Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1155

Multiple issues with Researcher1988 at Zoroastrianism

I have some significant concerns regarding Researcher1988's behaviour at the Zoroastrianism page and its associated talk page. I've been slow coming to AN:I because they're a new user and I hoped that with a bit of guidance they might calm down a bit. Unfortunately it seems things have escalated over the weekend.

These issues have included: Edit warring: [1] [2] [3] [4] Refactoring other users comments at talk: [5] (also a bit of a WP:OWN issue instructing a user at article talk not to reply to a talk comment. Copyvio issues: [6] [7] Calling out individual editors at article talk to debate: [8] And just so much WP:IDHT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT at article talk that I honestly don't even know where to begin with diffs. The user has been warned of many of these issues at user talk: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] but it seems like every time they are asked to stop one behaviour a new one crops up. It seems like the user has a serious POV issue regarding any source that might interfere with a straightforward monotheistic reading of Zoroastrianism. I will say, to their credit, that the user has a good eye for finding sources and I have sincerely enjoyed reading some of the refs they've found, although they need a bit more development identifying appropriate academic sources. However with that being said I think continued participation in pages related to Zoroastrianism is probably detrimental to their development as a Wikipedia editor. I'd suggest a limited duration topic ban while they learn the ropes might help them develop as a constructive editor. Simonm223 (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I just tried to protect the page From vandals. I have provided various Materials to the page and made positive and constructive edits.

the problem is with one particular user who is relatively new, has little knowledge of Zoroastrianism and yet, wants to edit the article according to his personal interpretations.

this debate is ongoing for 4 months now. the user doesn't accept the sources we provided, and persistently wants to edit the page in a way that fits his own personal views. Researcher1988 (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I should note that the "vandal" in question is a third party they are involved in an edit conflict with and has categorically not vandalized the page in any way. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

with all respect, what they did is called "Subtle Vandalism."

the user tried to add misinformation and materials not supported by sources to the page in order to change the materials to his own liking.

It is 4 months now that this conflict continues. I just wanted to prevent this from happening and protect the page. Researcher1988 (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

No consensus so I'd just let it go, especially since this argument has been going on for four months. Suggesting a close and a move back to Talk:Zoroastrianism. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

thank you. Researcher1988 (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Can someone close this? I would, but I don't know how. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

You should not considering we now can add canvassing to this issue. [16] [17] Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's... Not good. And here I was thinking this would end quickly. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Sincerely I don't lightly take edit conflicts to AN/I. This is rather a user who is becoming a constant time sink with antics like this while describing specific other good-faith editors as vandals. If it were merely a heated edit conflict I would not bring it here. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I was just seeking help from other editors, so we can end the dispute sooner. is it not allowed on Wikipedia? Researcher1988 (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS is clear that you cannot go to other specific editors and ask them to resolve a content dispute in your favour - doing that while someone has an open AN/I thread about you is also just rather ill-advised. Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I never wanted them to vote in favor of me. it is not about me, it is about a discussion which involves many. I just thought the dispute would end sooner, by calling other users attention. I didn't know It would make a problem. Researcher1988 (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

This diff [18] is precisely what you should not do. And this is the problem - you are taking up a lot of time for us explaining, at length, don't do this, don't do that, and your clear strident POV on the topic is exacerbating this. I have suggested before you take time away from this topic and develop your skills elsewhere. This is still what I think you need to do as this is becoming disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Can we seek a way to solve the problem in the talk page? I don't think the problem is complicated. as I said, It is not about me. I'm just concerned about the misinformation in the page. Researcher1988 (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

As you've said, the debate has lasted for four months already, and has resulted in an ANI discussion, so I doubt it. _WADroughtOfVowels^P 18:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, those are newbie mistakes, how about Skyerise, a veteran user with 100+K edits who reverts a stable version of the article on shaky grounds while there was no consensus for that version ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Uh, there is a clear consensus on the talk page that we should not (yet) commit to calling Zoroastrian monotheistic. However, the so-called "stable" version does just that, so it violates that consensus. Which I've explained on the talk page with summary counts, etc. Skyerise (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The diffs you are providing can also apply to other editors at that talk page, I underlined several times personal attacks towards me and WP:POINT, WP:ONUS, WP:CON issues there.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

In my mind, the consensus is that the page should be neutral on the matter of monotheism. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment As an involved editor in this issue, I must say that there are multiple problems there, while Researcher1988 might have made some mistakes as a newbie, more experienced editors have baffling behaviour there, refusing to ackowledge WP:BRD, WP:RS, WP:ONUS and so on. I tried myself to reinstate a stable version of the article in order to achieve a consensus first before inclusion, but have been reverted by said experienced editors on the ground that they agree with the version of the article that had no consensus. I think admins eyes would be welcome and a full protection of the article should prevail to avoid further edit warring.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

[19] At this point should we just notify any other involved editors at Zoroastrianism? Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Whoever is the subjective of what they did is called "Subtle Vandalism." should probably be notified of the discussion, since they've been accused of vandalism. I would, but I'm not keen on who is who in this pronoun game. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, that might be a few of us by this point. I think. He's certainly aimed it at me a fair few times. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Uninvolved Comment At time of writing this thread is so far dominated by the filer and the subject of the thread. I'd ask Simonm223 and Researcher1988 to put the back-and-forth on hold and have other eyes look at this before it balloons to a size nobody will want to pick through.
Researcher1988, regarding It is not about me, this thread should not be about the content dispute, but rather was made to discuss your behavior. Removing comments of other users that are not unquestionably and obvious vandalism is something you should not be doing. Short of specific sanctions applied to users for past behavior, article talk spaces do not exclude any editors, anyone is free to join any conversation there. If you would like a discussion to only include you and one other editor, you will have to rely on your talk page or email, and neither of those can establish consensus. Short of evidence otherwise, only you know why you picked the editors you did to request they join the discussion, and while that in and of itself is not against policy, editors are very suspicious of anything that looks vaguely like canvassing. Messages like this are almost guaranteed to be seen as canvassing, since you are trying to dictate how the recipient views the conflict before they even read the discussion. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Gladly, if I comment further on this it will only be in the context of presenting new diffs. I would prefer not to engage in more back-and-forth. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

well, I believe that User (which I accuse of Vandalism), has turned the dispute into a personal one. whenever I post some Information on the talk page, he shows up and posts something irrelevant and repeats his older opinions.

In this case, I created a Topic for discussing a matter with another user. but he showed up and posted some irrelevant comment. I decided to delete his comment, since my post was meant for someone else.

I believe these experienced editors are taking sides and their behavior is unfair. what is interesting for me is that they never blamed the other side, who is deliberately continuing this dispute for 4 month (despite various sources presented to refute him,) and his behavior is in my opinion some kind of trolling. Researcher1988 (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988 If you would explain your reasoning (on the page) instead of telling me your beliefs, it would be a lot easier for us to discuss things & reach some sort of middle ground. As it is; I have been trying to engage with you about your sources, and the ways in which they contradict you, but you haven't really been willing to engage back. This makes it very hard to see your point of view, as you will state a thing as true (or quote someone stating it) but not explain why it is true. Without knowing the 'why', there is no possibility of agreement because the 'why' is the part I need to hear in order to agree. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Problems with Reasercher1988: I never wanted to launch an admin complaint like this, but I will list the issues I've had with Reasercher1988 since I am one of the affected parties. To date; Reasercher1988 has made editing the article & talk page a deeply frustrating and borderline impossible experience, particularly through frequent WP:EDITWARing and spamming. I believe that is an intentional tactic to make people give up. Some of the things they have done:

• Attempting to start an WP:EDITWAR with every other editor on the page. Including yesterday, with Simonm223, Skyerise, and myself. Tactics include: !) straight-up undoing, 2) dumping the other person's edits into a section far deeper down the page, 3) Simply editing their edits out of existence while making their own edits. In functional terms: Every single edit we make to the article, no matter how minor, is either reverted or buried by Researcher1988. This includes purely aesthetic aesthetic edits - such as adding titles to various sections in the Theology section, which Researcher1988 quickly and silently removed. And did so twice, if I recall. Researcher1988 seems to feel they WP:OWN the page in question, and that only their own WP:POV and vision should be allowed. I have been 'Told Off' and reverted by Researcher1988 for even attempting to correct the grammar of a section they have edited, which is essentially the entire article. Meanwhile they freely edit my content, and shuffle it about the page at will. Usually burying it in a far deeper section than I intended.
• Even attempting to add a direct quote from one of Researcher1988's own list of approved sources into the page will be instantly reverted if the quote happens to Researcher1988's own beliefs. This is clear WP:CHERRYPICKING. Typically their excuse it that there is "no consensus" & that I am "misinterpreting" the source. For example, my edit on 07:47, 15 April 2024 added a very direct quote from Mary Boyce - who is on their personal approved list. This was was swiftly reverted at 07:47, 15 April 2024 saying "Undid the edit; first we should reach a consensus; besides the sources doesn't support the claim.". I was, in fact, acting on the recent talk page vote - which came down very hard on the side of neutrality on the issue. When I undid the undo, explaining it was a direct quote, they undid it again. I then ceased in order to avoid an WP:EDITWAR - something Researcher1988 has been warned about in the past. This is typically how Researcher1988 gets their way on the page - by simply forcing the other person to break a rule in order to fight back. I feel this is another version of WP:STONEWALL.
• Almost as soon as I began trying to edit the page, Researcher1988 started their regular accusations of vandalism against me and other members. Not to mention insults and combative (rather than constructive) behaviour. One of his primary complaints being that we are editing the text that is 'already there' - by which he means his own. Which he regards as 'perfect'. You can see a prime example here. I think this goes against WP:BITE.
• This is part of Reasercher1988's ongoing and massive campaign of spam & disruption the Talk page, under the guise of 'correcting' or 'calling out' other members about rule breaches. This behaviour has destroyed multiple votes created by Reasercher1988 themselves. Typically by derailing them the instant someone posts a vote they don't like. You can see this in action here, where Reasercher1988 launches a consensus and then tries to debate me the second I vote. That debate looks small now, but it was originally so large I had to split it off into this section here, which is itself huge, in order to try and preserve the vote. They then launched another vote where they did it again. Firstly by making the intro to the vote a massive list of their own personally approved sources, in an effort to sway the voters, then immediately debating with everyone who objected. This got so bad I was forced to create a parred down copy-paste of the vote - minus the debate - purely in order to keep track of it & make it readable. Reasercher1988 saw this only as an opportunity to start yet another copy of the same exact debate, even though I purposefully removed all the reasoning posted with each vote in order to avoid provoking him. As you might imagine, this kind of behaviour makes it very difficult to use the talk page at all. I believe this to be WP:STONEWALL in order to enforce WP:POV, at the very least. Reasercher1988 may demand 'consensus', but they operate entirely without it and disrupt all attempts to achieve it.
• Multiple times Reasercher1988 has posted copies of that same massive list of personally approved sources on the page - which is itself spamming. Both here and also here. They seem to do this as form of stonewalling. This tactic, combined with their endless arguing against everything, makes it incredibly frustrating to engage with anyone on the page. The clutter is getting so bad, I would like to archive most of the page.
• Overall Researcher1988 refuses to engage in proper discussion, and will simply state and restate their opinion without addressing any of the problems raised. This makes speaking to them, itself, very infuriating.

There is actually way more I could say, but I feel these are the main points. Regardless of the above, I don't really bear Researcher1988 any ill will or think they should be banned - but I do think that they need to be reigned in in some way to prevent them dominating the page. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I had reason for Every edit and revert that I made. why you continued this debate for 4 months? why you don't get the point and refuse to accept various reliable sources who refute your claims? Researcher1988 (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988 Your own sources conflict with your views, and mine are reliable. If you would like to discuss why, please send me a talk page message. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

This is bordering being a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT considering this has been going on for 4 months without resolution. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I hope I'm not guilty of that, but I admit it's possible. I do feel it's happening the other way, however. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Based on the above, I'd Support a topic ban on Researcher1988 from Zoroastrianism, broadly construed, with the standard offer available once they've edited elsewhere to demonstrate they can edit without WP:OWNership issues. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Throwing a Support behind that as well. Maybe also take a look through the article and the Talk page and see what can be done there to make the article better. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 17:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Keeping in mind I'm someone who has engaged in this content dispute a considerable amount, I would also support a topic ban per HandThatFeeds's formulation. Remsense诉 17:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Support for banning the user for multiple reasons.

Not only did the user misgendered me three times with several Users pointing out that this is impolite, they also violated several guidlines and trust.

The user started an edit war with multiple users stating that they have been putting undue weight to their position, just for their own source to turn out barely to not support their view at all. Furthermore, it has become clear from the talkpage (I cannot find the exact version difference in this chaos anymore but it is possible to find by the search function) that there was probably religious motivation (maybe a form of neo-Zorastrianism comprable to Neo Tengrism insisting on being monotheistic) behind their edits, as they said that

"I insist on calling it Monotheism, because it is a Monotheistic religion. Zoroastrians consider themselves monotheistic, they never saw themselves as Dualistic or anything other than monotheistic."

Except for their own understanding of Zorastrianism, there is no evidence for that it was called "Monotheistic" by Zorastrians (especially since the term did not exist back then). There is reason not to apply good faith given how often the user attacked several users pesonally and refused to adress any concern brought to the talkpage. Instead, they just opened a new poll or a new discussion whenever they felt cornered.

Thus, there is little to no evidence for remorse, and accordingly, little hope the user will improve their behaviour. Their behaviour is unbearable for other Users, frustrating and time-consueming for no good reasons or benefits. On the long-term Wikipedia profites more from banning the user entirely. Furthermore, it seems imperative to make clear that Wikipedia Users are not the playball for frustrated indidivuals who just want to see their opinions, here. Not deleting them could encourage bad behaviour in near future on other article talkpages as well, causing talkpages to deteriorate to the level of a WP:FORUM. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle

Zoroastrianism is called "Mazdayasna" "Mazda Worshiper" by Zoroastrians. Zoroastrians believe in one god. modern Zoroastrians consider themselves Monotheistic. there is a scholarly consensus that Zoroastrianism is Monotheistic and Religious Dualism is a variation of monotheism too.

this user completely ignores all reliable sources which clearly state Zoroastrianism is monotheistic, and insists on his personal opinions which are not supported by any of the academic sources:

"In Zoroastrianism Ahura Mazda, the ‘Lord of Wisdom’ is considered a superior, all-encompassing deity, the only existing one, who may be venerated in all other god-manifestations. This certainly is a monotheistic concept."

https://www.academia.edu/27409859/Zoroastrianism_and_the_Bible_Monotheism_by_Coincidence Researcher1988 (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

and insists on his personal opinions

oopsie VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

That deserves emphasis as an ancillary point. I usually think it's best to be patient with people on this particular point—but we have been. Researcher has been directly asked several times not to refer to VFF as 'he'. That they continue to do so without even acknowledging the requests is getting to be a sanctionable problem in itself, I would argue. Remsense诉 01:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

INCLUSIVENESSWE REALLY DIG ITSO PLEASE DON'T BEAN EFFING BIGOTBurma-shave I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I am usually a User avoiding conflict, but if you keep on this attitude, you find yourself here again for WP:HARASS and WP:PA for spreading lies about me constantly and intentional misgendering, in case you will not be deleted entirely, which would be the (appropriate decission). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988 You have been shown evidence that is not correct, and that the status of the religion is highly debated, but you have ignored it so far. Including evidence from your own sources that say it changed & evolved. If you would like to talk about it, I will be on the article's talk page. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Support a topic ban for all the above reasons which add up to WP:NOTHERE. I've been waiting to see if the editor would listen to others, but we also have a WP:ICANTHEARYOU problem with this editor as well. Disclosure: I am involved, but this is not one of my usual topic areas. Skyerise (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Note that Researcher1988 continues to refuse to assume good faith and makes personal attacks accusing other editors of "hating" his religion, views Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND using terms like "infiltrated" and is engaged in canvassing: [20]. Can't something please be done about this? Skyerise (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise I don't even know what his religion is tbh. But isn't he in the middle of trying to attack multiple other religions, right from the first part of the lead of the article? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@TiggyTheTerrible: well, I'm assuming from behavior that its some small modern sect of Zoroastrianism which considers itself monotheisitic and teaches its members that Zoroastrianism "has always been monotheistic". Skyerise (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise That could well be the case. I've been reading and comparing a few different versions of the Avesta, and there's something very odd going on with the translations. I get the sense that they're trying very hard to make it look like other religions. It's really strange. 09:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• We are also seeing a continuation of the POV pushing behaviour. These edits are not supported by the sources presented. [21] [22]. Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Starting to think we need a full block to make this user understand that we have rules blocking this kind of stuff. I'd support a block for at least a couple months, if not longer. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 13:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly, despite multiple editors encouraging them to edit elsewhere, Researcher1988 has not shown any indication of having any interest of editing on any other topic. I'm not sure if there would be any functional difference between a t-ban and a block at this point so, despite my initial advocacy for a t-ban I'm pretty much neutral on this. The misgendering issue is certainly alarming. Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Also I don't believe this personal attack has been brought to attention yet. This is an escalating situation. Simonm223 (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don't entirely see how this fit as a personal attack, but it does show that this is escalating. My bones are sensing there's gonna be threats, and soon. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Whoops, more canvassing (at least it seems like it to me, trout me if I'm wrong) [23] I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  That was identified by Skyerise earlier today up-thread. Also the editor in question is an involved editor who they see as an ally. This editor is perfectly aware of the situation and was one of the first to comment at AN/I when I opened this thread and has rather publicly announced taking a break from that article space. I don't think it really constitutes canvassing although it speaks toward as WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Simonm223 (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Based on various talk page discussions I read, Researcher1988 seems to be firmly convinced that Zoroastrianism is monotheistic, often dismissing alternative scholarly interpretations that suggest dualistic or polytheistic elements. His approach in discussions appears to be quite inflexible, hindering collaborative editing. A one month topic ban should encourage the correct conduct. FailedMusician (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban : I think that Researcher1988 should not be topic banned, they are a knowledgeable editor about that topic, they tried to provide sources but in my humble opinion, some other editors seem to show ownership and refuse to go by what our best sources say, trying to contradict said best sources with weaker ones.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikaviani While I am remaining neutral on the solution to this, Researcher1988 has been highly combative and is the definition of WP:OWN and WP:POV. Especially in their: 1) attempts to keep controversial WP:FRINGE theories in the lead 2) Their obstructiveness, edit warring, and refusal to engage 3) Misrepresentation of sources 4) Double standards about source quality 6) Smears & baseless accusations against other editors. 7) Cherry-picking parts of sources, but refusing to acknowledge others. 8) Shoving anything that they can't revert to the bottom of the page 9) Aggression and anger over people editing grammar or adding purely visual changes, which they also revert. 10) Telling people they're mispresenting sources they are directly quoting. I could absolutely go on. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not what I see, my opinion is that a flock of editors came there at Talk.Zoroastrianism recently (canvassing ?) and while many of those users are veteran editors, I was quite baffled to see how they kept ignoring such basic rules as WP:ONUS, WP:RS, WP:STABLE, WP:CON and so on. I don't agree that you are neutral, you were the first one to refuse to get the point. Again, you guys want to own that article ? Granted, but Researcher1988 does not deserve to be topic banned because they are a knowledgeable editor for that topic, probably much more than tkose who label Zoroastrianism as "Polytheistic" no matter if this contradicts what our best sources say. As I said, I'm out, I'm not intereseted in discussing this matter with some editors who obviously refuse to respect the above guidelines.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

For the record it was actually Researcher1988 who brought me to the page. Specifically they went to WP:RS/N and were asking evasive questions about the reliability of sources from Academia.edu that were somewhat concerning. I decided to look in on the Zoroastrianism page on the basis of those concerns and found a mess. And your assertion that a bloc of editors want to label Zoroastrianism as "Polytheistic" is incorrect. The consensus on page, largely excluding Researcher1988 and yourself, is that Zoroastrianism cannot be labeled as either polytheistic or as monotheistic in Wikipedia voice as there is too much conflict within the academic literature. Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

In fact here's the archive link to the discussion that led to my involvement in Zoroastrianism. As you can see I was not canvassed. [24] Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

That's all the point, there is no debate as far as I've seen when we only look at the best sources about that topic, lie Bomati or Kellens. I'm not interested in discussing this matter again and again, as I already said several times and this noticeboard is not the place for that either.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

"Large consensus" excluding me and Researcher1988 ? then this is not a consensus, especially when, if I'm not mistaken, you guys have not been able to provide a single expert source that supports your claims and contradict the 3 expert sources I provided at Talk.Zoroastrianism ...---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

(canvassing ?)

Provide any evidence or strike this. Remsense诉 18:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikivaini We have provided multiple sources indicating there is no consensus. We emailed an expert on Zoroastrianism about it, too. Most of the sources you've provided are old, and in French. Not really a good fit for determining the current view. The page was very clear that neutrality is the way to go. I feel neutrality improves every article, honestly. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I should note there's nothing intrinsically wrong with using French sources and, in fact, I'm literate in French and can review French sources. However, on the other hand, WP:AGEMATTERS. Also content discussions would best be settled at article talk. We should be trying to restrict the scope of AN/I discussion to behavioral issues. Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223Well, that is indeed helpful. Though I feel an article should be based on sources in the reader's language so they are not blocked out. Though I feel that @Wikaviani may be reversing and misrepresenting things somewhat. If they would like, I can point them to multiple examples of Reasercher1988 engaging in edit wars, & warnings given for such. As well as WP:OWN. I find it strange to be accused of WP:OWN when, for four months, I wasn't even 'allowed' to fix grammar or make aesthetic edits by you two. We have good sources that show there is a lack of consensus on this issue, and I feel that's enough to counter your older sources. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Admin review requested

Would an admin be willing to have a look at the clear consensus here and formalize it please? Those of us editing the page would like to move on with the cleanup work on the article. Simonm223 (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'm no admin, and I'm not prepared to {{nac}} this one, but since you have been waiting almost a week for a response to this, I can at least give you my take on what I am seeing on that talk page.

For the record, I have no previous involvement in the relevant discussions, editorial history in the affected articles, or even previous engagement with any of the involved parties, as far as I can recall. But for whatever it's worth to anyone involved, I do have a fair degree of familiarity with the subject matter. I've long had a fascination with the historical phenomena of those various cosmological traditions positing a dualistic relationship between a broader creation in which a bounded physical world nests--typically presided over by some variation of a demiurge or other chief advisory of escape from that world by spiritual means. Zoroastrianism is a part of that vaguely-defined historical current and synchronsitic network of beliefs and cultural memetics, of course. However, the bulk of my comments will be directed towards the policy considerations here, rather than making particular arguments about these relationships, as is appropriate for ANI.

Just to be clear though, I did review most of the content on the talk page and follow up on the basic corpus of the sources being utilized, and history of recent versions of the article. And to be honest, I found there to be a fair bit of binary thinking from both camps here. The larger camp is showing a little more flexibility and restraint, it is worth saying--but the gap isn't huge and there's a whole lot of trying to finesse more definitive support for one side of an artificially dichotomous distinction out of sources that seem to me to be showing a maximal and intentional emphasis on the uncertainty of certain facts. For example, the exact relationship between Zoroastrianism and other cosmologies that it cross-pollinated with.

This isn't as difficult as the polarized discussion on Talk:Zoroastrianism in recent threads seems to suggest it is. In situations like this, WP:Attribute, introduce the reader to the various interpretations and any statements in RS about any uncertainties and open issues, including limited direct quotes if necessary, and let the reader reach their own conclusions. This analysis is, I felt time and again reviewing those discussions, getting over-complicated in a fairly large percentage of the comments in the recent discussions on that page. I respect that there are also some legitimate WP:WEIGHT questions also being asked here, but I don't see that it's reasonable not to make reference to the relationship between Zoroastrianism and its contemporary (and possibly decedent) belief systems. So the question is how you define those relationships. And where there are so many theories (which the secondary sources themselves go to lengths to describe as uncertain), that very dispute is exactly what policy directs to be discussed for the reader's benefit.

Now, is that due content for the lead? Well, again, I would suggest that is not as cut and dry as either side holds. On the one hand, all things being equal, the content of the lead is meant to roughly map to a subtopic's overall weight and importance in the main body of the article. But for a topic like this, establishing historical context is a big part of the overall role of the lead, and I think it roughly aligns with the average reader's needs/benefits to point out that these relationships between theological traditions exist, even if the exact chronology/directionality is likely to be left permanently obscured in the historical record. But primarily I feel like there must be some reasonable compromise here.

I have similar feelings about the "polytheistic" (and other contested labels) debate. I mean, y'all realize these are religious cosmologies, not physical cosmology, right? As in, some subjectivity is to be anticipated, even among highly relevant primary and secondary sources? Yes, I get that certain labels have higher degrees of academic cache among subject matter experts. Equally though, it's entirely reasonable that both academic and idiomatic descriptions are going to borrow from a wide array of reference points.

Look, I get that my comments are somewhat reductionist on the debates being had on that talk page: there's some nuance to a number of the questions being raised there about what is WP:DUE. But my main observation is that there is a noticeable amount of middleground between the two clear camps that is currently going unexplored. Yes, one side is in the substantial minority and is perhaps being a little more tendentious in their approach. But on the whole, wouldn't say anyone is walking away with the gold prize for open-mindedness on that talk page just at the moment. Just an outsider's read. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, I would also add that this discussion, at Talk.Zoroastrianism, is certainly not the best I've been involved in so far. While I am probably a bit guilty I don't think that I'm the only one, whatever "side" one would consider. That's why I suggested (and still suggest) a full protection of the article and an admin revert to a stable version of the article. I tried to restore an old version of the article but was reverted on quite a shaky ground and with no consensus.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

No that revert was supported by article talk. Simonm223 (talk) 11:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Snow Rise Thank you for your time. I view it as a movement that has evolved over the historical period, and I agree it isn't clear cut.

@Wikaviani To put that in other words: you acted without consensus to impose a version of the article that contains WP:FRINGE and contested theories in the lead. I'm happy for that part to be placed in a 'controversial' section, along with a discussion concerning the influence of those other groups on Zoroastrianism, but it certainly doesn't belong up there. It seems especially WP:POV to put it at the tope, and not to balance it against the range of contrary evidence contained even within the article itself. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I acted in compliance with WP:STABLE, trying to restore a stable version of the article untill a consensus is found. Sounds like you guys ignore that the onus is on you to achieve consensus for your changes. Please keep in mind that WP:CONSENSUS is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Wikaviani A vote that is evenly split is a vote for neutrality on the topic. Not a vote for your particular side. To say anything else is to weight the vote in your favour. WP:STABLE is quite clear that it is simply about vandalism, and "is an informal concept that carries no weight whatsoever, and it should never be invoked as an argument in a content dispute." The current version of the article is stable, and entirely the product of consensus. I should be clear that this is a compromise on our behalf, and I hope you see it a such. In my mind, the evidence is very clearly on our side - and I'm sure you feel the same way. So lets meet in the middle? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

There is one thing that's quite obvious, none of you guy are Zoroastrian and have any significant knowledge about this religion. The entire talk page is a joke, not a single expert source provided by "your side", people giving their own interpretation about this religion, others providing some weak sources and trying to challenge prominent experts of this topic like Yves Bomati or Jean Kellens with them and so on. I've done my best to keep the quality of this article, it's not my call anymore. As I said several times, I'm out, feel free to label that religion as you want and don't ping me again for this issue.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Wikaviani I seem to recall that sources on your side included: an economist, an Islamic theologian talking about art, a website about 'ancient aliens', and the ones you gave us about consensus are from the 1940s. All of which were cherrypicked for the wiki page, but which contained additional information conflicting with your thesis. Whereas: sources include two given to us directly by a professor on Zoroastrianism. You may think we don't know about Zoroastrianism, but we seem to have a better idea of it than you. After all; you and Researcher seem focused on adding a section claiming Yazata are angels. But Yazata means "divine being worthy of worship", and they are offered sacrifice. Are you aware it is heretical to worship angels or offer them sacrifice? And that offering such precludes them from being angels? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I never said that Yazatas are angels, and those sources you are mentioning above are not mine, I cited Bomati, Kellens and Moore. Bomati and Kellens are both alive and prominent experts of this topic, and guess what, they both contradict your views about Zoroastrianism. I repeat once and for all, since this is starting to be harrassment. As to you guys knowing that religion better than me, thank you very much, I needed a good laugh since I am Zoroastrian, just like my parents and their parents before them ... anyway, I don't care, as I already said so many times, go ahead and label Zoroastrianism as you want, hopefully one day someone else will correct all the nonsenses supported by weak sources you and "your side" are including in the article despite WP:CON, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:ONUS and so on.

Once and for all, don't ping me again about that topic as this is borderlining with harrassment. Happy editing.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Very well. I will not ping you again on this topic, and I am sorry if you are upset. I'm not trying to harass you; I am simply replying to you replying to me. Though your comment is extremely strange, seeing as both you and Researcher fought very hard to include a section that stated that Zoroastrianism contains angels. These angels being described as the Yazata. If you ever feel inclined, I would like to hear your reasoning for that section. However, I will not contact you about it if you wish to opt out. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Ownership at 2023 NFL season

There has been significant ownership of content on 2023 NFL season. Frank Anchor persistently removed any mention on the notable events of the fact that week 14 had two games at 0-0 at halftime for the first time since 1988 and Vikings-Raiders was the first 3-0 game since 2007. Then, they keep even more trivial aspects on, like Travis Kelce only having the 4th most receptions by a tight end. Can someone step in here? 69.118.230.235 (talk) 13:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

This is based on long-standing process of not including highly trivial and minor details, such as "for the first time since 2007 (a stretch of only 16 years) there was a game with this exact final score." or "for the first time since 1988, there were two games with this exact score at halftime." Whereas it has always been considered appropriate to add when a man advances within the top ten spots of a stats list. I'm not saying this is right, but it is how it has been, and is always open to constructive dialogue. Unfortunately the anonymous IP made no effort to seek clarification on the talk page, instead making a WP:POINT (diff) and taking this to ANI.Frank Anchor 13:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Persistently? I'm only seeing the one revert that I would have also reverted if I got there first. It's cherry picked and we wouldn't add "this didn't happen by half time in two separate games" to records, that's clear WP:FANCRUFT. Then you spitefully removed a whole bunch of sourced content, which I actually reverted. Also, this isn't where the content dispute should have been taken, it should have gone to Talk:2023 NFL season. If you don't like the standards for inclusion that Frank Anchor mentioned, perhaps consider proposing different inclusion criteria at WT:NFL. Most of the NFL season article editors are a part of the project and they will likely have thoughts on the matter. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

There have been a few other instances where I removed similar content posted by other users/IP's (most recently on February 11). This could possibly be the same person who added the content yesterday. Frank Anchor 14:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Ylogm's unblock request

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.

---

Long story short: User:Ylogm is an editor who has done a lot of work on articles regarding early modern Chinese political history. At times, they have been the only editor actively working in these areas. Unfortunately, in the past they have also engaged in unacceptable patterns of behavior: an ANI thread from a few years ago concerning their disruptive editing (e.g. unexplained blanking and general lack of communication) got them INDEF'd, and defensibly so. Worse, they then resorted to socking (SPI case here) in order to keep editing. Obviously, their contributions do not excuse their conduct.

However, last month I made an earnest attempt to get through to them, because they seemed genuinely confused and unaware of exactly what they had done wrong. They were very receptive: it seems they just needed a direct dialogue regarding why they were being disruptive, and I think I may have been the first to engage in a real dialogue with them. Seemingly they just want to get back to work while rectifying the previous issues with their conduct. See User talk:Min968 for the unblock request and my in-depth conversation with them. I know there's a fancy page for admins that has a queue of unblock requests and such, but to my knowledge they have been patiently waiting for a month so I figure posting a notice here couldn't hurt. I believe them when they say they want to contribute constructively and are capable of doing so, and I think it is worth giving them a second chance—or if you prefer, simply another chance. Remsense诉 06:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that's a shame. Apparently they've made additional accounts during April, even though I tried my best to make it clear to them that my support was contingent on never touching another sock ever again. Was still worth a shot, in any case. Thank you very much @NinjaRobotPirate and @MSGJ for taking a look, in any case. Remsense诉 14:46, 30 April 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.

Bandwagon98

Bandwagon98 (talk · contribs · count · logs)
The account is 2 years old with over 10k edits. They are primarily editing in India related articles, especially film articles. Majority of edits on movie reviews are completely unsourced OR or poorly cited. They have recieved multiple warnings down the years and still they refuse to provide references. Their talk page is covered with warnings and personalised helpful links to refrain from such OR edits, but they refuse to engage in discussions or reply. Recent edits might not warrant a block, but a topic ban on adding movie reviews and/or tban on film related articles can be done for this editing behavior. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

As far as i can see, they have made precisely one edit to Usertalk space (their own talk page, replying to someone who questioned what they did) and absolutely none to Talk space; they have been blocked once for DE, though seem not to have acknowledged it; as The Herald says, their talk page is littered with warnings of various levels. Whether it's inability to communicate or lack of desire to do so, they need to be held accountable (as are we all), so should perhaps be blocked from Article space till they accept the need for communication. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 15:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, precisely. They do have some productive edits, but the persistent addition of uncited original research is definitely a dealbreaker and must be dealt with till they establish a means of communication. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I support an indefinite block until they make a sincere commitment to collaborate and communicate regarding the concerns the community has with their edits.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 18:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Sexist comment by Chris Troutman

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 was pretty shocked by this comment to LDickinson by Chris troutman, where he suggests that women are biologically "more interested in people than things", and not "predisposed to accept confrontation and answer those questions directly" or "managing confrontation". I see from these comments by Firefly and Novem Linguae that I was not the only person to read these comments as Troutman complaining that he would rather be talking to a man, or — my interpretation — that the WMF should only hire men for such roles.

Such comments are wildly inappropriate for an encyclopedia where, last time I checked, we are operating in the 21st century. Regardless of what Jordan Peterson has to say about it, suggesting to a woman's face that she is biologically inferior and should be replaced with a man who is "biologically predisposed" to "manage confrontation" seems pretty beyond the pale from an experienced editor (or an inexperienced one). Confrontationally yours, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

His comments are already repulsive on their own, but him calling Jordan Peterson "insightful" really made me mad. In 2024, people who push those opinions onwiki should be promptly indeffed, no ifs or buts about it. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

"If I were asking questions about accountability, I might prefer to ask someone who is biologically predisposed to accept confrontation and answer those questions directly." what on earth. Secretlondon (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

What the hell. I've blocked them for a week for that completely unacceptable comment. Not opposed to further sanctions. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 22:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Good block by Ingenuity. Some people with psychology degrees (not me) might also conclude that replying to questions about accountability with a statement that one feels attacked or uncomfortable are typical of those who are more interested in people than things.—In addition to uncivilly averring that WMF ought to have hired a man, Chris Troutman seems to have neglected Wikipedia's policy on civility and that policy's recommendation to attempt to be open with a user when emotions are hurt and one is made to feel unsafe. LDickinson followed that recommendation in the reply that Chris Troutman regarded so dismissively (and no amount of couching that dismissal it in saying that some people would say it but not me—for those people were not the ones who posted it via Chris Troutman's account—exculpates the comment; it's the very same talking-around-it approach that discomfitted LDickinson to begin with. Civility is a policy and a core pillar of the project and layers of abstraction aren't a defense). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• The comment in question was a response to my previous criticism of LDickinson for making a claim about WMF finances then refusing to discuss whether the claim was factual despite multiple people questioning it. For the record, I was unaware of LDickinson's gender until just now and reject the idea that the all-too-common practice of WMF employees refusing to engage the community in discussion is in any way gender based. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• I agree that a worthy discussion on the questions here would still be fruitful Tonymetz 💬 05:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Great block. Mr. Troutman has been on an incivility spree for many years with no action or response from the community until now. I would invite interested parties to review his talk page history of warnings from just the beginning of this year until now as just one small example. It's one thing to get overheated in a discussion; it happens to the best of us. But Mr. Troutman appears to relish going out of his way to be as cruel as possible, and it's wonderful to see someone finally put a stop to it. His citing of Jordan Peterson, a deeply disturbed individual who is at the forefront of the modern culture wars funded by right-wing billionaires, is even more unusual. The timing with the right-wing attacks on Katherine Maher at NPR makes me think it's just a coincidence, but there is something in the air at the moment. Viriditas (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Great block. Comments like that are unacceptable anywhere. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 01:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm often skeptical of the necessity of blocks of experienced editors, but I think this one was warranted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the preliminary assessment by Viriditas, and have myself observed low level incivility and personal attacks by troutman going back many years. Chris's general demeanor is often unnecessarily unfriendly and confrontational any time a disagreement arises. I have been coughing and running a fever in the last 48 hours although I just tested negative for COVID-19, and so I do not have the energy for a detailed investigation. I encourage other capable editors to do a deeper dive. Cullen328 (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Cullen328: hope you're feeling better. I did do a small dive and found some issues with civility: [25] (although he apologized later), [26], his response in [27], [28], [29], you give the impression you've ignored what I wrote due to your single-minded obsession. [30], and [31]. Again, this is just from a quick check. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 03:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

And this is not a new problem. [32] ‍Relativity ⚡️ 03:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I also did a quick search. A 2018 discussion ended with a civility reminder, about a year after he was warned that admins could sanction him for any further infractions in the link you provided. I also saw some transphobic comments at Athaenara's siteban discussion a year and a half ago to which several transgender and non-binary editors expressed discomfort, but everyone just dropped the issue after the discussion closed. It's an open secret that Chris has always ignored basic expectations around incivility and bigotry that—until today—no one has ever done anything about beyond finger wag. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

herearesome diffs with Chris's most interesting comments during the Athaenara fiasco, if it is useful. _Dial^mayo 14:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Going through their talk history I was reminded of [33] which sort of seems ironic considering what resulted in this thread since I guess we should only have male admins anyway because females cannot handle confrontation or something. (Or maybe we should only have female admins because the males are only interested in things and not people?) Anyway while the earlier comment is not sanctionable, I do think their latest comment proves that they were right back in 2022. The writing is indeed on the wall, and Chris troutman isn't someone suited for editing wikipedia which has nothing to do with their biology but all because of their willingness to say fundamentally unacceptable things to others here. Given their defence of another editor who similarly personally attacked someone with highly offensive commentary, it's perhaps not surprising they have now done the same. Nil Einne (talk) 04:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm a disinterested third party. Swift action seems to have been taken on the subject. It's poor behavior to continue piling onto the subject especially since they've been blocked and are unable to defend themselves.

I would like to see a better deliberation process where the subject can present a defense through a third party. Regardless, I don't see anything of value being added here now that action has already been taken. Tonymetz 💬 05:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Tonymetz, please be aware that Chris troutman can edit their own talk page and can make constructive comments there and ask that those comments be copied over here. Although I assume that your unable to defend themselves remark was in good faith, it is incorrect factually. Please check into things before commenting. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

That's hardly a viable way to have a discussion. The pile-on is out of line. What good is being contributed here? The user has been blocked. Tonymetz 💬 05:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Reopening statement

• I've reopened and unarchived this thread due to a new comment by Chris, stating that they "stand by" their earlier comment and that they were blocked for "offending the political beliefs of a particular admin, who was egged on by others of the same persuasion". Since Chris thinks that I cannot remain impartial, I will not make any additional administrative actions in this matter. However, this needs to be resolved, since my earlier block obviously did not solve the issue. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 19:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ingenuity: Solve what issue? You blocked me for seven days as punishment for what I said. You're not changing my mind by blocking me nor am I undergoing some Maoist struggle session. All you did was prevent me from keeping WP:BDC up to date and reverting vandalism for a week. A lot of good that did anyone. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

When ten or so uninvolved editors unanimously agreed that your behavior was well out of line with Wikipedia's civility requirements, you cannot seriously believe that the issue here is with Ingenuity rather than with your behavior. No one wants you to undergo a "Maoist struggle session", they want you to treat fellow Wikipedians of all genders with a modicum of respect. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I already pledged not to repeat my past comments. I was still blocked. I did not ask for any unblock nor did I make an issue of the block being punitive. I don't have to recant. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I was pleased when I saw your promise on your talk page, which was largely why I originally decided to bring the issue to ANI for outside opinions rather than unilaterally block. But now that I've seen you defend that comment as "truthful" and write that you "stand by it", I don't have much faith that you intend to avoid being sexist towards editors going forward. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a simple matter that one of the necessary basic political rocks upon which the idea of Wikipedia rests is that a person should not expect to be excluded from editing or discounted as a valuable editor on the basis of something like sex, gender, ethnicity, etc. If Chris Troutman is unable to operate within those bounds, granting that they do represent a politic, then they probably should not be editing Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I did not block you as punishment, but rather as a preventative measure to encourage you to not make such comments in the future. However, that clearly did not work. So, I will make it very clear for you: I do not think you should be allowed to edit Wikipedia if you think that making sexist comments towards others - whether fellow editors or WMF employees - is acceptable. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect regardless of their gender. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

However, that clearly did not work. -- what didn't work? Has the subject re-offended? Tonymetz 💬 20:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I was shocked to see the reblock and came here to find out what had happened. I share your concerns about double jeopardy. But "a truthful comment to a WMF employee (which I stand by)", well... that's just saying the same thing again. Double jeopardy is when you get dinged twice for the same thing, not when you do the same thing twice and get dinged for it each time. -- asilvering (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

can you be clearer on the expectation here? The subject was blocked based on admin action. It now sounds like the subject is expected to apologize ? Can you be a bit clearer on the administrative expectation here? Tonymetz 💬 20:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about the administrative expectation, but my expectation is that Mr Troutman will fuck off and not darken our doors ever again. Everyone who does not come out with such troglodytic statements should be able to edit Wikipedia (or even work for the WMF, about whom I have been very critical) without looking over their shoulder to see whether he is goimg to do it again. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I see this is quickly expanding in scope. Having seen his comment, I found it quite confusing and, to be frank, bizarre. Despite this rather intriguing viewpoint, I think being called out for it and rigorously interrogated about it and then told the obligatory 'sorry, no. Just no' is a far better remedy here rather than sentencing week-long blocks or longer over political Yu-Gi-Oh. After all, we do have the right to respectfully refuse someone's idea if it is outside the general consensus. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

blocked

Nah, I think it was beyond time for an indef block, which I have just issued. People can disagree on things like the use of reliable sources and so on, but doubling down on sexism is a dealbreraker. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

this sounds like double jeopardy at this point. Are we punishing editors for their opinions now too? I thought ANI was not supposed to be punative

The subject should be allowed to continue and if they err again, a new ANI should be opened with the copious context from here. Tonymetz 💬 20:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing punitive here, the block is to prevent furhter sexist/toxic comments from this user, which, if you read the whole thread, has been an ongoing problem for many years. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The entire thread was context for the initial block. Since the block has lifted, the subject has not made any further violations. So far the previous block has worked to prevent the subject from the bad behavior.

ANI is meant to be preventative. The continued calls for a permanent block are clearly punitive. Tonymetz 💬 20:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Troutman was being sexist, and users get indeffed for that all the time. Hope this helps. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

No, the idea is preventing future cases of editors having to deal with sexism, which sucks individually and creates a toxic, biased environment if permitted over time. Remsense诉 06:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The user did say they would not make these comments again, and I do think Troutman will have been at least spooked by this ANI not to do it again. I think we should make this ANI a final warning, and if issues flare up again even once, il support an indef. Right now il take his word on fixing his behavior if he were unbanned once again. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

He's already had two warnings from the cvommunity and a block, and his reaction was "I stand behind what I said". He's free to appeal the block at any time. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. I think this was a Good Block for precisely this reason. Seems like we'd just end up back here again anyway. Simonm223 (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The earlier pile-on reflected poorly on the admin process. This hasty perma-ban was even sloppier.

Let's review the WP:NOTPENAL policy and see how it could have been better applied here.

1. Administrators should follow a preventative model for their actions with a goal of curbing disruptive or harmful behavior from editors rather than trying to punish them. Little warning was given before the first block. No indication that either punishment was preventative.
2. Topic bans, page protections, partial blocks and so on are in some cases more helpful to the project than indefinite blocks or community bans. No indication that all options were exhausted before the block or perma-ban
3. Short blocks may easily be interpreted as gamy slaps on the wrist that just serve to aggravate rather than enlighten. If anything it looks like the week-long ban was used to goad the subject for a latent perma-ban. No real effort to help talk the subject into better behavior. Just a pile on of offenses from 8 years back, 90% of which were made when the subject couldn't reasonably defend themselves. then they're perma-banned within hours?
4. If you have a problem with the actions of a user, why not try to discuss the matter with them before blocking? -- Subject was banned via the first block before being allowed to engage with the original ANI dog-pile. Little if any warning was given in either instance. Subject even offered to stop the behavior with no mercy shown.

I don't know the dude. He's obviously made some mistakes. This frenzy reflects poorly on the admin process. I would hope someone more senior would review.

My interpretation was that Just Step Sideways expected a Mea Culpa when the subject returned, a deference to the admin process, and when that didn't happen, decided to escalate punishment. Tonymetz 💬 23:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• I had zero prior involvement here other than being aware of the above thread, so I don't know how you arrived at that bizzare interpretation.
• I never expected or asked for an apology, why would I? He didn't do anything to me.
• Your contention that no previous warning was given is easily refuted by the previous discussions linked further up, including a formal community admonishment, which is usually the last step before an indef block, so the one-week block was, if anything, a slap on the wrist to someone who absolutely knew better and made a choice.
• There is no "admin process" I don't know what that is even supposed to mean.
• There is no "someone more senior" to review this, the community is reviewing it and so far, support for the block seems pretty strong even if some find it regrettable.
• Chris is not "permabanned" he is indefinitely blocked. Those are two very different things, and as I've already said, he can appeal at any time.

Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Good block. Chris Troutman's insistence that his claim that women are biologically disposed differently and less suited to working for the Wikimedia Foundation was truthful and not insulting (I made a truthful comment to a WMF employee (which I stand by)) combined with the long-term pattern of such behavior are sufficient grounds for considering this block preventative. Additionally, when Chris Troutman said he pledged not to repeat my past comments links to a comment that states this was the last time I'll be posting to any WMF: in other words, he pledged to not talk to WMF employees; he seems to have not pledged to stop claiming that women aren't as fit to participate in certain elements of Wikipedia as others. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to Chris's issues with mismanagement in the WMF, and he's correct that we have a problem with overlooking blatant POV-motivated editing. But it's apparent that he either doesn't understand why people might have an issue with misogyny and why it's fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia, or he does understand and pretends he doesn't to make a political point. Chris has been a productive editor, and I'd prefer if we could avoid all of this. But as seen in the diffs posted above (before this was prematurely closed as a "pile on" to kick the can down the road), he has engaged in uncivil and bigoted behavior for years, and unless he has some epiphany, I don't see this ending any way other than a ban. — I see that one has been issued while I was writing this, and if it's challenged than I expect I will endorse it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I always found the close odd and planned to say as much but then decided not to bother and leave it for someone else to challenge or query if they felt the same, but no one did. Ingenuity acknowledged when blocking as can be seen above, that their block might not be enough and it was clear other editors were concerned about Chris Troutman's wider behaviour.

It's perfectly normal that a block does not preclude discussion of a stronger sanction, especially for the editor's wider behaviour. (It also doesn't preclude discussion that the block was inappropriate although no one was suggesting that at the time of close.) I don't know why any editor would think that, as it's never been a standard at either AN or ANI. It's true that someone needs to actually propose some other sanction or overturning the existing one, and if a discussion just continues into criticism of an editor with no one willing to propose some other sanction then it might be best to close it, since WP:RFC/U is rightfully no longer a thing. But I think that was premature at the time as the discussion was still in an early stage of analysing the editor's past behaviour.

I mention all that to emphasise that IMO even without Chris Troutman's latest comment, a site ban or indef was one possible outcome if the discussion hadn't been closed; and the block never precluded that. And even with the discussion long closed, and no further action from Chris Troutman, it was always possible for someone to open a thread probably at AN with the evidence they'd collected over the 2 weeks or whatever they'd looked in to it, proposing some such sanction. There was never any need for new action from Chris Troutman unless the community had already decided all that behaviour wasn't even for such a sanction but that never happened. With Chris Troutman's latest comment, it seems even more justified without even needing to consider their wider behaviour in great detail.

While there's generally disagreement on how much leeway we should give editors to just blow off steam and so allow them to suggest they're going to repeat some misbehaviour and only block if they actually do so, in the case of such blatant and harmful sexism targeting others on Wikipedia, I think blocking the editor when they suggest they might repeat the misbehaviour before they've actually done so is reasonable. I'd note that if an editor makes a legal threat, and then when asked to withdraw it says 'I withdraw that specific legal threat, but I stand by my right to make legal threats here' then IMO 99% of the time they aren't going to be unblocked. And as harmful as legal threats are IMO the sexism targeting another here shown in that comment is much worse.

This is actually a good example of why it's important that blocking should be always preventative and not punitive. If blocking was punitive then perhaps "double jeopardy" and relative concepts may apply. But since it's preventative, then any editor even arbcom members and admins needs to be aware that if there's sufficient reason to think they may misbehave in a way that fundamentally violates our policies and guidelines and is extremely harmful to the community, they may be blocked over that rather than over a specific case of them doing so.

Nil Einne (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I think Chris has done a lot of good on this project, and I generally encourage erring on the side of lots of chances and permissive sanctions, but Chris has also been telling us for years that he either has difficulty or is not interested to work in a collaborative environment where there are expectations like WP:AGF, WP:BITE, and WP:CIVIL. It doesn't take long to find shocking comments through the years, usually about newbies, the mental health of our users, or gender. I think because Chris has frequently self-identified as a misanthrope and a newbie-biter, people might think it's a joke or a quirk, but it just kind of contextualizes chronic antipathy towards some of our rules and norms: jarring insensitivity, insults, assumptions of bad faith, etc. Those who take issue with incivility are fragile snowflakes/sheeple operating according to fascist groupthink. Various examples of this, including general hostility towards new users, etc.: [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]. Contrary to some of the comments, you don't have to agree with any of the people you're responding to -- you just can't be so hostile/belligerent/insulting while disagreeing (AGF, BITE, CIVIL, BATTLEGROUND, etc.). To be clear, I see that many of these diffs were already covered in this thread from 2017, which resulted in overwhelming support for an admonishment. I'm mainly countering the "this is punishment" narrative as ignorant of a pretty well established pattern. All of this said, I do think Chris cares about this project, some of his rhetoric notwithstanding, and I hope an indefinite block won't be infinite. I think the big question will be for Chris to convince an unblocking admin that he can commit to our behavioral policies and guidelines without any carveouts for ABF, BITE, or misanthropy. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

As an uninvolved newish user, I can't help notice that if I had made those comments, I would have been blocked indefinitely with the quickness. As user's history and past work should and does matter, but new users who want to help are often blocked/banned in an offhanded way without second chances. I might get banned for posting this, in fact. Ohio Rizzler 1 (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I might get banned for posting this Your comment isn't a problem. Although don't expect great things to happen by posting in random threads at ANI as a new user. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as a more established user, I believe you're correct (except for the bit about being banned for posting that). Novem Linguae's response is also correct, though. New editors who hang around ANI don't tend to have great longevity. My advice would be to keep away for your own sanity, if nothing else. -- asilvering (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Sigh. Chris' comment that he was blocked for was a gross breach of our sense of community. While I don't expect him to grovel and apologise, I also cannot accept him doubling down on it as a "truthful comment (which he stands by)". This shows a potential willingness to repeat the conduct, that cannot be accepted, and the block is therefore a good one to prevent ongoing disruption. If Chris withdraws his statement around "truthful comment which he stands by" and/or makes an undertaking not to make any future comments of a similar nature that so grossly offend our sense of community (note: not an apology, although that would be nice, but unrealistic at this point), I would support an unblock on the basis that the ongoing risk of further disruption is therefore reduced. However, it would go without saying that any future breaches would be handled swiftly and strongly. Anyways, that's my $0.02 on this rather unfortunate saga. Daniel (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Rhododendrites's generosity is admirable but after reading the diffs provided seems misplaced. Chris Troutman's indulgent and unnecessary vocal dismissiveness about people going through suicidal ideation, blunt misogyny, multiple accusations that editors upholding rules about civility are "neo-fascists" and "sheeple", and direct orders to new editors to leave the project accompanied by claims the community doesn't want editors to join are so hostile and socially destructive that I think any unblock would hinge on Chris Troutman somehow demonstrating an at-present-seemingly-implausible change of mind about what behavior is appropriate on the project. Such an extraordinary claim would require extraordinary evidence. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• I always find it sad when longtime editors get indefinitely blocked. They gave so many years to the project. But this is a collaborative editing project and I've seen very productive, oldtimers get indefinitely blocked because they were abrasive or dismissive to other editors or just couldn't get along with others. So many editors get brought to ANI because of policy or guideline violations but the interpersonal aspect of working with other editors is essential for this project to continue on in a tense harmony since we are a global group of editors who have a wide variety of attitudes and opinions on every aspect of life. It's actually a testament to the Five Pillars and editors adherence to them that we don't run into problems like this more often. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
• Completely endorse the block. I've repeatedly seen poor behaviour from this editor. Such blatant misogyny is simply not tolerable on a collaborative project. As others have stated, any newer editor would be unquestionably indef blocked for this behaviour - for a more experienced editor it is arguably a more serious problem as shown by his record of ongoing, chronic incivility towards many editors. By doubling down on his comments, and in fact asserting their truth, he had shown he has a genuine problem with misogyny. He should not be unblocked without clear community consensus. AusLondonder (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
• "Contrary to some of the comments, you don't have to agree with any of the people you're responding to -- you just can't be so hostile/belligerent/insulting while disagreeing (AGF, BITE, CIVIL, BATTLEGROUND, etc.)." Absolutely agree on that one. Doesn't matter if you're a newbie or an expert editor - if you're not going to collaborate with other good faith editors or abide by the rules and guidelines, you won't last long around here. MiasmaEternal☎ 09:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• Unsure whether an indef is needed atp, but Chris has a massive issue with civility that's existed for years now. Every single interaction I've seen him have with new editors consists almost entirely of him snarkily insulting their intelligence, competence, or work while being of absolutely zero help in actually explaining anything to them. He seems to enjoy insulting other people every opportunity he gets, and it's unsurprising that he's chosen to frame this latest incident as him pissing off the woke mob or whatever. AryKun (talk) 09:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  What you say is true - that illustrates exactly why an indef is needed. How many times does someone need formal warnings and admonishments? AusLondonder (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• For any who don't have time to click every diff, I'll flag here this link from Dialmayo's second link further up the thread where Chris Troutman says what he thinks of trans women editors: I can only imagine how women might feel surrounded by those who don't fit the traditional definition. Of course, you folks aren't interested in humanity, are you? I hope the community can realize Chris Troutman's behavior goes beyond rudeness and biting (though those would be sufficient grounds for the block). Chris Troutman also has a pattern of openly questioning both the ability of other editors and their very humanity based on their personal attributes.
  I'll add that the community may need to be mindful of the possibility of a sockpuppet from Chris Troutman in the future. He has openly said (permanent link) that if forced off Wikipedia, he would create a completely new account and just start over from scratch after a year or two away, so as not to be recognized. There are few behavioral rules this user seems to have respect for. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think you've missed some context there: Were I forced off Wikipedia (because I edit under my real name and reveal where I go to school). This is clearly allowed under the clean start policy. And it arose in circumstances where he was doubting the veracity of the explanation given by a new user's unusual behaviour, not promotion of block evasion. Local Variable (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  That quote is taken out of context. The full quote is Were I forced off Wikipedia (because I edit under my real name and reveal where I go to school), I'd create a completely new account and just start over from scratch after a year or two away, so as not to be recognized - the parenthetical makes it clear that the hypothetical was about real life events not Wikipedia drama. * Pppery * _{it has begun...}

• Good block, much of troutman's behavior has been indistinguishable from that of a troll since I joined the project. Mach61 18:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  This is WP:Gravedancing. Someone with 50,000 edits and multiple advanced permissions is clearly not indistinguishable from a troll. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Pppery this is why I qualified my statement with much of. I'm willing to substantiate my comment with specific diffs if you so desire. Mach61 18:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  You might be a while, 'much of' would mean possibly a thousand diffs of showing unrepentant 'trolling' Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Fantastic Mr. Fox "much" as in the absolute number of incidents, not a literal percentage. Is that precise enough for you? Mach61 18:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Suggest closing this entire thread. Chris Troutman is blocked, and it looks like there is consensus for the block. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Clearly the consensus is supporting the indef, so can someone kindly close this thread before further gravedancing occurs. Even with all their quirks and downsides, they were one heck of a prolific editor. Nothing good will come with more gravedancing. Let them go. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  A "quirk" is having a colorful username; a "downside" might be a proclivity to misspell "rogue" as "rouge". When it comes to misogyny, transphobia, and misanthropy, we can call a spade a spade. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes and yes, Hydrangeans. I agree with you. I was being civil (not to be mistaken as taking transphobia or misogyny lightly), but there's no point in continuing this thread. They aren't even trying to evade the block or appealing. So let them go in peace. That's all I'm saying. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:26, 30 April 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.

It's Showtime

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.

---

119.94.170.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) RevinCBHatol (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

What do you need us to do to this? We can't read your mind, so unless you explain what you need we can't do anything. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I took a look. Philippine IP on the article It's Showtime (Philippine TV program), all edits have been reverted. Support a IP block and some form of protection on the article. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocked, article semi'd for two weeks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I thought for a moment that we were back on the NYC subways. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 30 April 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.

Edit war about to begin at Sporting CP

A. Landmesser (talk · contribs) is about to start an edit war at Sporting CP because user doesn't like "Sporting Lisbon", despite being sourced. The article has been protected before because of that. User is ignoring reliable sources and several discussions at the article's talk page. SLBedit (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit war has begun, it was too obvious. I tried to avoid it but A. Landmesser (talk · contribs) didn't care. SLBedit (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, leaving aside who's in the right here, you could have avoided it by not reverting. See the three-revert rule. It's not obvious your edits fall into any relevant exception, and so you've both fallen afoul of it. Local Variable (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, WP:ANEW.

Secondly, you yourself are edit warring. You might have exactly one last chance to back down before an admin gives you both a time-out for going well beyond WP:3RR. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

A. Landmesser is now attacking me. SLBedit (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

In lieu of blocks all around I've fully protected the article. Work it out on the talkpage. I'll look at everybody's conduct. Acroterion (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Neither of you has done yourself much credit - both warned. Work it out on the talkpage, without accusations or personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

There's no consensus possible between me and that user – especially since they have bias towards me. We need users that have nothing to do with Sporting Lisbon or Portuguese football, users with fresh eyes on the subject. SLBedit (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Blatant Conflict of interest (COI) editing: even the source SLBedit insists to add is about a degrading episode in the history of Sporting CP. Always the same modus operandi that people are starting to notice. Others left Wikipedia for good because of editors like him. The most balanced and equitable way to solve the issue is to properly explain the issues with the use of "Sporting Lisbon" without erasing it from the lead. A. Landmesser (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Stop harassing me. Pushing POV and advocacy to the lead isn't a balanced or equitable way to solve the issue. There is already a section explaining "Sporting Lisbon". Why do you need to write "wrong" or "innacurate" to the lead? SLBedit (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Then I'll convert the protection to longer partial blocks for both of you, so that less argumentative editors can work on the article constructively. Any more personal attacks or unsupprted aspersions, and both of you will recieve siteblocks. Acroterion (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Acroterion: fair enough. But will do you something about A. Landmesser copy-pasting personal attacks and lies? Do you realize other users/IP addresses will try to remove "Sporting Lisbon" from Sporting Lisbon article? That's what have they done over the past few YEARS. SLBedit (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

"Lies"? What diud I just say about personal attacks from either of you? Walk away. Acroterion (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, lies, e.g. "Always the same modus operandi that people are starting to notice but nobody cares. Others left Wikipedia for good because of editors like you". User copy-pasted that into edit summaries and talk page. And now user called me a "boy" in the talk page. Will you take action, or do I have to remove that? SLBedit (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted the personal attack. SLBedit (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's policy on editing other user's comments in talkspace. I might also suggest you please drop the stick. edit Acroterion has been very patient with you. Dropping the shovel is almost certainly your best move unless you genuinely have evidence of personal attacks that go beyond snide remarks. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

What does "drop the stick" mean? How can I tell it's only a snide remark and not an insult? I can't see A. Landmesser's emotions. SLBedit (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

It means to avoid adding fuel to the fire and carefully walk away from the situation without aggravating it even more. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK is an old essay which has entered common slang on the english wikipedia. Dropping the stick, putting down the shovel, and other various phrases are thrown around generally to indicate that a discussion has reached its conclusion, or soured, and that trying to pursue it further is not going to accomplish anything positive for anyone involved. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised you both decided to commit to edit warring one another. Start acting professionally and snap out of this 'im telling' attitude and start treating one another as humans and equals with good faith in mind. That is my prescription for this situation. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I, as someone without any connection to Portuguese football (indeed, the amount of time I have spent in the country would be measured in days and not weeks), have an opinion about the content dispute, but am not prepared to express it while the edit-warriors dominate the discussion. Just block them, at least from the talk page, so that reasonable people can get a word in edgeways. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I will just say that User:A. Landmesser's edits are nonsensical, as the club is commonly known as "Sporting Lisbon" in the Anglosphere, even if that is not its official name. Indeed, the BBC still refers to them by that name as opposed to Sporting CP [47]. It is therefore completely correct to include it in the lead. I suggest that when the protection expires they do not revert again, as that may well result in a block. Black Kite (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Removing content without valid reason

User id @Moxy: removed images from Head of government article without valid explanation. [48] These images are used for example since a long time. They also removed images from Head of State article without any discussion. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, which is not what ANI is for. Discuss it with them on the talk page, and keep in mind that longevity ≠ consensus or justification for content being on an article. See WP:BRD. Remsense诉 06:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Sudden removal of content without valid explanation is unacceptable. They have to discuss and hear opinion of other users in talk page. It seems like vandalism. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 06:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is a misunderstanding of site guidelines. They provided an imprecise, quick reasoning which may be acceptable to many editors. Generally, editors are not required to ask permission to make edits, but they are generally required to discuss contentious edits if challenged. You are at the "discuss" stage of the bold, revert, discuss cycle, where presumably they would expand on their reasoning. Remsense诉 06:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy: Please try to obtain consensus in the talk page of respective article before removing the content (which wasn't disputed by anyone since a long time). JoshuaJ28 (talk) 07:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Like I've just said, they don't need to ask permission first (especially when supported by content guidelines) and longevity isn't a valid reason in itself. Remsense诉 07:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Waiting on you Talk:Head of government#Photomontage.Moxy🍁 07:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

It is not best practice to give a test edit warning template to an editor when you have already been told it is a content dispute (and therefore not a test edit) and the other editor has already replied here. CMD (talk) 07:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

'Tis a content dispute & nothing more. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Sneuper and RUSUKR, BLP

I alerted Sneuper (talk · contribs), who is not extended confirmed, about WP:RUSUKR in January. I also had to give them a warning due to a BLP violation. Despite this, they have continued to make many more edits in the topic area, which is prohibited for them, and I gave them one more warning today about this. After this warning, they still continued to make edits in the topic area. Not once have they responded on their talk page. Mellk (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Note that they responded on their talk page to a notice about a copyright violation where they did not indicate an understanding that they cannot make edits in this topic area. Mellk (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

(Bystander comment) And as the person who warned them about the copyright violations, they also seem to have a poor to nonexistent understanding of Wikipedia's copyright policies. I've spot checked two of sets their edits so far, and both of them included the addition of copyrighted materials. They have 300 other edits I will be manually checking. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Lord Milner

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.

---

Lord Milner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to specialise in articles relating to Alfred Milner, 1st Viscount Milner, creating some spectacularly bad articles in the process.

The Lives of Winston Churchill and Alfred Milner was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lives of Winston Churchill and Alfred Milner. They apparently recreated this at The Lives of Lord Alfred Milner and Sir Winston Churchill in April 2023, and it has once again been recreated and is currently at Wikipedia:The Lives of Lord Alfred Milner and Sir Winston Churchill, largely due to a botched attempt to move it to article space in March this year.

Various attempts have been made to create Timeline of Alfred Milner. Drafts have been rejected at User talk:Lord Milner#Your submission at Articles for creation: Timeline of Alfred Milner (October 9) (2021), User talk:Lord Milner#Your submission at Articles for creation: Timeline of Alfred Milner (March 26) (2022), feedback was offered at User talk:Lord Milner#August 2022: Lord Milner timeline, and a creation in article space was moved to draft space at User talk:Lord Milner#Timeline of Alfred Milner moved to draftspace in March this year. At Draft talk:Timeline of Alfred Milner they have signalled their intent to resubmit the draft, which simply isn't suitable for publication on Wikipedia. Entries like "110. 28 Mar 00: Alfred attends a dinner in Bloemfontein" and "183. 10 Oct 03: Alfred meets with Emma, his old nurse" are obviously a level of detail that's inappropriate for a Wikipedia article.

A List of Doullens Conference Witnesses is a horrible fork of Doullens Conference, which appears to consist almost entirely of lengthy quotes from what particpants, or other authors, said about the conference.

They also appear to want to own articles they create, with comments such as No matter what draft, long or short, is approved, I would like to have sole custodian over it. Do you know how to arrange that? and I will also be its caretaker, to protect it and assure it isn't corrupted. Even more blatantly, their published article contains the bold-faced order of "To Wikipedia Editors: Please do not alter the information below. It was manually created, and it will be very hard to recreate. If you have any questions, please ask me. Thank you".

Perhaps some kind of topic-ban is in order, unless that's simply going to move their problematic editing to other areas of the encyclopedia? Kathleen's bike (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Deleted Wikipedia:The Lives of Lord Alfred Milner and Sir Winston Churchill as it is largely a recreation of the first version. – robertsky (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm looking at the subpages and pages linked to his account. The ones I'm seeing are full of sources, yet empty, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Bugnet, or weird article-likes in user space, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lord_Milner/Lord_Milner%27s_People_%26_Places and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lord_Milner/Manpower_Committee. Yet some of them are not bad articles (at least they're well-made) like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_Troop_Movements_During_Operation_Michael. We need to take a long look and figure out what to do here. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think it's that complicated—did you see the strident, over-the-top WP:OWN nonsense cited above? INDEF, we don't need them around, they're not here to build an encyclopedia if that's actually their attitude about anything. Any material that we can pick out of their userspace we can do on our own time afterward. Remsense诉 14:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I was gonna make an argument for good faith, but I'm not sure anymore. Something, something, I'm losing all sense of what's allowed here anymore, support a INDEF, I'm gonna need to inject a Monster into my veins and binge the entire rules and regulations of Wikipedia. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

As you can see a few headings above, I'm almost too patient with people who seem to care about the site and collaboration. I sometimes have to force myself not to go out of my way arguing for good faith from someone who has explicitly argued against my doing so like this. AGF is a vital principle 99.5% of the time—but this is the 0.5% where the duck quacks "I am not here to build an encyclopedia" deafeningly loudly. Remsense诉 15:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

To add to the above concerns regarding 'Lord Milner', see this appalling example of gratuitous racism in a 2022 talk page post. [49] AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

see also these posts at Talk:Scientific racism, this post at Talk:Blackface, and this post at Talk:Kara Hultgreen - not a one-off ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

And there's more: [50] AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Based on the obvious racism and the other issues presented I've indeffed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

At first I thought this was a WP:CIR issue, but it clearly isn't. Good block. Local Variable (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Jesus [51] their response to the block, either troll or severe CIR IDHT, either way TPA-revoke or not quite that level yet? Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

[52] and it continues, note that no one has responded to them, they are just doubling down responding to themself. Lavalizard101 (talk) 08:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Still posting nonsense on his talk page. Regardless of whether this is trolling, or he actually thinks that his racist drivel might ever be acceptable here, we clearly shouldn't be providing a platform for him. Definitely needs TPA revoked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I've given Lord Milner a final warning to stop this nonsense. If he posts one more time in that thread on his talk page (which is on my watchlist) without formally requesting unblocking, I'll revoke TPA. Deor (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Good lord, who brags about their college credits as if that means anything? This guy is full of himself.

Anyway, they've continued to rant without following the instructions for requesting an unblock, so I'd say it's revoke TPA time. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

[53].

he has posted multiple times in the last 3ish hours, all of the same type of CIR/IDHT/uncivil ranting. certainly needs TPA revoked at this point ... sawyer * he/they * talk 20:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

TPA yanked. Enough rope has been given. If it was just about the content, more words could have been exchanged in an appropriate area. However, his attitude to other editors who have called out his prior behaviour and the non-apology in his dismissive replies have clearly demonstrated that his lack of awareness of the etiquette required of an editor. – robertsky (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Robertsky. It happens that I was offline during his latest spate, or I would have done the yanking myself. Deor (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems like he's drunk. EEng 22:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

No worries. I was away too. Otherwise would have followed up earlier as well. – robertsky (talk) 22:39, 1 May 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:Hakikatco

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.

---

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

The user insists that their AI-generated images be included in articles. The images have been removed from the articles by multiple editors [54] [55][56][57], including me, but the user keeps restoring them, despite having been told that those images constitute WP:OR [58] [59]. They also insist on using non-independent sources, thus failing WP:SOURCE, despite having been told by me and other editors [60], [61], [62]. One of the articles they've edited reads like a promotional brochure because of the use of such sources [63]:

He was extremely smart and whatever book he wanted, he was able to understand in less than 24 hours no matter how difficult the subject is. He was able to understand 200 pages from the books like “Jam-al Jawami”, “Sharhul-Mawakif”, “Ibnul-Hagar” in less than 24 hours by reading himself.

— Kaalakaa ^(talk) 01:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Also contains a puzzling reference to a speech in the newspapers delivered by William Gladstone, the British Secretary for Colonies -- to my knowledge, Gladstone never delivered newspapers. EEng 15:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Kaalakaa

  The sentence mentions a speech delivered by Gladstone in the newspaper, not "Gladstone the paperboy" , I think you just want to not understand the written sentence.

  Your argument that "a religious publisher's books on a religious topic cannot be independent" is baseless per your own reference WP:IIS:

  Independence does not imply even-handedness. An independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea. For example, a scholar might write about literacy in developing countries, and they may personally strongly favor teaching all children how to read, regardless of gender or socioeconomic status. Yet if the author gains no personal benefit from the education of these children, then the publication is an independent source on the topic.

  I asked you multiple times to prove the conflict of interest or non-independence , but you failed to provide any proof for this. Hakikatco (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  The discussion where I asked about non-independence : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aisha#Marriage_age_of_Aisha Hakikatco (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  a speech delivered by Gladstone in the newspaper – What in the world was Gladstone doing delivering a speech in a newspaper? Sounds decidedly unparliamentary! EEng 21:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Not a speech in the newspaper, a speech in the parliament later mentioned in the newspaper:

  After reading in the newspapers a speech delivered by William Gladstone, the British Secretary for Colonies, where he stated "so long as the Muslims have the Qur’an we shall be unable to dominate them. We must either take it from them or make them lose their love of it."

  Now I rephrased it in the article Hakikatco (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  the parliament later mentioned in the newspaper – Is there a parliament that's not mentioned in the newspaper? EEng 03:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  The unmentionable parliament. Levivich (talk) 06:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  Parliament was mentioned in the newspaper according to Nursi Hakikatco (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  I give up. EEng 02:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Hakikatco: I'm not sure if you really can't understand the first paragraph of WP:IIS (in this case, WP:CIR problem) or if you deliberately don't want to understand or listen to people's explanations about it in order to keep using your non-independent sources (in this case WP:IDHT). Either way, it's a waste of other editors' valuable time, and I suggest you drop it.

  An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication).

  — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 02:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a fairly clear NOTHERE to me. The Kip 20:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

And this is from Said Nursi's own biography, If he says he read that in the newspaper, that means he stated he read that Hakikatco (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The newspaper bit isn’t my problem so much as the rest of this report, which you’ve thus far failed to counter. The Kip 22:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

AI generated image is generated using Chatgpt by only prompt , there is no "original research" as described in WP:OR

I already countered the other stuff , let me know what you think i didnt Hakikatco (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

It is self-evident that no one should ever paste anything produced by ChatGPT (or any other modern "AI") into a Wikipedia article under any circumstances. I find it hard to conceive of the level of confusion that would lead to someone thinking it's ok. --JBL (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

If the user in question doesn’t understand why AI-generated content isn’t allowed on Wikipedia, I question whether they have the competence required to constructively contribute here. The Kip 00:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@The Kip which policy of wikipedia are you referring to? you clearly dont have any competency to name the imaginary policy you keep talking about Hakikatco (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

You have already been told this, WP:OR. You are pushing the button on ChatGPT or a similar service and telling it to generate an image. We don't do that here, any more than you'd be allowed to draw a caricature of a person and use it in an article. Zaathras (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras you are not making sense,

I already responded to the comments about WP:OR vio above,

AI generated image is generated using Chatgpt by only prompt , there is no "original research" as described in WP:OR

I already countered the other stuff , let me know what you think i didnt Hakikatco (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC) Hakikatco (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras Are you assumign the opposite? that the content should be original per WP:OR ? Hakikatco (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hakikatco: You might want to focus on your country's version of Wikipedia for now. Wikilawyering on the English Wikipedia, whose rules you don't seem to understand and don't seem to like, won't do you or the community here any good. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 02:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa Where is my country Hakikatco (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hakikatco If you're looking for a possible policy against using an AI generated image in an article, it's to do with copyright. It's well-documented that AI such as ChatGPT use external sources such as other artists' work to generate an image such as the one you created. According to a certain US court ruling, that's okay; it counts as fair use. The problem is that usage of non-free images, let alone an image that can only possibly be used under fair use because it itself was also generated under fair use, is expressly disallowed by WP:NFCC unless no free alternatives exist, which probably doesn't apply in your situation since many of the articles you've attempted to add your images to already have free images anyway. And there's no possible method of licensing it under a free license, either; fair use, if I recall correctly, does not allow you to relicense the result under a free license. Do take this with a grain of salt; US copyright law isn't my specialty; but that's one major roadblock to you using an AI image in an article, I'm afraid. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm retracting the above as the grain of salt required is far larger than I'm comfortable with. I'm sorry if I misled you. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

No, that much isn't established in Wikipedia policy; copyright laws on AI-generated things and how it relates to the copyright for the training set are still legally unsettled, so it's certainly not an a trivially obvious application of our content policy. We would need an actual statement somewhere in policy to ban AI generated material, and so far all attempts to reach a consensus on that have failed. See eg. discussions here and the numerous discussions surrounding Wikipedia:LLM, which ultimately led to it being an essay rather than a policy. Hakikatco's editing has numerous other issues but they are correct that we lack a specific policy that generally bans AI-generated images - and not because "it's obvious" but because numerous attempts to create such a policy have been unable to come up with a version that could reach consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I apologise for the possibly hypocritically WP:OR-levels of wikilawyering. But since the OP was asking for a "policy" reason as to why their images weren't permitted, I thought I might attempt to add one. It would still be an interesting exercise to see if fair-use derived AI images can also only be used under fair use (and thus fails WP:NFCC). Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 22:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Aquillion: Apart from the ongoing discussion to create a general ban on AI-generated images, I believe that in this specific case, the user's inclusion of images generated based on their interpretation of a primary source (a book written by the subject himself [64]) violates a policy that we actually already have, that is, WP:OR. It is mentioned in its WP:PSTS section that:

All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Also

original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.

Are the AI-generated images the user used also being used by reliable secondary sources? I don't think so, it's AI-generated images after all. 🙂 — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 00:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support block. Call it NOTHERE, CIR, persistent IDHT, whatever. Hakikatco should not be editing here. Woodroar (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support block continues to edit-war their preferred shoddy AI images among other things into articles. Since they will not stop on their own, a preventative block seems necessary. Zaathras (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Support indef: Normally I would advocate for a TBAN of some kind, but starting their editing by [d]elet[ing] false info propogated by Turkish gov (in other words WP:RGW), then edit warring at Said Nurs, then adding AI-generated images which poorly portray the subject in a realistic sense along with original research in the captions and violating copyright, it is almost fascinating how many policies Hakikatco has managed to break. Of course this could change, but I think it would be in Hakikatco's interest to take a break, read some policy, and then contribute constructively. Or if they can't do it on this project due to CIR issues, go to a project of their native language. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 16:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• An indefinite block seems excessive - Hakikatco has never had a block before - not here, and not on Commons. Other editors who are far more disruptive than Hakikatco get short blocks, and if they continue being disruptive get a longer block, and if they still do not get the message they get an indefinite block. If you look at the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#A Repeated Statement, he/she has at last got the point that he/she had misunderstood some of our policies. If I were an admin, I would award Hakikatco a 72 hour block, with the warning that if there are any more uploads or links to AI photos it will be indefinite, and a warning that if he/she fails to get the point like he did at Talk:Aisha#Marriage age of Aisha followed up by forum-shopping, etc., he/she is likely to get a 2 week block.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  Normally when considering whether to use an indefinite block or timed block, it is good to consider whether the user has made any constructive contributions at all. They have continued to edit war, add original research, etc. despite numerous warnings on edit summaries, the article talk page, and their user talk page. They have only been focused on one topic (mostly one page even) for the 150 edits they've been here. I cannot see them making constructive edits to another part of the encyclopedia. The metaphorical rope strategy seems to be unnecessary and a dead end here. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block Competence is required and is very sorely lacking. Cjhard (talk) 06:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support indef - somewhat thought an indef would be too harsh for a user not previously blocked (despite my own opinions above), but the comment chain below “A Repeated Statement” confirms serious CIR and IDHT issues. The user in question’s behavior doesn’t indicate they can become a productive contributor to the project. The Kip 16:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support indef: I had thought that if they were told by more editors and admins, or perhaps a few days of blocking, that might be enough for them to mend their ways. But it turns out that their WP:CIR/WP:IDHT and POV-pushing issues appear to be quite severe. I'm afraid that if they are allowed to continue, it could lead to unnecessary extra work and mental strain for other editors. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 07:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose block. The discussion above is a complete shambles and reads like wikihounding - especially the whole conversation about the Gladstone quote in a newspaper where there appears to be a lot of wilful misunderstanding going on. Much of the rest of the discussion seems to be based on an assumption that we have an explicit policy against using AI-generated images in articles - and we don't. There are some behaviour issues here around slow motion edit warring - being asked not to put the images back and doing so anyway, without obtaining consensus. But certainly not enough for an indef block. The user is engaging in discussion here and hasn't edited disruptively since this post was opened - since blocks are preventative not punitive there's absolutely no reason for a block, certainly not an indef one. WaggersTALK 08:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  I can see the logic of a warning without any block. It might work. There is also a logic in a short block, because it would act as a warning. Which is better is a judgment.

  But an indefinite block is not warranted. It would not be fair.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  Blocks are not there to act as warnings. That's against the blocking policy. WaggersTALK 10:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Waggers: Regarding the discussion about Gladstone's alleged words, you might want to ask @EEng who was involved in that discussion with Hakikatco. Concerning the AI-generated images inserted by Hakikatco, specifically this one, I, as well as apparently a number of other editors above and in Said Nursi's article, believe that in this particular case it violates a policy we already have in place, namely WP:OR. This is, I think, because the image is merely Hakikatco's or the AI's original interpretation of the text of the book authored by the subject of the article, and there is no reliable secondary source that contains this image. If you feel otherwise, and that the AI's image is appropriate for use in the article, perhaps you could bring it up on WP:ORN or Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/AI images in non-AI contexts. As for Hakikatco engaging in discussions, yes. But from my observation, I think we have also had several cases where users have been banned based on WP:CIR/WP:IDHT issues, even though they were actively participating in discussions. This seems to have been done to prevent them from causing more timesink and mental load for other editors to get them to understand, and to prevent them from causing more work for other editors to check and fix their edits. An example might be this case. Hakikatco's difficulty or refusal to understand what several editors have explained about religious sources not being independent, and how borderline ridiculous some of Hakikatco's arguments are, just convinced me that we have somewhat similar problems at the moment:

  Their reasoning that their religious source meets WP:EXCEPTIONAL [65]:

  many Islamic and non Islamic bookstores sell this specific book which contains this article , which means they endorse the book and the article

  In response to my comment that what we need are secular scholarly sources [66]:

  Secular sources dictating what religious concepts are on behalf of religious sources , what a great idea , you are super competent

  Their defence of their sources being independent and having no conflict of interest [67]:

  But if I have an interest in a .cause and I am sacrificing my money, time and personal life (and for some people this is jail time or even death ) for that cause, this is considered sacrifice which is exactly the opposite of vested interest

  Referring to himself/herself as "editors" (plural) [68]:

  "Editors" here refers to generic version of "Editor", similar to mentioning someone as "they" instead of "he/she", normally I could've said you attacked me but preferred to use a generic phrase to keep to focus on the fact that some editors were attacked, for me attacking one person is same as attacking any people, and I dont like being talked about

  and the cherry on top of the cake [69]

  I am ignoring your statement, and I think you need to Improve not me, and have an objective mindset to edit here , I m still laughing at your comment on
  What we need are secular scholarly sources. Not apologetic writings written by religiously motivated authors and published by religious publishers

  — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 20:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  Religious sources can be independent, there is no such policy stating they cannot Hakikatco (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  And I rephrased "I am ignoring your statement, and I think you need to Improve not me, and have an objective mindset to edit here , I m still laughing at your comment on

  What we need are secular scholarly sources. Not apologetic writings written by religiously motivated authors and published by religious publishers" already

  Hakikatco (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Kaalakaa: I think that these problems could be fixed by a stiff warning - my personal preference for that warning would be a short block that explained clearly what the problems were, and what would happen if they were repeated.
  Hakikatco is not a big problem. He/she is willing to discuss his/her edits/misconceptions on the article talk page and in forums like this one. I can see that a good person could misunderstand some of the rules and practices on Wikipedia. So a warning (in the form of a short block) about where he/she has been getting it wrong might be the right answer.
  We need to think about the message we want to send. Do we want him/her to fix his/her mistakes? Or do we want to tell him/her that life is unfair, and the best solution is to cheat (create sock accounts, edit war, refuse to discuss edits, etc.) -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly this. What we need from Hakikatco is an acknowledgement that they understand images based on a text description are not suitable for inclusion and a commitment to not add them in future. With that commitment in place we can close this and move on. I'm not sure what the rest of the fuss is about. WaggersTALK 10:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Ok i wont add images based on text description Hakikatco (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Waggers: I think you misunderstood what Toddy1 seems to be suggesting. Here I quote their statement:

  I think that these problems could be fixed by a stiff warning - my personal preference for that warning would be a short block that explained clearly what the problems were, and what would happen if they were repeated.

  And no, Hakikatco's AI-generated image is not the only problem here. There's also the problem that they are still unable or unwilling to understand, despite explanations from me and other editors, that religious sources are not independent sources, especially for the history of that religion. Various editors have also noted WP:CIR and WP:IDHT problems with Hakikatco, especially in the discussion under "a repeated statement" below. In total, as of 14:30, 1 May 2024, there seem to be 9 in favor of blocking Hakikatco, with 5 suggesting indef. Is it appropriate to turn a blind eye to their concerns and let Hakikatco continue with only a promise not to include AI images, which is only a fraction of the overall problem with Hakikatco? Also, have you read my response to your comment above, which includes some quotes from Hakikatco's arguments that I find quite absurd? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 13:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC); edited 14:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  To suggest I'm turning a blind eye is to assume bad faith. There are definitely problems with Hakikatco's edits and attitude, I'm not denying that. All I'm saying is they have stopped editing articles while this discussion is taking place and they are engaging here. On that basis I see no reason to block them at all. They clearly want to contribute and need some patient guidance to learn how to do so constructively. Turning everything into a heated argument that results in one or more editors being indef blocked only servers to harm Wikipedia. There's potential for Hakikatco to be a good, constructive editor, if we'd only give them a chance - and point out where they're going wrong without threatening them with a ban every time we do so. They joined Wikipedia less than a year ago - they're still a newbie and we should not be biting them. WaggersTALK 14:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  I would be cautiously content if an admin were to close this on the basis of Waggers' post of 14:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC). Hakikatco has made two useful concessions (a) that he/she accepts that he/she misunderstood WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and (b) that he/she will not add images based on text description. Waggers' suggestion is not exactly how I would do it, but it is far more sensible than an unwarranted indefinite block. -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, Hakikatco might have admitted that his understanding of WP:EXCEPTIONAL was wrong [70]. But his follow-up statements after that are even more absurd [71][72]:

  many Islamic and non Islamic bookstores sell this specific book which contains this article , which means they endorse the book and the article

  many bookstores publishing the article supporting this theory shows the endorsement of it

  And the CIR/IDHT continued even after that. [73][74]

  who are you tell me I am not following rules, does Wikipedia allow more tenured users to oppress other ideas

  Secular sources dictating what religious concepts are on behalf of religious sources , what a great idea , you are super competent

  that he/she will not add images based on text description.

  His recent posts [75][76] in reply to The Kip:

  Does my AI generated image illustrate unpublished ideas or arguments? No, it does illustrate a published text

  However to be on the safe side I think we can stop using AI gen images

  — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 20:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Waggers

  they have stopped editing articles while this discussion is taking place

  That's not entirely accurate. I posted this report at 01:41 on April 26, 2024. At 14:55 and 15:06 the next day [77][78], Hakikatco reinstated his edits on Said Nursî (an article he mainly edited), which were later reverted by Zathras [79]. Hakikatco had been warned about edit-warring and told to discuss if he didn't want to be blocked [80]. Perhaps that's why he engaged in the discussion and stopped restoring his version.

  They clearly want to contribute and need some patient guidance to learn how to do so constructively.

  Patience? Excuse me, but have you ever had a discussion with him and tried to inform him directly that his edits are not in line with our policies and guidelines? I have; in fact, I think I've been the one interacting with him the most lately on Wikipedia. And frankly, the experience is truly frustrating. The lack of competence is just too much, and he just refuses to listen to what people are telling him. This type of user, as AirshipJungleman29 said, is the sort most likely to drive away good content editors [81]. And the loss this causes Wikipedia is clearly much greater than the benefits of having users like him. That's probably why 10 editors so far support blocking him [82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91], with 6 supporting indef [92][93][94][95][96][97]. People have limited patience, and that patience is much better spent on those who actually want to listen and are at least reasonably competent.

  if we'd only give them a chance - and point out where they're going wrong without threatening them with a ban every time we do so.

  If you look at his most recent replies, he's still saying that his AI-generated images are appropriate [98], but because just "on the safe side" [99], he can stop inserting them. Okay, for the case of AI images, then what about his other issues and the ones he's likely to cause in the future given his serious CIR/IDHT problems? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 19:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, I'm persuaded. The IDHT issue in particular is a big cause for concern. I don't like the way this thread turned into a pile-on, riddled with false assumptions, straw-man arguments and distracting tangents - but the advantage of that is that multiple people have tried to explain the same thing, in multiple ways, yet the message still hasn't landed. WaggersTALK 10:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  There is clearly no AI policy, and WP:IIS is not a policy unlike what you are portraying @Kaalakaa , its frustrating for me to repeat this time Hakikatco (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Hakikatco: What is even more frustrating is that when people try to make the case that you are learning from your mistakes (and do not need an indefinite block), you make posts like this. In a narrow sense, you [Hakikatco] are correct. You should be trying to understand why your edits caused the problems that led to this discussion. Instead, you are like a defence barrister arguing that you were right all along. This is not the same situation as a trial at The Old Bailey on TV; behaviours that work there, do not work here. I think it is pretty much agreed that you will get some kind of block. Your refusal to get the point is a problem; please read WP:LISTEN, which is an English-language Wikipedia behavioral guideline.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  I didnt restore my AI image, despite I know there is no policy to ban it

  I didnt restore the other content despite I know it doesnt violate WP:IIS and even I know that its an essay not a policy

  I admitted my mistakes if I made a mistake

  I get all the points made but they are not always valid points as I listed why, I don't see any listening on @Kaalakaa though, they keep misinterpreting WP:IIS and pushing it as a policy Hakikatco (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Hakikatco I think that you need mentoring. It would help a lot if you tried to create some new articles in draft-space, so that you could learn through doing.

  I was once brought to WP:ANI, and admins told me that if I ever did something again I would get an immediate indefinite block. They said that there would be no warning; it would just happen. It was clear to me that I had a choice. I could see that my arguments in favour of what I had done, had only made the situation worse. So further argument was pointless. I accepted the warning. It does not matter whether I was in the right or the wrong; the consensus was that what I had done could not be tolerated. So I never did it again.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Mentoring? How could mentoring possibly help? This guy is still saying he doesn't see why AI-generated images don't belong in articles. Will someone please, at long last, put him out of his misery by blocking? EEng 17:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  I also said I wont add AI image despite there is no policy about it Hakikatco (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  And my illustration was a depiction of a published text Hakikatco (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  We may need to invent some kind of super-CIR block. EEng 20:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, I guess...? User:Hamterous1 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️)} 20:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  YES! See the recent update to my user page. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support a block: the editor exhibits WP:IDHT and WP:CIR behaviours and is clearly a WP:TIMESINK, judging by #A Repeated Statement. The sort of editor that is most likely to drive good content editors away if not sanctioned. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - I nominated their commons uploads related to this issue for deletion a few days ago and it looks like they will be deleted if that holds any relevance to this discussion. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 15:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. That will help.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  They've been deleted. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 13:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef for disruptive editing of the WP:CIR and WP:TIMESINK kind. Their comments in this very ANI thread show that they do not understand independent reliable sourcing, instead try to push tendentious sources, and are not willing to learn at this time. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Kaalakaa Disruptive editor

The user has been making disrupting edits to the Wikipedia content [100] [101] [102] [103]

- The user deleted a 105 years old photo claiming "it seems AI generated" [104]

The user appears to be misinterpreting Wikipedia policies to justify these edits

In the below thread they state that the content added to Aisha page is not an independent source violating WP:IIS Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Hakikatco, when asked about what kind of vested interest the author of the content has (which is the criteria to decide a source to be non-independent) , instead of providing an answer they attack the editors using insults : Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Hakikatco , here they are calling other editors incompetent and asking them to leave Wikipedia English and edit non-English Wikipedia pages: "You might want to focus on your country's version of Wikipedia for now. Wikilawyering on the English Wikipedia, whose rules you don't seem to understand and don't seem to like, won't do you or the community here any good."

Hakikatco (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

All of these edits are fine. I would have made them myself. I have to laugh at File:Bediuzzaman after Russian camp.png, which you uploaded on 17 August 2023 and sourced to Flickr, where it just happened to have been uploaded on the same date. If not AI generated, this image has clearly been manipulated to the point of uselessness. Woodroar (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

It appears to be a very manipulative copy of this image,[105] there's many different copies online but I can't find details of where it originally comes from. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps worth noting MOS:HOTLINK

AI upscaling software should generally not be used to increase the resolution or quality of an old or low-resolution image. Original historical images should always be used in place of AI upscaled versions. If an AI-upscaled image is used in an article, this fact should be noted in its caption.

I can't say with certainty that it's an ai upscale, but given the similarities it does look like it might start quacking to me. Shaws username . talk . 00:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

It looks like a pencil illustration to me, based on the original photograph. I know a lot of illustrators with that style and I'd lean in that direction. Could be an AI faking a pencil illustration or a CGI one for that style. Canterbury Tail talk 14:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hakikatco:

when asked about what kind of vested interest the author of the content has (which is the criteria to decide a source to be non-independent) , instead of providing an answer they attack the editors using insults : Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Hakikatco , here they are calling other editors incompetent and asking them to leave Wikipedia English and edit non-English Wikipedia pages: "You might want to focus on your country's version of Wikipedia for now. Wikilawyering on the English Wikipedia, whose rules you don't seem to understand and don't seem to like, won't do you or the community here any good."

This is a gross misrepresentation of my comment and a violation of WP:TPNO. Please strike that. That comment of mine was directed solely at you, as I clearly mentioned @Hakikatco at its beginning [106], with no other editor mentioned. And it was a reply to your still refusing to listen to what multiple editors had explained—that your AI-generated images were violating WP:OR. It was not a response to your supposed inquiry about "what kind of vested interest the author of the content has," which had been explained by me and other editors on a separate talk page [107], which you couldn't or refused to understand. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 15:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa

"Editors" here refers to generic version of "Editor", similar to mentioning someone as "they" instead of "he/she", normally I could've said you attacked me but preferred to use a generic phrase to keep to focus on the fact that some editors were attacked, for me attacking one person is same as attacking any people, and I dont like being talked about

As other editors pointed out there is no AI Generated image ban policy on Wikipedia , to those others opposing this please show the policy to support it. WP:OR is not violated because there is no "original research" as required by WP:OR , how is that I send to chatgpt a prompt like "give me an illustration describing this page" an "original research"? You implied I violated WP:IIS and WP:YESBIAS which are not even policies but essays

I still responded to your comment about WP:IIS and asked you to show the conflict of interest or vested interest as required by non-independence criteria of WP:IIS starting Apr 14 , and continued on Apr 26th , as a response you called me incompetent on 02:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC) and asked me to leave Wiki English in the parallel thread on 27th Apr as a response to WP:OR comment

Regardless of whichever thread your response was , considering all the contradictions you showed so far, I think you need to Improve and have an objective mindset to edit here , I don't think there is any policy to support this idea :

What we need are secular scholarly sources. Not apologetic writings written by religiously motivated authors and published by religious publishers

Hakikatco (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

how is that I send to chatgpt a prompt like "give me an illustration describing this page" an "original research"?

As has been explained to you multiple times, it’s because it’s not based on any reliable secondary sources nor is it derived from a primary-source depiction of a topic (ex. a real-life photo) - you yourself are literally creating a prompt and delivering it to an AI, which creates the image itself, thereby making it original content. Again, this has been explained to you multiple times throughout this thread - considering you still fail to understand this, I sincerely believe you lack the competence required to constructively edit Wikipedia. The Kip 05:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Well thats not true, I was told that its self-evident that AI generated images should not be used and or I was given WP:OR with no explanation like you did now .

Based on the Wiki policy  :

Because of copyright laws in several countries, there are relatively few images available for use on Wikipedia. Editors are therefore encouraged to upload their own images, releasing them under appropriate Creative Commons licenses or other free licenses. Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the "No original research" policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article.

Does my AI generated image illustrate unpublished ideas or arguments? No, it does illustrate a published text Hakikatco (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

However to be on the safe side I think we can stop using AI gen images, as I mentioned in the other thread Hakikatco (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

For God's sake, when policy says Editors are therefore encouraged to upload their own images, it means going out and taking your own picture of a mountain or something -- not your fantasy, or some bot's fantasy, of what something or someone looked like. EEng 14:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinite block needed (of Hakikatco). I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks for even a moment that an AI-generated image has any place in an article ever (except, perhaps, in an article on the subject of AI-generated images) has a severe CIR problem. Next we'll be hearing that "to be on the safe side" we shouldn't use text written by monkeys at typewriters, even if there's no policy discouraging that. EEng 14:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

A Repeated Statement

It has always been one of the rules of DRN, which is a content forum, that we do not mediate any dispute that is also pending at another noticeboard, including in any conduct forum such as WP:ANI. A request for dispute resolution about Aisha at DRN has been closed because this dispute, which includes complaints about the editing of Aisha, is also pending here. Reporting the same dispute at multiple noticeboards is known as forum shopping and has always been disapproved of in Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Thank you for the notification. But just to clarify, it was @Hakikatco who filed the DRN case [108], and they didn't even list and notify the two other editors who also had taken part in the discussion at Talk:Aisha: [109], namely @Anachronist and @Toddy1. If I'm not mistaken, this one was closed for the same reason, right? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 17:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I have changed this comment to Level 3 so that it does not appear to be addressed to you. And, yes, their statement that the previous DRN was prematurely archived was wrong. It was archived after it was closed due to failure to notify. I have not tried to mediate or assess this dispute, and am not at this time commenting on who is at fault, and am not commenting at this time on whether there are competence issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

One more time, for anyone. Do not forum shop by filing reports about the same dispute at two or more noticeboard at almost the same time. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

A problem is that sometimes users file things that mean something to them, but mean nothing to readers. Take this DR case filed by Hakikatco at 02:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC). It was closed because Hakikatco failed to notify the other editor. Hakikatco's complaint says: my content was deleted due to invalid reasons, the user Kaalakaa seems to manipulate WP policies to remove my content, and points us at Talk:Aisha#Marriage age of Aisha.

If you read that section of Talk:Aisha, you can see that Hakikatco appears have misunderstood WP:EXCEPTIONAL which talks about the need for multiple high quality sources - see Hakikatco's comment of 10:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC). I thought it was tendentious editing by Hakikatco, but if we are charitable, it might have been a competence with the English-language issue.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Toddy1 Well I notified @Kaalakaa who started deleting my content, sorry I didnt notify everyone of you

Maybe I misunderstood WP:EXCEPTIONAL>, but too many of you were attacking so I got busy. Anyway, multiple high quality sources agreed with this theory including Islamicity.org https://www.islamicity.org/3379/at-what-age-did-aisha-marry-the-prophet-muhammad-slw/ , many Islamic and non Islamic book stores are selling this book of Haylamaz https://wardahbooks.com/products/aishawifecompanionscholar

https://www.rjjulia.com/book/9781597842662

Also the fact that alternate age theories were listed 1300 years ago by Tabari ( He stated she was 12 or 13) and other well known Islamic scholars, makes this theory on her age not alone. Hakikatco (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hakikatco: So, an apologetic article from a religious site, Islamicity, is what you consider as "multiple high-quality sources." And because "many Islamic and non-Islamic bookstores" sell the author's book, this means it has met WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Not only did you completely ignore the lengthy explanations from multiple editors regarding WP:IIS, which is one of the criteria for WP:SOURCE, but your understanding of WP:EXCEPTIONAL is also completely wrong. Not to mention the various issues regarding you above. Yeah, this appears to be a clear-cut WP:CIR & WP:IDHT case. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 03:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

many Islamic and non Islamic bookstores sell this specific book which contains this article , which means they endorse the book and the article Hakikatco (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, okay. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 04:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

and no , i admitted i misunderstood WP:EXCEPTIONAL,

On the other side According to Muslim community Islamicity is high quality website and active for 29 years, and many bookstores publishing the article supporting this theory shows the endorsement of it Hakikatco (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

According to Muslim community Islamicity is high quality website and active for 29 years

Oh, I see. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 04:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

you can mock whatever you want but this is the fact Hakikatco (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

That kind of "fact" doesn't matter here. What we need are secular scholarly sources. Not apologetic writings written by religiously motivated authors and published by religious publishers. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 06:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Which policy is that? I think secular sources talking about religios topics can be very biased as well .

Besides that I want to also answer your question here:

I think you are confusing Vested interest concept in WP:IIS (which is not even a Wiki policy but an essay) If I have an interest in a topic and I am making worldly gains by publishing a content about that topic then I am not an independent source , this can be personal gain, financial or political per WP:IIS.

But if I have an interest in a cause and I am sacrificing my money, time and personal life (and for some people this is jail time or even death ) for that cause, this is considered sacrifice which is exactly the opposite of vested interest .

Yes Tarihce-i Hayat (The biopraphy of Said Nursi ) was written by his fans and followers and published in 1958 . If you search in Amazon you can see there are many publishers who published the same book and in many of them the author doesnt exist or not Said Nursi (https://a.co/d/506LeKr , https://a.co/d/506LeKr) . Bediuzzaman didnt want to have his biography created but after his students insisted for so long and finally he said if you talk about the Risale i Nur more than me I would accept you write my biography

In the case Said Nursi and Risale-i Nur, having an interest in him meant torture and jail time in Turkey until 1958 .

His fans like Zubeyir Gunduzalp, Tahiri Mutlu, Hafiz Ali, Mustafa Sungur every one of them were jailed because of their interest in Risale-i Nur

Said Nursi himself was either in jail or in exile from 1926 until 1952 (After the first democratic election he was acquitted from all charges ) .

So none of the fans, students of Said Nursi gained anything worldly by supporting him or writing Tarihce-i Hayat, aka none of them had a vested interest in writing such a book.

I am fine using other sources than Tarihce-i Hayat but wanted to understand the reasoning behind your edits Hakikatco (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Which policy is that? ... you are confusing Vested interest concept in WP:IIS(which is not even a Wiki policy but an essay)

WP:SOURCE policy states: "Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." And that "independent" word is linked to WP:IS. How many times do I need to tell you this? As for your argument:

But if I have an interest in a cause and I am sacrificing my money, time and personal life (and for some people this is jail time or even death ) for that cause, this is considered sacrifice ...

... and a conflict of interest. Parents also sacrifice their money, time, and personal life for their children, but WP:IIS says they are not independent sources.

I think secular sources talking about religios topics can be very biased as well .

See WP:YESBIAS. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 06:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

What I was saying the criteria to be non-independent per WP:IIS is to have a vested interest , if you are claiming that a vested interest exists for the fans of Nursi to write Tarihce i Hayat, whats it

And considering WP:IIS is not even a Wikipedia policy who are you tell me I am not following rules, does Wikipedia allow more tenured users to oppress other ideas Hakikatco (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:YESBIAS is not a WIki policy either

What we need are secular scholarly sources. Not apologetic writings written by religiously motivated authors and published by religious publishers.)

. Secular sources dictating what religious concepts are on behalf of religious sources , what a great idea , you are super competent Hakikatco (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I've had enough of this. I'll support the block. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 15:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I also support the block. User:Hamterous1 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️)} 19:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The serious proposal that a bookstore selling a book is somehow "endorsing" the book, and that Wikipedia should care about such an endorsement, is so ludicrous that it raises serious WP:CIR concerns. CodeTalker (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

I have indefinitely blocked Hakikatco to implement the consensus of this sprawling discussion. Cullen328 (talk) 20:42, 3 May 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.

Cyxfr pretending to be an admin

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:Cyxfr is claiming to be a "moderator" on their userpage and has threatened to ban users while representing "wikipedia support". This occurred 9 hours ago so might not be considered urgent, but I would expect them to turn up again when the NFL Draft continues this evening. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Two possibilities: Either they're a sock socking. The use of hidden comments with like six edits in their contributions suggests past experience with wikis at least. Or they're the greenest of newbies and should be called in. Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

My guess is that they're just posing, and may have just enough experience as an IP to know what code to use. I've left them a warning and removed the moderator business from their userpage. Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

This is only tangentially related, but I do feel like we should not be assuming someone is a sock because they recognized an already-existing HTML comment and used it. That does not demand any kind of familiarity with Mediawiki in general, much less enwiki in particular. It only requires extremely basic knowledge of HTML, or even just general inquisitiveness when they see text in the edit tab that isn't shown in the article. I don't mean to specifically call you out on this, Simonm223; I feel like I see this kind of assumption that "basic competency in any facet of editing implies socking" increasingly often from all quarters, and I think we've lost the plot. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have socks on the mind a bit with how backlogged WP:SPI is. Got to the point I was half-tempted to ask for adminship just to help move it along but it does mean socks are on my mind. I'll strike. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

it's a visual edit, so there's a specific button to add invisible comments

so i don't think any socking or html experience is necessary for that part cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Where is that button, by the way? I don’t know how to add hidden comments in VE. Zanahary (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Insert > More > Invisible comment Schazjmd (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Zanahary (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Writ Keeper, you clearly know far too much about plots. I demand that you sign in under your original account! ——Serial Number 54129 13:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I mean, all right, I guess. Under your original account (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Nice! 4 points. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC).

Brilliant! :D ——Serial Number 54129 14:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Worth noting the fact they even attempted this stunt at all represents a serious misunderstanding of how Wikipedia's advanced user rights work. "Moderators" or administrators actually don't have any extra power to enforce their preferred version of articles at all, much less threaten to "ban" users over it, as stipulated by WP:INVOLVED. That it was clearly done only to try to gain extra leverage in their topic area is quite concerning indeed. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 10:45, 28 April 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.

181.117.225.154

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.

---

Some kind words ❤️ a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. Johnuniq (talk) 09:56, 2 May 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.

M.A.LasTroniN910 adding copyrighted material to articles past last warning

user:M.A.LasTroniN910 came across their edit here and noticed it added copyrighted material. I went to warn them, and saw they'd been warned about copyright violations numerous times before on their talk page. Despite assuranced at their last ANI thread that they are "fully aware of copyright law", they don't seem to be. A block may be warranted before they do even more damage. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure that I violated copyright?

Because I only add the reception section and several resources for North American and French licenses,

and the link that you doubt i

didn't put it in the article, and as for the plot, I didn't put it in, please check the article thoroughly before you accuse me because this is a misunderstanding and I'm confused

Just because I made mistake in the past, don't think I will always do it. M.A.LasTroniN910^t@lk 05:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You're right- you didn't copy the paragraph beginning "Omniscient Reader's Viewpoint has reigned supreme as one of the top ten action series and the biggest fantasy success of the digital comic platform Webtoon with over 340 million views and 3.5 million subscribers." from the article I linked. You copied it from the article you linked, here. The phrase likely first appeared in a press release, or one of the sites copied the other. Do you understand why this is a copyright violation? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that I violated and did not rewrite the text because I thought the sentence should be like this since I'm not a native English speaker

However, from now on, I will check and rewrite all my edits, and now if you think it's good to block me, I have no complaints.

Thank you for alerting me. M.A.LasTroniN910^t@lk 14:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive mainspace moves per Robert27768

The user Robert27768 is a new user who tried to move a article from draftspace to mainspace using tactics which see to match UPE activity. The article was moved bak due to the checks and balances of wiki admins, but the user remains and in all likeness try again. Requesting review of user. Thank you. Geraldine Aino (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

There's a particular sock farm which uses deceptive, false names in edit summaries (like here). I'm trying to track down which one it is. 57.140.16.48 (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

It's these fine folks. 57.140.16.48 (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Report filed at relavent SPI, requested checkuser to clear out more accounts. Thanks 57.140.16.48. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 15:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Arslansumra7 repeatedly re-inserting copyright material

Arslansumra7 has repeatedly added content copied from: https://petsmania.info/labrador-retriever-all-about-the-dog-breed/ to Labrador Retriever. I've posted two talk page warnings which have fallen on deaf ears.

Apologies if this is the wrong area to report such behaviour. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for removing that copyvio, Traumnovelle, for requesting revdeletion (now done) and for leaving a warning on the user's talk. I believe that's all we need to do for now – it's not uncommon for new editors to make these mistakes, and we'd normally only bring them to this board if they persist after several warnings. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The user did it again (twice more, in fact), now indeffed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

When I wrote this I presumed they would keep repeatedly re-inserting it given how quickly they re-added the content and assumed a block would stop any further violations until they acknowledge they have read the copyright policy. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

User edit warring copyrighted material into article

Xplore22 (talk · contribs) has spent the past day or so repeatedly inserting copyrighted material into Island Rail Corridor, which another user has been taking out due to the promotional nature of the text. When I warned them about the copyright issues, they responded by removing my revdel request and adding the material back into the article. When I undid that, they did it again. A temporary block might be in order. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Thankyou for reporting this user Skulymann (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The user was warned on their talk page around ten minutes ago. They haven't made any edits for around an hour so we'll see if it plays out. I believe a temporary block is warranted, however if they keep going along this line it should be an indef block. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 01:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

This user is a (rather obnoxious) SPA with a WP:RGW attitude, a bad case of page ownership, and zero self-awareness. They previously blanked nearly the entire page twice in February and their edits have been challenged by multiple editors for promotional tone and copyvio. I'd honestly just indef them now, they clearly aren't interested in collaboration or compromise. This reply on their talk page says it all, really: Island Rail has been a part of my life for the last 13 years, I've worked on the railway here on Island (I live here) directly in a number of capacities. I know Island Rail and you clearly do not so stop making edits on something when you don't know the facts. Langford was not a flag stop, that article is incorrect. Langford also does not have a "sign post" it has an actual open concept station building that was recently rebuilt this year. Victoria West is an actual Station Name Sign, of which if you knew railway terminology you would know that this means it is a station whether there's a building or not. Victoria West is the new terminus of the Island Rail Corridor on the south end, because, if you actually knew Island Rail you would know that the Johnson Street Bridge was replaced a number of years ago and no longer has a rail crossing. Additionally, as a result, Victoria station (the building) no longer exists either. The former E&N Railway has been truncated to Victoria West (Station Name Sign) and that is the new southern terminus of the railway. Again, STOP making edits to factual enhancements of this Wiki article when you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Honestly surprised they haven't been indeffed already. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I've posted info on WP:COI on their Talk page, let's see if that helps. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Copyright violations after several warnings

Norfolkbigfish's blatant and persistent plagiarims was detected by more than one editors at least two years ago ([110], [111]). During a recent FAC of crusading movement, I detected new cases of plagiarism, and opposed the article's promotion. In response, Norfolkbigish took me to ANI. (Several of the cases of plagiarism, were also detected by an other reviewer ([112])) I initiated a GAR for plagiarism and several other issues, and still detected further cases of plagiarism. I closed the GAR review, and Norfolkbigfish again took me to ANI. During the process, Star Mississippi proposed a block of Norfolkbigfish "for on going copyright issues which remain an issue despite their ongoing promises", this proposal was supported by Serial Number 54129, but the process was closed without any formal decision. Norfolkbigfish have promised several time that they will be working to clean the article of plagiarism. For instance, they stated at 16:40 on April 10th that "I am in the process of clearing the article of any remaining hint, although it apperas to be only fragments of sentences now." On 25 April, Norfolkbigfish suggested that the article should still be listed, stating that "all issues identified have been addressed" ([113]). On 26 April, I mentioned that Norfolkbigfish obviously does not take copyright violation seriosly ([114]), and AirshipJungleman29 mentioned that they are "increasingly concerned about" Norfolkbigfish's "perception of the issue" ([115]). Today, I continued the review of the article and still detected several new cases of plagiarism. I think Norfolkbigfish is not here to build an encyclopedia as they are either unable to or do not want to clean the article of copyvio. Persistent and blatant plagiarism indicates "General pattern of disruptive behavior", and Norfolkbigfish's struggle for a GA badge ([116]) suggests that they want "to gain as many awards as possible". Borsoka (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The suggestion that there is new plagiarism is untrue, as @Bosoka is aware I am working through the article to clear historic close paraphrasing. This is largely fragmentary now, and I will remove all and every instance. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• They are newly detected cases of plagiarism, although you have allegedly been cleaning the article for three weeks, and wanted to close its GAR without delisting it. I am more and more convinced that you are unable to understand that your plagiasism is an extremly serious issue. Whenever I started to review a new section in the article during the last one and a half months, I detected new cases of plagiarism in each section. And I have not finished the review yet. Borsoka (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  Well @Borsoka, these have been resolved now you have raised them, please do continue your review and we can get this article cleaned to your satisfaction. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• You have been warned by multiple editors several times since early 2020. You have promised to clean the article several times during the last month, but the article still contains plagiarism. Borsoka (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  Please point it out and it will be resolved. What remains is fragmentary as far as I am aware. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Just noting I've seen this. On wiki time is limited, but @Borsoka's comment that I recommended a block then is true, and I see nothing from a read here that makes me think the situation has changed. Star Mississippi 01:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I shared Borsoka's concerns regarding historic plagiarism and I share their continuing concerns re. current close paraphrasing. NBF seems to be—as he seems to have been for some time—under the impression that if he can reorder some words each time an issue is raised, then that's OK. Of course, it is not. It does nothing to address potential Cv violations as yet undiscovered or to allay community concerns as to their ability to identify and avoid in in future. There may by now be a serious blind spot, and one serious enough to CIR.

Perusing the pages linked to provides both plenty of evidence supporting NBF's close paraphrasing and also their intransigence at resolving it. I would like to suggest that this discussion is not derailed by becoming yet another endless back and forth between these two editors as so easily seems to happen. Bosoka has summarised the case well, while it seems unlikely that NBF has anything much new left to say. ——Serial Number 54129 11:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

No intransigence here @Serial Number 54129, I am keen to resolve all and every issue. As such I am working through the article when time allows resourcing and rewriting as I go. No new infringements have been added, or will be, and if you or any other editor wishes to look at the article and raise specific concerns I would welcome it and use it as an opportunity to improve the article. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• This is what you have stated several times during the last three weeks, but you have not proved that you want to or able to fix the problem. For instance, at 16:40 on 10 April you stated that "I am in the process of clearing the article of any remaining hint, although it apperas to be only fragments of sentences now." Nine days later, at 15:55 you again stated that "I happily admit my mistakes and am/was working towards rectifying them." Three weeks ago I happily offered you a chance to clean the article ([117]), but you missed the opportunity. Instead of cleaning the article, you made minor edits for weeks, although I reminded you that copyright violation is a serious issue, and this should be solved first of all ([118], [119]). Borsoka (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support permanent block and/or ban It’s been four years, there have been multiple warnings, and the message still hasn’t been received. It’s time to stop with the diplomacy and break out the artillery. Editors like this end up being more trouble then they’re worth, and it’s abundantly clear that nothing on NBF’s end is going to change. We need to block (or ban) the editor permanently. 2600:1011:B194:C0D1:24DC:6528:9265:C0AD (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I hesitate to get involved in such things and don't want to cause more grief for anyone, truly, but permanent block and/or ban feels a little harsh especially, as I understand it, the plagiarism allegations concern facts. I don't want to down play anyone's concerns but are there other possible sanctions short of permanent blocks? Thank you. Britfilm (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Norfolkbigfish's persistent and blatant plagiarism is a legal risk for our community. Even his latest remarks suggest that the very concept of copyright violation is totally alien to them ([120], [121], [122], [123], [124]). My experiences during the last 2+ years suggest me that many editors must be ready to permanently review Norfolkbigfish's edits to avoid further cases of copyvio if Norfolkbigfish continues to edit WP. Sorry, I would save this precious time for tasks adding value to our project. Borsoka (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  These are examples of feedback being given and acted on. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Feedback? The denial of blatant and par excellence copyviolation? Borsoka (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  Everything you suggested was actioned, the last item with consensus. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Support indef block: Just about every single plagiarism allegation there's ever been on Wikipedia concerns facts: what else would they be plagiarizing? Looking over things, it seems that NBF either doesn't care, doesn't get it, or hopes we just don't notice, and that's the only reason they just keep doing it after the first time they were caught at it. Ravenswing 18:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• I really hope Norfolkbigfish can, at this last of last chances, attempt to take ownership of their mistakes. By that, I do not mean continually writing "if you extensively investigate the article I wrote and extensively detail all the plagiarism I included, I guess I can bother to look up synonyms and move words around". I mean writing "if you investigate the article I wrote you will not find any plagiarism, because I made sure of that". By the looks of it though, they seem to be going on a conveniently-timed wikibreak, so we might not get even that basic level of responsibility. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• After at least two years of warnings? I envy your optimism. I am much more pestimistic: several editors have wasted precious time to review the articles Norfolkbigfish copied from reliable sources but the opposition of the article's delisting was Norfolkbigfish's only independent act. WP:NOTHERE 02:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borsoka (talk • contribs)

• Thanks @AirshipJungleman29, convenient it may be, but I am genuinely going away o holiday today with limited access to reference books. On my return I will get this article to the state you suggest. Namely, "if you investigate this article I wrote you will not find any plagiarism, because I made sure of that" Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Norfolkbigfish: your latest edit contains whole sentences that are not verified by the allegedly cited source ([125]). If you do not compare your edits with the allegedly cited sources, how will you secure that your new edits remain free of plagiarism and copyvio? Why do you think that WP is a community of your employees destined to detect your plagiarism by reading through dozens of sources? Borsoka (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Uncivility, profanity and name calling by user:SpacedFarmer

User:SpacedFarmer looks to have taken offence to having their edits reverted and subsequently being outvoted on Talk:Macau Grand Prix#Split/merge into other articles, thus they have taken to uncivility including name calling to several editors and a Youtube personality, using profanities of varying strength. User:Rpo.castro asked them to consider their tone after being a recipient of foul words, only to have needless abuse in return. After their latest comment on that talk page with a strong word and a possibly libellous comment, I asked the user on their talk page to reconsider their tone, only to have a reply including more name calling to the Youtuber.

I don't want to see this behaviour, profanity, nor unconstructive comments on Wikipedia. It isn't even discussion related on the whole. Am I expected to tolerate it? Rally Wonk (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Rally Wonk: Please don't forget to put a notice on their talkpage (see near the top of this page for instructions). Polygnotus (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Rally Wonk (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Also please read WP:DIFF and post some links here. It makes life easier when there are some diffs people can look at. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Rally Wonk (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Rally Wonk is being pretty sensitive here.

• Some of the criticism includes that I pointed out to one user being told that in his oppose statement, it is unreadable to most people as he stuffed over 1000 words into a paragraph. I told him how am I going to read that?
• When I get told to go fishing by Rpo.castro, I pointed out the expenses of it, not to mention that you cannot just go out into a lake and just fish as you need a license and a membership to a lake, in my country at least.
• This YouTuber has well over 100k subs by stealing contents from Wikipedia like virtually all motorsport YouTubers (I first came across him back in 2018 when he had less than 1000 subs and was still the same) and Rally Wonk expects me to treat him with kid gloves. Why is calling an influencer a parasite an insult when they leech off the public for a living.
  • Why he does get called out? He steals content from this site and pass it off as his own. Those who work hard here like us, don't get a credit. Because of this, I think this criticism is valid. At Discord, we (the community) throw in more offensive slurs when describing him. This is unless Rally Wonk is that influencer and can't face his own reality.
  • For those who steal from Wikipedia, just don't expect nice things to be given to you with the exception of white knights and Captain Save a Hoes that plaque the editorialised comments sections - this should be a repercussion for stealing contents from Wikipedia.

SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The points you have are separate to the style in which you make them which is being discussed here. If it's acceptable on Discord, good for Discord, but this isn't Discord, please leave it on there. Some users here, including me, enjoy and expect Wikipedia without that tone. Further, some people, including me, come here to escape that tone. Maybe you think you're being jovial and maybe expect everybody else is feeling the same way, but sometimes it's received as abuse and agitation. If I'm being sensitive, OK, but there is a page written on incivility that says this is not acceptable here. In fact I believe it's pretty selfish if you can't respect that. Rally Wonk (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

My take is that some of what each of you is saying is valid. SpacedFarmer, some of the tone of your comments, particularly the "how the fuck am I supposed to read this?" and other aggressive use of a similar language, is definitely an issue and needs to change.

And as for losing your mind over the "parasite youtubers", such comments probably don't constitute a violation of policy (or at least not a particularly egregious one) but it is also at best a pointless distraction. Wikipedia's content is open license for a reason (many reasons, actually), and you're not going to find many here who are put out by other content producers "stealing" the content--they are permitted by the principles of this project to use our content verbatim, if they like. It's more ideal, in an empirical honesty sort of way, if they attribute to us, but it's outside the scope of this project's rules and oversight to control their behaviour. If you are going to have problems with people (and content mills especially) recycling your contributions for their own uses, you may want to consider contributing your knowledge elsewhere: once you add it to an article on this project, you lose effectively all control over it, and you typically will never get credit for your hard work, beyond your occasional recognition on-Project by your editorial peers. In fact, it is extremely rare that any editor's contributions are recognized beyond the four corners of out process pages.

On the other hand, Rally Wonk, some of the issues you have raised here are tempests in a teapot, or perfectly reasonable and in-proportion responses to what appear to be attempts at witticism at SpacedFarmer's expense. SF's response to the fishing comment, for example, was pretty tame and reasonable; I actually find the original "take up fishing" comment itself to have been slightly more snarky and on the bubble of passive aggressive--if only just barely. This thread is probably just barely worthwhile to draw SF's attention towards their comments getting a little heated, before that situation gets worse, but I don't see as there's an argument for community action here. Not even a slap on the wrist. More like the textual feedback equivalent of using your hands to make the universal "just a bit quieter, please!" motion. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

A warning may be in order. SpacedFarmer has called other editors' comments unreadable and called their contributions so terrible (which is, I think, the real problem of the 'YouTube parasite' comment—I'm less concerned about what SpacedFarmer says about YouTubers and more troubled by the way that comment was a circuitous dig at another editor's contributions to an article, saying the article isn't 'good enough' to 'parasitize').

Rpo.castro's snark also seemed out of pocket, what with the fishing comment amounting to an indirect suggestion to leave the project (what with the whole 'dedicate your time to other activities' line). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

NOTHERE disruption

Bharatian Mapping (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Bharatian Mapping is engaging in edit warring to promote his absurd views for 3 days now despite the warnings. Kindly block. Orientls (talk) 05:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Yup clearly WP:NOTHERE.CycoMa1 (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Special:AbuseLog/37631579... sometimes the edit filter makes people look better than they are by preventing their attack nonsense. – 2804:F14:80EE:5A01:C1B6:4511:8DE3:83A7 (talk) 07:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked user as WP:NOTHERE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

LadybugStardust and transphobic remarks

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:LadybugStardust is making offensive remarks about transgender topics. I’d been trying to assume good faith but their remarks here and here are pretty egregious when taken as a whole, coupled with WP:IDHT. A topic ban from GENSEX is clearly necessary but their overall attitude doesn’t inspire confidence in editing anywhere. Dronebogus (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

between the utterly inappropriate remarks and dodging the question of whether they're a sock, I have INDEFFed. They're welcome to make a case for why they should be allowed to continue editing here. Longer comment on their Talk Star Mississippi 17:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Dronebogus (talk) 17:43, 3 May 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.

TraceNothing is vandalizing Wikipedia, and leaving rude messages in my talk 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.

---

User keeps pinging me and tells me to go somewhere else. I am very offended with this. PLEASE block this user. Tried to give him numerous warnings, and he is now being ignorant. Thanks BryceM2001 (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

To add on what I said. I reverted the user's edit on Sextant but keeps reverting mine. Left a notice in talk page and replied very snarky. BryceM2001 (talk) 16:37, 3 May 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.

GeekyAviation repeatedly making rude comments

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.

---

GeekyAviation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This person has been repeatedly making rude comments against people in edits and edit summaries. Some of them are on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Air Lines Flight 520, and they've reverted my {{uw-npa4}} on their talk page saying if that is "attacking" and that you got offended by that then you should onsider staying off the internet because that was insanely ridiculous that you called that offensive, laughable (diff). LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

yup, nothing i said was considered attacking GeekyAviation (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

also its ironic how you are getting mad over me removing your nonsense "attacking" notice on my page when you literally have yours locked. look who is abusing their power... GeekyAviation (talk) 03:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

GeekyAviation is also bludgeoning on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Air Lines Flight 520, with comments such as i remember when you called LATAM Airlines Flight 800 a non notable incident aswell, of course you call this a run-of-the-mill incident (diff) and seems like you are going along with everyone else and seem to not know anything about aviation, funny (diff). LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

how on living earth is that attacking? thats ridiculous 😂 GeekyAviation (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Whatever you consider "attacking" doesn't matter, because now you're misgendering me after I told you not to call me "Mister". LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that Geeky is a sockpuppet of User:TyHaliburtn. I've opened an SPI case. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

And he's been indeffed for being WP:NOTHERE. MiasmaEternal☎ 06:14, 4 May 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.

Block requested of Havardperson for a lack of basic competence in English

I request a block of Havardperson because they appear to lack basic competence in English. All of their edits to articles, with the possible exception of one, introduce basic grammatical errors that require other editors to either make corrections or reversions. Their responses to warnings and advice in their User Talk page indicate that they lack fundamental competence to even understand how problematic their edits are. They have continued to make their disruptive edits even after multiple editors have asked them to stop so I am afraid that a block is the only way to prevent further disruption. (I have not provided diffs of their problematic edits because every one they have made in article space - with the exception included above - is problematic so it's trivial to see the problem.) ElKevbo (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmm - the short statement on their userpage is enough to show the problem clearly. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Harassment by Angie O'Kon

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.

---

Angie O'Kon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user has been indiscriminately reverting edits and spamming the talk pages of people who have made these edits giving them a "final warning" for vandalism, regardless of whether these edits were constructive or not. ReneeWrites (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this has happened to me also. This user reverted valid edits made and threatened me with being blocked. Womble218 (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Angie O'Kon, CommissarDoggo, Lynch44: Same situation also happened to me; this edit came from an inaugural first season of Qui sait chanter?. Saisønisse (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Angie's been blocked indefinitely, so that concludes this discussion. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Saisønisse Head to the discussion down below, thankfully the user has now been blocked. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 10:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm going through the edits of those that Angie O'Kon has previously given 4IM's to and so far haven't found any examples of unconstructive edits. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 10:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello - You replied to me and very reasonably pointed out the error I made, which was appreciated. The issue with Angie O'Kon seems to be how rude they are, how heavy-handed they are, whereas you are entirely helpful. Womble218 (talk) 10:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Citing things incorrectly is not the same as vandalism or not being constructive. In that sense you did nothing wrong. There are a lot of aspects about Wikipedia that are not terribly user-friendly to new users. Even I still struggle with this sometimes. There's a whole second discussion below here going on about the same user as well. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:47, 4 May 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:201.127.46.87

Nice words from them here. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked and rev-del'd. Not very nice at all. Daniel (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Endy Angello

Endy Angello (talk · contribs) is continuing to post weird diatribes at Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity that display a gross lack of understanding of the topic area, as well as how to behave in a civil manner on Wikipedia. I'm having a hard time continuing to tolerate this high of an amount of disruptive comments.

As I'm involved, can another admin please review it and issue some warnings and/or blocks? Cc @Doug Weller who posted there already. TIA. --Joy (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I hope the admins will take a look how he and his friends' personal opinion want to exclude Croatia from that topic. On every question that he doesn't like he didn't answer to avoid being wrong. On every document and source that I posted, he also avoid answering. He interprets things as he wants and how it benefits his personal opinion. I wanted to include both countries, Croatia and Serbia because it's the only proper way based on official historical documents, and he just wants Serbia to be included. Endy Angello (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

ANI is not for settling content disputes, but for behavior. Nobody here is going to settle your dispute for you about how Tesla's nationality and ethnicity should be described.

You have been extremely contentious in that discussion, assuming bad faith, and generally acting in an uncollegial manner. My question would be if a warning would suffice to get you having a productive discussion with people rather than at them, or if a topic ban of nationality/ethnicity would be more appropriate. That you've continued the violations of WP:AGF in this discussion suggests that the latter may be required; there's literally an accusation of bad faith in every single sentence you posted in your response. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• Page blocks. I have page-blocked Endy Angello indefinitely from Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity for persistent bludgeoning and assumptions of bad faith. They have not been editing Nicola Tesla, but I have page-blocked them from that also, since having access to the article but not the talkpage would be quite paradoxical. Bishonen | tålk 22:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC).
• Good partial block. But I have a throwaway question that will probably not be answered. Why did Endy Angello establish an account in December 2015 and then lurk until April 2024? (They have not edited any other-language Wikipedias in that time.) Were they waiting for the configuration of the outer planets, or were they relying on one of Tesla's more esoteric inventions to know when to start quarreling? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  I often wonder about that. I see quite a few, some must be sleeper socks. Doug Weller talk 18:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  In retrospect, maybe the escalation of tone from [126] to [127] should have sufficed for me to not try to reason with that and instead just warn them not to post weird nonsense under the authority of WP:ARBMAC. It's just that I didn't like to intimidate an apparent newbie, and it's too easy for such a reaction to this arguably subtle abuse to be misinterpreted as administrative overreach. If I had noticed that the account was 9 years old (!), maybe I would have acted differently. At the same time, I'm not sure, it still seems like we need to apply WP:AGF at least once. Maybe [128] could have been the cutoff point, but by that point I thought I was already WP:INVOLVED. --Joy (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you have been acting in good faith. You are experienced enough to know where this user's behavior will lead and I think you haven't done anything to advise the user. Not to defend his behavior, but you (and some others) have been advocating for bans for ages on that talk page. Much milder users got banned. Good faith would be to advise the user , if he doesn't correct his behavior then apply appropriate measures. Again this is not in defend of his behavior, but I noticed a pattern of bad faith from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.18.60.36 (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

No bad faith has been shown here, but plenty of incompetence. I'll leave you to work out on whose part. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

That's such a bad take, I don't even know where to start. --Joy (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Qaqaamba

Hi admins, Qaqaamba has violated WP:3RR and is being disruptive. In this edit, I added citation needed templates to the infobox, removed South Africa as the genre's country of origin, and removed the statement about Freshlyground popularizing the Afro fusion music genre. I have addressed the concerns I have with the article on the article's talk page. Qaqaamba has failed to provide reliable sources to support the claim that Afro fusion was pioneered by Freshlyground, and has not provided a single source that states that the genre originated in South Africa. He reverted my edits to the page in this edit. Once I got a notification that he reverted my edit, I reverted his edit. He went ahead and reverted my edit once more. In addition to this, he left a warning note on my talk page. I undid his edit and told him that I would report him if he leaves this particular note on my talk page again. He reverted the edit I made my talk page; the warning message is still on my talk page.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we should just give Versace1608 and Qaqaamba boxing gloves so they can sought out their problems. Honestly, I think y'all deserve some time of the encyclopedia to refresh your minds because this is too much now. Is this the third ANI discussion, plus countless talk page discussions and AfD? Come on now. dxneo (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Touching grass from time to time, is definitely necessary at times. Hahahaha, it's's not funny at all, mate. I'm absolutely terrible at fighting and I don't see it as a pleasant or meaningful activity whatsoever. Facepalm Qaqaamba (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Automated tools such as RedWarn ought not be used for reverting good-faith additions, particularly not with a 'vandalism' edit summary. However you probably shouldn't have used rollback either. Local Variable (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Local Variable You're correct. I intended to use RedWarn for disruptive editing ( disruptive deletions/additions) rather than vandalism. Unfortunately, in the heat of the moment, my logic failed me. I also reported to AIV for vandalism (first time using this function) instead of disruptive editing which I now can't undo. I acknowledge that was incorrect and an embarassing blunder to say the least Facepalm Qaqaamba (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that when you're getting close to entering into an editing dispute, use manual undo and steer clear of the tools (whatever rationale they may offer). Automated tools make it too easy to lose your judgement. Also, they tend to add user warning templates which are silly in some circumstances: see WP:DTTR. Local Variable (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I sincerely hope not, as I find it greatly diminishes the editing experience as well as the purpose/ of building the encyclopedia. Thank you very much for your advice, it's valued. Qaqaamba (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but undoing deliberate disruptive edits doesn't necessarily violate the Wikipedia policy on reverting edits (WP:3RR), especially in the case of an article under AfD where consensus hasn't been established. Furthermore, removing information in such a situation could disrupt the article and affect potential decisions. If I recall correctly, it was twice, not three times (Special:Diff/1221212461, Special:Diff/1221213051). Additionally, Versace1608 is literally repeatedly, WP:HARASS ing and WP:FOLLOWINGing [129],Talk:Afro-soul furthermore, has previously violated Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks (WP:PA) toward me., because I once corrected an edit on a page Versace 1608 created and turned out to be right [130], proceeding that Versace 1608 nominated an article I created for AfD [131] and now that it appears it is not getting deleted Versace1608 is unhappy. Out of all the editors who have contributed to the article, this individual is the sole individual consistently emphasizing the need for sources, despite the presence of 90+ (mixed) WP:RS as per comments at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afro fusion) Additionally there is another thread releated to Versace1608 here for the reasons above, still open Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment & Disruptive editing of User: Versace1608 -Topic /article and interaction ban proposal, Versace1608 additionally posseses a prior history of being blocked for violating the Wikipedia policy on disruptive editing (WP:DE).

1. [132]

Qaqaamba (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The issue with that line of thought is that unless it is blatant vandalism, it's very hard to define "deliberate disruptive edits" in a way that can't be challenged. Which is why you should always think twice before going past 3RR and risking a block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds understood, thank you. "Deliberate" in the context , per detailed above. Additionally, as mentioned earlier, I didn't violate 3RR. Generally speaking, are there exceptions to the three-revert rule when reverting disruptive edits (disruptive deletions/ disruptive additions) or in this case not making use of WP:MNA and the references list : Afro fusion#References (Afro fusion)? Furthermore nominating articles for AfD with the rationale that "This particular music genre fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC, and WP:SUBNOT. It has not been discussed in reliable secondary sources, and there isn't a single reliable source that discusses the genre in detail," it seems to violate WP:PA as the topic has indeed been discussed in reliable/ secondary sources, and there are reliable sources that discuss the genre in detail or otherwise. Surely, this information could have been verified before making the nomination. Qaqaamba (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

sigh Well, I tried. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Qaqaamba If the edit you are reverting is not blatant vandalism - if it is simply that an editor is being stubborn and refusing to listen to consensus, or that information is unsourced, or anything else - then 3RR applies. Have a look at WP:NOTVANDAL, it's very precise in exactly what vandalism is not and will help you to avoid edit wars. StartGrammarTime (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@StartGrammarTime understood, thank you. What are the usual procedures for an editor who is being stubborn and refusing to listen to community/ consensus, information that is sourced or anything else by dint of "disruptive deletions/ disruptive additions"? Qaqaamba (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

User:MonsterMash51 repeatedly introducing material contrary to consensus, abusing edit summaries

User:MonsterMash51 has repeatedly been adding material to Impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas that is contrary to consensus established in the talk page of § Restore article content. MonsterMash51 previously received a page-block for violations of the 3RR, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive481 § User:MonsterMash51 reported by User:MicrobiologyMarcus (Result: Blocked 36 hours). MonsterMash51 then returned to adding the same content: Special:Diff/1221583820.

I suggested MonsterMash51 self-revert to establish consensus for wording on the talk page (Special:Diff/1221590608) which fell on deaf ears. Since then, MonsterMash51 was reverted before re-adding again at Special:Diff/1221590964. When I left in my edit summary on my revert Non-neutral description and unestablished fringe theory on Special:Diff/1221592969, MonsterMash51 used the same edit summary in removing other content Special:Diff/1221614334 and the again when blanking large amounts of content at Special:Diff/1221614373.

When the page was restored again by User:ObserveOwl at Special:Diff/1221614658 with the edit summary Please provide a source that says it is a fringe theory. looks all reliably sourced, MonsterMash51 then added content again by mimicing ObserveOwl's edit summary on Special:Diff/1221614971.

Since his page-block has expired, MonsterMash51 has, in my opinion given the above, has taken to disruptive editing practices and has not responded to attempts on their talk page of any resolution, see User talk:MonsterMash51.

Thanks for your attention in the matter, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 00:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Topic Ban from AP2 contentious issues topic broadly construed If this user took a short-term block and then went right back to edit warring the same content back in then they probably should be invited to take a longer break from things to do with American politics. Simonm223 (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Support topic ban on WP:CT/AP: this is clearly disruptive, and any argument of good faith was lost on the blank of Special:Diff/1221614373. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe the edit history shows the blatant hypocracy on display by MicroBiologyMarcus. It's perfectly fine to unilaterally revert content I added as being "biased" or "poorly sourced" without consensus and then when I do it to similar content, it can be restored no problem. And then when I restore my own edits, he runs to adminstrators to try to get me banned.

It's amazing that adding such words as "along party lines" can be seen as biased when it applies to an all Democrat vote, but the same exact words used earlier in the article to apply to all Republican vote. It's almost as if we don't want to say that Democrats could possibly vote for partisan reasons while suggesting that Republicans do.

Also, I did take the discussion on the talk page and modified the "falsely" to "alleged" to be more neutral as requested.

Also, unilaterality declaring C-SPAN an unreliable source is ridiculous. MonsterMash51 (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

C-Span is generally a primary source which, per WP:PRIMARY is, at best, less than ideal. Simonm223 (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

However, also, there is no less than three editors on that page, excluding myself, who have reverted your inclusion. So it's pretty clear who is edit-warring here. Simonm223 (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I would object to the characterization that I "[ran] to administrators to try to get [them] banned" when any attempt to discuss this with MonsterMash51 on their talk-page by myself and others went ignored, and MonsterMash51 is ignoring other's reverts and talk page consensus. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I have a very hard time believing that MonsterMash51 is acting in good faith here. They waited a week to add content that had been reverted by several different editors, including myself. After the original ban, they attempted a talk page discussion, but seem to be ignoring it today. After my initial revert today, they did remove one of their most objectionable changes but have continued their disruptive editing otherwise. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

well yanno, as far as MicrobiologyMarcus editing in bad faith is concerned, I feel a need to point out that he just now cheerfully and without prompting unprodded on of his AfD nominations that he was kinda wrong about -- it kinda required prior knowledge of Central California -- and gave me a barnstar to boot, so I pretty much disagree with your premise that he is operating from ego or bad faith. Also, he seems to not be American so he's probably not in a conspiracy with the Democrats. Elinruby (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Meda Keeling

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.

---

Meda Keeling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Meda Keeling has been on a revert campaign. Many of their reverts are down right wrong and they have been issuing only warnings for helpful edits. They are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. See their talk page for more evidence and details. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 19:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Several editors (including me) have posted to Meda Keeling's talk about their incorrect warnings to other editors, however they have not continued to edit since we posted. No response on their talk so I don't know if they understand that their reverts and warnings are wrong. Schazjmd (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Meda Keeling shows that new account Meda Keeling did 72 edits in 41 minutes. The edits consisted of reverting random edits and posting warning notices on user talk pages of people they revert. The reverts appear to be clueless - for example this one deleted the end of a citation template and the </ref> at the end of a citation.

I think the purpose of the reverts and warning is to game the system to get the required number of edits for a desired status. I think we can safely assume that the account-holder has had previous accounts, so a check-user would be nice.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

They're actually not "new"; they registered in 2017 and just started editing today. So, yes, I think a sleeper check would be in order. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

They seem to be on a mission as well, like they have past disputes. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 20:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Endorse {{checkuser needed}}. Tempted to just WP:CIR block. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:08, 2 May 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:ActionHeroesAreReal edit warring at Naseem Hamed

User:ActionHeroesAreReal mistakenly insists on Naseem Hamed being labelled as British-Yemeni, and is slow-edit warring over it. Hamed was born in the UK, is a British national, has never lived in Yemen (from where his parents hail), is not notable for his ethnicity, and has only ever competed under a British boxing licence. User chooses to ignore all the relevant BLP lead section guidelines including MOS:ETHNICITY, MOS:IDENTITY, and MOS:FIRSTBIO.

After initially using an entertainment site as a source, they have now brought up another entertainment site which labels him as such, but the sole inclusion of this fails NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, as there are numerous RS—of actual boxing expertise—correctly labelling him as solely British: "Few British boxers", "first British fighter", "British boxing legend", "British fighter's career". All the while, plenty of reverts since mid-March with hardly any engagement in discussion at the article talk page: [133], [134], [135], [136]

I briefly considered DR, but believe it is unnecessary because rather than a content dispute, this is a clearcut case of a user not understanding the above guidelines, and refusing to engage in discussion. I've arrived here on the suggestion of ANI, as there are also conduct issues at hand, as well as the user's persistent habit of not using sources correctly or misinterpreting them, which has garnered several warnings by other experienced users. A couple of recent examples of them not quite getting how things work: [137], [138], [139]. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Ia agree there is a slow-motion edit war going on, but of course it is literally impossible for only one person to edit war. For now I have protected the page from editing for a week, hopefully that will be enough to get some consensus on the issue. For the record I don't think the MOS, generally, in "enforcable" on such things, so a local consensus is a better metric. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Disappointing. I'll try WP:BLPN next. With AGF in mind, I deem User:ActionHeroesAreReal to be a difficult editor, and further talk page discussion is unlikely to get far based on their conduct. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Applying protection in these situations is, to my mind anyway, a sort of "warning shot" that if the behavior that led to the protection recurs after it expires, blocks will follow. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

sephora page

the page for sephora has been vandalized, and I can't revert it since the page uses a blacklisted website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaismagorm (talk • contribs) 16:09 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The recent vandalism to Sephora has been reverted. The article is not protected. Which website is blacklisted? Cullen328 (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

In the spirit of full disclosure, I once did some construction work in a Sephora store in San Francisco. Cullen328 (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Nothing recent appears to be blacklisted. I reverted back to when a bunch of promotional material was present- and self reverted-, but none of the refs were blacklisted there either. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Referenceforbusiness.com was giving a blacklist error, I can confirm that also happened to me. Not sure if it’s supposed to be or not. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It was added in 2019 at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April 2019#Advameg sites (city-data.com, filmreference.com, etc.) as one of several sites operated by Advameg which is "generally unreliable" at WP:RSP, although the reason is copyright, not reliability - it is probably copied from (or includes content from) the International Directory of Company Histories but doesn't mention it anywhere. There are still 475 articles citing this as a source. Peter James (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

SBL hits are logged, but they aren't in the default Special:Log view. Any logged-in user can still view the spam blacklist log. Though nowadays there's also a "blocked domains hit log" so you need to check two places. Also remember that it's possible to get around either restriction with WP:ROLLBACK (not Twinkle's "rollback"), though of course it's always polite to remove the link afterwards. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Huh, Special:Log/abusefilterblockeddomainhit can be accessed as an IP, neat. – 2804:F14:80EE:5A01:C1B6:4511:8DE3:83A7 (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Though apparently it was going to be made user-only ASAP in July of last year: gerrit:933605 – 2804:F14:80EE:5A01:C1B6:4511:8DE3:83A7 (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see, thanks Gaismagorm (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Ongoing crosswiki vandalism by User:188.163.80.19

I'm tied up right now, but could someone please look through the contributions of 188.163.80.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? If I'm reading things correctly, they've been introducing misinformation about paintings, primarily by Van Gogh, across multiple wikis (global contributions). Thank you! - Eureka Lott 15:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted their Van Gogh edits. Looks like every edit they have ever made on enWiki has been reverted for lacking sources... ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 16:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, mike_gigs. I had some time and reverted the vandalism on Commons, Wikidata, and the French and Italian Wikipedias. I didn't attempt to undo the edits on the Ukrainian or Russian Wikipedias, because I don't understand those languages.

I fear this may be a deeper issue, though, with vandalism going much further back, because it looks like this user was also editing disruptively from 188.163.80.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 188.163.83.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). There could be more addresses that I haven't spotted. Yuck. - Eureka Lott 01:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Agusmagni

This user nominated multiple TV shows and tried to delete them for a reason that seems to be similar to WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, when there are plenty of sources. Also, they mentioned their PROD notice being removed twice, whereas any editor may remove a PROD if they object to deletion, and the deletion reason was not valid.

It is possible that this account could be a Single-purpose account whose purpose is to delete television show articles. They joke about starting an edit war, which could mean that they are possibly WP:NOTHERE (1).

Thank you. Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 23:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked Agusmagni for 48 hours with a stern warning to refrain from disruptive editing at AfD once the block expires. Cullen328 (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

IP disruption

IP editor 95.151.19.213/95.151.19.128 has added the same list of unsourced genres (Diff 1, 2, and 3) to Strong (Romy song) three times in recent weeks despite repeat warnings/reverts (including this talk page warning). Editor has a couple dozen edits between both IPs, most of which have been reverted for similar reasons, also leading to a second talk page warning here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Possible compromised account

Jeffersonian111 (talk · contribs)

I have blocked this editor after a sudden switch to vandalism. Can someone with the right goggles take a peek, please? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I've checked, and believe you are correct. But the good news is it should be fairly easy to see if/when they've regained access to their account – just ping a CU. – bradv 16:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

May not be compromised, as they similarly vandalized (and self-reverted 2 minutes later) the same article as they did today on April 12th. Waxworker (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

What about 6 November 2023‎? Followed by a self-revert and 2 IPs doing the same vandalism. – 143.208.236.229 (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• You say "compromised" like it's a bad thing. I thought compromise was an important part of the consensus process. EEng 16:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's also a key element of kompromat, which is less good. Narky Blert (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Hang on, EEng--while you're here, I'll just grab you your Groan-Inducing Pun of the Month Badge. For those unfamiliar with Eeng's accomplishments in this field, this is his 187th consecutive win. Actually, we used to have a trophy, but he ran out of shelf space. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  FTR, I auctioned them all off to pay for the deworming of wretched children in some developing country. So it's been for a good cause. EEng 09:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I actually saw edits from this user while doing recent changes patrol. It came up on my feed with a high ORES score so I checked it out, and this user added an inappropriate image into the article. I immediately clicked rollback and given the context of the edit, I decided to skip the level 1 warning and went straight to level 2. Then, I realized, this account has made 300+ constructive edits in the past and this really isn't normal. Then this user repeated that same edit and I was just about to revert it with the edit summary "Possible compromised account??" but then it was already reverted. Does seem like an compromised account but I also find it quite unusual that this user, like Waxworker and the IP mentioned above, that this user also vandalized other pages like this and immediately self reverted, and this exact same page here, both in a similar way to what they did. Bradv already CUed this account and confirmed it is compromised so I will accept that. User3749 (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Continual edit warring patterns from Cortador

Today two separate articles underwent full protection because of edit warring, Republican Party (United States) (a designated contentious topic) and then Ginni Thomas (a BLP). In both instances the edit warring involved Cortador (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

This isn't even close to the first time Cortador has engaged in edit warring. They've been blocked for it twice, they've had numerous other edit warring notifications on their talk page[140][141][142][143][144] (this last one was posted by me but removed by Cortador with a personal attack. Talking of personal attacks, they've had to be warned about that in separate instances before, too).

Since the last time they were blocked they've stopped outright violating 3RR - however, I am noticing a continual pattern of edit warring (and belligerence), regardless. I'd urge anyone reading to go onto their talk page and CTRL+F "edit war" (and that doesn't include the warnings they've removed).

Some editors might be more prone to edit warring, I understand that, but given that two different articles had to undergo full protection in one day because of this user, one of them being one of the most significant political articles on the whole site (designated a contentious topic), I feel the need to bring it here, as it's now become disruptive. Edit warring warnings clearly do not work. Blocks only seem to stop them outright violating 3RR, so perhaps a community-imposed 1RR restriction is in order - or some other kind of restriction. — Czello ^(music) 21:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• Clearly the warnings and blocks aren't working. I suggest a topic ban from the topic or 1RR restriction. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The articles were locked because editors kept doing edits against talk page consensus. The GOP article was in fact locked after a revert from Czello themselves. Czello has a habit of making false accusation e.g in the second linked message they attempted to pass off a original addition as a revert and claim that as an 3RR violation, which has happened more than once. Other false claims include sockpuppetry (see here), were Czello also neglected to tag me. Czello has also admitted to stalking me (see here), and their primary interest appears to be doing self-appointed Wikipedia policing rather than improving the site. Cortador (talk) 07:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Even if they were edits against consensus (which is clearly untrue in both cases given that discussions are ongoing), that doesn't excuse edit warring which has now resulted in two articles being fully protected – a single revert from me to restore the WP:QUO version isn't what caused that.

As for the second link I included – well, if your defence is "it was 3 reverts actually not 4", well that's still not a great look. It's still edit warring, which is what this is about. Edit warring isn't confined to bright-line 3RR violations.

The rest of your comment isn't about the edit warring, and seems to be deflection, but since you mentioned it – the sockpuppetry investigation isn't a "false accusation", any more than any other SPI that finds nothing is. There's no obligation to tag a user in an SPI. Finally I have never admitted to stalking you, you said that. I said that your talk page was on my watch list from the several previous times I've had to notify you about 3RR.

Can you address the matter at hand please – that being that you have a long-term habit of edit warring? — Czello ^(music) 08:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You are ignoring the fact that the pages weren't even locked after my edits, but after those of other editors, one of them being you.

If you had a case for edit warring, you could have made that instead of fabricating a 3RR - which also wasn't the only time that happened.

The SPI does indeed to require to notify the accused editor, though in the light of your behaviour, it doesn't look good.

The "several previous times" were a single instance of the aforementioned 3RR case that wasn't actually one. I suggest you cease fabricating stuff like this. Cortador (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they were locked after your edits - they were edit wars you were involved in (3 reverts in both instances, to my count), regardless of whether your edits were literally the final before it was locked. You can deflect and say others were invovled here (and one single revert does not an edit war make), but ultimately the pattern of edit warring is what I'm raising here.

The SPI does indeed to require to notify the accused editor No, it literally does not. Per the guidelines, Notification isn’t mandatory.

And yes, by the time I said I had your talk page on my watchlist, I had posted there twice about edit warring.[145][146] I'm really not sure what your point is, here - other than drawing attention to the fact that you've received multiple notifications about EW. — Czello ^(music) 11:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You were likewise involved there, which you keep omitting.

I've already stated why trying to hide the sockpuppetry accusation looks bad in light of your behaviour.

EW notifications can be issued by anyone and don't mean anything by themselves - especially when they are based on false accusations. Cortador (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You mean my single revert? Yes, I reverted to WP:QUO, as it should be maintained during a dispute. I didn't omit it, I said one revert does not an edit war make. You're once again dodging your edit warring, which yesterday resulted in two major articles being locked down.

And no, the EW notifications weren't "false accusations". If you want to relive a conversation from over a year ago, you were edit warring. I hope you realise that EW isn't confined to 3RR violations?

You seem to be trying very hard to deflect and talk about me – so let's get to the point. Do you believe that you have an issue with edit warring? — Czello ^(music) 12:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, at least you actually admit that you participated as well.

The accusation of 3RR was and remains false, and if over a year ago was too long ago (or whatever you want to imply with that), you shouldn't have brought this up.

You keep making up things - I again suggested you stop thins behaviour. Cortador (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, ok, you both have said your piece. This back-and-forth isn't accomplishing anything. Here's what I'm seeing:

• There very obviously was edit warring going on at both articles
• Cortador was clearly the worst offender at both articles
• I've personally never found it useful to argue over whether 3RR is breached, that is simply one specific application of ther edit warring policy. It is entirely possible to be blocked for edit warring regardless of whether 3RR is breached.
• I'm assuming that @El C:made a deliberate choice to protect rather than to block eveyone involved in the edit war, which by definition always includes at least two people, so my suggestion would be that both parties reflect on what edit warring accomplishes (nothing) and to not engage it again once the relevant protections have expired.

Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, because there's like 7 of em. El_C 02:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I think a 1RR restriction, enforced or voluntary, is warranted. I would oppose a Tban as more than is needed to address the problem (disclaimer: involved). The long term problem is edit warring without crossing the 3RR limit, especially in cases when ONUS/QUO don't support the change Cortador is pushing. They were just warned by an admin after walking to the 3RR limit on two separate articles. This isn't a case of two editors reverting to the limit. At the GOP article they reverted 3 different editors to push a change. At the Thomas article they reverted two editors (again 3 total reverts). Only after reaching the 3RR bright line did they move to the talk page which is where these disputes should have been after the first revert. A Tban is unnecessary as their talk page comments are generally CIVIL though terse. As Czello has shown, this isn't a one day problem. It's a long term pattern that short blocks haven't addressed. A 1RR limit, voluntary or enforced, would ensure they can continue to voice their views on topics they are clearly interested in while avoiding the specific edit warring issue. Springee (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'll do 1RR for 6 months. El_C 02:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

That's WP:1RR for the GOP page ^{(see edit notice)}, that is, not Cortador. Sorry, I'm writing (and reading) in haste, but to be clear, I was unaware of this thread at the time when I had encountered the protection request for it at RfPP, and remained unaware of it until pinged here today. Anyway, while I still think page-level 1RR for the GOP page makes sense, due to so many editors' involvement, I did miss Cortador also being featured, and even more prominently, in the edit war @Ginni Thomas. So I p-blocked them from it ^(diff) for one month ^{(well, eventually )} and removed the protection from that page ^(diff). I logged the 1RR for the GOP page ^{(log entry)}, but as for making this an WP:AP2 sanction for Cortador, specifically, I leave that to someone else as I am unfamiliar with their background, and yet to have had a chance to review much due to time constraints. As such, any admin should feel free to adjust or add to any of my actions (including AE) as they see fit. I need not be consulted or even notified. Thanks everyone for your patience and sorry again for my unavailability at present. El_C 05:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd still advocate for a 1RR restriction on Cortador themself, however. The P-block is justified, but they've received blocks before and clearly the edit warring hasn't improved. (I realise El C said they'd leave that to someone else -- so this message is really for anyone else who picks this up.)

I agree with Springee that a T-ban isn't appropriate. Cortador has a lot of constructive edits in this topic area (though I'd say there's a significant WP:INSCRUTABLE issue when it comes to right-wing politics). Really the issue is the long-term edit warring. — Czello ^(music) 07:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

another editor's conduct: attitude, tone, and lying

I'm not sure if this is the best, or even appropriate venue, but I really want to get perspective on another editor's activity. Please forgive my verbosity.

On 3 March 2024 at 18:21 UTC, I removed everything unsourced from the article Eve Harlow, and tried to rebuild it as best I could from the extant sources plus a few more. Part of that edit was removing unverified nationality, which I also performed by changing Category:Canadian film actresses and Category:Canadian television actresses to Category:film actresses and Category:television actresses. 54 days later, on 26 April 2024, Bearcat (talk · contribs) began making a lot of edits to the article, which we discussed on its talk page, but it's not content that I want to ask about here (I've already requested a third opinion). I'm more concerned with Bearcat's tack during this process. Mostly they seem to eschew 'discussion' and are instead focusing on 'accusing' and 'demanding'.

On 26 April 2024 at 22:02 UTC, they opened discussions with saying: they would accept no explanation for my categorization choices back in March, the categorizations I chose were wholly unacceptable, I needed to suck it up and move on, and that There is absolutely no acceptable argument to the contrary, and I will brook no clapback on that. Get her out of the container categories, and into an appropriate national subcategory, immediately. Mind you, I'd not even offered my explanation of WP:V and WP:CATV for removing the biography from nationality categories, but here I was being ordered around in a manner I've rarely even seen on the project, much less directed at myself. Such language and tone continues throughout the talk page and can be read there; I don't need to quote it here.

While preparing my 3O post today, I checked Bearcat's "Wikipedia talk:" contributions to make sure they hadn't already been requesting anything similar, and instead found this 26 April 2024, 21:52 (UTC) post at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. There I am accused of (a) basically vetoing any source whatsoever that describes [Harlow] as 'Canadian', which I haven't done; (b) forcibly reverting anybody who tries to diffuse her out of Category:Film actresses or Category:Television actresses, which I haven't done; and revert-warring anybody who makes any edits to the article that don't fit [my] agenda, which I suppose has merit for values of "my agenda" that equal "Wikipedia:Verifiability", each time duly explained.

Lastly, while just-now checking all the links and whatnot I'm using here, I found that the article Lorena Vindel has been in category:film actresses since 16 January 2020 at 00:11 UTC. When Bearcat edited that article 340 days later, they not only didn't remove that categorization, but also didn't subject Nick Number (talk · contribs) to similar diatribic talk-page demands. It seems I'm special in this regard.

I think this is only the second time I've seen myself blatantly lied about on enwp, and one of a handful of times I've been literally ordered to make edits IAW another editor's whims. Again, the actual articular content about which Bearcat and I are discussing has been subjected to a third-opinion request, and not the subject of this specific post. Here I'm just concerned about another editor's tone and attitude towards me, and their lies about me on other pages. Lastly, my apologies if this should be asked elsewhere; I've just previously had thoughtful and expert assistance here with other sticky situations (also, WP:DR says that "Issues of conduct may be addressed at the incidents noticeboard"). Thanks, — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Without commenting on the underlying content dispute, I am having difficulty imagining a scenario in which it would be appropriate for one editor to make those demands of another editor. I will brook no clapback on that. Get her out of the container categories, and into an appropriate national subcategory, immediately. That excerpt is especially problematic. Unless I've missed some major policy changes, nobody around here wields that kind of authority. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I find this hard to justify. If the awards are worth including here, then why not use the award body's own site to source the simple fact that these awards were awarded. Yes, this is primary sourcing, but it's also an objective statement, not the sort of subjectivity for which we require secondary sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Because an award has to be sourceable to media coverage in order to become notable enough to be mentioned at all. "The awards are worth including here" is a thing that requires media coverage to even establish in the first place — an award has to be established as notable in order to become "worth including here", and an award has to have media coverage about it in order to become established as notable. So an award has to have media sourcing because that's how you establish that the award is notable enough to be mentioned at all. An award that doesn't have media coverage isn't a notable award at all, and cannot make its winners notable for winning it — so the sourcing has to be media coverage, because you have to show that the award has media coverage in order to demonstrate that the award is notable enough to warrant inclusion in the article at all.

Additionally, I was correct that if a person wins an award, you do not need a second source to verify that she was nominated for it in the first place — a person cannot win an award that she wasn't nominated for, so the fact that she won it already covers off the fact that she got nominated for it without needing a separate source for the original nomination. And if a person was nominated for an award but didn't win it, you do not need a second source to verify who the ultimate winner was, because the fact that there's a source for a nomination, but not for a win, already covers off the fact that she didn't win it. Bearcat (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. WP:N applies to the topics of articles, it's not a requirement for every aspect within them. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

And a subject has to have a notability claim, such as wins of or nominations for noteworthy awards, in order to be notable. So an award can only be a person's notability claim if that award is itself notable in its own right, and cannot be a person's notability claim if it isn't. Bearcat (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I had to double-check that Bearcat is still an administrator. What gives? Mackensen (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

and/or willing to back me up on an WP:AFD discussion if the sourcing can't be improved. (link) seriously?? & looking at the edit history of the Eve Harlow article, i'm not seeing any forcibly reverting or revert-warring anybody who makes any edits to the article that don't fit their agenda by Fourthords. in fact, i see Bearcat reverting Fourthords with the edit summary "nope". the only revert by Fourthords is this one, which is clearly not "forcible" or based on an "agenda". additionally, as Fourthords points out at Talk:Eve Harlow, Bearcat added the container template to Category:Television actresses half an hour before making their post on the article's talk page. what's going on here? ... sawyer * he/they * talk 01:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not the placement of a template that causes the category to become "containerized" — the fact that the category was already containerized causes the placement of the template, not vice versa. So that's not me "making" a non-containerized category containerized by "fiat" — the category was already containerized a long time ago (as witness the fact that there's nobody else in it but her), and the template was just missing from it. It's not containerized "because" I added a template — I added a missing template because it was already containerized by other people. The template is the result of the category being containerized, not the cause of it, and doesn't make the category anything different than it already was, so absolutely nothing about that constitutes me "imposing" anything that wasn't already true.

And no, just trying to pull her completely out of the entire tree is not an alternative solution either: if she's been an actress in film, then she must be found somewhere under Category:Film actresses, and if she's been an actress in television then she must be found somewhere under Category:Television actresses, and the only legitimate question for discussion is what specific national subcategories of those parents she does or doesn't belong in. Pulling people entirely out of category trees that they do belong in is just not a valid alternative to doing what it takes to figure out her correct nationality, and I have not seen any credible explanation of why the sources that explicitly call her a Canadian-Israeli actress are somehow inadequate for categorizing her as either Canadian or Israeli. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

That message at CWNBD, as well as the other discussion it references, with a similar tone, sure look like beyond-the-pale canvassing. Rather than WP:APPNOTE it's a laundry list of exaggerated arguments about Things We Must Not Let Happen. Literally, ask if anybody's willing to ... back me up on an WP:AFD discussion could be a screenshot in the Wikijargon dictionary next to "canvassing". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Leaving aside everything else, that message expressly states an intention to canvass the discussion. I'm a little surprised to see that coming from an administrator. Cjhard (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Asking for outside input into a one-on-one argument is not canvassing. Bearcat (talk) 03:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Not if it's expressed in a neutral way, it's not. Would you describe your message at CWNBD as neutral? Cjhard (talk) 03:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

For one thing, I will note that you previously did exactly the same thing at Teryl Rothery a couple of years ago: you decontainerized her out of "Canadian X actress" categories and into generic undifferentiated parent categories, and you did repeatedly revert-war anybody who added any source that described her as "Canadian". I tried a couple of times to add sources that explicitly established her as Canadian, which you reverted on the grounds that they weren't good enough for your standards without offering any explanation whatsoever of what was inadequate about them — and that didn't stop until somebody else stepped in a couple of weeks later. So no, I did not mischaracterize your tactics at all, because I distinctly remember what you did at Teryl Rothery a few years back, which was exactly what I described.

Did I perhaps get a bit angrier here than might have been called for? Sure, I'll cop to that, I tend to be pretty direct and blunt in my writing tone rather than beating around the bush. But I said nothing wrong about how referencing works, and I said nothing wrong about how categorization works, and I said nothing wrong about past editing behaviour of yours that I've seen. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Being right is not enough, not only because it's a poor excuse for uncivil conduct, but it's not relevant here because we aren't arguing about content. People are sometimes wrong - that includes me and you. When it's me that's wrong, I wouldn't want someone pointing out my mistakes this way, and I'm sure you'd agree for yourself. When someone is wrong, you don't start the conversation with them by telling them to suck it up and move on and make demands that they immediately do what you want. This is not merely being blunt. Being right also does not excuse you asking an audience to back me up, because it is practically the definition of canvassing, or that Fourthords is revert-warring anybody who makes any edits to the article, which was not true. Calling out a couple of reverts from Fourthords in 2020 does not excuse your behavior. You are not assuming good faith, you are doing the exact opposite when you assert that Fourthords has an agenda. This is not the behavior I'd like to see from anyone, let alone an administrator. A simple apology and an admission that you should have gone about this differently would go a long way and it doesn't cost you anything. Mokadoshi (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

This entire thing started because I simply added a couple of maintenance tags to the article for the non-ideal sourcing and the non-ideal categories. Then Fourthords asked me what the problem was, and I politely and civilly explained it, only to then have Fourthords start clapping back at me about how I was wrong about everything and trying to revert me on the templates. Then I added proper reliable source referencing for the award statements, and was partially reverted on that as well. Then they tried to tell me that I should be tagging the article for notability issues, not referencing issues, even though she has a nomination for a solid NACTOR-passing award, meaning that her basic notability is not in question — and they insisted that there isn't adequate sourcing for any national subcategory at all without providing any explanation of what's actually inadequate about any of the sources out there that explicitly describe her as Israeli/Canadian.

And again, that's exactly what happened the last time Fourthords and I crossed paths on an article about a Canadian actress whose nationality they had challenged as improperly sourced: I added a solid source to move Teryl Rothery back to the Canadian categories, but Fourthords still reverted it as "not good enough" without giving any explanation of what wasn't good enough about it — so, especially since they were already reverting me on simple maintenance tags as it is, what guarantee do I have that they won't just revert me on any new sources I try to add to the article too?

So I can't just fix the sourcing issues myself if I have no idea what they're going to accept as good enough to not revert me on, but I can't just walk away and leave the article untagged for the sourcing or categorization issues either, because the sourcing and the container categories both need improvement. She has a valid notability claim, but the article isn't adequately referenced or categorized in its current form either and needs some improvement, and it is not my responsibility to just walk away and leave a page like that untagged.

I already acknowledged that maybe I got angrier than I should have. But Fourthords isn't asking for me to apologize for getting a little hot under the collar, they're asking for me to get severely reprimanded for even tagging the article for the referencing and category problems in the first place. I didn't get angry until after I was provoked by them reverting me on the templates and trying to tell me I was wrong to have tagged the article for any maintenance issues at all. Literally all I did was add a couple of completely justified maintenance tags to an article, but then I almost immediately had to fend off an attempt at having my head ripped off for it — certainly I could have reacted more calmly than I did, but it's not as though my reaction lacked any rational basis in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 05:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Four paragraphs without a single diff don't make a positive impression. Mackensen (talk) 11:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I am explicitly not re-addressing our content-based discussion, as it already has a home. If you want to copy these new claims, sources, and mischaracterizations there (or if you'd prefer me to do so), we can continue speaking on them. they're asking for me to get severely reprimanded Again, you're lying about what I've said and done. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bearcat:, Take a tip from someone who's made lots of mistakes in her time - The easiest way out of this is just to apologise and not make excuses for yourself. You'll feel a lot better for it, and you'll be able to move on. Deb (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not delving into nor relitigating a years-old discussion. Are you justifying your lies at that Canadian talk-page by now saying you expected me to eventually do them? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

It looks like Bearcat has got a fair bit of bad faith, incivility, ownership, canvassing and behavoiral concerns to justify. I note they have not yet been able to do so.

This whole gamut of belligerence would be eyebrow raising in any editor. For an admin: per Mackensen, "What gives?" ——Serial Number 54129 12:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I really appreciate so many other editors (administrators?) reacting as similarly as I did to that tone and attitude; that's very reassuring. If Bearcat returns to our our content discussion, are there any particular tactics/procedures I should employ if I encounter more of the same? How should I move forward properly and safely?

What weighs even heavier on my mind, though, is that several comments above suggest Bearcat themselves is an administrator. How should that color my expectations or options going forward? Was my request of the third opinion process moot? I mean, regardless of any strength of my arguments and the supporting policies, should I even be risking my editing privileges in this manner? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

See WP:INVOLVED. If Bearcat would use their admin tools on you or that article (e.g. blocking you, protecting the article in the version they prefer, ...), they would loose their "rank" of administrator and the action would normally be overturned. So no, that Bearcat is an administrator should have no importance in the discussion nor should it create any risk for your editing privileges. Fram (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Moreover, that Bearcat is an administrator should mean that they should have never got anywhere near such poor levels of conduct, which is why I advise them to make an immediate, unreserved, and sincere apology. Otherwise, their road is dark and well-trodden. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Bearcat has continued to edit in the meantime, and has not really addressed any of the behavioral concerns (which are particularly pressing for an admin) raised here. can we find some resolution for this? ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Propose some action like you would do against a non-admin. Trout, block, topic ban, interaction ban, whatever. They shouldn't get some special protection because they are an admin, but if this isn't part of a pattern, they shouldn't yet get sent to ArbCom to get desysopped either. Their complete lack of comments on the actual grounds for this ANI discussion (their conduct) is seriously disappointing though, and as we have no indication that something like this won't continue, we should prevent it by some admin action. Fram (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Wikiindiauser

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

Need help taking a look at Wikiindiauser's edits. The issues are as follows:

• Nearly every contribution is marked as minor edit, while adding as much as 19,034 bytes.
• The user is advocating for a political party, SO for that peoples have to vote one and only BJP (Bhartiya Janata Party) in 2024 Indian general election. Violation of wp:PROMO/WP:NPOV.
• The user might have violated wp:copyvio policy, with this edit which could be from here. Exact phrases match.
• In edit summaries user writes things like By the order of Higher Authority of Board of Admission, which if true (I doubt that) is a wp:COI edit.
• User continuously adds unsourced material and occasionally will cite another Wikipedia article which is against the WP:WINARS guidelines.

Would be great if someone can take a look at the users contributions, and, at minimum, remove any possible COPYVIO. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 04:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Most of their 69 edits aren't an improvement anyway, so I've blocked them until they explain themselves. Black Kite (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Mbeaniebab

Mbeaniebab (talk · contribs)

Today, this editor added content to Choke (sports), but did not provide a source. See diff. I reverted as an unsourced addition to the article. I went to drop a caution on the editor's talk page and found two different final warnings regarding the addition of unsourced material. One is from December 2022, and the other from February of this year. In the latter case, the editor responded with "Then just delete me on here for good! And after that go rot in hell!" [147]. Quite pleasant.

My inclination was to temporarily block them, given the two final warnings. However, I am involved on the Choke (sports) article, and thus it would be out of line for me to do so. The editor has been notified of this discussion. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Same here, but on User:TraceNothing 's talk page. They said to shut up and left demeaning comments. BryceM2001 (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Reverts with misleading summaries and no explanation

User McWeenus (talk · contribs) is insistent on reverting people's edits with an additional added or removed space (therefore isn't tagged as a revert/undo) and with a summary that most times disguises the fact it was a revert. Every edit of theirs has been a disguised revert, with either a misleading summary or no summary, and no explanation of why they reverted.
I warned them 3 times for misleading summaries (lvl 2, 3 and a botched 4 which they acknowledged by answering at my previous IP's talk page).
Timeline:

1. "Adding content with sources" - diff - proof it was a revert - reverted my clean-up of that page with no explanation
2. no summary - diff - proof - reverted the IP's self-revert with no explanation, I mistook this as unsourced, but it was actually a duplicate and part of the lede, that their disguised revert restored
3. "Adding content" - diff - proof - reverted the IP's dubious changes (I warned them at this point after reverting the first 2 edits)
4. "Adding content" - diff - proof - reverted the IP's unexplained removal of the '2009 NFL Draft selections' section + section shuffling/renaming (I didn't revert this, but warned them again, they deleted the warnings)
5. "Adding content with sources" - diff - proof - reverted the IP's possibly constructive removal

I didn't revert the last one either, but warned them, again, to which they responded on my talk page (diff) with: "My edit summaries are not inaccurate in the slightest. I am indeed adding content to articles. Please refrain from further harassment at my talk page".
They then did other reverts which didn't restore content, which I let be, and finally have once again restored a section while being misleading and without explaining why:
- "Adding a section" - diff - proof it was a revert - the IP had offered an explanation for their removal.
Please help stop their disruptive behaviour, thank you. *Also maybe check if they are a sock, as this adding + removing spaces so it's not tagged undo/manual revert is definitely intentional. – 2804:F14:80EE:5A01:C1B6:4511:8DE3:83A7 (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Theoreticalmawi

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.

---

Theoreticalmawi (talk · contribs) should be blocked permanently as WP:NOTHERE. Someone who claims that there are no "sources to princely titles after the abolishment of the Kingdom of Hanover in 1866"[148] flies in the face of the BBC, Der Spiegel, Voice of America, France 24, Sydney Morning Herald, Hello, Hola, MSN, Tatler, Bridgeman, Business Insider, The List, Town and Country, The Independent, People, Monaco Life, NDTV, The Telegraph, Deutsche Welle, Deseret News, San Diego Union-Tribune, Vogue, Herald Sun and many others.. DrKay (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

So, you want a newish user with under 400 edits permanantly blocked because they made one edit you don't agree with? Is that right or did you have more to say? Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The account is over 4 years old. And it's more than one edit. DrKay (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The user did not in that edit claim that there are no "sources to princely titles after the abolishment of the Kingdom of Hanover in 1866", but only that you had not provided sources. Did you link the wrong diff here? If that user did not make the claim anywhere then why should we have an administrator who tells such lies? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I've obviously provided sources. DrKay (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you did (I haven't checked) but there is a big difference between "there are no sources" and "you have not provided sources". Why did you misrepresent this content dispute as a behavioural dispute in this way? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Phil entirely. This is a minor content dispute at best, you absolutely have not shown cause for any type of sanction, let alone an indef block. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

"why should we have an administrator who tells such lies" and "I haven't checked" does not build confidence in the response. Responses should be civil and informed by examining the issue. DrKay (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The onus is on you to make your case, with supporting evidence. You have not done that. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

What on Earth is wrong with those statements? The first is a valid question which you only quoted the second half of, and the second is true, as there was no need to check to know that you are avoiding my questions. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll add that while it shouldn't happen in practice we all know that editors at ANI sometimes don't properly check diffs especially from experienced editors. So if an experienced editor incorrectly claims a diff shows something it doesn't, this is quite problematic. Not to mention it's effectively a personal attack to falsely claim an editor did something they did not do, and that is a blockable offence. I don't think this is quite WP:boomerang territory, but definitely so far the only clear problem is claiming the editor did something they didn't. Nil Einne (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I deliberately avoided answering the question "why should we have an administrator who tells such lies?" per the usual process of avoiding responding to incivility. DrKay (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

DrKay, editors are sometimes going to push your buttons because you're an admin. It's expected that you let small things just roll off, like water on a duck. It is also expected that your behavioral claims about others aren't full of hyperbole. I don't see anything actionable here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The only editor involved who has tried to push my buttons as an admin is Phil Bridger. I made it very clear that I let that attempt roll off, so I don't know why you're bringing it up. If you're talking about Theoreticalmawi, I'm not aware of any such attempt and I've made no such accusation. DrKay (talk) 16:02, 3 May 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 Dalton Tan

Reposting because it was immediately removed by an archival bot.

• Dalton Tan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Aviation Novice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dalton Tan has received several warnings on their talk page for making unsourced, unexplained changes to route tables on Japanese rail line articles. Often these edits include changes to stopping patterns (1, 2, 3) or other non-constructive changes (4, 5). Yesterday they created a new account – Aviation Novice – in hopes of being able to have a clean start. Their conduct was initially discussed at the village pump, which makes them ineligible for a clean start. They seem to be well aware of the scrutiny, and because of this, I'm requesting that both accounts be blocked. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 13:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

(Favor) I've written misinformation(vandalism) several times, so I'm in favor of blocking. They even refuse to engage in dialogue. Therefore, we believe that a fixed-term block of one year or more is appropriate. H.K.pauw (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and again, Dalton Tan (using the Aviation Novice account), changed the stopping pattern in the station list of the Tōyoko Line article without explanation and against what reliable sources state. Prior to the creation of their second account, Dalton Tan has been ignoring all the previous warnings put in place regarding the introduction of deliberate factual errors into articles which they should not have done. Their persistent disruptive editing (and perhaps also WP:NOR violations) led to several other editors (including me) having to undo or manually revert a number of unsourced and unexplained edits this editor made to more than twenty Railway lines and services articles (further examples including [149], [150] and [151]). Hence, I also agree that blocks to be imposed on both of these accounts. ~ SG5536B (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I actually wanted to Correct the Mistakes I have actually Committed. Based on the TRUE Tokyu Line Map System, the S-Train (Seibu) Service actually stops at Jiyūgaoka Station on the Tokyu Toyoko Line. Aviation Novice (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

That still doesn't answer why you were adding misinformation in the first place. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 14:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I am the one who reverted his edits on the Hankyu Kobe Main Line. There is a station called "Tsukaguchi", but he described it as a limited express stop and misinformation. [152] In the case, Tsukaguchi is a limited express slew station, which is evidence of misinformation. H.K.pauw (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Regarding the clean start part of all this: clearly, this is not a clean start. Doing exactly what you were doing before is not a clean start, and the link between the accounts has been publicly acknowledged. We can take this as basically equivalent to a rename and focus on the problematic editing. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I have also reverted numerous changes by this user. A bunch of my recent changes are all reverts of his changes. See: Special:Contributions/Ergzay. I'd be fine if they were just restricted from any editing on Japanese rail-related pages. Ergzay (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

A week has passed since the start of the discussion. If you look at the current course of discussions, there is a consensus to block. Is it Is it okay to block as it is?--H.K.pauw (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

"In general, once a matter has become "cold" and the risk of present disruption has clearly ended, reopening it by blocking retrospectively is usually not appropriate" (Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Purpose and goals). If they continue to make edits similar to these without citing sources that support their changes (or using the edit summary or talk page to explain if the sources are already there) I would support a block, but their only edits since the start of this discussion have been one to this discussion and one to their own talk page. Peter James (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Normantas Bataitis continually WP:EASTEREGGing links

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

Normantas Bataitis keeps WP:EASTEREGGing birth/death place links even after the guideline is brought to their attention diff

1. [153]
2. [154]
3. [155]
4. [156]
5. [157]
6. [158]
7. [159]
8. [160]
9. [161]

Partial list above, just what I have spot checked. User also keeps adding excessive detail to place entries (Template:Infobox person):

1. [162]
2. [163]

and I keep having to explain Weimar Republic is not a place.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I have observed this too but I haven't brought it up with Normantas Bataitis, yet. In the past, they had been responsive when I brought up other issues in their editing: [164], [165]. @Normantas Bataitis:, could you perhaps comment here? Robby.is.on (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm listening. Normantas Bataitis (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we ended up here because you continued to add WP:EASTEREGG-style links after Fountains of Bryn Mawr brought the issue up on your Talk page. I'd be interested to know two things: 1. Why you didn't respond to Fountains of Bryn Mawr on your Talk page, 2. What your view on these links is. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

1. I didn't respond because I thought that he was just wanting to pick a quarrel because I was doing these links from 2022 and no one said to me that it is a bad thing to do. 2. My view is that Easter egg-type links are needed because the countries at the time of some people's births are different, so I think that this should be pointed out and I am not the only one who does that. For example, if some Indian person was born in Bengal in 1945, I can't write "Bengal Presidency", because this name was changed to "Bengal Province" in 1935 and I am forced to do an Easter egg link because it would be misleading to write "Bengal Presidency". In my personal opinion, countries should be linked as I do because it helps to widen the knowledge – a thing that encyclopedias should do. Normantas Bataitis (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, and looking at Normantas' previous responses to feedback, might there be some confusion arising out of linking to WP:EASTEREGG rather than MOS:EGG? WP:EASTEREGG is a how-to guide that provides more flexibility to not follow, which may explain Normantas' response above. @Normantas Bataitis: Cjhard (talk) 08:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

From how I interpret MOS:EGG, it doesn't seem like Normantas Bataitis is violating the MOS in many of these. For instance, here, I do not think it violates the principle of least astonishment for the link to be [[Polish People's Republic|Poland]] when the subject was born in 1963. This also does not seem like excessive detail considering we also list U.S. states in infoboxes and Germany is similarly federal. This seems to be an issue of personal preference, not an intractable behavioral issue. Curbon7 (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Rapid reverting of edits by Angie O'Kon

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.

---

Angie O'Kon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is randomly and rapidly reverting edits including the addition of maintenance tags and submitting a draft through AfC before issuing 4im warnings for vandalism. Likely a sock as they were created November last year before becoming active today, can someone please issue a block? Pahunkat (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Already reported to AIV for block evasion. Lynch44 (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I received a totally baseless vandalism template on my talk page from this person. From the looks of it, very off-base behavior from this editor. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 09:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Me three.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Angie O'Kon created an account within the last half hour, and has been going around reverting edits by IP users, then posting strong warnings on their talk pages. They have done this to 72 edits/users within the last half hour. I've never seen anything quite like it. Their last edit is entirely uncivil.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 09:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I recall one or two accounts having done this before in the past year or so, so this isn't a first time occurrence. Lynch44 (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, for about 150 edits in just 30 minutes, it sounds like they set up a bot to do it, which is probably why the reverts don't all make sense.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 09:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

That, plus a little Special:RecentChanges, and you've got yourself a big mess. I have reverted most of their edits, and kept a few that I couldn't tell if they were worth restoring or not. Lynch44 (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I just reverted all of them. I don't care if they made a constructive edit entirely by accident, they're clearly not here to act in good faith. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Same here. It's a pain having to go and undo all their 'undoing'. Womble218 (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

They appear to be continuing the behaviour, so perhaps some sort of block is in order to stop the continuing disruption.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm currently going through all of the users they've had a go at and either informing them of their conduct and this discussion if they have replied to it, or simply removing the notices if they haven't. Hopefully that'll help in some way to ease the minds of those warned while we wait for a mop. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 10:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• This is more than likely a sock of the user Hamish Ross as it fits their MO of random reverting and vandalism warnings. Pinguinn 🐧 10:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
• Finally blocked by User:Spicy. Lynch44 (talk) 10:47, 4 May 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.

DonCalo's edits on Pio La Torre

• User: DonCalo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Article: Pio La Torre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I reverted this user's edit (Revision by DonCalo) as I felt the section heading "Killed by the Mafia" was not encyclopedic, to me it seems sensationalist and tabloid-esque, and is not consistent with the section headings on other biography articles where "Death", "Murder", "Assassination", etc. appear to be preferred. I then noticed that another user, User:She21996 had previously changed this section heading today and had this edit reverted (Revision by She21996). I then changed the section heading to "Assassination" instead of reverting this back to "Death" and DonCalo changed this to "Assassination by the Mafia". I attempted to discuss this with DonCalo on their talk page but they removed my message and claimed it was harassment. I do note that I was perhaps a little hasty in first posting a vandalism warning, but explained my reasoning in the second post (my message on DonCalo's talk page).

I am not certain that this is the best place for this discussion, I am relatively new to editing. I have been sporadically editing Wikipedia for some years and would like to contribute more. I was keen not to engage in an edit war, or to be accused of further harassment by attempting to engage the editor directly, but thought this reversion of multiple user's edits was worth bringing to someone's attention. Please let me know if there is somewhere more appropriate to post this. --Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 21:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a non-issue. Why are you wasting everybody’s time? I explained in my edit summary reverting She21996's unexplained edits why this is very relevant. LaTorre was not simply assassinated, but assassinated by the Mafia because he was an important leader in the fight against the Mafia. Since when is stating a relevant fact sensationalist and tabloid-esque? Anyway, I have moved on improving the article, and I kindly advise you to do the same. - DonCalo (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

My issue wasn't whether or not his assassination by the Mafia was relevant, rather whether such a section heading is encyclopedic and consistent. Adding superfluous detail for the sake of it seems more tabloid-esque to me as that's what they tend to do, pad out headlines to draw readers in. I mentioned John F. Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald on your talk page of other murdered people who have simple "Assassination" and "Murder" section headings. Other high-profile examples involving politicians include - Benito Mussolini, the section regarding his summary execution by partisans is simply titled "Death"; Jo Cox, her murder by a white supremacist is detailed in a section titled "Murder"; Pim Fortuyn, details his political assassination in a sub-section titled "Death"; Yitzhak Rabin, his article includes the section "Assassination and aftermath". I admit I haven't been through every single article of assassinated, murdered and executed politician but it seems there is a clear inclination towards one style of section heading. I, and it would seem at least one other editor, would like to see this style employed at Pio La Torre. It may be relevant that La Torre was executed by the Mafia but is it really necessary as a section heading? As for "wasting everybody's time", I attempted to engage directly with you and you ignored me and accused me of harassment. As noted above, I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia, I did not want to get involved in an edit war and I hoped for impartial intervention rather than taking your approach which was to stubbornly insist on maintaining your preference without discussion. I hope I've fully elaborated my position, I don't intend to reply further on why I made my edit or brought this discussion here as I don't think this is the place for a protracted argument. --Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 00:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I cannot believe this “case” is still lingering here. It is a futile incident. In my 18 years of editing here I have never received such a silly and unjustified warning and that triggered my irritation. And yes, it is really necessary to mention La Torre was assassinated by the Mafia as a section heading, but I have no problem removing it from the infobox. If it helps to close this, I sincerely apologise in the hope everybody can move on. - DonCalo (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

81.77.99.224

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

Keeps adding parent categories where an article is already in a child category or changing articles to only be in a parent category when they're already in a more appropriate child category. Also seems to be on a campaign to change references to individual countries in the UK to instead say the UK. Also keeps overlinking. This has been brought up on their talk page and in edit summaries reverting their changes but they're ignoring both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaggedHamster (talk • contribs) 13:00 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• I've noticed this user changes any English, Scottish, or Welsh person's nationality to British, and also renames Ireland as "the republic of", also. 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 22:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler: The Greatest Story Never Told

JollyRoger556 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has crossed into WP:NONAZIS territory, as they're insisting that Adolf Hitler: The Greatest Story Never Told is a legitimate documentary (it's not, it's blatant neo-Nazi propaganda). They also previously added pro-Hitler content to the article. Isi96 (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

 Blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing, in light of Special:Diff/1213990771 and their other edits to the Adolf Hitler: The Greatest Story Never Told article. Thanks for reporting this. — Newslinger talk 22:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Multiple issues relating to Liverpool and Liverpool City Region

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.

---

Extended content

I recently nominated an article for deletion - due to formatting problems it was closed and resubmitted by another editor . The article tried to argue that the word 'Liverpolitan' was the accepted demonym for people from Liverpool or the Liverpool City Region. I immediately knew this to be untrue, and so it was no surprise to see that the article (though well written and formatted) was completely unsupported by its many references, contradicted even. The consensus in the AfD agreed with this, with many editors taking time to dissect each reference thoroughly. The admin's decision was to redirect the term Liverpolitan to Liverpool#Demonyms_and_identity. Throughout the discussion, the editor of the article, Liverpolitan1980 continued making edits to the article (though these did not address the issues) and they were very resistant to any criticism. While or before the article was blanked and redirected, they moved much of the content to Liverpool and Liverpool City Region and it still contains many of the same problems (mostly WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE) that had been brought up in the AfD discussions. They also reported me during and after the process to WP:ANI and WP:AN, simply because they disagreed with my contributions - no action was taken against me. In the AN report they said they were deleting their account and so the matter was closed. They then made another report against me for posting their personal information. While I did not explicitly do this, I did make an allusion to a WP:COI I had become aware of because I had seen forum posts where a person had announced they had created the Liverpolitan Wikipedia article and were also the subject of at least three of the references used to support their arguments. It seems that for many years a person has been trying (unsuccessfully) to get the word into common use, this has been reported on in the media, and they are now using Wikipedia in a way which I believe contravenes the policies WP:PROMO and WP:FORUM, as well as the WP:COI guidelines. As this user is apparently no longer active, I have not tried to resolve this dispute on their talk page. However, today two not logged in users have been trying to get some of Liverpolitan1980's content reinstated on the Talk:Liverpool page for the protected Liverpool article. They deny being the same person despite having the same combative style. I suspect this is WP:SOCK. I think there is both an issue of WP:NOT and also poor conduct/WP:HARRASS towards me relating to the vexatious reports and incessant replies to my posts with increasingly strange ad hominem attacks. While I enjoy friendly debate, this is having a very detrimental and time consuming effect on my Wikipedia experience. Orange sticker (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Full disclosure - I am Liverpolitan1980's friend and have followed the debate from the very beginning. He has now left the platform through feeling utterly harrassed by you in particular Orange sticker. He was made aware that you attempted to out his real life identity in talk pages - which is usually an instant block according to Wiki guidance. You were lucky just to get a warning. He made the article you mentioned in good faith and made arguments to keep that article in the best way he could. Some of the feedback acknowledged the merits of expanding on the demonym. When the information was being disputed - he made good faith efforts to incorporate some information in to the Liverpool and city region articles as was encouraged in the AfD discussion. You encouraged that yourself. There has been no attempt to harrass you but to challenge your relentless efforts to disaparage anyone that might choose to adopt the Liverpolitan demonym - both on and off wiki - and to disparage his efforts to contribute to the encyclopedia. You have made this whole thing very very personal and would simply not let things go. This is not sock puppetry and nor is meat puppetry. I am free to contribute to this platform as a separate individual. Amd that is why I am fully disclosing so you are not able to yet again - cause drama to disparage a former contributor. The criticism I have made to you on the Liverpool talk page can either be taken or not taken. I feel it is completely valid. 94.14.184.212 (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Comment - I'm obviously involved in the discussions that have taken place so far and have been constantly, repeatably, civil in all cases. I have re-iterated wikipedia policies, and stressed that they are what is important to deciding the content of any article. I am happy to extend to Liverpolitan1980 that he made his original Liverpolitan Identity article in good faith. Utimately, following the AFD this article was rejected and it was made clear that Liverpolitan as a term was FRINGE, and that the content as written was OR / SYNTH. I gave the editor over a week after they added the content to the Liverpool and Liverpool City Region and following the closure of the AFD to handle the issues as mentioned on the AFD by other editors, but they instead chose to start another argument with Orange Sticker on the talk page that culminated in them "Leaving". The two new IP's have subsequently picked up the stick, with 94.14.184.212 all but admitting as a friend of Liverpolitan that they are a Meatpuppet. 94.14.184.212 has had the sources explained at length but instead of presenting sources to support the inclusion of the wording has resorted to casting aspersions about what I would or wouldn't do on articles X, Y, Z and instructing me how to edit, all while berating me for my "bias". I can't even work out what they are on about in some cases, but basic competency appears to be an issue along with the general uncivility. There are obvious potential sock issues at play, and Liverpolitan1980 is not this users first account. Koncorde (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Yes, Liverpolitan1980 has a prior account and has never tried to hide that. That account has been retired and is labelled as such on the profile - and has never been used since its retirement. Wiki contributors are free to do that - again that is yet another attempt to damage a person's reputation. No intention to hide anything there on his part or my part. As regards my comments about your bias on the Liverpool talk page. You are obviously both intelligent people. I am sure by now that you know the difference between the Liverpool city region combined authority, the city region and Merseyside. What I have found curious is Orange sticker's encouragement for Liverpolitan1980 to incorporate some of his content in to the Liverpool city region account only for then to advocate for its merger with another - completely separate article. That makes absolutely no sense other than to make it increasingly difficult for someone to contribute in good faith. It simply makes no sense other than to cause confusion and tension between editors. And you have been actively involved with that as well as also joining in on the speculation of my friend's indentity - again you have been warned. You can call it what you like - no one is deceiving anyone here. I have fully disclosed myself as a friend. What is important are of course the policies. But we are not discussing content here - unless you want to. My input here is obviously concerned with my friend's former account being tagged. Brought in to drama again when he has left the site. 94.14.184.212 (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC) "but instead of presenting sources to support the inclusion of the wording" You were presented with sources and then complained that they were a laundry list that you didn't want in the first place. In other words, when presented with evidence you spat them out and complained that you didn't even want them in the first place. I am not being uncivil to you but this is obviously a very difficult position to put someone in and is not cohesive to a meaningful discussion. 94.14.184.212 (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC) I tried to intercede on the LCR page as a disinterested party and made some minor revisions, cleaning up the demonym section to exclude much of the cruft. But it does honestly seem like these two editors have some form of off-wiki personal animosity that is driving this continued dispute. An SPI might be warranted for the IP associated with Liverpolitan1980 - and if it is, in fact, a different editor's account they should be cautioned regarding WP:MEATPUPPETRY - otherwise we're faced with the challenge of how to establish a mutual Iban when one party has loudly quit Wikipedia but is still not fully gone. Simonm223 (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC) This could very very easily just go away. I have asked for minor edits to be made which I feel are fair. I have done this through observation of the debate. There is no need to involve my friend - he has left the site through feeling utterly harrassed. Let me stress again - minor edits are being requested - not an opening to old grudged on or off wiki. I have no interest in them and have no full knowledge of that in any case. I am not interested. I am here because this report has been filed. 94.14.184.212 (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC) @Simonm223 From what I can see, you made a good edit to the LCR page. I don't think this dispute really concerns you. 94.14.184.212 (talk) 01:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Coming to Wikipedia to pick up for a friend upset about an edit conflict is WP:MEATPUPPETRY and ultimately just stirs up petty drama. An edit conflict over a nickname has led to all this silliness. I decided to become involved explicitly because I am entirely neutral to the conflict and figured I could reasonably assess sources. Yet here we are. Again. I would encourage all parties to seriously calm down self-reflect a bit. And I would suggest that SPIs who are only interested in one very niche topic and in stirring up extensive, loud, drama should ask whether they should really be editing Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC) There are many things which are frowned upon on the encyclopedia I believe. I know your edit was good faith. I have seen it. It is also not appreciated to see my friend's reputation dragged through the mud or his identity speculated on or his contributions - old and new - accused as anything other than the best of faith. Those that do that must expect their own contributions to be called in to question. You are absolutely right, I think the whole situation is just an awful situation of people not seeing eye to eye and maybe some very deep seated differences in viewpoints which seem intractable. I have certainly not come here to violate a policy. I came here to make my own mind up. My friend is in no way encouraged me to do so. I find the whole situation tragic to be honest. I certainly do not advocate for everything he did to come back either but I have questioned one or two edits on the Liverpool page. That is all. 94.14.184.212 (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC) And you have been told what the issue is, in detail, as was Liverpolitan - and have chose instead to attack and harass other users. Koncorde (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC) I am deeply sorry if this is affecting you negatively. However, it is a voluntary platform and nobody is obliged to enter discussions they aren't comfortable with. I asked for two small edits on the Liverpool article. I can't stress enough how small they were. My request was forwarded to the Liverpool talk page and you were the first to reply there. It can be read at that page. You ignored sources there and even suggested I make the change myself which I cannot do unregistered. You have also undone some work by another user on 1st April there. You didn't have to do that. Liverpolitan1980 left because of how uncomfortable this environment was becoming. This whole page tells me that this platform is not always a nice place to be and I can see why. You also entered this ANI discussion voluntarily. You were given an admin warning to not conceal contributor's real life identity against their wishes because it puts them in potential difficult situations. Everyone has the right to post anonymously so you were told. You have ignored that and continue to engage in this discussion. Instead of sticking to criticism of the article and your part in the edits. 2A02:C7C:D7E6:2F00:241A:48A:DBC8:2095 (talk) 08:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC) I'm going to assume some of this is directed at Orange Sticker, however as it is also clearly referencing things that I have said I have no idea. However just for clarification: This isn't affecting me negatively. The IP that requested information to be added to the Liverpool article was 94.14.184.212 (comments moved in this edit by Liu1126). So are you also that IP? I, Koncorde, was the first to respond and I explained the issue with every single source being either an issue of them not even mentioning the word at all, or mentioning it while dismissing it, and a big old dose of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. I've been entirely on topic DESPITE repeated personal attacks on myself and other editors and general harassing behaviour both before, during and after this debacle. I did suggest 94.14.184.212 edit the page, I wasn't aware it was semi protected at the time. In which case refer back to prior point ^^ and requests for clear sourcing that supports the claims made. Serial Number 54129 is free to edit the page, reinstitute his changes etc per April 1st, but I have explained the issues in detail in both the Edit Summary and in detail on the talk page. As the editor attacked me, and subsequently the IP have attacked me - casting aspersions about me personally, and my editing, I'm here to make it clear that there is an issue that needs responding to. And finally, regarding the persons identity: Streisand effect. I'm done on this page, I think the original editor and two IP's have sufficiently demonstrated the unwelcome uncivil behaviour, meatpuppetry, and if any Admin is so interested they can contact me by talk page or email about the relative difficulty of the "Anonymity" situation given the niche like WP:ADVOCACY and WP:SOAPBOX-for-one. Koncorde (talk) 09:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Quite apart from the obvious sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry issues, I have a question. Why does Liverpolitan redirect to Liverpool#Demonyms when it is clearly associated (and is actually discussed, rather than mentioned in passing) with Liverpool_City_Region#Demonym? Black Kite (talk) 09:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC) There was apparently an AfD although it happened before I became aware of this situation. Simonm223 (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC) I found it and, this is odd, it was for Liverpolitan Identity the result was speedy keep but the page was deleted anyway. here Simonm223 (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Ok there was a second AfD here Simonm223 (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC) I have spoken to Liverpolitan1980 and he is absolutely mortified at how this has going down. He would like the opportunity to discuss this with the arbitration committee. To prevent further breakdown in trust within the community perhaps there is a better more appropriate way to discuss this topic. Maybe an admin could advise on this. (2A02:C7C:D7E6:2F00:241A:48A:DBC8:2095 (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)) This is getting rather absurd. I sincerely doubt the arbitration committee is going to involve themselves in an edit conflict between two editors. Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC) At this point, I think enough has been said about the concerns surrounding content. But there are things to address if Liverpolitan1980 is to continue or rejoin in good faith. He has left the platform feeling helpless in the weight of COI claims. And now claims about sock puppetry and meat puppetry. You can see from his contributions that Liverpolitan1980 has never been a single issue account and has made valuable contributions to the encyclopedia that have survived over a long period. What has caused tension is the issue surrounding the Liverpolitan demonym. Ulitmately, that has led to some friction, most notably between two, possibly three editors. Too much time already has already been spent on this but Liverpolitan1980 has a sincere desire to contribute if the air will be cleared and any disagreements resolved. 94.14.184.212 (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Drop the WP:STICK. Liverpolitan1980 is not currently blocked from editing and can re-join the project if they choose. This drama is not making such a decision more likely to succeed. Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Just in case anyone is getting confused here, 94.14.184.212 and the IPv6 editor starting 2A02 are one and the same. Black Kite (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC) He might not be blocked but he is facing a wave of claims about COI. Doing this has had a detrimental effect on his enjoyment of the site. Editors should not do this if that are not willing to substantiate it. It also cases confusion as to which parts of the site are acceptable to edit or not. Liverpolitan1980 is willing to address these concerns with the appropriate admins. But he cannot do this if his account is going to be harrassed. 94.14.184.212 (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Comment Happy to substantiate COI privately with an admin. Orange sticker (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Thank you - Liverpolitan1980 is willing to contribute to that in good faith. 94.14.184.212 (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC) There is a COI here in my view – Liverpolitan1980 has been involved in real-life campaign trying to promote the use of this term. A glance at the track record of their former account (which was "retired" a day before creating the current one, following a block and several appearances at ANI) suggests they don't play particularly well with others. Number 57 17:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Comment I feel I should point out that the above is basically all I have said publicly on Wikipedia and it resulted in the editor reporting me for posting personal information. Orange sticker (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Un-archiving this post as User:Liverpolitan1980 has returned to editing the Liverpool article despite declaring he was leaving Wikipedia. He has already returned to WP:BLUDGEONING in his dispute of one of my edits. This has previously created unnecessary timesinks for several editors and frankly feels to me like harassment. Not to mention the issues relating to WP:MEATPUPPETRY and WP:COI have never been resolved due to his supposed departure. Orange sticker (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:CANVASSING also, and in bad faith - not comparing like with like (official v unofficial figures and areas) Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/History_and_geography. Diffs: [166] [167] [168] Orange sticker (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

There was previous mention of a Built Up Area in the Liverpool lead section. Someone took it down. The Built Up Area is an official measure but they still took it down. The 2 million figure in Liverpool's lead was there for many years as a result of ESPON metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom. Since we left the EU, it was a compromise to quote the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority who still acknowledge the 2 million urban region. The region still exists although no longer officially counted. You have chosen to remove this reference from the lead so I started an RfC. This isn't harrassment, it's a basic question of geography and consistency - something that I am interested in. Many city articles mention their urban or metro areas in the lead, this is not unusual. However, I am disappointed that you have taken a content dispute to ANI with a long list of accusations against me. I have been in correspondence with The English Wikipedia Oversight team, the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team and the Arbitration committee for advice on some of the things you have unfortunately brought up (again). In the spirit of good faith. If there is an issue of harrassment on Wikipedia - it isn't coming from me. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

This is untrue, here's the diff, I removed mention of a larger urban region of over 2 million people which extends into the neighbouring counties of Cheshire and Lancashire which is not an official area, passing mention only in the referenced reports.

This isn't the place for content discussion, but it does demonstrate how you continue to fabricate facts in both articles and interactions with editors. Orange sticker (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

With no comment to the rest of the report, I would like clarification from experienced editors on Liverpolitan's previous account issue brought up in the original thread above. Liverpolitan stated in the diff, I have contributed over 97,000 bytes to [the Liverpool] article. Also from an old username that I retired some time ago.

WP:CLEANSTART allows for creating a new account, but specifically cautions against returning to previous articles and topics, noting that it can result in arguments, further loss of reputation, and blocks or bans, even if your behavior while using the new account was entirely proper. Is this a statement of policy (that returning to old topics is forbidden) or only a warning of what tends to happen? Given that Liverpolitan's first edits were to Liverpool, it seems that they have indeed returned to previous articles. Does this constitute sockpuppeting to evade WP:SCRUTINY, or a valid WP:CLEANSTART? EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

If I was evading scrutiny, why would I mention that fact of my previous user account. That makes absolutely no sense. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Did you not read my comment. I have been in correspondence with the English Wikipedia Oversight team, the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team and the Arbitration committee - some of that relating to my old account. I couldn't be more scrutinised if I tried.Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

There was also no such cautions against returning to any articles or topics on the old account. I retired that account for my own personal reasons. Are you suggesting that people are not welcome to Wikipedia if their interest is in their own city based articles? If that is the case, I am happy to say goodbye. But the Liverpool articles will be poorer for it as they are in need of improvement and stewardship. They were at one time the subject of constant vandalism, that's why some of them are protected. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. WP:CLEANSTART applies to all accounts on the English Wikipedia and has said for a very long that if you return to editing articles you were editing before, and especially if you get involved in similar disputes, you cannot expect editors to not link the two. Since we understand there reasonable reasons why you don't want them to be linked, I don't think we're likely to explicitly do it. But if you didn't want editors not to make the link you really should not have started to edit the same sort of articles and get into similar disputes that's a key point CLEANSTART is making that you seem to have missed. Also, the fact that you made it seem like you were leaving Wikipedia for good on your old account, then the very next day came back with a new account and immediately started to edit articles related to what your old account was editing, calls into question any claims you might make now about leaving. Even if we WP:AGF that you were really planning to leave when you made those edits with your old account, you changed your mind very fast so what's to say you won't do it again? Nil Einne (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nil Einne Thank you for your response! What I'm hearing is that, in general, returning to former topics does not nullify the clean start (i.e., one doesn't automatically consider them a sockpuppet) but that it is inadvisable because it tends to defeat the point of the clean start. It's kind of like licking a 9V battery: there are no rules against it, but it's just a bad idea. That clears up what I was confused about; thank you again! EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

How is it fabricating facts? The larger urban region of over 2 million people is supported by an independent report commissioned by gov.uk, Wirral Council and the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority. These are high quality sources. If there is an official protocol only to mention 'official areas' in the lead, then of course we should go with that. But that is precisely why I have asked the question. I am not aware of one though, happy to be corrected, it seems to be down to editor discretion and consensus hence the inconsistency across articles. Nevertheless, I do think it's useful to convey Liverpool's full geography in the lead but that's just my opinion. That it isn't bad faith, it's a simple explanation of Liverpool's full geography. I can only offer you an olive branch Orange because you have clearly not healed from something we discussed many weeks ago as you are bringing it up again. People are volunteering their time here and I don't see how this is helping anyone. On the question of bad faith and places having an appropriate forum, how do you explain the fact you brought up an ANI discussion in an RfC and the question of why I contribute to wiki at all? Who is harrassing who here? You will notice that I previously wanted to leave the site precisely because I felt completely harassed by you. But that's just how I felt, it makes no difference to anyone else. The interaction here today is not instilling hope for our future interactions. See the diff: [169] Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• I have held it true, for some time now, that Liverpolitan1980's default response to criticism is to personalise the discussion (e.g. ou have clearly not healed, above: WTF?), gaslighting, walls of text, bludgeon and frankly ignore criticism and the input of others. The AfD I link to demonstrates, to differing degrees, most of those behaviours. They are in breach of the clean start process by returning to areas of previous editing. They are, in fact, a net negative to the project. ——Serial Number 54129 15:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

As a routine victim of this behaviour under the prior username (including the usual threats to take me to ANI), and having witnessed the behaviour towards other users both under the prior username (including actually taking people to ANI repeatedly) - I purposely tried to engage as civilly and neutrally as possible with the new username despite the obvious correlation of name, focus of attention on particular subject matter, and almost immediate aggressive and antagonistic behaviour (one again including threats of ANI to myself and others, and actually repeatedly following through with it in the case of Orange Sticker). Their prior username had built up a reputation when they opted to retire, and have simply done exactly the same thing within 6 months on the new account. Koncorde (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

As a matter of record - I have been in correspondence about you both. Nobody else - just you anf Orange Sticker. Let it be known that you seem to enjoy making my experience here unpleasant. You Koncorde has a history at ANI that predates mine for stalking. I am happuy to share all your poor expriences at ANI. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Clearly my time is being wasted on this project. This really is the final time I will ever bother here again. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  Before this post is closed, I just want to point out he has said this before on 1 April 2024 and continued editing and an IP user also arrived to continue his argument. Orange sticker (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  I have absolutely no interest in ever coming here again. I came back on with the hope that I would not come across you again Orange Sticker. You are clearly a very very bitter person and I simply have no interest in dealing with people like that. Yet again, you have brought me here again to ANI with an obvious agenda to make my experience here as unpleasant as possble. It wasn't enough that you harrassed me on Twitter. Let me make this absolutely clear for the avoidance of all doubt. I am leaving because of you. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  It is absolutely your perogative to leave, Liverpolitan1980; the question must be, under what sanction will you leave under? You see, you have left a number of times now. You clean started (no.1). You left on 1 April (no.2), although that seems to have been solely with the intention of continuing to campaign for your edits while logged out, in breach of WP:LOGOUT. Now you are leaving for a third time. This time, it would seem there's a preventative necessity to stop you from returning, either logged in or out. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 15:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  I would support a one account restriction for Liverpolitan1980 which includes no logged out editing. I think it's fine for this to be the current account without any specific linkage to the old account although they're free to chose either provided they tell us which one they're choosing. I don't know if we need any further sanction at this time although they should be aware if they return even without violating the one account restriction, they're running out of rope. Nil Einne (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Note: Since retiring, Liverpolitan1980 has fired out 2 (3 now while typing) aggressive statements and is still spectating this thread for 'reasons'. Consider simply there latest statements, I think this retirement may need to be enforced, unless they decide to come back, at which point it can be discussed what sanctions will be placed before Liverpolitan can return to editting. Otherwise, I see them causing further distruption. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Not such an innocent contributor are you Koncorde? A past history of toxic behaviour including being reported for stalking. Not nice when people truy and discredit your reputation is it. You and Orange Sticker are clearly welcome to each other. I see you went on a campaign to delete the Liverpool city region article. Quite clearly politically motivated the pair of you. Goodby and good riddance. Permanently. Here is your history - hardly uncivil... {https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Koncorde&page=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&server=enwiki&max=] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liverpolitan1980 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you want to leave, I strongly suggest you just do it. I said above I didn't see a need to link your old account and your new account at this time. But if you're starting to attack editors you were in dispute with under your old account, it may become reasonable that they are clearly linked so editors can properly scrutinise your previous edits and interactions with the editors you are attacking. Nil Einne (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Given the continued sniping following the "retirement" and the generally poor behaviour prior to it, I seriously considered indefinitely blocking a moment ago. However, it's 1:30am here so I'm going to leave this to others to handle. I would support some kind of technical enforcement of their most recent (timely) retirement, as they - like last time - can't seem to let go and are devolving into poorer and poorer behaviour. Daniel (talk) 16:02, 4 May 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.

I feel unwelcomed and worried

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 writing here because recent events left me feel unwelcomed and even worried.

I'm not trying to make anyone feel the same by posting this, but after few days, I still feel that I have to write this out. I hope we can come to mutual understanding without boomeranging it back to me or even making any trouble for the editors I'm reporting (one has even apologized immediately after realizing a misunderstanding ). I realize that one can also complain about my past behavior. Although, I have never been edit warring, I have never been reprimanded nor even reported for misbehavior (as I recall), I have learned more about Wikipedia and I have worked hard to correct everything mentioned by more experienced editors. I don't feel that was recognized enough in this case.

The recent events are related to page Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity [170]. I realize that this page is frowned upon by many, but please try to understand that it exist, and that it has a reason to exist. It's normal that some people will post there.

First event started with this post of mine. [171]. I have complained about the rule Doug Weller had mentioned and in the second section I have given some advices to another editor which included phrases "emotional comments" , "all the clutter you posted". I realize that maybe I was too harsh to this other editor, but I really felt that I'm giving him an advice. Not to prolong, this comment I have to the other user isn't the problem here. The thing is, that, Doug Weller had misunderstood that I have been addressing him, which triggered a boomerang back to me and comments like this [172], containing phrases like "SPA" and other things. I couldn't understand why all that, and all the thing from the past are being brought up. It really made me feel worried and unwelcomed. But please, this isn't even my complain here, as we have found later in this discussion [173] that it all was misunderstanding. Chetvorno had confirmed that my objection about the rule that I mentioned in my initial comment is founded and had removed the rule. Doug Weller had apologized. Doug Weller, I really feel that you have been objective here, because when noticing your mistake, you have apologized and the matter seemed to be resolved. Apart from my feeling being hurt in the meantime, after this was resolved I had no residual bad feelings. If this was the end of it, I wouldn't even write this. It isn't even a complaint about you, Doug Weller. But, let me describe what happened next. Few hours later after the matter seemed resolved I came back and saw that your initial comment with the apology had disappeared. I can't even reference it here, because it has been deleted from the history. Instead of that comment I can see this one [174]. This one has changed in tone. You had started again digging over my past. I noticed that you have sent this 3 mails [175], [176] , [177]. Doug Weller, for this that I will say, I have no proof, but I think that you are objective and have self integrity to be honest. That is why I feel that you haven't answered on your talk page. I will ask you again , if you please can answer. I strongly believe someone, and for the purpose of not making wild accusations, I will not name who (although I believe I can deduce such a thing), had contacted you and make you change your opinion. Only this makes sense for the actions of deleting the apology from history, undropping the matter and sending 3 mails to other admins to pursue further actions. Doug Weller, please, don't feel that I have anything against you. I find you objective and fair. It even seems that you have even dropped the matter again. But if you could answer, yes, or no, instead of just ignoring the question, I feel you would be honest. I would even feel better if I'm wrong with all this and if you say that I'm wrong, I will believe. But not answering on your talk page, made me feel right. And if I'm right, can you then understand why such a thing would make me feel unwelcomed and worried?

Second event started with this comment [178]. Note that Chetvorno had not participated in talk page discussions much. All of the sudden, after Doug Weller had apologized to me on the talk page. Chetvorno starting this comment with "Since you brought up blocks on the Talk page". This coming after the apology is very strange to me. I also don't remember Doug Weller mentioning blocks. Here I'm maybe mistaken, but I can't see it on talk page. I'm sorry, Chetvorno. I cannot understand what made you call for a block after you saw that Doug Weller and I only had a misunderstanding and that he had even apologized. This really makes me feel bad, because I don't remember you ever calling for my ban before, and you and I have been present in that discussion for a long time. Chetvorno, I don't even remember you ever reporting me for misbehavior. Yes, maybe in the past there was grounds to do so, but you haven't done so. And since then I haven improved which is even noted by you in this post by saying "Since then, he has been polite". Chetvorno, then you are suggesting that I have a "record of WP:TENDENTIOUS pushing his nationalist agenda". I'm sorry, but you yourself, not anyone else had ever reported me for such behavior. Implying that I have a record would have to be backed up by ANI reports, or edit warring edits or anything other. Chetvorno, I really feel hurt that you think that I have a record, we have participated in this discussion for a long time and I don't remember you had such an opinion of me, and even if you did, you noted that I have improved and become more polite. Also, as I answered on the talk page, implying that SYNTH is against wiki guidelines in not correct at all. Chetvorno, I feel that even in your reply , you have conceded that usage of SYNTH is allowed on talk pages per Wiki guidelines. You also in your answer are stating a lack of objectivity. But again, a lack of objectivity can pointed out and discussed on the talk page. Chetvorno, You haven't done so, but instead you have asked this admin for such actions. After all this you went and called my answer to you WP:NOTHERE [179]. Chetvorno, Is it really needed this what you have suggested after I have showed the will to improve? My recent comments are on the topic, polite and you yourself haven't noted anything wrong with them. Chetvorno, please, if we had problems in the past, can we please set them aside?

Third event is related to this 2 discussions [180], [181] and some other comments Joy and I have exchanged. I really feel those have been purely topic related discussions about the sources. However, Joy had suggested several times that I have been violating WP:ARBMAC also noting "I might no longer be uninvolved here, but I would advise to treat this message as a final warning". I really hope that, from my comments is obvious that I have not been violating ARBMAC which would warrant the final warning. I have contacted Joy on his talk page [182]. I really feel that we have agreed that there is no violation ARBMAC. But Joy, I have asked you directly if we can find common ground [183], but you haven't answered. Also, in the topic discussions, you had some problems with my sources which made me spend time researching for new sources. I agreed we can't use purely historical sources, nor have I been advocating.Joy, You asked for Tesla sources and I have provided those as well. I really feel that I have done much to address your remarks and I really feel unwelcomed that you simply ignored them.

Please don't be offended by this what I will say, but I feel that you Joy and Chetvorno have over the years, by participating in content related discussions on that talk page, built a point of view. This is only natural. As I said in the beginning. No one needs to be offended, but I will make this suggestion, I hope it won't offend you. All of you have done much by moderating that page, but if you have built your point of view and you do participate in the discussions, is it possible that the moderation is taken over by someone uninvolved in topic related discussions? You can still participate in topic related discussions, but let's leave the moderation to someone uninvolved (without contacts via private channels, etc). I really hope you would accept my suggestion without being offended or unsatisfied.

Bilseric (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

For some perspective, the United States Declaration of Independence has 1,458 words and is estimated to take approximately ten minutes to read. Your statement above has 1,520 words. Is it fair to expect people to spend ten minutes reading this? Please consider editing it down to a much smaller size and pointing people to a larger version in your user space out of consideration. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, it's very confusing. Who is the "you" that you address throughout? Schazjmd (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Bilseric, you might feel more welcome if you didn't spend most of your time here at Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity and in connection with that. Do you realise that of your 337 edits on this wiki, 161 were on that talk page, and if we add in the WP:AN and WP:ANI edits in connection, the request for a closure followed by objecting to the closure at Wikipedia:Closure requests, your talk page, Doug Weller's and Joy's, over 70% of your edits here have been spent arguing about one thing, for nearly seven years? With most of the rest being on the Srebrenica massacre and Operation Storm, it's no wonder you don't feel good! NebY (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Bilseric is a Croatian nationalist WP:SPA who since he began editing in 2018 has conducted a WP:TENDENTIOUS campaign on Nikola Tesla to try to insert into the article a sentence that Tesla was born in Croatia. To that end he proposed an RfC 12 December 2018 which he lost 7 editors against 1 on grounds of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:CHERRYPICKING. Then he challenged its closure. Since then he has periodically continued his campaign on the Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Nationality_and_ethnicity page, [184], [185], [186], [187] many advancing OR arguments SYNTHESIZED from sources which have nothing to do with Tesla. [188], [189], [190], [191], and WP:REHASHing different versions of his offtopic, unsourced arguments in an effort to WP:EXHAUST. He has become very slick at avoiding overt behavior that might get him sanctions, but all his edits are WP:POV WP:ICANTHEARYOU and it seems clear he is not going to stop voluntarily.

When administrator Doug Weller discussed his editing with him, I suggested he might merit a block under the WP:Contentious topic rules. --Chetvorno^TALK 00:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

But you have done so after we resolved the misunderstanding and after he apologized. This made me think that you have contacted him via private channels and told him pretty much what you wrote above and when he didn't answer, this felt really unsettling. Bilseric (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

NebY, I'll just point this out [192]. Please note that this is a disputed topic and very heavy to discuss. When a discussion happens , people post a lot, and if you look carefully, sometimes one posts with all corrections comes up to 10 edits. However, thank you, I'll try to "diversify". Bilseric (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Have you notified the Arbitration Committee in accordance with Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Alternative account notification, as among Editors who heavily edit controversial material, those who maintain single purpose accounts? NebY (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Please , understand, I don't want to talk about this anymore. If you notice public IPs, do not reveal them, even if I have revealed those belonged to me (that was a mistake that I cannot correct anymore). Bilseric (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

We're not talking about IPs. You told me here "I'll just point this out",[193] linking to the section on the legitimate uses of alternative accounts. Do you have an alternative account, and have you notified the Arbitration Committee of it? NebY (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

NebY, Just to be more precise about the number of articles and talk pages I've been involved on, apart from Tesla. The full list is: Operation Storm, Star Trek: Discovery, Jewish people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Triune Kingdom, Slobodan Praljak, Rade Šerbedžija, Donald Trump, Presidency of Donald Trump, Matthew Whitaker, Skanderbeg, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Croatian War of Independence, Doug Weller, Srebrenica massacre, Military Frontier, Graham Hancock. With Tesla that's all together 17. Again, thanks for the suggestion. I'll try to increase this to 25-30 by 2025 and if you feel I post too much to Tesla discussion, I won't post there until 2025. Bilseric (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

This from Joy is probably pertinent to reviewing this editor's conduct, also. The subsequent discussion here doesn't inspire heaps of confidence either. Daniel (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Have alternate accounts been used, by you? GoodDay (talk) 02:15, 5 May 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 by Bortak42

Bortak42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reinstated material here and here with the edit summaries: Corrections after the vandal Cinderella157.

• In the discussion at Talk:Battle of Krasnohorivka#Country flags, they commented: Cinderella157 should get solid ban for vandalism.

• They opened a TP section Talk:Battle of Krasnohorivka#Trolling of Cinderella157.

• In a subsequent edit here, they made the edit summary: Fuck vandal Cinderella157.

  They made this edit after being warned by Alexiscoutinho here.

• They made this last edit after receiving a GS alert (User talk:Bortak42#GS alert) in which they were explicitly advised that a non-ECP editor may not edit articles in the scope of the general sanctions.

  Ironically, their last edit reverted an edit by SaintPaulOfTarsus here. WP:CIR - even when one is making a personal attack.

Cinderella157 (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

• I'm probably one of the more tolerant admins when it comes to moderate back and forth incivility, but I don't see any back and forth, just Bortak42 being unnecessarily aggressive to the point of it clearly being a personal attack. Blocked 72 hours. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support block which is pretty clearly justified. If they come back and continue, or breach the GS restrictions as a non-ECP editor, the next one should be indefinite in my opinion. Daniel (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I put as much in a personal note on their talk page. This block was more of a shot across the bow, as it was their first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem, though, is that you gave them the impression that they are allowed to edit articles belonging to this (WP:GS/RUSUKR) topic area — but they are not. Not until they meet the WP:XC requirements. They are good on the time, but +400 more edits to go. So I tried to get that across on that user's talk page (here). El_C 04:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I stand corrected, and explained further on their talk page. I was too focused on the personal attacks and overlooked the obvious EC issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

It saddens me a bit that that user never really engaged in dialogue, which made it harder to conciliate the parties. I even tried to force a draw with the comment Cinderella linked by creating a scenario where he wouldn't come out defeated or in an embarrassed state. He gave me nothing to work with. Almost as if he asked for a block... Alexis Coutinho (talk) ^[ping me] 05:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

SPI নবাব

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

Filed this SPI case for user:নবাব back on April 11, 2024. I understand the SPI is backlogged, but hoping to get a set of eyes from an admin on the behavioral evidence in the meantime since user is still creating pages, categories, etc. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

This is better at AN Maestrofin (talk) 07:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Wrong dates in music from Cincinnati IP range

• 2603:6010:B700:AC3A:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone in Greater Cincinnati has been putting wrong information into the wiki for the past 18 months, starting with TV episodes[194] but continuing with music article vandalism,[195] especially incorrect date changes.[196][197] Can we get some relief from this vandal? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the range and edits I agree. I've given them 1 month off for now. Lets see if they get bored in that time. Canterbury Tail talk 20:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Fab, thanks. Binksternet (talk) 08:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

IPs related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dealer07

• 2A02:587:428B:5278:1421:CF3C:227D:32E2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

There is a connection with the blocked ip range 2A02:85F:F000:0:0:0:0:0/40. Apart from the nationality related editing they make their presence obvious by returning to the same article in el.wiki to perform a reversion (see el:Doja Cat, history). Ah3kal (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• 2A02:587:428B:5278:1422:9C6F:2505:283A (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

new IP, again confirmed the connection by reverting Doja Cat in el.wiki (ping Bbb23 as blocking admin of the original account) Ah3kal (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Dealer07's edits are incredibly obvious. Just revert and block on sight. They jump around IPs regularly, but they're still obvious. Canterbury Tail talk 17:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

"EmpowerHer" campaign?

Any idea what this is supposed to be? If there is an actual editathon behind this, then someone got ahold of the entirely wrong end of the horse here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Elmidae Please notify the user as per the instructions at the top of the page. Qcne (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this might be the exception that proves the rule, they are spamming this message to numerous users, asking for their personal information. I'm not waiting for them to explain that, I've already issued an indef block. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

One of their edit summaries leads here on wikimedia. Schazjmd (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Just Step Sideways:, my instinct here is that this was a good-faith, but poorly-executed, plan. Could you unblock them so they can participate here, on the condition that they don't make those requests again until and unless this is all sorted? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, that does seem well-intentioned. But the approach is certainly indistinguishable from a particularly hamfisted fishing attempt. The organizers might want to rethink that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm comfortable unblocking without some sort of commitment to like, never ever do that again. Why did they need to ask where people work? Why was it sent to users who seemingly did not even know they were particpating in it? These are pretty serious concerns if you ask me. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

well, practically speaking, I suspect "don't make those requests again until and unless this is all sorted" is probably going to be indistinguishable from "never ever do that again". I certainly agree this was kind of dumb, but I'm not convinced a block is needed. Also, if you have a link handy for "Why was it sent to users who seemingly did not even know they were participating in it" it would save me some hunting. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Seeing the conversation happening on Bukky658's talk page, I share the sense that while the misstep was serious and the initial intervention not inappropriate, leaving the indefinite block in place would be an error, as it wouldn't be preventing misbehavior (the behavior is unlikely to repeat). Leaving such a block in place risks a chilling effect that discourages editors from on-Wikipedia underrepresented regions (like Africa) and demographics (like women) and discourages efforts to improve and diversify participation. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sufficiently convinced that this was not in bad faith, but I am not yet convinced that it is understood by Bukky or the other people commenting on her talk page how incredibly out of line this was. They seem to think the main issue is that they asked on talk pages instead of by email. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, the block isn't preventing them from sending emails, which I feel they might have already sent. – 2804:F14:80EE:5A01:F151:38D2:AA6E:399F (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah-hah! This is where all the badly sourced essays being added to Women in government are coming from! I assumed that it was just student editing season, but a cash prize edit-a-thon will apparently do the same. MrOllie (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, it relates to meta:Event:EmpowerHer Editathon 2024. If this is resulting in badly-sourced essays, then that editathon was likely not well planned or executed. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this block is a good example of the "preventative not punitive" mantra that gets repeated so often on our noticeboards. The block prevented Bukky658 from asking anyone else for personal details. Whether the original action was in good faith or not is immaterial. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's exactly where I'm at with it, per my last reply above. I still feel like the organizers are not getting it. Perhaps it is a cultural difference, I don't know. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I do think you should change your block reason though, as this does not appear to be a bad-faith phishing attempt. – 2804:F14:80EE:5A01:F151:38D2:AA6E:399F (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

That's fair enough, I've done that and also disabled email, although you are probably right that that ship has already sailed. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll also note that I have stuff to do and am probably done here for today. So if it seems best to everyone here to unblock, please go ahead. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support block as preventative. Disruption can still be done in good faith and blocks can be used to prevent disruption. The issue can be sorted out on meta.--v/r - TP 09:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
• Unblocked They filed an appeal which thoroughly acknowledged the issues that led to the block, so I feel the preventative purpose of it has been achieved. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

AndyFielding's birth date removal on biographies and lack of communication

AndyFielding (talk · contribs) has a habit of removing dates of birth from early life sections. He calls these "redundant" (ctrl F the term in his edits, he uses it quite often). From what is mine understanding, WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY; the lead is the summation of the article body. Any information there should be present in the article. He has been contacted and warned by FMSky about their editing behaviour, to no avail. I similarly left a warning. FMSky started an ANI a little over a month ago, with no results. During that discussion, SnowFire left another message to remind AndyFielding WP:COMMUNICATION is required. No response. During that discussion, he went on through with removing dates of birth from early life sections. Their behaviour continues still.

• On Mariah Carey (reverted by SNUGGUMS)
• On Jennifer Lopez
• On Riki Lindhome
• On Chris O'Dowd

That alone is worrisome enough, but there is zero communication coming from AndyFielding regarding this matter. His most recent edit to his own talk page was on November 2019. He has however stated on his talk page (User talk:AndyFielding#Attention to reversals, feedback, etc.) that he is "reasonably confident my contributions benefit WP's readers". Perhaps it's a case of WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT. Maybe he doesn't use talk pages, I hear you think. Well, he did so April 28. Or on April 26, three edits to Joaquin Phoenix's talk page. Or requesting a photo, also April 26. Matter of fact, he uses talk pages quite often. So why does he ignore talk page messages? The notification of the previous ANI? The many, many notifications he must get from being reverted on those edits?

I would very much like to see this stopped. Also notifying Alalch E., Hydrangeans, Johnuniq and El C, who were also part of the previous discussion. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 17:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems like WP:RADAR behavior. I've partially blocked them from article space and told them they need to respond here. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

181.216.91.244 & 141.161.209.126

Same as usual, I guess from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ireneirenegoncalves: Here, there and there. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• Second IP also blocked, but I don't see the connection with that SPI. Drmies (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

User keeps assuming I'm a vandal and refuses to communicate to clarify

The user SchroCat is constantly making baseless assumptions that I am vandal by virtue of being an IP. I've tried communicating and clarifying with them on their talk page in a cordial manner but I'm instead simply reverted and ignored. I had also tried replying to them on WP:RPPI but was also reverted by them again. This relates to the article Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick, which is constantly being edited by known WP:UPE accounts and sockpuppets. The revision history of that said article speaks for itself. 114.18.93.166 (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see you attempting to discuss this on the article talk page where it would be appropriate. Canterbury Tail talk 20:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the discussion the IP referred to in their edit summary is this one Talk:Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick#Edit warring. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Specifically it appears to be a slow edit war over content originally added by Jbroer.[198] -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

You are removing material cited to reliable sources. You’re a vandal and you need to stop.

Page protection has been applied for to stop the ongoing disruption from the vandal. - SchroCat (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

A, as you said to the account doing the exact same revert, slow-burn edit war over content is not considered vandalism? – 2804:F14:80F7:2601:F09A:298C:95D6:7FAF (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's not the definition of a vandal. They gave you a reason for their edit here on your talk page. They might be wrong, or what they say may be ill founded (I've no idea one way or another), but I fail to see how it's vandalism. Can you explain? DeCausa (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Bollocks. Deleting valid encyclopaedic information cited to reliable sources is vandalism, end of. If this little vandal thinks it’s a UPE, then there’s a pathway for dealing with that, and ongoing mindless vandalism isn’t it. - SchroCat (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Removing content is not WP:VANDALISM, only if their was a malicious intent would it be vandalism and I don't see that this is malicious. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

nonsense. See above. Aside from the fact the vandal didn’t explain their edits, they are reverting my edits. (Given I have reverted them before, the responsibility for the content falls on to me, so they are deleting my valid edit without a good cause. I don’t give a crap how you think you define it, this is vandalism. I’ll do it again and again and I’ll be justified in doing so. - SchroCat (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Not how I define it, how it's defined in policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Completely agree with ActivelyDisinterested. SchroCat, someone of your experience throwing around nonsense "vandal" accusations like a new clueless user and responding when challenged with "bollocks" is heading for a sanction. Cut it out. DeCausa (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• This was completely pointless before it started, and you’re making it even less constructive. See you all later - there’s a reason I don’t bother with this cesspit, and this is about standard. I’ll continue reverting the vandalism (“editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge”) as long as it continues. - 21:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SchroCat (talk • contribs)

  Given this response stating the intention to continue edit warring what they are erroneously categorizing as vandalism, as well as the fact that this is being done using rollback with no summary or further explanation, some admin action should definitely be considered. That is, if they're not going to listen to words and aren't going to read the policy pages, then what other option is left?
  – 2804:F14:80F7:2601:F09A:298C:95D6:7FAF (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  Though the OP/IP was, of course, also edit warring(unless it turns out that change was added by a socking UPE, which I can't tell at a glance). – 2804:F14:80F7:2601:F09A:298C:95D6:7FAF (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The page-in-question should be protected, until a consensus is reached for the proposed changes. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• SchroCat's rollback rights have been removed here as a result of their apparent inability to understand what "vandalism" means. They're on 3 reverts on the article in question. If they cross the bright line with a 4th revert with the bogus "vandalism" rationale no doubt they'll be blocked at WP:AN3 in the normal course. I think we're done here. DeCausa (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

You’re talking rubbish. I have reverted twice in the last 24 hours, not three times. The IP has been disruptive twice there too, but I’m sure you’re happily ignoring such disruption. - SchroCat (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Additionally the OP/IP was blocked by the same admin who removed the rollback as a p2p proxy (along with the other IP in the article). – 2804:F14:80F7:2601:F09A:298C:95D6:7FAF (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

May I point out that the edit war is still pretty much under way on that page? Another user just reverted SchroCat's edits. I don't want to necessarily endorse SchroCat's decision to revert continuously but the opposing side has not provided a reasonable rationale for reverting their edits either. To me that is disruptive editing, even if it's not overt vandalism. Keivan.f^Talk 02:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I also posted a comment on the talk page to see what the issue is. Keivan.f^Talk 03:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

This reverting editor has only 26 edits, but has magically joined in reverting while giving no rationale. It’s more vandalism, nothing else. I had previously asked on the talk page why such deletions of valid information were taking place, but no-one has given any response, or any reason. Ongoing deletion of valid information without rationale is vandalism (“editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge”) because it sure as hell isn’t constructive editing. We now have a BLP that is misleading and inaccurate because of the disruptive editors, while the page protection I requested was inexplicably denied. I’m delighted so many will have got a cheap thrill playing gotcha over having my rollback removed, but the result is damage to the encyclopaedia and ongoing disruption. Brilliant work all round. I wish the peanut gallery would engage their collective brains sometimes, rather than play such stupid games. - SchroCat (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with SchroCat in that once he reverted the edits, he took responsibility for the material, and any further reverts from other editors can not claim UPE or sock accounts, as SchroCat is an established editor that took responsibility for the material being restored. There is a discussion open on the talk page where editors should explain themselves. Personally, I don't see the reverts of SchroCat as being an improvement to the article, and in my view are disruptive. I also think removing his rollback was an overreaction and that should be restored. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell, the proxy IPs, and the account before them, were reverting another account's edits, presumably because of what is said in the section #Edit warring of the talk page - that is, in that section about the previous war caused by COI/undisclosed paid editors, in December, the editors were all trying to add a version with information about a travel agency to the article, something which the 'another account' has also done with different words.

  I hope that helps you all have your discussion on what merits being in the article or not, because this is all I'm doing here - this ANI was, as ANIs usually are, about conduct issues.

  Calling that last IP a vandal while they were trying to discuss why they were doing it(which was reverting what they think is paid editing, presumably to protect the article) and misusing rollback (or even reverting with no reason provided) to stonewall them while refusing to discuss with them (including rolling back their attempt at defending themselves at RfPP) are the conduct issues that were discussed here and resulted in what it did, after SchroCat, who is still calling it vandalism, refused to accept it isn't.

  -

  That said, that new account is out of order, I know for a fact they're not even related to anyone in there, that they went there after seeing this ANI thread and decided to revert with no explanation, that's pretty disruptive, though we don't know why they did that, so I won't assume it's vandalism or trolling, but good warning. – 2804:F1...65:F77F (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  IP, I’m interested in hearing why you “know for a fact” that King Lobclaw is “not even related to anyone in there”. You know this with such certainty how? - SchroCat (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  Because King Lobclaw, who's account used to be named Ohio Rizzler 1, is a new account who was posting on random ANI threads just 5+ days ago and were told it was dangerous to do so on their user talk page. It would take a cosmic coincidence for them to have any history with that article, but they do have history with ANI so, I'm certain this is where they came from. *edit: removed part where I addressed a part of the comment that was removed before I finished replying.

  – 2804:F14:80F7:2601:51B1:3B13:AB65:F77F (talk) 07:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC) *edited 07:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) x 2 So you don’t know a damned thing, then. You’re making assumptions and guessing based on zero knowledge of whether (or how much) socking, logged out editing and use of proxies is going on. You “don’t know for a fact” at all. In fact you know less than that, if you can’t see from the edit history it’s not just proxy IPs involved in the disruption. Good work knowing nothing while you defend vandalism in the ever-pointless peanut gallery. I’ll leave you to it while I go do busy work. - SchroCat (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  I mean, it doesn't take a lot of guesswork to know it's extremely unlikely for an account who never edited the topic before, who was active at ANI and almost nowhere else, happening to also have any history with the editors reverting perceived UPE in an article that on most days averages 400 views [199] – 2804:F14:80F7:2601:51B1:3B13:AB65:F77F (talk) 07:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  Well done for confirming you “don’t know for a fact” at all. - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. As Isaidnoway correctly notes, SchroCat took responsibility for the material, and any further reverts from other editors can not claim UPE or sock accounts. And it might not be vandalism but it is disruptive editing (which vandalism is a subset of). Anyway, moving on (hopefully). El_C 07:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks El_C, that’s great. It will stop the proxies at least, but we’ll see if the named accounts continue here. I suspect activity around the article will end up back here at some point in the future. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

• Update. I am now being harassed by a second IP from the South Korean city of Seongnam (the same location as one of the vandals who was reverting yesterday). 210.217.47.240 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has begun stalking my edits, reverting a couple of previous edits. - SchroCat (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
• Further update Same stalking and vandalism repeated by a newly registered account: WatchOutForDiddy (talk · contribs) (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Blair_Peach&diff=prev&oldid=1222487049, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robin_de_La_Lanne-Mirrlees&diff=prev&oldid=1222486861 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_James_Bond_films&diff=prev&oldid=1222487526 - also includes uncivil edit summaries; these are the only three edits this sleeper account has made. - SchroCat (talk) 06:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

IP blocked as proxy, account blocked as troll. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks Euryalus; I suspect I'll be back with further problems with this one, but hopefully not. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

FlapjackRulez adding copyright material after multiple warnings

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:FlapjackRulez At copy patrol, I saw [this] edit which added the plot summary, apparently from the movie's own promotional material. When I went to warn them, I saw they'd been warned multiple times for copyright-related issues, including multiple G12'ed articles. Given the fact they have never responded, or apparently stopped inserting copyrighted material, this is an issue which an admin needs to address. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian: Which edit? – 2804:F14:80C8:4701:9C49:A8E6:A25E:3091 (talk) 04:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that I forgot to link the edit. It's this one], which I have edited the above post to include a link to. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you please show the source that's allegedly plagiarized? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Sure! It appears to have been taken from the movie's promotional material- you can see the plot summary is the same as these commercial listings. [[200]] or [[201]]. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian: indeffed. Please request a WP:CCI. MER-C 19:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@MER-C Done! Thanks for dealing with it. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:04, 3 May 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.

Foxviktorfox edit warring, removing references, repeated copyright violations

Foxviktorfox (talk · contribs), created 30 April 2024, has engaged in multiple problematic behaviors without response to multiple warnings. All edits have been in article space or draft space; none in talk.

Copyright violations: created Draft:Royal Wessex twice. Both times it was a direct copy from another source ([202]).

Edit warring: British Rail Class 465, e.g., Special:Diff/1222044488, China Airlines, e.g., Special:Diff/1221744378, Special:Diff/1221743640.

Removing references (all of which have been reverted: e.g., Special:Diff/1221744378, Special:Diff/1221751823, Special:Diff/1221940965.

Every mainspace edit has been reverted by another editor.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

INDEFfed for DE. CV, almost certainly not new. Take your pick. Star Mississippi 18:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

 Note: I don't think Draft:Royal Wessex was a copyright violation, and in fact I had declined a G12 tag on the draft prior to this ANI report. The source website seems to release the text into the public domain, and I had added an PD attribution template to the draft. (See also this related discussion). This doesn't affect the disruptive-editing block, but I just wanted to note this here in case of a future unblock request. DanCherek (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

User Gilberatalessandro054 edit warring copyrighted material into article

Gilberatalessandro054 (talk · contribs). For the past hour or so, this user has been repeated inserting copyrighted material, seemingly from here, into the Pattimura article. I and another user have been reverting them, and asking for a revdel, but they keep doing it. Oh, as I write this, they've done it again. A page protection or a block may be in order. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Their tendentious style and edit summaries at this and related articles are strongly reminiscent of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Earth6282/Archive. Wikishovel (talk) 08:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Editor has also resumed tagging their major edits as minor, again despite warnings at their user talk: [203], [204], [205], [206]. Wikishovel (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikishovel, I guess I don't see what you see--I looked at a bunch of edit summaries from that account and a couple of the socks, and I don't see the similarity. Do you have specifics? Drmies (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that was probably a knee-jerk reaction from me. Tendentious editing, surly summaries and edit-warring on all of the favourite articles of User:Earth6282 and their socks doesn't equal evidence of sockpuppetry. Wikishovel (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

This is not even considering repeated creation of 'battles' inside Indonesian articles where there are no known sources for the level of detail of specific battles. The language being used in response to notifications is quite confusing also. I am not sure whether there is a distinct problem of misunderstanding some of the instructions or whether the replies are adequately coherent... JarrahTree 11:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe that the continued edit war https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pattimura&action=history and ignoring warnings constitutes admin action ASAP JarrahTree 11:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Feeling generous, I indef partially blocked them from that article. Any further copyvios will result in a full indef. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 13:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Bit busy right now, but there has been a significant rise in very odd edits to Indonesian-related war articles in the past 24 hours, some of which I have reverted (e.g blanking sections, changing participants lists). Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

As at least one checkuser has come to this particular incident, the editing pattern of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Based_history4668 should be of concern. JarrahTree 01:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

This should be an indefinite. Their posting behavior is atrocious and goes well beyond the original page block and even when they're making a rudimentary attempt to discuss [207] it's generally unhelpful and barely comprehensible. I think this a clear-cut WP:CIR example and as such, even a topic ban is probably not sufficient. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

There are ongoing problems with this editor. Their user talk is full of recent warnings over their edit warring and related WP:BATTLEGROUND editing. They bounce from one Indonesian military history article to the next, get warned for edit warring, say that it's not their fault and they're sure they're right, then move on to the next article. Spotting copyrighted additions is easy with this editor, since their English is utterly unreadable. Their single-article block above, with a warning of an indef for further copyrighted additions, has only pushed them back to plain old edit warring. They were warned over WP:3RR for Java War on 29 April by User:JarrahTree [208], then by me on 1 May for 3RR at Pattimura: [209]. Now they're at it again at Battle of Bau, reverting User:Eastfarthingan three times (first, second, third), and me twice (first, second) within 24 hours. Can I suggest a short block, since talk page warnings clearly aren't getting through to them. Wikishovel (talk) 06:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't have bothered commenting again, but I went through to check their older contributions for copyvios the other day. In this edit I removed material that was closely paraphrasing this source.

For comparasion, their edit said

On June 30 1859, kiai Demang Leman attacked the Dutch post at the Martapura palace. In August 1859 together with Sheikh Buya Yasin and Kiai Langlang, Kiai Demang Lehman succeeded in capturing the Dutch fort in Tabanio.

While the source said (machine translation):

Together with Haji Nasrun, Demang Lehman also carried out a large-scale raid on the Dutch troops' post in Martpure. In August 1859, assisted by Haji Bajasin and Kiai Langlang, Demang Lehman succeeded in capturing the Dutch fort in Tabaniau.

(Note that the date "June 30" does not appear anywhere in the cited source as far as I can see)

While the original edit was made before their warning, they just reverted my removal of the close paraphrasing with no edit summary. Either they're not bothering to read the edit summaries before reverting, or they still don't understand copyright.

They also tried to start a content dispute with the disambiguation link alert bot on their talk page. I think that speaks for itself. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

This has dragged on long enough, there is a need for an admin to implement a block for the behaviour - the editors who have commented here have been so patient and civil, the behaviour deserves a definite no edit block, with some haste, before more damage is done. JarrahTree 06:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Still at it: [210][211], this time reverting User:Fantastic Mr. Fox. Wikishovel (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Yep: clear WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR issue. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that - one hopes for some action soon... JarrahTree 11:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Fantastic Mr. Fox Edits such as [212] and [213] are not entirely helpful. You also need to go to the talk page and start a conversation.

Also, for any admins who haven't gotten completely bored of this thread, the Battle of Bau article has been in a lovely state of constantly being reverted for the past week. Haven't checked if anybody's gone over the 3RR, but I wouldn't be surprised. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean they (my comments on why edit warring is a no no) are a bit more helpful than 'why should I stop' [214] from Gilbert (as well as responding to editor complaints with..... cat emojis). I admit, me and two other editors went to 3RR reverting this editor (who isn't listening), and I then stopped, hoping this ANI would shut soon. Gilberatalessandro054 is in fact not at 3RR, despite me and other's complaints - he is at a proud 8 reverts. Discussion opened though I don't expect them to reach out given there behaviour pattern. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 06:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. The persistent disruption and edit-warring doesn't appear to be stopping, so they can argue their case via an unblock template and everyone can get on without wasting their time on this. Black Kite (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Request for Investigation of User:Saqib

Hey there, I submitted my articles for publication Hook (2022 TV series) and Wonderland (Pakistani TV series) and were accepted for publication by the reviewer User:ToadetteEdit but he reverted the drafts despite accepting that article cites reliable sources as expressed here [User:Saqib]] has misused the rights as reviewer and is biased in his judgments as expressed in User_talk:Liz#Request_for_Investigation_of_User:Saqib. He also added multiple articles for deletion without giving proper rationale. He accused me as a logged out User:BeauSuzanne and discourages me to edit. I requested administrators but I feel so demotivated. Kindly look into his actions and do something. In hope for a just outcome. Thank you! 182.182.97.3 (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

First off, none of the BLPs created by this IP have been nominated for deletion, so I'm not sure why they're getting worked up over those deletion nominations? Were they socking? I brought up the issue of both these articles to User_talk:ToadetteEdit#Hook_(2022_TV_series) and when others agreed with me that the sources being used on these two pages are not reliable at all. After that, I thought it would be better to move them back to the draft NS instead of nominating them for deletion. I don't know what all the fuss is about. Also, I have a hunch this BeauSuzanne is the same as these IPs. @Drmies: warned @BeauSuzanne not to edit while logged out, but this IP range keeps doing that and even participating in AfDs to WP:GAME. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Who others agreed? The reviewer doesn't agree with moving them back to the draft. Plus you accepted that articles does contain reliable sources then why ignoring them while reviewing? And as far as IP issue is concerned, it's explicit that I have nothing to do with BeauSuzanne. And I can vote if I'm editing on Wikipedia.182.182.97.3 (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I am involved in this case so I will tell the following.

• A few weeks ago or so I reviewed the Wonderland article as part of the AfC. The ip later approached me saying that it was tagged for notability, so I went to it and to much of my surprise it was reviewed by an editor and left the tag. I told them to find sources that could establish notability and thats it.
• A few days ago I reviewed the Hooks article seein that the spurces listed are reliable enough to warrant the draft an article. Not so long, yesterday Saqib approached me telling about my reviews of the two accosiated with reliable sources and sock farms regarding Pakistani media. I questioned them and they gave me an answer that most of the sources are unreliable. S0091 also approached and explained some of these sources. Today that same ip came to me on Saqib's bold draftifications and nominating some articles for deletion. They also came to Liz's talk and later here. I've asked for clarification and I havent yet explained.

For the sake of this, I won't be reviewing those two drafts due to problems arising on me. Toadette^Edit! 16:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! Just a friendly heads-up, when reviewing drafts in the future, if you ever come across an article with source you're not too sure about, it might be a good idea to hold off on giving it the green light. It just so happened that I stumbled upon these two pages by chance; otherwise, they might have gone unnoticed like hundred others. These IPs have a bit of a reputation for churning out pages and even BLPs on non-notable actors with questionable sources through AfC and then someone (probably unintentionally) moves them to the main NS. Moving forward, I'll be keeping an eye on them through WP:NPP. We can't undo what's already been done but we can definitely make sure we're not letting any more questionable articles slip through the cracks. Regards! —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

You're reviewing the whole situation as you have done nothing. There has been a biasedness exercised by you, if the articles were not notable, you could've tagged them but you chose to move them back. I can add more sources to both the articles and let another reviewer review it cause you have some sort of agenda against Beausuzanne and you targeted me because of it. 182.182.97.3 (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

ip, you should not be saying this, and I am advising you to stop accusing editors as it is often unkind and may be a personal attack. Toadette^Edit! 16:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, I've never really patrolled WP:NPP before, but after giving it a go, I was surprised to see just how many unwarranted pages are being created. Indeed, I'm firmly against anyone who violates policies for monetary gain. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

And what about his accusations? 182.182.97.3 (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I have started a discussion with the IP and anyone else who wishes to join at Draft talk:Hook (2022 TV series) to identify sources that establish notability and will do the same for Draft:Wonderland (Pakistani TV series). S0091 (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

This SPI was just closed but I have asked the CU to open it back up for behavioral evaluation. I have not seen so many DUCKS coming from LOUTSOCKing until now. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Not here user

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.

---

NOTHERE. See [215]].  // Timothy :: talk  19:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

They've been locked by @EPIC NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 19:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Epic rv the problem, but isn't an admin. User hasn't been blocked. I realized I posted here instead of and not AiV, sorry about that.  // Timothy :: talk  19:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Globally locked so the point is moot. 92.11.18.157 (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)EPIC is a steward. This means that they have the power to lock accounts and prevent them from loging in. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 19:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks all :)  // Timothy :: talk  19:38, 6 May 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:Dustfreeworld using comments inappropriately during content dispute

Recently there was (a now-seemingly-resolved) content dispute on the page Suicide methods over whether or not an image should be placed in the lede to provide access to a suicide prevention hotline. During this, the user Dustfreeworld (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added variations of the following in the source for the page to deter other editors from changing their preferred version of the lede:

<!-- This image was added because [[WP:NOTHOWTO]]. Wikipedia is “not an instruction manual or guidebook”. We are not here teaching people how to kill themselves. Please don't remove. Thanks. -->

I have been twice accused of edit warring by a tag team of the aforementioned user and WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) for removing these comments. I'm not sure what should be done, but using comments -- repeatedly, I might add -- in this manner is incredibly inappropriate. wound theology◈ 20:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

How is this anything more than a content dispute? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Specifically, the HTML comments implying it would be against policy to change the page. I'm not referring to the actual image which I think is fine in its proper place, but the addition of HTML comments that purport to reflect sanctions or consensus or something else that would prevent other editors from modifying the page. wound theology◈ 21:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

In other words it is a dispute about the appropriateness of hidden text in an article. I'd call that a content dispute, if a rather odd one. Neither 'urgent' nor an 'intractable behavioral problem'. Try dispute resolution if you can't agree amongst yourselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump, behaviorally, we might be able to sustain charges that the OP is edit warring, but not yet at the 3RR level. [216][217][218][219]

See also User talk:Wound theology#Edit warring exceptions (which was just removed), in which the OP appears to claim that he is "reverting to enforce certain overriding policies" and therefore should be exempt from the edit warring rules. (No specific "overriding policy" has been named.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

How about trying dispute resolution, rather than looking for 'charges' to 'sustain'? Regardless of who is right over the note, it seems a daft thing to get in a tizzy over. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

A hidden comment does seem like a strange thing to be edit-warring over, much less to start an ANI thread over, but perhaps the OP thought that ANI would be a more agreeable audience. The OP didn't request my advice on whether this would be a pointful exercise or have their desired outcome. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Owning a page

• Maximilien Robespierre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Taksen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Encyclopédisme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello. While I’m aware my own behavior on that page isn’t the best, it seems @Taksen: isn’t respecting Wp:Ownership of content. From the talk page archives of Maximilian Robespierre, he seems to want to make the article a paper about the opinion on Robespierre he made himself over the years. Currently I’m trying to start to edit the Legacy section, but he’s reverting small bits of the text nonstop without discussing any of it. A few months ago he didn’t want to accept that the article was too long, so he used the occasion and "reintroduced" a few deleted paragraphs, which @Nikkimaria: just removed again. He has the bad habit of going through every user’s contributions when someone starts a discussion on the Talk Page of the article, and he pretty much leaves at lest one message on every section of Talk. He contributed to the Robespierre article since 2019, most of his work is great, but he likes to disrespect some key rules. When I added some bits to the Legacy section, he didn’t like that, and removed content added without any bad intent mentioning French political parties (translated from fr.wiki), initially because it was "out of focus", then for "propaganda", and then he added an entire paragraph for one Chinese historian (with a link for the Peoples Republic of China, of course) with a source, deleted the source for the other problematic paragraph (old link) and a few hours later he removed it. (I added it again with a working link for the ref)

He continually wants to represent the pro-Robespierrist School as "Marxist" exclusively, a claim explicitly made the opposing Neo-liberal and revisionist School of the 1960s. The revisionist historian Furet gets an entire quote. My problem with this, and this is clear from previous interactions the user has had on the Talk Page of that article, he’s been editing it since 2019 and he doesn’t let anyone do it after him. If he’d just let go, and discuss, but no. Encyclopédisme (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• I'm just passing by, but edit summaries like this are not doing any favors for you. I suggest taking a real hard look at WP:NPA and WP:BOOMERANG. Now that said, diffs like this and this followed by WP:STONEWALLING by @Taksen are even further over the line and show clear OWN issues. Intervention definitely needed here, Taksen is far over the line. BrigadierG (talk) 12:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• Turning articles into rambling messes has been Taksen's specialty for years and years. Here's [220] what the Rasputin article looked like after years of Taksen-bloat, before others took the hatchet to it; and here (that section and several following) are the hit-head-against-brick wall attempts to get Taksen to understand. The conclusion (in that 2017 discussion) was to revert the article to a version from FOUR YEARS EARLIER, before Taksen got involved. Taksen's reaction here was characteristic. EEng 18:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  Wow this is just a horrible way to interact with other editors. If he's been doing this for 7 years, I would honestly strongly consider an all-out WP:CBAN. BrigadierG (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  Not for nothing, over at https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Taksen we've got Deze gebruiker is momenteel geblokkeerd. De laatste regel uit het blokkeerlogboek wordt hieronder ter referentie weergegeven: 23:54, november 2, 2018 Natuur12 overleg bijdragen heeft Taksen overleg bijdragen geblokkeerd voor de duur van onbepaald (aanmaken accounts uitgeschakeld) (Privacyschending). I need not translate. EEng 23:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: Now he’s literally "saving" (edit summaries) his content from Robespierre to Reign of Terror, Accusateur public and Legal history of France. Encyclopédisme (talk) 07:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  Against my better judgement, I looked into this thread. My conclusion: Taksen is a menace and impossible to reason with. He is of the believe that any article he's edited significantly is owned by him. Something needs to be done, be it a partial block or a straight up indef. This is a behavioral problem going back the better part of a decade, clearly he isn't about to change. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  don’t know how ANI works, but the other threads seem to be moving forward wayyyy faster than this one (they’re probably just more important anyway), and I wouldn’t like this thread getting archived without anything happening about it. Usually it takes around five days for stuff to get archived, Don’t know if this is completely unfounded or not, but I’m guessing it’s a bot doing the archival work here, too. Encyclopédisme (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  You are correct that archiving is normally done by a bot. The way forward here would be to propose some form of sanction. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

• If he wants to own up to "mak[ing] the article a paper about the opinion on Robespierre he made himself", he's not doing himself a service. 15K words on one of/the most important figures in modern European history, and that's all we've got? A Bourbon wouldn't want to be associated with it. Your best bet, Encyclopédisme is to collect several knowledgable and collaborative editors, work on it in one of your sandboxes, take the finished, polished article to WP:FAC, let it receive a dissective review, get it promoted to Featured Article status, and then—finally—you'll have an actual, real Wikipedia policy behind you for purposes of future-proofing. À la lanterne, aristos!!code: fra promoted to code: fr ——Serial Number 54129 18:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  I really just wanted to translate some bits of the French article in the Legacy section to en.wiki. It was decided the article was too long, by consensus, I didn’t participate in the discussion, I only read it on the Talk Page. Taksen doesn’t even allow that. If I had to rewrite the entire article, oh, that would be a drama. But I’m not doing that. (And from reading that section of the general policy, I don’t get why I’d need to). Encyclopédisme (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  Then read it—again—but this time a view of shepherding an article. Which you seem to feel needs to occur to proect the page from Taksen. ——Serial Number 54129 11:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Mainspace Ban for Taksen

• Hi, WP:UNINVOLVED editor here. It's clear that Taksen, is at best, not hearing the concerns of the community (heck, he hasn't even participated in this ANI), and at worst, failing WP:CIR. I think the best thing we can do for this is prevent him from editing any edits to mainspace articles. I feel he should still be allowed to suggest changes (and probably participate in talk pages, but not sure if that would overcomplicate restrictions), or edit possible drafts if he wants (so long as they get cleared by other editors before becoming public). Hopefully this will get him to hear the concerns. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
• I'm uninvolved in the article which triggered this thread, but I've had plenty of experience with Taksen elsewhere. Separating him from actual article editing, so that he can't continue his relentless stuffing of endless, numbing detail into article after article, would be a start, and might provide just the filter he needs. EEng 16:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  P.S. In case anyone has any doubts about whether Taksen should continue to run loose in article space, according to his user page this [221] is his idea of what the ideal Rasputin article should look like (as hosted on his personal website). EEng 17:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  P.P.S. For the record, since this thread will no doubt be consulted should Taksen ask for his mainspace block to be lifted, on his personal website [222] we find Mijn belangstelling ging het meest uit naar de periode voorafgaande aan de Russische Februari Revolutie, niet die van Lenin en zijn makkers. Daarvoor heb ik Grigori Rasputin als kapstok gebruikt (My interest was most in the period leading up to Russia's February Revolution, not that of Lenin and his cronies. For this I used Grigori Rasputin as a coat rack). EEng 21:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  He’s clearly not willing to do anything about this, rather he’s trying to save his work before it’s too late. Seriously, this is getting frustrating, really frustrating, it would be nice for him to participate in this discussion (if someone would talk to him on his talk page, that would be great). He readded content on Robespierre, again again again, and is stuffing Girondins and Reign of terror with deleted content from Robespierre… Legit, he’s doing that, right now, behind our backs, without discussing it. Encyclopédisme (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Is that a support for the mainspace ban? EEng 17:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• I spent five years on the article as nobody else cared in those days. The article relied on English sources which is not such a good idea. It was decided the article was too long, but not by consensus, someone just dumped a template! She deleted a lot of referenced information, something I try to avoid. I prefer to save or hide it with the idea to add it somewhere else. Some people like to read what they already know, not me. I liked to work on the revolutionaries, looking for answers. I could not have written or improved articles on revolutionaries as Danton, Dumouriez and Chevalier de Saint-Georges which had 450,000 pageviews in April 2023 before the movie Le Chevalier came out.Taksen (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Um, OK, but is there anything you want to tell us about why you shouldn't be banned from editing articles directly? EEng 17:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Your talk page is still way longer than the article on Grigory Rasputin, which repeats what everybody knows or likes to hear. Many people add to the articles I started many years ago on Russian politicians, before the February Revolution. The reviewers on accusateur public really liked what I did, unfortunately I cannot find it back. Taksen (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Taksen, that doesn't answer the question. Encyclopedisme, while also exhibiting some problematic behavior, has a reasonable point here which is being echoed by multiple other editors. I am taking it seriously. Valereee (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Let us stick to facts. Encyclopédisme wrote "When I added some bits to the Legacy section, he didn’t like that, and removed content added without any bad intent mentioning French political parties (translated from fr.wiki), initially because it was "out of focus", then for "propaganda". In my point of view, Encyclopédisme added three lf's without a reference to the information, ten hand written letters or concepts by Robespierre. For me the French Communist Party, etc. was totally irrelevant as it is not about Robespierre. Later I added a more information ref and a lf to the French Ministry of Culture which he did not. Taksen (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Wait. No… You, Taksen, literally removed my ref, (adding another ref on another part of the text in the mean while) the content was sourced, it was an just old link. Then you readded old content claiming that "it is not allowed to remove details with refs", then you removed my content (without a ref after your removal of the dead link) hours later, then I readded it with a working link, you reverted me (literally claiming it is "propaganda", that’s worse than "totally irrelevant"), I reverted you, and then you let it go and started "reintroducing" old deleted content, I told Nikkimaria, the content was condensed, you started "saving" (edit summaries) the content to other pages, then you ignored this ANI thread for days, now you just started "reintroducing" content to the Robespierre page again, and now you come here and ignore all of the rest. Seriously. Encyclopédisme (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  We really don't care about content here at ANI. We care about behavior. The complaints here are about behavior. I'm interested, Taksen, in things like refusal to discuss edits you're making or reverting. What I'd like to see from you is a commitment to discussing changes before you make them on the talk pages of any article where you've been reverted. Valereee (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  A block from article space works make that happen without further fuss. EEng 19:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I know. Valereee (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  + 1 for a mainspace ban. Encyclopédisme (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  The page "Main page ban" does not exist. You can create a draft and submit it for review, or you may create the page "Main page ban" directly, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered. Taksen (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  And that, dear reader, epitomizes every interaction with Taksen for years and years and years. EEng 20:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Would you care to explain what your referring to, please? Encyclopédisme (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. EEng 20:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• p-blocked from article space for refusal to communicate in any reasonable way. Valereee (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Truth be told, it's an inability to communicate. EEng 20:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  I am impressed with your archive. I see I can go on talk pages, which some people really like, not me. I have been here for eighteen years. I learned a lot from the English Wikipedia, which seem to be more tolerant than the Dutch, German, or Russian, but it is as most of the social media, addictive.Taksen (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  You can appeal to unblock on your talk page. It’s not like your contributions aren’t valuable, but come on, understanding that things are discussed on this site isn’t too difficult of a principle (if you could use your personal judgment exclusively for content, the quality and control of Wikipedia would be absolutely miserable). Most people come back after 6 months or so, from what I’ve read. See you in that time, if you wish to come back. Encyclopédisme (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Very important in this case, after studying his life intensively, I stopped seeing Robespierre as a hero; civil armament was a bad thing to promote.Taksen (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Taksen, in all honesty, this has come to the point of… err, I mean I’m literally laughing my ass off in this very moment, I mean what should I say, I mean, uggghhhhhh… Taksen, please, if this is on purpose, then… err…….

  It’s ironic you mention that, Taksen.Encyclopédisme (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Anyway, you could consider coming back in a couple of months. Encyclopédisme (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  He's not blocked from the site. He can participate on talk pages, and his mainspace block should remain until he's demonstrated the ability to collaborate that way. Mainspace privileges should not be restored just because he lies low for six months. EEng 20:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  To be honest, his obvious lack of collaborative intent and incompetence to understand the point tells me he shouldn't be editing anywhere on the English Wikipedia at all. It's obvious he has a lousy combination of obstinance and poor English comprehension which makes him unsuitable for doing work here. oknazevad (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  To be honest, I agree, but (a) you never know, people do sometimes smarten up, and (b) if not, a mainspace block is an easy way to allow him to show us for himself that he can't operate here. It would require lots of people to waste endless amounts of time to get us to a full block right now, to little additional benefit. EEng

  @Encyclopédisme, that is not okay. Valereee (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Is it violating good faith? I can say that I'm laughing my ass off, right? Without correlation to the other's comments? I didn't assume anything bad of Taksen, really. Anyway, noted. Encyclopédisme (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Begone! Before somebody drops a house on you, too! EEng 21:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes yes yes, quickly I begone, forget about my very existence, I’m an impertinent nobody, I’m none of your business, I’m not worth it, I’m gone forever, you’ll never hear of me again, … Encyclopédisme (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  When you've gotten what you're asking for, there's no need to hang about smirking at the person you got in trouble. Just quietly disappear. EEng, someone once told me watching me edit a certain article was like watching a tornado pick up debris and set down a house. Probably the greatest compliment I've ever had on WP. Valereee (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• Looking over this thread and some of Taksen's edits including their bizarre responses here, I don't really understand why there isn't a straightforward indef proposal. I'm not sure where it exactly sits: NOTHERE, uncollaborative, communication CIR. disruption, all of the above. One way or another they shouldn't be here. DeCausa (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Ah. Forget that. they've have been indeffed!! DeCausa (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Indeffed from mainspace only, as far as I can see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  They are really valuable, and they seem to actually know their stuff. He deserves a chance, to a certain extent. Encyclopédisme (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Ali00200 12 out of 16 edits have been copyright violations

User:Ali00200 started editing last week, 12 out of their edits have been cut-and-paste copyright violations and they've been warned three times on their talk page. (Twice by me, once by another user). Their only non-copy vio edits have been to their user page, one change of a number, one addition of a word, and one new Wikipedia article about an author that got immediately draftified due to a lack of citations. A block might be wise at this point. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Personal attack by Dheeraj1012

Dheeraj1012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Is a new editor that has made a around two dozen edits since beginning editing in April. Most of their additions have been unsourced. Recently, this user has insisted on edit warring regarding the (highly contentious in India) now demolished Babri Masjid mosque. After trying to have a conversation with them and letting them known of the contentious topics designation for India, in a recent edit summary, they have called me an idoit [sic]. [223]. I really don't think they have the temprament to edit about such a contentious issue, and think some kind of intervention is necessary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

They definitely seem to be WP:NOTHERE based on the comments left on Hemiauchenia and I's respective talk pages. wound theology◈ 11:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

An inability (or unwillingness) to understand Wikipedia policies on sourcing etc (or even what Wikipedia is for, see this absurd draft [224]) combined with an eagerness to jump head first into a contentious topic is never a good look. And a poor grasp of English doesn't help either. Dheeraj1012 would be well advised to spend less time editing articles, and more time reading up on how to do it properly. Which requires taking notice of what experienced contributors have to say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

106.184.133.94: insults

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. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit revdel'd and IP blocked for 72 hours. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:08, 7 May 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 reverting by IP 2604:2DC0:101:200:0:0:0:1B1D

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.

---

This IP has reverted edits without citing reliable sources; claiming that under Sharia homosexuality is punishable by death in the UAE, although the constitution removed Sharia punishments after 2020. This IP also reverted other ‘bad’ edits, claiming that they apply to the whole source. This user might also be a sock account of Jacobkennedy. ElephantMario (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

OP blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 5 May 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.

Edit war

This editor @Bob08 is constantly removing "Algeria" from the Regency of Algiers article's Wikidata [225], claiming that Algeria "did not exist as a country before 1962", which is clearly a transgression against WP:Neutral, assuming they have bothered to read the article. I undid their edit twice but they seem focused on their WP:Editwar.

Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring should be reported to WP:ANEW. 331dot (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I reverted the "report" filed by the user. Unlike here, reports at ANEW must be structured. The user's report was malformed beyond even marking as malformed.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

These changes are being made on Wikidata not Wikipedia, does any board here have any right to hear this complaint? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• This is a matter for Wikidata. I suggest you open a discussion as to whether 'Algeria' should or should not be a property of the 'Regency of Algiers' record at Wikidata:Project chat. Note that WP:Neutral doesn’t apply to Wikidata; Wikidata has its own Wikidata:List of policies and guidelines and en.wiki policies and guidelines don’t apply there. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Legal threat Blaze The Movie Fan

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:Blaze The Movie Fan seems done with it all after decades here, and they seem vocal about it. Their misery has apparently led to them retiring from the site for good two days ago, per their user page. Now, they have seemingly threatened legal action threatened to force their retirement and blanking of contributions from the site if demands aren't met in five days—which I don't quite understand, timeline-wise. But their legal threat and doubling-down seems clear in any case. Remsense诉 08:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The L word was accidental I never meant to use it in the first place. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 08:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm very confused, where have you been threatened with a block or ban for asking for advice? If you are here to read and not edit, then do so- nothing is preventing this. Once you click "publish changes", the edit belongs to Wikipedia and will not be removed just because you want it to be. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this user may be in distress for the moment. What I think he is asking for here is for his revisions to be redacted (which I don't think is possible) and for him to be renamed and his talk page deleted. I think it might be worth explaining what a digital footprint is here. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Redaction is probably not possible, but WP:VANISH is an option as far as I know. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd note though that the RTV is generally more difficult if an editor is blocked or banned so I strongly suggest Blaze cut out on posting random complaints and comments all over the place. Nil Einne (talk) 09:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I've taken their explanation in good faith and struck the characterization of a legal threat. Remsense诉 09:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

It could also, on another thought I just had, mean someone else has lockpicked his account and wants to cause as much damage as possible by making it WP:VANISH Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 09:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Also this implies the account has been compromised before. Edit: Actually was not, as was confirmed here Nobody (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No it was never compromised. It's just that the edit that lead to the block [226] was so surprising people incorrectly thought it was [227] Nil Einne (talk) 09:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

After reading this edit. To me it looks like they just don't like the current state of Wikipedia. Nobody (talk) 09:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

This edit might give a little insight. Nobody (talk) 09:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Blaze was told their use of the helpme template wasn't right here [228] and here [229]. None of the replies came even close to threatening a block or ban although it is technically true if an editor keeps using the helpme inappropriately, and especially if they are not otherwise contributing productively, they're likely to be blocked the same with any other persistent inappropriate behaviour. Notably, persistently trying to overturn a 12 year old block of some other editor [230], is likely to be disruptive wherever on wikipedia you do it. (What an editor does on Youtube of course, is unlikely to be our concern.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not suggesting a block anytime soon, I'm just pointing out it was reasonable enough for other editors to tell Blaze to not use the help template like that. Blaze seems to have read into people telling them not to use the template in that way as threats of blocks which is sort of true since a block may eventually result, but it's likely to be far off. Perhaps the editor is particularly sensitive to blocks, given their history, but there is a big difference to vandalising one of our most high profile BLPs with offensive commentary [231] and their recent behaviour. The vandalism was well worth an instant block, their recent behaviour should stop but isn't likely to lead to a block that quickly. Nil Einne (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I am convinced there is more than meets the eye here. Is it possible for someone to request a check user here? Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 09:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, I don't think there's anything that is implausible to attribute to a particular individual's particular personality. 'twould be fishing imo. Remsense诉 09:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

That's why I haven't done it personally, I may just have cold feet from this [232] incident Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes going by comments like [233] and [234],it seems clear Blaze hasn't been happy with our content and I think our behavioural policies and guidelines for a long time and has wanted to stay away but as with a number of editors, is having trouble doing so and keeps coming back then being reminded that they don't like it here. I don't think there's much we can do to help them. 10:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, I explained to an administrator that it was per this discussion, although have not replied yet. Although Primefac was absolutely correct to state they had not been threatened with a block or ban, BTMF may have read that to contain an unarticulated 'but...' Many would, I expect.
  Mind you, BTMF has since gone slightly radio rental: apart from the discussion on their talk and on WT:AN, they've also hit up WP:AAR and the Ref Desk. Blimey. ——Serial Number 54129 12:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
• I added a note at the XRV report you filed that sums it up, Blaze The Movie Fan, but maybe we need to close this ANI report and the XRV report, and maybe work from your talk page. I don't think you are at your best right now, and maybe it is better to dial back the exposure and drama, and discuss things there on your own talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. Remsense诉 12:50, 6 May 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.

• Just a followup: SN54129, isn't it a no-no to comment on other editors' possible rental conditions? EEng 02:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Uncivil user across multiple articles with history of harassment and/or personal attacks

Hi, I posted this at WP:ANB mistakenly a few days ago. Sorry.

I tried to make an edit at 2024 Women's Six Nations Championship on 21 April 2024‎ and was reverted by User:Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel. I requested on the article talk page that they discuss the matter with me, 2024 Women's Six Nations Championship#Request for discussion, and left a talkback to that request on their user talk page here. When I hadn't heard from them in 7 days, I left another talkback. When they still had not responded in 3 days, I tried the edit again and they only responded after I said i would have to report them here if they kept being disruptive. The user left these edit's but began bullying other users in the edit summaries (here). The user has also been like this on other pages and in deleted revisions on their talk page. I admit I probably could have handled the situation better but I am now wondering what I can do as I feel the other user is bullying others away from articles and claiming ownership (here). In my post at WP:ANB, another user pointed out that Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel was warned for personal attacks, blocked, and then unblocked with cautioning Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel to carefully avoid repeating the kind of behavior that led to the initial block. They suggested WP:5P4 being something that can't be ignored and pointed out this on a another talk page (here)

Once again sorry for posting in (what I think) was the wrong place. LouisOrr27 (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Further examples of behaviour across various pages.

[235], [236], [237], [238], [239], [240], [241], [242] - LouisOrr27 (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

They are now edit-waring with another user at 2024 Women's Six Nations Championship. LouisOrr27 (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Given the prior block, repeated instances of incivility and personal attacks, and the edit-warring, I have blocked the account indefinitely. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account, WP: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.

---

Nikey05 is pretty much exclusively here for vandalism purposes. They've managed to only log in to vandalise every few weeks so as not be applicable for AIV (to the best of my knowledge), but their edits have included:

• calling a BLP subject a paedophile
• accusing said subject of having intercourse with underage boys - restoring it - restoring it again
• editing the Victims of Communism Memorial to call it "bullshit" in the lede
• vandalising another page - restoring once reverted
• calling a BLP subject a fascist
• only yesterday, removing the lede of a BLP subject to call them a "fucking Zionist"

It's pretty clear to me the user is WP:NOTHERE. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 08:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Yup clearly a WP:NOTHERE vandal. Give them a block.CycoMa1 (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks John. Many thanks for the speedy response. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:02, 8 May 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.

Spamer 5.24

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.

---

Geth1979 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) spam. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpert, this was Geth1979's first edit since December. Revert and warn. If they continue to repeat, report to WP:AIV. Schazjmd (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

All of their contributions since the acc creation in 2018 are spam. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Geth1979 because they have been spamming links to a website called "bestkievguide" for 5-1/2 years. Cullen328 (talk) 20:55, 8 May 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.

Editor making wild accusations and extreme personal attacks on talk page

Sapedder has a pattern of being incredibly rude and condescending towards his fellow editors and frequently makes sly or overt passes against people he dislikes. He seems to be completely and utterly incapable of collaborating in a productive manner and seems heavily predisposed to a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. This isn't a new development, this has been going on for years.

After a 2 year break from Wikipedia, and a disagreement on the page Khalsa, this user left a vile message on the talk page-[243], right off the bat, he accused me of "deranged socking, and stalking", slyly making threats against me, accusing me of "inappropriate behaviour" on Reddit saying that I bash his co-religionists on there and make repulsive forums, which by the way is completely unfounded nonsense and as you'll see a little later, hilariously ironic, and insinuating that he would be emailing these supposed Reddit posts to admins to get me in trouble.

Here are some earlier examples of wildly inappropriate behaviour from this user:

Slyly calling another editor incompetent which he was warned for by an admin in August 2020-[244].

"I am increasingly disinclined to take you seriously as someone I can work with in any capacity. You clearly just want the article to preserve its POV and keep it as the low-quality, poorly-written attack page Dbigxray turned it into without cooperating with anyone for two years....I'm quite curious to know why you never held him to account, with his poor English, bottom-tier "Indian news channel" sources, unabashed POV, and low-value content, and no one being quoted except Congress stooges. In any case, I acted as advised by {{u|Abecedare}}, your interactions with me have been marginal at best and mostly unpleasant."

Ignoring admins and other editors' reservations about the sources he inundated the Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale article with, solely because those sources satisfied his POV

Sapedder also had a serious issue of pinging/canvassing only editors who agreed with him during discussions Elephanthunter/SnowyMeadows was also active on the t/p discussion alongside Sapedder; both users were in agreement with one another, and it seems the latter was trying to exploit the situation by selectively pinging them when engaged in a disagreement

[245] + [246] Selectively messaging editors who were in agreement with him to achieve "consensus"

Deciding to involve himself in an edit war report, throwing accusations and personal attacks against GSS, seemingly out of disdain for GSS disagreeing with his edits to the Bhindranwale page, once again pinging an editor (JoyceGW1) whom he had rapport with to try to stack complaints against GSS

You contributed nothing of value

[247] +[248]: More canvassing

Rudeness and unnecessary condescension in this reply + Beyond the pale rude comment + edit summary: re lol 3 + Bludgeoning the requested move discussion which other editors complained about as well + blatant canvassing/attempt at vote stacking

More canvassing/selective pinging from this user even in 2022-[249] + Edit warring; Daniel Case: Reviewing the most recent history of the article, while Sapedder did revert three times within 24 hours, that has happened only once so far + Want to take that up with the admins and embarrass yourself at (edit war report) again? And the Amarinder source disagrees with you too lmao, you just destroyed your own case with your own source, what an own-goal. + Deceptive edit summary since many editors reverted and disagreed with Sapedder as well and then Rude dismissal of misleading edit summary warning on his t/p + [250] + once again canvassing editors that agree with him to support him in a dispute resolution noticeboard

Hallucinating more strawmen?

This user talk page thread aptly summarizes how Sapedder conducts himself in discussions, put together by another editor Srijanx22

On this ANI thread-[251]; Admin EIC made some relevant comments to Sapedder: "Sapedder, I'm trying to get across to you that your broken like every rule approach works against your own interests. Try to stay dispassionate and avoid hyperbole." & "Sapedder, you've expressed naked hostility against the IP so many times, it really takes me back a bit that you're still unaware this isn't okay"

There is a clear pattern of incivility and intimidation from this user. Regarding his accusations against me on the t/p of Khalsa, the crux of which appears to be behaviour on Reddit; I haven't had a Reddit account for years though I do lurk there sometimes anonymously, not that it's any of his business. The irony in this whole situation is that there are numerous posts on Reddit complaining about my edits on Wikipedia, with one particular reddit user instigating others against me and making disparaging posts about me, they even created an entire subreddit with some posts explicitly rebuking my edits, and all sorts of comments both from within that sub and related ones making personal attacks against me; saying that I should be doxxed, that they pray that I get banned, that I bring 5 editors with me to get my way on Wikipedia, that I'm a terrorist etc. One of those Reddit users who was particularly vitrolic against me is a regular Wikipedia editor. I also alerted ArbCom in October 2023 through email about possible meat puppetry arising from these types of posts after another Wikipedia editor notified me about what was happening, so any admin can confirm with them. Their response was "Meatpuppetry is defined by changes being made onwiki by coordination offwiki. The coordination on reddit is obvious, but the edits coming from that coordination are not in this email. Do you have specific diffs that you believe were made due to that coordination?". ArbCom did not get back to me after my response however. I could have confronted that Wikipedia user who made those reddit posts/comments about me, publicly trying to humiliate him and his takes, but I didn't because that's completely out of line and at the very least reserved for more discrete communication, but it appears Sapedder thinks differently. And even I if was guilty of what he is saying, that I make repulsive reddit posts "bashing Sikhs", why is that any of his business, and why should that have any impact on Wikipedia discourse? He accuses me of "stalking" yet he inadvertently admitted to stalking reddit accounts he presumes are mine (!). It's clear he's just trying to tarnish my reputation and humiliate me. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not too sure what the rules are for off-wiki interactions, especially for anything stated in a Reddit post. Obviously cyberstalking is a huge accusation to make, so perhaps an admin can speak to that. Conyo14 (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Admins, this user is doubling down on personal attacks, accusing me of being some sort of Internet mastermind and using socks-[252]. This behaviour warrants an incivility and battleground block, at the very, very least.

By the way, Sapedder, if you have any suspicions that I'm using socks, please don't hesitate to file a report against me, or better yet, email some sassy hyperbole interspersed with personal attacks, as you indicate you often do, to admins. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

By the way since I linked that subreddit, the other active user there deleted all of his posts there, some of which explicitly rebuked me. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• I've issued a short block. Hopefully they will treat this as a warning to be nicer so let's see. RegentsPark (comment) 20:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks @RegentsPark, honestly a 3 day ban seems incredibly, incredibly light since he's been doing this for years on end, but let's see what happens next. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Given the long editing gaps, the length of the block doesn't really matter. It's just a message. If they don't heed the message, then the next block will most likely be an indef.RegentsPark (comment) 21:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Please remove TPA of IP

This IP, User:216.186.51.109, keeps posting patent nonsense to their talk page even after being blocked (seen in page history). Please remove TPA, or indef. If you reply here, please ping me. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 17:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

All set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish Thank you! If you reply here, please ping me. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 17:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@TheTechie, IPs are usually not indefinitely blocked. See WP:IPBLOCKLENGTH. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 18:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Asparagusus I was asking because there was a message at the top of the IP's talk page saying that the IP has been repeatedly blocked and that the next block will be indefinite. If you reply here, please ping me. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 22:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Continual disruptive edits in Argentina-Brazil football rivalry and related articles and edit war

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

Hi! I am writing to you because the user Svartner has came back (he did the same thing in March [253]) and he is reverting all the articles related to the count of matches between Argentina–Brazil football rivalry, for example Brazil national football team records and statistics and Argentina national football team records and statistics. He was who entered in an edit war, because he doesn´t discuss anything: he first reverts, removing information with sources, and then, enters in an edit war. In the Talk Page, I put a lot of arguments with sources (a few of FIFA), but he insists in his attitude and he is reverting those articles [254]. He doesn´t respect 2 official FIFA´s sources and many others that even put Argentina above by one match (AFA, El Gráfico, TyC Sports, Promiedos), and he only puts 3 sources that say that Brazil is avobe. Only one source gave by him can be considered "serious" (rsssf.com), but the others (eloratings.net and 11v11.com) are a complete "joke". I think that any source can´t be above a single FIFA source... A single FIFA source "kills" any other source, because FIFA is the major world football organization... So, the user does not "recognize" 2 FIFA´s sources, one of them with the complete list of matches according to FIFA, and others from AFA (with the complete list of matches), El Gráfico (with the complete list of matches), Promiedos (with the complete list of matches too), TyC Sports. Please, read them:

1) FIFA source number 1. Updated to the latest game (BRA 0 ARG 1, 21/11/2023):[255]. Tied in 42 each.

2) FIFA source number 2. Updated to the 21/11/2012 game. After that match, they played 11 matches, with 4 wins each, 2 ties and one suspended because of the circus made by the brazilian "Ministry of Health" or "Security"... The source shows all the lists of matches... To see the complete list of matches, please click in "Advanced search", and then in "Show all matches":[256]. Adding those games, Argentina is above by one match...

3) Argentine Football Association source number 1 (the major Argentina´s football organization). Updated to the 15/11/2019 game. After that, they played 4 games, with 2 Argentina´s wins, one tie and one suspended match because of the "circus". The source shows all the lists of matches... [257]. Adding those games, Argentina is above by one match.

4) AFA source number 2. Updated to the 16/11/2021 game. After that, they played only 1 match, won by Argentina. The source shows all the lists of matches... [258] Adding this game, Argentina is above by one match.

5) El Gráfico Magazine source (the major football Latin American magazine between 1919 to the middle 2000´s). Updated to the 16/11/2021 game. After that, they played 1 match, won by Argentina... The source shows all the lists of matches... [259]

6) Promiedos.com source. Updated to the latest game (BRA 0 ARG 1, 21/11/2023): [260]

7) TyC Sports source. Updated to the latest game (BRA 0 ARG 1, 21/11/2023). The source shows all the lists of matches... [261]. Argentina is above by one match.

To be "good" I think we should consider the FIFA´s sources. Beacause if we are "evil", we should even say that Argentina leads by one match, as many sources say...

I think it´s crazy and inconceivable, and the behavior of this user is capricious and unacceptable. Can you help me to stop this nonsense? Thanks! Cheers, --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Raúl Quintana Tarufetti You have failed to notify Svartner (talk · contribs) of this report, as the red notice at the top of this page clearly requires you to. I have done so for you this time. Please note that not all examples of disruptive editing are actually vandalism, and it's considered a personal attack to accuse an editor of being a vandal if their actions were not clearly made in bad faith. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 14:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, TheDragonFire300! I was going to do this (notify the user), and I saw you did it. Sorry, I do not edit frequently in the english wiki. I apologise. I asked help to other users because of the capricious and unacceptable behaviour of the user Svartner and seeing that he continued reverting I started this post here. I will change the title of the post if it´s not correct. --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

To be completely clear, I am not attempting to claim that Svartner's actions were or were not in bad faith and/or would qualify as vandalism. I am just stating this, as we get a lot of reports on ANI that jump to conclusions that just because one editor wasn't letting an original poster have their way that they must be a vandal, which has led to quite a few arguments in the past. I am hoping that you don't fall victim to the same. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 14:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand. Regards, --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

You're an WP:SPA which is currently, to put it charitably, edit warring with pretty much everyone who disagrees with you. I would advise you to WP:DROPTHESTICK, and open an RfC on the issue. Until that point, I would strongly advise you to not touch any articles related to the dispute at hand. Even if you're right, no good is going to come out of edit warring. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello Allan Nonymous. First of all, please do not acuse me of WP:SPA. I am a well respected user of Wikipedia in Spanish. I don´t edit so frequently in the english wikipedia, but I do in some articles, and I always do in good faith. I´am not a siingle porpose account, as you say, but if I were, that´s not a reason to remove well referenced information from the articles; references that are correct and are from FIFA, AFA, El Gráfico, TyC Sports, and I can continue... I started the discussion [262], I gave 7 neutral and serious sources (2 from FIFA) [263] [264] (to see the complete list of games according to FIFA, click in "Advanced search" and then in "Showw all matches", [265], [266], [267], [268], [269], and the other user reverts and reverts.

I also posted here to another users participate [270] as you saw. But the only thing I see are "accusations" and no one goes to the point of the discussion about the sources and what appears in those articles.

How can wikipedia allow to count matches as official that are NOT counted by FIFA? It´s crazy... It would be great if you and others want to participate in the discusion. Regards, --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Please note that the editor @Raúl Quintana Tarufetti is a single-purpose account, which only aims to remove referenced content and enforce your WP:POINT. All edits made by me were made in the same way as similar articles from the Wikipedia football project, not being disruptive and, most importantly, containing diverse references. I have no interest in edit wars, just analyze the history of the article to understand who is being in disagreement with good practices. Any further questions, feel free to ask Svartner (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• Blocked Raúl Quintana Tarufetti for one week based on a report at WP:ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Monhamd muaed1000

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.

---

Monhamd muaed1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia from edit warring [271] to vulgar language: User talk:Underbar dk#Fuck you.. This could be a WP:SOCK or WP:SPA, but I'm not sure... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, nobody should feel harassed into making an edit. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:01, 8 May 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.

George Ho and non-free audio samples

George Ho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Last week, I noticed that George Ho nominated a non-free audio sample for deletion. After seeing rather weak rationale ("skeptical about the sample's contextual significance" despite the article having sourced commentary suggested by the guideline, "album cover art already tells readers what to expect"), I decided to check the nominator's contribution and realized that over the past few years they nominated dozens upon dozens of non-free audio samples.

In early 2022, they organized an RfC regarding the use of audio samples in song articles, where the majority agreed that the use of non-free audio samples "significantly increase[s] readers' understanding of the article topic" (FWIW, even without sourced commentary). Nevertheless, George continued nominating audio samples for deletion, with a rather unique interpretation of "contextual significance". A few examples:

• "Song title and band name already suffice to guide users seeking the whole recording" despite the article including a sourced paragraph about song's composition. Why do we write articles at all? People can just search the song title and read books about it. Why are we struggling to find free photos? In all modern browsers it takes 3 seconds to select the title of an article, right click and press Search to see an image of it.
• "I hear just the chorus/refrain portion, but I think it makes readers more curious about what the full song sounds like and drives readers into seeking a full song"
• "A sample lasting twelve seconds especially to comply with MOS:SAMPLE's ten-percent limit is hard to contextually execute in order to help readers understand the whole song"

In November 2022, when George nominated files from a featured article, Ceoil confronted them about this issue (saying that George "seem[s] to be making up policy on the fly"; looking at the examples above I can agree with that assessment), to which George unexpectedly withdrew the nomination with comments "I didn't wanna admit being anti-samples" (emphasis is mine) and "I don't want my supposed conduct to be evaluated further". After looking at their nominations which resulted in deletion, I think I know why: a lot of them were files uploaded by blocked or otherwise inactive users (even in the examples above, one file is from a vanished user, one from an inactive user, and one from a blocked user), so they had no other comments and were subsequently deleted. Recently George told another editor to "avoid classic rock songs and Madonna songs. And maybe avoid songs or genres that certain users have been specializing in" to have better chances of deleting non-free covers, and to try renominating again in a few years if they fail. When confronted by Elli, George explained that they are doing this over "fears of misinforming and misleading general public" and that readers will see a cover art/listen to a short sample and won't research the topic further (if I understood correctly). And while their intentions might be good, achieving that through mass deletion of non-free media against the community's consensus, carefully choosing which files they nominate to avoid resistance, to me looks like tendentious editing, if not outright disruptive. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 18:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my attempt to get this editor to gain a true consensus for their edits has been unsuccessful. They seem devoted to this cause, both with removing audio samples and with removing non-free covers, regardless of what the broader community has to say. While some of their edits may be justifiable, their overall pattern of editing is not; trying to sneak deletions past editors they expect would be interested is not editing in good-faith.

Their argument when challenged on this is that the files they sent to FFD haven't been contested in all cases, but this is because they pick files they expect few people care about, and don't notify all interested parties (for example, after I challenged their CSD on a file, they then brought that file to FFD without notifying me... or anyone else). This is not a true consensus for their edits, it's an attempted end-run around the broader community. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, comments like "if you're not that passionate, then try to stay out of my hair please, including areas that I'm interested in" (a violation of WP:OWN policy) clearly show that the user is not interested in any kind of consensus building. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 22:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

That comment is definitely suboptimal, and is in the same neighbourhood of the sort of comment that tends to indicate low-level ownership issues. That said, regarding much of the rest of the complaints raised here by yourself and Elli (and following my own limited follow-up on the involved discussions), I have to say that the majority of this looks to concern a content dispute (or better put, a series of content disputes). I just do not see the argument for disruption or other violations of policy that would suggest the need for a report on conduct in a behavioural forum like this. NFCP adherence is a pretty important principle, and arguably the consequences and potential knock-on effects of a laissez-faire approach are more pronounced with regard to content that touches upon the intellectual property of the music recording industry than they are for any other media industry. As such, I don't think it's surprising that some editors are going to adopt a more conservative view of such questions.

WP:NFC#CS is currently very vaguely worded, and when combined with the overall subjectivity of the question of what degree of empirical knowledge a sample brings to the readers understanding of the stylistic/aesthetic qualities of an album, I think we can fairly describe this as a "reasonable minds may vary" area. Further, examining the discussions you cite, the RFC in question is a bit of a confused mess as to who is advocating for an inclusion criteria that permits inclusion of samples only with significant supporting textual discussion (with an open question as to what would constitute 'significant' in that context), who supports such content irrespective of a supporting textual framework, and who is advocating for a general proscription of such content. Nor does the RfC, despite a formal close, seem to have resulted in an actual amendment to the policy itself. Regarding the three discussions you reference with selected quotes in the middle of your OP, all three involved a 1:1 !vote--George proposing a deletion and one other editor !voting keep. I'm sorry, but to my eye, labeling George's input, which simply happens to move in a direction contrary to your read on the situation as "IDHT" is rather a stretch.

Finally, the last two comments of George's which you reference, far from being examples of "tendentiousness" are clear examples of him telling other editors essentially that "I don't agree with the prevailing view, but rather than continue to double-down in these cases, I suggest letting the matter go, and revisiting them only after some significant amount of time has passed, if there is a change in consensus, or if they are cases with unique circumstances". In other words, these seem to be pretty clear cut examples of the very opposite of tendentiousness/not letting go of the WP:STICK.

Yeah, I'm sorry, but I followed every link in your opening report, and a number of intersecting discussions, and I don't see very much support for your belief that George is approaching the underlying content question here with anything other than a good faith intent, a relatively open mind, or with anything but the project's best interests in mind. I certainly don't see widespread disruption needing the community's intervention. I'd want to see a lot more than you've presented here before I for one felt comfortable endorsing even a warning in this area: we should not be chilling speech which argues for an abundance of caution when it comes to non-free content on the free encyclopedia, unless the feedback is in some way truly disruptive and abusive. And bluntly, to bring it back around to where I started my analysis, what I see here is a legitimate difference of opinion on how to apply an extremely subjective standard, on a very controversial editorial question, with very significant potential impacts for the project.

But yes, all of that said, the "if you're stating your dispassion for this area, maybe you should just not have such a strong opinion on this policy issue." is an irrational argument, and I'd advise George to avoid that one at least. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Snow Rise, AstonishingTunesAdmirer, and Elli: I thought about striking that comment out, but I was awaiting admin response. That was wrong of me to say what I wrote, and I shouldn't have implied ownership, regardless of whether it is part or full. I was frustrated by Elli's unwillingness to use a DRV process, and I was uncertain whether I'll accept Elli's unawareness of FFD discussions (like one I made recently) as a good excuse to not participate in those discussions. Still, no excuse for what I said directly to Elli. Elli is welcome to participate in FFD and DRV processes, but I'm unsure whether I should invite those involved and those who contributed to a file (other than its uploader). —George Ho (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! I, too, saw it as a content dispute, until they started telling another editor to avoid specific genres and artists. I'm sorry, but I really don't see that being in good faith. If they have strong, proper arguments, why not challenge files in those areas too? I then went through every audio sample George nominated for deletion this year (so far) and I made a list of uploaders. Here are my findings:

List of uploaders of non-free audio samples George Ho nominated for deletion this year (so far)

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 January 10 3× User:Guerilla In Tha Mist – inactive since 2008 Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 January 29 User:Mysekurity – inactive since 2020 Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 February 22 User:100cellsman – active Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 March 13 Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 March 14 4× User:Rm w a vu – 2 edits this year, 14 edits in the last 5 years Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 March 24 2× User:Chrishm21 – active Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 March 25 User:Andi064 – blocked indefinitely User:DCGeist – blocked indefinitely User:Mardochaios – 0 edits this year, 15 edits in the last 5 years Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 April 1 2× User:Crashandspin – inactive since 2012 User:Epbr123 – blocked indefinitely 2× User:DCGeist – blocked indefinitely User:Samorchard – inactive since 2011 2× User:Seer10J – inactive since 2020 Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 April 16 User:AdamjVogt – inactive since 2008 User:RTSthestardust – active User:The lorax – (somewhat) active User:Epbr123 – blocked indefinitely Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 April 22 User:Skyshifter – active Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 April 27 User:FrickFrack – (somewhat) active

So they admit they're carefully choosing which files they nominate and then the majority of uploaders (this year) happens to be inactive or indefinitely blocked? AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 00:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, personally, I don't believe any choice to avoid genres and artists that they suspect would be more likely to lead to contentious discussions can be properly viewed as a bad faith activity. There's an element of WP:VOLUNTEER here, afterall: if an editor genuinely believes they are applying policy appropriately, I wouldn't consider it gamesmanship if they nevertheless elected not to try to force the issue on certain articles they believe are more likely to lead to disputes--especially if they genuinely believe (correctly or incorrectly) that there is gatekeeping going on with respect to some of those genres or artists. If they want to instead make nominations on what we might call the low hanging fruit first with their limited editing time, that is their prerogative as I see it. Afterall, each of these nominations is still handled through the normal (and highly visible) process, and there is equally as much open opportunity for the community feedback, irrespective of the genre or artist.

Now, as to whether George is curating their selections to lean towards the submissions of now-inactive editors, I'm not sure how much that would change my opinion of the matter. But putting that question to the side for the moment, I don't think you've really provided a particularly statistically compelling argument that this is what George is doing, anyway. Taking out your descriptors, basically what I see in your compiled data set is that, out of 17 editors who contributed files that George has nominated for deletion in the last 4 months, 11 have since become inactive or blocked. Honestly, considering that currently active editors represent only a small fraction of the project's historically active editors, and that the majority of all media files uploaded are many years old, that split doesn't sound particularly suspicious to me. It could also very easily be an artifact of the the particular articles/files that George happened to be working with, for any number of legitimate reasons relating to how he ended up in those particular spaces.

So, given the sample size and multitude of explanations here for what appears to be a pattern to you, as an intuitive and impressionistic matter, I still don't see very compelling evidence of bad faith. Is it outside the realm of possibility that George is making these selections strategically? No, not at all--your intuition may be correct. But is there very strong affirmative evidence of gamesmanship in this data set? No, I don't see that in the evidence presented so far, I'm afraid. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe my intuition is particularly strong. I just asked myself: how did they manage to delete so many files? Is Wikipedia really full of illegitimate audio files? And the answer was: FfD defaults to "delete" if nobody challenges them. Then I asked myself: how come (almost) nobody challenges them? Did everyone just accept that the files they uploaded were against the guidelines? And why many of the kept files were kept only because this one editor challenged them, rather than the uploaders? I wanted to go through every nomination, as previously seeing many of them I believe the results would be similar, but I'd rather not waste time in case that's not big enough sample size. As to whether or not that's a problem... Well, I don't know what to tell you. I guess we need to update Special:Upload to say that your files will be deleted the moment you stop editing? AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 03:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, we might as easily invert the presumed burden there: why should a file gain some degree of protected status or presumption of procedural vulnerability just because the original uploader is no longer active? George didn't use some surreptitious, atypical venue or method for recommending these files for deletion; he used listings at the normal, valid forum, in full view of the normal review process, open to any volunteers contributing to that space. Those processes don't require input from the original uploader, nor would such editors have any special status in such discussions anyway. And as far as I can tell from reviewing the FfD discussions over the period in question, the vast majority of such files did not benefit from their original uploaders commenting--which is unsurprising because, as noted previously, statistically most of them are probably not active with the project any more.

For that matter, looking at other (non-George Ho-nominated) discussions during the same period, there's a rather non-trivial number of nominations that processed without a single objection. You ask "Is Wikipedia really full of illegitimate audio files?" Well, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "illegitimate"; it's not a policy term, or even one which lends itself particularly accurately and neutrally to any policy distinction in this area. But if you are asking "Is Wikipedia really full of audio files which are either debatably or certainly subject to deletion under policy?", the answer is clearly "Yes." I have no idea how large or small a portion of the overall uploaded audio files they constitute--I suspect they are an exceedingly small percentage, but I don't contribute nearly enough in this area to have either an impressionistic or empirical estimate--but just playing the numbers game, surely there is an appreciable need for some degree of clean-up. I mean, just eyeballing the very pages you have linked above demonstrates as much: there are quite a few nominations in the average day of those logs, and the large majority seem to pass. And the vast majority have no involvement from George as far as I am seeing.

So again, I'm just not seeing any compelling evidence of bad-faith behaviour from George here. I'm not sure that even if he were picking files with fewer 'built-in' advocates that this would even constitute a form of gamesmanship, let alone one that constituted a violation of policy. But let's assume just for the moment that we had already debated that point and come to agree that it was in some way inappropriate. Even then, there's been no particularly compelling evidence presented to establish that this is in fact what George is doing--and I for one can only AGF on these facts. Mind you, I did note upon a review of George's user page that they have historically had a couple of administrative blocks, as well as an ArbCom designated ER. So I did have an extra little bit of a critical eye when reviewing their contributions in this matter.

But even with that extra inclination towards caution, I just am not seeing evidence of inappropriate conduct here--other than the one comment I first responded to here, and which George has since acknowledged and discarded. I'm sorry, but if there is misconduct or policy violations in the way George has approached this area, I'm just not seeing it. this seems to be a case of a legitimate difference of editorial opinion in how to apply a highly subjective standard in part of the NFCP. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• If an editor is trying to be sneaky and quietly backdoor their preferred enforcement of consensus (or lack of consensus) then a topic ban is the typical solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown: Was I sneaky and quietly backdoor[ing] their preferred enforcement of consensus (or lack of consensus)? George Ho (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  That is for the community to decide. It sounds like that is what is being alleged, and you didn't engage in discussion so much as nominate media that was not highly visible. I just said if that is the case, then a topic ban would be in order. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

POV-pushing at Rape during the occupation of Japan

Could use some outside eyes on a discussion at Talk:Rape during the occupation of Japan#Rape allegation are based on witness testimony and not physical evidence, over an IP editor's views that because there is not "documentary evidence" of mass rape during the occupation of Japan, rapes during the occupation are "said to have [been] committed". The editor is now POV-pushing using an as-yet unpublished book. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The edit warring definitely needs to stop, and a short block may become necessary to catch the IP's attention, but I noticed that nobody had really taken the time to detail the interplay between WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT and WP:OR to this (possibly entirely green) editor, such as to explain why their view of utilizing the more "accurate" wording is not the proper approach on this project. I've done this now on the article talk page, and while there's by no means a guarantee that this will slow this user's roll, it definitely should be the first step in such cases, ideally prior to a filing here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeswhynot1234567890

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.

---

Yeswhynot1234567890 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

SPA creating attack page [272], personal attack at WP:AFC/HD [273]. Requesting block and RevDel. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

That personal attack is definitely indef worthy imo but I actually think the page they created is about themself. Not that it matters. wound theology◈ 06:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC) Nevermind, absolutely an attack page. wound theology◈ 06:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed and draft deleted (attack/lol page). Johnuniq (talk) 06:22, 8 May 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.

Continual disruptive edits by IP range 223.239.64.0/20

Continuous disruptive edits in Indian election pages by IP addresses - 223.239.73.192, 223.239.68.6 , 223.239.73.216 and 223.239.68.8 (IP range - 223.239.64.0/20). IPs keep removing information without any explanation and keep adding information against community consensus at MOS:INDELECT on 5-6 articles . Their disruptive edits have been explained to them multiple times in edit summaries and warnings on talk page. Likely a blocked sock. Requesting range block for 223.239.64.0/20. Dhruv edits (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Considering the halfway recent contributions from the range, this request seems reasonable. 223.239.64.0/20 has been blocked for a month. Bishonen | tålk 21:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC).

@Bishonen. They have again started disruptive edits with IP 223.239.84.12. Requesting range block for 223.239.64.0/19 as well to include the new IP address. Dhruv edits (talk) 04:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh. OK, done, but if the range gets bigger still, I think that's it for me, and I'll have to leave the problem to somebody who's actually clever with ranges. Bishonen | tålk 08:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC).

User:Elite Ali

Non-communicative (almost no edit summaries or significant redressals) user making contentious POVPUSH edits in the (sanctioned) India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan space. All unsourced and and most likely WP:OR. The user has been warned/alerted quite a few times already and administrative action is now required, considering the topic area and the editing behaviour. Gotitbro (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

And if the social media links on the user page are anything to go by, it can be seen where this POV slipping from. Gotitbro (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

ip threatening legal action

User:213.105.33.226 has threatened to sue wikipedia. Not sure how to handle this, but I believe this is the right place to report it. Gaismagorm (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

nevermind, just noticed they were blocked. All good! Gaismagorm (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I note that the last entry on their user talk page before they were blocked was a final warning from an account (Guerino Symons) itself blocked for giving inappropriate warnings. Which doesn't affect the validity of the block, of course. ColinFine (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

that is quite interesting Gaismagorm (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Suleymanof

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.

---

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

Typical case of WP:NOTHERE ethno-nationalistic disruption by a user with barely any edits. Majority of their edits have been reverted, and for good reason.

1. 3 March 2023 [274] - Replaced sourced "Iranian" with "Azerbaijani" at Atropatene, despite the Azerbaijanis first existing as an ethnonym circa 2000 years later! [275]
2. 26 July 2023 [276] - Attempted to do the same
3. 27 July 2023 [277] - I gave them their last warning, where they had the nerve to claim "I am typing facts,check any reliable history book if you do not believe me", "you are just biased,read history books,you will see all by yourself" and "And you too,will be reported as well"
4. 7 May 2024 [278] [279] [280] [281] - And they are back with more ethno-nationalistic disruption, removing sourced info at Anti-Iranian sentiment and Nizami Ganjavi
5. 8 May 2024 - Despite their disruption, they have the nerve to go to my talk page and say "Hey,stop wikipedia-vandalism.Stop falsify information about history of Azerbaijan.I will report you if you do that ever again!"

--HistoryofIran (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

And they just made this reply to my ANI notice, pretty ironic; "I will report you if you ever do the same mistake again.Either behave like a normal wiki user and stop disinformation or just delete your account and stop editing!" HistoryofIran (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty textbook NOTHERE nationalist. The Kip 15:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Suleymanof. Cullen328 (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328! HistoryofIran (talk) 17:27, 8 May 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 needs TPA revoked

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 TOJI FUSHIGUROmegumithenigga. Nothin' good goin' on there. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 01:55, 8 May 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 attack by User:Hongkongpenang

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.

---

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

• This user uses inappropriate words during discussions [282]
• When this user failed in the discussion, he made personal attack by using nationality [283]

I hope the administrator can follow up on this action. Thank You.. Stvbastian (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

This seems to happen an awful lot with this editor. [284], [285], [286], [287], etc. Looks like WP:NOTHERE to me. Simonm223 (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

After reverting a racist personal attack here, I have blocked the account indefinitely. I'm pretty sure this is an LTA but I can't remember which one. Either way, we don't tolerate that sort of racism here. I expect I'll be reverting TPA shortly. --Yamla (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• The saddest part is the whole thing is some dumb stuff about badminton tournaments. What a thing to get blocked over. EEng 01:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Makes a change from wrestling. Canterbury Tail talk 13:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Eh, I remember someone getting indeffed a few years ago over darts ... not world championships, not national championships, COUNTY championship darts. Seriously. Ravenswing 14:16, 8 May 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.

2A02:14F:177:7C88:779C:F269:1510:632D

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.

---

Vandalism only IP. See [288][289][290][291] Zinderboff(talk) 12:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is a better venue for cases like this. I’ve reported the IP there for you. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks for the heads up! Zinderboff(talk) 12:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

was gonna say that, but you beat me to it Gaismagorm (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Taken care of, and I was going to second WP:AIV for cases like this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Wow you guys are FAST, thank you all for keeping Wikipedia vandalism-free. Zinderboff(talk) 12:41, 9 May 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.

112.217.205.154: insults

As usual. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

IP is now blocked and edits deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Notgain repeatedly violating WP:REFVAR

Notgain (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly violating WP:REFVAR, ineptly trying to change all the <ref> tags in Neuro-linguistic programming to {{sfn}} templates. Whenever they do it, they break multiple citations (34 one time, 13 the next) and leave the article in a broken state. I've pointed them to WP:REFVAR, which says they must get consensus before changing the referencing style, but apparently they can't hear that. Could someone please talk to them or give them a short block so they understand they need to listen and follow WP:REFVAR? Skyerise (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

As I have explained numerous times to Skyerise, the existing referencing was a complete mess. A block is unnecessary. I have reviews WP:REFVAR. The page in question had many issues - it had quotes and text that was clearly paraphrased or pasted from sources without page numbers or proper attribution. References were defined in multiple locations. There was a mixture of referencing styles. The source was incredible difficult to follow. To make it easier to fact check and verify, I started what I thought was fixing referencing. When i first did it, I tried to do section by section but was reverted midstream which caused more errors because of edit conflict. I now have a tool to check referencing syntax before publishing. Skyerise just needed to nessage me to discuss, not escalate to accusations of deliberately disruptive editing and then threatening to block me for some citation syntax errors that I was trying to correct. —-Notgain (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

This is not true. The article used all <ref> tags, here is the version of the article from 23:27, 26 April 2024. It has no {{sfn}} templates at all. No broken citations, nothing wrong with it at all. The sfn templates were all first introduced by Notgain after they began editing the article on 03:26, 28 April 2024. Again, I quote WP:REFVAR: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style, merely on the grounds of personal preference or to make it match other articles, without first seeking consensus for the change." Point me to the consensus that resulted from seeking it on the talk page first, or seek it on the talk page now; but right now, since I don't agree that the referencing style should be changed, you don't have the consensus required to do it. Skyerise (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

As you are well aware I posted on the relevant article talk page and discussed any controversies content edits at length seeking consensus. I posted specifically about the referencing style on relevant talk page. I also explained to you what happened when you reverting midstream and used edits comments. I corrected the majority of syntax. I read the Wikipedia referencing policy again - thank you. —Notgain (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Obviously, I am opposed, and you have no other support on the talk page. When two editors disagree, the article remains at the status quo. You have no consensus: it's not sufficient just to seek it, you must obtain it. Skyerise (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, as someone who has been monitoring Neuro-linguistic programming for a while, I don't quite think this citation syntax dispute rises to the level of being a "urgent incident or a chronic, intractable behavioral problem" which is what ANI is for. This probably should've been settled on a talk page somewhere. 〜 Askarion ✉ 23:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

That was tried first: User_talk:Notgain#WP:REFVAR. Skyerise (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe there has been an unintentional mischaracterisation of my intentions and editing style. Skyerise claims there was no issues with the references and claim no {{sfn}} prior to my edits. However if you examine the diff before I started editing, there was a mixture of citing styles. For example, there were forteen instances of {{efn|...}}, and five instances of {{r|.... It was also a mess and very difficult to read and verify the references. There were quotes mixed in with {{cite|...}} instances. Pages numbers were missing for quotes and for obvious paragraphing without pages numbers (wikipedia should summarise, not paraphrase). Other references were unsupportive or only vaguely of the statements attributed. The biggest problem was that there were multiples of the same citation defined in multiple locations. Also, I had raised the issue of references on the associated talk page which was before Skyerise escalated the issue to asking ANI to block me and requested higher page protection. I believe this was unreasonable on Skyerise's part. The editor also posted warnings on my talk page that I was going to be blocked without warning if I continued to "editing disruptively". In all communications with Skyerise, I have been polite and tried to explain my reasons. I have sought consensus on the talk relevant page for nontrivial edits. I didn't realise copyediting or fixing references would be so controversial However, I think you need to understand it has been a hostile environment on the talk age, recently some of edit suggestions were remove, they were restored by a neutral third party, but then removed again. I'm not saying that Skyerise was a party to this, or even aware of this but ask you to take this into account when evaluate my editing behaviours and why I was just trying to sort the references so we could verify sources and have a reasoned debate in line with WP:OR. --Notgain (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Even if everything you are saying here is true, you still need to secure consensus agreement from other editors before proceeding. Creating a discussion on the talk page was a step in the right direction - but you need to continue that discussion and find agreement with others. That you opened a discussion does not mean that you can then do whatever you like with the article even if others object. This got to ANI because your replies on your user talk read as if you do not understand what the problem actually is - you kept talking about citation errors, but that is not the issue at hand. MrOllie (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a principle on wikipedia called Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. This is where you make a change, then you discuss. I thought my edits were trivial and didn't need consensus. If it needs to be reverted then fine - but don't revert them when you know the person is sorting the references into alphabetical order. It took me hours. Anyone looking at my discussions in the associated talk page would have been that I engaged in an intense debate seeking consensus on the inclusion of a number of new critical reviews, meta analyses and systematic reviews. Going through the article, checking sources, adding page numbers, marking sources as missing page numbers or noting that a source does not meet WP:V. --Notgain (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Also - I wasn't just changing the ref format, I was accessing each listed source and checking they supported the attributed statement. Some of the reference failed that. --Notgain (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

"This is where you make a change, then you discuss" as a summary skips somewhat over the middle part of that linked page. As for "I wasn't just changing the ref format", then perhaps the course of action should be to make the other changes without changing the ref format. CMD (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I had already opened a discussion on the related talk page and had explained the situation to Skyerise on my own talk page[292][293] before this ANI and request for page protect was raised. In addition, I had already given the reasons in a talk page message to Skyerise explaining that I was in the middle of an edit when I was reverted and need to save what I had done so I wouldn't lose hours of work and to correct the noted syntax errors. I was trying to follow Skyerise' example as I was reordering all the references in alphabetical order to make it easier for other editors and to address the concerns that Skyerise had raised in edit comments. This should have been uncontroversial. This was in line with referencing best practises as used on good article and featured article candidates. --Notgain (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Featured articles do not have to use the {{sfn}} template. The point of WP:REFVAR is that different styles are equally acceptable and unilaterally changing between them can be unduly disruptive. Remsense诉 04:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand the complexity of the referencing situation in the article under discussion. I accept that I should I sought consensus on the talk page earlier. However, I believe it's important we acknowledge the unique challenge presented by its multi-disciplinary nature. The article covers topics within psychotherapy, linguistics, psychological assessment, legal issues, scientific skepticism of mental health claims, and critical reviews from sociological and anthropological perspectives - fields that may have their own preferred citation styles. There are also primary sources that have been discussed in reliable third party sources which have been quoted regarding historical context and to substantiate various statements. I agree that simply choosing a single style risks neglecting the nuances of each discipline represented in the article. I'll see if I can engage in a collaborative discussion on the Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming, involving editors knowledgeable about these different fields. Our goal should be to find a solution that maximizes consistency and WP:V the article's diverse subject areas, while address the issue of WP:OR that has plagued the article for more than a decade. Perhaps we could investigate how well-regarded Wikipedia articles with a similar multi-disciplinary scope manage their referencing. --Notgain (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Does this seem to be AI generated to anyone else? Consider this post retracted if someone disagrees with my statement. 115.188.127.196 (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It does read this way to me too. 's an exciting new way for disruptive people to tell on themselves and possibly shorten their own honeymoon period in my experience. Remsense诉 09:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

https://gptzero.me/ is highly confident that it is. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

This is absolutely insane. Never did I think Turing tests would have daily, practical application like this. wound theology◈ 12:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by that. I am certainly not an AI. --Notgain (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Gptzero.me is confident that a lot of text written before the advent of LLMs are written by chatgpt. It's not a useful tool to determine whether someone used chatgpt. Give it some samples of your own writing and be prepared to be called a bot. Joey Dickinson the Game of Thrones Ultrafan (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The issue is not that you chose a single style. The issue is that you chose a single style that another editor disagreed with, and then you did not stop to reach a consensus with them before ploughing on. Remsense诉 09:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I genuinely thought that I was following the lead of Skyerise's earlier work on implmenting {{sfn}} ([294]). As I said I thought the main issue was the syntax errors. From my perspective I was not ploughing ahead without consensus, I was rushing to fix to syntax errors and not waste the hours of work I had already put into it such as ordering the citations alphabetical order. You can see evidence of my efforts to fix citation errors here: [295] and [296]. Also if you look at the current and previous versions of the article dating back some time, there was pre-existing use of {{efn}} and {{r}} before I was edited that page. I still have not seen a valid argument against {{sfn}}. I'll wait and see what the other editors have to say on the matter. But I will now experiment (in the sandpit) with {{Cite Q}} as a potential interim solution to solve the clutter issue. I'll have that discussion the relevant talk page. --Notgain (talk) 11:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but "I spent a lot of time on something" is not an argument with a lot of mileage. You will not be using {{Cite Q}} like I told you on the talk page, because it is also a different reference format that is disruptive for other editors to unilaterally change to. No one wants to suddenly have to learn how to wrangle Wikidata to edit an article where they didn't have to before. Remsense诉 11:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

They don't need to wrangle wikidata. In fact its easier then the current system. You know full well that I suggested it as a compromise in seeking consensus. That something for the talk page discussion, not ANI. --Notgain (talk) 11:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

You have go to Wikidata and look up Qvalues to use it. Remsense诉 11:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

You only need to put in the Q ID rather than all of the reference details like author, year, etc. The old system continues to work. And the more experienced users can help the newbies. --Notgain (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

And other editors should not have to suddenly start doing that when they didn't have to before on an article, this is the entire point of the guideline. I have completed my attempts to articulate that. Remsense诉 11:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, I just don't agree with you. If you are already using {{Cite journal|...}} already, as we are on the understand under consideration then there is no consequence to using {{Cite Q|...}}. The onus is on the editor who makes that change to ensure that it works. --Notgain (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Individual agreement here does not matter, the cite format should not be changed unilaterally per WP:CITEVAR. CMD (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think you may have misunderstood the spirit of WP:CITEVAR. Using {{Cite Q}} when {{Cite Journal...}} or {{Cite Book...}} etc. Can you please quote the relevant policy that you are relying on? --Notgain (talk) 12:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, I have not. Note how the entire third paragraph of CITEVAR is impossible to action while editing en.wiki if Q citations are used. Wikidata has not managed to gain traction for use on en.wiki, so such citations are probably not an example that will help convince others of your position. CMD (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Just a point of clarification, when the page is unprotected, do you want me to revert all the {{sfn}} references including the ones that meticulously added by Skyerise, to get back to how it was before those changes? That is unless I can gain consensus on the talk page otherwise? Or are you saying I need consensus in order to convert any others? Also, would I need consensus to change <ref> to {{r}} or to add a page number with {{pn}}? --Notgain (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The best course of action is probably to see where you and Skyerise (and any other editors who participate) agree on changes and make those ones. I would not change <ref> to {{r}} without consensus. Whether to use {{pn}} would depend on what the current citation format is and existing practice on the page, although this can also be discussed on the talkpage. CMD (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

agreed. --Notgain (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Also when I asked WP:AGF, Skyerise wrote that I was "inept" or "not good at" - this was not necessary, especially when I had already corrected the syntax errors and had already opened multiple discussions including the Skyerise. This is not the way to treat a volunteer --Notgain (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

This is true. However, they are also a volunteer, and review, potential cleanup, and pursuance after others also takes time. It seems you should have stopped changing the format after the first objection, while still able to engage in other cleanup. Remsense诉 03:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Changing citation styles can often be contentious, it's usually helpful to start a discussion first and following WP:BRD if anyone objects. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I agree User:Hamterous1 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️)} 16:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Raufropriguppei-7392

Raufropriguppei-7392 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Creation of multiple meaningless pages (Spungy bub, Wimbly Bimbly and the Magical Tree of Gold, Wikipedia:Ricky Pee Pee); vandalism on Miscarriage ([297]). Clearly WP:NOTHERE. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this user is a fake account affiliated with account sharing site Bugmenot. 169.197.21.198 (talk) 02:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh. I reported them about the same time to AIV. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Spirit Fox99

I just noticed some of my cleanup tags were removed in manual reverts by Spirit Fox99 (talk · contribs) with no explanation other than "ridiculous". Looking into it, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Spirit+Fox99&offset=&limit=100 has contentious edits aplenty. 24 out of those 100 are explicit Undo reverts. 18 of those 100 have Tags: Reverted in turn. User talk:Spirit Fox99 is likewise littered with warnings since a year ago. Topics seem to be focused on Serbia, but I noticed the editor was not warned of WP:ARBMAC and added that now. Still, this level of likely WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior merits some analysis by uninvolved administrators. --Joy (talk) 08:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

How about trying to discuss first, before trying to block literally everyone on that talk page who doesn't agree with your view? You knew that you are editing in a contested area, it's just normal that some discussion will be needed. Bilseric (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

This is pretty astonishing to hear coming from you, towards whom I've extended so much courtesy by engaging in discussion over there over the last few weeks. You've been given so many chances, yet you're now apparently following me here and baselessly accusing of impropriety. This is so bizarre, to me this is a demonstration that you're not actually here to build an encyclopedia. --Joy (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I'm already involved in the discussion from which this report originates. I'm just saying, you have to be prepared to discuss, if you are editing contested topics. I think that's reasonable. But enough said, I'm leaving. Hopefully early enough. Bilseric (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

See, this is the fundamental misunderstanding. A consensus-building discussion on a Wikipedia talk page is supposed to be based on reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense. What I've observed instead mostly resembled "I just (don't) like it".

There's not a whole lot of difference between "I definitely mind. Putting it back." and "I, personally, am not noticing edit warring regarding this in the last several years...From that point of view, I would just leave it be." because it's both mindless and disruptive. --Joy (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't want this to become a dispute between you and I. Can you take a criticism without such responses? This is rhetorical, please don't answer. Not to end on this, I do thank you for participating in discussions with me in that topic. Bilseric (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I think his administrative permissions should be revoked effective immediately. I've come across this non neutral Croation nationslist on multiple occassions. He uses skewed alterations of wiki guidelines to get what he wants. He should be exposed. Some of his edits are ecactly that. RIDICULOUS. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Please, don't agree with me, haha. I didn't say that.Bilseric (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I would like to report him to the administrative board for misuse of administrative power. They'll only have to comb through his past edits too see what articles he manipulates and what people he attacks. Where can I do so? I'm sick of him threatening people all the time. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Top of this notice board there is a link to AN, use that Maestrofin (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's a nice example of what I mean. I recently removed the hyperlink to one set of words 'Smiljan, Croatia' to which there are way too MANY within the Nikola Tesla article. I even stated that the guidelines say that the same words should not be hyperlinked multiple times throughout the same article. Of course he reverts it all in one go, because the guidelines are only to be used if they fit his agenda. A complete joke. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I diffs to prove your aspirations Maestrofin (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I need diffs to prove your current aspirations Maestrofin (talk) 01:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Assertions.

[298] [299] Meh. Cjhard (talk) 07:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't want to get involved, but I did feel that invoking WP:V and the final warning regarding WP ARBMAC were too much in this discussion [300]. Bilseric (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Spirit Fox99's edits discussed above were misguided. First, the two "ridiculous notation" edit summaries are obviously unsatisfactory and a WP:CT/EE topic ban will occur if something similar is repeated. Second, the "hyperlinked already multiple times" edit (diff) was overly enthusiastic—standard procedure is to link in the infobox, the lead (although the term is not present in the lead of this article), and on the first occurrence in the article (three links). Linking in the caption of an image is also fine and subject to editorial discretion. Repeating such a link is not a mistake. @Spirit Fox99: You have made some significant accusations about Joy above ("non neutral Croation nationslist", "skewed alterations of wiki guidelines", "RIDICULOUS", "he manipulates and what people he attacks"). I will block you unless you either support those aspersions with evidence (diffs) or strike out your personal attacks. You need to take one of those actions before editing elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

31.219.94.144

31.219.94.144 is currently repeatedly reverting on my user talk to restore material that I've removed from them. IP is block evading and I've already opened an SPI in regards to them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orchomen. Can admin please take action on them. TarnishedPath^talk 09:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked for disruptive editing for now, SPI can handle the rest. Tried to look closer, but internet access is very spotty tonight. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Block and mass rollbacks needed for JAO 094-A3(S)'s edits

Can someone please block User:JAO 094-A3(S) and rollback all of their edits? It appeared at first that some of their edits were mistakes - some added large portions of material about stars into articles such as school discipline and juvenile law - but when they reverted that material back into school discipline and began posting bizarre messages on my User Talk page it became clear that they're not here to build an encyclopedia and their other edits cannot be trusted. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

NOSS = Not Brick Block Me JAO 094-A3(S) (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

This is another sock of Join_Instagram_at_Under_13. MrOllie (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Many articles created, and i have concerns regarding quality and the lack of reliable sources because most of articles are BLP!

I was wondering, while checking this https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Saqib

(He was given Autopatrolled rights by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BU_Rob13 ) Just came to this user saqib created 200+ articles with Autopatrolled rights only with two lines (alosmost all articles) and most of them are not properly cited. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and hundred more.

Is it okay to manufacture short articles with Autopatrolled rights? Because as per guidelines creating "clean" "elaborate", well cited articles is mandatory!.

The user started defending with assumptions when I informed the administrator here.

Is it okay for a user to manufacture hundreds of articles with just two lines ? Lkomdis (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with Saqib. This looks very much like Saqib is being targeted. I clicked on 1,2, 9 and 10. They are all well-made stubs on clear WP:NPOL passes. I saw Saqib taken to WP:XRV yesterday. And now I see OP has been shopping around for admins to do their bidding. This is definitely not a user with 103 edits as it would appear. This is a sleeper for a farm, presumably one Saqib might have foiled with their AFC or NPP work. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Yup, definitely not a good-faith editor. They were provided sufficient explanation at the teahouse here yesterday. Yet here they are raising the same issues as though that had not happened at all, having in between gone to Bbb23 and then WP:COIN. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe this is the third report of Saqib here of elsewhere I've seen in the last few weeks - virtually all have the same linguistic structure/grammar, and virtually all are bad-faith complaints/content disputes. It's hard not to think this is a campaign of harassment by a sockmaster. The Kip 17:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

These creations appear to be rapidly created and near-identical - in other words, without consensus they are WP:MASSCREATE violations.

There may also be an issue with Lkomdis, but Saqib needs to hold off on these creations until they get consensus for them. BilledMammal (talk) 04:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I clicked a dozen or so and they are all on legislators. As long as the sources verify that they were elected to parliament/s, I have no concerns. Legislators are exempt from GNG requirement. If there are articles on topics that require SIGCOV that were rapidly mass-created without citing them, that would be a different matter. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

However, they’re not exempt from our rules on WP:MASSCREATION and WP:FAIT; indeed, the biggest issues we have had with mass creation - the ones that have consumed the most editor time and caused the most drama - have been on topics where notability is presumed. BilledMammal (talk) 04:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I can see why those PAGs exist and I can think of areas where they would do good, even in article creation; I just don't see how they could be applied to legislator bios to benefit. NPOL was well-established well before I joined, and in all my time, I have never got an impression other than that we want to create standalone articles on every single one of the legislators because we believe that's essential information for encyclopedias to have and we believe all legislators are sure to have more coverage in reliable sources than our pretty lax inclusion criteria. I would need to see that the stubs have other problems than that they were quickly created en masse. I recognise your position. And I have seen you, along with others, convince the community of it, in other areas of the project, sports notably, but you have not done so for NPOL. I don't think the current community position foresees any problem with legislator stubs that you may do. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The PAG might apply to the bios which simply repeat information already on List of members of the 16th Provincial Assembly of Sindh and List of members of the 16th National Assembly of Pakistan, but one of the examples above, Syed Adil Askari, shows how they could be expanded further. Odd that that ended up in the list. CMD (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• I'm NOT buying this complaint against me. The OP also accused me of COI and UPE which I've clarified here. For the clarity, I've created over whopping 2,000+ BLPs on Pakistani MPs, not just 200 as the OP wrote above. And if anyone's wondering why I made those stubs, it's simple. They all meet WP:POLITICIAN, they're well-referenced and I haven't inserted any PROMO or even WP:OR. I challenge if any one can find any such, please provide the diffs here. Honestly, I'm surprised nobody has linked to the BLPs I created that later became quite detailed bios like (Aseefa Bhutto Zardari, Ali Wazir, Fawad Chaudhry, Usman Buzdar, Anwaar ul Haq Kakar, Muhammad Aurangzeb, Liaquat Ali Chattha, Mohsin Dawar, Nausheen Hamid, Rana Aftab Ahmad Khan, Hammad Azhar, Fayyaz ul Hassan Chohan, Sardar Nasrullah Khan Dreshak, Musadik Malik, Ismail Rahoo, Sibtain Khan,Faisal Vawda, Zartaj Gul, Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Murtaza Wahab, Sadiq Sanjrani, Usman Dar and the list goes on...). --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  created over whopping 2,000+ BLPs on Pakistani MPs Please read WP:MASSCREATE, and please stop engaging in the mass-creation of these stubs until you get consensus that such mass creation is appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 06:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  For sure, if it's a policy and applies to WP:NPOL, I'll steer clear of that in the future. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's a policy, and it applies to all content pages - both those covered by WP:NPOL and those not covered by it. BilledMammal (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  If that's the case, then fair enough. I wasn't aware of this, if you take my word for it. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's an obscure policy; it's understandable to be unaware of it. BilledMammal (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  The policy applies to "large-scale" creation; also "Alternatives [...] include creating the pages in small batches"; the articles were created in batches of around 20. The policy does not mention a recommended amount of time between batches. https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Saqib goes back to 2014 and only lists 1,899 pages (of which 240 were created in 2024). Creation in small batches can be disruptive if the reliability of the sources is unclear, but approval is not required. Peter James (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  I want to make it clear that I'm not citing non-RS, as you can verify by randomly checking any BLP. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  From June 2020 to February 2024, Saqib only created one article which was in 2021. In 2024, there were 3 days they went over 24: March 24 created 73, March 26 created 107 and March 29 created 32 so a little over 200 over the period of 5 days which did violate Masscreate. Before that they created a total of 18 articles and since March 29 they have created 9 articles so this is not something they are doing continuously. From what I can tell, these appear to be the result of a recent election. Is that correct, @Saqib: and are you done or are there more? S0091 (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yep, that's right I created BLPs for newly elected MPs right after the 2024 Pakistani general election. This is my area of expertise and interest. Not only did I create BLPs, but I also contributed extensively to election page. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Ok. Next time, get approval beforehand even if you do not know exactly how many. I am not sure how much lead time you need so I suggest asking at WT:BRFA. They may also be able to point you to previous approval requests for examples. S0091 (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't foresee the necessity to create a large number of BLPs until the 2029 elections, barring any disruptions to the assemblies. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  But wait, I didn't use any tools so why would I need to ask at a bot forum? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  @S0091 and BilledMammal: WP:MASSCREATE states that bot approval is required when it is large-scale automated or semi-automated content page creation. Unless I'm missing something, these completely manual creations by Saqib are fine, since no tools were used? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  My understanding is the method does not matter. If edits/page creations are done in a bot-like/automated fashion, it's covered by the policy. See WP:MEATBOT. S0091 (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  @S0091: There it says that it can be disruptive, but only if there are issues with the content being produced: However, merely editing quickly ... is not by itself disruptive. Are there any issues with these articles besides them being short? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  I reiterate that no tools, scripts, or automation were utilized. Everything was done manually , and I ensured that no mistakes were made.And if anyone finds a mistake, please feel free to provide the diffs. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Lkomdis I think is the only editor who has raised an issue with the content, then BM about Masscreate. Meatbot also states If there is any doubt, you should make a bot approval request. In such cases, the Bot Approvals Group will determine whether the full approval process and a separate bot account are necessary so I think this fits the bill to at least ask at WT:BRFA. S0091 (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  @S0091: IMO, there is no point in making a BRFA request; there's no one who thinks that a bot should be doing these activities (there's likely only going to be a few confused "why are you requesting manual creation be given bot approval?" comments if taken there) and I seriously question the motive behind Lkomdis pointing out these "issues" (see my below comment) – Saqib has used no tools (i.e. completely in-line with MASSCREATE) and as far as I'm aware there's no issues with the content itself – I see nothing that needs to be done here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, I don't think there anything to be done at this time either regarding Saqib and share you concerns about the OP. This is all in hindsight. The articles have already been created, Saqib legitimately did not know about Masscreate, it is not something they are doing continuously and no one has brought up any specific issues about the articles. So the question is do these articles meet the Masscreate criteria thus in the future require approval? I lean on the 'best to be safe' side but either way I don't think this discussion belongs at ANI but at BRFA (or someplace else?). S0091 (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  WP:MASSCREATE does list that as an alternative, but it also makes it clear that approval is still required - the only difference is that it suggests approval may be more likely when the proposal is for small batches rather than for large ones. BilledMammal (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, I didn't use any tools. I created all the pages manually and it was quite a hectic task. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  It says it's an alternative but then says it is not an alternative but is just a way that is more likely to gain approval, so the editors who created that policy made it contradict itself. Of course if split into separate tasks (instead of one task whether in one batch or several) no approval is required. Peter James (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  @BilledMammal Your reply is appreciated and I agree with you. Lkomdis (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Even if you were not aware about WP:MASSCREATE, but you kept manufacturing same two articles silently since 2016!, with the use of Autopatrolled Right, if you are not aware about policy guidelines please don't miss use any privilege right.

  @Rosguill This user right was supposed be for prolific creators of clean articles in order to reduce the work load of New Page Patrollers but see what is happening here! Lkomdis (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Lkomdis, what is your problem?? You return from a four-year absence and one of the first things you do is report this editor to the Teahouse, then after being told its fine report them to Oshwah, then to Bbb23, then to the COI noticeboard, and then bring them to ANI, and it seems you've done almost nothing else? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  @BeanieFan11 If someone returns from four years break doesn't justify that I should not report such incident, as I was not aware about reporting proces of such incident i went to Teahouse first, then Oshwah to here,

  While checking his edits, i found group of paid editors were mantaing or defending Waqar Zaka, a VJ-turned-television host and a cryptocurrency enthusiast, so reported to Bbb23, but he looks to me doesn't care much about it, and replied.

  "Enough years to know that I have no interest in these issues. I suppose you could take it to WP:COIN"

  For me Saqib looks potential candidate of COI, check by yourself about his defense style here then here, his recent edits on cryptocurrency enthusias article smells like he may be involved in this to make an image of Waqar zaka either in favor or against the person. and that's the case of investigation. Lkomdis (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  First you accused me of being a UPE adding PROMO stuff to Waqar's BLP, now you're saying I'm against him. Can you make up your mind first about whether I'm editing for him or against him? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Saqib Playing victim card will not lead the discussion anywhere, just let the community review the case, and being too defensive about the article of cryptocurrency enthusias Waqar Zaka, will not save it, and doesn't prove anything!. Lkomdis (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Lkomdis, I don't really have a strong opinion about the Waqar Zaka BLP, unlike some UPEs who are really attached to their creations. You know why? Because I don't have any clients to answer to, so even if this BLP gets deleted, I'm not bothered. I've made my point that it shouldn't be deleted, but if the community decides otherwise, it's no big deal to me. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Saqib That's why this case was reported to WP:COI , and I will suggest please don't conclude everything on your assupusons, there are other editors too, leave some room for them to see what is going underneath with Waqar Zaka article. Lkomdis (talk) 11:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• Masscreate exists for a reason, it's not just to stop policy or guideline-violating articles. Autopatrol should not exist. It doesn't help NPP (in the big picture it probably makes their job larger by creating walled gardens) and everybody needs a second set of eyes. Taking away autopatrol is not a big deal, it's just normalcy. Which is what should happen here. North8000 (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Autopatrol should not exist. – Strong disagree. There are clearly some people who do not need their work checked by members of NPP, and that's okay. It doesn't help NPP – Tell that to the massive backlog we have and the lack of volunteers we have to help deal with it. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm an active NPP'er ad do worry about the backlog and disagree. But I only made the general statement here supporting my stance and that it would be no biggee to remove autopatrol. But my bad for not making that clearer or not wording it differently.North8000 (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• @North8000 Regarding  this case, I am of the same mind. However, if Autopatrolled is not available, it will cause NPP overload. "everybody needs a second set of eyes", that's the truth, to avoid this kind of incidents again in future. Lkomdis (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• Agreed with Lkomdis here, Saqib has created multiple BLP's like Syed Adil Askari, Waqar Zaka with WP:Non-RS yet still he is nominating articles, the similar BLP's for WP:AfD.
  • Unsigned, from an IP who seems to dislike one of Saqib's AFDS. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
• Is there a reason why the OP hasn't been indeffed yet? They obviously didn't just materialize in good faith after four years and immediately stumble into Saqib out of sheer coincidence. This is a targeted hit job and should not be tolerated. If there are issues with Saqib's edits, they should be sorted out, but it is unconscionable to leave the OP unblocked. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
• I do not see anything in this section which requires administrative intervention (in fact, any intertvention). I suggest that someone closes this section. On the other hand, an indef proposal for OP which is below seems legit and should run its course.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Boomerang Indef for Lkomdis

Uninvolved editor here (I say this a lot now), seems like Lkomdis is going after the user involved here (WP:FORUMSHOP) and is clearly WP:ABF. In addition, I would suggest taking a look at related editor Aanuarif (this suggests a big sockfarm here) who might related here. This doesn't mean Saqib is completely exonerated but this is a pretty unambiguous action we can and should take. I suspect that one of the reasons that Saqib is being targeted here is that his mass stubs may be eroding the business of the farm in question (you can't pay for a Wikipedia article that already exists), or it could just be socks boomeranging. Edit: In addition, this behavior seems to have started after Saqib started an SPI and started NPP. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not about their concern regarding my stubs on Pakistani lawmakers. It all started with this SPI and particularly involving this IP. The attacks intensified after I started NPP just a few days ago. I nominated some of their articles including BLPs for deletion (all related to Pakistani actors and TV shows) and some AfCs (again all related to Pakistani actors and TV shows) were also rejected by me, after which I began receiving attacks both on-wiki and off-wiki. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not related to any kind of WP:Sockfarm, I initiated some new articles (Draft:Hook (2022 TV series), Draft: Wonderland (Pakistani TV series) and Draft:Gumn) out of my interest which were all declined eventually so I was seeking reasons as to why cause creating articles manually and inserting around 25-30 sources (I had no awareness about WP:RS) is a hectic thing. 182.182.29.217 (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot about that! (I knew I'd seen your name around somewhere). Add that too to the rationale. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Support indef. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Allan Nonymous from the beginning @Saqib in hurry to conclude the result of incident by his assumptions based narrative, but later he agreed that he was not aware about WP:MASSCREATE, and was manufacturing BLP articles silently with the help of Autopatrolled Right, he was given Autopatrolled rights by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BU_Rob13 . I don't think this should be encourage and I agree to user:North8000 comment "everybody needs a second set of eyes". Thank you for your reply Lkomdis (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why you're attacking Saqib in a section about your conduct or why you're not responding to the allegations here. Heck, this almost suicidal pursuit of the user in question kind of makes my point for me. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Allan Nonymous it's not about Saqib, but the way he was using Autopatrolled for WP:MASSCREATE silently from years, that was my concern, he admitted that he was not aware about it, that make sense to me. And I think no buddy should be beyond the guidelines to take advantage of loophole. Now i don't have any issues about this incident with Saqib after this discussion. I wanted to bring the incident to attention to prevent similar incidents in the future. I appreciate your reply. Lkomdis (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

If you were concerned about a possible WP:MASSCREATE violation (which frankly seems to have been minor, if it even was one), at the very least post in the user's talk page letting them know before doing anything else. Going WP:FORUMSHOPPING is very much not the way to go, but then again, you don't seem to care about this account, do you. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Support indef As @Lepricavark: states, the OP has not edited here since 2020 and within minutes after returning they make a complaint about Saqib at the Teahouse, then to Oshwah and then onto Bbb23. The response at the Teahouse was there was no issue, @Oshwah: told them to file a complaint here while @Bbb23: told them COIN so they filed both which is the problem with WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Nothing they have presented here supports any BLP violations, that the articles fail WP:NPOL or any other abuse of autopatrol and so far the COIN complaint, which included other editors, is going nowhere. At most there might be a WP:MASSCREATE violation but even that is debatable per the discussion above. They have wasted enough of community's time lodging baseless complaints complaints against Saqib and are WP:NOTHERE to create an encyclopedia. S0091 (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Aye yai yai... That sucks to hear; I apologize if my response caused any inconvenience to the community. My response to the user on my user talk page meant to say, in a nutshell, "If you have concerns about something this large (200+ articles) by a user, then ANI is where I'd likely go. You need more eyes on this, and a community review is the right action to take." It wasn't intended to be made with any implication that I agreed with what they were reporting. Saqib (correctly) pointed out that this user's huge gap in editing, and the fact that they returned from about a four-year break from editing Wikipedia at all, was concerning. I did agree with Saqib's observations and response. I'm going to err on the side of extreme caution and recuse from adding my recommendation here. While I doubt adding my recommendation here would be argued to be crossing the line into "WP:INVOLVED territory" by others, it's better to be safe than to put myself into a position where my ability to exhibit proper judgment is questioned. I think I've done enough already... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Oshwah you did not do anything wrong and it was not my intent to suggest you did so no need to apologize; same for Bbb23 or those who responded at the Teahouse. None of you were the 'cause' for multiple complaints multiple places but the inevitable symptom of forum shopping. S0091 (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Oshwah Don't feel regret about it and your response didn't cause any inconvenience, even the Saqib was not aware about WP:MASSCREATE violation but as it is debatable, this discussion will help to improve policy, and thank you for your suggestion to report it here. I appreciate your reply. Lkomdis (talk) 11:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support block (indef or short term) per above. Clearly this was an unnecessary report throughout multiple talk pages and noticeboards of Wikipedia. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support a temp block, neutral on indef Tolerating weaponization of Wiki systems is probably Wikipedia's worst mistake that contributes to it being such a nasty place. And this looks like that. I'm not sure of that enough to support an indef. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support indef per my first two comments which have totally held up. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• I have INDEFFed in my capacity as an individual admin and per emerging consensus here. Discussion can continue about Saqib's creations without the participation of an account who clearly is Not Here for anything but stirring up drama and is likely evading a block. If consensus finds reason to unblock, feel free to do so. Star Mississippi 15:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Artecta

Hello, user:artecta is making inappropriate comments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Air_Senegal_Flight_301 and is disrupting the discussion by not making any meaningful counter arguments and instead opting to attack users and stating to one who voted Delete that he is quote unquote "a little kid behind the phone that understands ABSOLUTELY nothing about wikipedia and what should stand and what should not" also attacking another user: people like IDKUggaBanga shouldn't be allowed to vote, they are little kids that don't understand what the hell they are typing. whats worse is that this incident is so far notable and deserving for an article its ridiculous how people say it isn't.
And most of his comments resemble those of User:GeekyAviation which I think is a sign of possible sockpuppetry. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

He is currently vandalising Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Air_Senegal_Flight_301 by striking non-sockpuppet votes. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Same on this page Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I have removed some grotesque insults here. Some admin please do the honors. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah this looks like WP:NOTHERE level disruptive editing. Simonm223 (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Someone please block this user now. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Let me know if I missed anything. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Just reverted his replies. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish you need to revdel Aviationwikiflight revert. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Should be good. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

note that he also doing the same thing on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FedEx_Express_Flight_6238 so do with this information what you will. IDKUggaBanga (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

+1 Thank goodness. I was AFK for about 10 minutes, and then I saw some 35 notifications, all spam. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 12:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, Revision 1223182720 needs to be revdeled. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Already got it. Also, pings don't work unless you sign with the ping. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, revisions 1223183701, 1223183499, 1223183194, 1223183187, 1223183065, 1223183048, 1223182688, 1223182580, 1223182500, 1223182441, and possibly 1223182079 all need to be revdeled. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Batagur baska: AWB edits to hide articles from deletion "hit lists"

Batagur baska (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs) has removed stub classification from dozens of articles that are clearly and obviously stubs using AWB.[301][302] They've also redirected dozens more at a rate of multiple per minute.[303][304][305][306] I haven't checked all but having randomly clicked dozen or so, I have yet to find unstubbed articles that were actually not stubs. I have not checked the WP:ATDR edits; my concerns solely arise from the rate at which they were done and their explanation for them that does not match its purpose. Their explanation, as best I understand it, is they are hiding promising articles from deletion hitlists, because stubs are at risk of mass deletion. They even say these articles could be
reinstated after the deletion spree comes to an end. My attempt to get this resolved at their talk page has failed because I have a higher deletion contributions deleted contributions percentage than them. Please see User talk:Batagur baska#Identifying non-stubs and reclassifiying (permalink). Honestly, the edits that need reverting are not as numerous as they could have been. I could probably have done it in the time I have spent at their talk page and now here, if only there were grounds to believe it would not recur. Thank you for your consideration! Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy pings to Pppery as the admin who granted AWB and Liz who the talk page shows has had previous interation/s with the user. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: this bloke thinks they have the unilateral right to exempt permastubs from the deletion process? And that you have no right to demur because you're involved in more deletion discussions than they are? Good grief, even the most radical ARS militants weren't that far out. Ravenswing 03:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it was deleted contribs actually, the number of my edits that are hidden from public view because they reside in now deleted pages, not that it affects the point. I have refactored my original post accordingly. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Could this be another No Great Shaker sock? They seem to have similar opposition to mass deletion and use similar language around it, as well as having an interest in English cricket. BilledMammal (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I've opened an SPI. BilledMammal (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

They've been blocked as a sock. BilledMammal (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's surprising. The number of misunderstandings they had, I thought they couldn't possibly have prior experience, unless they're Wifione, who is adept at faking incompetence. Guess everyone's doing it now. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Pomposity is particularly intolerable when it is paired with incompetence. Even if the user's incorrect understandings of policies and procedures could be rectified, they have a massive attitude problem that renders their presence here untenable. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Uhh... this [307] happened. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous] (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• I have reverted around half of the last 1000 edits. There appear to be hundreds, maybe thousands more, so I have stopped for now in case there are issues I have not thought of, never having done mass reverts of this magnitude. If nothing's raised within a day or so, I will resume. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, everyone, for trusting someone I shouldn't have trusted. I don't think there's anything else I need to do here, though. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, it was a really good request. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Block and mass rollbacks needed for JAO 094-A3(S)'s edits

Can someone please block User:JAO 094-A3(S) and rollback all of their edits? It appeared at first that some of their edits were mistakes - some added large portions of material about stars into articles such as school discipline and juvenile law - but when they reverted that material back into school discipline and began posting bizarre messages on my User Talk page it became clear that they're not here to build an encyclopedia and their other edits cannot be trusted. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

NOSS = Not Brick Block Me JAO 094-A3(S) (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

This is another sock of Join_Instagram_at_Under_13. MrOllie (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Artecta

Hello, user:artecta is making inappropriate comments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Air_Senegal_Flight_301 and is disrupting the discussion by not making any meaningful counter arguments and instead opting to attack users and stating to one who voted Delete that he is quote unquote "a little kid behind the phone that understands ABSOLUTELY nothing about wikipedia and what should stand and what should not" also attacking another user: people like IDKUggaBanga shouldn't be allowed to vote, they are little kids that don't understand what the hell they are typing. whats worse is that this incident is so far notable and deserving for an article its ridiculous how people say it isn't.
And most of his comments resemble those of User:GeekyAviation which I think is a sign of possible sockpuppetry. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

He is currently vandalising Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Air_Senegal_Flight_301 by striking non-sockpuppet votes. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Same on this page Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I have removed some grotesque insults here. Some admin please do the honors. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah this looks like WP:NOTHERE level disruptive editing. Simonm223 (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Someone please block this user now. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Let me know if I missed anything. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Just reverted his replies. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish you need to revdel Aviationwikiflight revert. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Should be good. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

note that he also doing the same thing on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FedEx_Express_Flight_6238 so do with this information what you will. IDKUggaBanga (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

+1 Thank goodness. I was AFK for about 10 minutes, and then I saw some 35 notifications, all spam. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 12:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, Revision 1223182720 needs to be revdeled. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Already got it. Also, pings don't work unless you sign with the ping. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, revisions 1223183701, 1223183499, 1223183194, 1223183187, 1223183065, 1223183048, 1223182688, 1223182580, 1223182500, 1223182441, and possibly 1223182079 all need to be revdeled. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Batagur baska: AWB edits to hide articles from deletion "hit lists"

Batagur baska (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs) has removed stub classification from dozens of articles that are clearly and obviously stubs using AWB.[308][309] They've also redirected dozens more at a rate of multiple per minute.[310][311][312][313] I haven't checked all but having randomly clicked dozen or so, I have yet to find unstubbed articles that were actually not stubs. I have not checked the WP:ATDR edits; my concerns solely arise from the rate at which they were done and their explanation for them that does not match its purpose. Their explanation, as best I understand it, is they are hiding promising articles from deletion hitlists, because stubs are at risk of mass deletion. They even say these articles could be
reinstated after the deletion spree comes to an end. My attempt to get this resolved at their talk page has failed because I have a higher deletion contributions deleted contributions percentage than them. Please see User talk:Batagur baska#Identifying non-stubs and reclassifiying (permalink). Honestly, the edits that need reverting are not as numerous as they could have been. I could probably have done it in the time I have spent at their talk page and now here, if only there were grounds to believe it would not recur. Thank you for your consideration! Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy pings to Pppery as the admin who granted AWB and Liz who the talk page shows has had previous interation/s with the user. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: this bloke thinks they have the unilateral right to exempt permastubs from the deletion process? And that you have no right to demur because you're involved in more deletion discussions than they are? Good grief, even the most radical ARS militants weren't that far out. Ravenswing 03:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it was deleted contribs actually, the number of my edits that are hidden from public view because they reside in now deleted pages, not that it affects the point. I have refactored my original post accordingly. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Could this be another No Great Shaker sock? They seem to have similar opposition to mass deletion and use similar language around it, as well as having an interest in English cricket. BilledMammal (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I've opened an SPI. BilledMammal (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

They've been blocked as a sock. BilledMammal (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's surprising. The number of misunderstandings they had, I thought they couldn't possibly have prior experience, unless they're Wifione, who is adept at faking incompetence. Guess everyone's doing it now. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Pomposity is particularly intolerable when it is paired with incompetence. Even if the user's incorrect understandings of policies and procedures could be rectified, they have a massive attitude problem that renders their presence here untenable. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Uhh... this [314] happened. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous] (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• I have reverted around half of the last 1000 edits. There appear to be hundreds, maybe thousands more, so I have stopped for now in case there are issues I have not thought of, never having done mass reverts of this magnitude. If nothing's raised within a day or so, I will resume. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, everyone, for trusting someone I shouldn't have trusted. I don't think there's anything else I need to do here, though. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, it was a really good request. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Royal Ploughing Ceremony - Severe Edit War

Severe edit war going on at Royal Ploughing Ceremony between many users. Thanks,Neuropol^Talk 15:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Protected for a week to keep the riff-raff out for a while. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Editor using r word, disruptive editing and self admitted meatpuppetry

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.

---

Ganda Singh is pushing blatant POV, religious heroism like edits here and here, violating copyright rules. He's trying to suppress well sourced, critical information about a religious figure-[315], using original research, unencyclopedic prose, and removing sourced information.

On his talk page, he openly admits to only being here to aggrandize his religion and suppress polemical content, saying some "Afghan" using "retard arguments" is preventing them from doing so (he's clearly indicating that there are numerous people in on it) , and that he's part of an instagram group coordinating edits on Wikipedia, asking others to join as well.

While the POV pushing might not warrant an indef, the self admitted meatpuppetry certainly does. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:17, 10 May 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.

2024 Indian general election in Andhra Pradesh

Hi, I am here to report on the user: @Maphumor, who has been continuously adding information to the article 2024 Indian general election in Andhra Pradesh even after multiple reverts. This information is considered non-reliable according to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian politics/Election: Article structure#Parties and alliances guidelines. Additionally, the parties mentioned are non-notable, and their notability has not been established with citations or reliable sources. Despite my attempts to inform the user on their personal user talk page and the article talk page about the same, they have not responded or participated in the consensus process and is continuing to reinstate the same information. I am now here to report about the same and avoid reverting it again myself. 456legendtalk 17:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

1. Unattended discussion on the talk page: Talk:2024 Indian general election in Andhra Pradesh#Un-notable parties

2. Unattended discussion on the personal user talk page: User talk:Maphumor#May 2024 456legendtalk 17:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Is there any administrator who can address this issue? The user in dispute is not at all participating in the discussion for consensus. Keeps on changing the thing even after multiple attempts to discuss. 456legendtalk 23:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring at Apostolic Christian Church

Came across a lengthy edit war at Apostolic Christian Church involving multiple IPs and a registered account recently, but didn’t know where to post it. Hopefully this is the right page. Not sure if I should notify the parties about this report, since this relates to the article. -Shift674-🌀 ^contribs 19:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah... this might be worth an x-post to WP:COIN, given some of the editing. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I’ll post this there instead. -Shift674-🌀 ^contribs 01:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism

I’m afraid I am dealing with someone by the name of ZanderAlbatraz1145 who has been intentionally vandalising information that has been carefully curated and proven and researched. They have even gone so far as to make threats to me about my family. 92.15.149.196 (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

You have failed to notify ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk · contribs) of this discussion, as the red box on top of this page clearly requires. I have done so for you this time. You also have not provided a single diff that supports any of the serious allegations you've made. A cursory check of ZanderAlbatraz1145's contributions also demonstrate that they've never edited your talk page nor do their edit summaries have any obvious "threats to [you] and [your] family". Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 12:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Threats are a serious matter but a quick check of ZanderAlbatraz1145's edit history shows nothing of the sort. Do you have diffs? Simonm223 (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

It certainly looks like ZanderAlbatraz1145 could do with a reminder about WP:CIVILITY and WP:BITE though, judging by those edit summaries. WaggersTALK 13:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Looking at your talk page, it seems like you are being a bit aggressive with your response to another user... 𝙴𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗𝚊𝚛𝚒𝚌 𝙴𝚗𝚓𝚘𝚢𝚎𝚛 (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Note that the OP has made another accusation against ZanderAlbatraz1145 on their talk page, and still without any diffs to support it. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 03:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Vandal is back with stalking and harassment

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.

---

Further to this thread, the vandal under discussion is back again with stalking, harassment and incivility. ‎Diddycomin4u is the new name for the vandal, who has stalked through my edits, reverting a random series of edits here, here, here, here, here (again) and here. All the edit summaries are uncivil. There were several others after these too, but it's too boring to cut and paste the links: the editor has made no other edits except stalking and vandalism with uncivil edit summaries. Funny to think I was attacked by the peanut gallery and had a minor facility removed by an admin for correctly calling out a vandal. Hey ho - SchroCat (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I issued a level 2 warning after noticing the "Plonker" comment on Pantheon ad Lucem. Having looked at the rest of the edit summaries, this should clearly have been a 4im. User is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, I'd recommend an immediate indefinite block. Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 11:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can't speak to the prior thread, but the actions of this new (sic) user were so beyond the pale that I blocked them indefinitely for harassment and WP:NOTHERE. Further, I was about to ask SchroCat if they'd tangled with a user before, since they were clearly the target of the abuse. —C.Fred (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks to you both. This is the third or fourth time this particular vandal has been a minor inconvenience, and I have no doubt they will be back again with the same sort of reverts and incivility. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@SchroCat, I took a quick look at the background of this and your edit history to refresh my memory (as I remember seeing the original edit war at the Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick article). In doing so I noticed a questionable edit on your part. This reversion at your talk page - the edit summary "What on God's green earth are you playing at?? Don't come round threatening me with no basis" is of concern. A friendly message was left on your talk page which at no point threatened you. I am pretty sure a fundamental pillar of editing on Wikipedia is working collaboratively with other editors and assuming good faith. The message left by ScottishFinnishRadish was polite and assumed good faith, while your edit summary did not. Some of your responses at the previous ANI thread which you linked, dismissing other users' comments as "bollocks" and "nonsense" are also of concern. This should not be construed as an attack on you or a warning in any way, but I felt it was prudent to point out that I believe some of your own actions have not been in keeping with Wikipedia policies. None of us are perfect, I myself recently engaged in behaviour I am not proud of here. Editing on Wikipedia can be frustrating at times, I'm sure everyone here can agree with that. We all, including myself, have to try our best not to let those frustrations get the better of us. Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 12:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

tl;dr and I don't care for the patronising lecturette and tone. Please don't bother with a response: I just don't care enough about AN/I to give a monkeys - I spend my time developing articles, rather than reading tosh like this. - SchroCat (talk) 12:30, 11 May 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.

IP 47.39.190.24 engaging in COI, disruptive/poor editing and personal attack

47.39.190.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been in engaging in WP:COI editing on John Albers for months, disregarding warnings for such. Further, the edits to "his" article have been disruptive and poorly structured, replacing normal encyclopedic text with unformatted lists of accolades. Last, he just engaged in a personal attack on my user page where he has admitted that he is editing the page about him. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 01:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• IP blocked one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. Hopefully, he will take this as an opportunity to understand and work within the framework of our COI policy. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 01:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

User may need talk page access revoked.

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 Dadaastra. The user was blocked for promotional editing and started posting the same promotional content on their talk page after being blocked. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

All set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:48, 11 May 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.

पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)

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.

---

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

I'm not going to go into the other conducts by Pataliputra (which includes WP:OR and WP:SYNTH) this time. This report will be solely about their edits related to images, since that's one huge issue in its own right.

For literally years and years on end Pataliputra has had a complete disregard for how much space there is in articles and the logic/reason behind adding their images, often resorting to shoehorning often irrelevant images which often look more or less the same as the other placed image(s), and generally bring no extra value to the readers other than making them read a mess. I don't want to engage in speculations, but when Pataliputra is randomly placing their uploaded images into other images [316] (which is incredibly strange and not something I've ever seen in Commons), it makes me suspect a reason for their constant shoehorning and addition of often irrelevant/non-helpful images is to simply promote the stuff they have uploaded.

These are just the diffs I remember from the top of my head, I dare not even to imagine how many diffs I would possess if I saved every one of them I noticed throughout the years as well as the opposition by other users, because this has been ongoing for too long. I've frankly had enough;

1. [317]
2. [318]
3. [319]
4. [320]
5. [321]
6. [322]
7. [323]
8. [324]
9. [325]
10. [326]
11. [327]
12. [328]
13. [329]
14. [330]
15. [331]
16. [332]
17. [333]
18. [334]
19. [335]
20. [336]
21. [337]
22. [338]
23. [339]
24. [340]
25. [341]

Recently, a user voiced their concern [342] against the excessively added images by Pataliputra at Badr al-Din Lu'lu'. What did Pataliputra do right after that? Respond to the criticism? No, ignore it and add more images (eg [343]). Did Pataliputra bother to take in the criticism even remotely by the other user and me at Talk:Badr al-Din Lu'lu' afterwards? They did not. In fact, they added even more image after that [344]. Other recent examples are these [345] [346] [347] [348]. I also found a thread from 2019 also showing disaffection to their edits related to images [349].

Their constructive edits should not negate non-constructive ones like these. This really needs to stop. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

As already explained [350] the most relevant information is not always in the form of text. I can create an article about Central Asian art with 135 images in it, and receive a barnstar for it [351], or create articles with no images at all. The article about Badr al-Din Lu'lu' is in between: there is little textual information about this ruler, but on the contrary a lot of very interesting information in visual form (works of art, manuscripts, which have reached us in astounding quality and quantities). These objects are what makes Badr al-Din Lu'lu' remarkable as a ruler. There are no fixed rules, and it depends on the subject matter, the key point being relevance. In general, the images I am adding are not "random gallery" at all: they are properly commented upon in captions, and usually sourced, and are very valuable in their own right. Of course, we can discuss about the relevance of any given image, that's what Talk pages are for... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

But you are indeed adding images that are not relevant, and often shoehorning it a that, something you were criticized for at Talk:Badr al-Din Lu'lu' and which the numerous diffs demonstrate. That is what this whole report is about - when you have been doing this for literal years, that's when the talk page is no longer of use and ANI is the place to go. And Central Asian art is a poor example, it's an article about art.. of course images are more relevant there, and this is ultimately about your bad edits, not good ones - so please address those. I'm glad you got a barnstar, but this is not what's being discussed here. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

These objects are what makes Badr al-Din Lu'lu' remarkable as a ruler.

Unless you have citations to back that up, this is WP:OR. Simply put, we don't need this many images on an article, especially an article that has little textual information about this ruler (which might be an argument for deletion or merge). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Artistic creation was indeed a central part of Badr al-Din Lu'lu''s rule, see: "Another notable figure is Badr al-Din Lu'lu (d. 1259), a ruler of Mosul who was recognized for his patronage of the arts." in Evans, Helen C. (22 September 2018). Armenia: Art, Religion, and Trade in the Middle Ages. Metropolitan Museum of Art. p. 122. ISBN 978-1-58839-660-0. or "Badr al - Din Lulu ( 1210-59 ), first as vizier of the last Zengids and then as an independent ruler, brought stability to the city, and the arts flourished. Badr al-Din Lulu himself actively supported the inlaid metalwork industry in his capital." in Ward, Rachel (1993). Islamic Metalwork. British Museum Press. p. 90. ISBN 978-0-7141-1458-3. To be complete, an article about Badr al-Din Lu'lu' indeed has to be in great part about art, except if you want to create an article such as "Art of Mosul under Badr al-Din Lu'lu', but I would tend to think this is unnecessary, as long as we can describe his artistic contributions in sufficient detail in the main article. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for a ruler to be a patron of arts, doesn't mean that their article have to become a Commons article. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I have some recent diffs to add to HistoryofIran's list. Pataliputra is adding original research on several Armenian churches articles, claiming that they contain "muqarnas" and Seljuk/Islamic influence without a reliable source verifying that.

[352] used the website "VirtualAni" as a source, which the user themselves claims is unreliable And this entire section the user added is not even supported by VirtualAni, it's entirely original research.

[353] adding "muqarnas" to an image without citation.

[354] Created this article and the first image is not even an image of the church itself (see the Russian wiki image for comparison), it's just one of the halls (incorrently called "entrance" so more original research), again called seljuk "muqarnas". He also separated sections to "old Armenian church" and "Seljuk gavir" as if all of it isn't part of the church itself. The church was never converted or anything to have a separate "seljuk gavit" and "old Armenian church" section, and the lead has POV undue claim as last sentence.

[355] Created another Armenian church article where most of the content is not about the church and mostly consists of a large paragraph copied from Muqarnas article. None of the sources even mention the Astvatsankal Monastery, it is entirely original research.

[356] Again adding "muqarnas" to an image with "VirtualAni" as the source

[357] Another new section entirely copied from the Muqarnas article that doesn't even mention the church in question

[358] Another created article with original research added to images and "VirtualAni" added as a source KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Like it or not, and I'm sorry if I hurt some Armenian sensitivities, the presence of Islamic decorative elements in Armenian architecture is a well-known and ubiquitous phenomenon, including, yes the famous muqarnas (an Arabic term by the way...). You could start by reading for example:

• Guidetti, Mattia (2017). "7 - The 'Islamicness' of Some Decorative Patterns in the Church of Tigran Honents in Ani". Architecture and landscape in medieval Anatolia, 1100-1500. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. pp. 170–177. ISBN 9781474411301.
• Blessing, Patricia (8 March 2017). Architecture and Landscape in Medieval Anatolia, 1100-1500. Edinburgh University Press. p. 159. ISBN 978-1-4744-1130-1.
• Ghazarian, Armen; Ousterhout, Robert (2001). "A Muqarnas Drawing from Thirteenth-Century Armenia and the Use of Architectural Drawings during the Middle Ages". Muqarnas. 18: 141–154. doi:10.2307/1523305. ISSN 0732-2992.
• Maranci, Christina (14 September 2018). The Art of Armenia: An Introduction. Oxford University Press. p. 135. ISBN 978-0-19-026901-2.
• Eastmond, Antony (1 January 2017). Tamta's World: The Life and Encounters of a Medieval Noblewoman from the Middle East to Mongolia. Cambridge University Press. p. 297. doi:10.1017/9781316711774.011. The most obvious architectural form that was adopted in Armenian churches was the muqarnas vault. A fine example is the complex muqarnas that was used to build up the central vault of the zhamatun at Harichavank, which was added to the main church in the monastery by 1219. The origin of this type of vaulting clearly comes from Islamic sources, but it is used very differently here.

Despite the numerous articles on Armenian churches in general, I was surprised that there were no articles on such major and significant sites as Church of the Holy Apostles (Ani), or St Gregory of Tigran Honents, so I tried to bring them out of oblivion. I am sure there are things to improve, and you are welcome to help. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 07:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

What does this have to do with KhndzorUtoghs diffs? If you have WP:RS, by all means, use them. But you didn't do it in those diffs, which is a problem. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I've been trying to bring forward some information about some interesting but little known Armenian churches such as the Bagnayr Monastery, the Church of the Holy Apostles (Ani) or Astvatsankal Monastery. At first, it seemed that Virtual ANI was about the only source on some aspects of these churches. Although it is not strictly RS, Virtual ANI turned out to be a fairly good source of information, and is also used as a source by institutions such as UCLA's Promise Armenian Institute. I agree it's not ideal though, it was more a way to start up these articles as I was researching them in the first few days, which I should probably have done in a Sandbox instead. I have since replaced the references with proper WP:RS sources, which, to be fair, have all confirmed the information initially obtained from Virtual ANI. In general, the existence of Seljuk influences on Armenian art is a well-known fact, including muqarnas etc... and is referenced per the above, among a multitude of other sources. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

You should have started out with something like this comment, rather than ignoring KhndzorUtogh diffs and attacking them, not until after you've been criticized further. Moreover, Virtual ANI is still being used in some of the articles [359] [360]. Whether it's a well known fact or not is irrelevant, we still need to cite WP:RS, you should know this by now, you've been here for years. HistoryofIran (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I have not added a single "Virtual ANI" reference to the Ani article since the time I first started editing this article 3 months ago: the dozens of Virtual Ani references in the article have been there for years (including when you yourself edited the article) and were added by different users. As for Church of the Holy Apostles (Ani), I removed the two remaining references I had added [361]. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

That's my bad regarding Ani then, should have checked it more properly (see? I immediately apologized for my mistake. I didn't ignore it, double down or started attacking you). And thanks for removing the last Virtual Ani citations. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I'm afraid Pataliputra has probably made tons of these type of edits and got away with them, since there are not that many people who are well-versed in the articles they edit or look fully into their additions since they initially appear ok. Now that you've brought this up, I might as well talk about the other disruptive conducts by Pataliputra, especially since they're ignoring this report and their conduct.

I have encountered a lot of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and even WP:NPOV, WP:NPOV and WP:CIR issues from Pataliputra. For example at Saka in 2023, Pataliputra engaged in WP:SYNTH/WP:OR/WP:TENDENTIOUS, completely disregarding the academic consensus on the ethnicity of the Saka and the differing results on their genetics, bizarrely attempting to push the POV that DNA equals ethnicity and trying to override the article with the DNA info they considered to be "mainstream" without any proof [362] [363]. Or at Talk:Sultanate of Rum, where they engaged in pure WP:SYNTH/WP:OR, and initially didn't even bother to look into what the main subject "Turco-Persian" meant, mainly basing their argument on a flawed interpretation of its meaning (for more info, see my comment at [364]) until they finally read its meaning but continued to engage in WP:SYNTH/WP:OR to push their POV. Another veteran used also mentioned that they engaged in WP:SYNTH here recently [365]. There's also this comment where they again were called out for WP:OR by yet another veteran user in 2023 [366]. There's also this ANI thread from 2022, Pataliputra "has a long history of 1. original research, spamming both image and text across hundreds of Wikipedia articles..". Mind you, these are not new users or IPs calling Pataliputra out, but users who have been consistently active for years. I'm sure I can dig out even more diffs if need be. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• I don't have much time, so I will just note that while I have previously thought Pataliputra needs to cool it with the images, they are—let's be honest—about as biased as any of us in the minefield of Central/West/South Asian topics. I would oppose any sanction that goes further than restrictions on image-adding. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  A restriction for image-adding was what I initially would support too. However, with Pataliputra's evasion of the evidence presented here, I support harsher restrictions. Otherwise, they will no doubt continue with their conduct, as they have already done for years. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  I honestly don't see much evidence presented. Diffs like [367] and [368] are nothingburgers, not worth escalating to demanding a broad topic ban. The brouhaha about Talk:India has no relevance to the proposed ban on Central Asian/Turkic topics. Pataliputra and I often don't get along, but this is too far. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  AirshipJungleman29, the reason I put a DNAU in several days is to avoid the thread getting suddenly archived by either lack of comments or the DNAU suddenly expiring. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  @AirshipJungleman29 Can you please show what supports this claim? [369] The proposal is ongoing, and current agreement seems to be a least an image restriction. Pataliputra shouldn't just be able to get away with whatever they want. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  HistoryofIran at the top of this page it says "Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III." It is not your responsibility to clerk this page on behalf of the administrators by altering this intended feature of how ANI functions, whether or not you feel Pataliputra is "getting away with what they want". Although this discussion has been open for over a month now and is the oldest discussion at this page by a margin of two weeks, the proposal has only attracted five !votes in a week, and none for three days. I request that if you feel a DNAU is needed, you ask an administrator to add it for you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  This is not convincing. I can name you countless threads which have led to the block (often indef) of someone thanks to a DNAU. If not for that, they would still be roaming around, doing their disruptive editing, and thus hurting this project. Some threads take longer than others to reach a conclusion, especially if they are longer. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  A good example is this recent case. First report auto-archived [370], which led to more disruption, which made me file a second report [371], which would have gotten auto-archived too if not for the DNAU. The user ended up getting indeffed. I fail to see how Pataliputra's case should be treated differently, especially when we have proof that they have been doing this for years. Also, only a few months ago you yourself mentioned that Pataliputra had engaged in WP:OR [372] HistoryofIran (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  Also, there is evidence of years of WP:OR and image spamming, as well as repeated WP:ASPERSIONS in this thread. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Does Pataliputra's personal attack ("hurt some Armenian sensitivities") merit a sanction on its own? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no personal attack intended. I am quite a fan of Armenian culture (I recently built up Zakarid Armenia from a 15k to a 90k article, created Proshyan dynasty, and revamped several of the Armenian Monasteries articles, which for the most part were completely unreferenced). But your comments above seemed to reflect a strong antipathy towards any suggestion of Seljuk/Islamic influences on Armenian art (the ubiquitous muqarnas etc...). I know this is a sensitive matter, but it shouldn't be: in my view this is more a proof that cultures can collaborate and exchange in peaceful and beautiful ways. I think I have also improved significantly the sourcing since you made your last comments. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

It definitely reads like a personal attack and I encourage you to retract that comment. Northern Moonlight 00:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment retracted, and apologies if anyone felt offended. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Pataliputra replied about their casting WP:ASPERSIONS personal attack with casting aspersions yet again ("your comments above seemed to reflect a strong antipathy towards any suggestion of Seljuk/Islamic influences"). This user seems to have a history of making xenophobic comments and pestering and harassing other users, having been warned previously. Some past examples:

• "An actual Indian"
• "The 'Society' paragraph is illustrated by a Muslim in prayer in an old mosque in Srinagar... is this really emblematic of today's Indian society?"
• "Why has the unique photograph in the religion paragraph have to be a photograph of a Christian church??... is this really representative of religion in India? Again, this is highly WP:Undue and border provocative for a majority Hindu country"

Pataliputra was also warned by an admin to drop this argument because the images weren't undue. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I suspect any user like me with 7 years and about 70,000 edits on this site will encounter some conflictual situation at some point... your so-called "history of ... pestering and harassing other users" refers to a single event back from 2017, and was a defensive statement by a notoriously difficult user who has long left the site... My request for an "An actual Indian" for an illustration on the India page dated back to 2020 and was in reaction to an underage American kid wearing an Indian garment being used as an illustration in that article. In the end, that image was removed from the article by the very same Admin you mention, so I guess I was not all that wrong. And yes, I'm suspicious of users who seem to deny the existence of foreign influences in their art or culture, and will tend to denounce this as bigotted behaviour. And if I think an image is undue in the context of a specific article or paragraph, I will also call that out, as most of us should. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

And if I think an image is undue in the context of a specific article or paragraph, I will also call that out, as most of us should.

...Except when it's an image uploaded by you per the diffs. I just had to do more clean up [373].

And yes, I'm suspicious of users who seem to deny the existence of foreign influences in their art or culture, and will tend to denounce this as bigotted behaviour.

Which you just attempted here against KhndzorUtogh (who merely called you out for obvious WP:OR) and it backfired. Be mindful of WP:GF and WP:ASPERSIONS. HistoryofIran (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'll have to call into question what you call "clean up"... [374]: you are replacing contemporary images of actual Seljuk rulers by an image of a tomb, which would better fit in the page of an individual ruler, and worse, an anachronistic (15th century) French miniature with not an ounce of verisimilitude to the actual Seljuks. These are not improvements. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Beggars can't be choosers, you very well know that contemporary images for specific events are hard to find for this period. At least they're related to the topic, which is what matters. You (amongst other things) added the image of the last Seljuk ruler to the section of the first Seljuk ruler for crying out loud (which I replaced with the tomb of the first Seljuk ruler, be my guest if you can find a better and actual relevant image). And all those images I removed were conveniently uploaded by you. Your reply further proves that your edits in terms of image adding are not constructive. You should read MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE; "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals. However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting." HistoryofIran (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

"I'm suspicious of users who seem to deny the existence of foreign influences in their art or culture" It is amazing how you continue casting aspersions in every new comment explaining/apologizing for the former incident of casting aspersions. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• I would certainly support a restriction on any image-adding; the apparent aspersions being cast freely and OR (or at least uncited) edits lead me to come very close to supporting a stronger restriction, but if i AFG i hope/guess/think that a smaller restiction will help him realise the inappropriateness of some of his actions and edit more appropriately. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 14:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• I think Pataliputra better be topic-banned from Central Asian, Iranic, and Turkic topics. Or even more topics based on provided diffs; e.g. Armenian and Caucasus. There are similar edits to his edits on Saka. For example, on Kushan Empire, Puduḫepa removed Pataliputra's addition,[375] then Pataliputra restored his edit with a simple edit summary;[376] ignoring Puduḫepa's concern and the content of article. Pataliputra's edits led to Talk:Kushan Empire/Archive 2#UNDUE and speculative content. If you read the discussion, you see there were more questionable edits by him. Another example is Ghurid dynasty. Original research and unsourced edit[377] which was reverted[378] by HistoryofIran. Pataliputra has good edits for sure, but in this case he needs 6-month to 1-year vacation. --Mann Mann (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• You will note that I have long been one of the main contributors to the Kushan Empire article. When an unknown user comes around and deletes referenced material, we usually immediately restore the material. If disagreements persist, we naturally continue on the Talk Page. In this case, we agreed to leave aside the Turkic hypothesis (mainly stemming from the Rajatarangini account describing the Kushans as Turushka (तुरुष्क)) since the modern sources were weak.
• The fact that the Turkic language was in use in the Ghurid dynasty and the succeeding Delhi Sultanate is neither original research nor unsourced (you will find more references in the body of the article). We removed it from the infobox because, arguably, it was mainly a military phenomenon, but it was in extensive use nonetheless. Please see Eaton, Richard M. (2019). India in the Persianate Age: 1000-1765. Allen Lane. pp. 48-49. ISBN 978-0713995824.:

"What did the contours of the Delhi sultanate’s society in the thirteenth century look like? Contemporary Persian chronicles present a simple picture of a monolithic ruling class of ‘Muslims’ superimposed over an equally monolithic subject class of ‘Hindus’. But a closer reading of these same sources, together with Sanskrit ones and material culture, suggests a more textured picture. First, the ruling class was far from monolithic. The ethnicity of Turkish slaves, the earliest generation of whom dated to the Ghurid invasions of India, survived well into the thirteenth century. For a time, even Persian-speaking secretaries had to master Turkish in order to function. There persisted, moreover, deep cultural tensions between native Persian-speakers – whether from Iran, Khurasan or Central Asia – and ethnic Turks. (...) Such animosities were amplified by the asymmetrical power relations between ethnic Turks and Persians, often depicted in the literature as ‘men of the sword’ and ‘men of the pen’ respectively."

पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 07:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a rather distorted version of what truly happened at Talk:Kushan Empire. Just checked that discussion - you were using poor sources, just like how you are doing today. You only agreed to not keep it only after you were called by several users several times. As for the Ghurids; that quote does still not justify that you added unsourced information back then (it's honestly quite baffling you can't see this, we've LITERALLY just been through this in regards to the diffs posted by KhndzorUtogh, just don't add unsourced info, it's really simple). And I'm not sure what you're trying to demonstrate by that quote, this still doesn't prove that Turkic had an administrative role military wise, it merely demonstrates that Persian secretaries had to learn Turkic to cooperate with the Turkic slaves, who also formed a ruling class. In other words, you are engaging in WP:OR/WP:SYNTH again - I also support a topic-ban from Central Asian, Iranic, and Turkic topics. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

This is again a mis-representation: this fact about the usage of the Turkish language in India was actually already sourced from Eaton in the Ghurid dynasty article ("Culture" paragraph [379]), and per Wikipedia:Manual of Style "References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere" [380]. As for the role of the Turkish language in the Ghurid dynasty and the Delhi Sultanate, this was more I believe a matter of Persian secretaries having to learn Turkish in order to communicate better with their Turkic rulers. For example:

"Fakhr-i Mudabbir's remarks draw our attention to the linguistic and cultural distance between the lords and the members of the realm they governed, so much so that Persian-speaking secretaries -"the grandees of the highest pedigree"- had to master a "foreign" language to function as their subordinates. (...) So remarks like those of Madabbir refer to the advantages that knowledge of the Turkish language conferred upon a Persian subordinate in the service of the Delhi Sultanate."

— Chatterjee, Indrani; Eaton, Richard M. (12 October 2006). Slavery and South Asian History. Indiana University Press. pp. 86–87. ISBN 978-0-253-11671-0.

पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

...Except Turkic being an administrative language military wise is not sourced in the culture section, so the one doing the misrepresentation is still you. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, "Turkic being an administrative language military wise" is your own expression, and is a bit too specific. My only claim (if my memory serves me) was that Turkic was one of the current languages of the Ghurids, especially among the military [381] ("men of the sword", and later among the ruling elite of the Delhi Sultanate), which is exactly what Eaton says throughout (the two sources above, among many others available). On the contrary your blanking and edit summary [382] seems to deny any role for Turkic, and misrepresents Persian as being the only language around, which goes against academic sources. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

That's literally what I said even back then along with more; "While the military was seemingly mostly Turkic by the late Ghurid period, that doesn't seem to have been the case in the early and if not mid Ghurid times. Regardless, that doesn't mean that Turkic had any role/status military wise.". So where is the part where I'm denying any role for Turkic and saying Persian is the only language? More WP:ASPERSIONS, you clearly didn't learn from your experience just with KhndzorUtogh (also, this is not the first time you have made WP:ASPERSIONS against me, eg [383]). Turkic slave soldiers speaking Turkic (shock!) means that that the language had a status in the Ghurid system? With your WP:SYNTH logic, we should starting adding "Turkic" to the infobox of about every medieval Middle Eastern dynasty (including the Abbasid Caliphate) due to the popularity and power of Turkic slaves, perhaps "North Germanic" to the Byzantine Empire due to the Varangian Guard, Persian to the Abbasid Caliphate due to their Persian bureaucracy and so on. I'll try to avoid to responding too much to your comments, I feel like there is more than enough evidence to warrant a topic ban. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: An IP, 105.113.71.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), just blanked this discussion. Unsure if it's the subject or unrelated. — Czello ^(music) 07:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)

The diffs provided above show that Pataliputra has repeatedly made original research and synthesis edits, and made personal attacks and casting aspersions even after being told to stop doing so. Multiple users have acknowledged the need for a topic ban and/or other sanctions. I propose a 6-month to 1-year topic ban for पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) from Central Asian, Iranic, Turkic, Armenian, and Caucasus articles and a restriction on any image-adding. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose a general topic ban as the evidence provided has been weak. Would support a restriction on image-adding, however. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support I was reflecting if I was being too harsh here. But then I once again realized, Pataliputra has engaged in WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and image spamming for YEARS. And when they try to justify/ignore it here and even resort to several WP:ASPERSIONS, that makes it hard to have WP:GF. If nothing happens, I think they will continue with this. I don't mind if the topic ban is less severe/decreased to less topics, but I don't think a image adding restriction alone will be enough. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose TBAN, support restriction on adding images to articles, trout for WP:OR issues. As someone uninvolved who doesn't edit in this topic area, I see a relatively prolific editor with bad habits. If they don't stop adding OR to articles about churches further action should be taken, but I don't think there's enough here to merit a complete TBAN. There is more than enough evidence to show that they do not have good judgement on adding images though. BrigadierG (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support per my above comment and provided evidences. Pataliputra was blocked for sockpuppetry in December 2017 and unblocked in June 2018.[384] Now they have a clean record and they just use their main account. So again, 6-month or 1-year topic ban could be helpful. Another point is their comments prove they think their edits were 100% OK. When a user refuses to accept his/her mistakes, then it is time for topic ban or block. Final warning or ultimatum does not work for cases like this especially since Pataliputra doing such stuff for years. They can edit other topics/articles and then appeal for unban after 6-month or 1-year. As for images, a strict restriction is necessary. --Mann Mann (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban as the first solution, or the image-adding restriction if the topic ban fails to get enough traction. This has gone on long enough & Pataliputra needs to start taking criticism of their edits on board. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support (1 year) Uninvolved editor here. Have been following this for a while. A TBAN looks appropriate. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I guess the image restriction could be not to add more than 2 image per article? And that they have to be actually relevant and not shoehorned? (which goes without saying). HistoryofIran (talk) 08:15, 12 May 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.

Antisemitism and vandalism

59.103.30.107 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

His/her first edit was vandalism, his/her second edit was a violation of WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAPBOX, the rest of his/her edits were blatantly anti-Semitic. Ban him/her and delete his/her records. Parham wiki (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a WP:NOTHERE to me.CycoMa1 (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The IP seems to have wandered off. I will block them if they pull similar stunts again. Cullen328 (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Promotion by Ginigangadharan

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.

---

Ginigangadharan (talk, contribs) is a promotion-only account that has edited since 2011. Their userpage reveals their identity and that they are promoting their book Ansible for Real Life Automation and their website techbeatly.com. It also explicitly declares their COI relating to their website. They have created promotion-only pages such as Wikipedia:Articles for creation/colorvibes studio and Draft:Techbeatly, which have been deleted. Edits like [385] reveal that they are spamming pages with unrelated external links to their products' websites. Their talk page also shows that they have committed copyright violations. Administrators, please review this case and block if warranted. Air on White (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

IMO, I don't think Ginigangadharan is here to build an Encyclopedia. The numerous recreation of book which they wrote and their website (YouTube) link which they have created as well but got deleted. Looking at the contributions, it is clear to all eyes that it is one minor edit to the user page or the other. If much isn't found, promotion of person is literally against Wikipedia's policy especially when they keep recreating such. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Looking through deleted contribs, these are all extremely bad. Here is Colorvibes studio:

Colorvibes

colorvibes studio is a web service company which is based at Kerala. Colorvibes Studio is formed to provide end users to migrate their activities /business to a next level by providing promo in new ways including web, visualmedia, printmedia etc. History colorvibes is based in Kerala, India. colorvibes studio was planned and founded by a group of creative people in the various field of visualmedia and web. We are providing services and support in various design fields as listed.

Techbeatly (all refs are to the company's own site)

techbeatly techbeatly is a community-based platform for IT professionals offering educational resources like articles, how-to guides, and videos on various IT specializations (https://www.techbeatly.com/). History techbeatly originated as a private knowledge-sharing channel for founder Gineesh Madapparambath. to share personal notes and technical documents with fellow IT professionals. To reach a wider audience and simplify content distribution, techbeatly transitioned to a public website. Due to branding and an expanding readership, the platform migrated to its current domain, techbeatly.com. Mission techbeatly's mission is to empower IT professionals through knowledge sharing. They achieve this by: Providing educational resources like articles, how-to guides, and videos. Encouraging reader engagement through comments, questions, and contributions. Offering opportunities for passionate individuals to join their editorial team. Content and User Engagement techbeatly offers a variety of content formats including articles, how-to guides, and videos. The platform fosters user engagement through comments, a contact page, and chat groups. Additionally, techbeatly welcomes contributions from aspiring authors passionate about sharing their IT knowledge. Contact and Additional Information For inquiries or feedback, users can reach techbeatly via comments, email, or their chat groups Editorial Team How to Become an Author Privacy Policy Comment Policy Affiliate Policy Advertisements Disclaimer techbeatly emphasizes that all content on their platform is based on the author's knowledge and experience. Users are advised to consult official documentation before implementing any method in a production environment.

Model Polytechnic College, Vadakara

=== The Model Polytechnic College,Vadakara === is the brain child of institute of Human Resources Development ( I H R D ) established by the Govt. of Kerala in the year 1988,whose main objective is to function as a catalyst to foster the growth of electronics ,computer and specialized fields such as Medical Electronics throw a plethora of innovative endeavors. The Polytechnic College offers three year Diploma course in applied electronics, Computer hardware maintenance and Medical Electronics,the courses being recognized by the PSC.The institution has been accredited by the National Board of Accreditation (NBA) of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) New Delhi. Courses Offered 3 Year Diploma in Computer Hardware Maintenance  : (40 Seats) Medical Electronics : (40 Seats) Applied Electronics : (40 Seats) Other Details Year of Establishment : 1988 Other IHRD Cours : PGDCA, DDT & PM Place Nearest Airport : Kozhikode - 60 KM Nearest Railway station : Vadakara - 1 KM. Nearest Bus Station : Vadakara - 1 KM Contact Information The Principal Model Polytechnic College, Nut Street, Vadakara, Kozhikode Dist. mptvadakara.ihrd.ac.in mptvadakara@ihrd.ac.in http://www.ihrd.ac.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11:model-polytechnic-college-vadakara&catid=28:polytechnic-colleges&Itemid=48

These all seem like UPE to me. jp×g🗯️ 21:59, 12 May 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.

Cheetomalik4

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.

---

Cheetomalik4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm concerned with some of the actions of User:Cheetomalik4. For starters, they recently created this userbox, which an early consensus at its MfD seems to agree is a violation of WP:CIV. Moreover, Cheetomalik4 seems to be struggling with some of the content policies, a quick look at their talk page shows numerous articles created this month which have been deleted or will likely be shortly at AfD. These include:

• Caps (rapper) (currently at AfD)
• Nisar Ahmed (politician) (currently at AfD)
• Frenzo Harami (G4'd)
• Masjid Eid Gah (currently at AfD)
• SadaPay (G11'd)
• File:Jamia Baitussalam.jpg (F5 eligible)
• Category:Non-denominational (at CfD)

All of the example from XfD currently have unanimous !votes for deletion. Of Cheetomalik4's articles not going through a deletion process, they're of very questionable quality. See here or here for examples. These examples are just from this month, if you look further up the talk page you can see many more articles deleted or draftifyed recently.

I think that the civility issue may need to be addressed, but Cheetomalik4's ability to create pages is currently a net negative for the community, and is worth evaluating here. I would support a temporary ban from creating new pages. Bestagon ⬡ 01:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Description of the userbox
TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION: A userbox, using the {{userbox}} template, featuring Image:Anti LGBT.png at a sixty-pixel width, the text "This user Hate LGBT", and the user category Wikipedians Hate in LGBT issues.

I have speedy-deleted this userbox as worthless, inflammatory garbage. I haven't been able to thoroughly investigate whether the user made it earnestly, or as a satire of prejudice, or as an inarticulate way of expressing some other sentiment, but taken at face value, it is bigoted trash, and for that reason I don't think we need to have it on Wikipedia at all. jp×g🗯️ 01:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

it is bigoted trash, and for that reason I don't think we need to have it on Wikipedia at all. Totally agree, so let's remove it from this thread as well, shall we. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The userbox is trash, but I really don't think we need to bowdlerize the words "This user Hate LGBT". Especially not out of a discussion that's specifically about whether a editor who wrote them in a userbox should face disciplinary action for doing so. If we are going to censure certain kinds of behavior, the absolute minimum is that we know what the behavior is. jp×g🗯️ 06:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I understand, was just letting you know that I am offended by it, and it shouldn't be displayed on a high-traffic noticeboard. As for disciplinary action, it appears to me they should have already been sanctioned for that, because in my view, if they hate me and other LGBT editors, they certainly wouldn't be able to collaborate productively with those of us who self-identify as LGBT editors. Anyway, that's my 2¢, and I will certainly try to avoid this editor, now that I know what they stand for. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

If it wasn't already obvious what it was going to say from the template's title, its content can also be seen in the page deletion log. While it was no doubt put here in good faith, I agree it's unnecessary to reproduce it on this page, and it should not receive a permanent place in the ANI archives. A further (unintended) side effect is the source is now quite easy to obtain and copy from your comment. While it might be trivial to make an infobox, the people who spread this kind of hate onwiki tends to overlap with the people who have CIR problems. Please reconsider leaving it here. Local Variable (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure what you're talking about (there was never an infobox in this discussion). At any rate, the {{userbox}} template has an information page attached to it that clearly explains how to type text into the param, so I don't think that a user trying to make a custom userbox will figure out how to go through unindexed ANI archives and not figure out how to read the userbox template. jp×g🗯️ 17:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG, I also ask that you please remove the userbox in question from this board - it doesn't need to be displayed here. The bright image is eye-catching and then a source of distress for at least a few editors, and we have the wording preserved in text format (which doesn't jump out at you the way the rainbow does) if that's needed in the future. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

For the record, the image in question was literally a rainbow-colored rectangle (i.e. the pride flag) with a "x" over it, which I have now enclosed in two nested collapse templates. I am somewhat concerned about the usability of the administrators' noticeboard if we are required to make decisions on sanctioning people's behavior without being allowed to mention what the behavior was; there are quite a number of user conduct issues that involve repugnant imagery and statements. jp×g🗯️ 17:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I feel that your textual description of the offensive matter should itself be encapsulated in a protective collapse box warning our colleagues that a description of something offensive is contained within. Then that collapse box should be wrapped in another collapse box not mentioning that there's something offensive inside, since some editors may be triggered by the mere knowledge of the existence of unpleasant things. EEng 17:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your smart-ass comment. I would ask you to strike that comment, but that would be pointless, since your snark and ill-advised attempts at comedic relief at this noticeboard are generally accepted and sometimes applauded by a select few who think it's cute.

And FYI, I am fully aware of the existence of unpleasant things, having experienced those unpleasant things in real life. And I always thought that when those unpleasant things reared their ugly head here at WP, like an editor who openly admits they hate the LGBT community, that kind of hate would warrant swift and decisive action from administrators, but apparently I was wrong about that. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I too am fully aware of the existence of unpleasant things, having experienced those unpleasant things in real life as well. And I think swift and decisive action is warranted. But I also think (a) that the mature adults gathered here should be fully informed about exactly what it is action is being taken on, and (b) that the psyches of mature adults, if they indeed are such, can withstand (and even be strengthened) by being so informed. EEng 23:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I also object to the two nested collapsible templates. I know you don't care, but I'm voicing my opposition anyway. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

So we agree on something. EEng 23:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

For non-admins who lack the benefit of viewdeleted, I took a look at one of these articles. We all sometimes have to take the L on creating articles which later get deleted, but SadaPay was quite bad to the point of looking like UPE:

SadaPay, a Pakistan-based financial technology company, is revolutionizing the way people manage their money. Their user-friendly mobile app allows for quick and secure money transfers, bill payments, mobile top-ups, and online shopping via a virtual debit card – all without the hassle of traditional banking methods. SadaPay prioritizes user security with PCI DSS compliant systems and strict regulations, making it a trustworthy option for a seamless financial experience. Learn more about SadaPay and download the app to unlock a simpler way to manage your finances

The only ref is this: Siddiqui, Arslan (2023-01-26). "Everything You Need to Know About SadaPay". Graana.com. Retrieved 2024-05-01. jp×g🗯️ 01:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I've reviewed this user's contributions and agree with the OP that they're more of a burden than a benefit to Wikipedia. Their creations require a lot of maintenance from other editors, who then have to assess and AFD them. It's clear that the time spent managing this user's creations could be used more productively elsewhere. Implementing a ban on creating articles would be a constructive starting point. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I've done the same, and good grief: this is a terrible record for a short time. I'd certainly back a tban on new article creation at the least. Absolutely a WP:CIR issue. Ravenswing 02:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Cheetomalik4 is aware of this ANI report, yet appears to have chosen not to reply here. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I am prepared to indef if there's consensus for it. jp×g🗯️ 18:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I would support an indef. GiantSnowman 18:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll also back indef since their efforts don't add up to a positive contribution for Wikipedia. One less problematic editor to deal with. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Article creation ban proposal

Now that there's a consensus above that Cheetomalik4's article creation has been inappropriate (indeed, since this ANI report was created there have been more), I propose that Cheetomalik4 is indefinitely prohibited from creating articles in the mainspace, including moving articles into the mainspace. Cheetomalik4 may use the AfC process and may appeal this ban after 6 months. Bestagon ⬡ 17:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Bestagon ⬡ 17:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support - best for the project. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as proposed, indef instead - the hate user box is enough for an indef imho. GiantSnowman 17:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support any option - At the minimum article creation ban, fine with indef. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support after seeing the original state of both SadaPay (quoted above by JPxG) and Caps (rapper), linked at top of the thread: heavily promotional copyvio. We do not need more of the same. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support: Ravenswing 21:14, 12 May 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.

Indefinite block or topic ban for User:MidAtlanticBaby

I've been noticing that MidAtlanticBaby has been making some edits that many users have considered to be disruptive. Today, when I was browsing around Wikipedia, I noticed their talk page, and saw that they were engaged in a discussion with Magnolia677. Magnolia had been warning them about not making an edit about "West Central Florida" (This is the discussion). After Magnolia had told them that they made 760 edits and had their talk page littered with warnings, this user responded rudely by telling her to watch their fucking tone and who the fuck are they talking to. I scrolled through their talk page and noticed that they indeed did have a lot of warnings on the page. In fact, on April 20, Drmies had given them a 31 hour block for edit warring, which I assume they had also been doing. With that, I propose that either an indefinite block or topic ban (which should also be indefinite) be given on this user. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinite block as proposer. This user seems to not respond politely to constructive criticism and I feel like they aren't learning from their mistakes. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

MidAtlanticBay has blanked their page and "retired". They have made 78 edits in the last 24 hours, many of them unnecessary and/or disruptive. I think most, if not all, of those edits should be reverted, although I will look at each one before I do so. In the meantime, I have blocked them for 24 hours for disruption. Donald Albury 23:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure. That's perfectly fine. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

If this editor returns with any similar profane insulting diatribes, the next block will be dramatically longer than 24 hours, if I have anything to say about it. Cullen328 (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree. I considered an indef as NOTHERE, but, while some of their earlier edits were problematic, their behavior had not risen to a blockable level until yesterday. Maybe they can return and contribute constructively, but the rope will be short. Donald Albury 12:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Ekdalian

hello. This @Ekdalian user is removing reliable sources content from the Yaduvanshi Aheer article and vandalizing in the article. Please check the article and improve it as per the sources. And please take action against @Ekdalian who are suppressing new Wikipedia users. Hcsrctu (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I would be glad if someone reviews my edits. I have been fighting against caste promotion and POV pushing by SPAs and caste warriors for more than 10 years here. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

If information has been added as per reliable sources, so what is the reason for removing it? Hcsrctu (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Hcsrctu you should be very careful about accusing someone of vandalism - that can be interpreted as a personal attack, which is not permitted and your account may end up being blocked it it's repeated. That said, calling someone a cast warrior without presenting evidence to that effect is not exactly civil either. The article's talk page is at Talk:Yaduvanshi Aheer: that is the place to discuss content and sourcing. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: this user @Ekdalian Belongs to Kayastha caste and he only promotes his own caste and hates other Indian castes especially the backward castes. Please check the article Yaduvanshi Aheer. he removed reliable/sources information. Hcsrctu (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

You are on thin ice here. Please explain what evidence you have to support the notion that Ekdalian hates other Indian castes. All I see is someone removing content that they do not think belongs in the article. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Assumption of my caste and another personal attack may result in block! Anyone can check my edits and the article talk page comments! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, if it isn't clear enough on the top of the page, When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 12:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The user has edited the article talk page, but couldn't respond here; accusing me without any evidence and personal attacks are not acceptable at all! I would like to request Girth Summit / other admins active here to take appropriate action (could be a warning as well) against this user. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Boomerang topic ban proposal for User:Hcsrctu

My first interaction with @Hcsrctu: was at Kalachuri Era(redirect) which they redirected to Abhira Era without consensus.[386] ,my second encounter with them was at Graharipu , where they engaged in an edit war with 3 different editors(incl. an admin) to restore their preferred version[387] then proceeding to report me to an admin @Bishonen: [388] without discussing on the talkpage first. From this thread , it seems their behavioural pattern of engaging in disruption and then trying to file frivolous reports against editors hasn't stopped yet despite me warning them to be more cautious on how they conduct themselves in this topic area[389]. I believe a topic ban from caste related topics is due at this point to minimise the disruption. Therefore I'm making this formal topic ban proposal. Pinging the subject of this thread @Ekdalian:.Ratnahastin (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin: Perhaps you do not know that Abhira era and Kalachuri era are the same. Later Abhira era was called Kalachuri era. And the user whose edit you reverted has been already blocked. And I reverted the edit to the Graharipu article because its sources support it. And I debated with @Ekdalian on some issue, that issue has been resolved, still I apologize to @Ekdalian and I will not make such mistakes in future. Hcsrctu (talk) 07:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

They're back,this time adding POV caste promotional content using archaic sources here.Ratnahastin (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I have already expressed my opinion in the above section, 'Ekdalian'! Personal attacks are not acceptable, especially such serious allegations. Would request the admins to take appropriate call regarding the user. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey Ratnahastin, the user Hcsrctu has been engaged in tendentious editing so far, and I sincerely believe that appropriate action should be taken against this user as per WP:GSCASTE! Moreover personal attacks against a fellow editor in the above section 'Ekdalian' are not acceptable at all, where the user is accusing me that I am "vandalizing" the article on Yaduvanshi Aheer (all experienced editors have supported me on the article talk page & the article has been reverted to the last version by Sitush); even the user Hcsrctu assumed my caste (considering my contributions) and mentioned above that "he only promotes his own caste and hates other Indian castes especially the backward castes", which is a serious offence to say the least. Ratnahastin, you may report this at WP:AE, and I shall support you, though I would like to get this resolved here itself! Pinging admins.. @Bishonen, Newslinger, Doug Weller, RegentsPark, and Bbb23: please have a look at their talk page warnings along with edit warring tendencies, and note that almost all their caste related edits have been reverted by some experienced editor or the other; would request you to take necessary action! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support This seems like pretty cut and dry disruptive behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump Conduct

Hello, I was trying to help find sources for an article about Herschel Weingrod, and was asking the community for help to find sources. I asked somebody if they believed some sources were okay, and he replied "Garbage. There is absolutely no way we are going to include such content," and left an edit history note of "If you persist in citing such junk, I shall report you, asking for a block." While I admit the sources were not great, I was unsure if they were still good enough to be included, that is why I asked. But those 2 things that he said to me are not the main issue.

On his Wikipedia userpage, he writes "Taking a break. Possibly permanently. Wikipedia is institutionally incapable of self-reflection and incapable of recognising its many inherent flaws, and of recognising when it is being abused by those well-versed in its ways. I've known that for a very long time. Not sure why I started editing again. Well-informed criticism from outside is probably more effective anyway. To add to the above, I am getting the distinct impression that this place is becoming even more overrun with idiots than ever. As to whether this is due to idiots being attracted to the place, or to the place making idiots out of otherwise sane people, I'm unsure. Either way, I'm clearly an idiot myself for believing I could do anything to reduce the idiocy. Time to get back outside the tent, and resume pissing in, methinks..."

I find this highly disrespectful and not fit for a Wikipedia userpage. He also stated this "As for Wankel-nuts, trying to argue with a cult is pointless" about a person trying to make edits on the article Rotary engine. He then says "And while you are at it, read the f**ing (I censored that) article. It explains what a rotary engine is. It explains the difference between a rotary and a radial. It isn't that difficult to understand, if you actually take the time to learn something new."

He seems to not be doing anything constructive on Wikipedia, rather being extremely hateful to others.

Not to mention his long block log, most being for Personal attacks/Harassment (although they were from several years ago [390]) Antny08 (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I consider my efforts to prevent people turning Wikipedia into a sub-tabloid gossip rag to be both constructive, and in accord with Wikipedia policy. And given the comments at the WP:BLPN discussion which Antny08 has conveniently omitted, [391] it seems I am not alone in that opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion is not whether you are right or wrong about the sources (you are right), the discussion is about how you discuss with people, or your lack thereof. You seem to use your time on Wikipedia to hate on others and revert other peoples' edits, rather than actually helping the editors and encouraging them to learn. Antny08 (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

So, Antny08, you had a disagreement with AndyTheGrump and then went looking for reasons to bring him here to ANI? Do I have that about right? Dumuzid (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

No, he suggested to come onto here. I told him I did not want to argue, and he said we can bring it to here, so I did. I looked at his userpage before I replied to him. Antny08 (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, I am no admin, and others may well see it differently, but the fact that none of the conduct of which you complain was actually directed at you makes me look at this filing with a jaundiced eye, so to speak. Dumuzid (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand that, but I don't just care about myself. He should not be allowed to say rude things like that and get away with it. He should not act like that at all, whether it is to me or somebody else. Antny08 (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

A question for the uninvolved: do they, like me, find Antny08's repeated (poorly sourced) efforts to add Weingrod's ethnicity to the article [392][393] to be of questionable taste? Why the urgency? Why that? Why now? Why, if biographical content is needed, not look for better sources, and more detail, and do the job properly? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

It was in WP:GOODFAITH. I have realized my mistakes and I do apologize for that. I did not realize that the sources were not good enough to be included. Speaking of which, in WP:GOODFAITH, it says not to attack editors who are just trying to help, which I was just trying to do. Antny08 (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, no, there was no ill-intentions with adding his ethnicity. I was attempting to revert changes previously made from the article, when somebody removed that fact. If you saw my other edits, (which I will admit you cannot see because the history was removed), I added that to include in an early life section, I added much more to the article than just that. I am a proud American, and I do not support hatred against Jewish people. To accuse me of wanting to include his ethnicity for questionable reasons is an attack on me, which is the reason I am reporting you, so it was not a good choice for you to say that here. I believe Wikipedia should be an unbiased place, and information should not be censored. Antny08 (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I very much doubt whether either your nationality or the fact that you are proud of it will be considered relevant here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I was responding to your question. USA and Israel have historically had good ties, therefore I mentioned it Antny08 (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Herschel Weingrod is not an Israeli, as far as I can determine. The NYT says he was born in Milwaukee. [394] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Correct, but Israel is a Jewish state, and he is Jewish. Anyway, this is getting off-topic. If you have anything else to say, please make sure it is referring to the discussion. Antny08 (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

It was certainly off-topic before you said so. For my part, inferring that being a Jew is synonymous with the Israeli state is as nonsensical as suggesting that because I'm Irish, my interests march hand in hand with those of the Republic of Ireland. Ravenswing 00:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not saying a Jew is synonymous with Israel. I am saying I have a good opinion of the Jewish state of Israel. Antny08 (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

"If you have anything else to say, please make sure it is referring to the discussion." Do as I say, not as I do? Ravenswing 00:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@Antny08: your edits to Herschel Weingrod were blatant WP:BLP violations and Andy was right for calling them out. Your edit here added a source which is a copy of an old version of the article. The contents of Andy's user page, or blocks they received over a decade ago, are irrelevant. Please drop this, and then read through WP:BLP and WP:RS to ensure you do not violate these policies in the future. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I will not be dropping this. This report is not about him removing my edits, it is about his conduct on Wikipedia. he was right to remove my edits, but he has been extremely rude. In this case, his userpage is relevant, because he is using his page to harass Wikipedia and its editors. Antny08 (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

How is his userpage harassing anyone? That makes no sense. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, I did identify one specific Wikipedia contributor as an 'idiot': myself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Harassing was the wrong word, but just read it. "To add to the above, I am getting the distinct impression that this place is becoming even more overrun with idiots than ever. As to whether this is due to idiots being attracted to the place, or to the place making idiots out of otherwise sane people, I'm unsure. Either way, I'm clearly an idiot myself for believing I could do anything to reduce the idiocy" This is not how the userpage is supposed to be used. Antny08 (talk) 23:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Antny08: I'll make myself more clear - drop this now, or you will likely be blocked. Your BLP violations are substantially worse than anything Andy has done. At this point, you are being disruptive and wasting people's time. Review WP:BOOMERANG before making any further comments. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

My edits were in good faith. I already read WP:BOOMERANG before I opened this report and fully acknowledged everything it said. You are helping nobody here. My "substantially worse BLP violations" are no where near as bad as what he is doing. I made one mistake, I don't see the issue. Antny08 (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• This is a WP:CIR situation: Antny08 lacks competence in the BLP area and in the area of identifying reliable WP:NEWSORG sources as he lacks sufficient media literacy. If Antny08 does not commit to start listening and learning immediately, he should probably be banned from those areas probably for a definite, but not a short period, during which time his grasp of these things can be expected to ... mature.—Alalch E. 23:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Once again, this is NOT about the edits I made. I made a mistake, I will admit that. This is about HIS CONDUCT. Antny08 (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Welcome to ANI. You don't get to dictate the scope of a conversation here. But let's talk about the conduct you have brought up:

  • Andy was rude to you in an edit sumarry: ok, that's arguable. I wouldn't say it rises to the level of needing admin action on its own though.
  • You don't like the content of his userpage: that seems like a you problem. It doesn't attack anyone specific and criticism of the site should be welcome, from within and without.
  • You don't like a comment he made in a conversation with another user, referring to a group of people who have disrupted content here as "nuts" and a "cult".

  I'm not seeing any cause to take any admin action relative to Andy in this situation. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  "And while you are at it, read the f**ing (I censored that) article. It explains what a rotary engine is. It explains the difference between a rotary and a radial. It isn't that difficult to understand, if you actually take the time to learn something new."

  This comment was the biggest issue. Antny08 (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  "F*** this, the whole place is overrun with idiots - including me apparently, for participating in this charade..."

  This edit summary also raises a flag for me... (I censored the curse) Antny08 (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  "on second thoughts, I'll leave this for others to deal with"

  "Under no circumstances do we cite Reddit for anything, and we aren't interested in your personal opinions about 'reverse fears', whatever that is supposed to mean"

  "This is utterly absurd. If it isn't wilful misinterpretation, it is cluelessness almost beyond comprehension. Block per WP:CIR and be done with it"

  "collapse, as the waste of time it clearly is,"

  These too, not appropriate for edit summaries, very rude. Antny08 (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• So, having edited a BLP with edit summaries that had to be revdel'd, following it up with Jew-tagging, you want to complain about someone who confronted you about that? Acroterion (talk) 23:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Jew-tagging, excuse me? Please read my other messages before you say terrible things like that. Antny08 (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• I looked at your recent editing history. If you come to ANI, do so with clean hands. Your conduct is much more concerning than Andy's. Acroterion (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Please explain what is wrong with my conduct? thanks Antny08 (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Given Antny08's absurd and grossly inappropriate comment above [395] I am formally calling for Antny08 to be topic banned from all articles relating to Israel and/or Jews, and from all biographies of living persons. Arbitrarily conflating Jewishness with support for the state of Israel is always questionable, and doing so while discussing a sensitive topic doubly so. Antny08 has not presented the slightest bit of evidence that Israel has any relevance to this discussion whatsoever. Or even Weingrod's Jewish ethnicity for that matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

How is it "absurd and grossly inappropriate"? I was stating a fact. Your statement makes absolutely zero sense. Also, in the same message I said that we were going off-topic and should get back on topic. Antny08 (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Jesus, all I did was step away for a bit to mow the lawn. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

How is it "absurd and grossly inappropriate"? I was stating a fact. Your statement makes absolutely zero sense. Also, in the same message I said that we were going off-topic and should get back on topic. Antny08 (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I replied to the wrong comment @ScottishFinnishRadish Antny08 (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Antny08: Multiple editors have suggested that you drop this. It's good advice. Perhaps you should read WP:DROPTHESTICK. Meters (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• The edits were so bad, that not only were they Revert/Deleted, they were Suppressed, so I can't even view them as I'm not an Oversighter. Andy can be a bit too blunt sometimes, but given the fact that this had to be Suppressed, my best guess is that he was right on the money. Also noting that an admin had to advertise for more editors to review the article at BLPN. So, Antny08, to address your claim that "This report is not about him removing my edits, it is about his conduct on Wikipedia.", please note that when you come to ANI, the conduct of all parties will be examined, and it seems that his response to your edits was proportional to the damage done by those edits, so it's a push. The only question remaining is what to do about your behavior. Looking at this discussion, I'm forced to agree with Alalch E. that WP:CIR may be a factor here, as you can't seem to understand that your behavior makes Andy's (less than optimal behavior) pale in comparison. Given the breadth of your problematic edits, from [396] to the Suppressed edits, to your behavior here, I'm not convinced you are capable of participating in any collaborative efforts here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  The edits were not bad, they were removed because the sources weren't good. I already discussed with the person who suppressed them and they unsuppressed some of them. The only reason they were removed was because of the sources, not anything else. Antny08 (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  When it comes to BLP bad sources make bad edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  When it comes to BLP bad sources make bad edits. – That ought to be in quote box on a guideline or policy page somewhere. EEng 03:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  But the text itself wasn't bad, just the sources. Antny08 (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  The text was so bad I deleted the revisions and then it was suppressed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  Explain to me how please. Antny08 (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  You made absolutely life destroying accusations against a living person without any sourcing sufficient to back it up, making the website which will almost certainly be in the top three results on any search engine repeat the accusations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  I understand, but many websites are already reporting it. It obviously happened, as the video that started this all is on YouTube. Antny08 (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  The above post provides clear and unequivocal evidence as to why Antny08 needs to be topic banned from biographical material on living persons immediately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  See, here's at least one thing you aren't getting: making edits that need to be supressed is a big deal. Even administrators can no longer see those edits, so other than SFR who did the original deletion, we don't know what you did, we just know it was bad enough that it needed to be completely removed. If you want further explanation, you'll need to contact the oversight team. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe you're just not getting this, Antny08, no matter how many editors and admins tell you otherwise, and I'm beginning to agree with AndyTheGrump that your extreme tunnel vision ("What about HIM? What about HIM?") is a competency issue. But let me try to phrase this in simple, direct terms: going beyond revdel to suppression of text is HUGE. This is not merely that the text was bad; it's that it had to be stunningly vile to have someone think that admins shouldn't even be allowed to see it any more. THAT is a fact on the ground, and if you are unwilling to accept that fact because you're focused on seeing AndyTheGrump spanked nothing else matters to you, then yeah: you might not be a good fit for Wikipedia. Ravenswing 00:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  And just because you say my conduct wasn't perfect, it was in good faith, and it doesn't mean he shouldn't be punished for his conduct, which had no good faith, since it is just flat out rude. Antny08 (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  We don't do "punishment" here. Sanctions/blocks/etc are to prevent disruption of the project and degradation of the content. Pretty much everyone seems to agree that you've demonstrably done more of both than Andy has in this instance, you might want to consider that and stop digging this hole. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  Andy has repeatedly shown that he disrespects other Wikipedia members and violates Wikipedia's policies. You can say all you want but he is in the wrong here not me. Antny08 (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  The way you are acting right now, in this thread, makes it far more likely that a sanction is going to land on you as opposed to Andy. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  The unanimous sentiment of nine uninvolved editors running against you would put paid to that. At this point, I support a topic ban against you, as AndyTheGrump outlined it. Ravenswing 00:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  The BLPN thread linked above makes it clear what the accuaations were, I watched the footage and it reminds me of a Project Veritas style set up. In other words, garbage, as Andy said. I'm not arguing that Andy couldn't tone it down a little sometimes, but he's one of those editors who has this annoying habit of being the most rude when he is absolutely on the right side editorially and the other person is acting the fool, which is what we have here. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• In reviewing Antny08's editing history, I see a number of things that indicate some maturity issues, like what appeared to be suppression of too much personal information from their userpage, a patently obnoxious edit to Bearcat's userpage [397], their misplaced interest in becoming an administrator, and their reactions to criticisms here. They've made good,or at least unobjectionable contributions in areas concerning military conflicts, so I think a BLP topic ban might be a good idea, since they don't seem to be gaining a clue that their edits to the BLP were egregiously bad, and think that deflection is a good defense. However, if I see one more attempt at deflection, I am going to make a short block to stop that,at least. Acroterion (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

This all illustrates nicely that AndyTheGrump is particularly valuable to Wikipedia (and I speak as someone that's been grumped at). NebY (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

topic ban proposal for User:Antny08

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.

---

Now that I have a clearer picture of what went on here, both the ineptitude of the initial supressed edits and the seeming urgency of trying to tag the subject as Jewish for reasons I don't like to contemplate, I don't think this is someone who should be editing BLPs at all, ever. I therefore propose an indefinite total topic ban on editing any content in any article that regards a living person, appealable in six months and once every six months thereafter. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support Acroterion (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support per the above discussion. Probably covers what needs to be covered.—Alalch E. 01:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Antny08's most recent edit makes it clear that, even after all everyone's said to them, they still don't get that adding content that needed to be suppressed for BLP reasons is a big deal. Since they're now arguing that the thing obviously happened because a Youtube video says so, I also support the idea of a topic ban. Egsan Bacon (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Whatever I'm quitting this site anyway. I had fun on here but I am tired of dealing with constant arguments. I have only tried to do good for this site and have never intended harm. I am going to miss this site but this is the end for me on here Antny08 (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely: I don't see why we would want to have patience with editors who are interested in adding serious XXXXXXXX allegations and Jewish ancestry, real or not. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't really disagree, but I'd like to keep this proposal around in the case of a succesful block appeal. It absolutely should be a condion in the event anyone considers unblocking. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  I feel like this would have turned out differently if I didn't have to mow my lawn, and instead spent a bit more time instead of dropping at BLPN. :/ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  On the other hand, does the community really need to waste more effort on this? This whole thread did not need to be this long. – 2804:F1...09:2AE4 (talk) 01:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's possible this is over as they have stated on their talk page that they do not wish to continue editing, but we've heard that one before. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  I meant more in that it takes more community effort to enforce or review an appeal for a ban than for a block. I'm not against it, just saying. – 2804:F1...09:2AE4 (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support. although Drmies has indef blocked for WP:nothere, I think this needs to be in place if they ever have a successful unblock. They do not need to be editing BLP articles, not just for the one bad edit, but because of the lack of competence that is required to edit articles about actual living persons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  This conversation illustrates the principle that repeating an unpersuasive argument over and over and over again does not make it any more persuasive. Cullen328 (talk) 01:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support: per my comments above. (And yeah, as Just Step Sideways says, how many times have we heard that one before? Considering that the time stamp on the appeal of their block is fifteen minutes AFTER the ragequit above?) Ravenswing 01:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support, though it needs to be made absolutely clear that WP:BLP policy applies anywhere on Wikipedia, and that further non-article-space comments like this [399] will lead to an indefinite block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support just to make things official. Dumuzid (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support (non-admin) I just caught up on some BLPN reading and found this rabbit hole. Holy shit. Thanks, User:Drmies. JFHJr (㊟) 03:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, question indefinite block I'm not going to speak in support of this editor but just sharing my misgivings about this discussion thread. Clearly the Antny08 made some terrible edit choices, one of the biggest of which was refusing to drop the stick. But this discussion also reminds me of the "old days" on ANI, say 8 or 10 years ago, when an editor would start a thread and boom! 2 or 3 hours later it would snowball into an indefinite block for the OP. I agree that CIR became an issue here with the suppressed content but I'd prefer to see outcomes like this evolve over 24 hours or longer so an editor has the opportunity to consider the criticism offered about their contributions and walk back from the edge of the cliff. It's just the rush to judgment and the lack of a problematic edit history that has left me with some questions about this result. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  If the editor wants to come back, the editor can request unblock. I noticed a few of Antny08's creations and assessments. They should weigh heavily in favor of reprieve as long as BLPs stay off limits. There seems to be a differential here re CIR when it comes to stuff vs. living people. But that was a very capable editor refusing to listen in a fundamental WP:CONSENSUS way. Slower WP:BOOMERANG is possible when the obstinance itself goes slower. JFHJr (㊟) 04:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, strongly oppose indefinite block - this user obviously has serious competency issues, but it is extremely unlikely that this person is not here to build an an encyclopedia. I think it's much, much more likely that they saw news about a person, and thought it was of encyclopedic value. And they're right. With sufficient sourcing, this "vile, life-ruining" accusation is of extremely high encyclopedic value. And it's also extremely accessible from a simple google search. This user appears to be have been indefinitely banned on the basis of a lack of understanding of proper sourcing. This is an extreme-overreaction and a huge assumption of bad faith. That being said, a topic ban from BLP is obviously needed. Cjhard (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  Seriously, the guy has 2000 edits, 981 of which are on mainspace. This is his first block. I'm getting increasingly concerned about NOTHERE being used as an indefinite ban gun for any problematic user, regardless of whether they're actually here to build an encylopedia. Cjhard (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  He was given ample opportunity to acknowledge the problems with his edits, which, as I and others have pointed out, were not confined to egregious BLP problems. As I noted in my denial of his unblock request, he talked himself into this after we proposed less drastic solutions, and the door remains open for self reflection. I see profound maturity issues which can be cured with time. BLP policy allows little or no leeway for defamation emanating from anything but gold-standard sourcing. Frankly, if revdel and suppression are required, so is a block of some significant extent, even without the obstinate refusal to acknowledge any error. Acroterion (talk) 05:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  I understand all of that. None of it speaks to "not being here to build an encyclopaedia" which was the primary reason for the indefinite ban and is just blatantly false. Cjhard (talk) 06:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  Personally,I would have used a wordy block summary like "maturity/competence issues, severe misunderstanding of BLP requirements and ethnicity policies, battlegound conduct," which arguably looks worse in the block log. Blocked is blocked, the templated rationales don't always match up,and anyone who looks at an unblock request will look at actual events rather than relying on a block summary. Acroterion (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban. I don't know about an indef, but it already feels like we're wasting our time here. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. I mean this [400] was their last comment on ANI that addressed other editors concerns over their understanding of BLP. Demonstrating that even after multiple editors has tried to explain it to them they still didn't get it. As for the indef, I agree the reasoning is questionable. However I do think a competence one is justified since their fundamental inability to understand the problems with their edits would seem to affect their editing elsewhere too. Nil Einne (talk) 05:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  I should clarify I'm not that fussed about a reblock myself, although if they are unblocked in the future it might be helpful to clarify when unblocking so people quickly glancing at the block log only are less confused Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - Some have expressed concern over the type of indef block (WP:NOTHERE) vs. WP:BLP/WP:DE (WP:IDHT, etc), which can be rectified if Drmies wants to reblock under a different criteria. I'm not as concerned with the nomenclature myself, but I would say that an indef (not necessarily permanent) block was justified, and I think a consensus here agrees, even if they would have used a different rationale. In fact, an indef block is the only option and the user still doesn't have a grasp of why they were blocked, which brings up WP:CIR/WP:DE concerns. I think a time limited block would not be useful because there is a high likelihood the behavior would be repeated soon after expiration if the blocked editor is oblivious to the reasoning. I had considered reblocking myself and "adopting" the block, but I'm due for a wikibreak, and don't want to leave it hanging. IMHO, I think we really can leave it as is, understanding that the community supports the block, but under a different rationale. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Support Uninvolved editor, TBAN seems warranted; indef is definitely going too far. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support tban; "Israel is a Jewish state, and he is Jewish" and "many websites are already reporting it. It obviously happened, as the video that started this all is on YouTube" are merely the most blatant bits of the long demonstration above of an inability to accept, let alone see the propriety of and need for, WP:BLP and other policies. Endorse indef block as preventative; indefinite is not infinite, but to be allowed to edit Wikipedia again, Antny08 needs to make a convincing unblock request that shows they understand and will work within Wikipedia's policies as well as any personal tban. NebY (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Support topic ban suggest both for BLP and the IP contentious area. For the rest there's WP:ROPE. Simonm223 (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support, per the above. - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• IMO, NOTHERE applies if an editor shows no respect whatsoever for the BLP, which is an essential element of us building an encyclopedia--yes, Cjhard. Drmies (talk) 12:58, 11 May 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.

 Comment: The wording of this topic ban at this page and the WP:EDR entry is ambiguous due to a misplaced modifier; should the log entry be changed to: "[...] topic ban on editing any article content that regards a living person"? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Steffanhalvorsenekholt

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

WP:UPE. User has been warned multiple times on talk page, WP:TH, and WP:AFCHD to disclose their paid relationship to Draft:Vue Play. Instead of adding the {{paid}} template, user blanked the aforementioned pages. ([401][402][403][404]) '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, please just remove my account completely and rename my account name, I do not want my real name to be visible on wikipedia, I have not fully understand how WikiPedia works, but now I understand more and it is scary that I can not delete my account. Please just delete my account and everything I have posted. Steffanhalvorsenekholt (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@CanonNi ... Steffanhalvorsenekholt (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Steffanhalvorsenekholt: I've deleted the draft per WP:G7. Accounts cannot be deleted. I don't think your sins are so bad so that you are not entitled to WP:VANISH, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Should it be "sin"? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

If that is your real name, it's not bad anyways but you still can request changing your username. You don't have to leave. Also, Wikipedia is not scary, you rather make it scary when you want to. Many editors are here enjoying their editing privileges which all of us have volunteered for. It's just all about volunteering. Why not do minimal clean up or editing before rushing into content creation. Why am I here talking about this, let me try the talk page. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

There are people who use their real name without issue, but there are good reasons people fear doing so; they don't want to be publicly associated with a particular topic, they don't want friends/family/colleagues to know what they are editing about; they may fear government surveillance, etc. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

User needs TPA revoked.

See (Redacted). Nothing good going on here. Please remove and revdel this section when completed. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Done. Now I need to go shower. --Yamla (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Can we nuke the username or something too? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way to add parts of that username to a filter (e.g. something about either g or j being valid as a first letter). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so -- transposing linitial etters is tomething shat's domputationally cifficult to detect, but very easy for dumans to hetect. That is, you can probably read that sentence without slowing down much, but I have no idea how you would write a regex to catch it without having over 9000 false positives. jp×g🗯️ 03:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

User needs TPA revoked.

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.

---

Blocked user VITALITY.NUCLEUS has resumed promotional editing on their talk page. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:31, 14 May 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:Skyfox Gazelle's transphobia

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.

---

Skyfox Gazelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Skyfox Gazelle is an apparent WP:SPA which has shown up at Moira Deeming to argue against what reliable sources say. Definitely not the first and most likely won't be the last.

As part of her reply to myself after I've told them what the reliable sources say in Talk:Moira Deeming, they've responded back at Special:Diff/1223928765 and part of their comment is "Do biological women now have no voice?? Yes it was opposed to allowing any biological man who simply states he’s now a woman, to enter change rooms and toilets where young biological girls are present".

Transphobia of this sort should be unacceptable behaviour per WP:NOHATE and should not be tolerated ever. TarnishedPath^talk 11:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems like this user is certainly WP:NOTHERE. Orange sticker (talk) 11:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

INDEFfed. If someone wants to do paperwork, feel free. Star Mississippi 12:18, 15 May 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.

Somewhat less than civil reaction from a SPA

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's been a while since I've been on vandal patrol and used to get such nastigrams on a daily basis, so I'm not sure how things like this are handled these days. More importantly, I'd like an uninvolved admin to take a look at their entire (brief) editing history to determine if any action is needed. Thanks! Owen× ☎ 19:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Generally you'd take that to WP:AN/I but, yeah, that's bad and I'd suggest admins will likely handle that regardless of it being slightly the wrong noticeboard. Simonm223 (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I've indeffed on the basis of that comment alone. DanCherek (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. That was quick! Owen× ☎ 20:00, 14 May 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.

Ongoing forum violations by IP

I would take this to AIV but this is a long-term issue and regular blocks seem to not be working.

72.197.193.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been making WP:FORUM violations on the same two pages for five months, during which time they've been blocked four times. The last block, which lasted 3 months, ended 10 days ago – the IP immediately resumed the WP:FORUM violations. They've since received 3 more warnings about this, including a final warning.

Requesting a much longer block for them, as it seems even a 3 month block isn't enough of a deterrant. — Czello ^(music) 07:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Partial blocked from Talk:Dominik Mysterio and Talk:The Judgment Day for a very extended period. Black Kite (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Beauty pageant editor continues to make unsourced changes after many warnings

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

Wictoriamalawi has made very few edits to articles that are not about beauty pageants, which are considered under WP:GS/PAGEANTS. They have been warned multiple times starting in October 2023 [405] about making disruptive, unreferenced changes to articles. Their behavior doesn't seem to have substantively changed since then and they are adding unreferenced changes as recently as 13 May [406][407]. I think admin help is required here to effect a change. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I've p-blocked from article space, as this editor has made only three barely-responsive attempts to respond to concerns on their own and no edits to any other talk page. Valereee (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Personal attack

Myself and five other editors have recently been pinged on the talk page of an IP, who posted an attacking message, which I consider downright insulting, towards the six of us. This is unacceptable. I don’t know what to do with this. Tvx1 00:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It was the only edits from the IP in a few years so I just reverted. They're already range blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Ivan Milenin and poorly sourced BLPs

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.

---

Ivan Milenin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User creating a massive number of poorly sourced translated articles (see their talk page and this will be clear). I haven't seen any indication on their talk page they are willing to discuss the issue with reviewers, or improve their article creation so I am bringing it here for discussion and remedy. A look at their talk page will see dozens of articles that have been deleted, drafted, redirected. Dispite many notices, warnings and attempts at communication, they continue to create poorly sourced translated articles.

I've been reviewing their recent creations at NPP, here are a few of the very poorly sourced BLPs from the last two weeks: Vasyl Kiselov, Anatoliy Korniychuk, Vitaliy Kurashyk, Rati Bregadze, Yefim Fiks. This type of article creation does nothing but clog AfC, AfD, and NPP.  // Timothy :: talk  03:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Commment I disagree with that statement, because I am translating articles on politicians since, and for no particular reason, I am being targeted just because I am translating in good faith, weather in Russian, Ukrainian, Georgian, German or any other language from the other Wikipedias. Secondly, the have met notablity as State Duma members, Verkhovna Rada members can and will meet notability as MPs on national level, but not on a local level of course. As far as I'm concerned, if anyone would justify that incident for me being targeted it wouldn't surprise me. Ivan Milenin (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

You are creating poorly sourced BLPs. This is not acceptable on English Wikipedia. You need to either remove or properly source the information in the BLP article you are translating. Your articles will be reviewed just like everyone elses.  // Timothy :: talk  12:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

You don't talk back during the incident, but since you insist, I'll tell you why you are wrong to reply. If it's reviewed, and needs improvements, other's can contribute, and not just me, because I haven't got the time to edit all of them, all at once, otherwise I'll receive a burnout. Don't reply to me anymore during the incident, I've rest my case. Ivan Milenin (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ivan Milenin you're not engaging at all with the main issue, which is the creation of articles on living persons with poor sourcing. WP:BLP is an important policy. Translations aren't exempt from that policy; sources that might be acceptable on one Wikipedia might not be acceptable here, and vice-versa. Mackensen (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mackensen @Qcne @TimothyBlue Otherwise, expect deletion. Ivan Milenin (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ivan Milenin I don't understand what you mean? Qcne (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Qcne I don't improve my articles, I will expect have my articles deleted if I don't improve anything at any circumstances at all. Ivan Milenin (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

If you are not willing to improve your articles please do not submit any in such a poor state? Qcne (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Qcne Of course I'm willing to improve, It's a just rhetorical statement. Ivan Milenin (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ivan Milenin Will you stop creating biographies of living people without full sources? Every statement must be verified per our policy. Qcne (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I am the person reviewing you articles and there are significant problems. If you are going to translate articles, you need to make sure they are properly sourced. This is especially true for BLPs. More recent examples: Yuriy Tymoshenko, Vasyl Nimchenko, Madle Lippus, Vladimir Frolov (politician), Boris Agapov (politician), Yevgeny Lukyanov, Yury Grekov, Valentin Bobryshev, Mykyta Poturayev  // Timothy :: talk  13:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ivan Milenin The different language Wikipedias have different policies. The English Wikipedia (this one) has the strictest of all the policies when it comes to verifying information. This is especially true for articles which are biographies.

You should not create biographical articles with poor sources and expect other editors to improve them.

Please either remove any information which is unsourced when translating articles, or find the sources yourself. Qcne (talk) 13:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Accusing people of targeting you and talking back to you is not a good look. Timothy has real concerns about your sourcing and you're simply not responding substantively to any of the concerns. A person passing WP:GNG doesn't mean that it doesn't matter what the sources are and you can just move onto the next article. If you haven't got the time to edit "all of them, all at once," it's far better to add a few articles done very well than add a large amount of poorly sourced articles. It's also poor form in a public discussion to try and order someone to not reply to you; this is not your talk page. Timothy's certainly not bludgeoning the conversation, but trying to get you to directly answer at least one of the concerns about your editing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs I was translating articles from Russian to English, for example, there are some various Russian sources, sometimes without, and yes, they are some statement's without sources, and if there are none, I'll remove them. Ivan Milenin (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs But othertimes, even articles will get deleted even if I had a chance to improve them in worst case scenarios. Ivan Milenin (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs But even that, he shouldn't have to nominate that articles for deletion for something if I'm trying to improve which is right. Ivan Milenin (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ivan Milenin but you should not be creating poor quality articles in the first place. If you want to work on articles and improve them, please create them in draft space. Qcne (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Translating articles doesn't waive the sourcing requirements; an article that is considered well-sourced enough to exist in another language's Wikipedia does not automatically make it sufficient here. And you're being told that the sourcing of these articles is insufficient, but accusing others of targeting you rather than addressing the problem. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs Because if anything, the article will get deleted. That's what I've seen from him, even with those sources I've provided while I was done traslating. If I did accuse like that, I apologize, but I will gladly improve the article. And I did found additional sources I added on Aleksandr Surikov (diplomat). Ivan Milenin (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

All that's being asked is that you slow down and source these articles better. You're well-suited to provide quality sourcing, probably better than most given your interest in the area, so we'll get better articles if you provide a quality initial article rather than make a weak one that requires someone else fill in the blanks later. Nobody here -- and I'd bet the farm that includes Timothy -- wants you to stop translating articles of notable people, we just want you to take a step back and make them more substantive, which you have the ability to do. Quality > quantity. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree with above. @Ivan Milenin - just slow down and maybe create articles in draftspace while you work on improving them, then they won't get deleted as unsuitable for the main encyclopedia. Qcne (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll accept that. Let's just end discussion for now. Ivan Milenin (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I will state I absolutely want you to continue working, but you need to continue working within Wikipedia guidelines about sources, especially when doing BLPs, but your answers do not fill me with confidence you will do this.

I think this can be closed if:

• You have read WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:RS
• Acknowledge the problem above is real (since you have repeatedly refused to accept this above) and commit to not repeating the problem in the future.
• Agree to stop ignoring messages on your talk page and engage in discussion.

If this is the case, I will draft the recent BLPs you have created lacking sources, to allow you time to source them properly.  // Timothy :: talk  14:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I will gladly abide by all of these. Ivan Milenin (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the above response.

Request this be closed as resolved.  // Timothy :: talk  15:52, 13 May 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.