Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1150

Proposing topic ban on PenmanWarrior

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.

---

• Michele Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (older/now-deleted revisions)
• Draft:Michele Evans
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Evans
• PenmanWarrior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Micheleevansny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.117.93.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Quick timeline of 9 January, which is quite revealing.

• 14:44 (diff to a user talk page post confirming the action, since I can't link to a deleted diff), the IP amends the redirect for Michele Evans to a newly created article about a totally different Michele Evans.
• 14:51 IP adds link to Michele Evans to an article
• 14:54 IP adds another Michele Evans link
• 14:57 Micheleevansny adds link to Michele Evans to an article
• 15:43 Micheleevansny amends a pre-existing Michele Evans link to retarget to the previous redirect target (Lockheed Martin)
• 15:43 Micheleevansny does the the same again.

Now I'm hoping there's not much doubt in anyone's mind that Micheleevansny, with their rather revealing choice of username, must have some connection with the IP that was making Michele Evans related edits just minutes before, and that the use of the IP was an attempt to avoid accusations of potential conflict of interest.

The creation of the article on Michele Evans resulted in a discussion thread at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive355#Michele Evans, followed by the "Articles for deletion" discussion linked to above. During the latter, the IP bludgeoned the discssion for days on end, not even a 60 hour block stopped then coming back and wasting more time with even more bludgeoning. The PenmanWarrior account was created on 14 January and is either the same person or someone associated with them, based on the exceptionally narrow editing interest.

The deletion of the Michele Evans article should have put a stop to the promotion, save for some grunbling from the IP that seemed to be the case. However PenmanWarrior created a draft which is pretty identical except for the addition of a more recent news article that mentions Evans a couple of times, and wouldn't override the result of the Afd discussion as far as I can tell. They are also making spurious requests for undeletion, more of the same here, and more complaining here.

We've had the discussion about Michele Evans and the consensus was clear. There's no reason why PenmanWarrior should be permitted to waste any more of the community's time on this, and I propose they are topic banned from anything to do with Michele Evans. Obviously my proposed topic ban would cover the IP and the Micheleevansny account, since they are either the same person or acting in concert with them. Kathleen's bike (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Love the way facts are glossed over and new developments are ignored! This shows a lack of good faith! 69.117.93.145 (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

What does that mean. It's eligible for speedy deletion for goodness's sake! ''Flux55'' (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

No it isn't; the Article was deleted, so the Draft is not eligible for WP:G4 (that's the whole point of the Draft space). Primefac (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind that... ''Flux55'' (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Support topic ban. Uninvolved reviewer here, also my first time on a ANI! I gave the editor some good advice on the AfC Helpdesk but was met with a fairly belligerent tone and I am seeing hints of bludgeoning again. They're providing poor sources. There must be an undisclosed COI here. Qcne (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Support block/ban of IP and/or PenmanWarrior. LOUTSOCK, new-account to evade scrutiny, or any other shade of puppetry is a problem itself. And given the disruptive edits and refusal to listen, I'm seeing a time-syncsink with no net gain for the project. On the fence about which buttons get pushed where. DMacks (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Now that everyone's clock is in agreement, we can discuss how much time is wasted. DMacks (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked PenmanWarrior 31h for disruption, including IDHT (including some via forum-shopping). Even if later raised in a more appropriate location, the fact is they raising the same points that have been repeatedly responded-to, roundly opposed, and/or are not accepting our policies, guidelines, and processes. And now even disrupting the review of their own draft. DMacks (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Good block and support longer if the disruption returns when they are unblocked. They're welcome to try and improve the draft, they're not welcome to wear everyone out in search of the answer they want. Star Mississippi 01:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be a legal threat from the user directed at @Kathleen's bike. Qcne (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if this is particularly a legal threat but rather an "I'm gonna get you blocked grr" threat or something similar. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 12:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - Obvious close association with subject. Evidence includes citing a primary source immediately after it appeared online, and citing a source on the strength of hidden text within the HTML. The fact that PenmanWarrior denies a conflict of interest, and refuses to take on-board anything anyone else says does not suggest they are willing to contribute in good faith. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Since everyone's in agreement, should this ban be enforced? ''Flux55'' (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Less than 24 hours have passed since this thread was started, and the user is currently blocked for another 18 hours anyway. Are you in some sort of rush? Primefac (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Not really. I just realized that they were already blocked just now. ''Flux55'' (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Will be updating with many refs and details. Active campaign to eliminate Ms. Evans from Wikipedia. Just added a new MAJOR source. One might not like my communication style but that does not warrant a topic ban. Active stalking/harrasment in progress as defined by Wikipedia. Speculations based on timestamps is frivolous and just that SPECULATION. Including ban on other accounts displays bad faith. Also, the enactor of ban to paint me in bad light refused/couldn't/wouldn't respond to or give explanation of what was done to warrant ban. Fact is nothing was done by me to support this. I followed all Wikipedia rules and made appropriate contributions with new major developing sources. PenmanWarrior (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not trying to conspirate to remove her. What do you mean by "major developing sources" anyways? Flux55 (my talk page) 13:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you use COI edit requests for future editing of this article, and you can still contribute to the page. _Dial^mayo 14:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

More WP:BATTLEGROUND editing here [1] today. Theroadislong (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Can I propose a motion to block as WP:NOTHERE? Qcne (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Theroadislong @Qcne. I would once again ask the continued harassment be discontinued. Condensing facts into one comprehensive space and asking for advice on how to proceed is not any of the above implied/accused/linked circumstances. PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I may have time to categorically review every single reference on Friday in your Draft and write up my findings, which would then hopefully put to bed this entire issue as either a Yes She is WikiNotable or No She is Not WikiNotable and then, either way, no more of your time or Wikipedia volunteer time will be spent discussing this. Qcne (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Support a NOTHERE block. Penman, this is not harassment, your behavior is disruptive and people have been asking you to stop. I get you think you have to defend Ms. Evans, but that's a bad idea and only going to result in you being blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I have put a great amount into an article that had 59 sources at one point. My time is just as valid. Please address what nobody will:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/nyregion/rikers-island-authors.html

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/creative-rikers-island-inmates-writing-books-to-pass-the-time-hfbkdpkzb

https://web.archive.org/web/20080430180657/http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/23/parker-actress-road-to-dream-tv-gig-with-robin/

My edits are valid, major and appropriate. I have asked people to stop. They have not. @Qcne Promised he would go away but continues his campain.

"I may have time to categorically review every single reference on Friday in your Draft and write up my findings, which would then hopefully put to bed this entire issue as either a Yes She is WikiNotable or No She is Not WikiNotable and then, either way, no more of your time or Wikipedia volunteer time will be spent discussing this. Qcne (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)"

My requests to stop are just as valid as anybody else's. I have asked for advice and continue to do so. Please visit my talk page to see detailed content compiled into one section. PenmanWarrior (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Update: PenmanWarrior has been blocked indefinitely by administrator Daniel, see new thread § Repeated issues with attempts to block Michele Evans article below. Do we close this thread with no action taken here, or would a topic ban also be placed on the user as well, given there's a consensus here in favour of it? — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  I went ahead and merged that section into this one. PenmanWarrior not only got blocked, but their IDHT led to talk page access being revoked. They'll now have to appeal through UTRS, so I think we can consider this closed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Repeated issues with attempts to block Michele Evans article

Please see the following issues. I am a new editor and have asked several times for help addressing this situation. The behavior detailed below seems to violate Wikipedia. I am a new editor and don't know how to file complaints so please help me format places/concerns to address these issues.

Recently ran into issues editing/creating an article about controversial figure Michele Evans.

Some of the issues have been:

Please use diffs and links, not enormous copy/pastes

@Kathleen's bike: violates Wikipedia standards again: WP:BLUDGEON, edit warring, disruptive editing While technically not done within the 24hr timeframe, the essence of, three-revert rule was also enacted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rikers_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1196841532 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rikers_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1208941127 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rikers_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1209368498 Kathleen's bike claimed "See guidance at WP:ON:US regarding the repeated restoration of content whose inclusion has been disputed" However only one restoration had been made and the inclusion of this book in Rikers Island had never been disputed. Kathleen's bike also recommended deletion of Michele Evans "Delete Escape Orbit summarises things easily enough, fails notability guidelines at the present time. Kathleen's bike (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)" @Escape Orbit: comments Kathleen's bike was referring to: "Author. Self published only, so unlikely to be notable Software Engineer. Not notable. Creating Tiger Woods' website is not sufficient, and source cited does not support this claim. Sports Reporter. Possibly, but entirely unsourced and almost purposely vague. A single op-ed in The New York Times written by her." Escape Orbit continues: "Again we are agreed. The sources currently on the article are not adequate in demonstrating notability. So I urge you to find the existence of suitable sources, and the matter will be resolved. Others have tried and failed. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)" Kathleen's bike herself admits Escape Orbit sumarises things. Escape Orbit said this would be resolved. His issues were addressed with the introduction of the new articles: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/nyregion/rikers-island-authors.html https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/creative-rikers-island-inmates-writing-books-to-pass-the-time-hfbkdpkzb https://web.archive.org/web/20080430180657/http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/23/parker-actress-road-to-dream-tv-gig-with-robin/ It is resolved. Escape Orbit has been asked to stick by his word and resolve as promised, but as of this writing, has not. In addition Kathleen's bike violated Harrasment Hounding WP:HOUND WP:HOUNDING WP:WIKIHOUNDING WP:FOLLOWING Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. Kathleen's bike engaged in "an attempted outing". Stated belief of editor's identity/real name and even opened a complaint to do so in order to enhance this alleged outing. WP:ANI "Kathleen's bike (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)" On the subject of not sticking to promises: @Qcne: after promising to leave alone, comes back next day and threatens to decline article Michele Evans: "I have to note you as a hostile commentator. In addition to you incessantly posting to my talk page, you suggested I should be barred from writing about a subject simply because you did not like my valid question to you. Can you please place your energy and focus somewhere other than on me? Thank you! PS. Nobody says the source was used by itself. Currently, there are 58 sources on the page. PenmanWarrior (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)" "Sure thing, I'll leave you alone. Good luck with your draft. Qcne (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)" PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC) "However, @Theroadislong, I am minded to reject if you agree? Qcne (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)" @Qcne: continues his campaign after promising to leave alone. Now attempting to be only authoritative voice on subject after having already been noted as hostel to subject. "I may have time to categorically review every single reference on Friday in your Draft and write up my findings, which would then hopefully put to bed this entire issue as either a Yes She is WikiNotable or No She is Not WikiNotable and then, either way, no more of your time or Wikipedia volunteer time will be spent discussing this. Qcne (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)" @Theroadislong: declines article, refuses to answer requests to address major sources, goes back add multiple non-major comments to article, finally admits did not read sources and then re-declines article after twice insisting he wasn't going to review again: "Sorry I have no idea what you are referring to, you can submit for review and another reviewer will take a look, I will not review again. Theroadislong (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)" Theroadislong refuses/won't/doesn't respond to requests to address major source and instead goes back and adds comments to article: 'Comment: Ridiculous weird content about distant relatives and ancestors is not remotely helpful. Theroadislong (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)' 'Comment: As noted elsewhere "Her software engineering does not make her notable. Her self-published books do not make her notable. Her filming work does not seem to make her notable. Her personal life (death of daughter, grandfather, lawsuit, etc) do not make her notable." Theroadislong (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)' 'Comment: There are still 17 links to her own books and Amazon profiles which are NOT required and other sources which do not mention her, hack it back to the reliable independent sources and report on what they say. Theroadislong (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)' 'Comment: A large number of these sources make no mention of Evans whatsoever, references to her own work are not required and see WP:REFBOMBING. Theroadislong (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)' Finally, Theroadislong admits: "I do not have a subscription to either of these websites so cannot see the references. I have made valid comments about totally inappropriate content. You are free to re-submit I will not review the draft again. Theroadislong (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)" "Ok, yet another editor admitting they did not read the sources before declining the article. A pattern has emerged. PenmanWarrior (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)" Theroadislong then goes back and declines the article after saying twice he would not review the article again. "Submission declined on 21 February 2024 by Theroadislong (talk). This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. If you would like to continue working on the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. If you have not resolved the issues listed above, your draft will be declined again and potentially deleted. If you need extra help, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors. Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted. Where to get help How to improve a draft Improving your odds of a speedy review Editor resources Declined by Theroadislong 3 hours ago. Last edited by Theroadislong 2 seconds ago. Reviewer: Inform author." User talk:69.117.93.145 was blocked for edit warring things/edits involving Michele Evans by: "Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)" I would ask @Daniel Case: to equally block Kathleen's bike for edit warring and violating other Wikipedia standards. While you are doing that a WP:BLUDGEON review is warranted for @Theroadislong: and @Qcne: and any other actions I may not be aware of. Also please advise how to handle/report Kathleen's bike for the above-stated behavior as I am a new editor. @Caeciliusinhorto-public: minimizes/reduces Evans contribution to Rikers Island Covid-19 section https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rikers_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1209141675 Curiously ref to Evans' New York Times is deleted in Rikers Island https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rikers_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1209359829 There is a lot of incoherent grumbling here which nobody will read, you are free to take any gripes to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. To be clear I have only reviewed your draft ONCE. Theroadislong (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Incoherent? I's all just copied and pasted content from other sources. Now it appears you are personally attacking. Maybe 1% commentary on my part. If you have only reviewed once, why is article showing declined again, after I resubmitted it yesterday? Also why would the time stamp be you declining 3 hours ago? since you initially declined yesterday? Please help me understand as I am new. If it is explainable, I will remove the associated content. If nobody will ready this, why did you make accusations on Wikipedia:ANI about it? Make it make sense please. PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC) @Theroadislong PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Two editor's decline article and subsequently admit to not having read substantial sources @Muboshgu: "PenmanWarrior, that NY Times piece from yesterday would add to her argument for passing WP:GNG, but I cannot tell how much as it is behind a paywall and I am not a subscriber. However, the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Evans appears to be overwhelming and I doubt one new piece will change that. Since the draft is basically identical to the deleted article, save for a sentence or two based on that new NYT article, I think it would be inappropriate to accept the draft. If you believe that the new NYT article changes things, make a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)" @Theroadislong: "I do not have a subscription to either of these websites so cannot see the references. I have made valid comments about totally inappropriate content. You are free to re-submit I will not review the draft again. Theroadislong (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)" I am a new editor but I can't imagine declining an article without reading MAJOR SOURCES is appropriate. Someone please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PenmanWarrior (talk • contribs) 14:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC) @Red-tailed hawk I see you added an unsigned template but did not address any concerns or respond to advice. Please do so.. Thank you! PenmanWarrior (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Continued campaign in WP:ANI: "More WP:BATTLEGROUND editing here [165] today. Theroadislong (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)" "Can I propose a motion to block as WP:NOTHERE? Qcne (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)" "@Theroadislong @Qcne. I would once again ask the continued harassment be discontinued. Condensing facts into one comprehensive space and asking for advice on how to proceed is not any of the above implied/accused/linked circumstances. PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)" PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC) I strongly suggest you concentrate on addressing the issues pointed out in the reviewer comments on the draft and stop with the conspiracy theories about a non existent "Campaign to eliminate Michele Evans from Wikipedia". Theroadislong (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC) @Theroadislong Labeling conspiracy theory is dismissive of valid issues raised here. Concentrate on your comments? You completely ignored three very substantial sources and admitted to not reading. How am I supposed to concentrate on comments that don't exist? Nobody will address the three new substantial sources. Please do so now so I can address as you suggest. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/nyregion/rikers-island-authors.html https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/creative-rikers-island-inmates-writing-books-to-pass-the-time-hfbkdpkzb https://web.archive.org/web/20080430180657/http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/23/parker-actress-road-to-dream-tv-gig-with-robin/ Although it would be ideal for you to read, the fact these stories lead with photos/captions/excerpts of Evans is enough to know they are not mere mentions. You can see that much regardless of paywall! PenmanWarrior (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Response to concerns about Speedy Close of Deletion Review: Hello PenmanWarrior, I noticed that you left this comment on the deletion review noticeboard after your request for a review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Evans was closed with the deletion endorsed by the community. Your comment asks How do I appeal?, saying that you have found additional sourcing. As it stands, that discussion was your appeal, and your appeal was declined by the community. I note that you are active at Draft:Michele Evans, where you are working to try to bring the article up to standards. What would help the reviewers on that draft might be something simple: if you were to go to the draft's talk page and list the three best sources you have for demonstrating significant coverage of this individual by independent reliable sources, along a brief (two-to-three succinct sentences) explanation on why you think those sources demonstrate significant coverage, that would be helpful. If all three of the best sources are in the context of one event, you may want to include a fourth source that provides significant coverage in some other context. I can't guarantee that the article will be accepted, but structuring your arguments in this way will be more clear to reviewers than they are presently. Cheers, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC) @Red-tailed hawk A speedy delete was used to circumvent the new substantial source being addressed. Time was not being wasted as good reliable sources were being addressed. This was an abuse of process and the article never got a chance to be properly considered. Will add your suggestions to the article's talk page. Thank You. PenmanWarrior (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC) I don't see a speedy deletion as having been used on the article; the only deletion log for the article I can find is this one, which clearly states that this was done pursuant to consensus in an Articles for Deletion discussion. The deleted article's talk page was speedily deleted as a page dependent on the deleted article (see: Talk pages with no corresponding subject page), but that speedy deletion seems to be correct. Is there some other page I am missing here? I've looked through your deleted contributions, and I can't find any page that you have edited and was deleted except for the article at Michele Evans. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC) On the review page: " Michele Evans – Summarily endorsed. Nominator's blocked for DE and the community's enacting a topic ban, with, at the time of typing, unanimous support. I'm invoking the fourth limb of "Speedy closes", above, to close this without wasting further time.—S Marshall T/C 19:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)" PenmanWarrior (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia:Deletion review PenmanWarrior (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Speed Close is what it is called apparently. PenmanWarrior (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC) I didn't even get a chance to explain the situation for the review. They blocked me, refused to give reasons as their were none, and then closed the review. You will note the lengthy explanation I responded to on the block notice above, which was the only thing I was allowed to respond to at the time. You can't call it a review and not let the requester present reasons for the review. That's an abuse of process. PenmanWarrior (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC) You had the chance to present your reasons in the nomination statement you made, and you did present them. Nobody was convinced. You were also clearly told why you were blocked. Look, PenmanWarrior, Wikipedia is really attractive to people who want articles to exist for their own personal reasons, and we've had to develop ways of dealing with such people very promptly and efficiently. If we didn't do that our readers would never be able to find anything useful because of all the spam. I'm sorry if this makes you unhappy but you aren't going to be an exception.—S Marshall T/C 16:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC) No at all. I did not get the chance. I was gathering reasons/getting ready to respond when I was blocked. My initial opening simply had links to two sources. There was no detailing of those links or case made as to why the appeal should be approved. I had been accused of bludgeoning before and was waiting to listen to others' positions so I could respond only once. As it is, there are 3 new sources. Closing the appeal the way you did is an abuse of process. Your rant on personal reasons is also inappropriate. I've spent a lot of time crafting this article. My time is just as valuable as anyone else's. No spam. Please address the following very significant sources. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/nyregion/rikers-island-authors.html https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/creative-rikers-island-inmates-writing-books-to-pass-the-time-hfbkdpkzb https://web.archive.org/web/20080430180657/ http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/23/parker-actress-road-to-dream-tv-gig-with-robin/ I can't imagine unfounded accusations wouldn't be frowned upon! PenmanWarrior (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Block never explained when asked.

"@DMacks:??? Disruptive edits ??? Please explain PenmanWarrior (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)" Wikipedia says blockers should respond to the request. I made no disruptive edits and detailed extensively the lack of offense in the block announcement above. PenmanWarrior (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC) @S Marshall PenmanWarrior (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, please advise as I am uncertain how to properly handle this. User:PenmanWarrior (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

You can start with a one or two paragraph summary instead of 20K of TL;DR. If you've been accused of bludgeoning, ANI is a poor choice of venue to repeat it. Acroterion (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be verbose forum-shopping after a rejected DRV request. Acroterion (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a spurious report. I have offered to help with this draft , as have other AfC reviewers, and we have been bludgeoned. Editor has already received a temp topic-ban, but the behaviour is now becoming disruptive.

I am not sure if I am being accused of anything due to the wall of text (thank you for correctly leaving the ANI notice on my User Talk Page), except perhaps changing my mind when I first suggested I would not interact further with the Draft and then today offered to spend a significant amount of time in good faith going through each reference one by one to try and establish notability. Qcne (talk)

Sigh... Theroadislong (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

As PenmanWarrior has now been blocked and had talkpage access revoked this is probably moot, but I want to note for the record that (1) I stand by my edit to Rikers Island: there was absolutely no need to dedicate so much of the section on the jail's handling of the Covid-19 pandemic to Evans' account, without any evidence that this had been discussed by secondary sources and (2) despite their repeated complaints that nobody addressed the new sources they had added to the draft, I did and they responded to my comments on the topic though they ignored the substantive point I made presumably because it wasn't what they wanted to hear. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

This thread was the final straw. I'd been monitoring this issue for the past couple of days. I have indefinitely blocked the editor - "Single purpose account, continued disruptive editing, refusal to accept advice from experienced editors verging on battleground mentality".

As always, welcome review of the block from the community here. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Good block. Exceedingly tiring Editor which became disruptive. Qcne (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I've revoked talk page access, we (as admins) are not going to spend the rest of our lives reading through every appeal this guy files in order to whine about his circumstances. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Good block. We literally had a previous ANI thread about this, albeit posted by a different person and not by them, from a week ago. See section § Proposing topic ban on PenmanWarrior above. They were previously blocked 31h as a regular administrative action, but it seems that didn't really change the way they edit. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I've merged the two sections to keep this together when it gets archived. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Daniel, after reading the thread I decided to put on my special glasses. User:HandThatFeeds, you may be interested in this as well. User talk:Micheleevansny is CU-confirmed with PenmanWarrior. I don't know if you're interested in tagging them; that's up to you. There are two other accounts on that IP that technically are indistinguishable but either haven't edited, or haven't edited in that area--something to keep an eye on. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Well that's a plot twist I wasn't expecting. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I was, but then again I checked earlier in the week. Personally speaking, I see PenmanWarrior as somewhere between a DIRTYSTART to Micheleevansny or the latter as an abandoned account. I figured if the latter didn't keep editing there wouldn't be much point in blocking. ​ (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk)

That makes sense. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? The Michelle Evans article now seems to be a wiki page and not deleted? Giant-Dwarfs^Talk 14:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Giant-Dwarfs yep, there's a new re-direct now on the Mainspace article to a different Michele Evans. We were on about Draft:Michele_Evans. Qcne (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Never was the brightest! Sorry Giant-Dwarfs^Talk 14:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Penmanwarrior has now begun using the email function to attempt to convince people to edit on their behalf. I just received one myself. Is it possible for admins to revoke their ability to use the Wikipedia email function? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Sent me an email too with some interesting accusations of sexism. Qcne (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Email revoked. Black Kite (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to add a 'me too' on receiving email solely about content rather than addressing their block. I have obviously ignored the request (didn't even read it closely enough to know what it was asking). DMacks (talk) 17:45, 26 February 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:AidanParkinson

Apparently, me pointing out (again) to user:AidanParkinson that citing Thomas Hobbes for content on "Commonwealth Costs of Carbon" is contrary to Wikipedia policy given that Hobbes never wrote on the subject makes me a Nazi. [2] I'd have to suggest that since it seems more or less self evident that AidanParkinson's only activity on Wikipedia relates to a topic from which he is page blocked, and since he seems unable to understand either actual purpose of Wikipedia nor the many policies which make his approach contrary to said purpose, a permanent block per WP:NOTHERE would be appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

AidanParkinson appears to have a theory that they want to add to Wikipedia, and their efforts have been stymied for lack of verifiability. They have a singular focus. They have been blocked from Social cost of carbon for disruptive editing, and then the p-block was extended to Talk:Social cost of carbon for disruptive editing there as well. Multiple editors have tried to explain the problems, but neither the blocks nor the explanations seem to have made any improvement in AP's editing and behavior on WP. After reading through their talk page and Talk:Social cost of carbon, I don't think AP is interested in gaining wikipedia competence and their continued participation here is simply a timesink for other editors. Schazjmd (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

See also AidanParkinson's Draft:Commonwealth Costs of Carbon. This is clearly an attempted PoV fork of Social cost of carbon (the page from which he is banned), though as an exercise in pushing a PoV, and in Righting Great Wrongs, it is singularly inept. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump - I'm afraid centralised long-term planning has been associated by many sources with national socialism and the rise of the Nazi party.

Further, it appears you are requesting the scientific community to publish evidence of insight that I have evidence is uninteresting to science. If you actually took the time to study Rawls and Hobbes properly, you'd understand that the position I advocate is common-sense. Not worthy of a Nobel Prize at all, or even a novel scientific contribution for that matter.

Now, I am only seeking for Commonwealth Costs of Carbon to be considered equally to the utilitarian perspective that your Social Cost of Carbon page advocates. I see no reason why either should be given priority over the other. However, I do believe you have a duty to include other points of view. Particularly, when they are as robust and valid as anything currently existing on the page.

Really, believe what you want. But, please allow for a reasonable plurality in beliefs. Otherwise, one might accuse you of being a national socialist yourself. AidanParkinson (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Your perspective is alien to Wikipedia. If your views are indeed common sense, then it's all the more reasonable to expect you to be happily adhere to policy like everybody else. No one wants to take your word for what is common sense, I'm afraid. Remsense诉 18:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is all patently NOTHERE behavior from AidanParkinson. The above comment doubles down on the Nazi accusation, the draft they're creating is original research that strays well into NOTESSAY territory. I think this editor is incapable of editing this project productively and within a community setting. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you'll find me simply inexperienced in contributing to a hostile Wikipedia community, rather than deliberately non-compliant. It is difficult to comply with all the requirements when your finding the community offensive. AidanParkinson (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I could paste here the views of numerous scientific editors on this subject, if you really require we sink that low. But, I'd hope we can keep the Wikipedia editorial away from an editorial war. AidanParkinson (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@AidanParkinson, this discussion is about your conduct on wikipedia, not about content. Schazjmd (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This comment in addition to their draft article demonstrates to me that Aidan is WP:NOTHERE. — Czello ^(music) 18:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

No sooner did I post this did Aidan get indef'd. — Czello ^(music) 18:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked AidanParkinson as not here to build the encyclopedia. There are many reasons but the nonsense about other editors being Nazis for disagreeing with their disruptive pushing of fringe theories is clearly unacceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

AppGoo0011 and racist editing

Hello, all, I'd like to shine a light on User:AppGoo0011 and their editing, as it pertains to subtly (or not-so-subtly) pushing racism into a variety of articles. On Feb 22, they did a find/replace on a bunch of articles, to replace "white" (as in people) with "White". Now, this in and of itself wouldn't necessaryily be a problem; MOS:RACECAPS doesn't recommend any particular combination of capitalization for "white" and "black" as racial descriptors. However, I find it very suspect when a person wants to capitalize "White" but not "Black", which is exactly what AppGoo011 did in these edits, such as this, this, and this. It's also important to note that, in those first two links, the text of direct quotations was also changed. These are just a sample, but the behavior is consistent throughout all of this series of edits.

Seeing this, I reverted these edits and left a warning (among others placed by other editors), with a note not to do this kind of mass change again without consensus at the talk page. The ensuing conversation was not particularly constructive; I was hoping they would stop, but they took my message rather literally and posted a message to every talk page. Again, the question of whether to capitalize "white" and "black" is a valid one, and constructive conversations have been spurred amongst other editors, such as the one on the reverse racism talk page, but AppGoo has not been a particular asset to those conversations, insisting that not capitalizing "White" is incorrect, with ridiculous justifications like it might mean "people painted white". I feel like this edit is a pretty strong indicator about why this is all happening (if it wasn't already obvious).

Today, I notice that, rather than pursue the talk-page conversations or a wider change of consensus at MOS:RACECAPS, they've returned to the mass-changes, though admittedly with a token effort to include capitalization of "Black" as well. Nevertheless, I think this behavior needs to actually stop, and would appreciate some other eyes on how to proceed. Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Between their hobbies comment and this, WP:NOTHERE coming through loud and clear. @AppGoo0011 knock it off unless you want to be blocked. You're headed that way right now. Star Mississippi 23:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

In response to this ANI thread, this user has just sprung the "but I'm Black!" defense by placing this userbox on their user page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

A few things.

1. Thank you for capitalizing my race.
2. You're misquoting again. I never said those exact words.

AppGoo0011 (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I know you think "white people" can mean "a person dressed in all white or painted white" (???), but surely you don't also think quotation marks can only be used for verbatim quotes! InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It can, theoretically. It's shorter than saying "people dressed in white" or "people painted white." While with just "White" – so long as it's not at the beginning of a sentence – there's no confusion. AppGoo0011 (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, please. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I never thought there'd be such severe opposition to one capital letter. AppGoo0011 (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Ha, you should see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Capitalization of NFL draft article titles. But no one is "opposing" capitalization here, only raising eyebrows at your bizarre reasoning and frowning upon the disruption you're causing. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The only disruption I see is the mass reverts of my edits. Nobody mentions that many articles have a mix of uncapitalized and capitalized usages of the terms (in the racial context) already, even outside sentence beginnings and quotes. I am improving the pages by resolving such inconsistencies. AppGoo0011 (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

...Except that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that mixed-caps usage, so your edits are not automatically an improvement. The very MOS link you like to throw around specifically says that there is no consensus to implement a rule [...] against mixed use where editors at a particular article believe it's appropriate, and you're presumably aware that the talk page section you started is in fact trending towards a consensus to use that exact mixed-caps style for that article. So no, you are incorrect to say that removing such "inconsistencies" is necessarily an improvement. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not referring to deliberate mixed usage (which is biased, btw) I'm referring to the articles that have at least one instance of white instead of White or black instead of Black (again, outside of a sentence start or a quote.) AppGoo0011 (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

AppGoo, the "severe opposition" isn't to "one capital letter", it's towards your multiple questionable edits. You can't just run roughshod over a delicate and complicated issue that has pitted Wikipedia editors of good faith against each other, with no real solution in sight other than we're trying to be considerate of the various communities and their various opinions. Someone who goes through capitalizing "white" but not "black"--yeah, don't be surprised if editors suspect your motives. Posting the same question all over various talk pages without seeming to have an interest in the answers, never mind in consensus, that's just trolling. You want to say, stop making absurd arguments (I'm white and not of the painted kind, obviously) and stop with your pointy edits. Just to make sure, here's the link: WP:POINT. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

What hit me in addition to general activity was Whites are actively demonized for forming racially exclusive groups, Blacks are not.[3] which shows a degree of insensitivity and unfamiliarity (trying to be polite) that suggests they don't belong anywhere near articles related to race. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Cases like this are why I wish the previous RfCs regarding RACECAPS had ended with a clear-cut consensus for some standard for this touchy subject. That's what an MoS is for, after all. "No consensus" is just inviting edit wars and talk-page drama. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

That statement alone should result in a WP:NOTHERE block. The user is clearly pushing an agenda. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

COI / SOCK editor

• Jishnu Raghav (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Maryam Noor26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please see this COIN report for User:Jishnu Raghav filed on the 21st. They continue to create a page for Jishnu Raghavan under different disambiguations to avoid detection. I filed the SPI at Helloo 68 last week but still awaiting CU. Since that time, I moved yet another disambiguation creation (Jishnu (actor) to draft which was just moved back to mainspace by newer user Maryam Noor26. Can we do a DUCK block on these and possibly protect yet another disamgiation version? --CNMall41 (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Can we blacklist the name? That should solve the repeated recreation attempts, which in turn should frustrate the sock - hopefully enough to stop coming back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B13D:12B7:549F:256E:933:DD82 (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I will never ever come to edit for wikipedia because for what i had came that has been completely fulfilled. I will be happy even if you block me and please don't delete Jishnu article protect his page and don't allow any unregistered user to edit his page. I'm not lying it's my god promise I will not come hereafter. BYE!! Jishnu Raghav (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

FYI to reviewing admins - user has threatened to never leave actually. Hence the multiple sock accounts they have created over the last few months. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

For reviewing admin: diff. NM 07:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Both users have been blocked. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Continued MOS:GENDERID violations by User:Angrycommguy

Tagging admins User:The Anome and User:Cullen328 due to their previous involvement in this matter.

User:Angrycommguy has on numerous occasions edit warred and made edits against consensus and wikipedia policy regarding the article Death of Nex Benedict

Laying out specific issues:

MOS:GENDERID:

He has repeatedly deleted the use of they/them pronouns in the article because he considers it "non-neutral wording", despite editorial consensus in talk repeatedly and overwhelmingly being against him. [4]. This is done in favor of referring to them by no pronouns at all in the article and their assigned pronouns in the talk page despite every reliable source in the article and overwhelming talk page consensus agreeing that Nex preferred they/them pronouns, and not a single source apart from his own WP:OR saying anything to the contrary. When these changes are reverted per ONUS, GENDERID, BRD, and a million other regs, he edit wars them back and says that since there's no consensus (because he personally doesn't agree based on his OR), there should therefore be no pronouns at all and demands admin involvement before he allows pronouns (this is all done unilaterally).[5] He additionally then demands that Nex's assigned sex at birth be included despite no reliable source making note of it, due to needing to understand "the nuance" of them being beaten and then dying shortly thereafter (more on that phrasing in a moment) without having to "go dig for information".[6] When these edits are reverted per WP:BRD, he re-reverts them, calls anything to the contrary censorship, and posts in talk one variant or another of the saying 'facts don't care about your feelings'.[7][8][9](There's a lot more than these)

He also repeatedly demands in talk that Nex be deadnamed, posts their deadname in talk (since removed by other editors), and then refuses to WP:DROPTHESTICK in favor of WP:BLUDGEONING the process with claims of censorship, that anything to the contrary of his view is "self research" no matter how many RSP secondary sources are cited, and makes more 'facts don't care about your feelings' posts.[10][11][12]

WP:BLPCRIME

He has also, both in talk and in article edits, wrote that the deceased committed criminal assault over the deceased throwing water on someone, despite not even charges being filed. When this is reverted per BRD, ONUS, and overwhelming talk page consensus already having been against him on this exact point, he edit wars it back in[13][14] and calls anything else vandalism.[15][16]

When anyone tries to tell him that any of these things are a violation of wikipolicy, his response is "Are you an admin? You're not".[17]

The diffs cited here are not an exhaustive list, I should stress. For a fuller picture, look at the talk page. Really just look at the talk page in general.

Snokalok (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Tagging users @Sideswipe9th @LilianaUwU @Funcrunch @Firefangledfeathers @Callumpenguin Who can provide corroboration or refutation as needed Snokalok (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Methinks a topic ban is in order. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Topic ban for the subject or perhaps a 1rr revert restriction that forces them to gain consensus on talkpage. Unbroken Chain (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

A one-revert restriction wouldn't be effective in the slightest. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

User:LilianaUwU IMO it gives them rope. It allows them a voice while restricting article disruption. If the behaviors persist the sanctions increase. Looks like by my count they have breached 3 RR so that's why I was suggesting. I do not however hold a strong opinion here though, these are just my thoughts. Unbroken Chain (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Unbroken Chain, people who deadname trans and nonbinary people should not be given rope, they should be given an indef. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

User:LilianaUwU we allow all sorts of racists and POV pushers here, still need to be evenhanded in sanctions. What I was unaware of was the Enforcement warnings and arbcom case. Looks like they already had their rope and used it. Unbroken Chain (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

No, we don’t—and if we did, that would be a bug, not a feature. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

They do not need to be allowed a voice when it's being used for transphobia. C.f. WP:NONAZIS BLP applies to recent deaths @Unbroken Chain. I'm not going to overrule @ScottishFinnishRadish who is more well versed than I in CT/DS, but I think the INDEF has been earned. Star Mississippi 00:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Star Mississippi A person does however deserve to be given a chance to rectify their behavior before we go scorched earth. It's the whole basis of assume good faith. Daryl Davis is a great exemplifier of this IMO. Change the hate and misperception from the inside. You're entitled to your opinion though and I respect it. Hopefully the limited sanctions imposed today is enough to change that behavior. I try and avoid these subjects as much as possible because it's impossible to please either side or have balanced conversations because of the strong feelings it invokes. Hope one day both sides can actually talk about things rather then just vilify each other. Big eye opener for me was taking a gender and sexuality class in university, learned a lot. Thankfully there was people there that did not share your view on how to handle those with misplaced understandings. Unbroken Chain (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm extending a bit of AGF that they're simply not aware of the intersection of WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLP, and perhaps they weren't trying to deadname, but instead follow primary sourcing they've reviewed. If there's a consensus that they should just be indeffed and be done with it, that is fine with me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

You're my favorite root vegetable, but no one is arguing in good faith that the use of "they" is confusing or removing pronoun entirely in good faith. This is straight up disruption Star Mississippi 00:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm conflicted because, on the one hand, I appreciated a system that errs on the side of mercy and reform; and new users are certainly prone to doing stupid things, so it's reasonable and even constructive to let them learn.

On the other hand, I can feel wrinkles in my face in places I didn't even know it was possible to get wrinkles from the stress of today.

If it was me, I would've gone down the middle with an indefinite gensex topic ban, especially in light of previous warnings by admins on the topic, but you're the admin acting here and you're vastly more experienced and well-versed than I will ever be, so, thank you for acting quickly. Snokalok (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

This was meant to be a reply to @ScottishFinnishRadish. Sorry1 Snokalok (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

If the behavior pops up anywhere else in the topic area it'll be taken care of quickly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish has p-blocked. I was going to indef entirely. These edits and anyone making them do not belong here. Star Mississippi 00:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed if you straight up indeffed. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Appreciated. Snokalok (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Angrycommguy's editing behavior was causing me a fair amount of stress. Funcrunch (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm hoping that they can continue to make productive edits to military articles, cleanup any copyvio issues they've created in draftspace, and learn the applicable policies and guidelines. If the behavior spreads to other articles in the topic then I'd support a full topic ban or block. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I gave the editor some frank advice. They said they would probably stop editing the article but instead continued. I endorse the page blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Good p-block. I've been considering filing a request at WP:AE, as their behaviour falls very short of what we'd expect in this content area. I'd probably have advocated for a TBAN though, give them a chance to be productive in what was previously their primary interest of the US Air Force. I'd have some concerns that this behaviour might spread to other GENSEX articles, but I can understand taking a lighter touch as they haven't edited any other GENSEX articles or talk pages. I suspect if they do continue this behaviour elsewhere though, other sanctions can swiftly be put in place. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The spreading to other GENSEX articles is what I worry about also, especially because we've probably now pissed him off with *waves around* all this. Snokalok (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Ugh, great. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I might be a bit of a baka, I read "The spreading" as "they're spreading". Oops. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

If the behaviour spreads to other articles, I'm sure an admin will be willing to do a GENSEX topic ban so I don't see a need to worry about this at the time.

I haven't not looked that carefully at the edits, but I'm not sure why editors think an indef would be normal in this situation especially since editors seems to be treating it as a goodbye forever or at least a long time type of indef. Even a GENSEX topic-ban is might be justified but seems unnecessary. Possibly some editors without any real history have been indeffed for something similar, but those are cases when we have no reason to think they can contribute productively elsewhere so do make sense and also those indefs are generally more in the form, well since we have no reason to think you can do so, please convince an admin you can, rather than a goodbye forever/longtime.

For example, I'm aware of at least one editor who's behaviour in violation of GENSEX is arguably worse and involved multiple articles and both pronoun and deadname related issues, and only received a 31 hours block. Incidentally they too didn't receive a topic ban, they're back to editing and so far seem to have stayed away from anything related (although it has only been a few days).

I'm also reminded of a massive blowup when a fairly well known editor was blocked and threatened with an indef for something vaguely similar pronoun related to what seems to be involved here. The editor retired after that but the whole thing was very controversial and there was never any suggestion we should already indef, just if the behaviour was repeated. Yes it involved an editor rather than a subject so GENSEX doesn't apply per se, but other guidelines policies do. And okay, the editor involved was fairly popular, and the editor they referred to was um controversial, and already indefed neither of that seems relevant. And yeah it was 3 years ago, but I think the other example is evidence it's not that out standards have changed so drastically.

Likewise, in terms of DEADNAME issues, there were problems recently at another article, but the editor seems to have desisted, without any block or topic ban, although they were warned.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The problem with the absurd mass attacks on every instance of the word "they" in the article is that they obscure the fact that there are problems with a couple of sentences where there are two or even three possible referents for a pronoun that, speaking with my reader hat on, doesn't convey information to or confuses us readers. Uncle G (talk) 05:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Related WP:TPO violation concern at Talk:Death of Nex Benedict

There has been considerable redaction at that talk page of mentions of Benedict's dead name.

For example, Mustachio0 asked Should Nex's given name be included?, and in the comment underneath included the deadname; LilianaUwU redacted it, saying no you're not including the name.

When an editor asked them to refrain from this behavior, on the grounds that it was against TPO, they refused, saying You think I'm gonna let a flagrant GENDERID violation stand?

I don't know whether it would be appropriate to include the name in this case, but the correct location to determine that is the talk page, and it isn't helpful to censor those discussions - it makes it harder to hold the discussion, it makes it harder to look for pertinent sources, and it deters people from participating in the debate. I'm not sure how to address this, but I think it needs to be raised. BilledMammal (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Please (re)read MOS:GENDERID regarding why the non-notable deadnames of trans and nonbinary people should not be included on Wikipedia, even on talk pages. Funcrunch (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I was familiar with that policy when I undid the edit, but I originally thought it would not apply in this circumstance given its specification of "living". XeCyranium (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I was the editor who reverted the first two edits to that comment, I initially thought the usual BLP concerns concerning former names wouldn't apply, given the subject's death. I was informed of this recent RFC which found that BLP privacy restrictions should still apply even after death in all circumstances for an indeterminate but presumably reasonable amount of time. So as it is I think it was okay for editors to have redacted the name though I do think referring to that RFC in the edit summaries would have made things smoother. XeCyranium (talk) 02:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

You were misled; BLP does apply briefly after death, but MOS:GENDERID isn't part of WP:BLP and only applies to living individuals.

Further, there is a consensus that "Where the deadname appears in reliable sources, the question of whether to publish it on Wikipedia is one for editorial judgment", with there being occasional consensus to include the deadname of living individuals in contravention of GENDERID, such as at Isla Bryson case - it isn't appropriate for individual editors to decide that a discussion about whether a deadname should be included is a flagrant GENDERID violation, nor is it appropriate for them to unilaterally remove it. BilledMammal (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The provisions that a non-notable former name should not be included in any page, even if reliable sourcing exists, are founded on WP:BLPPRIVACY. And with the current reversion of WP:BDP to its pre-2021 state where it automatically applies, BLPPRIVACY based provisions would apply to circumstances such as those for Nex Benedict.

It is also entirely possible to hold a discussion on inclusion of a non-notable former name, without actually mentioning that name in the discussion. You could quite easily ask the question "Should we include Nex' former name?" without having to include it in the question. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The provisions that a non-notable former name should not be included in any page, even if reliable sourcing exists, are founded on WP:BLPPRIVACY.

BLPPRIVACY doesn't say what you think it says. It pertains to full names, not former names, and it does so in the context of identity theft. Further, it provides an exception for when the name is sufficiently covered in reliable sources - and Mustachio0 question was whether we should include it on the basis of the coverage in reliable sources.

You could quite easily ask the question "Should we include Nex' former name?" without having to include it in the question You could, but it makes it extremely difficult to find relevant sources and it suppresses discussion - look at the RfC and post-RfC discussion on Talk:Isla Bryson case, and see what editors were able to find when the name was provided that they weren't able to find previously. BilledMammal (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID specifically states: Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. Funcrunch (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Come on, BilledMammal. Isla Bryon committed her crimes under her deadname - so it makes some sense that it is included, even if I disagree with it. Nex Benedict was not notable under their former name. This is the whole point of MOS:GENDERID. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I haven’t considered whether Nex’s should be included in the article, and I suspect if I did I would find it shouldn’t - but what I have considered is that it isn’t appropriate for you to edit others comments in violation of WP:TPO and generally shut down the consideration of that question. BilledMammal (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright, let me ask this question: would you want my (currently private) deadname to be plastered all over the place if I died under mysterious circumstances? The exact same logic applies here. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It depends on the specifics, but I suspect that I would oppose including it in the article. However, if it is reported in reliable sources and an editor raises the question of including it in good faith on the basis of those sources then we must be able to consider that question - Wikipedia is not censored. BilledMammal (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't trot out WP:NOTCENSORED as an excuse here. We do censor all the time, hence BLP. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

BLPPRIVACY doesn't say what you think it says. If that's the case, why does GENDERID link to it when it tells us that we should treat non-notable former names as a privacy interest that is both separate from and often greater than a person's current name?

You could, but it makes it extremely difficult to find relevant sources Having edited the article since shortly after its creation, I'm familiar with all of the sourcing for it, and there are no relevant reliable sources that exclusively use or mention Benedict's former name. All sources that contain their former name also contain their current name, with many having a correction notice for formerly including and using the wrong name. There are no reliable sources on Benedict prior to their death. This is nothing like the Isla Bryson case.

it suppresses discussion No. Discussion on inclusion of a non-notable former name is free to happen regardless of whether or not it is currently included on the talk page.

look at the RfC and post-RfC discussion on Talk:Isla Bryson case, and see what editors were able to find when the name was provided Do you mean the one discussion where there's a bunch of what appears to be unsourced original research? Because all of the sources provided in the subsequent discussion contained both Bryson's former and current names. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

GENDERID can link to whatever it likes, it doesn’t change what BLPPRIVACY says. BilledMammal (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe it's because the longstanding community consensus is that we treat non-notable former names as a strong privacy interest, per how BLPPRIVACY handles all other types of personal private information. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that there was ever such a consensus, but the most recent is that The community agrees that there is no rule that deadnames must be removed. Given the absence of such a consensus it is inappropriate to edit other editors good faith comments to remove them - and if you want to make such edits, get a consensus to modify BLPPRIVACY first. BilledMammal (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes the close of that discussion says that, but its in the context of revdelling and oversight. In this instance we're not talking about edits that have been revdelled or oversighted, just redacted by other editors. You were the only editor in that discussion expressing the same concern as you've done in this discussion, about removal stifling discussion, with others who were opposing saying that the non-notable former names shouldn't always be considered for RD2 or OS.

That close also states that the decision for removal is one of editorial judgement. In this circumstance, multiple editors have expressed that in their judgement removal is warranted.

The text on treating non-notable former names as a privacy interest that is separate from and often greater than the person's current name was added on 8 October 2020 as a result of this August 2020 RfC where similar wording was discussed. While there was subsequent discussion and an edit war on other text added around this time, the provision on treating the former name as a separate and usually greater privacy interest has remained in place since it was added. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:TPO is the relevant PAG here. MOS:GENDERID does not apply to talk pages at all (it's the Manual of Style– why would anyone think it did??), and WP:BLPPRIVACY is likewise irrelevant (for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that it appeared editors were attempting to evaluate sources in furtherance of reaching a consensus on whether to include or exclude the name from the article). A group of editors should not be able to completely derail a talk page conversation dealing with the very thing they're adamantly against having in article-space. It's disruptive. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

As others have said, there's absolutely no reason why we need to include the dead name in any discussions of whether to include it. Excluding any mention of it is perfectly normal and it's reasonable to edit other comments while making it clear this was done to remove it. It's also fairly common we do this with cases where it's not a dead name, but simply a real name with limited sourcing or where WP:BLPPRIVACY may apply although in that case, there can sometimes be some confusion what name is being referred to so it can get iffy. (On the flipside, if there is insufficient sourcing oversight of this alleged real name be justified.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that if someone engages in behavior like deliberately/flagrantly ignoring MOS:GENDERID on a talkpage, in a discussion that is already heated, it's better to alert an uninvolved admin to intervene rather than edit war over trying to remove another editor's comments. Refactoring or reverting another editor's comments are almost guaranteed to inflame a situation, rather than achieve the desired outcome, regardless of the rightness of the action. Doing so with an "I will not let this stand, and I dare you to undo it" approach is guaranteed to inflame the situation. Grandpallama (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

While the phrasing of LilianaUwU's edit summary was a little brusque, in light of the MOS:GENDERID violations that had been pushed the deadname into the article's mainspace, I can understand there being some impatience (but quite restrained, frankly) with editors seemingly eager to violate MOS:GENDERID all over again. I support adhering to MOS:GENDERID and aver that it applied in this case. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Didn't say it didn't apply or that we don't adhere to it. But the language used in reverting wasn't a little brusque; it was deliberately provocative, from an editor with a history of warnings about needling. You can be in the right about an issue, but still not handle it well. Asking an admin to intervene is just as effective, and keeps things from unnecessarily overheating. Messing around with others' comments guarantees overheating, as I said. Grandpallama (talk) 06:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It wonder if it is the case that deadnaming, on the talk page of an article with a recent history of editors committing MOS:GENDERID violations, guarantees overheating. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course it's not the case, unless one decides to pick a fight instead of seeking uninvolved admin help; in fact, "this is a sensitive topic" is an argument that reduces our tolerance for angry engagement. The inability to edit a topic or page without getting overheated (especially when combined with a confrontational approach) is the classic Wikipedia rationale for TBANS and other editing restrictions. It's not lost on me that the editors with whom I'm most in agreement with from a philosophical and policy perspective are also exhibiting concerning behavior, but those behavioral concerns are real and justified. Grandpallama (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• It's quite clear that MOS:GENDERID and BLPPRIVACY and many other related pages are in proper congruence with each other on this sort of matter and that includes discussions on talk pages. Particularly since there is no need to use such names even if one is discussing something about them. There's already been one person removed from the page from the discussion above and it seems likely that the several others pushing for the usage of the subject's deadname on the talk page are also pushing the same POV stick and will, in time, find themselves t-banned, if not worse. Best to nip this in the bud from the outset. Silverseren^C 06:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Your comment is a little ambiguous; when you say "use", do you mean "mention"? - see Use–mention distinction. I don't know if other editors were using the deadname, but Mustachio0 was only mentioning it. BilledMammal (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  There are editors who have been using (not mentioning) the former name on the talk page, and advocating for its use (not mention) in the article. One of them has since been page blocked as a CTOP action. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Can more admins keep an eye on the talk page? Beyond the gross misgendering and repeated use of the dead name of the person who died, some editors on the 'other side' (so to speak) have unfortunately let emotions get the better of them and are making the claim it was murder when there has been no charge let alone a conviction; and indeed AFAIK it hasn't even been found that it's a homicide yet. Nil Einne (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne You do know we have admins in that very talk section saying the same thing: “kill”. We have an admin there saying that it was a kill. [18] Snokalok (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  That's a problem, and people on the talkpage need to cool it. Grandpallama (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Knson

Sir Knson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is indef blocked, has amazingly returned as Knson Gold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as well as multiple IPs 2A02:C7C:A739:F700:B919:232:A560:9B58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2A02:C7C:A739:F700:BD92:7D5B:6E32:1CEF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2A02:C7C:A739:F700:13E:82D7:30CF:2B35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) etc. I'd take it to SPI, but it seems perfunctory. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked by a few people, including me. IznoPublic (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Legal threat

On the talk page of Dean Mahomed, @Bengal213x: is now engaging in legal threats against Wikipedia and myself following a reversion after he removed sourced content. Please refer to this diff:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dean_Mahomed&diff=prev&oldid=1210477551 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ixudi (talk • contribs) 20:37, 26 February 202 (UTC)

User blocked. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This account is presumably the same as the several IPs that were likewise disruptively-editing this article a week ago, leading to a semi-protection at that time. DMacks (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Persistent creation of Indian election articles by Maphumor

Persistent creation of Indian election articles by Maphumor (talk · contribs)

1. 2027 Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly election
2. 2027 Punjab Legislative Assembly election
3. 2027 Gujarat Legislative Assembly election
4. 2027 Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly election

User has not responded to inquires about the mass creation of articles on their talk page, (see User talk:Maphumor#Mass creating new articles in mainspace with obvious errors, Diff) and these pages contain obvious errors such as Legislative Assembly elections were held in Uttarakhand on 2027 Nov to elect 70 members of the Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly. The votes were counted and the results were declared on 10 March 2022..

Further, their recent edits take to changing election information and results without sources, see Special:Diff/1210485401

Going further back, they recently frequently create Next election in xyz pages that are frequently moved to draftspace for the same concerns. Overall disruptive editing practice and failure to abide by WP:V.

microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 21:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not familiar if this meets the threshold of WP:GS under WP:CT/IPA if it only involves one of the countries, I'm not familiar with that area of work. Happy to be informed otherwise. Brought to my attention as a reviewer at WP:NPP. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 21:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Further changes without sources as described above: Special:Diff/1210486763, Special:Diff/1210487748, and Special:Diff/1210488246. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 21:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Insertion of false information into articles is vandalism and this editor has received several warnings over the years. I think a week-long block is appropriate to prevent further vandalism, especially since this editor isn't responding. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I would also note the lack of response above at #Regular vandalism, edit warring by Maphumor. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 01:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I suspect they may be an LLM editor. My radar is going off on those Soni (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• See additional discussion of this editor above. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Regular vandalism, edit warring by Maphumor

Maphumor is continuously contesting in edit warring. He deletes Wikipedia informations without explanation according to his whims. He is seen continuously to impose his edits over other editors. If you see his edits, his edits are mainly of deleting information. Besides, he clearly seems to uphold or suppress specific specific political ideas (he probably does not like that is not my issue...His disruptions is making problems). His edits can be included in Vandalism, Disruptions, Edit Warring, Biased editing. Multiple editors @User:Dhruv edits, @User:Shaan Sengupta, @User:Happyjit Singh, User:XYZ 250706. Please take steps against his edits. A discussion regarding him was done here previously also with no outcome. User:XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

You need to provide specific WP:DIFFs of edits you believe were vandalism. Note that vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and false accusations can be considered personal attacks. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Indian_National_Developmental_Inclusive_Alliance_candidates_for_the_2024_Indian_general_election&oldid=1210034588 Here he deletes Party names as per his wishes even many editors have said him not to delete them. XYZ 250706 (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_Indian_general_election_in_Tamil_Nadu&oldid=1209209948 Maphumor here deleted AIADMK party (major party in Tamil Nadu) without giving explanation or sources. XYZ 250706 (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Such activities are continuous. If he does not do such activities, many number of editors would not have to warn him continuously. XYZ 250706 (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• See additional discussion of this editor below. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Delete-Undelete assistance requested

Please see my talk page thread User talk:Maile66#WP:G7 I'm not sure what is involved to revert this delete, which I originally saw on Category: Candidates for speedy deletion. Could any admin step in and perform what this user needs? Thanks. — Maile (talk) 02:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your willing to help. However, this issue should have been posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard as opposed to this place. The revert of the original delete of NTT is too late to be helpful. Thus, what I left on the talk page is just a reminder for WP:G7. I would also say keeping the original version of NTT (disambiguation) is more proper. And its current version is still acceptable, but may cause a little confusion in its history. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Muhammad Jalal al-Din

Muhammad Jalal al-Din (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New editor, registered today, removing references and making large numbers of unsourced changes, mainly changing the "creed" of individuals between Ash'ari and Athari. Unresponsive to Talk page notices from multiple editors. See contribution history for more.. eg: [19], [20], [21], [22] , [23], [24], [25], [26].  // Timothy :: talk  02:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Timothy, thank you for taking this to the administer noticeboard, it is well needed. This new editor is coming with a malicious motive and hasn't learned our community guideline policy. He comes in and immediately takes the route of vandalism by disrupting long-standing content without notifying other editors and their contribution. He makes addition without adding any reference [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] and sometimes he removes longer established references and replaces it with unreliable sources [32] [33] [34] [35]. He also bluntly decides to engage in an edit-war with multiple users. [36] [37] [38] [39] It's clear this user is not here to respect the community or their contribution but rather he's here for an agenda. Ayaltimo (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@StarkReport; Edit warring, numerous warnings, WP:CIR, WP:OR and other violations

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

- WP:EDITWAR

[40] (his 1st rv, reverted then by me)

[41] (his 2nd rv, reverted then by @HaeB)

[42] (3rd one, he'd rv Apaugasma's edit, reverted then by @Toddy1)

[43] (4th one, he'd rv Toddy1's reversion, was reverted then by @TryKid)

[44] (5th, rv some text)

[45] (6th, rv @DenverCoder19's reversion, was reverted then by @Toddy1)

- WP:BATTLEGROUND & WP:CIR. Numerous warnings already regarding edit warring and other stuff on his talk page. However, he removed all of them.

[46] , [47] warned by @HistoryofIran

[48] by @Kuru

[49] by @Diannaa

[50] by @Isabelle Belato

[51] by @AhmadLX

[52] by @Gotitbro

[53], [54] by @LouisAragon

[55] by @Girth Summit

[56] by @Apaugasma

[57] by @Toddy1

- WP:OR; source misrepresentation

[58] Pointed out by @AhmadLX

[59] (Including cherrypicking & WP:CENSORSHIP) pointed out by me.

[60] Unsourced.

- WP:CIR or WP:IDHT

StarkReport was informed by Toddy1 [61], [62] that deleting text but leaving its sources is something that destroys verifiability. He replied with "alright" [63]. He had also been warned about something similar by TryKid [64]. However, just recently he overwrote some text but again left the sources of the text he removed [65]. Even though those abundant sources were for information that was very different from the text he just entered.

- WP:COPYVIO (had been warned before by Diannaa)

[66] Almost exact copy from [67] p. 6. (Compare the edit with [68] the parts I underlined, he merely added "According to the influential thesis of Ameer Ali" at the beginning of the passage.)

-WP:CENSORSHIP, whitewashing on articles related to Islam.

[69] Removed sourced content that

... Muslim world exporting as many as 17 million slaves to the coast of the Indian Ocean, the Middle East, and North Africa

[70] Again censorship (−1,061‎)‎. Warned then by AhmadLX [71].

Starkreport then proposed a draft on the article's talk page. However, @Apaugasma considered that his draft:

"is a lot worse than the original. What it trims are not needless details, but the context needed to understand how exactly the views of the different scholars differ. The proposed revision reads as if all these views are more or less the same. This not only misrepresents these views (since in actuality they are rather different), it also gives the paragraph –even though it is shorter than the original– an almost superfluous feel."

[72] Trying to remove this sourced material:

"Aisha also spoke her mind, even at the risk of angering Muhammad. On one such instance, Muhammad's "announcement of a revelation permitting him to enter into marriages disallowed to other men drew from her [Aisha] the retort, 'It seems to me your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire!"

- Again WP:CIR or WP:IDHT

Starkreport was told by Apaugasma on the Battle of Karbala's talk page on August 1, 2023 [73] that "Historical subjects generally require (secular) academic scholarly sources", but just recently he was again trying to use religious sources in Aisha to push a fringe theory [74]. I, as well as Apaugasma, informed him again that our WP:SOURCE policy requires sources to be independent [75], [76]. Toddy1 also told him that the view he was pushing was fringe [77]. His response suggests that he understood [78]. But not long after that, he did it again [79].

- Trying to mislead people to win over an argument.

[80] Warned by @HaeB to "not throw around links to pages that do not mean what you claim they mean."

[81] Told by me that he was misrepresenting what Apaugasma said. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 02:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

1. Displaying revisions from over a year and a half ago, during a period when I was less experienced, all of which were successfully resolved amicably.

2. Misrepresenting the minor issues as significant ones.

3. Utterly false accusations and distortions like "Trying to remove this sourced material"[82] where as I merely discussed it with a senior user and he simply stated "I think it contributes a lot to our understanding of their relationship" and the end.

I absolutely refute this appaling fabricated evidence which has been manipulated to align with the perspective of a single user, Kaalakaa.

This is a clear-cut case of WP:Bullying's False accusations and Misrepresentation. Please tak action against this sort of behavior.

To the administrators, I respectfully request to ask those mentioned above like Apaugasma, @Toddy1, @Anachronist, and others about what do they think. StarkReport (talk) 05:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, you are trying to mislead people. The ones from 1.5 years ago are just a few of the warnings on your talk page, while the diffs about your behavior are mostly recent. And many of them are by no means minor. Anyway, I'm already tired of your incoherent bludgeoning. The evidence is there, let's just see what the admins have to say. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 22:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Responding to pings. I'm sorry, but I don't have time for this. Both of you seem to seek out difficult and controversial Islam-related issues, yet neither of you seem to have a proper understanding of the historiography of Islam, nor the editorial skill to forge a consensus on thorny subjects.
  I was pinged to Talk:Aisha on 30 January, and responded that I wouldn't be investing a full week's time into this. Yet you both are still bickering there and elsewhere. Both of you, indeed StarkReport somewhat more than Kaalakaa, but both of you are causing serious timesinks for other editors.
  My advice for you two is to stop editing Islam-related articles, and to go and edit something on which you have less strong feelings and more expertise. My advice to the community is that if this doesn't stop, topic bans on Islam-related subjects should be considered. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  Dear @Apaugasma, I apologize if you think of me that way. But on that article's talk page, those who disagreed and tried to explain policies and guidelines (such as WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, etc.) to StarkReport were not only me, but also many other editors, including yourself. As @TryKid summarized the situation here as one (StarkReport) against many. While on WP:ORN [83] I simply pointed out the gross source misrepresentation StarkReport made in another article, which still doesn't get a response from him. There is indeed a difference of opinion between me and you (which is normal for people) regarding the treatment of a fringe theory about Aisha (you yourself agreed with me that it is a fringe theory [84]), which you have not responded to here. Maybe it's because you haven't had time, or maybe my concern isn't worth responding to for you. But if you think I should be given the same sanction as StarkReport, who I believe has done the violations I listed above, I think that is very unfair. I believe that I have always tried to write articles in accordance with our policies and guidelines. If you see problems with my other edits, feel free to point them out and I will try my best to answer or fix them. But still, I respect your opinions, even if I find them hard to accept. 🙂 — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 00:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Kaalakaa,I take my words back about addressing you as a "senior editor." It seems you clearly are not. The amount of times you exhibited WP:IDHT and WP:CIR is exhausting. And, despite my explicit clarification "Kaalakaa, my argument has nothing to do with including the views of Muslims scholars rather the content like however, elsewhere Tabari appears to suggest----- " which was made by consensus way before both of us "should not be removed under no circumstances" and yet you shamefully tried to manipulate it "But not long after that, he did it again" and tried to get me banned. But, to no avail.

  Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND and stop treating it as such. Else you will be sanctioned. StarkReport (talk) 06:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Speedy close - WP:FORUMSHOP There was already a report of StarkReport ^{created by Kaalakaa 22:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)} at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Source misrepresentation and cherrypicking in History of Hinduism. It is best to deal with that complaint first.

The list of complaints by Kaalakaa (above) is over-long because it contain duplication. @StarkReport: would do him/herself a big favour if he used talk page archiving. With talk page archiving it would be easy to see that he/she had dealt with some (or most) of the warnings in an entirely satisfactory way. If he/she wants, I will set it up for him.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The No Original Research noticeboard has a different purpose than this one (ANI). If an editor has engaged in multiple different forms of problematic behavior (e.g. misrepresenting sources on the one hand and e.g. edit-warring, battleground behavior, misrepresenting other editors' comments, or misrepresenting Wikipedia policies on the other hand), then I don't see why it should be prohibited to raise each in the most appropriate noticeboard around the same time.

In any case, concerning the NOR noticeboard thread you brought up (which Kaalakaa had already cross-linked above): Despite StarkReport's vocal but unspecific denial (Absolutely not. [...]), two other editors appear to since have agreed there that StarkReport has indeed misrepresented sources. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Then kindly, also read ahead. The editor who also agreed has proposed this sentence "The Mughal kings of the golden age were known for their religious tolerance, and they actively patronized the arts and literature"

Now tell me is it really that different from what I wrote "Under the Mughals, India experienced a period of relative stability and prosperity. The Mughals were known for their religious tolerance, and they actively patronized the arts and literature." Is this what you call misrepresentation??

Nonetheless, I have already tried to address the concerns by removing the sources and providing alternative references days ago after the complaint. If the issue continues, I suggest to engage in a discussion on the article's talk page instead of magnifying it unnecessarily here and making a mountain out of a molehill. StarkReport (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@StarkReport: The source is far more specific than your summary of it. The difference in meaning is important - and is explained rather well by Kaalakaa at WP:NOR#source misrepresentation and cherrypicking in History of Hinduism. Please stop being defensive; he/she has shown that you should have read the source more carefully, and not just the sentence you were trying to summarise.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

There is also an element of spin in the above report. The claimed "edit war" consisted of a list of all the reverts he/she made to the page on Aisha between 30 January and 23 February.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

There is also an element of spin in the above report. The claimed "edit war" consisted of a list of all the reverts he/she made to the page on Aisha between 30 January and 23 February.

Isn't slow edit warring blockable? Like these cases, perhaps: [85], [86]

And the first four of his reversions, which I listed above, took place between January 30, 2024 and February 3, 2024.

WP:FORUMSHOP There was already a report of StarkReport created by Kaalakaa 22:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC) at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Source misrepresentation and cherrypicking in History of Hinduism. It is best to deal with that complaint first.

I'm not sure about that. WP:ORN is not a place to "report" on an editor's behaviour, it is a place to ask for input on possible original research. And the issue I raised there is just one of the many things I listed above. Also, I posted this report here because I saw the 6th rv by him.

The list of complaints by Kaalakaa (above) is over-long because it contain duplication.

Which part is a duplicate? Let me know so I can strike it.

would do him/herself a big favour if he used talk page archiving. ... If he/she wants, I will set it up for him.

That, I think, is a pretty good idea. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 17:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

This is one example of duplication.

• 107 by @Toddy1.
• StarkReport was informed by Toddy1 22, 23 that deleting text but leaving its sources is something that destroys verifiability. He replied with "alright" 24.

I have not checked to see whether there are others duplicates. If I were you I would also strike through the nonsensical complaint of edit warring above - if you look at the diffs: No. 1 & 2 are about one thing, No. 3 & 4 are about a different thing, No. 5 is about yet another thing, and No. 6 is about a load of different things. i.e. the six reverts done over a 25 day period are about four different edits. You are beating a dead horse. Both you and StarkReport are inexperienced. Just accept that you have made a mistake. We all make them. Be willing to accept advice. And if there is still an issue with StarkReport's behaviour after the other forum report is closed, wait two weeks and figure out which forum is best for it, and then make a report that applies the lessons about what was wrong with this one.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

This is one example of duplication.
*107 by @Toddy1.
*StarkReport was informed by Toddy1 22, 23 that deleting text but leaving its sources is something that destroys verifiability. He replied with "alright" 24.

The one above is in the list of warnings on his talk page, while the one below is my elaboration of one of his WP:CIR/WP:IDHT issues. So I don't think it's a duplicate.

No. 1 & 2 are about one thing, No. 3 & 4 are about a different thing, No. 5 is about yet another thing, and No. 6 is about a load of different things.

WP:EW:

The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually.

the six reverts done over a 25 day period are about four different edits.

As I mentioned earlier, his first 4 reverts happened between January 30, 2024 and February 3, 2024. He had received an edit-warring warning [87] from Apaugasma after his 3rd revert. It was only his 5th and 6th reverts that took place on February 23, 2024. Perhaps this case of another editor can be used as a comparison. Their first 4 reverts happened between July 8 and July 13, 2013, while their 5th and 6th reverts happened on August 1 and August 3, 2013, respectively. But they got blocked for edit-warring, nonetheless.

the other forum report

Dear Toddy, like I already said, WP:ORN is not a place to "report" on an editor's behaviour, it is a place to ask for input on possible original research. And the issue I raised there is just one of the many things I listed above. Also, I posted this ANI report here because I saw the 6th rv by him. If I only report it later after the issue I raised on WP:ORN is archived, I'm afraid it will be too late to report this edit warring case. 🙂 — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 03:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

How does an editor whose account was created in 2023 know about a WP:AN/3RR case from 2013?-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Toddy1, If its any relevance, Kaalakaa has also been under suspicion of engaging in sockpuppetry. After @DeCausa asked him about it, he clearly refused to give a direct answer. See SPI investigation.

You are more informed about the necessity of initiating another more thorough immediate investigation if it is required. StarkReport (talk) 09:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I've only seen Kaalakaa at Muhammad. It's pretty obvious they edited extensively before this account and, for whatever reason, don't wish to disclose it. I don't know who they were previously so it's not something I would take to SPI. Don't know anything about the issues in this thread. DeCausa (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea if or by what account Kaalakaa edited previously, but as far as the linked SPI report goes, I am 100% sure that Kaalakaa is not Loverofediting (and trust me, I'm in a position to know that). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Didn't you know that we had a search function? The results can be very random if you don't sort by date, though. Like the reason I got that case. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 10:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I haven't read through the whole complaint, but seeing StarkReport's behaviour around the time I had an eye on the talk page, I do see a pattern of obnoxious (civil?) POV-pushing. And now silly references to "battleground behaviour", "CIR", "IDHT" against the complainant here—pre-empting or mirroring descriptions of his behaviour? I'm not sure whether any adminstrative action is required though. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that StarkReport shows a pattern of obnoxious but definitely civil POV-pushing ('sealioning', though apparently more as a result of inexperience than of bad faith). I'm also not sure whether administrative action is required. I think that would get cleared up more easily if Kaalakaa's approach to dealing with the civil POV-pushing would be much more concise and a little less battleground-like. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, when I initiated the discussion about the Aisha article, I envisioned a swift resolution with a few requests for improvements. Regrettably, I had no idea it would drag this long. StarkReport (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

How to become an Administrator?

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.

---

Please answer my question thank you and God bless ❣️💕🥰 REPETITION is not allowed (talk) 12:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

See WP:RFA. ActualPrimeNumber1567v (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

User blocked. Tollens (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. ActualPrimeNumber1567v (talk) 12:54, 27 February 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.

Juniorpetjua

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.

---

Editor Juniorpetjua (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Juniorpetjua) was blocked indefinitely on the Portuguese Wikipedia for "attempts to impose WP:POV generating numerous edit wars", as written here: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Pedidos_a_administradores/Discuss%C3%A3o_de_bloqueio/Juniorpetjua/10 . He has been applying the same editing system here, not accepting changes to the articles he edited, he has "article owner" syndrome and although he thinks he is some kind of "protector of articles about the Northeast Region of Brazil", which is where he came from, he usually carries out massive unrealistic propaganda for the region, combined with political propagandism, and uses force and editing wars, as can be seen in 2017 editions in Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and now, where, recently he made nothing more, nothing less than 9 reversals in the Recife article in a way that completely disrespects other editors and the project. He already has a history of 2 blocks because of this and has learned nothing. I ask that the referring user be blocked from this Wikipedia as well.Stockpeixe (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Stockpeixe: As per the instructions at the top of this page, you are required to notify Juniorpetjua of your complaint.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Done.Stockpeixe (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Stockpeixe: Have you attempted to discuss this user's edits with them? City of Silver 23:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss with an editor who has carried out massive edit wars, vandalism and propaganda on Wiki Pt and Wiki En for more than 10 years. His behavior is flawed: he is here solely to advertise the area where he was born and to propagandize politicians from the party and politicians for whom he is radically passionate, this is visible in what he did in the article Recife where he put a lot of activists and politicians (his idols). He has always done this and will always continue to do this, in other words, he is an editor who is in no condition to participate in Wikipedia - he is not here to contribute anything useful, he is partial, has addictive and childish behavior. There were 10 discussions to ban him on Wiki-pt and he always avoided the ban by acting like a poor guy. When they stopped feeling sorry for him they finally did what they should have done in the beginning, they wasted a lot of time talking. Don't waste your time with another 10 years talking to him here.Stockpeixe (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Stockpeixe, we do not block an account on English Wikipedia for their behavior on another language Wikipedia. We do not block editors in 2024 for misconduct in 2017. This editor has only made 18 edits in the past four years. When you write There is nothing to discuss with an editor who has carried out massive edit wars, vandalism and propaganda on Wiki Pt and Wiki En for more than 10 years, you are incorrect. We always try to discuss before blocking and even before reporting to ANI. Your report is far too broad and sweeping. You need to explain concisely, preferably with diffs, what this editor has done wrong in 2024. Cullen328 (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, OK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recife&diff=prev&oldid=1209695814

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recife&diff=prev&oldid=1209695957

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recife&diff=prev&oldid=1209695994

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recife&diff=prev&oldid=1209696175

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recife&diff=prev&oldid=1209696216

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recife&diff=prev&oldid=1209696271

Mental translation of all editions of Juniorpetjua: "I am a radical socialist from the Northeast of Brazil with a very low level of education, which makes up almost the entire population of that region, I have had my brain washed my entire life by populist-socialist propaganda, so, I decided that I need to use the structure of Wikipedia to carry out propaganda no matter what the cost. I love Lula and PT more than my own life, I'm a radical activist, everything I do in life is based on that, my last 12 years at Wikipedia have been doing just that, I was banned from the PT Wiki for this reason and as I don't know how to do anything different in my life, I'm going to continue doing this on the English Wiki, look, I'm going to include a bunch of politicians from PT, the corrupt owner of Odebrecht who is Lula's partner. Paulo Freire who destroyed Brazilian education and reduced it to memorizing and being automatically approved even if you got everything wrong, left-wing radicals who taught me that they are gods that I must follow and idolize. I have no ability to contribute to anything on Wikipedia, only my subservience to a political system that mentally controls me as if I were an ox in the pasture."Stockpeixe (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see that the person who needs to be blocked is you then. Glad you've made that very clear with your egregious personal attack of a mental translation and lack of assuming good faith. – 2804:F14:80C5:3C01:E903:6335:76BA:FBB4 (talk) 08:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Juniorpetjua dont has any "good faith". He waa blocked several times here and in Wiki-pt for merely wanting to use this here to praise his particular gods (Northeast Brazil, Lula and everyone who is in favor of Lula). And he has nothing more to contribute or do here until his death. He will even stay here until he is 90 years old, watching the pages to see if no one is damaging the image of his great love Lula. Banning him will be good for his mental health, who knows, maybe he will seek specialized treatment.Stockpeixe (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Stockpeixe, what you wrote above is a personal attack that is entirely unsupported by any actual evidence other than your personal hostility toward the other editor. Despite my specific request, you have presented no actual evidence so far. Do you have evidence, or are you here only to cast aspersions? Again, what specifically has this editor done wrong in 2024. Cullen328 (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I already said above: Banning Lula's political activist will be good for his mental health, only then will he stop carrying out political propaganda here and seek specialized treatment.Stockpeixe (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you stop commenting on someone's mental health and redact all statement you've already made. That's indefinitely blockable behaviour right there. Nil Einne (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Stockpeixe, you are simply not permitted to speculate on Wikipedia about another editor's mental health, without presenting rock solid evidence of irrational behavior. Which you have not done. Even if you happen to be a psychiatrist, which I doubt, you cannot diagnose anyone without evaluating them in a clinical setting. I am ready to go to sleep now, but to me, it increasingly looks like it is you who should be blocked, not the other editor. It is very late at night where I live and maybe I am missing something. But it looks to me that you have failed to make your case. Cullen328 (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

P.S. When I wrote the above, I just saw the two comments on mental health, and thought WTF and replied. I didn't expect to see something much worse, but I now see the "mental translation" comment. I think an indefinite is well justified. At a minimum, the Stockpeixe needs to demonstrate they understand how unacceptable both those things are before they're allowed to resume editing. Nil Einne (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, you are from San Francisco, your oppinion doesnt counts when it comes to politics. And this is not advocacy. Juniorpetjua has a extremelly limited knowledge, he is like a bum payed for politicians to raise some campaign sign. Northeasterners like him are semi-slaves in Brazil. He swlls himself for food, he's a ppor guy. Dont worry, he'll be blocked globally whether you want it or not,because he has NOTHING else to contribute here otger than carrying out this type of ridiculous activism.Stockpeixe (talk) 10:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

If Stockpeixe hadn't already talked himself into an indefinite block then he certainly did with that edit. Can an admin please put this thread out of its misery? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

San Francisco people is braindead about politics. Dont have any importance anymore, you are the world's joke. Stockpeixe (talk) Stockpeixe (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

This comment is beyond the pale. Can an admin please indef Stockpeixe please. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that's enough of that. They have been indef'd. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I note that no human editor has edited Talk:Recife for over a year. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:58, 27 February 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.

Milan Knežević (Montenegrin politician)

Hello, I need some help from an experienced editor regarding recent changes at Milan Knežević (Montenegrin politician).

New user Jovanadnp has made many changes to this article over the past months, 100% of which have been reverted. There is a clear conflict of interest ("I am Milan Knežević's representative"), as well as many other problems - the edits are extremely worsening the page.

This is the most recent change by this user, which, similar to their earlier changes, again removed previous good content and its sources, removed all wikilinks, and added a vast amount of unsourced content. It is simply not an improvement, but I don't want to get into an edit war, and frankly am done with this issue.

Jovanadnp is now threatening police action against myself or anyone who alters the page.

I would love someone to step in and speak with this user, as this is really not my area.

Than you very much for your time. Jessicapierce (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Multiple legal threats here [88], admin intervention is definitely required. WCM_email 17:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

And here WCM_email 17:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be a very good demonstration of why people with a conflict of interest shouldn't edit an article directly. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for legal threats and with an additional note on the COI, and frankly the lack of ability to understand Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 18:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Constant disruptive editing, no sources, multiple warnings from multiple editors

Taeisawesome21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After a second (possibly more, but I wasn't counting) revert of this editor for adding content previously noted as non-MOS, I included a notice via RedWarn for disruptive editing. I did not see until later that this user has been warned on multiple occasions over the past month for constantly adding unsourced content. That by itself would not be so problematic except that their responses to being warned about the need to cite sources is basically of the "c'mon, get over it, man" variety. I can assemble diffs if requested, but a review of their talk page notices, their responses to those, and a brief look at their editing history shows a pattern of disruption with no intention of correcting what has been pointed out to them. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems like all of Teaisawesome21's contributions and complaints are related to TV/TV Series/broadcasting, I think a topic ban is a clear move needed here. TLA^tlak 18:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Taeisawesome21 for their pattern of disruptive editing. Cullen328 (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 You made an error in the block notice. Not in the block itself, that's fine. The notice is saying, "You have been blocked indefinitely for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions." The picture itself also shows the stop sign with the cross, but there's a clock. Probably would recommend changing the notice. There's nothing wrong with it, just a cosmetic error. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I mean, it's impossible for an indefinite block to expire on its own unless the admin decides to lift the block. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

NoobThreePointOh, thanks. I have copyedited the block notice. Cullen328 (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

No problem. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

JassyGamer - Overlinking spree

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.

---

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

New editor, rapidly making multiple edits, almost exclusively overlinking on multiple articles, e.g. [89] with the edit summary "This article mentions the correct article from Wikipedia." I have tried to engage with the editor explaining they're creating a problem [90] but it seems to no avail as they've continued. Some of the edits have wrongly linked the wrong article e.g. [91].

Much as I hate to bring it here, as it seems to be genuine if incompetent editing but they are creating quite the need for a cleanup. WCM_email 16:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

 Note: blocked as a sock by Spicy. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:31, 27 February 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.

Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Jiabao Li

I have reason to believe that:

• Agnescooper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• coopgalvin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zerokelvins69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2605:A601:A0A3:9200:FD86:A463:EF9C:36E9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

are engaged in either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. I also have reason to believe that at least one of the users has a conflict of interest with the subject of the article. I'm not sure if publishing information about the COI would violate WP: OUTING, so I'm only going to share information about that privately. There's also two more IPs that seem tied to this as well, but I'm less sure about their connection to this article (see the last paragraph of this section for more information).

I nominated this article for deletion about four days ago because I didn't think it met WP: N. Since then, three users opposed the nomination, but all three of them have essentially only edited this article. There's also a fourth IP that's done some editing on the article as well:

• Agnescooper (talk · contribs) has only edited this article.
• 2605:A601:A0A3:9200:FD86:A463:EF9C:36E9 (talk · contribs) has only edited this article.
• Coopgalvin (talk · contribs) has only edited this article and added Li's name to a list of TED speakers (diff).
• Zerokelvins69 (talk · contribs) has only edited this article, with the exception of two unrelated edits that only add / modify a small part of the article.

The diffs these users have collectively produced seem pretty slanted, in violation of WP: NPOV.

Here is a revision of the page that only contains edits from Zerokelvins69 (talk · contribs):

Li has contributed significantly to the tech industry, inventing the Electrocardiography (ECG) on the Apple Watch and the Scribble function for the Apple Pencil. She conceived and prototyped several features for the Apple Health App for mental and physical health. She also played a crucial role in the conception, prototyping, and development of the Apple Vision Pro.

I'd expect to see phrases like "contributed significantly", "conceived and prototyped", and "played a crucial role" on a resume. They have no place in a venue that asks editors to maintain a neutral tone when editing.

Li has been recognized widely for her innovative work, including being named in Forbes China's "30 Under 30". She is the recipient of numerous prestigious awards, such as [a list of awards, omitted to brevity].

This is puffery. On what basis does appearance in a single list constitute wide recognition? Why are the listed awards prestigious?

The only significant diff the IP editor added was this. The basis for my AfD was about the quality of the sources, and this editor seems to have tried to add some in response. (I think these editors are conflating quality and quantity of sources, but that's a discussion for the AfD itself.)

Agnescooper (talk · contribs) has produced this diff ("Her work at the lab focuses on transforming perceptions of nature, exploring the intelligences of non-human species, and fostering a harmonious relationship with the environment") and this diff ("Li serves on juries for major design awards") which contain slanted language. They're also both marked as minor edits when they're clearly not.

I'm here at the advice of the Teahouse (this links to the question that I asked) and because this seems to be a conjunction of issues (COI, BLP, sockpuppetry). If there's somewhere else I should go next time, please let me know. There's also some cryptic edits on my Teahouse question by 126.254.227.110 (talk · contribs) and 126.53.182.81 (talk · contribs), one of which accuses me of using an LLM, I think? (I don't think the IPs are related, and I misread one of their comments. I do find it unusual that an IP's first edit is on the Teahouse of all places though.) I don't know. This situation feels very weird and very wrong. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you feel so harried and troubled. At the same time, may I ask what the urgent incident or chronic, intractable behavioral problem is? Otherwise, there are other noticeboards that are better suited for investigating sockpuppetry and for content issues.

• WP:SPI (Sock Puppet Investigations)
• WP:NPOVN (the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard)
• WP:BLPN (Biography of Living Person Noticeboard)
• WP:COI/N (Conflict of Interest Noticeboard)

P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

From the original submission: "I'm here at the advice of the Teahouse and because this seems to be a conjunction of issues (COI, BLP, sockpuppetry). If there's somewhere else I should go next time, please let me know." HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Er, yes, those sentences are in your OP; I read them. That's why I let you know where else to go. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding here. I'm aware that noticeboards for SPI, BLP, and COI exist. I wasn't aware about the one for NPOV though. My problem is that there is a violation of several rules happening at once, so I don't know which one is the right place to go to. The edits span back more than six months, which seems chronic. There's also four different accounts (if you include the IP) that are coordinating this, which seems pretty intractable to me. I would guess that meets the "chronic and intractable" standard, but it's my first time here. Am I supposed to post a copy of the same section to four different noticeboards? HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

This is the correct place to post as there are clearly issues here. However, the first thing I would do is post to WP:SPI, as there is clearly a sock/meat problem here. The COI issues are secondary. Frankly, however, any administrator looking to close that AfD is going to discount the comments made by those editors, as they are fairly clearly simply incorrect. Black Kite (talk) 09:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@HyperAccelerated I noticed this a couple days ago as well and have just opened an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Agnescooper. Came across their talk pages and saw this ANI, you can submit your findings there as well, thanks. TLA^tlak 18:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

 Resolved Users in question blocked. TLA^tlak 03:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment: Apologies if this edit was inappropriate, but I changed {{User:Zerokelvins69}} to {{User|Zerokelvins69}} in the OP's post, as I think that was the intent (it was transcluding the user page into the post, including adding ANI to the list of sockpuppets category). – 2804:F14:80E5:6B01:F969:B861:B7FB:B942 (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Starting a new category

Ahoy! Was trying to create a category for honorary citizens of the United States, but apparently that's off-limits for me and requires an administrator. Even though the category would only include articles about 8 people and about the honor itself, I think it's still worthy creating, considering the high honor in question. Requesting said category or help relating to this. Many thanks in advance! Kaljami (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe this might be something for WP:AN, not ANI. The Kip 23:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, that category has been deleted 3 times previously, which I guess is why it's locked down to prevent further creation. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It's actually something for WP:DRV not AN. But despite the long-ago date, the rationale in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_8#Category:Honorary_Citizens_of_the_United_States) still seems compelling to me: "another honor that is bestowed upon famous people who receive many awards and honors" contradicting WP:OCAWARD "category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a #DEFINING characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients". —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive or keen but inexperienced editor

• Tomlovesfar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cothenius Medal awardees, 1792-1861 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Cothenius Medal awardees, 1792-1861 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I created this article Cothenius Medal awardees, 1792-1861 as an offshot of Cothenius Medal as the main Cothenius Medal article will get too big. Editor Tomlovesfar came across and moved it to draft where it is now at Draft:Cothenius Medal awardees, 1792-1861, saying it should be all kept in the same article. The editor is not an Afc reviewer and is a newbie. Keen I think and mistaken but a pain. Called it spam. This is the most prestigious scientific medal that the Germans award. I mistakenly copied it back over his redirect to get the article back to mainspace. The article is now shown as being created under his name, by mistake. Can somebody please remove the Cothenius Medal awardees, 1792-1861 and rename the Draft:Cothenius Medal awardees, 1792-1861 back to the original name. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 06:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Any admin or page mover can handle this. This was one mistake of a pretty new editor who thought they were acting appropriately. They made the unfortunate decision of draftifying an article by a very experienced editor but I don't think this had to be escalated to ANI. Education is called for in these situations, not bringing a disagreement to the drama boards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

User talk:ScarletViolet

This editor, ScarletViolet, has unilaterally nominated an article to GAN (which I created/expanded), where they had zero input and contribution, and at the same time initiated a review of said article. I'm quite stunned by the lack of awareness for the GAN process displayed the this editor, but also saw this coming considering this user has a history of this type of behavior, and I have made repeated warnings on the editor's talk page.

As a note, this user has had this behavior within the TFA and FAR spaces. And has been temporarily banned twice in prior years.

• Nominating Regine Velasquez's article to TFA as an April Fools joke [92]
• Nominating Mariah Carey's article to TFA and then withdrawing it because said editor could not not address issues to improve the article [93]
• With regard to second bullet, nominating the FA article for Featured Article Reassessment without being able to raise concerns at the talk page [94]

I would like to request that this user be sanctioned accordingly, either a block from editing, or a block from the FAC/FAR/GAN pages, whichever is appropriate as it appears that repeated warnings have not worked. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I am very very sorry for what I have done. Promise I won't ever do those things again. Please note I'm currently working on a Sarah Geronimo article so that I can have it as GA/FA, and I have been blocked twice in the same year by the same administrator for violating citation-related policies when editing NBA-related articles. ScarletViolet (talk • contribs) 03:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

As far as I’m concerned, apologies and promises don’t bear any weight considering this editor has been a repeat offender for violating processes in Wikipedia, particular within the GAN, FA, TFA, FAR spaces, where said editor has repeatedly put forward ill-prepared requests that are violations of standard guidelines. I have not seen a change in behavior despite making promises [95] [96] after frequent warnings. Pseud 14 (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The editor keeps mentioning that they are “close to promoting” their work to GA or FA, when a closer look at the article, it seems to be unprepared. It also validates my argument that the editor should not be given access to these spaces, as these are considered Wikipedia’s best and high-quality work. They seem to imply that they are close to promoting their work to GA or FA, but they are unaware of the guidelines, ie the editor nominating an article they have not contributed to and then initiating a review of the same article at GAN, among the many infractions they have committed. Pseud 14 (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully, this case will come to an amicable conclusion, which I will accept and respect the decision made by the admins. ScarletViolet (talk • contribs) 12:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Good. Remember that non-admins can give good advice too. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Reopen of discussion

Please, reopen this discussion per WP:BADNAC. @Super ninja2 close the discussion to supervote. Zsohl^(Talk) 13:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Re-opened It's not even a supervote as such, as the editor that closed it had espoused their desired result throughout the discussion; they clearly therefore can't close it. Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I have asked Super ninja2 to come and explain this close here. They were only recently unblocked/unbanned, so I would have expected a different editing approach than this. Daniel (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Daniel for giving me the chance to explain myself. Before closing the discussion, I looked for how to close it and if I should close it and found this in WP:CLOSE: It is unusual for anyone to request a formal closure by an uninvolved editor unless the discussion has been open for at least one week so I thought that this was a habit here. I actually was surprised to know that the policy prohibits evolved editors from closing the discussion so I messaged Black Kite to know more about it. Thanks again. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 09:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Super ninja2: "Most discussions don't need closure at all, but when they do, any uninvolved editor may close most of them – not just admins" (from WP:CLOSE). Thoough this should sort of be obvious, I would have thought... Black Kite (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Long term battleground pattern of NOTHERE

Radiant Fellow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has a long term history that shows it is primarily SPA, more than 76% of their mainspace edits are The Chosen (TV series) and related articles. There is a significant pattern of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OWN by constantly re-editing articles to their preferred edits over the objections of other editors. They do not openly revert, but rather will return and re-edit over any edit that has changed their previous edits, marking those edits as "minor", and using edit summaries such as "fix redundancy" or things of that nature, masking the fact that it is a reversion of another user's edits. Often, these are bundled in multiple edits making it difficult to notice. They have essentially refused any discussion. Key points of WP:NOTHERE, they have shown a pattern or disruptive, battleground editing with no interest in collaboration or discussion. I don't know if marking these stealth reverts as "minor" is intentionally gaming, but that's NOTHERE as well.

There is a good deal of this in their history, but in the interest of being as concise as possible, this is primarily just where it came to a head with another editor.

• In List of The Chosen characters, another editor (Alaska4Me2) had been adding a legitimate cast member that Radiant Fellow continued to remove through the "stealthy" reverting mentioned above. She pointed this out to me, that she had been trying to add this several times and had even reached out to Radiant Fellow via his talk page for discussion, which he generally blanked with the edit summary "bs".
• I agreed with her addition and reverted his edit [97] and posted an edit warring notice on his talk page, which he blanked with "copy, noted"[98].
• Alaska4Me2 made a number of additional edits (listed as one diff:[99]), which he again stealthily reverted in multiple edits, all marked as minor (listed as one diff:[100]).
• I reverted that to status quo ante asking him to discuss first[101] and notified him about the issue marking non-minor edits as minor[102].
• He reverted back [103] and blanked his talk page with "understood and resolved"[104].
• I reverted to status quo ante and again asked for him to leave it at that and discuss the edits with the other editor involved [105] with a tp notice of disruptive editing [106].
• He blanked that with "consensus is given"[107] and reapplied his edits with "As far as I understand, it corresponds with everything given" [108].

I had originally asked Doug Weller to take a look at it because he was somewhat familiar with some of the history involved. Only then did he come out with any kind of talk page acknowledgement [109], which, from my POV is a little bit of too-little-too-late and rings hollow since there was plenty of opportunity to discuss this at the article. And even after that, he made one very minor change with an edit summary "in accordance with Alaska4Me2" [110] presumably to give the impression that he's now collaborating (which he's not, as her edits that he overwrote multiple times were far more than just that minor change).

Anyway, after I had posted the evidence on Doug's page, I thought better of it because he's dealing with a lot and in order to not bug him with it unnecessarily, I am moving it here. I can provide additional evidence or clarification as needed, but as I noted, the vast majority of his activity reverting other editors is done through compound minor edits just going back to his preferred article state. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not at my best today due to recent chemo. I am not going to comment on Radiant Fellow's general editing because of that, but I did look at their talk page edits two days ago and was not happy with all the continuing reverts of discussions. As Butlerblog mentions above, blanking with an edit summary of "bs" suggests strongly that they have a difficulty with editing collaboratively. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Having read as an uninvolved editor the diffs OP provided and some additional edit history, I'm seeing what's described. This behavior is WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:OWN, or WP:NOTHERE, or a combination thereof. The combination of gaming the system with stealth-reverts tagged as "minor edits", misrepresenting the situation in edit summaries, and this having happened over an extended period of time is seriously troubling. I agree that Radiant Fellow's eleventh hour acknowledgment of being spoken to at all is a little bit of too-little-too-late and rings hollow; the behavior is more like attempting to dodge consequences than actual progress on improving upon prior behavior. If this behavior does revolve around The Chosen topics, a topic ban for Radiant Fellow and a warning to not continue this pattern of behavior on other subjects seems like a suitable next step. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

^{Alerted user[111]} Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{Killer Queen} 16:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Babysharkboss2: FYI, I alerted him when this was opened - he blanked it, along with everything else as noted above. View his user talk history. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Still open with no action. I think at minimum a TBAN is warranted, if not consideration of NOTHERE. If a TBAN, then what I'd like to see is a more consistent pattern of constructive editing that includes collaboration with other editors before lifting the ban would be considered. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Butlerblog I've blocked indefinitely or disruptive editing per this thread and their failure to work with others on their talk page. We'll see what their unblock request says, Doug Weller talk 16:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that's reasonable. Thanks for looking at it. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Otuọcha

Hi guys. Please help with the account Otuọcha (talk · contribs). Account created to make vandalism on Wikipedia. Thanks in advance.--BobVillars (talk) 09:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Please help as fast as possible. This account has been created to make vandalism and have fun on Wikipedia. Thanks --BobVillars (talk) 09:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

You haven’t provided any examples nor left them an ANI notice on their talk page as explained at the top of this page. Celjski Grad (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I did : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOtu%E1%BB%8Dcha&diff=1210583764&oldid=1210233098 ; For example please look of the contributions of the user. Vandalism or at least DND and having fun. I am not the only one to complain. --BobVillars (talk) 10:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@BobVillars, that's a warning about vandalism; you specifically need to inform them that you have posted about them on AN/I, there's a template for it at the top of the page.

That being said, WP:AIV might be a better place to report them if the problem is vandalism. Admins are usually very quick to act there. StartGrammarTime (talk) 11:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@BobVillars, as the user still hadn't been left an ANI notice, I've done it as a courtesy. Neiltonks (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

BobVillars, you warned them for vandalizing Swaady Martin. Adding a citation needed tag to an undersourced BLP isn't vandalism. Nominating an article for deletion isn't vandalism either; at least not in this case. Mackensen (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I see no issues with Otuọcha's issues. Maybe strayed a little close to 3RR but not intentionally. Their addition of maintenance templates, fixing the article to Wikipedia policies and manual of style or nominating it for deletion are not vandalism or anyone having fun. At this point I think there's more of a curved stick looking at BobVillars' edits. Canterbury Tail talk 12:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

To give additional context, BobVillars has been indeffed from the French Wikipedia a couple of weeks ago for sock puppeting and promotional editing [112]. On the english WP, he is very likely a sock puppet of blocked users User:YtoSu and User:RutoSu following the same patterns of editing, on multiple WP languages. --McSly (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Disruption and personal attacks

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

Aroneasadas has been making disruptive edits and personal attacks ever since they have started to edit election articles and this has increased since the past week.

• On February 2023, removed 22,000 bytes of content from an article without any explanation. Special:diff/1138944985 Two months later, edit wars over it (Special:diff/1149496511) and once again without explanation.(Special:diff/1165972819)
• This was his response to another user in the talk page of an election article on March 2023: "...i can also accuse of you being anti India , pro terrorist." (Special:diff/1144950325)
• Has violated WP:3RR in 2024 Indian general election in Tamil Nadu with five reverts on the edits of three different users within the last 24 hours to push his unsourced POV content.(Special:diff/1209812236)(Special:diff/1209816206)(Special:diff/1209841957)(Special:diff/1209934641)(Special:diff/1209944362). From 21 February 2024 to 24 February 2024, he has made 8 reverts in this article without any explanation.
• When I posted a warning template for edit warring in their talk page, he personally attacks me and calls me a "moron". "... I do not have to tolerate your lies and deceit. You are the moron one who changes my edits to the way you like and trying to gaslight me.." (Special:diff/1209933475)

Most of his disruption since the past week is happening on 2024 Indian general election in Tamil Nadu to secure his POV version of the article by indiscriminately reverting anyone with no explanations in the edit summaries. - SUN EYE 1 13:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

What you accuse me about is applicable to you also

your reasoning for changing my edits is based on your delusional dogmatic view points.

Do not expect all of them has the same opinion as yours

None of your expiation is satisfactory, I do not want to type long paragraphs to enlighten you.

You are in pretentious sleep, you can't be awakened

All of your edits are pro indi alliance. Your Low tolerance about other views

for example

1. (Special:diff/1209938590)

2. (Special:diff/1209787884)

3. (Special:diff/1209763413) these are some examples , do not pretend to be a white knight

All of them are not subscribed to your dogmatic ideas and narrative setting

no explanations in the edit summaries

I already give explanations when a critical edit is done for minor edits what the need of explanation.

You are the one deleted those without proving anything

i give links to credible sources, why do you delete it

why you always delete NDA candidates and K.Annamali links without any explanation and saying that "its just cleaning" the article

You are the intolerant one who pretends to be a nice guy

I like to know your view points in details, why do not you explain yourself for your lies and deceit.

I will give summaries and expiation for all my edits. How about that? Aroneasadas (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

How about that? Sounds to me like you're talking yourself straight into a WP:NOTHERE indef, is what. Ravenswing 14:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

How about that? Is the only thing you get in your mind ?

I want to give a balanced view points to the world, not one-sided view points

WP:HERE Aroneasadas (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

We do not provide WP:FALSEBALANCE here, nor do we tolerate personal attacks like ...i can also accuse of you being anti India , pro terrorist. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The first unlinked diff you've provided (Special:diff/1209938590) is an edit by another user. The second one (Special:diff/1209787884) is me removing an WP:EL to another language wiki which you had added like a citation. The third one (Special:diff/1209763413) is me nominating an article for deletion with WP:TWINKLE. I'm unsure how these diffs support all the personal attacks in your reply again - SUN EYE 1 05:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• 415 edits, POV pushing, a years long string of personal attacks? NOTHEREd.

Courcelles (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

User:PoliticsMaps

Please revoke talk page access. They are issuing legal threats. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Done. --Yamla (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Salmoonlight

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 Salmoonlight has been making persistent edits on the Current Events portal in trying to restore false information pertaining to the death of a self immolator Weisz21 (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The disruptive edits are on the section of February 26, 2024 Weisz21 (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: This is potentially related to section #User:Alpoin117 being extremely disruptive on Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell. – 2804:F14:80E5:6B01:F09A:24EE:9203:57C6 (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Relate what you wish, the question to the admins is if Salmoonlight is entitled to make disruptive edits in constantly restoring false information Weisz21 (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It is related. Salmoonlight (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Salmoonlight appears to believe another user’s bad behaviour justifies that he can make disruptive edits. Weisz21 (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

You could have brought this up on the talk page first instead of bringing it to ANI. Salmoonlight (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

You should know what edit is disruptive, the moment you see that people persist in taking it down you should research to know what happened before editing, whatever other people do is not relevant to your best performance. Weisz21 (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

You still did not need to take it here. Just pinging me on the talk page would have been fine. I've realized my mistake. Salmoonlight (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It took ignoring multiple users until you finally realized your mistake, that doesn’t exactly following cooperation with the community. Weisz21 (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I've simply been trying to fight off Alpoin117's vandalism. I didn't realize the content was irrelevant until after I restored it. Salmoonlight (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

But you didn’t because you reverted someone else Weisz21 (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

??? Salmoonlight (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

“ “ Weisz21 (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I will just make it easier to find and inform that Salmoonlight tried to delete the report before admins had time to go over it Weisz21 (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Because it's a pointless report, I thought it was recommended to take issues to people's talk pages instead of wasting the administrators' time. Salmoonlight (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

And what exactly would I have told you on the talk page? You think other users have to do the research for you and let you know on your talk page? Judging by the disruptive nature of the editing I think it’s better admins should be aware. Weisz21 (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

You would have brought up my reversions and the issue would have ended right there. Salmoonlight (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Salmoonlight: Be that as it may, for issues which you are involved in or issues that you are reporting yourself and other people have already responded, it is inappropriate to even be the one to close the discussion, let alone remove it entirely. If it's not obvious vandalism disguised as a report, and maybe even then if it's not too obvious, let people uninvolved decide what to do with it. – 2804:F14:80E5:6B01:F09A:24EE:9203:57C6 (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Good thing admins should know exactly what is vandalism. How can vandalism be disguised as a report? Whereas removing the report is clear vandalism. Weisz21 (talk) 20:50, 28 February 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-hopper continuing to disrupt

There is an SPI open for about three (or four) IPs socks who appear to be evading a block placed by The Wordsmith. One of them is continuing to disrupt [113] whilst the investigation is open. Some relevant diffs: [114], [115], [116] Conyo14 (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

As an addendum: One of the IPs (swiftly blocked thereafter) also directly admitted to being the blocked user Gymrat earlier today. We’re encountering significant WP:CIR issues if they can’t understand that a block means a block. The Kip 23:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The filer seems to be referring to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moka Mo. EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, we came here to see if there’s any larger sort of range-block that can be undertaken (or some other action) - the sockmaster in question won’t get the message that blocked means blocked, but unlike a lot of sockmasters they’re open about their identity, which IMO means CIR is at play too. The Kip 22:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Alpoin117 being extremely disruptive on Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell

• Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Alpoin117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Alpoin117 has violated 1RR a few times over and is being very unconstructive. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Vandalized the current events page too. [7] [8] Salmoonlight (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh. Scratch mine. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

They have now insulted me in an edit summary: [1] Salmoonlight (talk) 04:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Weisz21 speaks very similarly to Alpoin117, inflammatory and seemingly just looking for a reaction. [1] [2] [3] Might be a sockpuppet. Salmoonlight (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Salmoonlight Indeed, upon a closer look of the edits between the two accounts, I have noticed a lot of similarities and connections between them; I have went and filed an SPI report: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alpoin117. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Ad Orientem (talk · contribs) unblocked Alpoin117 in March 2023 under a specific set of conditions visible here: User_talk:Alpoin117#ArbCom_2022_Elections_voter_message. I'm not willing to block because I can't commit to being available to review it over the next few days. Mackensen (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Mackensen, I can commit to being available to review it over the next few days, and so I have indefinitely blocked Alpoin117 for an overt violation of the unblock conditions set by Ad Orientem in March 2023. That, plus aggressive POV pushing at the disputed article. Cullen328 (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Endorse Block with regret. I wish I could say that I'm surprised, but I'm not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Beyond the nakedly disruptive editing cited above, I have to admit that having taken a hard look at the article, I am not wowed by its encyclopedic tone. Frankly, it reads like hagiography. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Trust me, I have been trying to find reliable sources that are more critical, but I must admit that I somewhat detest that portrayal of the article. The fact of the matter is this incident occurred just days ago so maybe wait... LegalSmeagolian (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

compromised account

I think we may have a compromised account. After 90,000+ edits there's no way they should be blanking pages. blanking of the Babylon article here vs the norm Babylon. Same type edit here vs the norm Babel. I'm not super familiar with the editor but I've never seen anything like this. Moxy- 00:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

They’re on the same IP they’ve been on since December. So, technically, I don’t see it as a compromised account. Courcelles (talk) 00:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

That's very concerning....... is this the normal pattern they've been doing for years? Moxy- 00:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Not compromised. It appears that Grimes2 thinks only sources with ISBNs are reliable. Schazjmd (talk) 00:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I’ve left a warning about this POINTy conduct. Courcelles (talk) 00:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Their behaviour in commons is perhaps even more strange, see these 4 images that they added: [117], [118], [119] and [120]. – 2804:F14:80E5:6B01:4D71:4DC5:FCED:34F0 (talk) 00:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Mind you, their uploads before the 26th look fine, from a cursory glance. – 2804:F14:80E5:6B01:4D71:4DC5:FCED:34F0 (talk) 00:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the circle, er, "Sun without beams", had been added to the Byron article, for example. toweli (talk) 00:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, and the Pyramid_(2) image to Pyramid. Is there no possibility of their device being compromised? I guess that would be hard to tell. – 2804:F14:80E5:6B01:4D71:4DC5:FCED:34F0 (talk) 00:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)*edited 01:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The POINTy behavior now includes vandalizing WP:RS (by adding a “cn” tag to every paragraph). I have reverted, but this does seem unusual. Blueboar (talk) 00:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, my armchair evaluation says this is either a wiki version of Death by cop or some sort of real-life stressor event. Either way, a preventative block appears to be in order. Zaathras (talk) 00:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Because Grimes2 has continued to make disruptive edits while this discussion is ongoing and has failed to provide any coherent justification for their behaviour, I have blocked their account indefinitely. Any other admin can feel free to reverse my block if they provide an explanation for their recent edits that they feel is satisfactory. But my take on the situation at this point is the same as Zaathras'. Spicy (talk) 01:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Good block. Their CU data is so static I was hoping for a good explanation (and their actions made no sense for someone physically getting on their computer), but we were getting nothing but more disruption. Courcelles (talk) 01:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

It goes back at least to the 23rd of this month.

• Special:Diff/1209966112 is straight up partial blanking vandalism, for example.
• Special:Diff/1209962508 removes links of non-English names to Wiktionary.
• Special:Diff/1209961499 adds a stupid maze graphic to Odyssey.
• Special:Diff/1209722431 adds an image of completely the wrong thing to Selection (user interface). Special:Diff/1209720073 adds that same image to Election in Christianity.
• Special:Diff/1209733693 just blanks a source citation for a statement in an image caption.
• Special:Diff/1209304820 removes paths from URLs and archive links.
• Special:Diff/1209729185 adds the same wrong image as above and also completely blanks the citation for ISBN 9781572301023. I question the competence of the editor at this point, as this was trivially searchable by the book title.
• Special:Diff/1209727517 blanks part of a book citation including quite valid DOI, second author, volume number, and series title.
• Special:Diff/1208962733 just blanks the result of vandalism instead of rectifying it.

And we're only at partway through last week. Very good block: a lot of this needs a damn good explanation.

Uncle G (talk) 04:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Addendum: More blanking vandalism at Special:Diff/1208704377 on the 18th. Uncle G (talk) 04:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Editani, promotional edits

• Editani (talk · contribs · logs)

User was given a level 4 warning in 2014 for adding paintings by R. Gopakumar into mainstream articles, and a COI notice in 2019 when creating biography articles of R. Gopakumar.

Nearly all edits their from 2021 onwards have been to add inappropriate interwiki links to R. Gopakumar's entry on the Italian Wikipedia, in lists and templates that are meant for enwiki-notable Indian artists, and to big him up as India's first major digital art collector. This seems like a user who is WP:NOTHERE. Belbury (talk) 13:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

This user hasn't edited on en.wikipedia in months. Are you complaining about their actions on the Italian language version of Wikipedia? There's nothing we can do about that, you need to bring it up there. --Yamla (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

You're right, apologies, hadn't thought about the dates, I realise now this isn't an urgent one. I'm here from Commons where they're currently uploading more of Gopakumar's artwork. Was just surprised to see when I checked their enwiki account that they'd been warned a lot in the past for promoting Gopakumar but never blocked, and had continued far beyond the last warning. (When I say that they've been adding links to an entry on the Italian Wikipedia, I mean that they're adding those links to English Wikipedia articles and templates: eg. [121].) Belbury (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) FWIW, I reviewed the citations in it:Gopakumar R, and could see no prospect whatever of approaching enwiki WP:N standards in that collection of passing mentions. Narky Blert (talk) 08:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Page move appears to be vandalism

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

---

ජපස (talk · contribs) recently moved Spiritism (the proper name of a spiritual tradition) to Kardecist spiritism, which is not what sources call it. Then they created an erroneous dab page at Spiritism conflating Spiritualism (the proper name of a distinct spiritual tradition) and Spiritualism (philosophy), neither of which are commonly referred to as "Spiritism". The page needs to be speedily moved back. Skyerise (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I am also unsure about this move, so I opened a RM to discuss the move. But I disagree that jps needs to brought to ANI. I don't think it was vandalism or a change that warrants dragging him here, and could just be resolved through normal means. Natg 19 (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Since there was no move discussion, it should be put back. If the editor who moved it has arguments for the move, then they can present them. Meanwhile, editors and bots are attempting to "fix" the now ambiguous links, wrecking the clear distinctions between historically different socio-religious movements that were formerly present. Skyerise (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:RM, there's nothing wrong with making a move without discussion if one believes in good faith that it is an obvious correction to make, whereas controversial moves should be discussed first. I'm not seeing any evidence to indicate that jps made the page move in bad faith, and it's obviously not "vandalism". So the dispute as to whether it should have been discussed first is really a content dispute, not a conduct matter requiring administrator attention at ANI. Once the move has already happened, the solution is to start an RM discussion, as Natg 19 has done. Let the discussion reach its consensus, let the bots self-revert if that's what ends up being the result, and close this ANI discussion without further action. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 28 February 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 don't really agree with Tryptofish's comment. WP:BOLDMOVE is quite clear that while bold moves are allowed, when they are quickly disputed they should be reversed. The move from 2007 has clearly been in place way too long that it can simply be reversed but the recent move has not [122]. If User:Skyerise cannot revert the move themselves, then the proper place to deal with it would be at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests where experienced page movers, admins or not, could deal with it. That said, since it is something admins can deal with, it's arguably technically not wrong to post it here, or at least Skyerise should have been directed to the proper page. In other words, it might not be a behavioural issue, but it's still something that might need the intervention of admins or page movers. Since Natg 19 has already opened a RM, it may or may not be more confusing to revert the move now, however it's important to emphasise that the old title Spiritism is the WP:STATUSQUOANTE in the event of no consensus and while I normally dislike worrying too much about no consensus (e.g. when editors get into an edit war rather than just starting a discussion), I think in the particular case of article titles, they are important since there's often no middle ground so no consensus is a somewhat common outcome. Skyerise should be reminded though that false accusations of vandalism are personal attacks and they have been here way too long to not know what vandalism is. Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Potential Disruptive Behavior by Elinruby

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.

---

Consider this version of the incident retracted. There is a streamlined version below in the replies.

I am not sure what the best medium is for this dispute, but it's multifaceted so I'm placing it here. The primary issue is behavior, though there is definitely a content dispute. After cooling off, I'm really unsure what content is at issue, Elinruby is all over the place on their problems with the double genocide theory page. I'll list my objections to their behavior and my side of the content dispute.

Behavior objections

• Wikilawyering, particularly arguing the word of policy to defeat the principles of policy.

See the IDL Rollback discussion. Off the bat, Elinruby accused editors of abusing reversion tools and violating arbitration decisions when Elinruby reasonably reverted their edits. Throwing policy violation accusations after a good faith reversion makes it seem likes Elinruby is weaponizing the text of policy to win an argument rather than reach consensus, in violation of the spirit of that policy.

Instead of engaging in discussion - Elinruby filed an edit warring notice and then weaponized that notice to bludgeon and insult another editor into a desired response. They implied they violated an Arbcom decision without sourcing that decision, accused them of "appeal to authority" for tagging me in a discussion, and asked them to go back in time and address their grievances "before [they] went to a notice board." My understanding is that when you file a grievance, the discussion of the grievance should take place there before further content discussion. Hovering an undecided dispute over another editors head feels like Wikilawyering to me.

• Wikihounding by opening multiple discussion topics and on the article talk page, my talk page, and another user's talk page. Filing an edit warring notice when asked to justify their bold edits in discussion.

Here's the examples I believe are relevant to the discussion of the article at issue.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Buidhe&oldid=1211379074#Lithuania_CT_sourcing_requirements
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Buidhe&oldid=1211398970#Edit_warring
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Double_genocide_theory&oldid=1211377217#IDL_rollback
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Double_genocide_theory&oldid=1211389646#Misrepresentation_of_the_historiography
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carlp941&oldid=1211482152#Introduction_to_contentious_topics
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carlp941&oldid=1211482398#Please_strike_your_PA_and_ABF
7. Edit war notice, text to display for formatting

How is any editor supposed to reasonably try to answer all these extraneous discussion topics for a single page? This is bordering on harassment, and I'd like them to stop.

• Crybullying - accusing others of bludgeoning them when they answer their multiple discussion topics with robust responses to their determined attempts to insert disputed content into an article, and asking them to cool off.

I was blunt when describing their behavior as that of an IP vandal - but multiple disruptive edits and immediately accusing others of policy violations when their edits are reverted in good faith - that is typical IP vandal behavior. Additionally, I called their behavior IP behavior in response to Elinruby's complaints about their edits being reverted. They specifically bemoaned being "treated like an IP vandal." I don't think confirming their suspicions of their treatment is a personal attack, and it certainly doesn't merit multiple discussion topics on my talk page. I made it clear they misrepresented what was in their cited source in our discussion, they accused me of bludgeoning them and continued to avoid my content discussion. This crybullying borders on gaslighting - they continue to avoid content discussion to attack me and others, then accuse me of personal attacks and avoiding content discussion.

Put bluntly, it is impossible to engage in discussion with someone who falsely accuses others of violating policy and cries foul when their accusations are rebuffed. It is impossible to engage with someone who refuses to engage in content discussion.

Content objections

Elinruby made hasty bold edits and were incredibly hostile in their edit summaries and responses to reversions. Their edits removed large amounts of well cited content and they placed an unjustified content warning above the article. Instead of justifying their edits, they accused the previous consensus of being informed by Soviet propaganda, being in violation of an Arbcom decision (which I can't seem to find), and using ethnic slurs. I can't find any justification for any of these accusations, and the sources they have presented are either poorly formatted. unrelated to the topic at hand, or outright in conflict with their stated points. I would like to take these content objections to the appropriate page for it, but their behavior is egregious and should be addressed first.

Requested Action

I'd like this behavior to stop immediately. I'd advised Elinruby to cool off, and they have refused. I'd like to not be harassed for a blunt assessment of provable behavior. I'd like to discuss content instead of being accused of violating various policy in multiple places, and being accused of bludgeoning them for responding to those accusations. If it takes a block or some kind of arbitration - I'm open to anything. I just want it to stop.

Carlp941 (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh my ;) yes I did give this user a CT notice, absolutely. All of the aspersions and personal attacks they have made since this fall squarely in the contentious topics remit. I also just now added a reference to the article without asking his permission first. Mea culpa.

The Arbcom motion is linked at:

1. the edit-warring complaint
2. Buidhe's user page

Personally I think this should be at AE, for the record, but nobody asked me ;) I guess I don't mind if you don't.

I am several accusations and walls of text behind, but apparently I don't read my own sources because they don't conform to the PoV this user thinks I have. I am not quite sure what that is. Holocaust denialism maybe? This is if course an egregious accusation, but the user has steadfastly refused to strike all of his other more explicit insults since I gave him the CT notice so...probably this does require administrative attention.

I have RL stuff going on and will be in and out, but I will do my best to catch up all of the ways that I have demonstrated my failure to respect Carl's au-thor-i-tay.

For the record I considered giving him a link to the Arbcom motion, but he was raging about the CT notice and request that he strike his personal attacks, and at the time I thought he would probably consider it trolling.

Please ping me if there are questions. I do need to do something right now. Elinruby (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

You are now accusing me of holocaust denial and hand waving a well documented incident. Your twee attitude about it doesn't make it any less serious, and you know how absurd that accusation is, right? It's like you are allergic to good faith. Carlp941 (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but... I have done no such thing and I have no idea...diff, quote or link, please. I might be able to guess what it is that you misunderstood, but I shouldn't have to.

Elinruby (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I misunderstood. You accused me of accusing you of holocaust denial. Still a pretty serious, unfounded accusation. Carlp941 (talk) 02:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

its seems your issue is that this theory is being discussed at said in reference to an article about something that is characterized in the article as Holocaust denialism. I interpreted this to mean that you think I want to cover it up for some reason. If I misunderstood, I am delighted to hear that but could you please explain what you did mean? Or why you think the Suziedelis link does not support my position as well as what you think my position is?Thanks Elinruby (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)all

The Arbcom decision is about pages about Poland... which Double Genocide Theory mentions once. The page is about holocaust historiography in general and lithuania in particular. You are really stretching that ArbCom decision. Still disruptive behavior. Carlp941 (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I haven't waded into the merit of this, but @Carlp941 you're going to need way more solid diffs and fewer words. The links to @Buidhe's talk (courtesy since I'm mentioning) show literally nothing Star Mississippi 01:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it does show nothing in the strictest sense, that is intentional. It is a blank talk page subject placed by Elinruby to wikihound Buidhe. There are 13 relevant links with context in my initial post. I'll pull up all the relevants diffs and keep the context much shorter - sadly I can't promise it will be brief, but I will try. Carlp941 (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Try and think of your report here as a porno: no one’s all that interested in the 90 minutes of food and drink and seduction, they’re interested in the money shot, so the faster and more concise you can write to get there the more attention we are willing to pay to the issue you’re bringing up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B13D:12B7:9011:28D1:6C54:A742 (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Come again? EEng 08:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm all for concision, but I don't know if that's quite the metaphor we want. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The link he is talking about on Buidhe's page is a link to the December Arbcom motion that applied the special sourcing requirements from the Antisemitism in Poland case to the topic area of Lithuania. I know it's confusing but that's the way they did it. SMcCandlish initiated the motion and I was one of several people who supported it. Perhaps he will be good enough to confirm the context. The article we're talking about is of course older than that so the link was intended as context for Buidhe as to why I would say, for example, that Slate is not an academic source.

I only have a minute; I came in here to point out that the Arbcom motion he claims I did not source is his instance #1 of supposed bad behaviour. The CT notice and edit warring complaint are boilerplate not formatted by me.

I'm going to need more information about the "hostile edit summaries". Most were along the lines of "definitely true but should be specifically cited". Could Carl please explain which edit summaries are "hostile"? I am also a bit baffled about the large amounts of text I apparently removed. I unlinked an article of which I am a primary author that does not support the text linked to it. Is that what we're talking about about?

Again, I should not have to guess. The edit warring complaint lists diffs at the article and talk page in chronological order, if that helps anyone. Elinruby (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Do not describe my complaint for me, we do not have that kind of rapport. Thank you. If you only have a minute, cool off and come back later. This request is not the most urgent thing in the world, and constantly mentioning what little time you have is not relevant. No one is in a rush. Carlp941 (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not the one making wild accusations here, Carl. Why specifically do you think I need to cool off? Elinruby (talk) 02:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Stop replying to me here. Thank you. I am trying to redraft the complaint as requested. Carlp941 (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, see, I kinda do get to talk here, Carl, since you have accused me of something. Or other. Also, someone who raged at me most of the morning really shouldn't be telling me to shut up. But fine, I will go away. That works better for me right now anyway. Please clarify the points I asked about when you try again. Elinruby (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Here is a more streamlined report as requested by @Star Mississippi. I will strikethrough the original, please consider that complaint retracted, and this one as canonical.

I believe @Elinruby has engaged in wikilawyering, wikihounding, and crybullying. I would like them to stop this behavior, and I have some ideas on moving towards consensus. Here are the relevant diffs, listed by subject. @Elinruby - please do not respond until you have the entire thing - part of my complaint is your incessant wikilawyering - it is exhausting.

Wikilawyering:

• Use of a pending edit warring notice to bludgeon a user out of a discussion instead of consensus building. I will note a third party declined to act on this notice, and warned Elinruby to control themselves.
• Weaponization of policy by frontloading a talk page discussion with accusations of policy and arbcom violations. Reasonable objections to the BRD cycle are kosher, but the edit histories are also filled with these accusations. There is a barrage of them - some may have merit, so may not. There are simply too many to evaluate in a timely manner. They are using the letter of the law to bully others out of consensus making processes.
• Falsely accusing others of logical fallacies for tagging relevant editors in discussion. I am an editor with less than 500 edits. I try to mainly edit articles about wildflowers, tech, and latin american politics. In what world am I an authority to appeal to?

Wikihounding

• Opening a broad front of policy violation accusations against multiple users, hounding them into multiple policy discussions while refusing to engage in content based discussion. 8 different talking points in response to a single series of edits is excessive. Users cannot respond to all of these at once, which may be the point. Regardless, it's distressing and I feel harassed.
  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Buidhe&diff=prev&oldid=1211379074
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Buidhe&diff=prev&oldid=1211398970
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Buidhe&diff=prev&oldid=1211398856
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Double_genocide_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1211377217
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Double_genocide_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1211389646
  6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carlp941&diff=prev&oldid=1211482152
  7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carlp941&diff=prev&oldid=1211482398
  8. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1211399240 I lashed out and called them a jerk here, and for that I apologize. I retract nothing else. I will again note a third party declined to act on this notice, and warned Elinruby to control themselves.

Crybullying

• Refusing to engage with substantive critique of their introduction contentious content, instead crying foul, accusing editors of bludgeoning. When asked to cool off in multiple discussions and reconsider, they refuse.Twice. Thrice. It's pretty disruptive and offensive to be accused of bullying by someone who refuses to cool off and let anyone have the last word, and opens new discussion after new discussion to browbeat others.
• Openly stating their contempt for consensus building then bemoaning no one is engaging with them.

Proposed Actions Towards Consensus

I want @Elinruby to chill out. I want our discussions strictly narrowed and focused on content. I do not want myself and other editors barraged with allegation after allegation, only to be accused of bullying when I defend myself and other good faith editors. I would like an apology for the harassment and false accusations I and others have received and a commitment to good faith editing and discussion in the future.

I have an idea on how to keep things civil and focused on content. Everyone is welcome to ignore it whole cloth, I'm no authority - despite the accusations.

• A neutral third party enforces any Arbcom decisions relevant to Double genocide theory. For example, potentially removing any news articles like the Guardian, Jacobin, and Slate sources. @Elinruby, please do not take this as an invitation to make these edits yourself.
• For the next month or so @Elinruby is disallowed from making any edits to Double genocide theory without first asking for consensus. Preferably that consensus includes all three of us involved in this incident, but that's not a strict requirement.
• I would like @Elinruby to stay out of my talk page for anything that isn't a notice. I want our discussions to be on the topic they are taking issue with.

Again, feel free to ignore this and propose something else. Just an idea. Carlp941 (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

From 792 words to 670 words is technically shorter, I suppose, even if not really reaching what Star Mississippi asked about. I've focused on the list of 8 diffs, and it looks like you're reporting Elinruby for—posting warnings to talk pages and notifying another user of an ANI thread involving them (the latter is a required action, so Elinruby would have been violating policy if they hadn't posted that notice). Daniel Case has already warned Elinruby for some behavioral matter, so it's not clear what more Carlp941 is asking for. Meanwhile, Carlp941 has spammed five pings at Elinruby in this one post alone (which is also contrary to the earlier insistence that Elinruby Stop replying to me [Carlp941] here. I'm seeing a lot of smoke but not much fire and can't see any reason for me to support Carlp941's proposed sanctions on Elinruby. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

my apologies for the multiple pings! i genuinely didn't know that would happenly, and I apologize to Elrinruby for the spamming of pings. My main ask is for Elrinruby is to chill out, and they are willing to do that. I'll open a DRN to stay focused on content, and I am not going to respond directly to Elrinruby on anything but that and here! Please feel free to close this one out, after Elrinruby has time to respond. That's obviously not an order! I trust your instincts here.

Thanks! Carlp941 (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

(I suppose) I am uninvolved in the topic area. Primarily it seems to be content dispute, taking the same to WP:DRN may be advisable. Seems also advisable, to involved users, to avoid this content dispute spilling over to personal realms and some voluntary reduction in personal interactions might help cooling down. Cheers and happy editing. Bookku (talk) 07:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no personal interaction, @Booku:, and the issue is compliance with an Arbcom decision so it isn't a DRN mattet. But thank you for your opinion that this is content. Of course it is. Thank you for pointing that out Elinruby (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough! In the interest of toning things down, I'll open a DRN, but I'm not gonna rush to do it. Hopefully extended time between edits keeps the temp down. Carlp941 (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The goalposts have moved. I am now introducing contentious material not removing it. I have spent most of the day being insulted and accused by this editor of...heh. I am sorry. I am really trying hard to assume good faith bere. We can discuss the content issues if somebody wants, and he has some hehavioral allegations, including "wikihounding" from someone who has not been berating me for 11 or 12 hours for required notifications, a description of article content he has taken as an insult somehow and apparent a couple of new items. But I am getting lost in the scroll and not-quite-duplicate lists here and I am on a phone so I need to stop.

I think the 3RR close is a reasonable decline since apparently (if I understand correctly) Buidhe toed the line but did not cross it.i have asked for clarification on that point. I don't usually get involved at that noticeboard since people do not normally reverts attempts to improve article references. It will take some time to figure out what these new allegations are about and I will probably but I will probably go to sleep before I post again. Twelve hours of this is enough. I will post a nicely formatted list tomorrow on the items on which Carl appears to be doubling down. A couple of quick points: the word used was counseled not warned, and I doubt Daniel looked at that list of alleged malfeasance.

It is true that an appeal to authority is a fallacy, and that *was* about an editor but not said at a notice board so my bad I guess, Daniel does have a point there, but threatening me with... whatever the past 12 hours have been ... (granted that I left for a while) is arguably indeed an appeal to some sort of authority.

Third and last quick point. He says I refused to calm down when he ordered me to. I am not sure what that would even look like, but I am sorry, but I looked at that coming from someone speaking to me in bolded <big></big> tags and since I now at a notice board I will say what I have been biting my tongue all day to not say. That's hilarious.

I am sorry he doesn't like the sourcing requirement. As someone immersed in Nazi collaboration topics for over a year now I'm stand by my contention that the article is badly unbalanced and poorly sourced. This is not a personal attack.

I will look at the other allegations of something or other in the morning, unless somebody righteously BOOMERANGs it sooner.Elinruby (talk) 07:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

In the interests of lowering the temp, I am retracting this incident. Consider everything i have said retracted, and I apologize for heightening the temperature with my suggestion of sanctions. All I ask is that we focus on the content in a DRN, if that's cool with you. Carlp941 (talk) 10:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

It's difficult for this reader, seeing the behavior, to escape the impression of someone caught with a hand in the cookie jar. I am left wondering if a WP:BOOMERANG may still be warranted for Carlp941. In some linked talk threads, I'm seeing a lot of behavior that resembles what was on display here at ANI: belabored comments that could be read as badgering (Stop being dramatic being a quote, linked at end of my comment here) with formatting used to emphasize confrontational language; example: Go to your appointment and cool off, please come back prepared to engage in proper discussion. (underlining original to comment). At the very least a wet trout seems warranted. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 10:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

yeah, it wasn't nothing but I don't wanna bite the newbies either even if it would be biting back. I wonder why Buidhe didn't step in to stop to stop this. And whether he can stop her from the constant reverting.

Bottom line I'm not asking for his head but this requires thought. And thank you for reading Elinruby (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm offering to back off for a while! I will ask for some kind of mediation much later to raise future content objections, but I am not asking for a pause on edits in the meantime. Carlp941 (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

i as m really not that hard to talk to and DRN requires a well defined disagreement that can be mediated. That would not be the case when it comes to improving the referencing because how is that a bad thing? You weren't the one to stop that from happening. Does Buidhe listen to you? Bottom line, thank you for posting again but I can't do this right now. I wanna go fall asleep playing with some ideas that makes me happy. I just found out that Barbary pirates assembled at the gate to the port of Algiers and recited poetry before they went to sea. Have a good night. Elinruby (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

DRN would be a good idea if there ever was a content dispute but... Look, I didn't know you broke 400 edits it this episode. I am sorry I laughed. However this really will take a bit of discussion because I already get enough of this stuff. And somebody else who hasn't had a foot out in the door for months would have been really really upset.

But that is a very gracious apology, for which I thank you. I don't have a more sensible answer in me right now. I'll get back to you about how that might happen. Elinruby (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting my apology, and I accept yours. I'll open some kind of mediation request much later, no need to put you through the ringer again anytime soon. No rush on getting back to me either. I'll stick to latin american politics for a bit! I'll do my best to make our next interaction pleasant. Carlp941 (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I need help with the Brazilian coup attempt. They are gonna arrest Bolsonaro any week now. But be nice to the Portuguese speakers if you join us. They are hard to come by. Elinruby (talk) 11:21, 3 March 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 Loservilleas repeatedly ignoring guidelines

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.

---

Moved from WP:AN (diff)

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

User has been repeatedly inserting actor names from onscreen credits into the infobox "starring" field of film articles, despite being warned on multiple occasions that this is against the guidelines ("use the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release as a rule of thumb for listing starring actors") [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128]. User has ignored all warnings (including a final one) and the only response has been to blank their talk page on each occasion [129]. The behaviour continues [130]. Barry Wom (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 2 March 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.

Harassment by Star_Mississippi

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 wanted to take part in finalizing the article and, having studied the situation, I realized that the @Star_Mississippi user and his friends may be pursuing the article, considering the publication of the translation SPAM. Translation of articles is not spam. It looks like he has a personal grudge. The author of the article was blocked due to violations, but I think the article has nothing to do with it and it needs to be improved. All links proving value are indicated and comply with Wikipedia rules. I would like to draw the attention of administrators to the discussion of quick deletion. Maybe you can help and save the situation, otherwise it seems that some users are already losing their neutrality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Egov.Press

I studied the problem in detail and came to the conclusion that the @Star_Mississippi user is persecuting the author and trying to erase the article from all resources. Perhaps @Star_Mississippi has a personal grudge, which is why the author of the article was completely blocked so that he could not make arguments to defend the article. In this case, delete Joe Biden's article for cross-wiki spam, because it exists in different languages.

The article should be left. Evidence of significance is available. The author @Zzremin himself received his well-deserved punishment for the newsletter. What does this article have to do with it?

I would like to draw your attention to these facts. This can be considered proof of harassment by @Star_Mississippi

https://w.wiki/9K9b

https://w.wiki/9K9d

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=1210803165 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.99.44.129 (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

This accusation is entirely without merit. Theroadislong (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks like a sock to me. I've asked the Admin who blocked a similar IP. They are coming from this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egov.Press. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The Teahouse question they linked to(diff), which is clearly written by the same person as the OP, was posted by <an IP> that is blocked for block evasion. Is a DUCK block possible here?

– 2804:F14:80E5:6B01:8497:A051:760:1011 (talk) 09:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

IP is now blocked. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course, administrators need to look into the details of any claims of misconduct, but I got only into a couple of sentences of this weak and vindictive and evidence free report to conclude in my mind: What the heck is up with this baloney? Thanks to the administrators who took the time to an analyze the lunch meat and act accordingly. Cullen328 (talk) 11:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

seconding @Cullen328 and always happy to have my conduct have extra eyes but there's nothing in this article/block I'd change except yanking email access sooner.

For anyone trying to follow breadcrumbs, Zzremin's block was short (probably shorter than they deserved given the incessant badgering) until they escalated to socking. Thanks all for handling while I dared sleep. Courtesy heads up to @Ponyo whose protection they've been complaining about here and AfD. Star Mississippi 14:10, 2 March 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:Hoanghao314159

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.

---

Hoanghao314159 persistently removes (sometimes very large amounts of) cited material on List of largest known stars, Spica, VY Canis Majoris and UY Scuti (even after multiple warnings on his talk page) without any edit summary and also sometimes restores his reverted edits without a valid reason. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 15:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week: this lack of communication and the edit warring are disruptive. User:SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer, please adjust the colors in your signature so that they comply with MOS:COLOR; thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Revoke talk page access of 160.79.33.71

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.

---

160.79.33.71 See Special:Diff/1211310487. Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Block was extended and TPA was revoked by @NinjaRobotPirate. Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:29, 1 March 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 conduct

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

---

Mahir6219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been mostly a constructive editor. I'm not sure how, but he completely went off on HistoryofIran. He started 4 threads on their talk page within 2 days ([131] [132] [133] [134]) all with the same message: Dear HistoryofIran, Why you (allegation here)? You wrote that I am not historian! Who told you this boolshit? Inappropriate language. Are you historian specializing in the Sasanian period? Unrelated to topic. I am Phd and I am historian! I am author of many articles related to the Sasanian period of Iran publicated in US, UK, Poland and India, Canada, Israel. Doesn't matter. You still have to follow WP:POLICY and cite WP:RS. He also labels him "wrong" about everything. Go see the full thing at HistoryofIran's talk page. I'm also probably missing a lot of stuff, so I'm inviting @HistoryofIran here to tell the full story. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 18:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• User:Mahir6219, you need to take a much more collegial and less confrontational approach: your comments border on a personal attack and some may feel they crossed that line. I looked at this revert, and I agree with it. Your edits were unexplained (please provide edit summaries), the English was no improvement, and Chingiz Khalifa-zade, whatever his merits, was indeed not a historian, as HistoryofIran correctly remarked. If you want to argue otherwise, you may do so at WP:RSN--in a dispassionate manner with neutral references, please. I don't know that this rises to ANI level, but a word of warning to Mahir is certainly warranted. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• This doesn't so much seem to be a HistoryofIran problem so much as a problem with the editors who disagree with HistoryofIran. I think that in an effort to make the title of this section concise the OP may have misreprented what he thought. Yes, HistoryofIran may be a regular customer here, but I don't recall (I haven't read everything) any occasion where that editor has been shown to be wrong. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Very much agreed--the title of the filing seemed problematic and misleading, so I have changed it to something more neutral. Grandpallama (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Adding to the accurate observations that Phil Bridger made, my view of the matter is that if any editor is ranting and raving about how biased and unfair HistoryofIran is, the odds that the editor is an ethnonationalist POV pusher exceed 99%. Cullen328 (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  I believe that we are all exceptionally fortunate to have HistoryofIran contributing to the English Wikipedia, doing very challenging work in contentious topic areas where most English speaking editors (myself included) lack the deep knowledge to contribute productively. Cullen328 (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  I concur. Since HistoryofIran gets so many complaints here I have a couple of times spent some time going through their edits. Surely when everyone complains there must be something to it, right? Nope. I've never in their edits found anything I would disagree with. The fact that HistoryofIran still puts up with this massive nationalist, recidivist nonsense is testament to them as an editor and their seemingly infinite patience. Canterbury Tail talk 19:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  I did the same exercise as Canterbury Tail, last time Historyofiran was involved in a dispute at ANI a month or two ago. I did it because I thought "geez I've seen that name here a little bit lately, surely where there's smoke there will be fire". Nope. I found nothing that was even moderately objectionable, which wasvery significant considering the topic area they operated in. I am not ashamed to admit I was surprised by these results, given the topic area and frequency at ANI, and for that they are to be commended. Daniel (talk) 20:36, 1 March 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:WikiE2024

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:WikiE2024 was previously blocked from editing for 24 hours for Edit Warring and Distruptive Editing by User:Daniel Quinlan on February 26. On March 2nd User:WikiE2024 resumed Edit Warring on Gary DeMar today. It appears that this user does not communicate at all. Untamed1910 (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked them for a week and warned them if they continue to revert on this article when the block is over, they will likely receive an indefinite block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 3 March 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.

Belgium IP range needs a timeout

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.

---

• 2A02:A03F:68FA:CD01:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

The Belgian IP range Special:Contributions/2A02:A03F:68FA:CD01:0:0:0:0/64 has been adding unsupported text and edit-warring, getting blocked twice along the way. A new low was reached today with a personal attack against Sricsi.[135] Can we get a lengthier rangeblock? Binksternet (talk) 03:09, 2 March 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 warring at Sylhet Division

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.

---

There is apparently a content dispute at Sylhet Division which resulted in massive edit-warring. I believe there is also sockpuppetry going on. In the morning, I semi-protected the article and reverted it to the pre-warring version, answering an RFPP request, only to be reverted soon by a confirmed user. (I have no interest in the article and have never heard about its subject until a couple of hours ago). Could someone have a look please. Ymblanter (talk) 11:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Specifically, user GANI7199 who reverted me has been registered for 2 weeks and has about 150 edits. They called this "going to the stable version" by which they apparently mean the version after they started this series of reverts. Ymblanter (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) From what I can see, someone is socking to avoid 3RR. At max, they had 4 accounts: 2607:fea8:5722:e100:bce4:307e:5fc5:3453, 2607:fea8:5722:e100:65e6:738c:57d1:f259, 2607:fea8:5722:e100:e54a:1851:8776:bca8, and Auritroww22e. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 13:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, and I blocked Auritroww22e in the morning. Ymblanter (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, the stable version which I indicated the version being edited by User:Rublamb from 19:29 29 December 2023. After him a numerous edit warring and info box tempting occured. I have fixed the issue and left a talk in the articles talk page. Please do look into the article and try not to revert the current version unless if lacks something I am still new and learning. Thank you. GANI7199 (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

No, the stable version was this one before you started reverting. And please explain why you used sockpuppets. Ymblanter (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Stop accusing me in socking. I maintained the article infobox only and nothing else. GANI7199 (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Moreover, the infobox wasnt properly maintained, So I fixed fragmentation. I dont know who were making disruptive edit. I checked 4 hours later and found out this happened. GANI7199 (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

However, for what you call "maintained the infobox" you used five different accounts, one of which I had to block indef. This is socking. Ymblanter (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The Term Five Accounts your assuming the blocked account and the IPs are nothing to do with me. As I said came to maintain only the infobox and nothing else. Just dont assume I socked the article just because your tasting WP:Duck. If I made a mistake reverting your edits I have no inquiry if you change it back. GANI7199 (talk) 22:10, 1 March 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:DollysOnMyMind

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.

---

Persistent edit warring after final warning, sock of blocked user user:Giubbotto non ortodosso Pink Friday 2.0 Roman Reloaded (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The accusation you've made is baseless without proof. You also appear to be the one who is edit warring and vandalising pages, taking a look at your contributions/tp. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. And they've been blocked by Bbb23 as a result. Acalamari 14:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, the classic boomerang! - Master of Hedgehogs ^{(converse) (hate that hedgehog!)} 18:04, 1 March 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.

TPA at User talk:Shakdust487

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 blocked sockpuppet has been using their talk page access to spam disruptive unblock requests and posting insults towards admins who have declined their prior unblock requests. I think TPA needs to be revoked here. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Bbb23:, @Ponyo:, @Deepfriedokra:, and @Daniel Case:, all of whom have attempted to discuss the matter of sockpuppetry with the user on their talk page. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:39, 1 March 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 User:203.45.252.147 returned after a 1 year block

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 has been blocked multiple times in the past for inserting BLP vandalism on Jarryd Hayne and Manoa Thompson. Has recommenced the same behaviour today. example1 and example2. I believe both pages need oversighting (which has been done with this editor's previous edits) and the block reinstated. I put a joke2 warning on the user's talk page before I realised that this was a pattern of behaviour on the same two pages. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:03, 3 March 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:Summerdays1 and WP:BATTLEGROUND

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.

---

Summerdays1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User has been making an extensive WP:BATTLEGROUND for months in order to target myself and a few other editors, involving consistent WP:CANVASSING and warring to revert edits, accompanied by personal attacks. This editor continues this behavior regardless and ignores every warning by multiple editors, including this most recent one by Ponyo [136]. Their reversions are usually under nonsensical edit summaries and often break article formatting or duplicate existing information, which is also disruptive. It's a pattern long enough to warrant a block. I've listed some here (this is not comprehensive, the rest can be seen through their edit log):

• Multiple violations of WP:CANVASS [137][138] [139]
• Intent to WP:HOUND [140] [141]
• Removal of edit warring notice [142]
• Removal of ANI notice [143]
• Continued removal of editor warnings and notices (not following them either) [144] [145] [146]
• WP:ICA (taunting me on my talk page) [147]
• Personal attack [148]
• WP:PA against Leventio [149]

Numerous reverts and unconstructive edits that I can't list them all. The most comprehensive view on my end would be through the edit-interaction analyzer (most of his edits were just reverting mine for no reason): [150]. They've continued their recent trend of just haphazardly reverting with nonsensical edit summaries which can be viewed on their log. Repasted from my old report (any newer edits show the same pattern):

• Spelling mistakes, reckless formatting mistakes, and grammar mistakes ( [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161])
• Erroneous material ([162] [163])
• Readded boosterism ([164]) GuardianH (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Not commenting on anything else, but removing ANI/edit warring notices from their own user talk is not sanctionable. They're allowed to do that. TarnishedPath^talk 11:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Same goes for edit-warring notices (and most other deletions one makes on their own Talk page). I think the some of the other claims may or may not be valid but could benefit from clarification/elaboration. "Erroneous material" claims, for instance, might benefit from saying what about the edits was erroneous, and should be supported by evidence that Summer was warned that their edits were erroneous. DonIago (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I noted the notices there as its just another part of the them ignoring warnings by editors and continued WP:ICHY. GuardianH (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

For what its worth, I do believe their conduct on Talk:Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II (and my talk page) supports the notion the editor may exhibit traits of WP:ICHY. Myself (and briefly another editor) have repeatedly asked this user for a rationale for including content we have dispute over, This user has been unwilling to address the issues we've raised, or even attempt to reach an amicable position that satisfies both parties (despite my own attempts to reach a compromisable position). The latter part of the latest discussion on the article's talk page is largely them stating I am wrong with no rationale to back it up, or simply just asking/demanding of me to just to "leave it alone" (again exhibiting traits of ICHY concerning content they care for).

Once it was clear to myself that we would not be able to resolve this on our own, I've repeatedly asked them if they would like to wait for other editors to chime in on the talk page, or go to 3O or DRN. In turn, they have done everything except answer the question for a rationale/a rebuttal to my own rationale, or if they would like to find another party to help resolve this dispute (for this latter question, they have even questioned the utility of going through 3O or DRN instead of opting to choose a course of action).

This user has also made several comments which border on PA here and here. But that's besides the point of reinforcing the notion this user exhibits traits of ICHY. Leventio (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This user has also begun to remove my last comment on Talk:Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II, even after I told them to look over WP:TPG to not do so. I can't comment on GuardianH's issue with the user, but their conduct on this talk page really makes me suspect traits of WP:ICHY. Leventio (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Deleting a notice is not "ignoring" it, but rather is typically considered to be the editor in question seeing your notice but choosing not to engage with it, which is their right. In terms of demonstrating a behavioral issue, it would be more effective to provide a narrative where you show that the editor made a mistake, then that you notified them that they made said mistake, and that they continued to make the same mistake. For instance, with the claims of inserting erroneous material, you should show that you notified the editor that the material they inserted was erroneous and that they then reinserted it. DonIago (talk) 07:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Why did you edit war your removal on E. Gordon Gee instead of discussing, after you were reverted twice, seeing as it was contested?

Spelling mistakes, grammar mistakes, and formatting mistakes, so long as they dont go over into WP:CIR territory are acceptable so long as the edits themselves are in good faith. Nobody's perfect, and we have several people who dedicate their time here to fixing spelling mistakes for otherwise productive users. DarmaniLink (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)^{retracted after seeing new evidence}

Spelling mistakes, grammar mistakes, and formatting mistakes, so long as they dont go over into WP:CIR territory are acceptable so long as the edits themselves are in good faith. Nobody's perfect, and we have several people who dedicate their time here to fixing spelling mistakes for otherwise productive users. DarmaniLink, as an editor who cleans up such mistakes, I find this an infuriating take. No, we don't just block someone who makes such errors, but it's not okay for users to create error-filled edits on the assumption "someone else" will come along and clean it up. WP:CIR is a metric for whether someone should be allowed to edit the site, not the bar for whether an individual edit should be accepted. It's perfectly acceptable, even preferable, to revert "productive" additions that introduce a bunch of errors rather than to ignore them and expect other editors to clean them up.

An editor edit-warring to maintain such edits may not be a WP:CIR problem, but it's perfectly reasonable for OP to include edit-warring over them as part of the behavioral issues at play. Grandpallama (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I actually covered this previously, but Summerdays1 has been repeatedly reverted and has received warnings before about his reckless editing mistakes. Of course, they continue to do them or try to war them in (i.e., Nadine Strossen). They aren't in good faith either. Summerdays1 said that they would combat my edits and they've gone and done just that by following onto pages I've worked on — these grammar/spelling mistakes were made deliberately to worsen the quality of the articles. GuardianH (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The linked warnings (ignored ones?) are just someone asking the editor to participate in his own ANI case, not adding links, and not chirping into talk page disputes.

Sorry, but where are the warnings for the editing mistakes, and the instructions for correction? I don't see them in your case, and all I see on their talk page is a generic template warning for edit warring.

How do you feel about a two-way WP:IBAN if you do not want him reverting your edits, and he doesnt want you reverting his? Some edits such as Special:Diff/1206704749 appear to be constructive and good faith to me. (This would require his agreement as well)

Though, the editor does seem like a hothead, and does need to be told to calm down. ^{retracted after seeing new evidence}DarmaniLink (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I think they'd also benefit from not summarily deleting all or most of the messages left at their Talk page and choosing not to engage in this conversation. While it's certainly their right to do so, I think it's fair to say that it's coming across as a disinterest in collaborating with their fellow editors. DonIago (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• I've only encountered Summerdays1 in the last few days at Talk:Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II. I hadn't until now spotted that this thread was open but having now seen it I'm surprised Summerdays1 hasn't received some sanction for WP:PAs, WP:BATTLE and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Just from that talk page alone the most egregious examples are:

1. Look, you are easily exasperating. Why do I need to give you any reasons? I choose not to for the following: you are difficult and I really don't wish to converse with you on here or anywhere.
2. Because you are ridiculous. I'll say it, you are nuts.
3. They deleted an article talk page reply to them with the edit summary "unwanted expl.".
4. and again with edit summary "asked for another opinion, not yours"
5. "stop talking...You are deluded. I will not answer further."
6. 5 repeated deletions of another editor's article talk page post.[165], [166], [167], [168], [169].

DeCausa (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see all those.

Yeah, definitely deserves a sanction. DarmaniLink (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The thing which isn't easily summarised in a diff but which can clearly be seen from reviewing that article talk page is that they don't feel the need to justify their policy-free opinion and being challenged on that results in an extreme WP:BATTLE reaction. Unless they shape up this is not someone who can collaborate here. DeCausa (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I think indef blocking them first and asking them to explain how they'll cease being disruptive might set them off. A month (with appeal), for them to contemplate how disruptive they're being might be good though. If that doesn't work, indef them again DarmaniLink (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I support a block here — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Agree. I also support a block. GuardianH (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks are bad enough. Deleting other editors' posts on talkpages, that aren't theirs? crosses the line. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Based on the evidence presented, I support an indefinite one-way IBAN for whoever has been repeatedly harassed and a one week block for personal attacks, harassment, deleting talk page posts, and battleground behavior to deter future misconduct. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  seconded DarmaniLink (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Update: After having a close look at some of Summerdays1's contributions on various articles, I found some striking similarities in edits and behaviour between Summerday1 and an older account, AloofAnteater45. I have filed an SPI report, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AloofAnteater45. Thanks — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

De-archiving this since problems persist, and there is an emerged consensus for some form of block. It would be good if an admin could take a look, as this would be the second time its been taken out of the archive. GuardianH (talk) 02:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for unarchiving this discussion. I'm not sure a long block is necessary, it would be helpful if the editor came and participated in this discussion. I know when I spent more time on these noticeboards, I liked to hear from both parties in a dispute.

I know that this is not a helpful comment but what is considered a "personal attack" has really changed. The diffs I looked at here were mildly insulting but are not what I would consider "attacks". They are more casting aspersions which is also not good. But then, I remember a very well-respected content creator telling me years ago that "You are the epitome of everything that is wrong about this project now." That seems more like an attack but I didn't bring them to ANI or report them, they were just venting and focused on me. By the way, they are no longer editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

In this case, the repeated deletions of another editor's article talk page post, name-calling, and incivility, like DeCausa listed, are in spite of multiple warnings by other editors, and there is a line crossed regarding WP:PA and WP:BATTLEGROUND here by Summerdays1, who still continues this behavior now, and multiple editors support a block. GuardianH (talk) 06:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Liz, I understand your reluctance for an indef without hearing from the editor in question. However, at this point, Summerdays1 has been actively editing throughout this ANI report, including at various user talkpages, but has refused to participate. I would think a "you need to engage and explain" block is now warranted, at the very least. Also, see my comments below where I endorse the indef. Grandpallama (talk) 14:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I filed that SPI case (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AloofAnteater45) over 11 days ago; however it seems like there's a huge backlog at SPI right now, as that case is yet to be looked at and actioned, along with another report I filed at a similar time here. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I've done the technical work on the SPI, which now needs Clerk/Admin eyes to complete.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Block proposal (Summerdays1)

I don't think there's any point waiting around for an SPI when there's been ample evidence presented here by GuardianH and DeCausa of severe WP:BATTLEGROUND. I am therefore proposing an indefinite block. TarnishedPath^talk 10:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support as mover. TarnishedPath^talk 10:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support like I said previously above. I agree with this proposal let's just get this done and over with here since SPI seems to be taking a long time due to the huge backlog, and since the user continues to make disruptive edits to this day without any communications. — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  I lodged a SPI a bit over a month ago and it took 3 weeks for a clerk to make a decision about whether a checkuser was appropriate. I wouldn't wait around when this is something the community can deal with. TarnishedPath^talk 11:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support Regrettably, the behavior has continued and arguably worsened. They seem like they had some potential to become a good editor, only real problem was behavioral issues. A peaceful resolution would have been preferable, but alas, they chose to cast the first stone. DarmaniLink (talk) 11:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support I'd been thinking the SPI might resolve this, but the backlog there is pretty severe. In the meantime, whether or not an indef is the correct ultimate solution, I do think it's necessary right now in order to push Summerdays1 to ANI to account for their edits and behavior. Today, I had this edit in my watchlist. At first, I thought it was just the usual word tinkering, but the weird edit summary made me review the entire edit; the last part of their edit turned the "Potential crossovers" section into gibberish--the same section I had cleaned up last night. It's an article Summerdays1 has never edited before, so it's hard not to see this as retaliation for my input here. Other edits from today show that while they continue to disdain responding here, they've no problem doing so elsewhere; see this ridiculous demand/warning placed on ElKevbo's page today. Grandpallama (talk) 14:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I'd like to see the editor respond and to see if there's an acknowledgment of the issues presented. We should err on the side of caution when it comes to handing out indefinite blocks. Nemov (talk) 14:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• I'd like to see the editor respond Same here, and an indef is usually the way to get an editor's attention when they are non-responsive. I think the behavior I've observed today shows they're well aware of these reports and are choosing not to respond; it's been over two weeks since the report was first opened. Grandpallama (talk) 15:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, my mistake... I didn't realize this had been open since the 12th. Nemov (talk) 15:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support sadly, the user appears to have come down with a severe case of WP:FLU. Unfortunate, that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support an indef. Editor had plenty of chance to respond here but deliberately chose not to. NM 16:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support an indef. Editor has received multiple warnings from many different editors, but still continues a consistent pattern of overtly disruptive behavior and personal attacks against other editors. User has had plenty of opportunities to join the discussion but refuses not to, as evidenced by their removal of all the ANI notices, among other things. GuardianH (talk) 16:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support indef. Please explain all of your edits for the past 6 years on your usertalk is not a useful attitude for an editor to express here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support, since Summerdays1 has elected not to participate in this discussion and has not engaged with many requests/critiques on their talk page. Communication is not optional. Schazjmd (talk) 16:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Consensus in this discussion is clear. Accordingly, I have indefinitely blocked Summerdays1. Cullen328 (talk) 18:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

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

WP:GAMING to achieve ECP status

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.

---

Wiki-heIper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor has made over 350 meaningless edits to their user pages in the past 24 hours to achieve ECP status. This can easily be seen by looking at their contributions, where at one point, they start counting down the number of edits they need. Since doing this, they have resumed editing Al-Daraji, the page they created but were previously prevented from editing. This is indisputably WP:PGAMEing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

ha! particularly like how they label their own edits "Random Edit 20". this is clear gaming. ValarianB (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The counting down to ECP status is a big giveaway. Obvious PGAMEing. — Czello ^(music) 16:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

this user has been WP:WIKIHOUNDING/WP:FOLLOWING the past week now, with his friend Fred and WP:TAGTEAM me. It is getting to a point where there is a clear hatred against me and this is clearly against the rules. I emailed ToBeFree and he told me the 500/30 restriction simply required 500 edits, and the rules quite clearly say "An editor makes many unconstructive edits in a sandbox to become extended confirmed, and then makes controversial changes to extended confirmed protected articles'. What is controversial about my edits, please let me know?

before my block: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Duraji&oldid=1210074967

after my block, and the subsequent edits made by this user: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Daraji&oldid=1210744882

me just today, spending a little contributing effort on the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Daraji&oldid=1210836208

I am almost positive this user just doesn't want to see this article be a well written, cited article. I assume some sort of personal WP:COI. Please review the edits for yourself. The only reason I did around 200 edits, no where near 350 which you can also check, was because I also owned Elijahtree. mohamed (wiki-helper) (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Wiki-heIper, what you quoted as "rule" (An editor makes many unconstructive edits in a sandbox to become extended confirmed, and then makes controversial changes to extended confirmed protected articles) is not a rule but an example of gaming of permissions. In other words, what you did was explicitly a violation of the guideline. Schazjmd (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

okay, why add the second half of the example. The rule seemed vague, and it is. The first thing I did was check WP:BADSAND to make sure I was not breaking any rules and it does't mention anything about unconstructive edits. Why?

Furthermore, why are every single one of the moderators discriminating against me, I makes absolutely no sense. I have already told you that he is WP:WIKIHOUNDING and WP:TAGTEAM against me yet you completely disregarded that? I have asked ever so kindly to look at the edits, see that are literally just constructive edits which are all cited, and maybe take at look a the "Various levels of intent" section. I am not causing harm to this user, he simply just wants to ruin this page. It makes no sense for me to be a paid/biased editor. I made this page in 2018, and left it inactive during freshman to junior year of college. I understand he is a hardcore editor and you probably value his word over mine, but this is clear favouritism and discrimination against me, and it is getting to a point of censorship.

~ mohamed (wiki-helper) (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

They are indeed much more constructive than what the article looked like before, Wiki-heIper. However, WP:GAME is clear that making many trivial edits to increase your user access level is wrong. I give you my word that I do not have a COI with this article, that I don't want to "ruin" any page, and that I am not WP:HOUNDING you; I am simply making sure that Wikipedia guidelines get enforced. If you are willing, you can provide reliable sources you wish to add on the talk oage, and we can discuss their usefulness rhere. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The "Fred" in question is Fred Zepelin, who I have never interacted with before this week, and can't really be called a friend. The user is very upset that they weren't allowed to maintain the article in question as a COATRACKed, UNDUE mess, and resorted to personal attacks such as "manipulative" and "explotative" (and "Mongol-fanatic exclusionist for me, which was probably intended as an insult but I'm not taking it as one). Fred Zepelin also feels there were issues with CANVASSING, but I have no opinion on that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Ninjapiraterobot revoked the EC right. (In point of fact he beat me to it :)) Earn it correctly or next time it'll be a longer block for misbehaving. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

it it isn't an insult. it is clear that your profile revolves around the Mongol Empire, which shows the conflict of interest you may, or probably do, have against me and my page. I do not care about the revoking, You followed me to this account, you are the one hounding not me. How was the article Coatracked? Why didn't you just say something and worked with me instead of your awful lack of communication and restrictions on me. Again, this issue wasn't mentioned anywhere on WP:BADSAND and I was simply taking back the edits I made when I was locked out of this account. You guys have now removed my ECP status indefinitely which is basically restricted me indefinitely. This favouritism against me is terrifying, honestly terrifiying.

Are the mods just going to completely disregard my complaints? fair enough ~ mohamed (wiki-helper) (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

item 1) Its not your page, its Wikipedia page. Item 2) If you're going to accuse people of this and that you need diffs for proof, otherwise all the admin corps and veteran editors see is whining. Item 3) there ain't favoritism here, there be rules, and those rules must be followed. By everyone. Including you. If you be on the ANI board then either you're trusted enough to take action to address Wikipedia's issues or you done enough barking that people be putting you here to complain about the noise. That be how this page works, lad. Good news be that the ship can be righted, but it takes both sides to make the maneuver work. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

relax, it was never this serious lol. no need to be all poetic, lol. literally I was the one who was blocked and you are angrier than me. anyways hopefully you can calm down a little and explain if it would be possible to remove the 200 posts. i don't want to argue anymore. mohamed (wiki-helper) (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

You aren't blocked. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I was perfectly willing to work with you; you never gave me the chance. My first edit to the article was after the article had been restricted, and you immediately decided I was on a mission of personal revenge. I saw your post at ANI, and sent you a welcome message telling you what assuming good faith was, as you were obviously confused about that; you decided that was me "rubbing [something] in your face". I am willing to look past your insults, but you must remember that Wikipedia is a site for collaboration, not enmity Wiki-heIper. The removal of your ECP status is not eternal; if you collaborate productively for a while, you can ask to get it back, and if I agree that you deserve it, I will support that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

not sure to be fair, it felt like you were kicking me whilst I was down. I was already told to assume good faith and was restricted from editing; i felt like there was no need for you to repeat it to me, one scolding is always better than two. alas, if you genuinly were being nice, and im going to WP:AFG here and say apologies for going off on you. mohamed (wiki-helper) (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Clearest example of gaming I've seen, literally counting down the random edits. JM (talk) 21:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

From what I can tell, over 350 edits made to their user page and sandbox. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 22:03, 29 February 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.

Systematic distortion of historical articles

Dear All,

Please check urgently this post on reddit detailing how a few Hungarian editors are systematically rewriting articles on Romanian history. It needs intervention and professional editors to correct the changes. Adam Harangozó (talk) 07:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Adam Harangozó: There are big mechanical problems with an off-wiki complaint, which I am choosing to address without looking at the actual accusation:

- How are we supposed to communicate back?

- How do the accused defend themselves from someone who isn't even around to participate in any discussion?

- Who is the accuser?

The reddit poster appears to be currently accusing 2 users of something(doesn't matter to the point I'm making):

- Do you now need to notify those 2 users per the rules of ANI, since that off-wiki discussion involves them?

- The argument is theirs, and you're linking it, are their arguments your arguments now?

The post talks about "network of Hungarian nationalist users" and ends with the poster claiming that "There are many accounts, and I have been doing this for many years."(*edit: talking about finding these accounts) - well, then has the poster of that thread reported them before? The archived ANI thread they linked (which is from 2021), seems to have ended with no action, the person who made it ultimately retracted it....

Honestly I would advise you against making this post into a thing, because you will have to deal with defending someone else's arguments while also somehow making the accusation with your own independent judgement, while pointing out how exactly they are violating wikipedia's policies (while avoiding WP:MEAT, both from yourself or from others coming from that thread).

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who has these concerns looking at this. – 2804:F14:80E5:6B01:2D28:AD06:B149:7F62 (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I'm ought to be discouraged from letting administrators know about a potentially serious issue concerning the reliability of Wikipedia. I also don't think that the potential difficulty of contacting the original poster is a reason for not checking this out. This debate would need editors who are experts on history and can review the edits without national(ist) bias. Adam Harangozó (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Dude, you linked to a Reddit post that in turn links back to a historical ANI post—one that wasn't the least bit convincing to me when I read it for the first time. The administrators have been notified, they can't help but be reminded every time they have to lock an article being warred over. Remsense诉 14:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The ANI post might be historical but the examples in the Reddit post are from 2023-24. My argument is still for the need for expert review of the concerned topics. Adam Harangozó (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

But getting expert attention is more difficult if you remove my notification about this discussion from the WikiProject History talk page. Adam Harangozó (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

It seemed like forum shopping because you noted this post, but did not direct discussion there.

Casting aspersions of a conspiracy without evidence is not acceptable on Wikipedia. There are, as always, biases with individual editors and in articles which may broadly reflect systemic biases. Your conclusion of a concerted review effort targeting specific editors is unacceptable, given your premise has no basis in any evidence. Remsense诉 14:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

User:PowerRanger200 ignoring seven years of warnings

Warnings have been piling up at User talk:PowerRanger200 since 2017. Most of their edits to their talk page are deleting these warnings, and they don't seem to understand what they're doing wrong. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

It's okay for editors to remove warning messages from their user talk page, as long as they read and acknowledge them; see WP:BLANKING for more info. Is there actually a long-term issue of disruptive or problematic edits here that need to be looked at?

Just a quick note, we don't sanction editors just for receiving many user-talk warnings, especially ones from many years ago; we sanction them for persistent behavioural issues, e.g. a pattern of disruptive edits they continue to make on various articles over and over again despite those warnings. — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, I've just deleted two of their page creations because they were straight copies from copyrighted websites, so... Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Links: PowerRanger200 (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

If you are talking about disruptive editing, see warning #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7 throughout the years. They apologized after receiving a {{Uw-generic4}}, after which they received two more warnings for disruptive editing. NM 16:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Cross-wiki CITESPAM and stalking

Recently it came to my attention that User:Doctor Xiao has been promoting a number of papers written by a Congrong Xiao ("肖聪容") in a number of articles on Chinese and English wikipedia (zh:客家文化, zh:羅馬尼亞, National symbols of China, Chinese dragon and so on). Since these references are either from questionable open access journals or journals with little evidence of peer review or impact, I removed them as WP:CITESPAM. Soon after there are a group of IPs warring to add back the citespam material. One such IP has stalked over here, Special:Contributions/170.83.216.60. Please monitor these articles in case problems arises. -Mys_721tx (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

And Special:Contributions/23.158.104.249 on Taiwan Passport. -Mys_721tx (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The papers cited by Mr. Xiao are all from legitimate academic journals, which can be found on Google Scholar, CNKI, or Wanfang, so it is not a problem to use them as reliable sources. I don't understand the importance of so-called "peer review" in Wikipedia - as far as I know, most sources of Wikipedia do not have authoritative peer reviews. Should delete all of these? Of course, some of the content you deleted was indeed reviewed by authoritative peers. In fact, the most crucial principle is the "Assume good faith" principle. Are these academic concepts themselves correct in the eyes of most people? Is it against common sense or full of political tendencies? It seems that none of them. 23.158.104.249 (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Correct it, it's "I don't understand the importance of so-called "ittle evidence of peer review or impact" in Wikipedia" 23.158.104.249 (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, what do you mean by deleting my complaint in the Chinese section? Is it because you want to learn from authoritative government to make people shut up? 23.158.104.249 (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Do not make personal attacks. NM 22:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Based on the Assume good faith, all of us hope that Wikipedia's content will be richer and more authoritative. I have obtained Mr. Xiao's consent for using many of his papers, and he is also happy to contribute to enriching Wikipedia. But your behavior is completely opposite to the spirit of Wikipedia, which is really disappointing. 23.158.104.249 (talk) 09:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Most sources of Wikipedia do not have authoritative peer reviews.

Academic journals making nuanced historiographical claims should.

Should delete all of these?

Yes. Remsense诉 10:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

And to emphasize: it is nowhere near sufficient for a journal to be listed in various index or database services, or whatever you mean by "legitimate". The phrase reliable source has a specific meaning. It does not require (or even care at all) whether the author of a source has a certain preference. Given you know about the assume good faith rule, it should be obvious to you that "Is it because you want to learn from authoritative government to make people shut up?" is an unacceptable thing to say. DMacks (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

"Is it because you want to learn from authoritative government to make people shut up?" is an unacceptable thing to say

I have already publicly disclosed this relevant evidence on Twitter (X). By the way, let me tell you this is a Chinese-style joke called"Who is kneeling below the dais, and why does he accuse this official（me)?" 81.89.213.87 (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

This is evidence. 46.70.172.125 (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: zh:Special:Diff/81456027

Anyone who says anything will probably be considered party to whatever conspiracy you are conceptualizing, but I will try to speak plainly regardless: it must be said that rallying support off-site may seem justified to you, but it is unacceptable on Wikipedia. You've proven nothing, and moreover proudly spoken about you conspiring off-site to make waves here. That's all I've got. Remsense诉 10:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I have explained that the academic journal sources I cited are reliable (refer to CNKI), and the actions of "Mys_721tx" attempting to block all my edits and Mr. Xiao's academic viewpoints are contrary to Wikipedia's principles. You claim "Anyone who says anything will probably be considered party to whatever conspiracy you are conceptualizing"? I have never said anything resembling that. Do you have any evidence, or is this a rumor you are fabricating on the spot? "Unacceptable on Wikipedia," so Wikipedia editors cannot be questioned by anyone, is that right? That sounds like quite an authoritative government. 119.236.164.241 (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Listing in a database is not peer review, and is a much less significant indicator of reliability. Remsense诉 03:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "not peer review"? Does it mean that this journal can log in to CNKI without being reviewed (which is clearly impossible)? Or does it mean that the expert editorial board is not a peer review? Or is a master's thesis recognized by a university professor's defense committee not considered for peer review? Do academic journals with influencing factors not have peer review? 119.236.164.241 (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Does this count as peer review? 119.236.164.241 (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I just checked, even the journals indexed by CSSCI are considered "with little evidence of peer review or impact." CSSCI is basically where only professors are qualified to publish papers. It's clear that his reasons are just arbitrary remarks. Do you really believe him? 119.236.164.241 (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

In fact, similar behavior has not appeared on Wikipedia before (see here for details), but my updated academic views are basically culture, art or history, and have nothing to do with politics, especially the Chinese Civil War, and opposition to the Communist Party. The editor "Mys_721tx" was previously considered pro-communist by many people in Hong Kong and Taiwan (see details here).Considering his doubts about the reliability of academic journals hosted by the Hebei Provincial Committee of the Communist Youth League of China, I suspect that his political stance is being questioned due to his poor academic abilities? 119.236.164.241 (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

In fact, I also cited many scholars' papers to enrich Wikipedia (some were deleted along with Mr. Xiao's viewpoint). All the articles I have cited (including Mr. Xiao) are from official academic journals, and if these are unreliable, there are no reliable sources. Many of the viewpoints of Scholar Xiao's papers are still preserved in Wikipedia, but the authorship of his paper has been removed, which has made Wikipedia's emphasis on sources a joke. Someone deleted my Chinese complaint section and locked it down. This is not the behavior of an authoritative government，then what is it? 185.142.40.63 (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Correction, the paper by American scholar Fox is not from a journal, or the part I quoted is not from a journal 185.142.40.63 (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The IP has a point: if you're going to delete references to Xiao's papers, also delete his viewpoints from the article (unless those are based upon other WP:RS). tgeorgescu (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia should retain content that is correct or neutral, and has reliable sources. But some people have clearly done the opposite, deleting a large number of academic viewpoints or sources without considering whether these viewpoints themselves are reasonable, correct, or neutral. This is clearly contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. 138.99.205.110 (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure is Mys_721tx or Remsense Or someone else is trying to ban my IP, I'm just explaining that this kind of "shut up" behavior is happening now. 142.154.108.208 (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are one of the administrators of Wikipedia, so I will not follow your thoughts for the time being (if I understand correctly, you think all content in Wikipedia that has no clear source should be deleted). But I hope you will do so. 138.99.205.110 (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems you have a misunderstanding of what administrators do on Wikipedia. NM 22:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm not sure if I misunderstood the work of Wikipedia administrators, but honestly, I don't know. However, "Mys_721tx" attempted to block all my editing content and Mr. Xiao's entire viewpoint. Does this contradict the openness principle of Wikipedia? Secondly, I am fairly certain that users "Manchiu" and "ZhuofanWu" are puppets of "Mys_721tx", and I suspect "Malcolmxl5" might be too (but I'm not sure). Does this violate Wikipedia's principles? Lastly, the situation has developed to this extent solely because "Mys_721tx" forcibly blocked me and refused to communicate with me in any Chinese forums (even though he is an editor of the Chinese Wikipedia). He claims that CNKI, China's most authoritative academic paper website, and some influential academic journals are "questionable open access journals or journals with little evidence of peer review or impact." Therefore, I doubt his attitude and academic ability as a Wikipedia editor (or does it mean that only academic journals indexed by SCI or SSCI, CSSCI, AHCI, AMI, etc., can be cited on Wikipedia?). In summary, do you think I misunderstood, or is "Mys_721tx's" attitude highly questionable? 119.236.164.241 (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Do not accuse others of being sockpuppets without evidence. If you have evidence, take it to WP:SPI. If you do not, then strike through that comment, or else it can be construed as a personal attack.

The rest of your comment is just further casting aspersions against Mys. To answer your question, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is for. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I remember the requirement from Wikipedia that "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third party sources" is what? For example, do academic journals organized by national or provincial organizations belong to "local companies"? And if CNKI, SCI, SSCI, CSSCI, and these are not independent third-party sources, what are they? It has already exposed some people's claim that there is no peer review. 46.36.116.224 (talk) 08:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Repeating yourself is not going to make these issues go away. Take it up on the article talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

These IPs are all User:Doctor Xiao, right? _Dial^mayo 18:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I think an SPI should be filed. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 21:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:SPI generally won't link IPs to an account. However, WP:DUCK applies, it's fairly obvious what's going on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Should we refer any of the journals to WP:RSN? For example, the International Journal of Frontiers in Sociology (Special:Diff/1209106440) and its publisher checked quite a lot boxes for criteria by Beall's list despite not on the list.-Mys_721tx (talk) 17:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Khmer Rouge Tribunal

Anyone fancy stepping in to Khmer Rouge Tribunal where two IPs are edit warring whilst calling each other socks? Their disruption has spilled over into WP:RfPP. I'm deliberately not informing them of this post because it'll only bring the disruption here and nobody needs that. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 19:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks like this has been handled by User:Rosguill. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Rosguill (and also you, Rick)! 81.187.192.168 (talk) 20:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Sock farmette (or bored kids) at Talk:Cube

Talk:Cube is getting a lot of childish vandalism from

• Jeff 802 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fdwgkhuvfkuhvd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and
• Happy-h157391948 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

if anyone would like to step in. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 20:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

They've now moved on to Talk:Justin Trudeau. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 20:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I reported them to AIV, looks like blocks are in progress, with thanks to RickinBaltimore. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 20:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The last one I've left for now, as they stopped after a 2nd edit, If they persist of course, a block would be in order. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll pull it for now. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 20:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour of User:UtoD

User UtoD has twice reverted all my recent edits on Sri Lanka Armed Forces: [1] [2] However, they gave explanation for reverting only for one of my edits concerning child sexual abuse in Haiti by Sri Lankan peacekeepers but refuse to explain also reverting another edit concerning UN's report on war crimes even after I had notified them here by stating: "You also reverted my another edit without giving any reason. Again take it to the talk page."

In their latest reply to me in the talk discussion, they once again refused to address my complaint.

Further, in the same talk discussion, they refuse to engage my repeated requests ([1][2][3]) for clarification on the reasons given for reverting my first edit and instead only insists I alone have the burden despite instructing me in the edit explanation to reach a consensus. Yet this evasive behaviour is not conducive to a collaborative consensus-building effort that Wikipedia relies on. -- Petextrodon (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

If your definition of disruptive editing is not forcing your edits through then its on you and your first instinct to run to WP:AN/I then its your issue. And yes, you added the content so you have the burden of arguing for it. And you didn't even do that, you basically demanded Cossde (talk · contribs) who reverted the highly problematic edit to go to the talk page to explain the reverts, which he did and then you reverted to force through the edits and then I also reverted your edit and gave my reasons in the talk page. You have not even bothered to explain the inclusion of the content you added and expects it to be the status quo through continuous reverting alongside user Oz346 and is currently involved in a multi-page edit war including the Sri Lanka Armed Forces with other users.

There is also the issue of you editing the Sri Lanka Armed Forces to make WP:POINT about the LTTE page to User Cossde, throwing accusations of WP:HYPOCRISY at him in that page for reverting the edit in the SL Armed Forces page. That is disruptive behavior. In simple terms, you failed to even enter the talk page before the content you added was reverted twice and that is, after you demanded they enter the talk page in your edit summaries and both me and Cossde gave reasons in the talk page before you even bothered to write a word and still haven't even bothered to explain the need for inclusion of the content you added and instead jumped straight to WP:AN/I. -UtoD 07:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree with UtoD, Petextrodon and Oz346, has been engaged in a rolling edit war across multiple pages.

• Pottuvil massacre: [170], [171]
• Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam: [172], [173], [174]
• Sri Lanka Armed Forces : [175], [176]
• 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom : [177], [178]

In fact this was raised by me in a WP:ANEW. Although both Petextrodon and Oz346, engaged in multiple reverts without engaging in the talk page, he reported me for WP:ANEW resulting a Take to AN/I note.

Both Petextrodon and Oz346, have been engaging in WP:NATIONALIST editing as their edit histories show that they do not contribute beyound Pro-Tamil Elam and Anti-Sri Lankan content. It is very clear that they engage in WP:HYPOCRISY as they have removed citied content from the LTTE age here claiming "Governments' policy statements are primary sources that need secondary analyses" while they have writen up articles List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces and Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka], which appears to be WP:OR with Pro-rebel media and Humen rights advocacy groups that are primary sources as found in a WP:RSN disscussion]. In fact I had to open a WP:DRN due to their reverting my edits to creat a prelude section, citing claims such as "removed excessive details from background section which is clearly undue weight, and reverted back to status quo in the meantime. " (Oz346), "reverted disruptive edits ruining the flow of the article with unnecessary details against the advice of other editors; either discuss in the talk page or wait for requested third opinion" (Petextrodon). Oz346 has refused to accept Sri Lankan Government sources claiming them to be bogus clown, while claiming that former LTTE orgernizations as RS, while Petextrodon in the disscussion (that has stopped) on content on the LTTE page, openly threaten "As for the LTTE article, either we summarize or cut down on the entire section if you insist on bloating it up even further, in order to maintain some balance.". Both Oz346 and Petextrodon has been preventing my content additions with selectively removing content that they do not agree with. Petextrodon reverted my last additions after Oz346 third party opinion request. I made a request for admin attention [179] several days ago. Both have been engaged in personal attacks agaist me such as [180], [181], [182]. Hence if any one has a disruptive behaviour it is these two editors. Cossde (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Cossde, Although this particular discussion is about the Sri Lanka Armed Forces page, you are bringing up other disputes involving another user on other pages. I can also show your long history of removing war crimes allegations from the Sri Lanka Armed Forces page, selectively using the same sources which become reliable or unreliable at your whim and blatant double standards when it comes pro-government and pro-rebel sources to demonstrate your bias. Rest of your charges are unfair and misrepresentation of my actual views. --- Petextrodon (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon, lets keep it simple shall we, can you please accept or deny the following:

• Your contributions in Wikipedia have been limited to Tamil Elam related topics and no broader contributions made.

A simple Yes or No would be fine. Thank you. Cossde (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon, we are still waiting. Cossde (talk) 02:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cossde, Stop attempting to derail the discussion by policing what topics other users choose to edit.--- Petextrodon (talk) 03:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon, why can't you give a simple Yes or No? Cossde (talk) 13:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Dear admins @Bbb23, is this user @Cossde not engaging in personal attacks by repeatedly derailing the discussion to focus on what topics I contribute to? --- 18:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC) Petextrodon (talk) 18:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, the WP:NAT behavior is the root cause of this discussion and one's edit history is clear indication of behavior of WP:NAT or not. Cossde (talk) 23:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Both user Cossde and UtoD make spurious claims by incorrectly citing various wikipedia policies such as WP:BURDEN. When these policies are cited and accusations are made, they need to be carefully cross checked by independent observers, as they do not stand up to scrutiny. That is my humble request. Oz346 (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Like you two did in [183] and [184]. Cossde (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Or this [185]. Cossde (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

well there you are wrong, I was correctly using the policy of WP:BURDEN and WP:VERIFY on those edits, which is about the reliability of the source. You nor UtoD were questioning the reliability of the source on the Sri Lankan Armed Forces page regarding the pedophile ring of the Sri Lankan Army, but the policy of WP:BURDEN was consistently being cited (incorrectly). Oz346 (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, didn't you say "But you're also disputing its reliability, therefore you also have burden to demonstrate why it is not reliable." Please tell me what part of WP:BURDEN states this? Cossde (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Eventhough WP:BURDEN explicitly states that when a content addition is challenged for any reason "and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back." you and Petextrodon have entirely ignored that and consistently abused reverting to brute force the content through. And that you two are coordinating across multiple pages as a pattern. Even after I pointed it out in both revert summary and talkpage you action was to revert yet again to force the problematic content. -UtoD 14:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

"WP:BURDEN explicitly states that when a content addition is challenged for any reason"

WP:BURDEN says nothing of the sort. Stop making things up. It is disruptive behaviour. It's not a policy that you can abuse for any reason that you can think of. WP:BURDEN refers to the sourcing of the text, nothing more. Oz346 (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, you yourself has misinterpreted WP:BURDEN in the past such as this [186]. The problem here is your style of using brute force to enter a content of your choice without open discussion and removing content you don't like without discussion. Cossde (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

A personal attack. Nice. Right below Cossde's complaint about your previous personal attacks against them. Claiming WP:LIAR against me is meaningless. You won't get to claim WP:IGNORANCE as I have repeatedly told you about it before and claiming its only about the "verifiability of the source" contradicts your past posts where you showed knowledge of note C of WP:BURDEN, I pointed it on 22 2021 December and you said in 24 December 2021 which would contradict your current claim that it's exclusively about "verifiability of sources". So please don't bring the "you didn't see it" defence because I have told you multiple times, you knew and then went back to trying brute forcing edits into pages coordinating reverting with Petextrodon across mulitple pages. Now in February 2024 you suddenly claim the guideline doesn't exist and straight up throwing WP:LIAR at me. -UtoD 17:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

my use of the word burden there was not in the wikipedia WP:BURDEN policy sense, but in the more general use of the word. Namely that an independent third opinion had agreed with me, therefore, it is only reasonable that my version of the page should be the status quo. And that it was up to you to seek further wikipedia moderation if you still disagreed with me and the independent third opinion. Oz346 (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Your response to my request to establish a WP:RS under WP:BURDEN was to say "No you dont have to 'PROVE' each and every blatant reliable source". . Cossde (talk) 02:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Another humble request to the admins reading this discussion, please try to avoid being side tracked by the multiple messages not directly relevant to the initial complaint. If others have other complaints they should be filed separately. Otherwise the whole point of this discussion will be derailed. Oz346 (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, the root cause of all this is the brute force tactics you and Petextrodon are engaging in as part of your WP:NAT edits. Cossde (talk) 02:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@UtoD, you still have not explained why you refused to give explanation for twice reverting my other edit on UN war crimes report. I was and am willing to engage in the talk discussion that's why I asked you to explain what you meant by those Wikipedia rules that you kept throwing at me without further explanation (you have a history of doing this and another user had called you out on it too) but you refused to do so and simply insisted I alone had the burden. That's not how a collaborative effort works. --- Petextrodon (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon, right like how you added content that appeared to be a minority view [187] without engaging in the talk page discussion of Talk:Sri_Lankan_Tamils#Eelam_Tamils_name, yet used WP:FALSEBALANCE in this edit [188] without bothering to explain it in the talk page. Cossde (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cossde, is that your other account? They do keep showing up to your aid every time we are in disputes on Sri Lanka Armed Forces page. If not, I would like the person addressed make a reply themself. --- Petextrodon (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon. Are you accusing me of WP:SOCKING? Cossde (talk) 02:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

No I don't know what your relation with that user is. If you don't represent them in any way, let them explain their behavior themself. --- Petextrodon (talk) 03:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I don' think that is what you meant by .. "is that your other account?" ? Cossde (talk) 13:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

(Non-admin uninvolved summary)

• Cossde opens a case at DRN (still in progress)[189]
• Cossde reports Oz346 and Petextrodon to ANEW, result: no violation[190]
• Petextrodon reports Cossde to ANEW, result: out of scope, take to ANI[191]
• Petextrodon opens ANI thread and says that UtoD reverted two edits and only explained one.
• UtoD says Petextrodon and Oz346 edit war to include content without justifying its inclusion across multiple articles
• Cossde says Petextrodon and Oz346 multi-page edit war, and says it's WP:NATIONALIST editing
• Oz346 says Cossde and UtoD incorrectly cite WP:BURDEN

I see four very passionate editors who differ in their views of what the article should say. The four participants have been engaging in similar discussions on Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces since June 2023 (and possibly other talk pages). The best result would be if each of you would explain your reverts when asked and stick to discussing content/sources (not commenting on each other). At its heart, this appears to be a content dispute and you should all continue to try to work it out at DRN. (That's my recommendation; an admin may look at this and decide otherwise.) Schazjmd (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

User UtoD is guilty of WP:STONEWALLing in this particular article (please see the talk page exchange)

An editor refuses to accept a change unless some condition is complied with, but it is not a condition that has any basis in Wikipedia policies or guidelines.

Example: Editors reach a consensus, except one (or a tag team) insisting that the change sought violates some policy or other principle, in a way they cannot clearly demonstrate'.'

The other accusations made by Cossde and UtoD have no evidential basis, and I feel are being made to drown out the actual problem this initial complaint was filed for.Oz346 (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

This is his latest response to the reasonable questions asked of him on the talk page [192]. He is refusing to take part in the consensus building process and is continuing to revert war. He has been emboldened by the lack of action since this initial complaint was filed almost a week ago. An admin intervention is sorely needed to correct this behaviour.Oz346 (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Legal threats

• User_talk:BalaM314#Trouted_(incorrectly,_for_reverting_COI_content_removal_on_SETS)
• User_talk:120.154.50.154
• Talk:Sydney_Electric_Train_Society

The user with IP 120.154.50.154 (talk) is connected to the Sydney Electric Train Society and attempted to remove negative information from their page, claiming that it is incorrect. I reverted because the information has sources.

They then threatened to sue Wikipedia for defamation.

Not sure what to do, but WP:SUE tells me to report it here.

『π』BalaM314〘talk〙 14:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

[193] Relevant diff with the legal threat. Conyo14 (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Calls for a block. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't actually read that as a legal threat. It's more of a statement related to the other stuff they're droning on about regarding AI and Wikipedia's (perceived) inability to avoid bad information being put in by AI. That last part needs to be read in context of the entire comment. In other words, I don't read it as "fix this or I'll sue". ButlerBlog (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The criticism section in Sydney Electric Train Society is terribly written and clearly violates the Neutral point of view. I am going to delete that section. Cullen328 (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It may not be the intent, but invoking legal threats (whether indirectly, as here, or directly) has a chilling effect on other editors. It's never a good idea to go there. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

[T]here needs to be a clear path... for Wikipedia to promptly clear pages of misinformation as on display here. Otherwise Wikipedia... will become the subject of legal action for defamation, as the publisher of such material. is most definitely a legal threat. NM 01:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

IP back to disruptive edits

I encountered 82.45.48.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) in recent changes and reverted obvious disruptive edits. They seem to be POV pushing and whitewashing edits and they have already been warned in the past for similar edits. I want to know what the appropriate course of action would be. Awesome Aasim 00:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

 Blocked x 6 months for POV pushing and personal attacks. Clearly someone with an agenda who was not deterred by a previous 3 month block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Good call. I just examined more closely some of the other contributions and they seem insistent on putting anything with ties to imperial Britain "British". There is a duty of care that has to be taken with BLP. Awesome Aasim 02:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

User:2A02:C7C:A05A:BA00:1C87:989A:69F1:1E5F

On the Workers Party of Britain page, 2a02:c7c:a05a:ba00:1c87:989a:69f1:1e5f (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) continues to make disruptive edits and continues to violate WP:SYNTH despite multiple warnings and reversions. I have noticed looking through the edit history on the page they have a history of this, and acted in bad faith by accusing other users of "spreading lies" who revert the their changes. To me this suggests they are clearly POV pushing. I want to avoid an edit war with this user, which is why I am flagging it up here. User:Xander 2801 Talk Page 04:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I just see the editor adding sources which are then rejected. So, this is a content dispute. Have you tried starting a discussion about sources on the article talk page? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Text as a graphic

Coming here as I've hit 3RR if I'm wrong about this. Mainerlife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding (five times so far) a list to Thomas College. The only issue is... it's a list they have neatly typed out in Excel and uploaded a picture of to Commons. They're not responding to attempts to communicate to them why this is A Bad Thing. Would someone else care to? 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Let me know if I am wrong, but I think the 3RR noticeboard is better for this. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 19:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so. AN3 is for reporting people who have violated 3RR. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 19:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not really to do with 3RR. It's to do with the text in a graphic, the MoS issues and the lack of communication – the latter especially, for which the venue is ANI. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

If they continue to do this, please simply guide them to WP:ACCESS, because a PNG of a spreadsheet is simply not accessible and should be a paragraph or table of prose rather than an image, and they can easily make a WP:TABLE using Wikicode just as well that meets ACCESS. Nate • (chatter) 20:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

User was Pblocked from Thomas College by Cullen328. User has admitted to working for the school, and expressed intent to keep adding it. I'm holding off on a full block for now, let's see if they're willing to accept advice. The photo itself has also been deleted from Commons. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I left a COI notice. DMacks (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: and @DMacks: A Thomas College staff member looked up my personal e-mail address (not hard to find - I link to my webpage from my User page) and sent me an e-mail today demanding that I not edit their article because "I am the authority on our brand and what is listed on the page, and you are not." So there's definitely a COI/paid editing issue here and hopefully this partial block addresses the issue. ElKevbo (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This is interesting. Judging by what this person has written on their talk page and at the Teahouse, they have no idea what Wikipedia is, let alone what it is for. They appear to be assuming that this place is like Google's "claim this knowledge panel" and Apple Maps' "is this your business?" features – click on it, provide vague proof, get pretty well complete control of the entry in question. If their confusion as to why they've been prevented from adding photos of Excel spreadsheets and promotional material to the article is genuine, a belief that the article is just an extension of being able to update your info on Yelp or TrustPilot is probably why.

They were given a {{welcome}} template upon first arrival, but that explains Wikipedia in terms of how to physically edit. It doesn't explain what we are and what we're for – we assume all 7bn people know that by now. There doesn't appear to be a welcome template that actually explains we're an encyclopaedia and what our mission is. I tried drafting some text for their talk page, but every attempt looked like I was taking the piss, or at least being very condescending.

Is there someone reading this who could do better than me and help them out with a "What is Wikipedia" 101 on their talk page? Perhaps there is a template that does this and I've missed it? 81.187.192.168 (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I made a post on their Talk page to try and help out, but we'll see if they're willing to listen. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Awww, that’s brilliant and far, far better than what I was clumsily trying to say. Thank you! 81.187.192.168 (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Repeated and unexplained insertion of dubious content

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

I have recently noticed that Nwaiotbaw (talk · contribs) has inserted a lot of unusable content into articles about railways in Hong Kong and mainland China, including obvious factual errors such as the reversal of a railway service's driving direction (even though it is obvious and indicated by the cited source that it runs on the left), changes to cardinal directions that are clearly wrong just from looking at a map or comparing the coordinates shown on the respective pages, and unsourced and overly detailed prose. Others have previously warned this user for inserting speculative information from their imagination (so this seems to have been going on for some time) and never writing edit summaries. I should note that I think it is possible that some of their edits are constructive.

I am at a loss for what to do in this situation, as the user has apparently never communicated with other editors in any way in talk pages or other forums, and has never responded on their talk page. Nowadays there don't seem to be many active editors in this space to keep track of dubious edits. I haven't edited much in recent years, so I'm not sure if this is the right place to mention this or if this issue would be considered not severe enough for this forum. Jc86035 (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

We do sometimes block users for complete failure to communicate. I've left an admin warning at User talk:Nwaiotbaw. They have never responded to any of the issues raised by others on their talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

If they continue to edit without discussing things (their most recent contribution was several hours before this thread was opened) then the first step is probably a partial block from the article (and maybe template) namespace. They don't seem to be using a mobile device so this doesn't seem to be a WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU issue. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: It appears they have continued to edit without acknowledging the concerns. Jc86035 (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked from the article, draft and template namespaces until they communicate either here or on their talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Portal:Current events/2024 February 29 - ARBPIA edit war

I just took a look at the history of Portal:Current events/2024 February 29 and there is an ongoing edit war related with a recent and news event from the Israel–Hamas war. I just tagged the talk page with the CT notice, but administrator notices and/or warning for ARBPIA edit warring is needed.

• אקעגן – Reverts: 1 (technical reversion of this edit despite being first edit on the page), 2, 3, (4 - Done after AN/I started).
• Jebiguess – 1, 2, 3.

אקעגן and Jebiguess are in a full-blown edit war, both with 3 reversions, on an CT, so both at least need formal warnings or a short block for edit warring on a CT topic. While here, I need to alert Mount Patagonia that they too have technically violated the CT 1RR restriction (not in an edit-warring way though) with this and two grammatical edits which were reverted: [194] and [195].

Basically administrator overwatch on that specific page is needed due to ARBPIA recent controversial news event. ECP has been requested as well for the article, but this does involve EC editors. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't know that the last two edits would have constituted a violation of the 1RR rule. I was just trying to remove repetitive phrasing, and I assumed the removals was an unfortunate by-product of the constant revisions going on. Mount Patagonia (talk • contributions) 22:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you on that. I wanted to mention you here more as an informal alert to not revert anything else on the page since you did revert more than once, all for the good non-warring reasons. When the war first broke out, I too learned about that. The restriction is truly 1 reversion of any kind (excluding vandalism reversion) on an article in a 24 hour period. The first of the two grammatical edits might not constitute as a true reversion, however, the 2nd one for sure would. I do not think you need a block or even a formal warning. I was typing this out and noticed it, so I wanted you to be alerted this way. And, since I was requesting administrator overwatch due to the edit war, mentioning you here felt better than you getting a block without realizing it was an edit war/second reversion. But yeah, just don't revert anything further, even if it is grammatical amid the edit war. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note, I just added a fourth reversion edit by אקעגן to the chart above. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Valid, I completely forgot this existed. I won't edit that section anymore, but on a side note, I do think the language should be more neutralized to reflect the sources. It's still a rather new event, so not everything is known yet. Jebiguess (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Neo-paganism in the Republic of Ireland

IP 80.233.17.139 (talk) made a legal threat on Neo-paganism in the Republic of Ireland. Never dealt with this before, reverted and looked at Wikipedia:No legal threats which told me to post it here. Greatpopcorn (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

And they repeated their threat on their talk page. I'm not sure what the appropriate block duration is for IP addresses in these circumstances but I gave them a 48 hour block. Admins, feel free to lengthen that if I underestimated the situation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The inappropriate content they were complaining about (which was added three weeks ago) has been removed by Caeciliusinhorto, so further disruption is unlikely. --JBL (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Multiple WP:SPA accounts at Leysin American School

I'm tired of dealing with this. Help requested, including possible blocks of socks and page protection. IP created a second registered account after I warned them not to make further inappropriate edits. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Fanchen886374 (talk · contribs)
• 39.44.128.177 (talk · contribs)
• Fanchen847473 (talk · contribs)

These are a select few of the recent edits that removed sourced content, added unsourced content, added promotional content, and edit warred to restore said unacceptable content. [196]; [197]; [198]; [199]; [200]; [201]; [202]; [203]; [204]; [205]; [206]; [207]; I especially like this: [208]; [209]; multiple MOS:OL edits like this [210] and [211]; [212]; [213]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• One step at a time. User claims to have lost access to earlier account; I blocked the earlier account. The IP--no comment, but they have a partial block now. Looking into the COI matter. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Drmies. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    • My pleasure. Now I'm off to go skiing. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
      • Excellent. I hear the snow is finely packed in Tuscaloosa this year. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
        • Unfortunately it's cold and it's raining cats and dogs around here and in Selma, where VP Harris is attending the commemoration of the Selma to Montgomery marches. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
          • Sorry to hear that--I hope the rain relents for the commemoration. We've had more rain than snow this winter. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Systematic distortion of historical articles

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

---

Dear All,

Please check urgently this post on reddit detailing how a few Hungarian editors are systematically rewriting articles on Romanian history. It needs intervention and professional editors to correct the changes. Adam Harangozó (talk) 07:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Adam Harangozó: There are big mechanical problems with an off-wiki complaint, which I am choosing to address without looking at the actual accusation:

- How are we supposed to communicate back?

- How do the accused defend themselves from someone who isn't even around to participate in any discussion?

- Who is the accuser?

The reddit poster appears to be currently accusing 2 users of something(doesn't matter to the point I'm making):

- Do you now need to notify those 2 users per the rules of ANI, since that off-wiki discussion involves them?

- The argument is theirs, and you're linking it, are their arguments your arguments now?

The post talks about "network of Hungarian nationalist users" and ends with the poster claiming that "There are many accounts, and I have been doing this for many years."(*edit: talking about finding these accounts) - well, then has the poster of that thread reported them before? The archived ANI thread they linked (which is from 2021), seems to have ended with no action, the person who made it ultimately retracted it....

Honestly I would advise you against making this post into a thing, because you will have to deal with defending someone else's arguments while also somehow making the accusation with your own independent judgement, while pointing out how exactly they are violating wikipedia's policies (while avoiding WP:MEAT, both from yourself or from others coming from that thread).

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who has these concerns looking at this. – 2804:F14:80E5:6B01:2D28:AD06:B149:7F62 (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I'm ought to be discouraged from letting administrators know about a potentially serious issue concerning the reliability of Wikipedia. I also don't think that the potential difficulty of contacting the original poster is a reason for not checking this out. This debate would need editors who are experts on history and can review the edits without national(ist) bias. Adam Harangozó (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Dude, you linked to a Reddit post that in turn links back to a historical ANI post—one that wasn't the least bit convincing to me when I read it for the first time. The administrators have been notified, they can't help but be reminded every time they have to lock an article being warred over. Remsense诉 14:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The ANI post might be historical but the examples in the Reddit post are from 2023-24. My argument is still for the need for expert review of the concerned topics. Adam Harangozó (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

But getting expert attention is more difficult if you remove my notification about this discussion from the WikiProject History talk page. Adam Harangozó (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

It seemed like forum shopping because you noted this post, but did not direct discussion there.

Casting aspersions of a conspiracy without evidence is not acceptable on Wikipedia. There are, as always, biases with individual editors and in articles which may broadly reflect systemic biases. Your conclusion of a concerted review effort targeting specific editors is unacceptable, given your premise has no basis in any evidence. Remsense诉 14:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, one of the mechanical issues IP 2804⸻7F62 mentioned involves the fact that your post has the effect of laundering the absurd claims made in the reddit post. You've simply said a few Hungarian editors are systematically rewriting articles on Romanian history, but the post you have linked uncritically makes numerous unevidenced claims and personal attacks that are totally unacceptable here. This is a big reason why we don't do things off-site. Remsense诉 15:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: I have notified editers mentioned in the Reddit post of this thread, if they wish to comment. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense. Borsoka (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: The original reddit posts cites a historical ANI but otherwise brings many recent examples from 2023-24. My argument is for the need of expert review, to find out if there is indeed a systematic effort to distort history or if this was a false accusation.Adam Harangozó (talk) 15:37, 3 March 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.

Genre warring on Led Zeppelin III

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

---

On February 4, a South Africa-based IP added an unsourced genre to the article for Led Zeppelin III ([214]). After being reverted multiple times, the IP editor added the unsourced genre back ([215][216][217]). On 25 February, I applied for page protection at WP:RPPI ([218]), and Favonian instituted a range block on the IP to prevent further edits to Led Zeppelin III ([219]). A few hours before the block, the IP editor created an account, HighPriestOfSaturn, which the editor has used to continue genre warring ([220][221][222][223][224][225][226]), despite being reverted by myself and Carlinal, and having been warned on his or her talk page by Favonian and FlightTime. Tkbrett (✉) 11:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I improved Led Zeppelin III to GA status, so I'm WP:INVOLVED and won't take any admin action myself. However, this looks like a silly spat over genres in infoboxes. I've dropped a WP:ARBINFOBOX2 contentious topic debate on their talk page and explained why they're wasting their time. So if the disruption continues with snarky edit summaries or comments on the talk page, any uninvolved admin should be free to issue an Arbcom-enforced block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Why does the user Tkbrett continue referring to my genres as unsourced? How many times have I mentioned that the Rolling Stone article is my source and how many times have I explained my position? The user Tkbrett continues to call me a genre warrior, and yet he is behaving in precisely the described manner of a genre warrior: "prefer monolithic labels rather than subtlety, e.g. by reducing one band's output to a single genre, e.g. "Metallica = heavy metal". "

My genre change is not only sourced but is also explained. I have explained that "folk rock" is a large genre, and there is a difference between the straighter varieties of folk such as Bob Dylan, the Mamas and the Papas, Peter Paul and Mary and the spacey, trippy variety of folk such as early David Bowie, Tim Buckley and post-Floyd Syd Barrett.

The Rolling Stone article describes this album as "trippy" folk. Am I lying or not? If not, then why are my changes being reverted without due explanation? Or do we have a misunderstanding over what "trippy" means? HighPriestOfSaturn (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

While the description of the album as "trippy folk" may pass WP:EXPLICITGENRES (I'm not going to be adding it in, though), I do have to comment on this: "I have explained that 'folk rock' is a large genre, and there is a difference between the straighter varieties of folk such as Bob Dylan, the Mamas and the Papas, Peter Paul and Mary and the spacey, trippy variety of folk such as early David Bowie, Tim Buckley and post-Floyd Syd Barrett." To be clear, this seems like original research to me, and does not have any bearing on consensus regarding genres on any article. I don't want to discount all of your points, but the genres in the infobox must be supported by reliable sources -- if all you have is your own analysis, they will be removed. I just wanted to chime in here to explain this. Thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. There is no page for trippy folk, and to say "trippy" means "psychedelic" is original research. The source never uses the word "psychedelic", but it does use "folk rock". As a side note, the editor has [227][228] continued to genre war after this discussion opened. Tkbrett (✉) 15:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked HighPriestOfSaturn for 24 hours for edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm being called an edit warrior when users like @Carlinal are able to revert my changes with no explanation given, then be given a seat on this mock council. And now @Lavalizard101 wants me to be blocked for battleground mentality. I have explained my position, time and time again, using only the facts of the situation. And yet I have had my changes deleted for no reason, I have been banned, I have been told to "let it go", but not a single person has been able to refute my changes in a logical way. So what further avenues are made available to me except to go through all this stuff with all you people? I stand for my changes and I am able to back them up. Unless one of you can provide sound and reasonable counterarguments, I see no reason why my changes should be deleted/reverted. HighPriestOfSaturn (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

𝙄 𝙖𝙢 𝙜𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 𝙢𝙖𝙠𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙡𝙤𝙤𝙠 𝙖𝙨 𝙙𝙞𝙛𝙛𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙖𝙨 𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙗𝙡𝙚, 𝙨𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙩 𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙩 𝙙𝙚𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙫𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙢𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙙𝙧𝙤𝙬𝙣𝙚𝙙 𝙤𝙪𝙩. 𝙏𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙨 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙄 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙢𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙡𝙤𝙜𝙞𝙘 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙣 𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙨𝙚 𝙨𝙤-𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙙𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙨, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙮𝙚𝙩 𝙄 𝙖𝙢 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙝𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙙, 𝙤𝙣𝙡𝙮 𝙨𝙞𝙡𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙡𝙞𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙤, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙡𝙞𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩.

​There is no page for trippy folk, because psychedelic folk in and of itself is, and I quote,: "a loosely defined form of psychedelia" that "retains the largely acoustic instrumentation of folk, but adds musical elements common to psychedelic music" .

This same genre is also known as "acid folk" and "freak folk", amongst other names.

The point of the matter here is that it is NOT straight folk rock, it is literally "trippy" folk, aka spacey folk, aka trip folk, aka freak folk, aka psychedelic folk.

You come with your lies, again and again and again and again, and you hide behind your mob (which I suspect to have some sockpuppetry going on) but yet you will continue to fall flat because you are a LIAR, Tkbrett.

The definition of "trippy", according to Merriam-Webster, is: "of, relating to, or suggestive of a trip on psychedelic drugs or the culture associated with such drugs."

𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐋𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐥𝐞𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐝𝐞, 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐮𝐧𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐬𝐭 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐞. 𝐈 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞. 𝐍𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐝, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐲𝐞𝐭 𝐈 𝐚𝐦 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐝, 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐚 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥. 𝐈 𝐚𝐦 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐝𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬.

So by very definition, in clear, conspicuous and concise wording, YOUR article says that Led Zeppelin III is a trippy folk album. This means that it is an album that, according to the cited reviewer, is folky yes, but has elements that are common to psychedelic (trippy) music.

In other words, back to the original point, it is a psychedelic-sounding album of the folk music category. Or, in shorter words, psychedelic folk. HighPriestOfSaturn (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, this constitutes your own original reasearch, which we cannot use to justify edits. In addition, the above screed is full of personal attacks, which will likely result in your editing privileges being revoked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, if you don't want to have a discussion based on policy, I've listened to both sides of LZ3 about a thousand times, and it's extremely obviously distinct from anything else that people call psychedelic folk. Every single song is either classic rock, blues, acoustic folk or Hats Off To Roy Harper. Sure, it has -- as you say -- "elements that are common to" the psychedelic folk genre. The very simple thing you seem to be deliberately refusing to understand throughout this conversation (instead saying that everyone else is lying) is that a thing having elements in common with a second thing does not make it be that second thing. I am a man who owns more than one guitar; Jimmy Page is a man who owns more than one guitar. Do you see how these two facts fail to prove that I am Jimmy Page? jp×g🗯️ 06:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I, on the other hand JPxG, only own one guitar, a slender little C. F. Martin & Company Backpacker, the guitar that has been to the summit of Mount Everest and to outer space. Cullen328 (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• @Tkbrett: This report should have been made at either WP:ANEW or protection filed at WP:RFPP. While it involves a degree of behavioral infraction, it does not constitute urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems (a minor content dispute over the difficult third acoustic album where they went to Wales and smoked too much weed is none of those things). It is purely a content dispute. ——Serial 15:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, Serial Number 54129. I am sorry, I do not know much about how and where to report stuff like this. After the page protection request at WP:RPPI did not stop the issue, I reported it here because that is the only guidance given at WP:GWAR § In case of dispute. Tkbrett (✉) 15:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  No problem at all Tkbrett, the right result was achieved... and was an opportunity to describe the creation of LZ3 from a different perspective  :) ——Serial 15:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Two good results, I guess you could say. 😉 JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Either I'm late to the party or this got resolved fairly quickly (got unrelated bad sleep regardless). I'm glad this got taken care of, and since I'm part of the warring as well I may as well add a few more noteworthy details and thoughts.

The February edits were not the first from HPOS, with them saying they did similar edits last July (as evidenced) and also was careless about abiding to reliable sources (also here, ignoring WP:MEDIUM). I even reported one of their edits for vandalism thanks to their continuous disruptiveness and stubbornness. I agree with JeffSpaceman's reply completely, in that "trippy folk rock" doesn't mean "psychedelic folk" as it's an adjective to a phrase and not an established label itself, and HPOS's insistent beliefs is original research.

While the 24 hour blocking is fair, I do not believe this will affect their arguments or prevent similar edits in the long run, so I'm still watching out for Led Zeppelin III as a result. Oh well, it's one of my favorite albums to read about and listen to, anyway. Also, you guys keep a GWAR recency report here?! God damn! I'm sorry for any further nuisance this caused. As per Tkbrett's explanations for reporting here, I think the GWAR essay needs an update so things can go in a better favor next time. All in all, thanks again for killing some of the heat. Sorry for killing a kitten. So this is what it's like to love Led Zeppelin, huh... Carlinal (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, I have watchlisted the article in case the editor resumes the genre warring once the block is over. Something tells me this won't just go away... JeffSpaceman (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, the offending editor indicated his or her plans to get right back to reverting once the block expires. Tkbrett (✉) 14:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

If you ask Google what the definition of "trippy folk rock" is, the very first result is Psychedelic folk, the second result is Psychedelic rock and coming in third is Britannica with psychedelic rock. Isn't that a trip it's equated with psychedelic. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Given his response above. I suggest User:HighPriestOfSaturn, be blocked indefinitely for battleground mentality. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, I really wanted to assume good faith, but it sadly seems that the user is not here to build an encyclopedia. An indef is probably the only preventative measure here, unfortunately. I would not be opposed to an unblock if the user agrees to avoid such original research in the future, but as of now, I don't see that happening. Disappointing, but I kind of imagined that this edit warring would resume, given the battleground editing the user has been engaging in. JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

What original research? Everything I say is cited. HighPriestOfSaturn (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

As noted above, trippy folk does not automatically equal psychedelic folk. See WP:EXPLICITGENRES for more information, with particular emphasis on this section: "When classifying music, sources must explicitly attribute the genre to the work or artist as a whole." Partial attributions and synthesized claims are unacceptable and often skirt the edge of the no original research policy. Please stop edit warring, and discuss your changes on the talk page. Similarly, your battleground attitude is unacceptable and goes against WP:NOT. I think a lot of people (myself included) really want you to succeed as editor, but this kind of disruptive editing will result in a block or sanction of some sort. Please stop and get consensus for your changes. JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but WP:EXPLICITGENRES does not work in a genre that is defined as " "a loosely defined form of psychedelia".

Psychedelic folk is a loosely defined offshoot of folk that goes by multiple names, the two additional (but not only) names listed on the Wiki article are also "acid folk" and "freak folk".

Trippy is interchangeable with psychedelic, as by definition it describes states induced by or reminiscent of those experienced under psychedelic drugs. This is not original research, or do you want me to link Merriam-Webster?

I am not edit warring when my changes are sourced. How about those who delete my changes for no reason come and explain here on the talk page? I've reasons, they've not. HighPriestOfSaturn (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

This is not original research Yes it is, as you have been told multiple times, if a source does not explicitly describe an album as "psychedlic folk" we cannot call it that. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

That's because "psychedelic folk" is a loosely defined genre as per its article. Psychedelic folk goes by many names, but is folk music with psychedelic elements. Heady, trippy, elements. Like how this article describes it. HighPriestOfSaturn (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

HighPriestOfSaturn has gone back to edit-warring on Led Zeppelin III. Can an uninvolved admin (as mentioned above, I'm not) partially block them indefinitely from this article, please? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Done by Widr. Should be indeffed full block. They're only here for one thing, and when that one thing is disruptive, we'll get no profit out of them. It's a good example of how sometimes P-blocks just put off the inevitable. ——Serial 16:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Totally agree on a full indef. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

User is now making personal attacks on their talk page, as seen here. Should absolutely be full indef, based on this. WP:NOTHERE. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Crap, I was gonna try and save them by saying that genre-related edits are not taken lightly, and the only way "psychedelic folk" can even begin to be accepted there is if they can provide a (reliable) source proving that "trippy rock" is a common synonym for psychedelic rock and whatnot. Alas, they chose to become the victim of another day.

Since HPOS previously fought under various IPs and only recently had a username, I fear sockpuppetry could arise. Or maybe I'm getting paranoid. Jesus. Carlinal (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

That's possible, but I found no evidence so far--and such genre warriors and Crusaders for Truth are often easily recognized anyway. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

HighPriestOfSaturn, time for indef?

"And guess what? I will come back to this article and change it to the genre it deserves. Month after month, year after year, decade after decade, until the day I die." .

It goes downhill from there.. Zaathras (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

User should absolutely be indeffed. Based on this behavior, a partial block is insufficient, and a full block necessary to prevent disruption. JeffSpaceman (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked HighPriestOfSaturn and the person calling themselves that as not here to improve the encyclopedia but rather to vindictively disrupt it. If the person behind the username is reading this, please be aware that Wikipedia administrators will use all of the many tools at our disposal to prevent genre warring at Led Zeppelin III, as well as any other article that you might fixate on. Please find another hobby. Cullen328 (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Nice but of work, Cullen328, excellent advice elegantly phrased :) ——Serial 12:53, 3 March 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.

Lawyer.F

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.

---

Lawyer.F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is not WP:NOTHERE and clearly lacks WP:CIR. After being unblocked for promotional username, they have only caused trouble.

Despite being told multiple that they have to cite a WP:RS for their additions/changes [229] [230] [231] [232], they still don't get it. In fact, they kept doubling down on the WP:OR/WP:SYNTH rants in their talk page. To make it even worse, they rejected countless WP:RS because it did not fit their views, such as their last comment [233], where they even randomly made assumptions about my place of education...? "I guess, you have been educated in Iran and have never been educated somewhere else". Now, they are adding their newly created and unsourced category "Qizilbash confederacy states" (whatever that means?) to several articles, even edit warring [234] [235].

To get a better picture of this and how bad it is, I would advise you to read this whole talk page section [236]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Clearly does not meet CIR requirements. Should be blocked to prevent further disruption to the project. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  Also, the category he adds to things ([237]) seems to only be added to by him with 2 added pages. Is there a CSD for categories? I like Astatine (Talk to me) 04:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Lawyer.F for disruptive editing, with a notation that competence is required. Cullen328 (talk) 07:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328! HistoryofIran (talk) 13:47, 1 March 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.

Account deletion

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.

---

Could you all delete my account Wikirizzler (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Why? Wikirizzler (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Attribution of content. See WP:UNC. Schazjmd (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Wikirizzler: The closest process to account deletion is courtesy vanishing, which will rename your account to something like "Renamed user [random characters]" and delete your user page and subpages. You can then clear your preferences Preferences → User profile → Restore all default preferences (in all sections) and remove your email address Preferences → User profile → Change or remove email address. ~~2NumForIce (^speak|_edits) 18:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Yall gotta approve my courtesy vanish Wikirizzler (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikirizzler, there are people here who can help you achieve what you want, but remember that they are all volunteers, who may not take kindly to being ordered about. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 3 March 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.

"Ghost train" IP

A variety of IP addresses, mostly found within Special:Contributions/2001:BB6:9800:D00:9143:7563:8EF8:15F/64 and most recently (today) User:2001:BB6:9800:D00:8C64:4076:F7CA:F2D8, has been adding nonsensical content about "ghost trains" to various articles, which has had to be reverted for being irrelevant, terribly written, and unsourced every time. I invite you to read Draft:Police train to see their editing capabilities. They've been at it consistently since early February, along with identical edits in January and a few in October 2023. They've accumulated a heap of warnings across the various exact IPs, all of which have been ignored. This editor clearly cannot be reasoned with, and as I cannot see any collateral on this /64, which appears relatively stable, could we block it for at least a month to stop the disruptive edits? I'm coming here rather than AIV as this is persistent behavior across a number of IPs within the /64. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Done, though I chose a slightly longer and more arbitrary block length because I could. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

User contributions for 93.218.55.200 take 2

Previous report ...back as 79.245.112.78. ....same edit summary style. @HJ Mitchell: previous iadminMoxy- 08:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Will need help reverting this.Moxy- 08:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks like only the first edit has an edit conflict, clicking undo on <these> seems perfectly fine.

I'm a bit wary of doing it though, lest I accidentally make it more complicated. – 2804:F14:80E5:6B01:8497:A051:760:1011 (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Well never mind then, further edits changed the title of one of the sections and removed some brackets, so that revert is not possible anymore. – 2804:F1...0E:888D (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Block evasion using IP

Taeisawesome21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2601:14C:8001:ABD0:6063:466F:2423:A6B6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Taeisawesome21 was indefed on Feb 27. The IP began making edits on March 1 to the same pages that Taeisawesome21 favored, and pushing the same previously reverted edits. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Clasus1453

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.

---

Clasus1453 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Fail to see how this user is a networth to this site. All their edits have been reverted (mostly by me) and for good reason; they're unsourced and revisionism. Their talk page is also full of warnings (mostly by me).

They have never written a edit summary once, let alone written in a talk page. Back in January they created the revisionistic Category:Ottoman-Azerbaijani wars, adding it to conflicts between the Ottomans and Aq Qoyunlu [238] [239] [240], referring the latter as "Azerbaijani", despite the ethnonym first emerging in 1918 and the Aq Qoyunlu article literally stating that they're Turkoman, not Azeri. After reverting them, I tried to explain this to them at their talk page [241], but it was clearly ignored, as they went on a second time to create Category:Ottoman-Azerbaijani wars after it was speedily deleted for being empty, and after being reverted for that´too, they started edit warring [242] [243] and then created a even more revisionistic category, Category:Azerbaijani-Uzbek wars, this time not only calling the Turkoman Aq Qoyunlu (and Turkoman Qara Qoyunlu) for "Azerbaijani", but now also calling the Turco-Mongol Timurid Empire for "Uzbek" [244] [245] [246].

Bonus; altering sourced information [247]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Clasus1453 made their last edit at 05:22 on 26 February. If they resume editing without responding to this complaint, please let me know. A block should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Will do, thanks EdJohnston! HistoryofIran (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: They have resumed editing by doing more edit warring [248] [249]. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I have partial-blocked them from article space until such time as they agree to communicate and discuss their edits. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! HistoryofIran (talk) 17:06, 2 March 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.

LTA MakaveliReed 2

• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MakaveliReed
• Special:Contributions/2601:240:CD00:0:0:0:0:0/46

Yesterday, I noticed an IP editor who was mass replacing non-abbreviated dates (preferred per MOS:DATERANGE and used in dozens FAs I checked) to abbreviated ones in the infoboxes (and in some cases adding unsourced dates). Upon closer inspection, the IP turned out to be an LTA. Already reported here last month by @Binksternet (thank you!), the IP returned right after the week long block and went on an editing spree. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 00:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is certainly MakaveliReed getting back into the usual disruption. Binksternet (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I’ve renewed the /46 rangeblock, this time for two weeks, doubling the previous block. I noticed some lengthy /44 blocks in the history, which expired in December, but that was for a different matter. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

User vandalising other's pages with porn-related userboxes.

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.

---

Squazyzilla added these userboxes to my page, then the same to another user's talk page. Not sure if compromised account or just gone WP:NOTHERE, but not great either way. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 23:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Indef'ed by User:Aoidh. I agree it seems out of character from their edit-history, but whatever...blocks are preventative, and all that. DMacks (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Given the concern above I ran a check on the account, and there's no indication from the result that the account is compromised. - Aoidh (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, peculiar. Cheers for handling it. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 00:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I also had a look. This is probably a sock of Drhunterhamilton21, who seems to have a predilection for US politics, weed, and userpage vandalism. Spicy (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Repeated unexplained addition of Arabic-like scripts by IP address 180.75.238.55 in multiple Penang-related articles

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.

---

Calling for urgent intervention on IP address 180.75.238.55 persistently making unexplained additions of Arabic-like scripts without WP:ES, despite multiple warnings and attempts to start discussion on their talk page, with zero response from said address. 1 2 3 4 hundenvonPG (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

first of all, those are not arabic script, those are jawi script which was used to write malay language in malaysia for many centuries. i cannot understand how you can tolerate tamil and chinese scripts while native malay jawi script is considered vandalism? Jawi is the only writing system besides latin to have status in Malaysia so if you don't know the history of Malaysia better be quiet! 180.75.238.55 (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@HundenvonPenang: I don't see anything "unexplained" here. The user simply added names in different script, and indicated it as Jawi script. If you think the text should be removed, please, try to reach consensus with other editors. Do not use ANI for content disputes. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Vanjagenije, that does not excuse IP address's persistently avoiding discussions on their talk page and making unexplained additions with zero WP:ES. Said IP address' aggressive response above says it all. hundenvonPG (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I have explained it, Jawi script is a native script of Malaysia. Don't be a racist. 180.75.238.55 (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Final warning given to this IP. Next step will be a block on editing Wikipedia. Deb (talk) 12:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Putting Jawi script is considered vandalism? How is that so? I have made an explanation and you don't want to read it? 180.75.238.55 (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Mandarin, Hokkien and Tamil are not indigenous nor regional nor official languages of Malaysia but there is no restriction for them to put their writing on Malaysian town names which is not even Chinese nor Tamil in origin. 180.75.238.55 (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Refer to your own talk page. Multiple times, I had requested you to show proof that Jawi has official status in Penang. You not only ignored them, you proceeded to add scripts wholesale and then accuse me of racism? "Better be quiet"?

Classic example of treating WP as a battleground and accusing others in bad faith.

Not even an effort to reach WP:CON, yet said IP address is pushing their edits all over, then "asking permission"? hundenvonPG (talk) 13:26, 4 March 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.

Need a rangeblock for Oregon IPs

• 5.78.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone from the western suburbs of Portland, Oregon, US, has been repeatedly vandalizing music articles. The most recent effort is from the last four days at Special:Contributions/5.78.0.0/16. Every single edit in this range has been vandalism since March 1, so no worries about collateral damage. Some of the IPs in this range have already been blocked by Ohnoitsjamie, including Special:Contributions/5.78.61.251 (one month), Special:Contributions/5.78.62.210 (one month), and Special:Contributions/5.78.63.193 (one week).

Please block Special:Contributions/5.78.0.0/16 for at least a month. Thanks in advance! Binksternet (talk) 09:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Given that this IP (according to WHOIS) seems to belong to Hetzner, a provider of web host and colocation services, and that this IP range has been blocked as a colocation webhost before (2 year block in Feb 2022), I've filed a block request over at the open proxies Wikiproject. — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. Hopefully that will give the open proxy folk time to take a look. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

CPPConstruct

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.

---

@CPPConstruct seems to be an obvious sockpuppet of blocked user @WaseemAbbaass, who also has another blocked sockpuppet named @DaDefeender.

The sockpuppet investigation can be found here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WaseemAbbaass

If you look at CPPConstruct’s contributions, he goes onto my profile the first day his account is made, (which is only 3 days old and only boasts around 11 edits) and asks me to let him do his changes (which are the exact same changes of WaseemAbbaass and DaDefeender). It’s so painfully obvious, he is now vandalising pages such as the ISPR one.

Here is only ONE example where his disruptive editing matches the disruptive edit of, where he removed controversies despite not taking it to the talk page.

CPPConstruct: 1

WaseemAbbaass: 2 VirtualVagabond (talk) 08:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

CPPConstruct and DeDefeender (WaseemAbbaass’ sockpuppet) also have an obsession with removing the “green entertainment” part of the page.

CPPConstruct: [1]

DaDefeender: [2] VirtualVagabond (talk) 08:58, 4 March 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.

Vandalism and hostile behavior from Rocketman777 and Yellowboy7

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.

---

My talk page was recently vandalized by User:Rocketman771 (diff) after they had a contrary opinion to mine in a discussion at Talk:Tornadoes of 2024#New Model for main tornado article: 2024 suggested changes and improvements. In that discussion, the same user was engaging in personal attacks by calling me a coward for disengaging (diff) and based on perceived national identity. I'm not sure what sort of action is appropriate in this situation.

Following asking for admin help on my talk page, I recieved similar vandalism from (diff) from User:Yellowboy7. Seems like possible sock puppetry which I will take to WP:SPI shortly. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 18:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Don't bother with the SPI.  Confirmed and will block. Courcelles (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Both blocked and tagged. Within the checkuser window, those two are the only once I can see. Courcelles (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response and resolution! DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 18:36, 4 March 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.

TPA revocation of blocked user Hegazeebot

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.

---

Please revoke TPA. Making personal attacks (including homophobic ones). —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 03:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

It appears User:Malcolmxl5 took care of it a minute before I posted this. Thanks! —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 03:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Asparagusus. Yes, Untamed1910 dropped a note on my talk page. Keep an eye on the IP too please. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:31, 4 March 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.

COI and CIR

• Ahmed brens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hakawi News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Abdel Nasser Abdel Fattah Mohamed Hassan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Misleading articles in bad English about a non-notable Wordpress website and its owner, by editor recently banned from Commons for participation in a cross-project promotion about these two entities. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Good morning, my article is about the spread of knowledge, sports, news sites, website owners, company owners, and businessmen. Goodbye, have a nice day.

(Ahmed brens (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC))

The abuse report at Commons is at this link (dated 29 February 2024). The editors who worked on this problem at Commons are User:HouseOfChange and User:TheAafi. EdJohnston (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Obvious  Looks like a duck to me, given how their contributions transect with each other. Their logs at Commons are pretty much evident of this. There's one more player in this: Maryam AlAkini, whose spam uploads were mostly nuked by Pi.1415926535. Ahmed brens asked for an unblock twice on Commons which was declined. ─ Aafī (talk) 07:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Hoaxes going on. I took care of the articles, will let someone else connect dots and issue blocks if needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  The user CIR issue is also important, as AB continues to create articles with no indication of notability. The Sky News articles may be part of a continued promotional work with कटासमुला (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Katasmula, now blocked at Commons for a leading role in the Abdel Nasser hoax). Katasmula also has an interesting Wikimedia page, apparently copying affiliations and conference images from another user. The Meta userpage history shows Katasmula considered also describing himself as a Wikipedia employee but decided against it. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• I have to go out for the day so can't examine more closely, but would ask another admin to finish cleaning up this mess. My guess is that a block is needed and a lot of articles need CSD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

209.214.83.194

209.214.83.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – requires revocation of talk page access. Remsense诉 01:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk page access removed for the duration of the block. Cullen328 (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Personal Info on 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.

---

Looks like a user added their contact info to this page in an effort to contact the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sandy_Stimpson#Old_fire_department_equipment 71.38.43.164 (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the post.-Gadfium (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, anyone could have done that. Was hoping an administrator would delete it permanently instead if just rollback/undo. 71.38.43.164 (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Please don't bring notice to said information in public, it tends to cause people to become curious and go see what it is – the recommended way of handling/reporting personal information is detailed at requests for oversight. The Oversight Team deals with exactly this sort of thing (as a member has done since). – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:D4DC:46FF:5933:EF85 (talk) 07:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Also there is a very large red notice when you are starting a discussion in this board that gives much the same instructions: This Large Notice

Perhaps the second title could be more something like "Private Information, Libel or Defamation" instead of "Oversight and revision-deletion"? I'm not sure if that would help, but you're not the first to have come here to report something like this, despite said large notice. – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:D4DC:46FF:5933:EF85 (talk) 08:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Zanahary (talk) 09:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

"Oversight and revision-deletion" means nothing to most people. The heading would be more useful if it followed WP:COMMONALITY. Private information, libel, defamation or legal actions would be much better. Other wikijargon there, such as "diffs" and "suppression action", could do with linking. Bazza 7 (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I too agree. In particular, "oversight" has a variety of common meanings none of which really conveys the purpose of WP:OVERSIGHT. That word in the template can only confuse or mislead concerned newbies who are trying to be helpful. (I was already pretty experienced the first time I came across oversightable material, and knew enough to dig out the relevant email addy and to not post anywhere public.) Narky Blert (talk) 17:30, 7 March 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.

2A00:23C5:1B03:5301:2804:35AB:1A12:F4BA

Ip disruptive editing and vandalism, editor is added unnecessary spaces, change words, repeatedly changing format on several Thomas episode pages.Magical Golden Whip (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Magical Golden Whip,

Unless you provide diffs/edits of the content changes you are concerned about, it's unlikely that anyone will take action on your complaint. Be specific and demonstrate what edits are inappropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Dilemma

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 recently shared a blog post I had written to a relevant subreddit. I've posted to this subreddit a few times and got good responses.My most recent post had a response on it when I checked it in the morning (I usually post just before I go to sleep) that insinuated I had engaged in some kind of vote manipulation due to how well the post had been performing in terms of upvotes and the lack of any other comments at the time of their comment.The post has since received more comments that are responses to the actual blog post. However, the accusatory comment has received some amount of support and is the second most upvoted comment (which means it will feature fairly prominently when people view the reddit comments), beating out relevant comments.I found it unfortunate that this comment would be waiting there for all the other people who came to comment on the post so I wanted to respond to it .The problem I had was that I can't prove that I didn't engage in vote manipulation. It would benefit me to do so as it would get more people looking at my post and aware of who I am (or so the hypothetical reasoning could go). Additionally, if I tried to defend myself against the claim I would only make myself seem more suspicious. I also don't want to leave the comment unanswered as I believe it gives the wrong idea about not only my character, but also the quality of the blog post I shared (since I didn't do any vote manipulation it would appear that it is doing well on its own merits!). So how could I respond to such an unfalsifiable claim without seeming suspiciously defensive and maintaining a good face?Note that there aren't any ads on my blog site and the content is all free. I was also surprised at how well the post performed, most of my other posts didn't do quite so well so I can understand it looking like a suspicious outlier. Holland trip (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello there, Holland trip. Can you please explain, concisely if possible, why you are discussing Reddit and blogs at this Wikipedia noticeboard? Neither Reddit nor 99% of blogs are reliable sources on Wikipedia, and administrators care nothing about the massive amounts of foolishness that crawl across the internet like a fungal infection. We are writing an encyclopedia here instead. Cullen328 (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328, If you look through the edit log, this is another probable LTA account ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 07:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

That the 4/5th account that has vandalised this page over the past hour. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Holland trip as obviously not here to build this encyclopedia. If any sockpuppet detectives want to work on this, please feel free. Cullen328 (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Cheers. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 07:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And they've all been created back in 2016-2017. I've lodged a sock puppet investigation under the name of the oldest of them. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

That's a long sleep, Daveosaurus. Approaching 1/3 of Rip Van Winkle's nap. Cullen328 (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The sock investigation is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Home-made goodiness if anyone wants to add names of any more sleepers overnight (it's getting late in my time zone). Daveosaurus (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

More auto-confirmed socks have disrupted ANI. They have been blocked. In worst case, if it keeps up, ANI would have to ECP to stop auto-confirmed socks, but it would prevent good-faith auto-confirmed users from defending themselves. --Stylez995 (talk) 10:46, 5 March 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:Erbmjha2 NOTHERE

Erbmjha2 (talk · contribs · count) has been editing since last November, making a total of 24 edits. In that short time, they've managed to amass several warnings, including three level-4 warnings, and a block. Today they repeated[250] an edit of theirs that was reverted with a level-4 warning 12 days ago[251]. With only one of their 24 edits possibly regarded as constructive, the user is now wasting too much of other editors' time. May I suggest a sanction per NOTHERE? — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

what are u saying,almost all my edits are constructive.You seem not to know any sanskrit and is commenting.ask any person how is kumari कुमारी written in devnaagri and what it means in sanskrit.I added meaning of names in vishnu sahastranam and you are saying it non constructive.

Harivarasanam is in pure sanskrit,ask any sanskrit knower

You are multipletime reverting mine without proper explaination Erbmjha2 (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Erbmjha2 is someone who has made 27 edits to Wikipedia and 2 to Commons. He/she got a three-day block in December for persistent removal of sourced article content, with no explanation apart from the fact that you don't like it, and no attempt to respond to messages from other editors beyond telling them that you know best.^[252] He/she has had quite a few warnings on his/her talk page since then.

I suspect that the problem is one of competence.

• In this edit on 3 March he/she deleted a big chunk of cited text from the article on Varanasi. He/she never thought to provide an edit summary. It got reverted, and the editor who reverted it (1) explained why it was reverted in the edit summary, and (2) left some guidance and a warning on User talk:Erbmjha2.
• In this edit on 5 March he/she deleted cited text in some places, and added a thousand-line long table, some cited text, and some uncited text. He did leave an edit summary: better; that gave no clue as to what the edit was, or why it had been made. The editor who reverted this edit left a more useful edit summary, saying that the edit Deleted a lot of useful info.

I do not understand why Erbmjha2 is complaining that people revert his/her edits without explanation. It would be more truthful to say that Erbmjha2 makes his edits without explanation, but they get deleted by people who say why they reverted Erbmjha2's edit.

Suggest a two-week block.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Erbmjha2 By saying that they should ask any "Sanskrit knower", that's essentially considered original research. You need reliable, independent sources from websites that can be trusted. Also, based on my check of your edit, you also seemed to write "List of 1,000 names of Lord Vishnu" in the short description. While that may seem like a good idea on paper, the Vishnu Sahasranama is a hymn and not some guide of how people can chant. Finally, you also removed sourced content without proper explanation. @Kashmiri and @Toddy1, I can certainly agree with your decision. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

why block,its too harsh

I want to do constructive edits only Erbmjha2 (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Erbmjha2 Then you need to seek out a mentor to guide you. You wouldn't be at this discussion board if your edits to this point were all constructive. —C.Fred (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

That might be what you want to do, but it's not what you are doing. The fact that you don't recognize that is why I have now blocked you: to prevent your continued disruptive effect regardless of your motivation. DMacks (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Jadidjw

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

Hi again ANI. This has been ongoing for too long, the WP:GF and WP:ROPE has run out for me. Jadidjw has been doing this type of stuff since 2021 (the same year they first started editing), as seen in this ANI report where they got blocked for 72 hours [253].

In July 2023, I made a SPI [254] of Jadidjw because their conduct was extremely similar to that of a sock, which includes WP:CIR and attempts to minimize the (sourced) Mongol aspect of the Hazara.

A half year later, they are still doing the same, removing sourced information at Hazaras [255] [256] [257] [258] [259] [260]. Apparently the reason behind some of these edits (probably all of them tbh) is because it clashes with their opinion, as they literally demonstrated in this recent talk section [261].

Right now, they are currently edit warring to have their way at Hazaras [262] [263] [264], which is not the first time. They already got blocked for a month for violating 3RR in that article during their attempts to minimize the Mongol aspect [265]. They are also being dishonest (not the first time, see the SPI), claiming that there was some previous consensus for this massive removal of sourced info [266] - which there wasn't.

At Sheikh Ali (Hazara tribe), they randomly manually reverted me to restored an unsourced edit of a sock [267], pretty strange. Based on this, I don't think they are networth to this site, at least not in Hazara related articles, but that's where all their edits are. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

What I see is an editor who has been disruptive for yours, and has received a 72 hour block, a two week block and a one month block. And yet their disruption continues. I have indefinitely blocked Jadidjw. Cullen328 (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen! HistoryofIran (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

LordRockall/HOUNDING/NOTHERE

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

I had the temerity to query the reliability/independence/accuracy of some of the sources used, by LordRockall, at Talk:Baron of Tirawley. And tag some of the other sources as failing verification. And, the issues not being addressed, to open a related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron of Tirawley. The editor appears to have taken offence - to the extent of trawling through a range of my edits (including to my user page, user Talk archives, sandbox and other User namespace pages) to tendentiously revert a volume of changes. See (just as an example): [268][269][270]. Note, in particular, the "threat" in this EDSUM [271]. I might please ask if someone could review (and take action as needed). Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/LordRockall shows explicit WP:HARASSMENT of Guliolopez. LordRockall needs to be stopped. Schazjmd (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

This is plain an editor on the attack against Guliolopez. The Banner talk 17:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what games they are playing, but they sent a wikilove of a pie to Guliolopez with a message that seems to be WP:PA. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 17:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Bullshit like this is textbook harassment. From a 100 edit account, the introduction to the door was the only real choice for me. Indeffed. Courcelles (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

This gets stranger... I found their sockpuppets BaronOfIrrus (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and TirawleyHistory (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). That last account made this edit. Blocked the socks. Courcelles (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Courcelles. In honesty, the user behind those profiles was likely just seeking a block in the end. I had anticipated, if/when LordRockall was blocked, that the user would shift to the other connected profiles. Including those you mention. Which QUAKEDed away from the start. While I was steeled for that eventuality, and prepared to move to SPI in that event, I appreciate that it has now been preempted. A bridge further than I'd hoped. Much appreciated Courcelles. (And thanks also to the other non-admin contributors for their support/input/etc). Thanks again. Guliolopez (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Guliolopez Just for (hopefully unnecessary) future reference, if you know someone is using multiple accounts and are filing an issue like this, please bring up all the sockpuppets to begin with. Makes it a lot easier to get the full picture. Courcelles (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Will do. A very fair point/comment. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)