, also for personal attacks, which didn't result in admin action. A timeline of events from 2023 can be found in that archived thread. I even came across this archived thread on User talk:Geraldo Perez from June 2024, concerning User:Marino13's behaviour.

I've noticed that the vast majority of these insulting comments are directed towards User:Sbaio, and that they often follow User:Sbaio reverting or revising an edit from User:Marino13. So my first thought is maybe we should do an interaction ban between these two users. But then after finding that one comment directed towards User:Busesobama (from 21st Sep), I'm not completely sure a simple IBAN is going to work. The user makes constructive contributions to Wikipedia overall, but there clearly seems to be something persistently going on between this user and User:Sbaio, causing them to get upset. Note that I have not been personally involved with any of these editors and am just making a report here from an outside observation. Anyhow, this toxic WP:BATTLEGROUND rivalry just needs to end. Any thoughts? — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Marino13 has responded with this message on their talk page apparently putting User:Sbaio at fault. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

In my experience, AP 499D25, interaction bans only work if the two editors agree to the ban. If it must be enforced, it's likely to fail. An interaction ban is not something that can be enforced using admin tools. Since this involves User:Sbaio as much as it does User:Marino13, please notify editor Sbaio about this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes I have also notified User:Sbaio along with several other editors that had also been involved with User:Marino13. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Per Liz, I seriously doubt an IBan could work in practice since both consistently edit the same articles. Do Marino13's edits constitute as disruptive at this point (not rhetorical, actually asking)? Conyo14 (talk) 05:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

While Sbaio can certainly be abrasive at times, from past experience Marino has crossed the line and then some towards him on multiple occasions. Agree that an IBAN wouldn't really work; maybe some sort of temporary sanction/topic ban is warranted. The Kip ^(contribs) 06:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

As I said, do what you must to put this matter to rest. Just as much as the users here have commented, I think it would satisfy us all if we can find a way to move on from the negativity and the backlash. Seriously, it would really help. Marino13 (talk) 07:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Why does your user page say you're retired? OXYLYPSE (talk) 07:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I am planning to retire from Wikipedia eventually. It is strenuous to keep up with adding and editing content, and, in light of the recent events above, I hope to get a few things done before I finally pack up for good.Marino13 (talk) 07:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)

We all plan on retiring eventually. But that's not what the template is for.

Also, it would be in your best interest to retract your statement that User:Sbaio is an ass[264]. The originator of this complaint was too nice to repeat it. But it can get lost in the weeds. Closhund/talk/ 08:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Sbaio

I am creating separate section since I have been notified of this discussion. I will go to beginning of editor's attitude:

• 2 March 2023 – it all started at Vladislav Gavrikov page with this edit in March 2023. I tried to explain Marino13 not to change date formats and left a message on editor's talk page on 2 March 2023, but editor decided to use battleground attitude right from the start. The editor then created a petition to change the whole date policy as can be seen at WT:MOS discussion about dates and numbers (involved editors quite clearly indicated that it was a silly proposal).
• 16 April 2023 – I then again reminded Marino13 about date formats on 16 April 2023 (section heading was originally "April 2023" until Marino changed it to "Date Format Ludicrousism" and then completely removed whole discussion on 28 March 2024), which this time was at Adrian Kempe page, but the editor continued its attitude. Marino13 also changed some text at MOS:DATERET, which was reverted by another editor.
• 12 November 2023 – another editor, which was blocked for sockpuppetry at that time (used various IPs, while being blocked) left a message on Marino13's talk page. Marino13 replied with this. P.S., on 26 March 2024, the then unblocked editor (the mentioned SPI) removed whole section from Marino13's talk page, and also removed my notification to the already mentioned ANI discussion.
• 13 November 2023 – after that I did not communicate with this editor and just left warnings on its talk page from time to time. I tried starting an ANI report, which @AP 499D25: has already mentioned above. I left a message about it on Marino13's talk page on 12 November 2023
• 27 June 2023 – a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings–Golden Knights rivalry was created by another editor, but I was not involved in this deletion discussion. Marino13's attitude towards editors in this discussion is also troublesome.

Forwarding to more recent problems:

• 16 June 2024 – Marino13 makes a personal attack at User:Magical Golden Whip on his personal page.
• 4 July 2024 – AP 499D25 already mentioned problems at Braden Holtby. After being reverted, Marino13 wrote at Talk:Braden Holtby#Former goaltender status with continued hostilities towards me.
• 20 November 2024 – this is most recent. I created a Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:List of NHL players with the most games played by franchise for Marino13's draft, which was completely abandoned (reasons stated in deletion discussion). Marino13 left two messages in this discussion (first comment and second comment), and then left a message at User talk:Llammakey once again making accusations. P.S., other editors wrote to Marino13 about this draft at User talk:Marino13#List of NHL players with the most games played by franchise moved to draftspace and User talk:Marino13#Concern regarding Draft:List of NHL players with the most games played by franchise2.

Marino13 indicated in three different messages on his page that he is taking a break and is taking an indefinite break (both edit summaries are evidently directed at me). In last message Marino13 is retired and has placed a {{Retired}} template on its page, but that is clearly a violation of that tag since Marino13 continues to make edits from time to time, while that template's documentation clearly says to remove it if you are not retired.

To sum it all up, Marino13 has shown more than once that there are issues with WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND, which strongly shows a WP:NOTHERE case. If he really wanted to edit then he should not be doing a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or WP:POINTY actions, but should instead just WP:DROPTHESTICK and listen to other editors (this involves every editor that would get into contact with Marino13). – sbaio 08:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

sbaio, I haven't reviewed your evidence yet but it is definitely not a violation to have a "Retired" template on a User page and continue to make edits. The retired template reflects an intention, not a vow or promise. I know some active editors who have been "retired" for months if not years. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not a violation but it almost always comes off as game-y behaviour and deflecting responsibility. I think many editors who go to someone's talk page to discuss concerns and see a "retired" template will just not bother to leave a message because they believe the person is leaving the project. And I think, in some instances, that that's why the person put the retired template there. It's misleading at best, deceptive when done to put a lid on discussion and potential criticism. Bu that's just my opinion, and I imagine many disagree. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Magical Golden Whip

I did have issues with this user back in June while reverting edits on the Thundermans here [265] and [266]. He did then go to his personal user page and write a hidden attacking message towards me where I did bring up the issue to User:Geraldo Perez [267]. This appearded to be brough on by the edits from Alexa Nikolas's page.[268],[269],[270],[271] [272] [273] [274] [275] [276] [277] [278][279] [280] There were no attacks to me on that page, but did appear to get into edit warring after edits were reverted by several users including possibly editing while logged out [281], [282], [283]. Other than what was already mentioned I do not have much to add. Ip believed to be used is 2601:84:8880:5E80:6D9F:88CF:D9D0:2034 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Magical Golden Whip (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Someone intentionally switched the party names in this article

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

---

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_presidential_party

Yesterday this article was about how economic performance tends to be better under Democrats, and this morning it says it tends to be better under Republicans. The entire article has changed, and the party names have been switched. (E.g. 10 of the last 11 recessions started under Republican leadership, not democrat). I can see that someone edited it 4 hours ago so I'm guessing they changed the article to spread misinformation. It looks like they didn't bother to change the whole article and subheadings, just the intro summary paragraphs. Please correct it to the previous version.

Below is another Wikipedia article with correct information about this topic (if someone hasn't changed that by now too).

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_under_Democratic_and_Republican_presidents 2601:1C0:4D83:340:5B24:3983:9F02:1D6A (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes. PhilKnight (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Hanson Wu

Hanson Wu (talk · contribs) refuses to communicate about their repeated edits to biography leads, many against clear consensus—except to say "don't you dare revert this" in edit summaries, unfortunately. Remsense ‥ 论 00:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

This editor has made 51 edits over 5 years and has never posted on their User talk page or other Talk pages. That doesn't translate to me as "refuses to communicate" and more that "they don't realize that they have a talk page they should use". Although they did make an edit today, they look like an infrequent editor. I don't think we can expect them to join this discussion. I'm not sure this is an urgent, intractible dispute. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The majority of their edits have been made since October, and it does not seem acceptable for them to continue as they have in this period. They have been made aware of discussions on both their talk page and article talk pages. Remsense ‥ 论 02:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: WP:Communicate would apply even if it is due to lack of awareness instead of deliberate refusal. In the case of not realizing it, blocking is a useful provisional measure because, either the block stays and the problematic edits stop, or the block can get the user's attention in a way talk page comments that the user did not see would not. In the latter case hopefully this would prompt the user to communicate. 2600:1012:A023:7497:39DE:43A4:B302:B09C (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, 2600:1012:A023:7497:39DE:43A4:B302:B09C, I understand the concept. I was just also trying to note that they are an infrequent editor and could go weeks or months before seeing a notice to come to ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

And I tried to make clear earlier that this isn't really the case: their recent rate is a change that needs reversion once every other day. I don't understand why this would be deemed hasty if it's agreed they show no indication of acknowledging attempts to communicate or stopping their disruption. Remsense ‥ 论 06:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Edits are continuing as of today and there have been signs of edit warring this month and last month. Supporting some kind of block measure. 172.56.232.212 (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:PayamAvarwand

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

---

PayamAvarwand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps adding this comment over and over again[284], [285] after repeated removals and warning on their user talk. They are WP:NOTHERE. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

 User blocked 31h for personal attacks. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by IP 88.93.95.224

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

---

88.93.95.224 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Can someone hide the following edits:

• Special:Diff/1259015988
• Special:Diff/1259016579
• Special:Diff/1259016653
• Special:Diff/1259016919
• Special:Diff/1259017414

Sock puppet of m:Special:CentralAuth/CheeseSupport. Well known vandal at nowiki, his IPs are banned indefinite as soon as he makes any edits there. He targets me, User:Znuddel and User:Anne-Sophie Ofrim on various language versions (nowiki, nnwiki, enwiki, dawiki, svwiki and simple-enwiki) with different IP adresses. See this request for an LTA: Wikipedia_talk:Long-term_abuse#Request_for_LTA_listing

The edits I ask about being hidden is the same nonsense that got him blocked at nowiki. There he posted it in random articles, tonight he has put it in IP talk pages and articles here on enwiki. The content is in Norwegian and is about "God’s stew" and mashed potatoes. Two long nonsense texts he obviously have saved on his computer and paste it everywhere.

On User talk:88.93.95.224 he claims I am the vandal, and I am impersonating as sysop on nowiki. Poor kid doesn’t even know that it’s impossible to impersonate user rights. In Special:Diff/1259017314 he is also threathening to come back over and over again, using scripts, bots and proxies.

I see the IP has already been blocked for 72 hours, but in addition to ask about hiding his slogan text I wanted to share this with the enwiki sysops so you know about the user and the content he posts. Then you can recognize it if you come across it from another IP.

I’ve already made a block request at m:Steward requests/Global. 1000mm (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

This IP address has been globally blocked for a month. I'll check out these edits to see if they are eligible to be revision deleted. If it is just nonsense, then it isn't. If it is abuse directed towards you, it likely is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

These edits are just as you say, ramblings in Norwegian about "God's stew" and mashed potatoes. They are not eligible to be revision deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Evangelical WP:LTA

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

---

I have for a long time suspected that disposable accounts engage in vandalism and trolling, especially upon articles which concern the Bible. Now I have evidence for my claim: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Valen2929/Archive.

These are pro-evangelical WP:SOCKS which perform hit-and-run vandalisms. They're all disposable accounts, there is no intention of collaborating constructively to Wikipedia.

Their purpose is removing inconvenient truths from Wikipedia. That is, hiding the garbage under the carpet, because mainstream Bible scholars made such points since long ago. So, the theologically learned already know such points, but the not learned masses don't.

It is a vandalism campaign which has been going on for months, if not years. I only reported the tip of the iceberg. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a filter i think that could be implemented for this user •Cyberwolf•talk? 15:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I would check for socks all those IPs, in a /16 or /48 range. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The usernames follow patterns •Cyberwolf•talk? 15:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

They are Bible thumpers who seek to WP:CENSOR Wikipedia because it gives the lie to their theology. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Please retract your "Bible thumpers" comment. We don't insult people for their religious beliefs, even if we vehemently disagree with them. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Dispute at Redbox article

An IP hopper (range: 92.40.212.0/23 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))) has been attempting to add a user-generated wiki to the Redbox article by doing the following:

• Declaring that their source is "reliable" themselves
• Using my disability status as a way to downplay/personally attack me when I warned them
• Claiming to be "moderation"
• Claiming that their disruptive edits were "requested" by another user who simply cleaned up the article (and even stated that the IP's edits "did not seem encyclopedic")

Would like a path forward here.

wizzito | say hello! 02:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

That personal attack should be at minimum a block. non-admin comment Conyo14 (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The IP Is still at it [286] claiming the reverts are "vandalism" and "done for no reason". It appears the IP is Not listening thus A range block is necessary. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks like admin User:Pickersgill-Cunliffe has blocked the latest IP address in the range 92.40.213.139 for 31 hrs. A little earlier I've also started a talk page discussion here and invited the IP to it from their talk page, so hopefully the block gets the message across and that they will discuss the content dispute instead of continuing to edit war. — AP 499D25 (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocking the latest IP has proven to do nothing, the IP came back with another one in the range and reverted with claims of vandalism again [287]. @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: It might be easier to range block rather than whack a mole. Lavalizard101 (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not experienced with range blocks so I'll leave it to others, but a /23 block seems to be quite a wide net. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

A /23 is not that wide, especially if we just partially block them from the Redbox article. wizzito | say hello! 01:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Good idea. P-blocked the range from the article for one week. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

User now likely active as User:EncyclopediaFixer. --Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 16:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Wow, that talk page discussion turned wild. Maybe this is some sort of LTA? The Spanish writing on some of the user talk pages reminds me of VXFC, but doesn't look like a strong link to me. — AP 499D25 (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Highly suspect LTA as well considering the switch to proxies by the vandal wizzito | say hello! 00:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I was looking through the edits of that range 92.40.212.0/23 and I found that one of the IPs might be affiliated with WP:BKFIP given their edit summaries. Would anyone like to investigate this further? Thank you, 35.136.190.243 (talk) 03:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know who it is but it's not actually BKFIP. There's some other guy who likes to go around and revert a bunch of admins' edits with the edit summary "Revert ban evasion WP:BKFIP" or similar, as if it's to cover up that they are restoring a disruptive edit or something. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:SQS, WP:HOUNDing from Hotwiki

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

---

I have been in a dispute with User:Hotwiki for a while now, with the dispute being discussed on ANI before. My minor edits at Kylie Minogue have been consistently suppressed by Hotwiki, with edit summaries and/or replies such as "not needed", [288]. "keep it as is" [289], "let it go" [290] and "no one has an issue but you." [291] After the natural conclusion of the first ANI thread, I took a break from the article to cool off.

Today, I made some minor copy-edits on the article, making the last section more readable to the user. [292] After 3 weeks of not editing the article, within the same hour that I published my copyedit, Hotwiki reverts all of my copyedits with the edit summary "let's not go for Round 3". [293] I messaged them on their talk page [294] bringing up previous comments from the first ANI Thread regarding this dispute, where WP:SQS was particularly mentioned by an uninvolved editor.

Furthermore, shortly after the mass revert, they started appearing on Charli XCX, an article topic that I was editing at the same time as Minogue's and an article Hotwiki had previously not edited. I was having a completely different content dispute with on the talk page (that has been resolved now through discussion) and they admitted to looking at my contributions page [295] shortly after their revert of my copyedits at Kylie Minogue. They accused me of edit-warring which I feel may be an aspersion, given that there was no edit warring going on, and described themself "as an outsider looking in." Am I being WP:HOUNDED?

Paging previous commenters User:Asilvering, User:BarntToust, and User:Floquenbeam who previously commented on the last ANI thread. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I stepped back in that article. You made two edits, that I didn't have an issue[296] with and I didn't revert anyone's edit - until you made changes, that I clearly had an issue in the past which I discussed throughly in the talkpage.[297] I reported you to ANI, last month and a month later, you went back into that article and made edits that I clearly disagreed with the past. I said "lets not go for Round 3" in my edit summary, as you clearly have a habit of not letting things go, and stubbornly doing your own way, when other editors clearly had a problem with your contribution. When I checked your contribution page, you were having tension in Talk:Charli XCX, with odd edits like these[298][299], which made me comment more on the talk page, of that talkpage. You also changed the picture, of that article Charli XCX three times in less than 24 hours, which I found disruptive[300] and people commented that you shouldn't be changing the lead picture without consensus and so frequently.[301][302] Hotwiki (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

When I tried to actually discuss with you regarding that 2022/2023 split, you said "There's no need to include" and "The year 2022 has been covered since last year. No one has an issue but you." which is still WP:SQS, you are arguing to keep a particular version of the article because per your words, "just because it has always been like that." [303] Furthermore, checking my contribution page and commenting on those other content disputes confrontationally in unrelated article topics seems to be WP:HOUND behavior. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I have used the Wikipedia:Editor Interaction Analyzer to look at our interactions on the page Kylie Minogue. [304], the results consistently show that it only takes you between 30 seconds to 45 minutes to consistently revert my copy-editing.

I have attached a local copy here off-wiki because the EIA threw a server exception error at me before, seems that this tool may have a bug or it may just be my Internet. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Me commenting on the Talk:Charli XCX talkpage which directly involved you, was the first time I interacted with you, outside Kylie Minogue, Talk:Kylie Minogue and ANI - if I am not mistaken. The talk page of Charlie XCX is also an open space and anyone could comment there if they want to, which I did. Its also normal to check the contribution page and edits of editors we interacted with and saw editing these Wikipedia pages. Hotwiki (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

So just to confirm, you decided to stalk my contributions on another article and join an unrelated content dispute shortly after you reverted all my copyedits on the Kylie Minogue article? PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Look, Hotwiki doesn't seem like the sort of editor open to change, and Shanghai loves that, clearly. Shanghai changing up an infobox image for a singer might be a tad questionable, but I'm more concerned that we've got a conflicting dynamic: the unstoppable force of @PHShanghai's change meets the immovable object that is @Hotwiki's need for things to stay just as they are.

I wouldn't go as far to suggest that an interaction ban looks like the next step if this tiresome antagonising of one another's edits pops up on the dramaboard again, but... fellas, it's annoying, all of it. BarntToust 14:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

But the wiki has to change and it will change Hotwiki has to understand that. The hounding yes i see that hot wiki was warning shanghai in the article talk page which is improper Special:PermanentLink/1258789213#2022 i would also like to bring up the comment hotwiki made Special:PermanentLink/1258938798#New lead image which is very ominous feels almost like a attempt to discredit a editor. Hotwiki also instead of talking with ph on their talk page put ph basically on a pole on the article talk Special:PermanentLink/1258789213#Tension tour which is weird, I personally never have seen this type of article talk page use, and it struck me as “look at this user they did (so and so) and their wrong (reason)” it seems disrespectful to me as shanghai(or anyone) shouldn’t be put on a pole in the article talk, and have hotwiki (again, or anyone else) place gas around them and hope a spark will ignite the gas… •Cyberwolf•talk? 15:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

BarntToust has a point that there is ultimately a force / object dynamic. I'll be bringing up Wikipedia:BRD_misuse#Filibusterers as a relevant essay here, as if you read the talk page archives of Kylie Minogue, most if not all edits I've made have had lengthy talkpage discussions with Hotwiki still using the usual arguments of "it's not needed, it's been like this for years, you're the only one changing it, no one else had an issue, do not make changes without discussing with me first"... etc etc. It feels like a test to drag out the discussion as long as possible. Quite the opposite, I do not "love" editors who are not open to articles changing. I'm not familiar with IBANS that much, but if that's the way it is, well... PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Also a user doesnt have to discuss with him to change stuff •Cyberwolf•talk? 15:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to quote what @Asilvering: said directly to PHShanghai. "I would suggest avoiding any changes to the lead for now. I do think Hotwiki needs to give a little, but you're not making it easy for them. Start with the less-contentious parts and work up from there".[305] PHShanghai did the opposite. The edits they made in the lead section, which I didn't react to, was me doing my part of "giving a little" to PHShanghai. I also didn't revert any of the edits from anyone, in that article for a month, after discussing things in ANI, regarding the issue with that article. But then with Phshanghai's third edit in that article in over a month, they went ahead reverting a contentious part - which was an issue already brought up in the talk page last month, and its becoming an issue again, simply because PHShanghai just simply do what they want to do, and we are back at this issue again. They simply cannot let go. While looking at Talk:Charli XCX, they exhibit the same "my way is the right and only way" and I simply couldn't ignore it, hence why I commented in Talk:Charli XCX as well. Hotwiki (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It also seems you also have “my way is the right and only way”
Also having 3 edits in a month isn’t even bad •Cyberwolf•talk? 15:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I did listen to Asilvering's advice and didn't make any changes in that article (even if I wanted to), until PHShanghai went ahead with a "contentious part" for their 3rd edit in almost a month. Also I've tried to discuss this again, in the talk page of that article with no answer. Obviously, if PHShanghai listened and tried to compromise - they wouldn't have reverted a contentious part that would lead to another issue. Hotwiki (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Again bringing up 3rd edit in the month is not a valid contribution to your claim can you please explain why said part is contentious and the use of”” when you mentioned it a bit ago •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Please define what a contentious part is. A vague revert saying "This is not needed because this is how the article has always been" is not a proper response to any major article-changing edits, let alone minor copyediting. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

This is the contentious part which was discussed directly in the talk page last month and yesterday.[306] Hotwiki (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Explain here that comment is vague •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I will also quote what asilvering said to you, Hotwiki
as gently as I can: those are really quite minor edits. Meanwhile, you have made over 1000 edits to the article.
•Cyberwolf•talk? 16:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

What does 1,000 edits have to do with this? I've edited the article since the 2000s and I don't recall PHShanghai having an issue with my edit count in that article. Hotwiki (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

They didn’t but it was a qoute my issue is your blowing up of a minor edit •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Its not an minor edit, if me and PHShanghai have discussed about it in the past via talkpage, then PHShanghai going back at it, a month later - which is why we are both here in Ani again. Hotwiki (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Are we looking at different edits? •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

This is not a minor edit.[307] It was discussed in the talk page in October by the two of us. By November, PHShanghai went back to moving the "year 2022" paragraph in another section. A minor edit wouldn't lead to this discussion. Hotwiki (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It is
A good rule of thumb is that only edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of the content may be flagged as minor edits.
•Cyberwolf•talk? 16:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It’s a formatting change •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Moving a paragraph which covers an entire year of activities, into another section changes the flow of the entire life and career section. I simply disagree. Hotwiki (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Disagree with community consensus then •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

There wasn't really a discussion, because your ideological standpoint was just "This is not needed because the article has always been like this before." How do you reach a compromise from that? You can't claim that I am avoiding compromise when that's your position that you will not budge on.

Furthermore, since you revert every time I make an edit after a break; you are quite literally reverting to your preferred version of the article, which has been noted as WP:SQS. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

In the lede, I made two minor edits removing stuff that was placed there without a source.

Your reverting and SQS was in a completely different part of the article, (Tension 2022) in which you gave no policy-based argument for reverting my copyedits other than "it's been like this for years, it's not needed". It isn't contentious if you're opposing it on no other grounds other than "it's not needed." PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I was only involved peripherally in the previous thread, and didn't get involved in the underlying dispute then, but since I've been pinged:

• PHShanghai, don't re-add stuff you know is disputed. Not even after a month. It doesn't have to be you two arguing, you can always ask for more eyes. A 3rd opinion request. A neutral wikiproject talk page request. etc. etc. see WP:DR. Your opponent is not allowed to single-handedly prevent your edits, but that does not mean you are allowed to make whatever changes you want over their objections.
• Hotwiki, don't follow an editor you're in a dispute with to an unrelated talk page. In particular, don't do so if what you're mostly doing is snarking at them. That's really bad form, and pisses off people who have to deal with two editors sniping at each other due to an unrelated dispute on another page altogether.
• ANI is not the place to get more eyes on a content dispute. It is only a place to deal with behavioral issues. I see behavioral issues from both of you. It is quite possible, even likely, that the ANI community's solutions will make both of you unhappy. So I suggest you don't come here for piddly stuff.
• As BarntToust says, you are both dragging others into bad blood between the two of you. The way the community often deals with that, if it seems like both editors are partially in the wrong and they get fed up, is an "a pox on both their houses" solution of an interaction ban. I-bans are annoying, you both want to be doing whatever you can to avoid it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand the principle of asking for more eyes and I'll move forward with that in the future. Do note- I have gone through both DR and RFC, and when it unfortunately closed due to lack of/empty responses, Hotwiki then responded with personal attacks like: "I don't like your unnecessary changes, you never even give up, nobody agreed, edit another article, this is how it's always been", etc etc. This was pretty demeaning. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

"No one wanted your edits, you should give up" This is false. I never said those words to PHShanghai. Hotwiki (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I will listen to what you said, about following an editor (that I'm currently in dispute with) to an unrelated talk page. That won't happen again. My apologies. Hotwiki (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Hotwiki, may I take this as a proper apology from you for WP:HOUNDing me on Charli XCX? I really didn't appreciate being followed around an unrelated article because of a dispute somwhere else. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Geez, just take the win on that portion. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any of the ANI slap-fighting as a "win", seeing as this dispute of Hotwiki reverting my edits on this specific article has been happening since October 2023. 13. whole. months. Quite an unlucky number. Anyway, I just wanted to make the implications of Hotwiki's reply crystal clear. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to make the implications of Hotwiki's reply crystal clear.

Which comes across to everyone reading this as you trying to drag this out further so you can get another jab in. As Floq said, just take the win and let it go. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I was apologizing to Floquenbeam, as they informed about me about such doing. I was unware. That being said, I'm using this opportunity to extend the apology to you. Though I did read the entire interaction in that talk page hence why I commented and it wasn't my intention to "hound" you. Hotwiki (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Also pinged, and endorsing all of the above. -- asilvering (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Adding images without discussion to important articles / edit war

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

---

User:LivinAWestLife This user adds random photos to city articles at will. These photos do not represent these cities and do not make sense at all! This user has engaged in an edit war with me and other users. See his edits on Tehran and Bratislava for example. Edard Socceryg (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Edard Socceryg, can you provide some diffs/edits of the disruption you are claiming rather than asking editors to look through articles' page histories? You'll get a more prompt response if you provide the evidence yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz Tehran article:

Special:Diff/1257545010, Special:Diff/1258722226, Special:Diff/1258701757, Special:Diff/1258560517, Special:Diff/1258151058, Special:Diff/1258150919, Special:Diff/1258041387. Edard Socceryg (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Not an admin, but take note that there is already a talk page discussion at Talk:Tehran § Lead image over the disputed content (images in the article), with the other editor being aware and in it. Both editors have engaged in edit war, but are one revert away from breaking the three-revert rule. — AP 499D25 (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Edard Socceryg, an article talk page is where this discussion should be happening. If an editor is edit-warring, I think you'll get a faster response if you a) notify them that they are edit-warring and b) then file a complaint at WP:ANEW. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz The matter was resolved. You can close this. There was no need for this report :) Thank you all! Edard Socceryg (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

This does seem to be entirely a content conflict. But, glancing over Tehran, the conflict is over LivinAWestLife preferring that the top representative image is of the skyline of the city in question instead of a singular monument in said city (Azadi Tower)? If I had to weigh in here, LivinAWestLife seems to be the one that's right. Also, you're both edit warring. Silverseren^C 04:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I agree with Silver seren's points here about the image and edit warring. While I don't claim to fully understand Iranian politics, calling this "propaganda" ostensibly only because of the monument's association with the White Revolution seems extremely and unduly harsh. I will be commenting on the talk page too elaborating of course. (I was here for my own reasons but happened to see LivinAWestLife, who I've interacted with recently over the article San Francisco. Haha!) TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 11:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

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

S201050066

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

---

User:S201050066 messaged me on my talk page asking about the prospect of him being subject to a Wikimedia Foundation ban due to disruptive editing. To cut a long story short, S201050066 was banned in May 2022 for edit warring on COVID-19 issues. He has since sought to circumvent the ban by creating numerous sockpuppet accounts and using IP addresses to edit Wikipedia. S201050066 also posted a YouTube video blaming Wikipedia users including @Tenryuu: for reputational damage and alleged offline harassment including an incident in which he and a fellow shop assistant got assault. I personally don't believe his claims and think that S201050066 is only seeking attention. He wants to be unblocked but he hasn't apologise or expressed remorse for the behaviour that got him banned in 2022. Andykatib 22:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure on what basis you assume the IP on your talk page is S201050066. I know LTA people can resort to weird behavior though. Is this one of those attention trolls who post about themselves or something? It's not clear from an outside perspective.

The off-wiki harassment accusations, even from a banned user, should be forwarded to both ArbCom and Trust and Safety, if there is any actual evidence. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Just Step Sideways:, thanks for getting in touch. I have been in contact with S201050066 via Facebook Messenger. He has a form of Autism. As someone with Asperger's Syndrome, I have empathy for him and have been advising him about the need to move on from Wikipedia. I don't think he is a threat to Wikipedia but I don't think that he is in the right state of mind to edit or collaborate with other users. I think Wikipedia has sufficient safeguards against such disruptive editing. Let me know what you think. Andykatib (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I guess what is not clear to me is what sort of administrative intervention you are looking for. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I just wasn't sure whether just to ignore him or whether I should report the matter. He's a small fish in the scheme of things. Andykatib (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Just Step Sideways:, this is the IP range S201050066 has been operating from. That range has been blocked by Admins for a year. Andykatib (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Just an update. S201050066 has posted a YouTube video apologising for their behaviour on Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia doesn't allow us to post links from YouTube, is there a way to share the link? Andykatib (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Andykatib, are you talking about User:173.239.131.234? They posted on Nov. 1st and ordinarily I'd issue a brief block for ban evasion but they used it 3 weeks ago and I'm sure they have moved on to another IP account if they are going to evade their block.

After seeing this report, I spent over an hour getting familiar with S201050066's case, reading why they were blocked and noting all of their sockpuppets (which, given the toolforge link you have shared, number over 500 at this point). If this was a registered account, I'd suggest making a new report at their SPI but as an IP editor, I would go to the admin who did the range block and update them about this new IP in a different range. However, since this is from Nov. 1st, it's considered stale at this point.

But I hope that this advice is useful when they contact you in the future. They are persistent, you are seen as a friendly editor to them and, unfortunately, I think they will be reaching out to you again at some point in the future. If their attention becomes really annoying, we can always semi-protect your User talk page for a brief period of time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Andykatib, I just reread your latest message. Where was this YouTube link posted because I don't see any recent activity on your User talk page. Are they contacting you off-Wikipedia? I can't help you with that but you might block or unfriend them if they are bothering you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Liz:, I have been in touch with S201050066 via Facebook Messenger. That's how he posted the two videos with the apology one being the most reason. I am not troubled by him. I think he is just a young man with intellectual disabilities who needs some grace with boundaries. I hope he ends his disruptive editing on Wikipedia after the apology video. If he doesn't, then I'll let you and the other admins know. Thanks. Andykatib (talk) 03:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Andykatib, that is very understanding of you. That's not common in ANI discussions. After reading all about him, I hope that they will move on. Contact us if this activity returns to Wikipedia from Facebook. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Just Step Sideways: If you want more background information, here are the (by my count) previous eight discussions that have been held about this user:

• [308]
• [309]
• [310]
• [311]
• [312]
• [313]
• [314]
• [315]

I don't see the need for any particular admin attention, save for blocking whatever sock account or IP he's editing from if he decides to post nonsensical content on anyone's talk page or touch any of the COVID-19 pages. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Insomniac187

Insomniac187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Their usertalk is littered with notifications of articles they have created in mainspace either being nominated for deletion or moved to draft, and all within the last three months.
AFDs

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baldwin Class 12-32 ¼ E - deleted
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drew Jacksich - in discussion
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Union Pacific 9000 - redirect
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dieselmotive Company, Inc. - deleted
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wanamaker, Kempton and Southern 65 - redirect
  

Articles moved to draft

• Draft:Lavacot Locomotive Works
• Draft:Canadian National class K-5-a

Would a restriction from creating articles in mainspace, requiring them to go through WP:AFC for all creations be appropriate? TarnishedPath^talk 02:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

As for me, I'd want to see a lot more articles that have been deleted than just 2. This is far from the mass creation of articles that usually is present when we ask editors to stop creating main space articles. And 2 articles moved to Draft space is not really a problem, in my judgment, especially when I come across editors who've had dozens of articles draftified. This just doesn't reach the line for "urgent, intractible problems" for me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree. But a suggestion that they use AfC wouldn't be amiss. -- asilvering (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Nigerian name project

There seems to be some project to add all Nigerian names to Wikipedia, based on unreliable sources (maybe centered around the wiki yorubaname.com) and without much care about our standards. I haven't been able to find any central page or responsible person though, and the number of editors and pages is quite overwhelming. While this had lead to a fair number of useful disambiguation pages, it has also produced many problematic pages, many of which I turned into redirects or have nominated for deletion. The latest example I reverted was this, turning the page about the surname Wale into a page about the first name, "a distinctive and culturally rich choice for a baby boy"...

Any help in dealing with this never-ending influx is welcome. Editors I encountered (probably a non-exhaustive list) include User:GladysJombo, User:Emmanuella643, User:Bembety, User:Halima Waziri, User:Airypedia, User:Aderiqueza, User:Tunde Akangbe, User:Abike25, ... Fram (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

All Nigerian names? Sounds pretty big. Can you give some diffs or examples? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 15:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Just check the recent contributions of these users. Ymblanter (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, or similar creations by people not even named in my original list, like Ogundele or Dupe (name). Fram (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian looked into this, and from what she found it's likely from an editathon being organized in Nigeria. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Ridzaina (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your concerns about the addition of Nigerian names to Wikipedia. I appreciate the opportunity to provide clarification regarding the project's purpose and processes and to address the points you have raised.

The primary goal of this project is to document indigenous Nigerian names on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, addressing a significant gap in representation for culturally significant names.

To ensure compliance with Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, participants have been guided to use reliable sources, such as books. The intention is not to create promotional or problematic content but to contribute meaningful and culturally significant information. As part of this effort, links to notable individuals bearing these names have been included in the articles to add context and relevance.

For the issues identified in some of the pages, the team has taken the following corrective measures:

1. Pauses the Campaign: The campaign has been temporarily paused to allow for a thorough cleanup.

2. Tracking Contributions: We are systematically tracking all the contributions from the beginning of the campaign.

3. Identify non-notable names for potential drafting or deletion under the A7 criteria.

4. Documenting for SIA: Names associated with a significant number of notable individuals, whether as surnames or given names, will be documented as an WP:SIA and categorized appropriately under Category:African given names.

I welcome your feedback and suggestions on how we can better align with Wikipedia’s guidelines and improve the quality of our contributions. Thank you once again for your input and collaboration. Cheers! Ridzaina (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:A7 doesn't apply to names. Did you use an AI to write this? jlwoodwa (talk) 05:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Nigerian English sounds like AI, ey? LOL. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ridzaina: thanks for your answer (although we much prefer answers which don't look like they were written by an AI tool). Can you please have all discussions about this project somewhere on enwiki, so others can see e.g. the instructions and chime in if these are not policy-compliant? Problems with sourcing and so on can be much more easily solved if there is a central point of discussion, and it might have avoided an ANI discussion as well. Further, I see you started removing the yorubaname.com source as an unreliable source (good), but then for unclear reasons you selfreverted this[316][317][318][319]. Why? Fram (talk) 10:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Fram. I can assure you that the ideas in the message were not generated by AI. I am the project coordinator, and I apologize for not introducing myself earlier. The message above clearly reflects the actions and decisions we have taken to address the current challenges.

Upon discovering this mention, my team and I had swung into action to address the anomalies that were discovered, even though we ensure weekly review and are constantly monitoring and updating our article list.

To ensure this discussion takes place at enwiki in order maintain transparency and promote better communication as you have proposed, could you please direct me to where the discussion can be held?

I reverted those edits to have this conversation and to confirm that it is indeed the best course of action.

Also, the primary reason I suggested A7 is that most of the names were created as articles. A7 applies to articles that lack any indication of importance, making it a suitable option. However, if there are other speedy deletion criteria that better align with the current situation, please suggest them, and we can apply them after completing the massive drafting effort we are currently undertaking to identify the faulty articles, as you can see below:

Here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abidoye

Here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramide_(name)

Here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inioluwa

Here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abodunrin Ridzaina (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy would seem a logical place, crossposting to Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria to get input from and collaboration of Nigerian editors. The first project presumably knows the standards for such articles, the second has the knowledge of and interest in Nigerian topics. And editors with concerns about the results can then post there and smoothen things out before a lot of work is wasted. Fram (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ridzaina It might be more beneficial to create a list of Nigerian names in draft space as a group. References could be added to that page, and the team of editors could take time to get it ready. You can create it at Draft:List of Nigerian names. The issue with name pages on the English wikipedia is we typically use them as navigation pages, so if there are no people with those names that have articles on wikipedia it is usually not possible to have a page on that name unless the sourcing is excellent and can pass WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 05:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this and to @Fram for starting this conversation. I will definitely work on that. The major issue now is with the referencing because most of these names have a number of people with those names that have articles on Wikipedia but there is still a need for references. However, I think what we might do is what you have just suggested. We will keep on working on how to get reliable sources for referencing once we have drafted the affected articles. Thank you. Ridzaina (talk) 08:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

In addition to the idea of the articles being (re)created as set index articles, a sourced listicle would suffice. Also, I’d suggest we hold on with nominating articles for deletion and reach a consensus and perhaps bundle those problematic articles and nominate. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC) ping on reply

I'd second the idea of creating List of Nigerian names or a similar title (assuming reliable sources can be found, which I think they can). There are still many poorly sourced Nigerian name articles floating in the new pages queue, and they will continue to haphazardly get nominated for deletion if there isn't a page to redirect them to. I recently opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uzemehefe (name) without being aware of this thread; I only got pointed over here after chiming in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ewomazino (name). Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if the sources at Uzemehefe (name) are reliable, but they don't treat the name as Nigerian per se, but as a name common within one ethnic group. CMD (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair point, although I was referring to any sources that could be found in a WP:BEFORE, not just the sources in that article. After scrounging around on Google Books a bit I'm actually not finding any good English sources that cover Nigerian names, but there may be some non-English ones I'm not seeing. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Request TBAN for CIR editor

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

---

I'd like to request a WP:TBAN for Johnjbarton on quantum mechanics topics, on the grounds of WP:CIR. His edits are clearly in good faith and he wants to improve Wikipedia, but he simply doesn't understand quantum mechanics. The result is that he is damaging the articles he is trying to improve. I and other editors have wasted a lot of time cleaning up his mess. I have lost count how many times I have asked him to stop editing articles he doesn't understand, but he obstinately refuses to listen. I don't think he is going to change his behaviour without admin action. Currently he is damaging the quantum entanglement article. Here are my diffs reverting him [320][321][322][323][324][325]. This has been going on for a long time though, I've also had to revert him on Double-slit experiment, Bell's theorem, Many-worlds interpretation, and Principle of locality. Tercer (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

A Tban seems reasonable but also would like to note the entitlement that seems to emit from johnjbartons refusal to stop editing the articles will eventually lead to a block one way or another till then Tban from quantum mechanics seems to be an appropriate measure •Cyberwolf•talk? 15:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

A TBAN from quantum mechanics is very sufficient. John should move on to different areas and try building out there. I support banning John. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't recall interacting with @Ahri Boy or @Cyberwolf. Among editors who may be familiar with my work are

@Ldm1954 @ReyHahn@Jähmefyysikko @XOR'easter @Kurzon @Quondum @Chetvorno @Constant314 @L3erdnik @Headbomb Johnjbarton (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Quantum entanglement is poorly sourced and out-dated. It is an important area of quantum mechanics that has seen significant new work, has been featured in 2022 Nobel prize, and the basis of many parts of quantum computing. My efforts to improved the article have been blocked by Tercer's reverts as listed above. If you look at the reverts you will see that each one contains references to reliable secondary sources. If you look at Talk:Quantum entanglement you will see that I opened a Topic for each revert, adding additional information, and many cases additional sources. Not one of Tercer's replies contains a source or evidence that the sources I added are inadequate in any way. He only posts opinions.

On Double-slit experiment I deleted an incorrect image, Tercer put it back. After discussion, 4 editors agreed to remove the image. I contributed more than half the content on Principle of locality and to be honest I don't remember Tercer being involved.

Turning to the Competence is required, I hope this text will demonstrate adequate skill in English. My ability to read and assess sources is (ironically!) demonstrated by the edits that Tercer has reverted. As additional background:

• My master's degree in Applied Physics from Caltech applied quantum chemistry to the the surface structure of gallium-arsenide.
• My PhD in Chemistry from UC Berkeley was about half theory of electron scattering from atoms in surfaces. See Barton, J. J., Robey, S. W., & Shirley, D. A. (1986). Theory of angle-resolved photoemission extended fine structure. Physical Review B, 34(2), 778. for a peer-reviewed summary.
• I have more than 50 peer reviewed publications, including two highly cited papers in Physical Review Letters that concern quantum wavefunctions,
  • Barton, J. J. (1988). Photoelectron holography. Physical review letters, 61(12), 1356 and
  • Barton, J. J. (1991). Removing multiple scattering and twin images from holographic images. Physical review letters, 67(22), 3106.
• I am the coauthor of Barton, J. J., & Nackman, L. R. (1994). Scientific and Engineering C++ an Introduction with Advanced Techniques and Examples. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.

Although I was unable to pursue a career in physics, I have read widely especially in the areas of history and quantum mechanics. I recently retired and have had the pleasure of contributing to many physics articles over the last 18 months. I am 100% committed to summarizing the best sources available. My edits are occasionally challenged of course, but only Tercer has repeatedly blocked my work. While it is clear Tercer mostly understands the topic, I think his perspective is dated and Tercer's opinions to not match reliable sources in all cases. It's a shame that Tercer has adopted this aggressive approach rather than seek consensus based on sources.

I ask that this request for a ban be denied. To resolve our conflict on quantum entanglement I will propose a "request for consensus" to replace the current unsourced content with my ongoing draft based on reliable mainstream sources. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

This explains why you don't know anything about quantum information, and why you are incapable of recognizing the limitations of your knowledge. You did a PhD in chemistry and were academically active about a before quantum information became popular. You are a victim of the common illusion that expertise in one subject magically transfers to another. Tercer (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Tercer, I read through the history of Johnjbarton's talk page and didn't find anything to support that there have been chronic problems with his edits on quantum mechanics. Discussions at Talk:Quantum_entanglement appear to be content disputes. Diffs of you reverting his edits just mean that you personally disagreed with those edits, not that those edits were necessarily wrong or "damaging". Do you have diffs of multiple editors who are involved in those articles taking issue with the accuracy or appropriateness of Johnjbarton's edits? Schazjmd (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

This is not about personally disagreeing with his edits. I reverted plenty of edits that were objectively, mathematically wrong, and demonstrated lack of knowledge of the basics of the subject. If you understand it I'll be happy to explain the mistakes to you. As for other editors, they are usually too polite to point out mistakes explicitly, but XOR'easter and ReyHahn have helped me several times undo Johnjbarton's damage. Tercer (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looks to me like a content dispute, not anything for ANI. It's worth noting that the two supporting the TBAN have no mainspace articles edit history in common with Johnjbarton [326] [327]. I would support closing this and letting those involved resolve this elsewhere. BugGhost🦗👻 17:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I generally don't like it when editors try to argue that other editors don't understand something, because this is wikipedia you don't need to be a subject expert to edit articles, even if they are on very complex subjects. In this case, Johnjbarton very clearly does understand quantum mechanics and I do not see an issue with their edits, which were an attempt to improve the content for consistency with reliable sources. This is nothing more than a content dispute, and no one editor can demand another editor to stop editing a particular topic. This should be closed as there is no conduct identified by the OP that requires a block or ban of any kind. Polyamorph (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  This is not a content dispute. Let me use his most recent edit as en example. He inserted the text This process does not defy the no-cloning theorem because no one knew the initial state of Alice's particle and her Bell state measurement necessarily destroy her state. The resulting Bell state has no information about the entangled components: Bob's quantum state is not a clone. This is nonsense. Whether anyone knows Alice's initial state makes absolutely no difference, and the resulting state is not a Bell state. This is not complicated. Anyone with the slightest familiarity with the no-cloning theorem and the teleportation protocol knows this. And this is only his more recent edit. I can go on all night long pointing out basic mistakes like this. Tercer (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  That is very obviously a content dispute. -- asilvering (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  +1. This is the very definition of a content dispute. Ravenswing 20:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Johnjbarton's help was invaluable to me on various articles. He knows his stuff. He is a bit stubborn, we had a few squabbles over content. But Wikipedia would be at a loss if we couldn't tap his expertise and a light slap on the wrist is preferable to a ban. Kurzon (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I too will chip in and speak positively of JohnJBarton. I haven't the time to review the specific allegations at Quantum entanglement, but John's always been thoughtful and considered in his edits. Kurzon above and him clashed a few times, but always in good faith, and always productively. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• I usually prefer not to edit in my professional area of expertise, but in real life I happen to be a professor of theoretical physics at a top university specializing in quantum nanoscience. I published on entanglement and I personally interacted with two out of three 2022 Physics Nobel Prize winners (not that it is relevant in any way for my knowledge of quantum physics). If the sides could not agree, I could have a look at a specific set of articles and recent edits in them. However, if this can be solved with me, I would be happy to keep doing other stuff which I am doing anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose any action against Johnjbarton. His edits are constructive and generally are an improvement. There is no evidence of incompetence. He is courteous and readily engages in consensus building. Tercer appears to be reflexively reverting and making comments that could be interpreted as a personal attack. I suggest that Tercer take a break from reverting Johnjbarton and instead use the talk page to make objections and seek a consensus before reverting. Constant314 (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

If you want some kind of WP:CIR block applied to another editor, you're going to have to show us more than diffs of you reverting them. Where are the talk page discussions that make it clear that this editor is not competent to edit in the area? -- asilvering (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I do not think this an ANI matter. At worst, Johnjbarton has jumped in to make edits about difficult topics without, perhaps, much experience writing about those topics before. Quantum entanglement is a hard subject to write about, and it takes a lot of practice to do so without being completely confusing. Reviewing my involvement with that page, I see that Tercer reverted an edit that Johnjbarton made which brought the text into alignment with the given source [328], and I stepped in to try and salvage it [329]. If that's an example of cleaning up a mess, well, it honestly looks like I was cleaning up after both of them. Tercer and I have both put a lot of work into the Bell's theorem article, and both Tercer and Johnjbarton have done a good job keeping fringe claims and other such cruft out of it (examples: [330][331]). Looking for a time when the two of them clashed, I found this from May, with a Talk page thread now archived here. Overall, that looks like a content dispute, with the people involved being a bit testy. I see what might be a pattern where Tercer knows what an article should say based on general subject-matter expertise, whereas Johnjbarton focuses on what is explicitly said in the actual sources currently given. This inevitably leads to conflict. Maybe everyone could just simmer down a few degrees? Propose changes on Talk and use sandboxes/drafts first. Avoid inflammatory language in edit summaries and elsewhere. I am too tired to be in the middle of drama like this and need to have a lie down now. XOR'easter (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose with WP:SNOW close – Aside from ANI being entirely inappropriate (it is just a normal editor disagreement as pointed out by Bugghost above, where one seeks to invoke ANI to quell the other), IMO this ANI being opened is ultimately more about Tercer's style of interaction than about Johnjbarton's competence. I have previously remarked about Tercer's tetchiness. Tercer's edit comments in the linked diffs should be regarded as entirely unacceptable personal attacks or an unacceptable bias towards wording that applies only in a specific type of interpretation of quantum mechanics in a field where other mainstream interpretations rub shoulders:
  • Stop damaging articles you don't understand [332] – a personal attack
  • talking about wavefunction collapse without using the word "collapse" makes it certain the reader won't understand what is going on [333] – unduly biased to collapse-centric interpretations
  • decoherence does break entanglement – unduly biased to collapse-centric interpretations, and restored text ("Entanglement is broken ...") makes no sense in other mainstream interpretations
  • undoing some of the damage – undue arrogance
  • yet another example about why you shouldn't write about things you don't understand – a personal attack
  • incorrect an ungrammatical. Alice's state might as well be known, it doesn't change anything – restored text reads "Since Alice's original state is necessarily destroyed during the process" makes no sense in many interpretations ("destroyed"?)

My observation of Johnjbarton has always left me the impression of a thoughtful, respectful, well-motivated editor who puts in the effort to reason and source arguments, does not often find disagreements, has expertise in the field, and who is respectful of WP principles. A topic ban would be ludicrous. It should be noted that Tercer has not linked or stated anything that was not based on own judgement, something that I would consider to be a red flag at ANI. —Quondum 19:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Cyberwolf and Ahri Boy, did either of you look into this properly, or did you simply take this report at face value? I only have a layman's knowledge of quantum physics, so if it is the former I would like to hear why you suggested a topic ban. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

... and if it's the latter, then you two have some serious explaining to do. We have no business at ANI either proposing or supporting in ignorance knee-jerk bans. Ravenswing 20:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose for now. I have being involved in articles with both users. A good example is principle of locality where the three of us worked on it to make it a better article. The contributions of User:Johnjbarton have been very useful when providing historical content to many physics articles including those related to quantum mechanics. User:Tercer is right that in many edits johnjbarton has introduced inadequate content (spin (physics) comes to mind) that sometimes has needed our intervention, but even in those cases it is usually a misrepresentation of a source and the mistake has been taken care with a discussion. I think we need to keep an eye but an ANI is too much and too early. If there is a draft by johnjbarton, he could share it to WP:PHYSICS before moving on with the changes.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Fakolyabuoz's persistent unreferenced edits

The user was warned through their talkpage to post references several times, yet they continue to make edits like these-[334][335][336][337] The reported editor doesn't respond to any of the messages in their talkpage, and doesn't fill out the edit summary. The reported editor was also blocked twice this year - first for unreferenced edits, second for disruptive edits. Hotwiki (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, another editor who hasn't made any posts on any talk pages that I can see. Two blocks hasn't changed this, we keep running into this issue with some editors and unfortunately, I don't see a resolution besides another block at some point unless they start participating in discussions about their editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

There's also this suspicious behavior of moving draft pages to User page. Borgenland (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Two days later and they haven't made it here, either. I've indefinitely pblocked them from mainspace. Happy for anyone to lift that block if they've committed to communicating with other editors. -- asilvering (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

No, looks good to me. GiantSnowman 19:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Just taking this opportunity to spam my essay on this sort of situation, WP:RADAR. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

User: Bomber1234, repeatedly vandalizing pages.

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

---

Bomber1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), look at his contributions he made and they are all vandalism. He was already warned in the past, but he is still continuing his disruptive editing. Here is his latest edit (Now reverted). Example (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). NicePrettyFlower (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh wait, I showed the wrong link. Here is the actual link. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sad_Sack_Laugh_Special&diff=prev&oldid=1259081898. NicePrettyFlower (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks like a matter for Administrator Intervention against Vandalism. This is blatant vandalism that can hardly be misinterpreted on a user that's already been warned to level three. Departure– (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I see another editor has submitted it to WP:AIV. That should take care of it (eventually). _signed, Willondon (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The user has been blocked by Bbb23. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

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

MPN 1994 disruptive behaviour (2)

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

---

MPN 1994 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi all, I can see that the earlier report this month has been archived here. It looks like it closed without action but, since the closure, MPN 1994 has continued to do the same thing. See this diff of them reverting an admin closure of an AfD again for the umpteenth time. Please can we consider some sort of sanction? For example, a ban from editing the articles that they have been disruptive on. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I would support a topic ban from all Maltese football related articles and AFDs, broadly construed, to see if that stops the disruption. GiantSnowman 11:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. This user is clearly not taking the previous ANI seriously at all. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I would slightly support expanding the topic ban against MPN 1994 to UEFA as a whole. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Having reviewed this situation, I can't see any reason to not just indef block this user, and have done so. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. By the looks of their contributions, any sort of topic ban relating to football would have effectively been a sitewide block anyway as they appear to only edit Maltese football and, unfortunately, in that area they've been a net negative largely due to their unwillingness to compromise. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing and attacks by IP 2.98.156.135

2.98.156.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Making unsourced edits and attacking other users that revert them.[338] Also attacking in response to being warned about this behaviour.[339] Previously used 92.23.235.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNerdzilla (talk • contribs) 01:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

This is the IP's response to the AN/I notice placed on their talk page, calling User:TheNerdzilla a "bigot": diff.

IP also made several personal attacks in an article talk page discussion: diff, as well as once even disrupted the talk page by attempting to remove the declined edit request and replace it with another one asking to basically make the same edit again: diff. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Ram112313 promoting Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha

Moved from User talk:ToBeFree

 – ToBeFree (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Original heading: November 2024

This user appears to be on Wikipedia to promote their organization, as can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ram112313 They have blanked out all their warnings and blocks on their talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ram112313 I just added a final warning to their talk page. Thank you. Ram1751 (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ram1751, thanks for the notification. Which organization exactly are they promoting? Can you provide multiple examples (diffs) where that organization was added to articles? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

They are promoting Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha - many WP:OR additions (some with an overtly promotional tone) and removal of sourced material not complimentary to the organization. See diffs here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Hindu_temples_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1255906861

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindu_denominations&diff=prev&oldid=1205761794

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shri_Radhika_Krishnashtaka&diff=prev&oldid=1255480033

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swaminarayan_Akshardham_(New_Jersey)&diff=prev&oldid=1254947172

- Ram1751 (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!

I'd now like to hear a statement from Ram112313 or block for disruptively ignoring community concerns in case the editing continues without a statement being provided. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The edits to the Shri Radhika-Krishnashtaka article, as reflected in the edit history, demonstrate that the previous version was heavily skewed with a non-neutral tone, failing to align with Wikipedia's standards for balanced and unbiased content. Similarly, the changes made to the List of Hindu temples article included an incorrect claim that the Shri Ranganathaswamy Temple is larger than Swaminarayan Akshardham, which is factually inaccurate. As stated within the article itself, Swaminarayan Akshardham is indeed larger in both single structure size and hectares. Regarding the Swaminarayan Akshardham (New Jersey) edits, discussions are ongoing on the article's talk page, and no further updates have been finalized yet. Additionally, my other contributions, such as the edits to the Shikshapatri article, do not reflect any bias toward BAPS and adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. The removal of sourced material in the Desh Lekh Vibhag edits was solely due to issues such as incorrect information, dead links, or non-verifiable sources, all of which are against Wikipedia's guidelines. These edits were made to ensure the article adheres to Wikipedia's standards for reliable and verifiable content. Ram112313 (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello ChatGPT, we'll need Ram112313's own words. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

These are my own words. All I used is grammarly lol. Ram112313 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Ram112313, are you connected to Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha in any way? Do you have a conflict of interest? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

No I am not. I am a practicing Hindu but not a part of any organized sect. Ram112313 (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the clarification. Ram1751, thoughts? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

This user's edits provide evidence they are a pro-BAPS sock puppet "pushing for a branch specific POV narrative and removal of critical information" in the words of @Kbhatt22 in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swaminarayan_Akshardham_(New_Jersey)#Lawsuit_in_introduction_section Their edits include "over glorification of BAPS ideology in the faith, removal of BAPS critical sourced content, talking up BAPS temples, downplaying the beliefs of other branches." Agree with @Ratnahastin that this is a BAPS SPA. - Ram1751 (talk) 02:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Ram112313, based on these concerns, would you agree not to make edits related to Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha again? As you have no connection to them, you can surely find other interesting topics to edit about; see the Task Center and the community portal for additional ideas. If you disagree, please explain your focus on this subject. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I have a strong focus on Hinduism, especially the Swaminarayan Sampradaya, and a solid understanding of the different sects within the tradition. While I’m open to avoiding edits on specific pages, most of my contributions have added meaningful details. For instance, including Swaminarayan Akshardham in the article on Hindu temples in America is essential, as it highlights a major aspect of Hindu influence in the United States. Ram112313 (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Ram112313, I understand that this is essential to you, but that's part of the alleged issue. Can you let one of the over 48,311,874 other Wikipedia users make such decisions as your neutrality about this specific topic is being questioned by multiple others? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

When have I ever downplayed the importance of other sects within Swaminarayan sampradya and even those of other Hindu traditions? Ram112313 (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Ram112313 certainly appears to be a SPA dedicated to promoting BAPS. They were aggressively edit warring on Swaminarayan Akshardham (New Jersey) to whitewash the details about the controversial lawsuit the temple has been involved in from the article and were blocked[340] because of it. Their responses on talkpage felt like they were written by AI and were essentially repeating themselves again and again instead of understanding what the other editors were trying to say.[341] - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Your efforts to not have a proper consensus as well as repeated edit revisions pushing a non neutral point of view was noted by many other editiors within the talk page as well. The lawsuit had already been throughly included in the article and your previous edits gave a unbalanced view until you mentioned the withdrawal of the lawsuit to try and make it more neutral. Ram112313 (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

ShawarmaFan07 - Repeated disruptive edits

ShawarmaFan07 (talk · contribs) has been engaged in edit conflicts across various articles, frequently reverting reverts to their bold edits, introducing incorrect information into articles, and WP:SYNTH violations (including inventing quotations). The user has previously received a block for edit warring.

They have received repeated warnings for disruptive editing on their talk page. The user is also currently engaged in various edit wars with @Belbury.

Various diffs: [342] [343] [344] [345] [346] [347] [348] [349] PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked ShawarmaFan07 as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Bbb23 - their behaviour did seem somewhat familiar. I have come across edits from IPs 2A02:C7C:B459:F500:35DB:634A:E688:BEBA (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2A02:C7C:B459:F500:C831:80B0:5049:BF92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which appear to be the same user. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Special:contributions/2A02:C7C:B459:F500:0:0:0:0/64 is quite obvious. They haven't used that range in a couple of months, so I didn't block them.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23 thanks again. 2A02:C7C:75BE:B300:1D2D:5594:24FC:6867 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made some edits this morning, and posted to @Belbury's talk page. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that was just LTA User:Lam312321321 (who also seems active as User:90.209.163.218 today). Belbury (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Iphone5Sgold

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

---

Iphone5Sgold (talk · contribs) has been blocked twice before (March 2022, June 2022) for disruptive editing, primarily failing to update dates when updating athlete stats, but also generally unsourced edits to BLPs. Their talk page is littered with warnings about this, yet they persist. A longer, or even indefinite, block is needed. GiantSnowman 17:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1095#User:Iphone5Sgold and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1100#Iphone5Sgold. GiantSnowman 17:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea where they are even getting their information from. Shori Murata is cited only to Soccerway and Soccerway has no info at all on Cambodian appearances - I have subsequently deleted the appearance stats from the infobox for that one. A quick look at their contributions shows that they are adding original research statistics every week and failing to amend the timestamp, despite requests. This is a mix of WP:IDHT and WP:CIR. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, they've scored their last own goal and have been red carded out of here. Canterbury Tail talk 20:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! GiantSnowman 20:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Odd situation

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

---

A user named CORRECTION100000 is making accusations that main photo for the page Zhu Wen is incorrect and there's some conspiracy involving identity theft around it. They’ve left multiple serious and strongly worded messages insisting that the image does not accurately represent Zhu Wen and appear to have made an account for this issue alone. Given my limited knowledge of early Chinese history, I am not sure of the accuracy of their statements. However, considering the seriousness of the talk page messages, I believe this situation warrants the attention of an administrator. Yedaman54 (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Heres the edits and messages made by said user (including when the user left a message warning on the main article page) [350], [351], [352], and [353]. Yedaman54 (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Their claims of citogenesis are totally plausible, without further exploration. What is the source of the image in question? Can anyone check that source? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Odd.... is certainly one way to describe this. Calling the possible misidentification of an image of a person who died almost two thousand years ago "identity theft" and claiming it is having real effects on the lives of people today .... needs some explaining at the least, preferably not in the form of YELLING IN ALL CAPS. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Just Step Sideways - Zhu Wen died eleven hundred years ago, not almost two thousand years ago. The principle is the same. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

yrah, my wath was way off there. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, yes. We could also do without anything that seems like an attempt at a legal threat. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I will try to explain. The user who was reported is actually trying to complain that the image is blasphemous or sacrilegious, because it misrepresents a Daoist deity. The reference to the alleged offense as identity theft is probably a linguistic error, which raises competency issues. So an admin can take their pick of whether to block for legal threats, lack of competence, or both. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

RGW was in there too. Blocked, they're welcome to file a compelling unblock request. Image is being handled via typical editorial channels. Star Mississippi 01:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I was leaning towards CIR or NOTHERE myself, and their latest replies didn't inspire confidence. Good block. – robertsky (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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

---

See here. On a related note, shouldn't we put Thomas Lockley under the new Yasuke contentious topic 1RR that Arbcom made? Silverseren^C 18:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week for legal threats. I will take a look at the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is definitely related to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Yasuke. Cullen328 (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm semi-protecting and imposing 1RR for one year. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Creation of (apparent) hoaxes about Indian politics

An SPI was opened into the conduct of RAGULVARMA PRABHU (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks), who was using several accounts to create hoaxes about Indian politicians, but it was closed with no action taken, since the accounts were used sequentially, and were not used for block evasion. I come here instead of SPI because no blocks have been issued toward any of the accounts, meaning that there still is technically no violation of the policy, despite the continuing use of even more accounts (see Special:Contributions/RMD1999) to create more hoax articles and drafts. JJP_Master (she/they) 02:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, JJP, can you link to any of these "hoax articles"? You haven't provided much here to investigate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: Sorry for the oversight, here are some examples:

• Draft:P.RAGULVARMA
• Rmr. Ragulvarma (currently at AfD)
• Draft:RAGULVARMA PRABHU (G3'd)
• Draft:RAGULVARMA PMK
• User:RMR2004/sandbox (G3'd)
• DEEPA RAGULVARMA (A7'd)
• PMK RAGULVARMA (A10'd)

One recurring theme is that the articles usually transclude a section from Gummidipoondi Assembly constituency showing real election results, that do not include the people the articles are about as candidates. JJP_Master (she/they) 03:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, JJP, this helps a lot. When I get time tonight, I'll look through the deleted ones. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: RMD1999 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) has now begun to rapidly submit drafts that are copy-pastes of articles about real Indian politicians. JJP_Master (she/they) 04:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

As the original SPI filer I would not say these are clear and not just apparent hoaxes. The content is has based on other actual politicians, they keep claiming to be part of the fictitious "DIRACTOR OF MINISTRY" and the images are AI hoaxes. File:RAGULVARMA PRABHU.png and File:RAGULVARMA PRABHU.jpg have been flagged as obvious fakes over on commons (edit:just been deleted). Lastly not a single source in any of the hoaxes I've reviewed has even mentioned the subject. KylieTastic (talk) 12:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Other example hoaxes: Draft:P RAGULVARMA, Draft:RMR RAGULVARMA, Draft:PMK RAGULVARMA, User:RMD1999/sandbox KylieTastic (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

They have just created yet another hoax article Ragulvarma Prabhu M.K. KylieTastic (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I've just tagged RAGULVARMA P M as db-hoax, editor from same SPI. Wikishovel (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

So RAGULVARMA, Draft:RAGULVARMA PRABHU MK and Draft:Deepa Ragulvarma all created today by RMR2004 active 15th-21st so now overlapping with RMD1999 active 19th-20th so definitely socking, as well as getting away with creating endless hoaxes and wasting lots of editors time. KylieTastic (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked @RMR2004 as NOT HERE and @RMD1999 as a sockpuppet of RMR2004. If another admin disagrees feel free to unblock/take other actions. Sohom (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Sohom — Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure about closing this yet as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RAGULVARMA PRABHU/Archive has yet to be resolved. But it looks like all of the contributions from this sockfarm have been deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: Well, the investigation is archived, so should it be reopened? JJP_Master (she/they) 20:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

You're right, JJP. I posted the link, I should have noticed that it was an archived SPI case. My oversight. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Article Draft:Ragulavarma Prabhu, created 21 Nov as Draft:RAGULVARMA PRABHU M.K, is another hoax draft by another sock, this time a minor tweak of Kaduvetti Guru [354]. Wikishovel (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Allegations online that some bank is contacting its customers over modifying its Wikipedia entry

See WP:AN#Allegations online that some bank is contacting its customers over modifying its Wikipedia entry

I was given an ultimatum for expired awareness notifications

(Copied back from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1172#I_was_given_an_ultimatum_for_expired_awareness_notifications because not all threads were resolved.)

This is about developments at User talk:Hotpine. Hotpine has given me an ultimatum for retracting awareness notifications which have expired for almost two years.

[355], [356], and [357]. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Hotpine: you edited in area of Wikipedia that are under discretionary sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee. tgeorgescu posted a standard contentious topic alert, which does not imply that your edits were improper. It appears that you take issue with the fact that the standard alert makes reference to the arbitration case that imposed those sanctions. I'm not sure why you take issue with that, but there's nothing improper about it. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, now that I got the point that such notifications do not expire, I have to say why I told them they're editing under WP:GENSEX discretionary sanctions: sex addiction therapy and porn addiction therapy have become a way of performing conversion therapy without calling it so. This is especially relevant since conversion therapy has been banned in several states. I don't know any WP:MEDRS to that extent, but it is a point which reputable experts made in mainstream media. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The above made me curious about WP:MEDRS to that extent and I found this: Neves, Silva (2023). "Chapter 11. MSM and compulsive sexual behaviours. "Sex addiction" and conversion practices". In Neves, Silva; Davies, Dominic (eds.). Erotically Queer: A Pink Therapy Guide for Practitioners. Taylor & Francis. p. unpaginated. doi:10.4324/9781003260608-12. ISBN 978-1-000-86221-8. Retrieved 17 November 2024. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

What I don't understand is that these notices were posted on their user talk page almost 3 years ago and the editor has edited since 2021. Why are they complaining about them now? I hope they will find their way here and offer an explanation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Now in the article Sexual addiction the link between sexual addiction therapy and conversion therapy is abundantly sourced. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Those templates say "discretionary sanctions" not CTOPs. So, I don't know if they're expired. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: I forgot about them until I looked at my talk page recently. I rarely look at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotpine (talk • contribs) 05:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I was clear about what I expected:

• Proof that pages were categorized as such in a public proceeding
• Proof that I edited those pages
• Proof that those edits of those pages warrants the action(s) taken

If such proof does not exist, then I expect Tgeorgescu to undo his notices on my talk page and whatever flags/sanctions/changes that were applied to my account.

I still have no idea what this is about, the pages, the edits, the policies, etc., after pointedly asking Tgeorgescu several times for clarification. I'm still not entirely clear on whether something was done to my account to make it harder to edit those pages or other pages. It seemed like my account had been flagged in some way. Regardless, I didn't opt into any such notices on my talk page, which add noise, and the appearance of such notices has the appearance of wrongdoing, which I object to when there is no justification. Reverting the edits myself does not appear the same in the edit history as the author reverting them.

The clock is still ticking. Hotpine (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Hotpine: Your inability to notice that you have landed in hot water is telling of WP:CIR.

For a newbie with no explanations, that isn't that bad. For a newbie, after it got duly explained, it is bad. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Your inability to notice that I have not landed in hot water is telling of WP:CIR.

If you can just reverse a statement, and it still applies, then you haven't really said anything of substance at all. Taunting is childish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotpine (talk • contribs) 06:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Removed comment interweaving by Hotpine in this editEducatedRedneck (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@tgeorgescu Literally the third sentence in Wikipedia:CIR is:

One of our core Wikipedia guidelines that facilitates this is assume good faith

My first response to you was:

Tgeorgescu: I don't understand your edits. You linked to e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience, but my username isn't mentioned there, and I don't see reference to any other place in your edits where the determination was made that I have "shown interest" in "alternative medicine", "pseudoscience", or "gender-related disputes or controversies". Please clarify your position with objective evidence and public proceedings, or undo your edits.

It isn't clear why you posted the "Yes. We are biased." section. Please clarify this, or undo your edits.

It isn't clear why you posted the "Noticeboard" section. Please clarify this, or undo your edits.

So far, your behavior has been abrasive and unwelcome. After this matter is resolved, please do not interact with me to the furthest extent possible.

I assumed that you had your reasons for doing what you did, and I asked you to explain yourself. I've asked you several times to explain yourself now. All you have to do is explain your reasoning for why you think I've edited pages that are under those discretionary sanctions, which you should have had before posting the notices in the first place. That's all. And you can't even do that, or at least haven't done so up to this point. I need that information to know which pages I have edited (and might edit in the future) that fall under those sanctions, which is ostensibly the entire point of the notices. Your silence on this matter suggests to me that you had no such reasoning in the first place.

Indeed, competence is required. Hotpine (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Hotpine: The page was named above: Sexual addiction. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

We are assuming good faith: the point of that essay is that competence is also required to be a successful editor—unfortunately, we can only go by experience in judging competence.

You have been told repeatedly that these notifications are perfunctory do not presume any wrongdoing—they say that themselves. That you still do not seem to understand this point does bring your competence into question, I'm afraid.

Frankly, you are not entitled to further meticulous explanations for such benign interactions, and your reaction so far has been fairly disruptive, making an issue out of literally nothing. Remsense ‥ 论 01:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how we can get much clearer than, "this message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing", but many editors seem to miss that. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

We need to bring back the marquee tag. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

That sentence isn't true and everyone knows it, that's why. Levivich (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, probably more than 90% of the time it's given, the contentious topics warning actually means "I do think there's a problem with your editing so I'm making sure I can take you to AE if you step out of line again". More generally, I think WP:HNST is broadly correct about how inexperienced editors interpret all templates Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Even so, the message does what it says on the tin, one isn't justified in assuming someone thinks they're doing something wrong simply because they've received one. It is simply not unreasonable to expect newcomers to be able to take direct statements like these at face value. Remsense ‥ 论 01:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense: I agree, but only if the wording is clear, and in this case, it was not clear. The wording used was not from the current Template:Contentious_topics/alert/first template, and seemed to contradict the previous statement in the notice that the notice doesn't imply wrongdoing:

You have shown interest in Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

The way it read to me was: I made edits "related to the topic" that did "not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions", and therefore "a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect" for my account.

The Template:Contentious_topics/alert/first wording doesn't have this problem, although it still doesn't provide a place to link to the actual edit(s) involved, which are needed for this to be understandable and actionable, and thereby constitute fair notice. "You edited some thing, some time, some where, that I decided falls under these topics" is not productive without specifics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotpine (talk • contribs) 05:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Typically, editors can quickly determine which recently edited page falls under which category. But the notices do not need to be given after you've edited that area. It's just a notice to alert you to the contentious topic, not a warning that you disruptively edited in that topic. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Putting this very simply: if you took it to read that way, that's on you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Hotpine: the 3 alerts on your page still say "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." If you read that as implying there are issues with your contributions to date, that's on you IMO. Most of us can understand that when something says that then goes on to say "You have shown interest in Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules" where it keeps saying you but then explicitly excludes the word "you" or anything else which refers to you then it mentions past disruption, this means it isn't referring to you. Otherwise it wouldn't keep saying "you" but then stop saying "you" for no reason when it's still referring to you. Nil Einne (talk) 08:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Hotpine this was allowed to be archived for a reason. The only proportional advice (that you have already been given) is to drop the stick and move on. No one else wants to deal with this any longer. No problems exist outside your own continuation. Drop it. Move on. Remsense ‥ 论 06:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hotpine does not understand they are being disruptive, although several editors have explained the problem in full detail. I'd say let's give them some time out. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, my God, this discussion is back? This is ridiculous. Listen to Remsense, Hotpine, and drop this stick. No one is listening to your unreasonable demands. Feel free to rearchive this discussion after a reasonable amount of time. There is no way this needs to be on ANI for another week. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: I am not demanding anything anymore. It was explained a while ago that the notices were policy. That is off the table now, of course. Hotpine (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: Well, not demanding that User:Tgeorgescu revert the notices, at least. I still ask that he be clear about which edits, or at least pages, he was talking about, which he (unclearly at first, then clearly later) identified: Sexual addiction. So, there's nothing more to be resolved here. I am just responding to the last of the comment threads that I didn't have a chance to do yet. If you don't care, then don't respond. Hotpine (talk) 06:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ramsense: You are incorrect. According to top of the page, it was archived by User:Lowercase sigmabot III because of the weekend and the upcoming holiday, and it was inactive for 72 hours. You speak authoritatively, so shouldn't you understand how this all works?

These assertions are unfounded in your comment:

• I am holding a stick
• I am not moving on when I should
• No one wants to deal with this any longer
• No problems exist outside my continuation (I'm not sure what this means)
• I should drop it
• I should move on

Please substantiate them with arguments.

The next, and last, reply I currently have to make is for your first comment. Tomorrow, when I have more time. I would wait to reply to this comment until I reply to that one, since it will address some things shared between both comments. Hotpine (talk) 06:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Hotpine: Perhaps my attempt to explain things on your talk page has caused some confusion. Just to be clear no one has to substantiate anything to you. We do try to explain stuff to editors before taking action against them, but we do not have to satisfy their demands. If you are confused about how things work here, you should seek help in an appropriate place like the WP:Teahouse or WP:Help Desk but stop making demands or you should expect little help. I chose to try and help you, but it was entirely my choice and there was no requirement me or anyone does so. If you keep at demanding stuff of people you should expect to be blocked eventually indefinitely. If you keep demanding it on your talk page after being blocked, expect to lose talk page access. Nil Einne (talk) 08:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It's time for someone to indef Hotpine here only to grind an axe of some sort and not to build an encyclopedia. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing? Tendentious editing? Making a mountain out of a molehill? Wasting other editor's time again? All of the above? Whatever. I have blocked Hotpine for one week. Cullen328 (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by GyoergyGajdos on Feynman sprinkler

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

---

New editor GyoergyGajdos on 19 November published two edits (1, 2) (their first ever edits) to the article Feynman sprinkler. Respectively, these added an inappropriate, disruptive, and superfluous use of an external link to the lead and added a GIF to the article (the former they've since dropped; the latter they've decided to re-insert five times and counting (3, 4, 5, 6, 7) after removal). I came across these by complete accident on the same day and reverted them just from casually viewing the page and recognizing glaring problems with them. The external link was to a YouTube short from the channel 'gyorgygajdos1657' featuring the same content as the GIF. The video shows a homemade sprinkler experiment (but this categorically fails WP:UGC and is therefore not verifiably accurate). However, we already have one in 'External links' where it belongs from a much more descriptive, authoritative source, thus obviating it entirely. The GIF is simply the YouTube short, with the exceptions that it's lower-quality and that, in addition to the InShot watermark, there's a transluscent 'Gajdos' watermark across the entire vertical center and a pale orange watermark reading "youtube: Mach-Feynman sprinkler".

The UGC, redundancy to (and much worse quality than) the linked UMD experiment, self-promotional and highly distracting watermarks, disorienting cinematography, extreme amount of extraneous footage (the experiment proper when the motor is running seems to take up 2 seconds at most compared to a 21-second, 5.6 MB GIF), and the fact that it's distracting to the reader with almost zero educational value all stand on their own as reasons not to include this GIF. Taken together, they make this completely obvious. Finally, the GIF is then accompanied by the words "A simple, replicable Mach-Feynman sprinkler experiment is shown here:" in the lead prose – disrupting article flow and indicating a lack of understanding of image layout. Instead of discussing on the talk page or even acknowledging the reversions in their edit summaries, they've kept reinstating this. When discussing this on their talk page and pointing them to the policy on consensus, they made a completely nonsensical rebuttal about "inspirational value", claiming to have a physics degree (even if they do, this is irrelevant; I have a degree, but I can't just insert whatever I want about my field) and referencing low-quality Q&A site Quora. They then proceeded to reinstate the GIF with no acknowledgement of the discussion in the summary. While I initially assumed good faith that they simply did not understand reversions or consensus as a newcomer, when provided ample opportunity to discuss the matter and to read about policy on consensus, they made it abundantly clear they only care about pushing this edit through – at worst, I suspect, potentially wanting to use this as a vector to self-promote their YouTube channel.

I would post this to Dispute Resolution, except that this is a matter of Gajdos' immediate, intractable inability to work cooperatively on this project. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 12:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Now that was a collection of characterizations for an educational content 185.237.102.121 (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Point of clarification 185.237.102.121 is who responded on the talk page, not Gajdos, but the immediacy of the reply and the way they address themselves as though they are Gajdos make it entirely obvious these are one in the same, potentially a simple mistake on Gajdos' part. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 12:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP for one month as a proxy, and I've reverted the named user's last insertion of the YouTube with a final warning to the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• The user reinserted the YouTube into the article, so I've indeffed them for disruption. I think I'm within my rights to revert the edit, but in an abundance of caution I have not.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

---

I don't know what you guys are talking about, the video is kind of shitty but it seems to me obviously relevant to the page it was put on. If it has an annoying watermark, surely we can edit it, no? Is there an actual argument for why it must not be there, apart from personal issues with the editor who put it there? jp×g🗯️ 02:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

It's because it's user-generated content. - 06:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Bushranger (talk • contribs)

You really readded that incredibly shitty gif to the article after the edit war was stopped by blocking the edit warring SPA and their IP? Any reason why you thought continuing this disruption and making the article worse were a positive contribution? Fram (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Zhenghecaris

Zhenghecaris (talk · contribs · logs) is continuing to add fringe theories on Wikipedia. For more detail, it is better to see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Precambrian_chitons_and_another_reports_by_Mark_McMenamin, this user added information about taxa that is described by Mark McMenamin but no other researchers are confirmed, which is against WP:FRINGE. I warned this user multiple times, and in that discussion this user answered that "Okay I will not add information on taxa described by McMenamin". However, this user continued that, created article of Kimberellomorpha which includes taxa described by McMenamin (Zirabagtaria), with uploading copyright violated images (File:Zirabagtaria_fossil.jpg which is sourced "YouTube", this user previously uploaded bunch of copyvio images, (Commons:User_talk:Zhenghecaris) even through I warned (User_talk:Zhenghecaris#Stop_copyright_violation)). The article describes Zirabagtaria as a "fringe taxon", but this has no meaning. Because it has not been studied by anyone other than McMenamin, and there are no positive or negative comments from other researchers, the term "fringe" should not even be listed on Wikipedia, and the best option is to ignore it completely. This edit in Kimberella ([358]) seems kind of vandalism to be honest, as this user does not know how to edit well. This user does not learn. They should be blocked, at least in paleontology topics. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that this user left comment on user talk of Commons administor, claiming the image is permissioned. (c:User_talk:Yann#Zirabagtaria) This has no meaning as it does not provide any evidence, and it still violates WP:FRINGE. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I've tagged some Commons contributions for deletion there and nominated a redirect here for RfD. Could you please provide diffs of the warnings given to Zhenghecaris, with dates, as well as offending edits occurring after those warnings. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

This is when I warned stop copyright violation.[359] Commons image was uploaded after that. For fringe theory, that discussion shown above resulted not to do that, although it may not warning. But anyway this is the edit when this user added about Zirabagtaria after discussion.[360] Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The second diff you've provided doesn't mention "Zirabagtaria". voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, this is one edit added about Zirabagtaria in Kimberella article[361] and previous edit[362] added McMenamin's book as reference. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

How do you provide evidence? Zhenghecaris (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The deletion tags placed on several of your contributions there contain instructions for doing so.

Regarding your edits on Wikipedia, @Zhenghecaris, you have created some articles and drafts about things that you acknowledge are "fringe". Do you believe that these fringe taxa exist? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Ethiopian Epic Refusal to Discuss Edits

I posted a thread earlier about @user:Ethiopian Epic [363]. It was then decided that nothing wrong was done yet. Now EE has started an edit war and refuses to use the talk page, despite being requested multiple times by myself. Ethiopian Epic claims their edits were explained in the edit summaries. However, the summaries are vague[364], or don't apply[365]. Parts of the revert was part of an earlier dispute with another user, and goes against the sources. Most of the reverts I just don't understand. I have been researching the topic and there are different views expressed by different sources, and I am still trying to figure out which the current scholarship is.

I posted a warning about edit warring on EE's talk page[366]. EE responded with a warning on my page.[367] EE also received a warning from @user:Hemiauchenia [368]. EE's edits on Samurai continue to be much larger than any other edit EE has made. Most of EE's other edits were reverted by other users.[369] Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't help thinking this is connected to our latest CTOP area although their edits so far have been disconnected enough I'm not comfortable giving them an alert. Nil Einne (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I suspect there might be a connection, but without better evidence, I suggest handling it as if Ethiopian Epic is a new user who doesn't understand how things work. I don't know how to collaborate with an editor who refuses to use the talk page and thinks two word edit summaries are enough explanation for large reverts. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I have invited them to come discuss their edits on ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to let you know, Epic responded on my talk page.[370] Is this usual behaviour for new editors? Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Why are you moving the goalposts? You said I refused to discuss edits but that's not true I made a section. I just want to improve the article. Ethiopian Epic (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not moving goalposts. You made a large revert and I have asked you to discuss it on Talk:Samurai, which you still haven't done, despite you posting a message on my talk page asking me to discuss this issue there. Granted, once you post there, I might have more questions. That really isn't what is meant by "moving the goalposts." It should be clear that an explanation of your revert is the first step. Please read wp:communicate. Thank you. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

You are moving the goalposts. First you made the incorrect assertion that I was refusing to engage in discussion, which is untrue. I started a discussion but you are refusing to tell me your issues with my edits which is bizarre.

Now you suggesting my discussion is in the wrong spot which I think is wrong but also seems nitpicky. It seems like you are not really trying to collaborate with others very much. Ethiopian Epic (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I am trying a new approach. I removed just the line that has already been disputed and linked to the discussion. I have already linked to this discussion area on EE's talk page, so I am not sure it will work. I have also added more sources to support my position. I have already had to deal with one editor on this page, where I had the feeling that I was putting a lot more work into answering his challenges, then he was in making them. The article needs a lot of work and it is frustrating when one doesn't know why things are being reverted. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz This continues to be a issue. I tried restoring only the parts that had a citation, and giving an explanation in the edit summary, because EE was ignoring the article talk page. EE reverted again and asks for quotes from "this".[371] I am not what "this" means. There are three sources cited, and one has the relevant section in the first few lines. EE has replaced cited text with claims that have no sources. EE also replied to on the talk page, but the reply was I disagree and basically asking me to prove a negative.[372] I had already given a bunch of evidence. I have done a lot of work, but seem stuck trying to guess what Epic's objections are. EE also has now edited the List of foreign-born samurai in Japan. EE undid reverted to a version that had been added by drive by users, but goes against consensus and the RS. The edit summary was vague.[373]. @Nil Einne does this change your mind about the CTOP? Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Even if there's not direct evidence this is part of the Yasuke CTOP, it seems suspiciously like the issues around that editing topic. If nothing else, EE's repeated edit-warring to enforce their preferred wording & removal of cited sources should result in a topic-ban from samurai articles, broadly construed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Tinynanorobots was editing-warring.[374][375][376][377][378] When I went to his talk page to figure out why, he dodged the question and refused to tell me any specific issue that was wrong with the changes which is confusing to me.

From what I can see from looking at his edits Tinynanorobots only edits these articles and has previous issues with edit warring. Ethiopian Epic (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

A topic ban would probably solve the problem. Although someone should probably explain how things work, especially where the right place to discuss things are. EE hasn't really discussed anything specifically. Just looking at the posts, one wouldn't know that we were discussing samurai.[379] EE also keeps saying false things. Such as claiming to have created a section or claiming to be just removing uncited text[380]. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Numerous factual errors here.

"because EE was ignoring the article talk page"

I responded on both the article talk page and in the discussion I started on your talk page[381] where you still refuse to go into detail on what exactly the issue is. I hope that you will.

"There are three sources cited"

I didn't see the text in any of the sources which is why I asked for a quote. Why do you have an issue with providing a page number?

"EE undid reverted to a version that had been added by drive by users"

No I undid an edit that was made without consensus where multiple sources were removed.[382]

Ethiopian Epic (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I've restored what I believe is the article's status quo version. Ethiopian Epic, who's made several contentious edits with summaries that never actually explain anything, keeps insisting they're the only one who isn't sealioning here. This has gone on for weeks and it started with an impossibly aggressive edit to Samurai, which appears headed to a CTOP designation, that had a summary of "Some improvements." That's something else. City of Silver 01:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I will wait for Tinynanorobots to reply to the talk page discussion. Ethiopian Epic (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ethiopian Epic: You're most welcome! Although I'm not sure why you replied to me since my message wasn't for you. No, I'm trying to get administrators to respond to the barrage of bullying you've perpetrated against Tinynanorobots lately. I wish I hadn't felt the need to leave that highly aggressive edit summary when I reverted you at Samurai but you've been sealioning so much that I genuinely don't believe you're open to a real discussion. Prove me wrong by stopping editing that article in any way until the discussion at its talk page has come to a resolution. City of Silver 07:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Tinynanorobots hostile behavior and problems

Without engaging in any discussion with me or asking any questions Tinynanorobots made a strange thread about me accusing me of something I don't understand.[383] I'm not sure what the purpose was but in retrospect it seems like it was an attempt to intimidate me or scare me off. I think if he was attempting to work with others he would've just asked me? Anyway.

All of the admins there told him that there was no issue. Despite that, not long after he made one again[384] with a false claim that I am refusing to discuss edits but that's not true. I started a discussion with him to understand why he edit-warred, but he refused to tell me any specific issue that was wrong with the changes which is confusing to me and bizarre.

I don't have a reason to assume he's not a nice person but it seems like he is spamming these reports just so he can scare me off or get his way on the articles he likes.

Edit: I checked Tinynanorobot's history and he has a history of this kind of behavior. I don't have the full context so I will just direct quote:

Aquillion:

Tinynanorobots edit-warring

Despite the RFC's conclusion, Tinynanorobots repeatedly edit-warred to remove references to Samurai from the end of the lead. [385][386][387]

WP:DEADHORSE / WP:BLUDGEON repetition of issues settled in the RFC

• Tinynanorobots (talk · contribs): [388][389]

Gitz:

Edit war

Tinynanorobots (TR) removed CNN because unreliable source [390] (they also removed one mention of "samurai" - unexplained, tagged as minor edit [391]).

• TR removes: [392][393][394][395][396][397]

It looks like people saw fit to complain about Tinynanorobot's behavior before. I don't really mind but it might be useful to some. Ethiopian Epic (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

This smacks as a retaliatory grab-bag of anything EE didn't like. The BLUDGEON diffs don't seem to be anything of the kind. The "edit war" doesn't seem to be anything of the sort. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

None of these edits are at all recent. However, the very recent Arbitration case into Yasuke makes it abundantly clear that bludgeoning and feuding are to be avoided here. I would suggest that @Ethiopian Epic would be wise to de-escalate. Simonm223 (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Those are some of the complaints from people about Tinynanorobots. I think it would be good to deescalate too. I don't have strong feelings about any of it or TR. He made multiple threads with wrong claims to see what would stick which feels like a bullying tactic especially because he was edit-warring. So I felt I had to do a response in this one. Currently there is no issue right now I am just waiting for talk page discussion which seems like a good approach. I hope everyone gets along. Ethiopian Epic (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Uncivil behaviour by DarthRad

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

---

User DarthRad (talk · contribs) has been extremely uncivil. He made edits to Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird and left derogatory comments on the talk page at Talk:Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird#Correction_of_Factual_Error_about_Acquisition_of_Titanium. I disagreed with a substantial part of his edit, so I reverted him, as per WP:BRD and contributed to the discussion in a civil and constructive manner. DarthRad undid multiple reverts from myself and other editors and left more derogatory comments. He was specifically hostile to me and was not willing to let any of his edit be undone or changed in any way. He refuses to back down on any point and continues to leave derogatory remarks, including on my talk page (see [398]) and his own talk page (see User_talk:DarthRad#November_2024). He was banned for 48 hours but when it expired he continued in the same manner. He has been advised many times to be more civil. He has had WP:BRD and WP:CIVIL explained to him multiple times at length but apparently believes that any change to his edits is vandalism and labels it as such loudly.  Stepho  talk  08:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Stepho-wrs, the more diffs you can provide, the easier it is to evaluate your complaints. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

His original edit to the article was not uncivil. However, his talk page comments were quite uncivil:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALockheed_SR-71_Blackbird&diff=1257947618&oldid=1236289841 His first entry on SR-71 talk page.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALockheed_SR-71_Blackbird&diff=1257955879&oldid=1257953038 His reply to me.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AStepho-wrs&diff=1257956361&oldid=1255582219 His message on my talk page
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALockheed_SR-71_Blackbird&diff=1258931521&oldid=1258008061 His first reply after his 48 hour ban expired.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADarthRad&diff=1258970114&oldid=1257956796 His comments about me on his own talk page.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALockheed_SR-71_Blackbird&diff=1258963170&oldid=1258946681 His reply after being advised to be civil.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALockheed_SR-71_Blackbird&diff=1259423787&oldid=1259102024 His reply to constructive suggestions.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALockheed_SR-71_Blackbird&diff=1259455254&oldid=1259440881 His reply to further constructive suggestions and my warning that I would report him if he called me a vandal again.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird&diff=1257955082&oldid=1257953173 An undoing of a revert to the SR-71 article. The edit summary had to be removed (I do not know what the comment was).

The comment let on my talk page was removed by another editor (administrator?) but all other comments can be read on the SR-71 talk page and his own talk page in the context that they were written.  Stepho  talk  10:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea who (if anyone) is right about the underlying content issue, but can see that DarthRad has not been editing in a constructive way. If you can't talk about things civilly and on the basis of reliable sources then a block seems to be the only possibility. And it doesn't matter what expertise someone may claim: we have no way of checking anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

On User talk:DarthRad#November 2024, DarthRad said, "I don't believe that screaming at a Vandal for Vandalism is a Bad Thing or Unjustified." Screaming at anyone is a Bad Thing. Ultimately, Stepho solved the conflict despite DarthRad's ranting, not because of it. Toughpigs (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked DarthRad for one week for personal attacks and harassment. Ranting and raving and making false accusations of vandalism are unacceptable behaviors. Cullen328 (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Dantai Amakiir using personal attacks to restart contentious arguments

• Complaint against: Dantai Amakiir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Issued by: CeltBrowne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Black Irish (folklore) and its talk page Talk:Black Irish (folklore) has, by far, been the most contentious subject I've been involved with in numerous years of editing Wikipedia. The vast majority of what I'm involved in on Wikipedia has been pleasant and mundane. With this topic however I've found the heated and lengthy arguments on the talk page extremely draining, and as a result, I made the conscious decision earlier in the year to reduce my involvement with the article and focus my efforts elsewhere on Wikipedia. My User contributions page can demonstrate that while I remain highly active on Wikipedia since then, it has been in other areas.

Last night, I made my first edit to Black Irish (folklore) in 6 months, in what I believe is a fairly non-continuous edit [399], in which some content was moved to a new subsection was created, and some uncited material was tagged (not removed) with a CN template. Following this edit, User:Dantai Amakiir accused me of trolling and of WP:Ownership in this comment [400]. I believe these comments to be personal attacks and non-constructive, as no attempts has been made to outline how things should be done differently or even what was wrong with the edit. They also did not attempt to "correct" my edit with an edit of their own. Additionally, I believe the only purpose of these comments is to restart past arguments.

Dantai Amakiir has been previously asked by other users to stop making personal attacks against me, such as by User:Bastun in Talk:Black Irish (folklore)/Archive 1#NPOV, Misrepresented Sources etc. In that same thread, Dantai Amakiir accused me of gross misrepresentation and manipulation of sources (which I believe is a very serious accusation to level against another user). A thorough investigation by User:Boardwalk.Koi found that not to be the case, and that what I had written was in a good faith and did not suffer from POV issues. No apology, retraction or conciliatory comment was offered thereafter. Dantai Amakiir continued to make accusations on the same talkpage against me thereafter, such as an WP:Ownership claim, but I purposely did not engage.

While making the accusation that I am effectively "sitting" on the article; I will note that Dantai Amakiir has had very little engagement on Wikipedia other than this topic in the last year.

The purpose of talk pages is to outline what specific changes can be made to the article to improve it, not hurl insults at other users who you disagree with. I have disengaged greatly from this article, however, I do not believe Dantai Amakiir should be allowed bully me off the article completely and be allowed to make continuously make personal attacks rather than outlining how the article could be improved.

I would ask that an Administrator reprimand Dantai Amakiir for those personal attacks, and direct them to making constructive feedback instead. CeltBrowne (talk) 11:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

CeltBrowne, there is a very large and hard to miss notice whenever you edit this page telling you to notify the editor(s) you are referring to; you have not done so. I have just notified Dantai Amakiir for you; please do not neglect this if you come to ANI again. Thanks ~ Lindsay^Hello 16:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

My apologises; I had an appointment earlier today and wrote the above in a bit of a rush so that I could make it in time. I won't make the same mistake again. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Request for Review of Bias, Page Vandalism and Edit-Warring on the Hamis Kiggundu Page

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

---

Dear Administrators,

I have been closely studying the edit patterns on the Hamis Kiggundu page and have observed persistent edit warring, bias, and obstruction against updates or constructive contributions to the article. These patterns, primarily led by a specific user, Timtrent, have hindered the development of the page and undermined Wikipedia’s principles of neutrality, collaboration, and open editing. Below are my key concerns, supported by Wikipedia’s edit history:

• Persistent Disputes on Edit Requests

Since the page was extended-confirmed-protected in June 2024 (following Timtrent’s request after another editor restored the featured image, which had been removed due to reverts by Timtrent and others to a 2021 version), Timtrent has consistently opposed all edit requests, regardless of their compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines.

The current two edit requests, both well-referenced and policy-compliant, are being disputed without valid reasoning. These disputes discourage collaboration, prevent timely updates to the page, and undermine the spirit of inclusivity seen in other prominent figures' pages globally.

• Disruptive Behavior and Vandalism

In June 2024, Timtrent, along with another user, Davey2010, removed several edits, including the featured image, which had been part of the article for three years. These actions erased valuable contributions and disrupted the page’s integrity.

Additionally, Timtrent tagged several contributors for suspected sockpuppetry. However, a CU check found no evidence to support these claims, suggesting an attempt to intimidate and stifle legitimate contributions.

• Labeling Ugandan Mainstream Media as Churnalism

Timtrent has consistently dismissed Ugandan mainstream media sources by labeling their reports as "churnalism." This dismissive attitude disregards the fact that when something notable happens, it is widely reported in local media. If Ugandan mainstream media Houses such as New Vision, Daily Monitor, NBS TV, Uganda Radio Network, NTV Uganda, among others, are deemed unreliable, should editors wait for the time international outlets such as BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, Bloomberg, or The New York Times to report on Ugandan topics/Subjects before making updates? should all articles based on reports from those media houses be removed/reduced as Hamis Kiggundu was done? Such a standard marginalizes local perspectives and undermines the representation of Ugandan topics on Wikipedia. This approach violates Wikipedia’s policy on reliable sources, which recognizes the validity of reputable local media. If applied universally, this bias would force most Ugandan articles to revert to outdated content from 2020 or earlier as the case was done with this.

• Misuse of Paid Editing Allegations

While paid editing is permissible when disclosed and compliant with guidelines, Timtrent has however weaponized this policy by broadly accusing editors of being undisclosed paid contributors or spammers (For the Disclosing ones). This subject is already broadly notable, his notability is far beyond the Wikipedia criteria and requirements but According to Timtrent, anyone editing the page is either a non-disclosing paid editor or a paid spammer, a justification he used when removing three years of contributions in June 2024. This tactic creates a hostile environment, discourages good-faith contributions, and obstructs necessary updates to the page.

• Impact on Contributors and the Article

Due to these actions, many editors now refrain from contributing to the Hamis Kiggundu page for fear of being falsely accused or blocked. As a result, the page remains outdated, with most content dating back to 2020 or earlier, despite significant developments regarding the subject.

• Conflict of Interest and Open Bias

Timtrent’s actions display open bias against the Hamis Kiggundu page and the subject itself, creating unnecessary barriers to constructive editing. These actions are in direct contravention of Wikipedia’s purpose and its Terms of Use, which emphasize neutrality and collaboration.

Where necessary, I request that Timtrent recuse themselves from the Hamis Kiggundu page due to their demonstrated conflict of interest, bias, and repeated obstruction of updates to the page.

• Request for Administrator Action

To address this issue and uphold Wikipedia’s principles, I kindly request the following:

• Review Timtrent’s Conduct: Evaluate whether their edit disputes, labeling of Ugandan media, and accusations align with Wikipedia’s guidelines on neutrality and reliable sources.
• Assign Neutral Editors: Appoint impartial administrators or editors to review the edit requests and ensure fair treatment of contributions to the page.
• End Edit Wars and Bias: Take appropriate measures to put an end to the edit-warring and biased campaign against updates to the Hamis Kiggundu article.

• If necessary, Reassess Extended Protection: Revisit the necessity of extended-confirmed-protection on this page, as it appears to have been weaponized to suppress legitimate contributions.

Broader Implications This situation highlights a broader issue affecting Ugandan topics on Wikipedia, where local sources are dismissed, and updates are obstructed due to similar biases. I urge administrators to ensure that Wikipedia remains a collaborative and inclusive platform for representing all subjects, regardless of geographic or cultural origin.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Wikipedia’s edit history serves as sufficient evidence to support these concerns, and I look forward to your intervention to resolve this issue. Proedin (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Proedin: Per the ToU you agree to when contributing here, you need to disclose who is paying your if you want to contribute here especially when you are opening ANI threads. If you are unwilling to do that, then don't contribute. Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention drop the use of ChatGPT in lieu of legitimate communication. JayCubby Talk 17:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

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

WP:FORUM and WP:NPA actions by IP

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

---

197.91.18.157 (talk · contribs) has consistently placed WP:FORUM and WP:NPA edits throughout their edit history. See these particularly WP:NOTHERE insertions:

• [401]
• [402]
• [403]
• [404]
• [405]

Borgenland (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for one week for an obvious WP:BLP violation at Talk: Christopher Langan, plus WP:NOTAFORUM behavior and uncollaborative belligerence. Cullen328 (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Violating the five pillars of Wikipedia

• זור987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dear administrators, I was redirected here from Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring by DatGuy.

Using repeated words against me like "dumb user", "trolling", "Complete nonsense" and "rude user", violates the fourth rule of the five pillars of Wikipedia.

I explained the editing of the article with these words: "SD does not meet the criteria. Tagging Adolphus79 who explained it here. The user has already been blocked from editing Yarden Gerbi due to continuous edit wars. His request to delete a video in commons was also declined."

The right step was to avoid edit warring. User:זור987 has not had ownership upon any article nor any Wikipedia. I am eligible to write any article I wish, which meets the criteria of that WP. Blaming me writing articles of any kind is also against the five pillars.

Dovno, who was a bureaucrat in the He WP, has already warned זור987 from editing Alex Fridman and Disabled, Not Half a Human Being in Hebrew, as shown here. Here I add that זור987 proposed "Disabled, Not Half a Human Being" for deletion in the En WP.
זור987 also put a notability template upon "Disabled, Not Half a Human Being" in the He WP, but was declined.

Erez Da Drezner meets the WP:NMODEL #1 and #2 criteria. The article describes visits of Da Drezner in two different hospitals in Ukraine, and his other deeds. The article also was written in February 5, 2021 and has not to be speedy deleted in 2024.

Therefore, I ask to block זור987, or at least block him from editing this article and its talk page. Thank you, --DgwTalk 13:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Dorian Gray Wild, tracking, stalking and rude to me all over the Wiki. Every edit that I doing on his articles, resulting in his revertings and now, he treating me with blocking about legitimate things that I've done in the Hebrew Wikipedia.

I think that someone needs to ask in Wikimedia to globally block this user. זור987 (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

OK so this is *not* the appropriate venue to discuss edit conflicts on Hebrew Wikipedia. The only thing I'll note is that this AfD looks malformed. I'd suggest going and fixing it so that it's properly indexed. Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I have fixed the AfD nomination but have not investigated its merits. TSventon (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Simonm223, the words "a dumb user", "trolling", "Complete nonsense" and "This rude user" as well as "rude to me" were written by זור987 in the En WP, not in the He WP.

I was not rude to זור987, as I did not use any incorrect word.

I did not stalk anybody. FastilyBot notified me the speedy deletion, which was not legal as indicated here.

זור987's thought that "someone needs to ask in Wikimedia to globally block this user" is not legal neither, because he did not notify my talk page. DgwTalk 14:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

A 2-way i-ban might be a good remedy here. Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

User:זור987 needs to provide evidence (from enwiki) of his claims here to see if there is anything sanctionable in User:Dorian Gray Wild's edits. But the reverse is obvious, User:זור987 needs at the very least a strong warning, for things like this edit summary (they aren't supposed to reinstate a Prod tag either, but that's just something that needs explaining). And looking at the editor interactions on enwiki[406], there are only two articles where they have both edited, and in both cases the articles were created by Dorian Gray Wild and he was followed there by זור987. So it looks like זור987's claims that Dorian is "tracking, stalking and rude to me all over the Wiki." is (at least on enwiki) a rather blatant attempt to reverse reality. No two-way interaction ban is warranted here, the behaviour of only one participant is a real issue apparently. Fram (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Dorian Gray Wild have a history in the Hebrew Wikipedia of being rude, threatening, stalking and tracking users including me. Hence he is blocked permanently there, including his talk page. Matanya even globally blocked him.

After the user managed to dodge his global locking, he continued to stalk and track me even here, including Erez Da Drezner, where he tried to cancel the purposed deletion of it, by removing the template. Since he have no any administrator right to do so, I reverted his action. He generally have a tendency to write article about the disability in Israel, including persons and organizations which mostly don't have any encyclopedic importance outside the Hebrew Wikipedia. In the case of Erez Da Drezner, this person don't have an article in the Hebrew Wikipedia and have no important achievements, and because of this, I think Dorian should be globally blocked once again. Unfortunately, Matanya is no longer a dale in Wikimedia, and there are no other Hebrew speaking dales in Wikimedia, which can help me. זור987 (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

"he continued to stalk and track me even here, including Erez Da Drezner": you are quite liberal with the truth here. He created that article, and you are the one that "stalked and tracked" them on enwiki (in both articles where you both edited). Every editor has the right to remove a Proposed deletion, you don't need to be an admin to do so, and no one may normally reinstate it. We will not locally block anyone for writing a perfectly normal about a person who doesn't have a Hebrew Wikipedia article and may or may not be really notable, nor for being stalked and insulted by you, and not even for being blocked on Hebrew Wikipedia. Admins here may block you though, for stalking, insulting, and trying to place the blame for this on someone else even when this is pointed out to you. Fram (talk) 11:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

There are tons of things in the English Wikipedia which I don't know about them, because they are false in the Hebrew Wikipedia. זור987 (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Then you need to learn our policies here, or stick to Hebrew Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Fram for your words.

זור987 stalked me everywhere, and followed an AfD in the It WP. They claimed that "Disabled, Not Half a Human Being" was not exist in Italian. Afterwards, he changed "Disabled, Not Half a Human Being" into "נכה, לא חצי בן אדם" in the En WP. How could the English reader read the words "נכה, לא חצי בן אדם" in the middle of the En article? זור987 could put a ref, stating that it was not an official name in English. It really does not matter anyone. Let us read an article about a Brazilian organization whose name is Brazilian Association for Self-Defense. Is it the official name in English? No source supports it.

Furthermore, the article said clearly that it was a slogan. How could זור987 claim "No official names for Alex Fridman association in other languages" for a slogan? It is almost vandalism.

I ask the administrators to block זור987 from any interaction with articles which I created. If זור987 sees something which bothers him, he may consult another editor, and that editor will think about it. --DgwTalk 22:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

From your words, I can see how you tracking me in the Wiki. How do you know that I followed an AfD in the Italian Wikipedia regarding to your article "Disabled, Not Half a Human Being", if I didn't participated in it? You don't have an admin rights there, so if you uses illegal ways to track me there, so you indeed tracking and stalking me, and this should be stopped. זור987 (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

זור987, I think we've heard enough allegations from you. Drmies (talk) 14:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello Drmies, I am sorry to tell that זור987 violated the one way interaction ban which was written here, by editing it and it. זור987 is not allowed to change or edit Alex Fridman in any way.

I have already consulted Liz how to write the name of the organization correctly, and they referred me to the proper guideline. I have read it just now, and went to edit the organization name in the correct way, but זור987 interfered me, although he was not allowed to do so. Please block זור987 for one week, so I can finish the editings of Alex Fridman and another article which was deleted and was restored by Liz. Thank you, DgwTalk 16:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for one week for violating WP:IBAN. --Yamla (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Yamla. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Propose one-way Interaction Ban between זור987 and Dorian Gray Wild

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

---

It is clear that זור987 has been stalking Dorian Gray Wild on enwiki, and to make matters worse claims the exact opposite in the face of all the evidence. While only enwiki behaviour is really important for an enwiki sanction, it does look like they have been following Dorian Gray Wild to other sister projects as well[407]. Coupled with the blatant personal attacks, I see no reason to let זור987 continue to make any edits related to Dorian Gray Wild or the articles Dorian has edited. As Dorian Gray Wild has done nothing wrong towards זור987, there is no reason to make this a two-way ban, but obviously it would be best if they leave זור987 alone on enwiki. Fram (talk) 09:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support clearly disruptive behaviour supported with flimsy excuses. Not good enough. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment What's worse is that in April 2024, זור987 went to a Steward's User talk page on Meta (see here), asking for Dorian Gray Wild to be globally blocked from the entire WikiMedia project because Dorian Gray Wild was insulting and stalking זור987 on the English Wikipedia. I see no evidence of that that has been presented in this discussion and, in fact, it looks like the harrassment is going in the opposite direction. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Liz for your comment. I emailed to you about an En WP rule which was not clear to me. DgwTalk 07:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support זור987 has already been warned regarding me.

זור987 also requested דוד שי to block me from my talk page, claiming that I told Senior baron about the deletion request. The Hebrew title which זור987 used for his application was: "Emergency! Someone has undone the global block of the user Dorian Gray Wild!" (!Dorian Gray Wild מצב חירום! מישהו ביטל את החסימה הגלובלית של המשתמש).

Telling Senior baron about a DR is not a reason to block me from my own talk page. זור987 also claimed that I "followed" the He WP admin PurpleBuffalo who had asked ערן, another admin, to block the IP range of the troll who imported his trolling into my talk page, which lasted there for more than two years. The troll page is here.

The result was that זור987 practically supported a declared troll by returning its trolling, claiming that I had not archived it. In the end, a third He WP admin deleted the trolling. As expected, זור987 asked also the third admin why they did it. DgwTalk 07:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually, User:Dorian Gray Wild, I asked זור987 not to import disputes from the Hebrew Wikipedia here and I'm going to tell you the same. For one thing, different Wikipedia has different rules from each other and plus, we don't know the admins you are referring to. Best to keep your evidence limited to what has happened here. I just added the mention to Meta to show זור987's persistence in trying to get you sanctioned. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. The beginning said that the user has already been warned in the En WP by the admin El C, who is still an active admin. DgwTalk 09:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Complaint Against User:L5boat for Misrepresenting Historical Facts on the Kannappa

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

---

I would like to report User:L5boat for repeatedly altering the content of the Kannappa article to include historically inaccurate and misleading information. Despite providing evidence and engaging in constructive edits, this user continues to manipulate the page in a way that distorts established historical facts. Below are the key points of concern and evidence of these actions:

Issue: Inclusion of "Telugu" Language and Andhra Pradesh: At the time of Kannappa's existence, the language Telugu did not exist in its modern form, nor was the state of Andhra Pradesh created (it was established in 1953). However, Tamil was the predominant language during Kannappa's time, as supported by historical and literary evidence. Associating Kannappa with Telugu and Andhra Pradesh is factually incorrect, misrepresents historical context, and misleads readers.

Motivation: These edits appear to stem from false regional pride rather than adherence to historical accuracy. History should not be rewritten to suit personal or cultural biases. Wikipedia should maintain factual and unbiased information, not speculative or regionally motivated narratives.

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kannappa&diff=prev&oldid=1259453931

Actions Taken: I have reverted the inaccurate edits and provided detailed evidence in the edit summaries and talk page discussions to clarify the inaccuracies. I have cited reliable sources and historical references to substantiate my corrections.

Request: I request administrative intervention to address this issue as it disrupts the integrity of the article and violates Wikipedia’s core content policies, including:

Neutral Point of View (NPOV): The edits introduce bias by promoting a particular regional narrative. Verifiability: The claims made by the user are not supported by credible sources. No Original Research: The edits are speculative and lack historical backing.

I kindly ask that:

A warning be issued to User: L5boat to refrain from adding unsupported and misleading content. The page be monitored or temporarily protected to prevent further manipulation. Any existing false edits be reverted to reflect accurate and verifiable historical information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sroheethicloud (talk • contribs) 08:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• I haven't got time to look at this closely now, but a quick look suggests the word "boomerang" is going to be involved quite quickly. I'll check back later if no-one else has acted. Black Kite (talk) 08:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sroheethicloud as directed at the top of this page, you are supposed to inform the user on their talk page about the discussion. I have done it this time for you. Please remember it the next time you come here. Also, consider signing your comments, everytime. Thank you. ShaanSengupta^Talk 08:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Shaan!

People who manipulate history often exhibit rudeness, as their actions are driven by false pride rooted in region, language, or caste. I made an effort to avoid confrontation, knowing that individuals with such a mindset often react aggressively or belittle those who challenge their views.

I hope we can honor the legacy of Kannappa Nayanmar. He was a revered Tamil saint and one of the Nayanmars celebrated by Tamil people. The Nayanmars were uniquely chosen within the Tamil Shaivite tradition, and preserving this historical truth is essential. BhajaGovindam (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Contrary to the allegations leveled against me, it is Sroheethicloud who has been involved in Wikipedia:POV-PUSH edits. For example, the user insists on using "Kannappan Nayanar," "Kannappan," and "Thinnan" as standard names in the article, but these are merely regional variants. "Kannappa," as the title suggests, is the standard spelling used in academic and media sources.

An important point is that I have added two citations from a scholar on South Indian temples and associated legends, who specifically researched the Srikalahasti temple and Kannappa. The source clearly states: "Its chief was Natha-nàtha. He begot by his wife, Tande, a son, named Tinna. Tinna grew into a fine youth, skilled in archery and interested in hunting." This confirms that Kannappa's birth name is "Tinna." However, Sroheethicloud altered it to "Thinnan," a Tamil variant, completely disregarding the cited material and the original quote on Kannappa's given name.

Similarly, Sroheethicloud added the claim, "He was born around 3102Bc in south India (sic)," which is an absurd and extraordinary assertion. The year 3102 BC corresponds to the early Bronze Age in India, specifically the Neolithic-Chalcolithic period in Southern India. This claim is so extraordinary that it predates all scholarly consensus on the emergence of Saivism itself, which is believed to have developed in the first millennium BC. Despite the implausibility of this claim, it was added directly into the lead section without a single citation, either scholarly or otherwise. I would advise you to review the content added and assess who is actually misrepresenting history here. L5boat (talk) 09:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

On Citing M. Rama Rao’s Book:

The citations provided by L5boat are from a single source—M. Rama Rao, a scholar from Andhra Pradesh, whose book was published in 1970. While the book mentions Kannappa, it naturally adopts a regional perspective, using shortened Telugu names or associating Kannappa with Andhra Pradesh, which was created only in 1953.

A single source, especially one that may contain regional biases, cannot be considered definitive when it conflicts with broader historical evidence. Kannappa is well-documented as a Tamil Nayanar saint, and multiple scholarly works, such as Periya Puranam by Sekkizhar and Slaves of the Lord: The Path of the Tamil Saints by Vidya Dehejia, emphasize his association with Tamil Shaivism.

On the Claim of 3102 BC:

The assertion that I added the claim about Kannappa’s birth in 3102 BC is entirely false. I urge you to refer back to the revision history of the page, which clearly shows that this claim was added by another editor and not me. This misrepresentation distracts from the actual issue of L5boat’s edits introducing inaccurate Telugu and Andhra Pradesh associations.

On Tamil References at the Srikalahasti Temple:

Anyone who has visited the Srikalahasti Temple will note that the interior walls are engraved in Tamil, consistent with its historical connection to Tamil Shaivism. There is no credible evidence linking Kannappa to Telugu or Andhra Pradesh during his time.

This attempt to overwrite Tamil historical and cultural context with modern regional narratives undermines the integrity of the article and is a form of historical manipulation.

On Name Variants ("Kannappan," "Kannappa," and "Thinnan"):

The names "Kannappan," "Kannappa," and "Thinnan" are standard Tamil variations that appear in multiple Tamil texts, particularly Periya Puranam. The claim that I am altering Kannappa’s name incorrectly is misleading. Rather, I am preserving the accurate Tamil spellings that align with the saint’s origins and historical significance.

My Key Points:

L5boat's reliance on a single source (M. Rama Rao) from Andhra Pradesh is insufficient to support their claims, especially when contrasted with established Tamil references.

Their claim about 3102 BC is baseless and wrongly attributed to me. The revision history clearly shows otherwise.

Historical and physical evidence, such as Tamil inscriptions at the Srikalahasti Temple, firmly ties Kannappa to Tamil culture and Shaivism, not Telugu or Andhra Pradesh.

This repeated manipulation of historical facts, driven by regional bias, violates Wikipedia’s core principles of Neutral Point of View and Verifiability.

I respectfully request administrators to thoroughly review the references and edits in question and take appropriate action to preserve the accuracy and integrity of the article. BhajaGovindam (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

3102bc was introduced by the editor Murthi-inc, not by me.

Diff link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kannappa&diff=prev&oldid=1258779128 BhajaGovindam (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

On Name Variants

Names are included based on mentions in reliable English-language sources, not regional language sources. This ensures consistency and credibility in representing historical and cultural subjects.

On 3102 BC

The claim of 3102 BC was introduced by Sroheethicloud in [[408]] edit. When the user reverted my changes, he re-added the 3102 BC claim. This highlights the addition of an extraordinary assertion without any credible basis.

On Periya Puranam

I did not alter the content regarding Kannappa being revered in Tamil traditions or his mentions in the Periya Puranam. That content remains unchanged. On the other hand, it was Sroheethicloud who attempted to remove references to Kannappa's reverence in Telugu folklore and Andhra Pradesh, thus excluding significant cultural perspectives. L5boat (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Here are my citations and references to support the correct name of background of Kannappa Nayanar:

Supporting References for Kannappa’s Tamil Shaivite Background:

1. Primary Sources:
   • Sekkizhar, Periya Puranam, Tamil Text Society, ISBN 978-8192880789.
   • Vidya Dehejia, Slaves of the Lord: The Path of the Tamil Saints, ISBN 978-8121500449.
2. Scholarly Articles and Historical Texts:
   • Swami Sivananda: First Ever Eye Donor
   • Basti S., “First Ever Eye Donor: A Lesson From Indian History and Kannappa Nayanar.” Journal of Refractive Surgery, 1994;10(1):56-57. DOI: 10.3928/1081-597X-19940101-14.
   • Murthy, V.K., 2021. ‘PANCABHŪTA STHALA LIÑGA KṚTIS’OF SRI MUTHUSWĀMY DIKSHITAR. Deśa Kāla Emerging Trends in Performing Arts Vol II, p.32. (Harvard Library Reference).
3. Academic Resources:
   • University of Malaya: Link
   • Kerala University MA Syllabus (Tamil Language and Literature): PDF Link.
   • Journal of American Oriental Society: Gale Link.

I can get more references.

On Name Variants:

Your statement that names are included based on reliable English-language sources rather than regional ones contradicts your reliance on M. Rama Rao’s book. While M. Rama Rao may have written in English, he is undeniably a regional figure from Andhra Pradesh, and his book reflects a regional bias, using Telugu terms and interpretations. This is evident in how it shortens and modifies names to fit a Telugu narrative, disregarding Tamil roots.

In contrast, the historical works of Sekkizhar’s Periya Puranam, Vidya Dehejia’s Slaves of the Lord: The Path of the Tamil Saints, and other scholarly sources widely document Kannappa as a Tamil Shaivite saint and one of the 63 Nayanmars. These sources, recognized across academic and historical contexts, are far more credible and consistent with established Tamil traditions.

On 3102 BC Claim:

Your claim that I introduced 3102 BC in [edit link 138] is entirely false. I urge you to review the edit history of the article. This claim predates my contributions and was not added by me. Misattributing this to me misrepresents my edits and shifts focus away from the actual inaccuracies in your edits.

On Periya Puranam:

While you claim not to have altered content regarding Kannappa’s reverence in Tamil traditions, your edits have inserted unfounded references to Telugu folklore and Andhra Pradesh, creating a distorted and misleading narrative. Adding Andhra Pradesh—a state that did not exist during Kannappa’s time—alongside Srikalahasti misrepresents historical facts.

Historical records, such as Tamil inscriptions in Srikalahasti Temple, clearly connect it with Tamil cultural heritage. Attempts to impose Telugu associations are speculative and lack evidence. BhajaGovindam (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you and Sroheethicloud both the same person? L5boat (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Sroheethicloud, you're unlikely to get a positive response to a complaint unless you provide diffs/edits of the behavior you are complaining about. You need to provide evidence that editors can review, not just provide a narrative statement of your side of the dispute. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  Evidence:

  Inclusion of "Telugu" as Kannappa’s Language:

  L5boat’s Edit: The user replaced Tamil with Telugu as Kannappa’s associated language and added claims linking him to Andhra Pradesh.

  Why This Is Incorrect: At the time of Kannappa’s existence, Tamil was the predominant language in South India. Telugu, as a distinct language, did not exist in its current form during his era. Historical texts, including Periya Puranam and Slaves of the Lord: The Path of the Tamil Saints by Vidya Dehejia, clearly identify Kannappa as part of the Tamil Shaivite tradition.

  Relevant Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kannappa&diff=prev&oldid=1259453931

  Citations Supporting Tamil’s Relevance:

  Vidya Dehejia, Slaves of the Lord: The Path of the Tamil Saints, ISBN 978-8121500449.

  Sekkizhar, Periya Puranam, Tamil Text Society, ISBN 978-8192880789.

  Association with Andhra Pradesh:

  L5boat’s Edit: The user added references suggesting that Kannappa was "closely connected with Andhra Pradesh" and born in a region that is now Andhra Pradesh.

  Why This Is Incorrect: Andhra Pradesh as a state was created only in 1953. During Kannappa’s time, the region was part of the Tamilakam cultural zone. Linking Kannappa to Andhra Pradesh imposes a modern political boundary onto historical events, which misleads readers.

  Relevant Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kannappa&diff=prev&oldid=1259453931.

  Citations Supporting Tamilakam’s Context:

  Nilakanta Sastri, The Colas, University of Madras, ISBN 978-8170901662.

  Examples of Problematic Edits (With Explanations):

  Line 4 Changes:

  Original: "Kannappan Nayanar is a legendary figure in Tamil language and South Indian folklore."

  L5boat’s Edit: Changed "Tamil" to "Telugu" and added "closely connected with the Srikalahasteeswara Temple in Andhra Pradesh."

  Explanation: The replacement of Tamil with Telugu is factually incorrect, as Kannappa’s devotion and inclusion in the Nayanar tradition are rooted in Tamil Shaivism. Srikalahasti was historically part of Tamilakam and not Andhra Pradesh.

  Life and Legend Section:

  Original: Kannappa was identified as a Tamil devotee associated with Tamil Shaivite traditions.

  L5boat’s Edit: Added that Kannappa was from a region "in what is now Andhra Pradesh."

  Explanation: This addition imposes a modern political boundary on an ancient figure. There is no historical basis for linking Kannappa to Andhra Pradesh, as his story is firmly rooted in Tamil traditions.

  Commemoration Section:

  Original: "Kannappa's devotion is revered in Tamil Shaivite traditions..."

  L5boat’s Edit: Added: "Apart from his native state Andhra Pradesh..."

  Explanation: Referring to Andhra Pradesh as his native state is ahistorical and misleading. Kannappa is commemorated exclusively as a Tamil Nayanar.

  Actions Taken:

  I reverted the inaccurate edits and restored references to Kannappa’s Tamil heritage based on reliable sources.

  I provided detailed explanations in the edit summaries and talk page discussions, referencing authoritative texts.

  Request:

  I request administrative intervention to address this issue as it violates Wikipedia’s core content policies:

  Neutral Point of View (NPOV): The edits promote a biased regional narrative.

  Verifiability: The claims are unsupported by credible historical sources.

  No Original Research: The additions are speculative and lack evidence.

  I kindly ask that:

  A warning be issued to User: L5boat to refrain from adding unsupported and misleading content.

  The page be monitored or temporarily protected to prevent further disruptive edits.

  All edits introducing Telugu and Andhra Pradesh associations be reverted to reflect accurate, verifiable information.

  Supporting References:

  Vidya Dehejia, Slaves of the Lord: The Path of the Tamil Saints, ISBN 978-8121500449.

  Sekkizhar, Periya Puranam, Tamil Text Society, ISBN 978-8192880789.

  Nilakanta Sastri, The Colas, University of Madras, ISBN 978-8170901662. BhajaGovindam (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sroheethicloud & @L5boat it is evident from the page revision history that both of you have engaged in edit warring and none of you have ever tried discussing the dispute on the talk page. Kindly consider that option. Also this seems more of a content dispute. @Liz plz see Talk:Kannappa. The thread heading by Sroheethicloud isn't very civil using the curse word. Maybe something needs to be done regarding that. Thank you. ShaanSengupta^Talk 08:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz@Shaan SenguptaI have not cursed, I have mentioned inaccurate manipulation will lead to curse for whoever does it, its a belief. I am not cursing here. Sorry if you understood that way. BhajaGovindam (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Why is it always articles about India/Indian history that seem to cause the most drama and disruption? — Czello ^(music) 09:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

C'mon Czello, everyone knows that the topics that cause the most drama and disruption are (in order): video games, beauty pageants, and "professional" wrestling. What we really need is an article about a video game featuring an intercaste beauty pageant in which contestants beat on one another with folding chairs in a ring. That would really put the fat in the fire. EEng 22:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. India, despite its challenges, stands out when it comes to unity at the district, state, or national level. While caste politics are prevalent and significant in certain states, this is not the case across all of India.

The debate here is about ensuring accurate representation of linguistic identity, not caste. I'm not sure how caste became part of this discussion. India has thousands of castes, yet none of them have compromised on the idea of national identity. This unity amidst diversity is what makes India truly unique. With a population of 1.4 billion, we embrace most major religions, countless castes, several races with historical roots, varying skin tones from North to South, hundreds of languages, and thousands of dialects. Racism, as seen elsewhere, is not a systemic issue in India, though human tendencies to discriminate based on various factors do exist (like everywhere else).

Despite this, Indians have consistently upheld national unity. Please don’t misinterpret or let preconceived notions cloud this reality. Consider other countries with smaller populations that struggle daily with similar issues. Even in the U.S., racism is deeply ingrained in certain states. By comparison, India fares much better in maintaining harmony and unity despite its vast diversity.

Beauty pageant beating each other with chairs from different castes, is a pettiest and lowest thought anyone can think of when it comes to India. BhajaGovindam (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

You forgot to mention India's long history as an exemplar of religious harmony. EEng 22:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Bcoz ppl here in India are very sensitive about their religious, cultural and linguistic identity. That's it. Coming to the dispute. This clearly is a content dispute and shouldnt be discussed here. Please go to the article talk page or the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard and sort it out. Also I don't find anything wrong in mentioning present day Andhra Pradesh. This is how we mention locations to ease it out for readers. Thank you. ShaanSengupta^Talk 09:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no issues with saying, Present Day Andhra Pradesh.

What L5boat had modified was as below (L5boat clearly calling out Kannappa's native state as Andhra Pradesh):

Apart from his native state Andhra Pradesh, Kannappa's devotion is also revered in Tamil Shaivite traditions. BhajaGovindam (talk) 09:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Shaan Sengupta: Your comments here are a violation of the topic ban from WP:ARBIPA that you agreed to as an unblock condition. Please disengage. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• I'd point out that the long-running version of this article didn't mention Tamil or Telugu in the lead paragraph, it was only introduced earlier this year and then persistently edit-warred over. For example, this revision. Black Kite (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• I agree that this is a content issue. Both of you, talk about it civilly (i.e. without the subheading that is there now) at Talk:Kannappa rather than edit-warring. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  Sure. My sources of references:

  Supporting References for Kannappa’s Tamil Shaivite Background:

  1. Primary Sources:
     • Sekkizhar, Periya Puranam, Tamil Text Society, ISBN 978-8192880789.
     • Vidya Dehejia, Slaves of the Lord: The Path of the Tamil Saints, ISBN 978-8121500449.
  2. Scholarly Articles and Historical Texts:
     • Swami Sivananda: First Ever Eye Donor
     • Basti S., “First Ever Eye Donor: A Lesson From Indian History and Kannappa Nayanar.” Journal of Refractive Surgery, 1994;10(1):56-57. DOI: 10.3928/1081-597X-19940101-14.
     • Murthy, V.K., 2021. ‘PANCABHŪTA STHALA LIÑGA KṚTIS’OF SRI MUTHUSWĀMY DIKSHITAR. Deśa Kāla Emerging Trends in Performing Arts Vol II, p.32. (Harvard Library Reference).
  3. Academic Resources:
     • University of Malaya: Link
     • Kerala University MA Syllabus (Tamil Language and Literature): PDF Link.
     • Journal of American Oriental Society: Gale Link.

  • Vidya Dehejia, Slaves of the Lord: The Path of the Tamil Saints, ISBN 978-8121500449.
  • Sekkizhar, Periya Puranam, Tamil Text Society, ISBN 978-8192880789.
  • Nilakanta Sastri, The Colas, University of Madras, ISBN 978-8170901662.

  BhajaGovindam (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  Most of it is already present in the article and I have retained them in my edits. L5boat (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Phil Bridger

  Even after all these discussions, L5boat has again modified the content without coming to an agreement. BhajaGovindam (talk) 10:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  Are you and Sroheethicloud the same person? L5boat (talk) 10:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  I created a topic, and we want a resolution. I respected your opinion and decision, however L5boat again going on with his version of the story.

  Can L5boat changes be reverted?

  Link to the Topic:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kannappa#Ensuring_Neutral_Representation_of_Kannappa%E2%80%99s_Cultural_and_Historical_Context BhajaGovindam (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  If you want to discuss, then fine. The current version is neutral as it does not mention any language and only refers to South Indian folklore. It also does not specify Andhra Pradesh as the native state. References to the Periya Puranam and Tamil Nayanmars are included. It is the most neutral version among recent edits. What else is needed? L5boat (talk) 10:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  If this is the most neutral approach, why was the original image on the page removed?

  Here is the diff for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kannappa&diff=prev&oldid=1256990097

  The image was sourced from the Thanjavur Museum (Source: https://vmis.in/ArchiveCategories/collection_gallery_zoom?id=859&search=1&index=51556&searchstring=deer ).

  How can anyone have such authority over a public resource like Wikipedia to make unilateral decisions? Why is there such bias that all original references to Tamil Nadu, including this historical artifact, are being removed? What justification is there for disregarding Tamil heritage? Even today, Tamil invocations are performed at temples like Tirumala, Srikalahasti, and Tiruchendur—temples originally built by the Pallavas and Cholas, and later expanded by the Vijayanagara empire. It’s worth noting that even the Vijayanagara rulers, despite their contributions, did not attempt to alter the historical significance of these temples or erase their Tamil roots. BhajaGovindam (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  Okay. You can re-add that image. It seems to have been lost during previous edits. I have no issue with including it. L5boat (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  I re-added the image. Its removal was inadvertent on my part. L5boat (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

References

It's pretty tedious seeing yet another of these obvious ChatGPT report templates being used to litigate a content dispute again. Suggest a WP:BOOMERANG may be in order. Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Sroheethicloud, are you or are you not the same person as BhajaGovindam, a name which seems to have been designed only to hide your user identity; a question which has been asked twice before in this thread? We need an answer. Narky Blert (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation opened. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

So the BhajaGovindam signature links all point to Sroheethicloud's user page. Furthermore there is no registered user at BhajaGovindam. I guess this is not technically sock-puppetry as there's only one account. It is, however, very odd that this user is manually changing their signature to a non-existent account. Between this, the ChatGPT "report" template, and the obvious time-wasting AN/I report for a clear edit dispute I'd suggest WP:NOTHERE applies. Simonm223 (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. I closed the report as in error. That explains my problems in getting the report fields to populate properly. I'll let a more experienced admin decide on what to do in this case. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

My username was originally Sroheethicloud, but I had renamed it to BhajaGovindam because Sroheethicloud was simply a user ID and didn't make sense. Is this an issue? This is how Wikipedia is designed—it allows users to rename their accounts, and it doesn't automatically then change the user ID and account name to sync. I use only log in ID to log in. BhajaGovindam (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

My username was originally Sroheethicloud, but I had renamed it to BhajaGovindam because Sroheethicloud was simply a user ID and didn't make sense. Is this an issue? This is how Wikipedia is designed—it allows users to rename their accounts, and it does then change the user ID and account name to remain the same. BhajaGovindam (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Did you make a rename request? Just changing your signature does nothing to the user name. See WP:UNC. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, makes sense. I will request for a rename. Thank you for letting me know. BhajaGovindam (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

You can lead a horse to water.... Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Somehow I've summoned the energy to read through this again. My advice to both parties:

1. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution should be used for the dispute. This is inherently a dispute about what should be in the article.
2. LLM-generated text insults the readers, as it makes it seem the person didn't put personal effort into writing a reasonable response.
3. Walls of text are counterproductive.
4. Getting mad at someone who disagrees with you is counterproductive.
5. The longer a discussion lasts on this noticeboard, the less likely it is to be productive. I suggest disengaging here and working together under one of the processes listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
6. If another more experienced admin believes action needs to be taken, I defer to them.

— rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I have an agreement with the editor L5boat now, and the article has been kept neutral. As far L5boat doesn't go about editing again by bringing in regional bias, we can close this dispute. BhajaGovindam (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Your first sentence was very good. However, your second sentence shows that you are not adhering to an important principle: Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Your editing career here could be short if you continue to make assumptions about other editors' motivations. This is a warning. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I adhere going forward. Assume good faith! BhajaGovindam (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Fantastic! Not only will it make it easier to navigate through disputes, it should increase your enjoyment here, because with that attitude, you are working with colleagues, not adversaries. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Appreciate your support and help reviewing the content and disputes to keep Wikipedia great! BhajaGovindam (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

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

"This project page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a page where the author of the only substantial content has requested deletion or blanked the page in good faith. The following explanation was offered: Accidentally created a duplicate AfD.. See CSD G7." over at Wikipedia:XfD today and other pages

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

---

Hi all,

This should most probably be over at WP:AN, but WP:AN/I is more visible, and this could probably be quickly fixed by any editor, as it appears to be some sort of Wikipedia:Transclusion thingy

Affected pages as of 9:50 AM UTC appear to include:

• Wikipedia:XfD_today#Iddaru_(2024)
• User:Abishe/AFD#Iddaru_(2024)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_November_26#Iddaru_(2024)

As far as I can see, this is related to a post somewhere by Sudheerbs, who I'll notify with me next edit.

Please feel free to rename this thread "Yet more gross incompetence by Shirt58 - how is this guy even an Admin?"

Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. ObserveOwl (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@ObserveOwl, CycloneYoris, and Sudheerbs: Thank you for your responses! Looks like this issue is pretty much resolved. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Tres Cañon

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

---

... has made over 70 edits, all of which have been adding useless spaces. No clue what they're doing but it's not very helpful. C F A 16:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Tres Cañon (talk · contribs) has made around 70 edits which just add white space to articles. All have been reverted, but he's still active after a final warning for editing tests. Dawnseeker2000 16:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked - they are welcome to explain their edits and we can consider an unblock, but this prevents ongoing disruption for now. GiantSnowman 16:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a sock of Jocer Blandino and should be globally locked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Whatif222 unblock

User:Whatif222 is requesting a review of their undecided unblock request (stale by about a week). They came and visited us on #wikipedia-en-help and I asked some questions about copyright policy (the reason for the block) on their talk page, of which they answered 100% correctly and in their own words. I think they know why it's wrong (they demonstrated this to me), they're really sorry and genuinely a helpful editor beyond copyright issues (as seen by accepted AfC submissions, helpful edits in contributions log) and it's time for a second chance. They've also been so kind and respectful to me and everyone else on IRC. Thanks! MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 10:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Just adding I'm happy to be a WP:MENTOR for them if that helps tip the scales in the "unblock" direction (I've offered to mentor them regardless on IRC) to help them adjust to the P&G's and work with them on draftified articles and be like a general point of reference for any copyright questions etc.

Also okay with helping them through a "show me 1 fix you would make to improve an article to be unblocked" (I've seen that on some people's talk pages, but forgot the template name) if that's needed.

Thanks again! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 10:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

You're looking for {{2nd chance}}, but typically we only require that after blocking someone indef when they've never contributed constructively. This is to have them demonstrate to us that they are willing to put forth the effort to contribute constructively. Their talk page is a tangled mess of warnings about stuff, but I have to think in over a year of contributing that they've been constructive at least most of the time, or would've been blocked sooner. Therefore, I'm not sure this exercise is needed in their case, though obviously you are free to have them go through it if you think it would help them. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 10:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

MolecularPilot, I haven't investigated this case but if you want to get the attention of more admins, it's best, in the future, to post unblock requests at WP:AN, not WP:ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I have decided to give Whatif222 one last chance and have unblocked them. I commend MolecularPilot for working with this editor while they were blocked, and offering to mentor. Cullen328 (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, I'll keep that in mind for the future! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 07:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@MolecularPilot, thanks for stepping in to help this editor out. I'm not totally convinced they won't use LLMs to edit, so if you notice that going on it would be another huge help if you can encourage them away from that. -- asilvering (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Definitely! It doesn't look live they've seen that they are unblocked yet but I'll keep an eye on their controls and guide them through returning to editing, as I promised ! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 07:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

They were unblocked, and have been reblocked. -- asilvering (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

When I left my comment, they were unblocked... but unfortunately I had a sudden event in RL so I wasn't watching their contribs today and now they're blocked again... I haven't had time to review to substance of the block but it doesn't seem like they'd really be another way to phrase the alleged "copyvio". Sadly, they're "leaving this platform forever" now. :( MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 05:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Loveworldpeace2003

Can someone please help check the contributions of User:Loveworldpeace2003? Many of his edits are adding unsourced information about an actor William Jaye or Will Johnson. Sometimes he reverts it himself, and sometimes others revert it. Some haven't been reverted. There are almost 100 edits going back months. I've speedy-deleted his newly created article William Jaye.

Links:

• Loveworldpeace2003 (talk · contribs)
• William Jaye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Quarl ^(talk) 02:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Notified of this discussion. If they don't come here and continue adding unsourced information (I'm suspecting a COI or just some sort of weird hoax), I'll warn them and then block if necessary. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I was curious about this as well. Kudos voorts. Οἶδα (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Revoke extneded confirmed for User:Cheriemun

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

---

Should extended confirmed status be revoked for User:Cheriemun. There are 1759 userspace edits making him not eligible for extended confirmed. CokePepsiSoda( (talk) 05:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@CokePepsiSoda( one month and 500 edits are enough for EC. You are supposed to inform Cheriemun on his talk page when you file a report here. Also its strange that a user who joined just minutes ago knows about there is a thing called EC and comes directly to ANI. Knows too much? Socking? Maybe? ShaanSengupta^Talk 05:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Shaan Sengupta the edits are sandbox edits so he WP:PGAMED to extended confirmed. CokePepsiSoda( (talk) 06:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's true that 94.8% of Cheriemun's edits have been to User space but it's not like they gamed EC status to work on contentious subjects. It looks like they work on train station articles in their sandbox and they haven't edited in a month so are unlikely to respond here. It's not apparent what generated this complaint. Thank you to Shaan Sengupta for posting a notification on their User talk page.

CokePepsiSoda(, you still haven't answered what brought you to ANI to discuss this after you have only been an editor for an hour. What were your previous accounts that you edited with? No new editor knows about gaming to achieve EC status. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Hanson Wu continuation

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

---

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

The previous ANI report was closed with no action, but the user continues the same behavior. Insistence on changing "politician" to "statesman" coupled with repeatedly trying to hammer in the changes, without bringing disputed edits to the talk page discussion, even after directly being told in a previous edit summary to do so (along with notices in talk page that have not been answered). User has not been in any talk pages or the previous ANI. 172.56.232.212 (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey, IP, you would do well to provide diffs to edits where the editor is doing this. And, while you're at it, consider creating an account for steady communication's sake. BarntToust 01:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's Special:diff/1259102555 and Special:diff/1259640309. I guess Hanson Wu is purposefully pretending the threads doesn't exist given they edited the same page after the IP's call to communicate with no response. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

According to this journal article published by Brill, the word "statesman" carries connotations of superior moral integrity, exceptional leadership qualities and expertise in the science of government. I agree with that assessment and, unless exceptionally well referenced, it should not be used in Wikipedia's voice because it is a violation of the Neutral point of view. Hanson Wu should agree to stop changing from "politician" to "statesman". If not, some sort of sanction should be implemented, such as a block from mainspace. The editor would then be free to make their case on article talk pages. Cullen328 (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• Regardless of the why, this is a clear-cut case of a refusal to communicate - both WP:LISTENTOUS and WP:SLOWEW specifically. Given that, after their first three edits which were followed by a nearly three-*year* hiatus, they have done all but nothing but this, this is a clear case of WP:IDONTHEARYOU and, accordingly, I have blocked for a month, which will hopefully allow time for them to notice the block and start communicating. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

As a coda, they seem to have resumed on the IP 103.76.205.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), so the block should likely be upgraded to indefinite, right? Remsense ‥ 论 08:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

For some wild reason this report is not being processed past the initial block. I'm starting a SPI... ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 22:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that tears it. Hanson Wu is now indef'd due to choosing to evade their block via an IP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

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

JaneenGingerich AGF and NOTHERE

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

---

JaneenGingerich (talk · contribs)

After this new user came into the Donald Trump talk page and weren't receiving attention after multiple comments, I offered to explain their basic concerns on their talk. I believe I adequately explained why their proposals weren't a good fit, but in the process, as other editors came into to back these up, the user began insisting I and others were socking. See for example their immediate response to the welcome template on their talk and User talk:Rollinginhisgrave#mandruss for example. They were warned against casting aspersions on the latter. They have since begun harassing Mandruss [1][2]. They have been warned [409] to AGF. Although they have made some gestures towards being HERE, their comments since as seen above do not reflect this commitment being sincere. They have been notified of this posting. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I blocked them for obvious trolling before I knew there was a report here.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Moviephilee

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

---

Moviephilee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Moviephilee has got 11 warnings from myself and other editors on his edits not conforming to Wikipedia verifiability policy, unconstructive edits, changing content without reliable source, and adding unreliable sources but Moviephilee seem to not care and repeats such unconstructive edits. RangersRus (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Reported to AIV, and indeffed by Ad Orientem. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 00:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I keep misreading digits ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

 Blocked x 72 hrs for disruptive editing. Most of their edits have been reverted and there has been zero response to the wall of warnings on their talk page. If this resumes I would support an indef. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

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

37.63.96.244

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

---

37.63.96.244 has been mass-changing genres without sources or consensus. Ex.: [410][411][412], etc. C F A 16:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing and Promotion by User:NervousRing

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

I am trying to cleanup the page of Jan Suraaj Party of promotional content and make a more wikipedia appropriate article but I have been meet by User:NervousRing. His only interest is on the pages on Jan Suraaj Party and its founder Prashant Kishor.

Here are the diffs.

1. [413] Unsourced Promotional Content. List of "campaign goals" about "right individuals at the grassroot level", "vision statements", "problems and opportunities", etc.
2. [414] Promotional Content, unsourced. For example – "Kishor and his team engaged with local communities to build a connection with the grassroots and gather insights for policy formulation", "The campaign was launched to bring transformative political change in the state of Bihar in India.", etc.
3. [415] Promotional content: "Jan Suraaj set up ... challenging the existing political establishment"
4. [416] Replacement of sourced content with Promotional content (with random libel accusation) – "The party’s strategy includes mobilising support from various sections of society and promoting a vision of inclusive and sustainable development."
5. [417] Wholesale revert to promotional version with accusation of vandalism.

On Prashant Kishor page.

1. [418] Removal of sourced content with random accusation of Vandalism.
2. [419] Removal of sources for the aforementioned sourced content.
3. [420] Revert to the same with random accusation of vandalism and accusation of playing "casteist ideology games".

Miscellaneous

1. [421] 3,405 byte removal is a minor edit.
2. [422] Counter warning of "vandalism" and "removing sourced content". Template misuse, etc. Warnings to him were given, he reciprocated.
3. Related talk page discussion where he is misrepresenting sources.

MrMkG (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal comments that are demonstrably false. I have edited other pages previously as well.

"Kishor and his team engaged with local communities to build a connection with the grassroots and gather insights for policy formulation" is a fact though?

"The campaign was launched to bring transformative political change in the state of Bihar in India." was an edit made in the previous "Jan Suraaj" page, which I just maintained.

"Jan Suraaj set up ... challenging the existing political establishment" was removed by me, but I understand it remained in the overall "undo vandalism" edit.

Unilaterally undoing changes that add information regarding new incidents that don't promote anything IS vandalism.

I would invite anyone to take a look at the changes I made and decide if it is promoting anything. NervousRing (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking at Jan Suraaj Party, it looks like you are both edit-warring, especially you, NervousRing. This will lead to sanctions if it continues and you're lucky that it was not reported earlier. Do not call good faith edits "vandalism" or calling them "libellous". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz Can you (or anyone else) look at the full report please? I have added some more things to the report. The present article on Prashant Kishor and Jan Suraaj Party are both left untouched at his version. Former is a consensus violating version and latter is a poorly sourced page now filled with promotional content. MrMkG (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

User conduct

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

---

• Aliyiya5903 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User keep reverting to their favourite version of the page. RSES mention "mob" , however the user keep changing it to "local residents". Lullipedia (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Also mob is likely not neutral in context. Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

This user has repeatedly removed the mention of the second survey detailing the violence,Revision 1234567890

which I believe is important for clarifying the timeline of events. Additionally, the user removed sourced content added content that could be perceived as a threat to a specific group, potentially violating Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality and respectful content. Aliyiya5903 (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

That is not demonstrated with the dif above. Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Changing the word as prominantly stated by the RS would bring editorial bias. Lullipedia (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The source in question is absolutely not sufficiently reliable for Wikipedia to refer to those people as a mob; please don't litigate content disputes here. Simonm223 (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Changing "mob" to "local resident" creates WP:FALSEBALANCE. Lullipedia (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Lullipedia, you could just leave it be, knowing that newspapers, esp. local ones, often use language that is way more incendiary than is proper. In the meantime, you could leave the less incendiary language in the article until we know more, from possibly more reliable sources that have some distance from the events. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies Please see the newspapers first. They are BBC and Indian Express. Very populalry used as RS Lullipedia (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Just a second, Lullipedia--I'm busy blocking your other accounts. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Cant face the words I guess. :D Lullipedia (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The source using "mob" also appears to be (a) tabloidy and (b) generally on the "other" ethnoreligious side from those involved. So no, I wouldn't use "mob". "Local residents" is probably accurate but I can't see where a source uses that phrase either. Black Kite (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

BBC just calls them "people." Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I had already provided an summary for the diff in the previous Revision which was edited by Phonomannoba that I suspect may be used by the same user. i also left a note on the user's talk page explaining my reasoning regarding mob Please let me know if any further clarification is needed. Aliyiya5903 (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

If anyone is interested: I had tagged them all as socks of User:Hemacho328wsa, knowing full well that these were probably not the oldest accounts, and looking further I found they are connected to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidWood11. User:Blablubbs, you and those cute badgers of yours were the last ones active in that SPI--please have another look, see if they are indeed the same (one particular IP looks like a dead giveaway--and I'm pinging Aoidh as well) and if the tags I so carefully curated need to be altered. Oh, Aiodh, will you please look at the possibility of a range block? You'll see what I mean when you look at Lullipedia--but I seriously need to have some coffee. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies, the badgers and I agree this is DW11. Rajat Sharma IndiaTV (talk · contribs) and SasuraBAdaPAisawala (talk · contribs) are too. I'll go fiddle with the tags. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Repeated WP:PA Violations by IP 47.69.66.57 (and prior IP addresses)

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

---

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

The IP (and previous IP addresses operated by the same individual) has made repeated personal attacks targetting me.

They have alleged that I am not... mentally sound: "fake news by incapacity or intent or what?" [1]

They claimed that a B-Class article I edit often, SpaceX Super Heavy, is my "favorite playground" [2][3]

Multiple claims of attempting to mislead others: "And you still either don't understand or try to mislead" [4]

"Once more a certain editor wants to spam each and every space article with superfluous and redundant starship pseudofacts" [5]

"Once more, Redacted II makes "original research" and exaggerates vague facts to factuals" [6]

"neclected and more or less to a single editor who had put in original reseach and exaggerations while blocking others" [7]

They accuse everyone they disagree with of WP:OR, despite the disputed content often being well sourced. And anyone who confronts them is a WP:PA violator: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]

They have decided that I am a "know-it-all" editing only for the "statisfaction" to be the one "to have discovered a tiny new fact". [15]

They have declared their intention to "form a coalition" to combat me. [16]

IMO, it is clear that they are not here to improve Wikipedia, editing only to harrass more experienced editors.

I reported their behaviour before, but no action was taken.[17] Redacted II (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

A link to the archive of the previous report (with the responses): link. – 2804:F1...A2:6879 (::/32) (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Hopping in here as I've also seen this person repeatedly hounding Redacted II in several discussions. It's clear this user is not interested in constructive editing. Ergzay (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

They have continued, now as IP 47.69.68.17.

They aren't here to improve the encyclopedia. They're here to troll. Redacted II (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Now 47.69.168.221. Behaviour has continued. Redacted II (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks like if we're going to stop this IP editor, then we need to block the 47.69.0.0/16 range. I had a look at the contribs page for that /16 range and surprisingly there's little to no activity from other editors on there in the past month, besides this nuisance harassing IP of course. — AP 499D25 (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

So far, I've found one edit not from the discussed user in the last year. Redacted II (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

To quote WP:PA:

"Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, ... disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors."

The first statement: "fake news by incapacity or intent or what?" satisfies this definition. Redacted II (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

This person clearly has a dynamic IP address, so if disruption continues (hopefully not), we are going to need a rangeblock. I've reminded this editor here, despite this constant behavior, I hope that this might help them improve. User3749 (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually, that was before I found out that this has been going on since July this year. I might also want to point out this interesting case, where this editor randomly takes it to another user's talk page to discuss Redacted II, just because the said user changed the infobox and lede name here. This is obviously not helpful, but I still have hope that my reminder above will help this editor improve. User3749 (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

They have been warned quite often before. It didn't change anything.

The IP range is very inactive when this user is ignored. There have been three edits this year that I'm not 100% certain were made by the Wikihounder. Redacted II (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

What actually matters is the ratio of edits from the offending person to edits from other people, and not the simple existence of other editors or the 'size' of the IP range. In this case we have a very high proportion of edits coming from this offending person compared to others which make up a small single-digit percentage of the volume of edits. Admins block plenty of seemingly very large IP ranges all the time, such rangeblocks are based on that the bad edits from the nuisance editor significantly outweigh the benefits being provided by the small volume of good edits coming from other editors.

I stumbled upon this shocking comment from the IP editor by the way, quite uncivil that one. Also diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5. It seems the written message from a few days ago reminding the IP editor of WP:AGF by User3749 did not work unfortunately, as evidenced by the latest two diffs. — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

That comment wasn't the only one of that style. See this almost identical one (previously mentioned by User3749). Redacted II (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Redacted II Has this user edited since November 17? -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, check out Special:Contributions/47.69.0.0/16. Toughpigs (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Never mind. I have found some that are quite recent. Reviewing the situation. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

 Blocked 47.69.0.0/16 x 2 weeks for persistent NPA violations. It appears that all edits within the last six months across the range are the same editor. Their commentary makes it clear that they were aware of this discussion and chose not to respond here but to continue their behavior. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Is this an open proxy ?

• 152.58.93.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – WP:PROXY . Momosixer (talk) 13:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  Context: @Momosixer queried on my talk page after I had placed the proxy block on the ip address. I stated that I based the block on the information from the IP Tool extension and we have a difference of opinions. As such, I told them to bring the discussion to here. If rationale of the block is not justifiable, any other admins may revert it back to the 1-week NLT block. – robertsky (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Spur.us indicates 50 devices on that IP address and notes it has proxied data. Doesn't necessarily mean it's currently proxying, but I have no objections to this block. --Yamla (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

PerspicazHistorian and disruptive editing on caste articles

Yesterday PerspicazHistorian created Deshmukhs of Parwa which is apparently generated by AI chatbot[423] which is after I told them not to use chatbots[424]. This user has been partially blocked for edit warring on Veerashaiva (now a redirect to Lingayatism), they also created Lingayat Vani which is a caste based POV fork of Lingayatism relying mostly on WP:RAJ era sources and sources without page numbers and includes mostly irrelevant information to the caste itself . They were alerted about WP:GSCASTE in early August [425], yet are still continuing to disrupt the area. I would request some restriction on this user.- Ratnahastin (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

There's a recent prior case that ended with the poster blocked for socking here Simonm223 (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi adimistrators,

1)@Ratnahastin Yes the article Deshmukhs of Parwa might have involved some AI written content and I will be editing it soon. I saw the tag on the article. I am glad that you flagged that issue and I am more than willing to make the article format better. Will be editing it soon.

2) The is an ongoing AFD Discussion and it's not good to still put the topic on noticeboard. The article Lingayat Vani is about a community "lingayat vani" not the religious Hindu sect of "lingayatism". The community has history of its own as mentioned by the author many times.

3) "Lingayat Vani" is not to glorify any caste system , we live in 21st century it's should not even be the topic of discussion. Moreover the article also deals with the malpractices of the community and addresses the topic in a neutral way.

4) This page has been tried to be vandalized by many POV pushers and Sockpuppets in the past too. I was blocked from editing Veerashaiva by charges raised by a sockpuppet (User:RationalIndia).

5) Wikipedia has reputation of being a repository of data, not the personal views. I have tried to use Wikipedia:RAJ era sources as minimum as possible and it contains other sources too.

6)@Simonm223 Sir, Thank you for pointing out the prior case. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)