Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Mass reinstatement of made up/incorrect information on French election articles

As some of you may have seen, there has been a bit of a social media storm about my removals of unsourced, inconsistent and made-up information from French election articles. A few had to be protected as a result of disruption after the initial storm on Twitter. Unfortunately today there has been a mass reinstatement of this stuff by AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk · contribs)

A few highlights from these reverts:

• In this one they reinstate an infobox which has different figures to the results table, a results table which is completely different to the source used (the party names are different, the seat figures are different and there are no vote figures in the source), and one with a parliamentary diagram with a different number of seats to the results table. They also removed the addition of a full set of vote figures (including invalid votes and registered voters) from a reliable source.
• In this one unsourced vote figures are re-added to the article which appear to be back-calculated from the number of seats (and so are just made up). The parliamentary diagram reinstated to the article does not match the seat totals in the results table (although it has the same total, if you click through to the image page, the number of seats for parties are different to those in the table).
• Here and here they blindly reinstate a results table and infobox data with figures that do not match the figures in the prose (and in the first case, claim they are reverting vandalism).
• This revert reinstated a results table that is different to the source and in which the vote percentages are clearly back-calculated from the (unsourced) seat totals, and in turn, the vote figures have been back-calculated from the rounded percentages.
• This one restores an unreferenced version, removes the addition of invalid votes and registered voters, reinstates seat figures which are different to the sources used in the referenced version, and removes various fixes such as category sorting. This one is the same.

I asked the editor in question stop with the reverts shortly after they started this series of edits, and then to undo their edits, but while they have undone a couple of their errors on the 1893 article, they now seem to have got bored and moved onto other things, leaving it in a state where the infobox is inconsistent with the results table, and (more importantly) the results don't match the source. They seem to be expecting me to gain consensus for the corrections to each individual article, which is impractical given the scale of the problem here.

Some more eyes on this article series, which was an absolute mess and has been plagued by misinformation on both en.wiki and fr.wiki (where some of the stuff is being copied from), would be helpful. Number 57 22:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page with more details - arbitrary stripping of tens of articles to suit own style preferences. Another point - unsourced content repeatedly removed en masse without any discussion, request for sources, or tags. Was in engagement with user via my talk page, so interesting that it was raised as an incident. Article series really needs oversight for the heavy handed approach taken across several pages. AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not a style preference issue. In nearly all of these of these cases, the problem is that the information does not match the source, is patently made up or is internally inconsistent, and in several cases you removed references that had been added to articles to verify the information. The fact that you are fully aware that you have reinserted such nonsense into numerous articles and removed references and don't seem to care is not good. Number 57 00:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I've stated numerous times I'm supportive of introducing sources as opposed to your undiscussed stripping of numerous pages across this site, to the scale of your disruption is such that there are instances as you have described mistakenly, but you are now mischaracterising the issue and your mission to mould every page to suit your style, and removing reams of information, as you realize there is zero consensus. More input is desperately needed due to your actions in many article series. I have engaged with you in good faith repeatedly so bizarre you're taking it like this, when you know your edits are not universally accepted here. AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You reverted sources (and more detailed results) being added to at least nine articles in the course of your spree of blind reverts (such as here). And you clearly have not engaged in good faith given your first set of edit summaries were "rv vandalism"[1][2][3] Number 57 01:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Yet again you deflect from the main issue : yourself and mass stripping of articles by yourself to suit your tastes and levelling articles of information with zero /consensus, and harassing other users trying to add sources. The sheer scale of this did result in references accidentally being removed as I said. The deflection of this is causing these replies to circle back. Much more oversight is needed over for your heavy handedness across many article series. You are well aware your actions have no consensus among editors. I have replied every time and attempted correct your deflections AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

User:AlbusWulfricDumbledore the onus is on you to introduce the sources supporting the results. Having a stripped back article with correct information is preferable to having one that perpetuates errors. ITBF (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Take that point, though the scale of this is huge by @Number 57 with no consensus, tags or even attempts to discuss on talk pages. The main issue behind this is the users mass moulding of pages to suit his taste, which can be seen in replies to other users and the differences in revision. All this with zero consensus. Will try to engage in sourcing soon too if possible in the instance the user has highlighted. Oversight is desperately needed to his arbitrary changes as too many people have picked up on, yet others are tarred as socks or vandals by the user. Thanks AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

There are discussions on many of the talk pages in that series, starting with Talk:1791 French legislative election, Talk:1792 French National Convention election. Number 57 01:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

and zero where you have an established consensus. Personal conviction is not consensus btw, your multiple arbitrary stripping of pages needs way more oversight. You refuse to engage simply reverting other user edits and resort to name calling people like socks. Although you are trying to deflect with isolated references, Im fully convinced you realize your actions have no consensus. AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't see how doing verification work, one of the core policies of Wikipedia, requires consensus regardless of whether the pages are related, and it ending up with stripping the pages of unverified/unverifiable content. However, it might be courteous to have more descriptive edit summaries (rather than just "Format") or a link in the edit summaries to point to an explanation on a talk page for centralised discussion to occur, given that the work were done for a series of related pages.

On edit warring, the 1898 French legislative election article is the lightning conductor being the subject of two viral pieces of social media content, a Tweet and a YouTube video. I don't see N57 edit warring there; other editors were reverting to have his revision in to a point that it became a disruptive pattern. – robertsky (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

May I also suggest that, now it is either contentious or potentially disruptive to introduce changes to these articles, if the numbers you produce, after verifying against the sources, are different and/or displayed differently, discuss first on the talk page(s) per WP:BRD (noting that the ship has largely sailed passed Bold and Revert parts of the cycle). – robertsky (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, my edit summary wasn't great, but I never expected removing misinformation would be so controversial. And we are talking about 50 articles here – individual talk page discussions aren't practical (or are just ignored – I put a detailed explanation of the reason for removing the results table at Talk:1791 French legislative election and it didn't help). Number 57 10:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I took a look at sources for the 1988 elections, I left a talk page message there. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 13:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Oversight? — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 19:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• The balance of evidence here suggests that AlbusWulfricDumbledore has not demonstrated due diligence in reverting. "Number57 was making too many edits" is not an adequate defense for their edits unless they can demonstrate that Number57's edits were equally or more reckless or edit warring, which is not self-evident. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  They have edit warred, reverting other users changes multiple times, instead calling them socks or blind - a cursory glance at edit summaries shows this. The user has wilfully invited and engaged in edit warring, as well as reckless, arbitrary stripping of multiple articles relating to French legislative elections. Did not say the number of edits was too high at any point but rather the amount of info removed without discussion, tags or warning. Has chosen to force through these very drastic strippings, shared with many other users AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  You've asserted that there's been edit warring by Number57, but on the pages linked in this discussion thus far I'm not really seeing it. The only exception is 1893 French legislative election, where it's pretty clear that the other editors participating were canvassed from Twitter judging by the accounts' editing histories (and where the edit war appears to have been ultimately resolved by another editor of the page backing Number57's perspective). Number57's edits by and large appear to be a valid application of building consensus through editing; do you have any diffs that provide evidence to the contrary? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Is this a behavioral issue, or is it a content dispute? The talk pages on for the articles Number 57 has linked to don't have any discussion on them. If there is a need for a third opinion to resolve disagreements between two editors (Number 57 and AlbusWulfricDumbledore), consider posting to WP:3O. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  Content was the reason for my reinstatements, the huge amount of content removed with zero discussion, which many users have taken issue with. Both in terms of wholescale removal (with no tags/discussion etc) and his infobox personal preferences. Not just in this article series but many others. Was discussing this with him on my talk page, when the user decided to bizarrely post this as a behavioural issue (have tried to correct references which he is trying to deflect with) (Considered his removals to be wilfully reckless at first glance at the very start). We both agree that more oversight is needed - in my opinion, to bring in much needed reviewing of his changes, which the user is aware there is no consensus on AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  I would class it as a behavioural issue on the basis that AlbusWulfricDumbledore has reinserted information they know to be incorrect (as well as removing sources from numerous articles). Number 57 10:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry, but just looking at the first link that Number57 provides shows that AlbusWulfricDumbledore is inserting information that is (a) clearly wrong, because the totals don't add up correctly (2,220,181 + 126,231 = 1,975,144?), and (b) doesn't match the source (look at the number of seats). This is clearly disruptive and AWD needs to stop doing it. Black Kite (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  There are issues with totals which I'm trying to fix/some which other have already, but the issue behind my edits were to revert at first I saw to be reckless (at the very start), wholescale stripping of articles of information with zero discussion/tags (or even notice on many pages). Many others have brought this up on other pages too (in addition to his crusade to force through infobox format changes on many pages). Have stopped similar edits since he brought this up on my talk page, as I would prefer that like he has mentioned, more eyes on this article series and for WP:3O or something similar AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, but that's the point - you don't change articles to insert incorrect information, you ensure the information is correct and matches the source and then you make the edit. Black Kite (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Although Black Kite's clearly correct in what he says, I want to add that the fact that Number 57 is right doesn't excuse edit-warring, and being a sysop doesn't excuse edit-warring. Being right doesn't bypass the need to build consensus for large-scale changes, and being a sysop doesn't bypass consensus either. What's needed here is a consensus in a central place where people interested in France gather, and I'd recommend Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France.—S Marshall T/C 10:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm all for discussion, and there have been productive ones on a few talk pages. The issue is, how exactly does one go about gaining consensus for removing misinformation from dozens of pages (we are talking around 50 here) and reinstating the sourced figures? Listing them on a page-by-page basis with the proposed change?
  • My concern is also now that any discussion is at risk of being derailed by drive-by comments, given the traffic driven to these articles by the social media stuff and the fact that some editors (such as the one being reported here) simply don't care about veracity. There was a section on the 1898 talk page in which a few drive-by editors simply proposed reverting the edits despite it being pretty clear to everyone else engaging in the proper discussion that the previous info was wrong... Also, in the meantime, we have several dozen articles that are clearly wrong – is this a tolerable situation? Obviously I am biased, but I would want to see the correct versions (even if they are deemed "stripped out") restored while there was a discussion. It's worth noting that the edits to sort these out were made between February and May last year, and have only just been reverted. Number 57 10:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
    • How does one go about gaining consensus to change dozens of pages? Exactly as I said: through consensus in some central place that lots of people see. I suggested Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France. Some people prefer RfC, or village pump. I certainly agree that we need to get this stuff right, and I think we should come to understand where these errors come from as well. But when you're proposing large-scale, sweeping changes to longstanding articles, best not to edit war.—S Marshall T/C 12:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
      • It just seems like a potentially time-intensive and potentially frustrating process to go through to do what should be a basic thing – correct the articles; I'm not sure a coherent discussion about differing edits on a set of over 50 articles is even possible – and I suspect it would just turn into a complete mess. The real issue here is that a load of knee jerk/blind reverts have come about as a result of a social media storm, and what happens if the process is affected by more drive-by comments? We end up being left with a load of clearly inaccurate information in articles. TBH it's a bit disappointing how relaxed editors seem to be about patently false information being added into articles; I would have thought the most urgent thing would be to remove it and then discuss what to do... As for how this came about, a lot of the issues seem to stem from a series of IP edits around 2016; for example on the 1877 article, the 2015 version matches the source; after the IP edits they don't. Number 57 12:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

        Consensus isn't necessarilyy convenient or easy, but it's a core pillar for Wikipedia's process. A discussion might pose that there's been disagreements on sources and what sources say for [the affected election pages] and ask what source is best to cite. That would at least centralize discussion around using particular sources.

        The desire for accurate information is not a bad one, but Wikipedia is about more than sheer accuracy. I think the essay WP:NORUSH is instructive in this case; while we shouldn't be complacent, we can still recognize that in the long run, building consensus is healthy for the project. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Just a further update on this, AWD is now adding sources to some of the results tables. The issue is that the sources they are adding do not support the numbers. For example, here they add a source to a results table that states that Clicy Club won 105 seats, Marisards 44 and Thermidorians 28. However, the source linked states is that Reactionaries won 182 seats, Republicans won 34 and candidates with "unclear opinions" won 44. This is one of the articles that I listed in the bullet points above where the information in the reinserted table did not match the prose (which does match the source). Here they add a source stating it "seems" to be where the numbers are from, but which appears to be inaccessible (I have tried opening it on a couple of devices and the data never loads). Number 57 11:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, was trying to help with the cases you highlighted, would be helped to be tagged so I can respond to your queries, the second source you mention is accessible via the Web Archive which is why I linked it to there with the archive date. Added the first source as it seems to be helpful as its one of the few that give numbers - but the table needs to be updated

  (PS - this whole process is one I was expecting editors to engage in vs stripping/levelling articles without consultation) AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

So you admit you are adding sources to articles that don't support the information in question? Number 57 13:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You found one example and are hanging onto it for dear life, ignoring the multiple other sources I've added. These discussions belong on talk pages, you recognize and can see sources can be found - so undiscussed mass deletions are not helpful or encouraged by almost anyone. These issues should be discussed via the normal channels rather than via an "incident" AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I have flagged your one example too, as needing citations, as the numbers in the source aren't too clear either - but again, use the talk pages AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

So far you have added sources to five articles. In three of them [4][5][6] the source doesn't load so can't be verified; in one of them[7] you added a source that gives different figures to the ones you are citing; in this one the revised figures you are adding leave the results table not adding up correctly. Number 57 14:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The archived links are attached which you can access - I am sure we can work together to find sources and flag uncited content, instead of wholescale deletions as you have continuously engaged in. Your two examples point back the one isolated example you’re clinging to (which I have flagged). The other figures correspond to citations in body of text - which you can access/find the books I have used - have included quotes where possible to help you. But again - use the talk pages! (Instead of deleting stuff en masse without tagging/consultation) AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You are missing the point on both these issues: The web archive links work, but the section of the archived page that has the data does not load (so the data is inaccessible). In the 1815 article, you have a results table with a total of 629 seats, but seat figures of 500, 80 and 30-40, which add up to 610–620, not 629. Number 57 14:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It does for me, the flash section does not work, but it still provides seat counts. Am just going with the sources directly for the second part, the 500 is approximate which I will address. Why is it so hard to bring this up in the 1815 talk page? I'm confused. I'll welcome the challenge of sourcing this together with you AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

There are over 50 articles which you have blindly rolled back corrections to; having to have a talk page discussion on each one is a massive time sink after having already spent weeks checking sources and researching to try and correct the articles. For example, here you have just found a source to support the figures in the table. If you had bothered to read the edit summary of my edit to the article, you would have seen that the problem is that there are multiple sources with different seat figures, and 400 is not the most common of these.

What needs to happen is for you to undo the mess you have caused by self-reverting, and then go through the articles you have concerns about a lack of data in, rather than leaving 50+ articles in the state they are now. Number 57 14:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the whole point in hand = the solution is not nuclear, even as an admin to blindly eliminate every piece of info and infobox you personally don't like/need sources for - not how this site works. You should always aim to tag/find sources and invite discussion before deleting. You have blindly stripped numerous sites in your crusade, without inviting any engagement of any sort, your edit on that page case in point. You really need to engage with others to source work instead of stripping - this is widely accepted. Not going to waste time with circular arguments here, I'll see you on talk pages, where this can be worked out. AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I quite literally spent weeks researching and looking for sources when trying to clean up these articles. The problem for many of the earlier ones is that sources are highly inconsistent and there is no rationale for picking one over another. The source provided on the 1791 talk page states clearly that any attempting to assign seat totals to parties or groupings for that election is nonsensical. Even the article itself says this, but now stupidly contradicts itself by doing so because you have added an unsourced results table (with made up vote figures) back in. Number 57 14:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@AlbusWulfricDumbledore: With these pages' content contended, now is not the time to be persisting in editing them. I encourage you to slow down, let go of trying to make the pages be a certain way on a certain time table, and refrain from personalizing language like saying that user Number 57 is acting blindly or is on a crusade (certainly when you say that without providing diffs or evidence). That kind of personalizing language gets into the territory of uncivil aspersions, which 1) don't help; and 2) make this matter rise to being a behavioral incident.

Yes, this is something that apparently needs to be worked out on talk pages—crucially, before edits are made to the main space articles, including by yourself, AlbusWulfricDumbledore. There are options for this: start a thread on WikiProject France, or ask for a WP:3O, or use the Village Pump, etc. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Understood, tried to help address the specific points he highlighted, but will refrain from this series particularly until something is worked out. Thanks AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

But must add other users edits were reverted by the user without engagement - resulting in numerous sites being stripped, though will lay off this - as I am not the only one highlighting the issues brought about by this admin as advised AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

What is the justification for reverting to a version that everyone agrees has incorrect and/or unsourced information? Mackensen (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Because the articles were levelled completely of a lot of info, including the user’s formatting choices, without any real attempt to find sources, invite others to do so, to invite discussion or consensus, but as advised will not be adding to the situation, as I am not the only user highlighting these issues.AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

That's not true. While results tables and infobox details were removed from a few articles (where I was unable to find sources (or consistent sources) after doing research and consulting with other editors), in other cases you reverted changes to the results tables/infoboxes that brought them in line with sources, and in others you removed additional details or referencing that had been added. The issue is that you blindly reverted the changes across the entire election series rather than doing any diligence on what you were doing. Number 57 15:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

An indefinite block of AlbusWulfricDumbledore would be appropriate since the user continues to knowingly introduce false and misleading content rapidly, including claims that do not match the given sources. There is no onus on any individual to replace false information with correct and referenced information when they come across it. On the other hand, there is an onus for information in an article to be verifiable. No information is better than misinformation.

When a person has the capacity to provide accurate summaries of these elections (which may not take the form of statistical tables if this would be anachronistic or misleading), they can see the full article history to see if it contains any useful sources, information or starting points. — Bilorv (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• I completely agree, and it is clear from a number of the comments above that the editor does not understand the concept of WP:V or indeed reliable sourcing. So AlbusWulfricDumbledore, if you make a single further edit that introduces unsourced or incorrect data into mainspace, I will block you. You need to work on any articles you wish to improve in a sandbox or similar, and ensure that the information is correct, before publishing those edits. Black Kite (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  • In the meantime, can their mass reinsertion of incorrect information be rolled back and this process started from the position of correct information (even if it is more basic)? Number 57 17:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• • • I think you can do that; I would not know which ones are correct and which ones are wrong without a lot of effort, and you appear to be clear on this; I am sure that an admin would not consider removing false information edit-warring in this case - I certainly wouldn't. Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree, especially considering AWD's apparent insistence that "removal of content" is somehow worse than repeatedly introducing incorrect content. This smacks of the old inclusionist/deletionist nonsense we've moved away from. AWD appears to feel You really need to engage with others to source work instead of stripping overrides the fact that they're adding false information to the article, simply for the sake of... adding information. N57 has been providing good sourcing, and removing content that was poorly/incorrectly sourced, not just blindly stripping content as accused by AWD. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Re-adding verifiably incorrect information and calling it's removal vandalism shows very poor judgement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. It's... really not good. SWinxy (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on user's peculiar editing

Hello. I'm unsure of how to approach the situation, so I've come looking for discussion or guidance. A user, 2603:7000:2101:AA00:C0ED:88F7:9190:2695 (talk · contribs), 2603:7000:2101:AA00:E5B5:9E51:558D:E0AE (talk · contribs), and 2603:7000:2101:AA00:506:C9E4:CDA7:1CB (talk · contribs), has been making waves of suspicious edits. The user is performing selective content removal under the pretense of removing 'uncited' information. However, the content they remove appears to be based on whim, because they will leave other unreferenced claims untouched. Other times, they leave new uncited information in its place, including replacing entire paragraphs with single sentences of (still unsourced) information. Additionally, they've been adding {{notability}} to the tops of some pages. Based on simple Google searches, it seems less notability issues and more citation issues. No matter, the content removal and {{notability}} changes, though I haven't thoroughly checked, seem to be applied to articles regarding only Iran, making me suspect ulterior motive. I'm looking for further opinions or insight. Thanks. -- Primium (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm simply exercising judgment when I delete uncited OR. That explains my not deleting all uncited material, but only select uncited material. Which is actually the preferred approach when dealing with uncited OR. But if you wish to delete any uncited OR that I have not touched, feel free. I'm not adding any uncited material myself. As to those pages which I have tagged for notability, I think if you have looked at them you can see that they appear to be manifestly non-notable. Some are completely uncited, and none of them appear to meet GNG. I'm improving articles, as I do from time to time, with cleanup. Sometimes I see an area which is largely uncited .. perhaps due to some once upon a time editor, such as "parks in Iran," and I look through similar articles which no surprise have a similar problem. Frankly, a lot of these uncited articles seem to suffer from plagiarism, often not even from non-RS publications (which still are used in many of those articles), but evident from their puffery until they are addressed. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:E5B5:9E51:558D:E0AE (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be the same user who was inappropriately reported in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1146#WP:BURDEN and removal of uncited content dispute, as all the IP addresses are in the 2603:7000:2101:AA00:0:0:0:0/64 range.
I would suggest talking with other editors, including IP editors, before reporting them to ANI. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

For this situation and in the future, where's the best place to go for further discussion before reporting? Thanks. -- Primium (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I recognize those edit summaries, that range was blocked for long term abuse right around the time they left a message on my talk page, when I was a clueless newbie and no idea ANI even existed. They were using the exact same edit summaries then too. They have been blocked by User:Ymblanter for this behavior before. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 17:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe Ymblamter will explain, the IP has been using talk pages extensively including in the run-up to that block. Primium the users talk page is usually the correct venue, the IP has been pretty consistent in answering questions, or if you revert them invite them to discuss the edit on the articles talk page in you edit summary. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Won't comment on the current edits, but I wanted to give more context:

First, it looks like the message for that block was left here (and unsigned): User Talk:2603:7000:2101:AA00:CDC7:580A:9073:FD34. I'll note that they had gone through 4 or 5 other IPs before that block happened: /64 contribs.

Second, they've also been brought to ANI in 2022 in these 2 concurrent discussions <main discussion>, <other discussion>, which I took part in and which now that I looked at it again, @Ymblanter also took part in. As far as I remember those discussions didn't lead to any administrative actions, but it did cause the IP to stop removing content like that for a while, not that they ever claimed they would stop though (as far as I know). – 2804:F14:8085:6F01:7CD2:A9C0:D928:AB1F (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Those discussion like the last one don't show anything that required admin action. If this is an LTA it's one that has stuck to the same /64 IP address for a year and a half while making 14k+ edits. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 04:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussions I linked are not of IPs from the same /64 (they are from the same /41?), but it's clearly the same user who was blocked with (at least superficially) similar edits as those in the discussion and, if we assume the /64 is one person, nearly identical "WP:BURDEN" response, which is why I mentioned it. So yes, an editor with even more edits. I was a bit mistaken though, the talk page block message that I found was for a block on a singular IP, not for the entire /64, that one came later. – 2804:F14:8085:6F01:7CD2:A9C0:D928:AB1F (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

And in none of these discussions has anyone said why an editor removing what they believe to be incorrect content is against policy. If there is a believe the editor is making poor judgements on what is and isn't OR, that would be a competence issue, but the selective removal of content is normal editting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I remember once we had an IP who was having fun removing large piece of text from the (seemingly random) articles claiming they were original research and uncited. The pieces did not look to me like obvious original research, I tried to engage with them explaining that text must first be marked as such and only after a long time removed, but they disagreed and continued this behavior, and I had to block them. I do not remember any further details, and I do not know whether this is the situation we are discussing now. Ymblanter (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@ IP editor:

Could you please direct me to where WP says selective content removal is the preferred manner of dealing with uncited original research? I can't seem to find it. Nonetheless, according to WP:USI: "Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines require all information to be citable to sources. When information is unsourced, and it is doubtful any sources are available for the information, it can be boldly removed." I don't see what's so doubtful about many of your removals:

"... Kashan dates back to the Elamite period of Iran."

"Another feature of this garden is the design of its roof structure. For the first time in Iran, membrane coatings (ETFE) have been used to cover the roof of this building."

"Sarchashmeh Copper mine is the second biggest copper mine in the world after Chuquicamata in Chile."

All of these seem to me like they could have sources or could be plausible. I was even able to find sources for the first two claims. It took three minutes: [8] [9]. Ideally, I'd ask that you make the effort to prove or disprove, instead of remove, the claims you doubt, providing adequate edit summaries. If not that, then at least tag claims with {{citation needed}}, as others have suggested. – Primium (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

You ask where WP says selective content removal is the preferred manner of dealing with uncited original research? and then add and it is doubtful any sources are available for the information, it can be boldly removed. If we assume good faith and that the IP editor is checking for sources then the removals are not against policy. They should absolutely be making thorough checks, for instance it's very easy to verify with a quick Google search that Sarchaseh isn't the second largest copper mine. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't think I understand the point in your first sentence. It looks like you're implying I answered my own question, but I didn't. What I quoted has nothing to do with selective removal. Additionally, it says "... and it is doubtful any sources...", not "or", meaning both conditions it presents must be met for bold removal. – Primium (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

You asked where is policy it is allowed that content can be removed, and supplied your own answer. It can be removed if it is unsourced and it is doubtful that any sources exist.
What was missed was my last sentence, a very quick check of one of the facts you beleived was plausible showed it was wrong. The assumption of good faith is required, that extends to the idea that the IP has checked and is doubtful that any sources exists. If you wish to show that they have done anything wrong you need to show they are wrong, not just that you mistakenly believe they are wrong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

... except they were wrong, as demonstrated by Primium finding sources for the first two claims. So the IP isn't doing their due diligence to find sources before removal. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

That Primium chose those three examples out of many, and was completely wrong in one of those he chose, does not make a compeling case. Nor is this lack of assuming good faith a one off by Primium. Just a couple of instances from the last few days.
On the 21st an IP editor added a random name to O'Riordan[10], another IP editor correctly removed it,[11] Primium then edit wars to retain the random name[12][13] and templates the IP editors twice.[14] Only then to realise they are wrong and revert themselves.[15]
On the 22nd a new editir made this edit[16] to Global Terrorism Index which could have been vandalism or just a lack of knowledge of how Wikipedia works. Not an issue as a couple of IP editors working on the page sort it out and add additional content.[17] Primium mass reverts all the edits[18], templates the new editor and the IP editors for vandalism[19][20][21], only for a few minutes later to realise they are wrong and revert themselves.[22]
Now mistakes happen, not every edit is always going to be correct 100% of the time (that would a very unrealistic expectation), but if you are going to incorrectly templated editors for vandalism you might want to go back and explain or undo your mistake. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 03:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

How do you propose we should find out which of the hundreds of edits that this IP user has made with very similar edit summaries are ones where they checked and which are ones where they didn't besides manually reviewing the removals? What makes you think that Primium assumed bad faith at all, in checking over the edits? What part of the good faith policy is about believing that people are following policy rather than just believing that, even if they are breaking policy, they are not doing it in bad faith?

As to the one that Primium was "completely wrong" in thinking it was wrong, a search for "Sarchashmeh Copper mine second largest" (no quotes) on Google brought this doctoral thesis as the second result for me: [23], which the description claims it "was the world's second largest open pit copper deposit in the 1970s" and which, from the link to the full thesis on the right side, claims that Iran held a critical meeting in 1971 to discuss what they "identified as the second largest copper ore body in the world at the time" in that mine. At any rate, WP:PRESERVE would imply that, with reliable sources available, the information should instead be rephrased to more accurately represent the sources, not removed. If the rephrased version doesn't have place in the article then that should be the reason for removing as well, instead of because it's unsourced.

In the content of the reports I linked, which I don't think are relevant to the current one unless the same behaviour is being repeated, the problem I had with their edit was that they were doing mass removals per day, often in a couple minutes they would remove content from just as many pages, all with the same summaries - and upon seeing all those removals in the recent edits and checking some of them, there were problems - problems that, with their haste to remove it all and in their haste to use WP:BURDEN as a first response, could only really be solved by spending the same (considerably longer) amount of time per article that they removed content from finding the proper sources and reinstating the content with a reference.

Now, is that relevant to the current editing? I don't know, I'm just mentioning it because I might as well address your statement to me if I'm going to post here again.
Actually, no. The original reports did not result in any action and I have no wish to revive something from a year and a half ago, bad move on my part.

– 2804:F14:80CE:5201:F9FC:AF87:284F:DAFC (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

What part of the good faith policy is about believing that people are following policy rather than just believing that, even if they are breaking policy, they are not doing it in bad faith? I never said anything like this, I said that assuming they are breaking policy without prove and only as a matter of believe was itself against policy.
You right PRESERVE is policy and directly underneath it is WP:DON'T PRESERVE which is also policy.
This report like many others starts with the assumption of guilt and only when pushed tried to find evidence. The actual checking of edits happened after the report was made. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe there might be a misunderstanding. I didn't mistakenly believe they were wrong, rather, I was entirely neutral about the information and held no belief on whether it was correct or not. I was making the point that WP:USI says information can only be removed if "it's doubtful any sources are available for the information". However, as per the IP's edit summaries, this was not their reason for removal. My initial comment was looking for insight, wondering if anything needed be done.

I also did not miss your last sentence, and I agree, it was easy to find that information, because I'd also found it, along with the other sources I'd provided above. But the removal was due to lack of citation, not because they were unable to find sources.

WP:GOODFAITH pertains to intention, not due diligence. "Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful." I would go as far to say we should never assume users are performing due diligence. If we were to assume it, there would never be any reason to verify claims and sources, because, well, we could have faith in the original editor. There would also never any reasons for this IP to remove information, either, because they, too, could have faith in the original editor. Verifying claims and sources remains crucial even if we trust the original editor. At this point, I'm not assuming they're deliberately hurting Wikipedia, but I believe there's room for improvement in the level of care exercised.

Additionally, like I believed that third fact was plausible, the IP believed all three were not, then removed them. Though unlike the IP, you and I looked them up. Out of only three random examples, you and I together have shown the user has an accuracy of 33.33%. This is hardly acceptable for encyclopedic standards and demonstrates a lack of care in their editing. Really, my request is that this user, whatever their IP be now, simply takes greater care in how they operate. – Primium (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Competence in the English language.

Effects of pornography on young people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Other Karma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Back in November last year, I attempted to discuss issues concerning extensive editing to the article Effects of pornography on young people with user:The Other Karma, the contributor responsible. There were several problems apparent, but perhaps the most serious one was that material was being added which was only marginally comprehensible, or worse. During the initial discussion, [24] another contributor, User:tgeorgescu also raised concerns about the wording, while also noting issues with sourcing, questioning whether the edits were properly supported by the sources cited. Having seen he Other Karma using the phrase I'll purpose less misunderstandable claim at a later time in response to these concerns, I then offered the opinion that The Other Karma lacked the necessary skills in the English language to be able to usefully edit the article, and that it was unrealistic to expect other contributors to have to go through the sort of convoluted dialog we were faced with on the talk page when trying to discuss problems. Given that this seemed to be getting nowhere, I decided to leave the matter for others to deal with, since I was in no mood to engage in endless rounds of miscommunication.

As should be readily apparent from the article talk page, the issues with he Other Karma's poor grasp of English have continued, and meanwhile, further edits have led to the article including such gems as Protecting the youth from fornicating content in Austria goes back to the 17th century..., while attempts to discuss whether the material included is appropriate (e.g. a huge section on 'History of the public debate in Austria'), and whether it has been properly sourced and/or translated have again become bogged down through inadequate communication. Despite these concerns and similar being raised by multiple contributors (myself, User:tgeorgescu, User:Arjayay, User:Mathglot), The Other Karma chose today to nominate the article for Good Article status. [25] As should be obvious to anyone reading Wikipedia:Good article criteria, this proposal would appear to be doomed from the start. If The Other Karma has read the criteria concerned, they surely haven't understood them.

I see no obvious reason to doubt The Other Karma's sincerity, but in my opinion some form of action needs to be taken. The article subject matter is of some significance, and readers deserve better than they are currently being presented with. At minimum, they should expect comprehensibility, and that is not going to be achieved while any attempt to discuss problems with the contributor concerned prove futile, and the questionably-sourced word salad continues to pile up. Likewise, other contributors deserve better than they are being faced with: my latest attempts to explain the issues with both sourcing and language after seeing the GAR nomination led to the following response: Please explain your claims in discussions: Foster constructive and effective dialogue by elucidating your perspectives in a comprehensible way during discussions, and provide examples how something can be improved. If that isn't output from ChatGPT, or from some form of translation software of questionable merit, it is surely satire. And whatever it is, it isn't remotely an appropriate response when having one's language skills questioned. Given recent concerns being raised on this noticeboard concerning civility, I held back on making the response there that initially seemed most apt, and instead started this thread here. I'm not quite sure how the community can best deal with this problem, in that editing restrictions and/or topic bans might well merely move the problem elsewhere on the English language Wikipedia. My personal opinion is that it might be best to politely suggest that The Other Karma restrict their future contributions to a version of Wikipedia in their native language, and that if The Other Karma declines to do so (or at least, if they continue with the same behaviour here) we should consider an indefinite block on WP:CIR grounds. Sincerity is not enough. Communication is required - both with other contributors, and one-directionally, with our readers, who should not be confronted with baffling phraseology concerning fornicating erotica and similar oddities. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Support the Grump: WP:Competence. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC).

I'm not opposed to either editor. Just saying that since I'm not a native speaker, I'm not in the best position to judge the quality of their English. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Too soon for indef, but I agree with Andy's comment that the "article needs to be edited by someone with greater competence in the English language", and something needs to be done, perhaps a voluntary restriction to editing only Talk pages (no mainspace, or GAR/FAR). I agree that TOK's English is pretty shaky, but I am able to follow what TOK is saying in discussion at Talk:Effects of pornography on young people, where they are arguing their point, but when they translate from Austrian legal wording (legal text in any language can be abstruse, and German is no exception), it's basically incomprehensible. Since this is what they are intent on adding to the article, that cannot stand. As far as whether admin action is required, we might be close to that, but I want to hear from TOK first.

The Other Karma, do you understand that people here are discussing whether to WP:BLOCK you from editing? I think you could contribute to English Wikipedia in some ways, but a certain level of self-awareness about your English is required in order to continue. I think you could definitely contribute at article Talk pages by adding your thoughts there in your own words, but perhaps your English is not sufficient for adding text directly to articles involving translation about specialized German topics using arcane language in the original German such as Austrian legalese. Poor grammar and poor word choice is okay on a Talk page, as long as your basic meaning is clear; but it's less okay in an article. There is something called an WP:Edit request, which is a semi-formal way of asking other editors to make a change for you to an article that you cannot or should not make yourself; how would you feel about limiting yourself to using only the talk pages, where you could discuss as much as you like (within reason), and when it got to the point of updating the article, instead of doing it yourself you would issue an edit request and let someone else do it? Would that be acceptable to you?

I just want to state my bias: as someone who (attempts to) speak foreign languages, it's not an easy thing, and I greatly respect anyone who does or tries to, and so I tend to give maximum latitude to those writing in English as a second language. As far as writing at Wikipedia, there is a minimum bar of comprehensibility, and it's not the same threshold for a Talk page and an article. If TOK agrees to limit themself to talk page contributions, then I think that could work, and if it doesn't, we can take it up again. Mathglot (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It is important to me that I take the time necessary for my colleagues at Wikipedia to respond to the criticism in a solution-oriented manner. However, since a lot has happened on the article and discussion page, and since I can't do everything at once, I may not be able to respond to the issues raised here until tomorrow or the day after, maybe even later.

I apologize for the inconvenience. The Other Karma (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

How does that address the problem? Do you intend to continue editing the article, given the concerns raised over your competence in written English? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Given the above dismissive non-response, I would like to make it entirely clear that should this thread be archived without further input from The Other Karma, and should The Other Karma continue to edit articles in the problematic manner discussed above, I shall raise the matter here again, with the further proposal that The Other Karma be blocked from article-space editing entirely, until such time as we receive a response which actually addresses the issues discussed here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I will answer you, we have enough time on Wikipedia.
I have asked at VPT, if it is possible that the Lowercase sigmabot III, doesn't archive a section.

You and Mathglot have mentioned a lot, but I need time to look at everything and find solutions that involve not having these problems again. Due to the length of your and Mathglot's critique, I will probably need until the weekend to address all aspects.
You have to keep in mind that I'm tired after work and don't have much energy for Wikipedia. I'm i have also other more important things i have to take care of. I don't plan to edit the article namespace of the article until I have answered here. The Other Karma (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The Other Karma, just so you know, ANI is a rather fast-moving board (this discussion is getting ever nearer the top, and is already #11 of 31 threads) and while RL and taking the time needed for a response are certainly legit, Andy was referring to the fact that by the time you are ready, you may not find this thread here anymore. We may already be at the point where moving this to your Talk page would be wise, where you could take all the time you need, however with the understanding that should there not be an amicable solution, you'd probably find yourself the subject of an additional discussion here, something which it would be better to avoid, if at all possible. A voluntary solution agreeable to all would be the best result, if that is achievable.

If you do make it back here in time, here is the proposal I'd like to hear your thoughts about: I propose that you avoid editing mainspace directly, and post the edits you want to make to an article to its Talk page instead, asking for feedback. If other editors say your content looks good, or if they are willing to fix up the wording until it is acceptable, then you can post it in the article; otherwise not. Would you be willing to accept this as a voluntary restriction? With experience over time, it may become clear that your proposed wording for articles on legal topics or marine naval warfare are unacceptable, but your wording for articles on seaside resort towns and Thai cuisine are just fine, and the restriction can be removed by consensus for the latter, meaning you can edit them directly again. Do you understand this proposal, and do you accept? Mathglot (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll respond you tomorrow, i have today, no time left, but I'm nearly done with the response. And on Friday i'll respond Andy. The Other Karma (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot In my opinion, this is overkill, as most of the text in the article is based on English-language sources, which are correctly formulated. I can send you a review of the demographics and predictors part, where I can also show that everything is adequately substantiated. (In comparison to the previous text, my problems are peanuts, I can send you a review, i have to note the that the problems would have stayed for many more years without me.)

I have also looked again at the legal part where there were problems, most of the text from the source are not complex legal texts, so there should only be 6 cases where I have not translated optimally (and not a massive occurrence at every claim). Including the word “fornicating”, where I especially tried with best practices to translate it correctly e.g. using dictionaries (in German it means "Unzucht/Unzüchtig", meaning offensive sexual behavior), [1 [2 I even often linked the word to show the correct meaning. (It seems here to be more the fault of the available resources (dictionaries) than me).

I would therefore suggest that in future I no longer translate a complex legal text into English without checking with others, which I was planning to do anyway after the criticism. Translating a complex legal text into English is not something I usually do, this was an exception, and I'm not planing to do translate complex legal text in the near future. Is this a solution for you?

Regarding the 6 non-optimal translations, I can offer you that we talk about it in a Discord meeting, such a meeting is in my experience the most efficient and fastest solution method, with the least effort. I can also prove you my English language skills and prove to you that I can use both languages (English and German) without any translator. But you don't have to help me if you don't want to! Otherwise, I would look for someone else willing, but that will take longer (months to years). And they probably wouldn't be the descriptions you would like best. The Other Karma (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

User: Pierrevang3 naming of an area dispute on various articles. Talk page going nowhere.

Please read the talk page of Trà Vinh province. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.160.10 (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

As discussed in the talk page[26]

User Pierrevang3 decides to add in a random name that is unfounded and using an arbitrary number of the population to enforce said name onto articles.

User Pierrevang3 is adding in unfounded names onto Vietnamese articles such as Trà Vinh province Special:Diff/1192555158 Special:Diff/1192684551, Trà Vinh Special:Diff/1192554934 Special:Diff/1197478991, Sóc Trăng province Special:Diff/1192553623 Special:Diff/1192685228, Sóc Trăng Special:Diff/1192553247 Special:Diff/1197479458

Please advise on what to do and further elaborate wikipedia's policy on this, since talk page couldn't come to a resolution. Thanks. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

This concerns Pierrevang3 (talk · contribs) and a disagreement regarding whether Khmer names should be added to Vietnamese articles. Has there been some kind of central discussion (perhaps an WP:RFC) on this? That is what WP:DR leads to. Johnuniq (talk) 04:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

One of the examples above is diff. That added {{lang-km}} and {{lang}} templates after the Vietnamese title for Trà Vinh province. I suspect that such additions are against guidelines but the only firm statement I can find is "Do not include foreign equivalents in the text of the lead sentence for alternative names or for particularly lengthy names" at MOS:LEADLANG. I seem to recall a big discussion about this in the last few months. Johnuniq (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the guide. I just opened an RFC.[27] 1.43.160.10 (talk) 08:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It should be more generic than just for that one article. I was hoping that someone here would say more about my above MOS:LEADLANG comment. @Kwamikagami: Do you know whether the diff I mentioned above is permitted or disallowed by a guideline/discussion? Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Trà Vinh is 30% Cambodian. IMO it's reasonable to include the Khmea name, just as New Mexico has the name in Spanish and Hawaii has the name in Hawaiian. (But then, I know Cambodians who live in that area.) A language or two shouldn't overly clutter the lead. If it gets to be too much, it can be moved to a footnote, as we often do for Chinese place names where the transcriptions start getting long and involved.

LEADLANG does say 'one' language, but that's a guideline. When an area is bilingual/binational, I think it's only fair to include both.

I don't know about a big discussion a few months ago, but there was one for India a few years back. There the situation got so ridiculous that we banned using Indian languages alltogether. But that's an exception; I can't imagine Vietnam getting to be like that. — kwami (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

That depends if the name is legit. The khmer name is not even established enough to even be listed. New Mexico and Hawaii have a history documenting their names in the past. The khmer name does not. It seems like a random word that popped out of nowhere, and is actually based on Trà Vinh province and not the other way around. Trà Vinh is already an established name recorded in historical Vietnamese records and in French documents, which does not seem to be the case for the khmer name.[28]. You also need to list out what number is the threshold enough to warrant such an inclusion. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 10:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It is not about including a foreign name for the region but rather mentioning a local name (the Khmers are a local population), all the more so when it refers and is used by a 30% of the population that is indigenous. Vietnam is a multi-ethnic country and the Khmer are part of the 54 ethnic groups recognized by Vietnam, obscuring their presence is pointless, they are an integral part of Vietnam. Putting the local name in the local language won't give the territory back to Cambodia, it is just highly relevant considering the huge Khmer population in the city (whether who between the Vietnamese or Khmer name came first is not the point, there wasn’t an etymology section added, the Khmer name gives 57,000 results on google so its use is pretty attested). Tra Vinh and Soc Trang have both a huge Khmer population and a 1000-year old Khmer heritage, which make it legitimate to mention the Khmer name. In opposition, it is pointless to mention the Khmer name of Ho Chi Minh City for example (despite the fact that the city was part of Cambodia for centuries) as there aren't a significant Khmer population there. The same thing goes for all of southern Vietnam, which was centuries ago part of Cambodia, putting a Khmer name for the region would just be sheer irredentism. Putting the Khmer name is only relevant in Soc Trang and Tra Vinh and I can't see why the topic should be sensitive as both articles already mention the significant Khmer population and multiple images in the articles show Khmer pagodas. Here is a non exhaustive list of places with alternative local names:

St Ives, Cornwall in England - Cornish heritage.

Biarritz in France - Basque and Occitan heritage.

Gungnae, Wunü Shan, Yanji in China - Korean heritage.

Hohhot in China - Mongolian heritage.

Stung Treng City in Cambodia - Laotian heritage.

Nantes in France - Breton heritage.

Juneau, Alaska in the United States - Tlingit heritage.

Marrakesh in Maroc - Berber heritage.

Brno in Czechia - German heritage.

Pierrevang3 (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

To sum up the advancement of the issue:

- The claims put forward by Special:Contributions/1.43.160.10 about the supposed randomness of the Khmer name have been cleared (cf [29] or [30])

- The claims put forward by Special:Contributions/1.43.160.10 about the supposed randomness of the percentage of the Khmer population in the region have been cleared (cf )

- There has been precedents on wikipedia of including the local name without the need of an explicit "threshold" concerning the percentage of local speakers; good faith and common sense are more than enough to see the relevance of representing 30% of the population. (cf St Ives, Cornwall, Biarritz,Gungnae, Wunü Shan, Yanji, Hohhot, Stung Treng City, Nantes, Juneau, Alaska, Marrakesh, Brno)

- The mention of the name does not clutter the lead sentence, all the more so with the Vietnamese name not being in parentheses as it uses the latin alphabet.

Therefore why would one want to hide the Khmer name of the region that is being used by 30% of the population? Doesn't it improve the clarity about the context and bring more informations about the article which is the very aim of wikipedia? Pierrevang3 (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Nothing's been cleared off. You still don't understand and this is the 4th time I had to repeat. Why is 30% the threshold for inclusion of ethnic minority names, that's fhe arbitrary number you randomly threw out and followed through with it yourself. A majority of the ethnic Khmer barely speak and understand Khmer anyway since the common language is Vietnamese. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's ask the question the other way around, why are you opposing the inclusion of 30% of the population when it doesn't seem to bother you with Hawai and New Mexico? What threshold was used in Hawai and New Mexico that made you complacent?

Things have been cleared out, you need to acknowledge what was provided by other contributors, if you don't want to believe the reliable sources @Phil Bridger provided then it's on you, but don't bring your agenda onto wikipedia.

On what sources do you base your claim "ethnic Khmer barely speak and understand Khmer anyway"? This is an "arbitrary" opinion and you can't bring that on wikipedia. Wikipedia need sources and reliable references not personal opinions and nationalistic agenda. Pierrevang3 (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The Khmer name of the province can easily be sourced (take your pick of reliable sources from [31] or [32]), so the only question is whether it should be included. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why it shouldn't be included. I mean why opposing the adding of an information that sheds light on the topic. The more informations the better, all the more so when the additional information does not make anything overcrowded. That's literally improving the article, why wanting to hide the Khmer name when it's used by 30% of the population of the province? That's counter-intuitive. Pierrevang3 (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Even for Saigon, assuming the name is well-established in Khmer, the Khmer name is of historical importance. — kwami (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed but I think putting it in the lead would be a bit misleading considering the overwhelming majority of Vietnamese speakers in the city. Mentioning it in the history or etymology section though would be relevant indeed and I think it's already the case. Pierrevang3 (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

There's been a discussion on that many, many years ago. Some Vietnamese articles in the past like Phú Quốc and Ho Chi Minh city were vandalised with khmer names in the lead and in its table, with a khmer centric view. There's a reason why it's not there anymore. Just going in their talk page archives gives an insight to the madness those past edit conflicts were to the point an editor had to make Names of Ho Chi Minh City. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The matter concerns Soc Trang and Tra Vinh, stay focused, don't go down on whataboutism. Pierrevang3 (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Do we call cities - villages of what they were called 1000 years ago? Explain the historical importance. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

So 3 pages worth of books and its only used as a reference. It's strange how most results are only from the 2000s, considering khmers believe it has 1000 years of khmer heritage. Googling its actual khmer name gives no academic resources. So can we just call any state in the world its ethnic minority language? An example would be when when Melbourne's Chinese population gains dominance in academic spaces and a shift in the language and local dynamics change to the Chinese one. The Chinese name of Melbourne will become legitimate and must be used in all types of mediums and outlets. USA and Europe has a bunch of ethnic minorities and is set to increase. Should we call their states in their ethnic minorities' local language? 1.43.160.10 (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

And if you only list preah trapeang the results are less than 10. OP included Vietnamese lexicon Trà Vinh. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

That's unrelated, Khmer people have been in the region before Vietnamese people, that's not recent immigration. If you don't believe that then it's on you, but you can't bring your beliefs on wikipedia, there's plenty of sources proving this point, again read Nam tiến, Mekong Delta, History of Vietnam. We are not here to provide you your education and if you refuse to face the truth, then refuse it on your own but don't block the building process of wikipedia.

Again what don't you understand in the fact that no etymology section was added? The point is that this name is used by Khmer people, nobody wrote an etymology section.

@Johnuniq@Kwamikagami@Phil Bridger Can you please advise on the matter, his claims were cleared but he is just refusing the truth and the process. Pierrevang3 (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The Mon people appear to be the earliest arrivals to mainland south east Asia. A kingdom called Funan seems to predate the Khmers. It's said that Funan is not a Khmer kingdom but a mix of different ethnicities of Austronesian, such as of Javanese and Malay roots and of Mon stock. We should name the Khmer regions in modern day Cambodia in the Mon language and Austronesian languages including its Javanese language and Malay language. We should also name all Khmer areas previously controlled by the Nguyen Dynasty and by the various Siam Thai kingdoms of Ayutthaya Kingdom, Thonburi Kingdom, Rattanakosin Kingdom in its Vietnamese and Thai language. These names have actually been recorded in history by the way. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 07:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

(Maybe read the article on Funan as it clearly indicates that it is highly likely that the kingdom was predominantly Khmer. Both Mon and Khmer people are said to be the the earliest arrivals to mainland Southeast Asia. That being said both statements are not related to the matter, if you could please stay focused and not go on your "let's minimize the Khmer influence" spree, that would be much appreciated.)

Back to the real matter, your point is not even valid as none of the Mon, Javanese, Malay... have a significant and longstanding population in Cambodia. As already stated (I also have to repeat myself it seems?), your point would be the same as supporting the mention of the Khmer name for all South Vietnam (including Saigon) as it was once controlled by Cambodia. However this is not the point of the dispute as we are talking solely about Tra Vinh and Soc Trang, which are two provinces that have maintained a significant Khmer population and heritage contrary to other provinces hence the relevance. The rhetoric relies on Khmer people being a significant and long-rooted ethnolinguistic minority in the province, it does not relies on the fact that the province used to be controlled once by a certain State.

You nitpicking on who came first in Southeast Asia shows how much good faith you're willing to put into achieving WP:CON. Of course one could go back and refer to Lucy (Australopithecus) to relativize and to oppose every people that are indigenous to a region arguing that they ultimately come from Africa? That is not the point, me stating that the Khmer inhabited Tra Vinh and Soc Trang provinces before the Vietnamese people did was meant to show how absurd your analogy to Melbourne was, as you are referring to recent waves of migration.

Your double standard are astonishing and I wonder if I am the only one who can see the clear bias in your statements: "A majority of the ethnic Khmer barely speak and understand Khmer anyway", "You're implying there is a 1000 year khmer heritage in this area yet you can't even name this area of what it was called in khmer.", "your theory that khmers are indigenous and had been there for over 1 thousand years." "Khmer stock originally are from southern China", ""30% means I can put local fake name language"", "Maybe you should take a look at where Trà Vinh is at and you'll see why" Pierrevang3 (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Both of you need to back off a bit. For one, this is not the place to argue content.

Second, accusing each other of bias without good evidence is a personal attack which can lead to blocks. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Constant SOAPBOXing, POV additions, adding own blog content by SquirrelHill1971

• SquirrelHill1971 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Virtually every contribution by them is WP:SOAPBOX and ends up being reverted, including their talk page contributions which are largely linking to unreliable sources and then suggesting they need reflected in the article. Their recent contributions to Diversity, equity, and inclusion were deleted as copyright breaches, but according to their talk page comment it was actually them copying text from their own partisan blog without attributing it. They seem clearly WP:NOTHERE. JaggedHamster (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• In the long list of things Wikipedia needs less of, fans of the Oath Keepers who read The Blaze ([33]) is pretty high on my personal list. Do we offer remedial courses in sourcing? Guy (help! - typo?) 10:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  User:Meters gave them an NPOV warning last month, and User:Sangdeboeuf gave them some CT alerts this month. Doug Weller talk 12:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  I am not a "fan" of the Oath Keepers. I do read the Blaze. I also read Huffington Post, the Nation, and the Atlantic. I like to read a diversity of viewpoints from all across the political spectrum. I self identify as a libertarian, but I am quite happy to read all points of view. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

There was no copyright breach. I wrote the content for my blog, and then I later added it to wikipedia. Please note that "Squirrel Hill" appears on the blog and in my wikipedia user name. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I will go along with whatever the talk page consensus for those articles says. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I added that content based on Wikipedia:Be bold. I am happy to read the feedback from those of you who disagree with my additions. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked this account as an obvious sock of User:Grundle2600. Prolog (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. That's an SPI I have not seen before.. I'll recognize the behaviour next time. Meters (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

RudolfoMD

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

RudolfoMD is a relatively inexperienced user (<1000 edits since their first here in April 2023) who appears to be on something of a crusade. Since an early trip to ANI in August last, he has complained at BLPN that we reflect the consensus view of the Burzynski Clinic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ([34]), tried to delete {{User rouge admin}}, accused Valjean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of deceptive editing, and me of copyright violation, vandalism introducing deliberate factual errors and personal attacks, but, rather more to the point, changed "Although these studies often report remissions, other investigators have not been successful in duplicating these results" to "These studies often report remissions", based on a source that says "No randomized controlled trials examining the use of antineoplastons in patients with cancer have been reported in the literature. Existing published data have taken the form of case reports or series, phase I clinical trials, and phase II clinical trials, conducted mainly by the developer of the therapy and his associates. While these publications have reported successful remissions with the use of antineoplastons, other investigators have been unable to duplicate these results and suggest that interpreting effects of antineoplaston treatment in patients with recurrent gliomas may be confounded by pre-antineoplaston treatment and imaging artifacts. (emphasis added) ([35]), which appears to be an unambiguous violation of WP:NPOV on an article subject to intermittent astroturfing for decades.

Taken as a piece with edits like "Fauci used taxpayer money to finance a Chinese laboratory where [SARS-CoV-2 was [perhaps] developed is NOT "a baseless conspiracy theory" per reliable sources these days"], and his failure to understand what deleted contributions are, rather silly revert warring over fixing an unsigned comment, plus possible stalking of another user to other articles ([36]), I wonder if this user might be better keeping away from fringe theories, at least, until they have more experience editing. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• For me the most worrying edit is this[37] where they declared with a "LOL" that they were going to add some Burzynski "advertorial" to our Brainstem glioma article, and then duly followed through, linking to a totally unsuitable source with the completely made up claim that there has only been one case of long-term survival for children with the this cancer.[38] Not quite sure what's going on with this account, but it's not good. There is also a strong whiff of sock. Bon courage (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  And see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User rouge admin and User talk:JzG#January 2024. The editor probably won't respond until around 17;00 London time, so maybe I should wait until they responds for what looks like an inevitable NOTHERE block. Doug Weller talk 11:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, I too have encountered some difficulties, and rather nasty ones at that, with this editor. I reverted a deceptive edit here and cautioned them about it here, which they refuse to admit or correct. Instead they have repeatedly defended that edit. I also tried to give them some advice to tone down their personal attacks and stop their templating of us old timers. Their templatings are often retaliatory.
  I'd just like to see more light than heat from this editor. We do not need seemingly pro-fringe editors trying to defend people like Burzynski by doctoring quotes from eminently reliable mainstream sources so they appear to defend blatant and dangerous quackery. This may not exactly be the problem, but it's close: Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Cherry picking is probably more accurate. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• support a final warning but I was close to blocking last night when I closed that ridiculous MfD. Pro-fringe time sink and IMNSHO, not new either.

Star Mississippi 17:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Granted I don't know my antineoplastons from my elbow, but this looks like straightforward WP:NOTHERE. I'm willing to give it some time for the user to respond, however. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  • LMAO! Antineoplastons are made from piss. Yes, Burzynski figured out how to make money from pee. Not sure if this is related to urolagnia or not. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
• I thought the writing was on the wall enough already to justify an alt-med or pseudoscience topic ban, but the MfD puts it over the top with WP:NOTHERE battleground behavior. When I see someone going out of their way to pursue editors like that, it's time for something WP:PREVENTATIVE beyond a warning when it's clear they haven't been taking warnings about their behavior seriously so far. I'd say an indef is likely, but at least cut the disruption with a topic ban through CT if nothing else. KoA (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• It's been two days now, I think we should try and resolve this one way or another just in case they're not posting to avoid scrutiny in a hope that this will archive (not saying it's what happening, but I have seen that tactic before with editors.) Either way we should be able to make a determination right now, it seems many above have fully come to a conclusion. Canterbury Tail talk 20:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Canterbury Tail Blocked as NOTHERE. Doug Weller talk 08:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

IP Address issue

I'm OK on English Wikipedia (so far). And I only use my account name. But I just got messages on Commons, Wikisource and Wikidata: "Your IP address is in a range that has been blocked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis." What's going on? Hope I can log in to English Wikipedia tomorrow. This is strange. I left a message on Village Pump about this. — Maile (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

This has been handled at VPT. Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

LingoSouthAsia

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

I'll make it short and concise;

User has been long term edit warring and pov pushing (more info on WP:AN/3 [39] and [40]) at Saraiki language, trying their best to hide the word "Lahnda" (literally the name of an article) and replace it with the name they prefer ("Western Punjabi Language variety" or something similar) while still keeping the link.

They are basically trying every trick in their sleeve to have their way, even previously lying that they received "consensus" (as seen in the WP:AN/3 report) from two users who literally opposed them. Now their one-week block has expired, and they're still trying to have their way [41], resorting to personal attacks [42], WP:CANVASSING [43] (where they are randomly claiming I am anti-Pakistani.. wut), and WP:HA [44] (I've already told them twice to leave my talk page alone twice before that, where they had also attacked me [45] [46]). They were even initially suspected of being a sock due to sharing the same disruptive edits as this one [47]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• I have blocked them from Saraiki language for a year. I suspect that if there is future disruption, we will simply move to WP:NOTHERE. Black Kite (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! HistoryofIran (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: Unfortunately, this hasn't stopped them. Now they're back at my talk page [48]. The fact that they still think they're in the right and still writing (ranting) in my talk page is concerning, WP:NOTHERE seems to fit right, I don't think they're able to edit in line with the policies of this site. HistoryofIran (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  I have already conveyed HistoryofIran that I am no longer intrested in the page we had diffrences. I dont know why he is getting personal and pushing me against WP:NOTHERE. Is not he over reacting first posting in SPI then getting me blocked for 7 days for edit warring then getting me partially blocked even when I was not edit warring and was using talk page to elobrate my view in one or 2 edits only in eight days. . I mean he is getting extremest to all proposions. Do he need any written contract as confirmation ? I told him that whatever he is forcefully keeping as LEADE on Saraiki language, I dont care anymore. If he had content dispute on Saraiki Language he should have gone to Dispute resolution and invited me there also. But he is making a full throtle effort to get me blocked. Isnt he over reacting ? @Black Kite: please reconsider my partial block based on above reply. @HistoryofIran:we are here working with out fee in collbrative manner so please reconsider your attitude towards me in a good spirit of new year 2024. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  Posting the following under the heading "Annoying user" on another editor's talk page is both a personal attack and canvassing, neither of which is allowed: "Your suuport is needed. HistoryofIran is an antiPK type user. Talk:Saraiki language - Wikipedia see variety discussion." [sic]. I interpret "antiPK' to be an abbrevaition of "anti-Pakistan".DeCausa (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think you are repeating the fact which was considered in decision number one by Black Kite. By Anti PK I meant anti Published Kontent in Pakistani english lingo and I wanted a local user with local knowledge to also contribute to the discussion on the the fact that Lahnda has no local currency. No one knows what is Lahnda. Hardly any single person. Grierson in his Published Kontent used Western Punjabi in each footnote for Lahnda. Hope this suffice misunderstandings. How Saraiki Language Talk page disscusion can be presumed anti pakistan ? Any logic ? Clear misunderstanding. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  Huh? What are you claiming "anti Published Kontent" (a term unknown to Google) means? DeCausa (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  Please dont divert the discussion. It is your presumption that antipk is anti pakistan, my intention was anti published content. I did not used PC bcoz just like BC it is abusive short form of Pen chod or Behan chod in local language. I did not wanted to call BC or PC to HistoryOfIran that is I used PK for published content. Anyways, I have already conveyed HistoryofIran that I am no longer intrested in the page we had diffrences. I dont know why he is getting personal and pushing me against WP:NOTHERE. Is not he over reacting first posting in SPI then getting me blocked for 7 days for edit warring then getting me partially blocked even when I was not edit warring and was using talk page to elobrate my view in one or 2 edits only in eight days. . I mean he is getting extremest to all proposions. Do he need any written contract as confirmation ? I told him that whatever he is forcefully keeping as LEADE on Saraiki language, I dont care anymore. If he had content dispute on Saraiki Language he should have gone to Dispute resolution and invited me there also. But he is making a full throtle effort to get me blocked. Isnt he over reacting ? @Black Kite: please reconsider my partial block based on above reply. @HistoryofIran:we are here working with out fee in collbrative manner so please reconsider your attitude towards me in a good spirit of new year 2024. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 12:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  There's no way that you meant anything other than "anti-Pakistan" when you wrote "antiPK". Trying to pull that crap... you're WP:NOTHERE and should be site banned. DeCausa (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  You are trying to put words in my mouth. I think you both used anti pakistan word repeatedly. By applying your logic you should be Site banned ? I mean serious ? Dont be so harsh and let us not forget what English wikepedia is. It is a great knowledge center. We are volunteers. I have no grudge/ complaints against anyone. I want to collabrate positively. I have right to defend myself that is why I am arguing here. Otherwise I am a productive user and hope to be such in future. Kindly reconsider Partial ban. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• After being repeatedly requested to stay off HistoryofIran's page (see the page history), LingoSouthAsia posted this attack. I have blocked them for two weeks for harassment. Unfortunately that will kill your partial block, Black Kite; I'll try to remember to reinstate it after the site block expires. Bishonen | tålk 13:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC).

Mario98632

Mario98632 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user (coming from Wikipedia in Spanish) comes to vandalize, trying to cover it up by "acting" as a reverter. I don't know where to file the corresponding complaint, that's why I'm doing it here. The user said in one of his summary that he was coming here so he could continue with his thing. Fact: The user wanted to delete the complaints that I made previously.--FosforitoFernandez2001 (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@FosforitoFernandez2001 blocked at es/wiki, last edit hear reverted a blocked editor but changed what should have been a plural to singular. Reverted here but reinstated. Doug Weller talk 14:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

you did not alert the user, so I did. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Hells Bells (Talk Page btw))} 15:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Repeated additions of unsourced content to WP:BLP articles

Editor User:PJTikalsky seems to like adding unsourced content to WP:BLP article(s). Can somebody have a look. This is the third time I would have warned him. I'm sick to death of it. No communication. scope_creep^Talk 16:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

They don't seem to have discovered their own talk page. I've p-blocked from Paul J. Tikalsky; if that doesn't work, ping me. Valereee (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Valereee. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Valereee. Drmies. Prompt action. scope_creep^Talk 17:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

We aim to please. Drmies (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism in country/state/geographical area

SkibidiToilet303 has been quietly introducing deliberately incorrect geographical area data and occasionally accompanying those edits with false references. See my reverts [49], [50], [51], [52], along with reverts by Gadfium [53] [54]. I've just warned the user for the first time, but unless I'm missing something, I'm thinking it's worth an indef block for WP:NOTHERE point #6.

I'd have brought this to AIV, but it seems more useful to have a more accessible record of the issue in case anyone has seen similar vandalism. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't quite agree. I think this user may simply be making mistakes. And he's not always wrong. Wizmut (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

That's how this kind of vandalism can be so insidious, Wizmut. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Roger that. A wonder what people get up to. Wizmut (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

CU-confirmed with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RussianFanboy2010; I'm doing the paperwork. Thanks Ed--hope you're doing well. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I was going to ask on a CU for this user and Just A Random Geography Fan, but you got there before I could. Canterbury Tail talk 19:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Canterbury Tail we like to be quick and of service. Drmies (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: Oof. These are a pain to clean up once there's intervening edits, and I've already found many edits from that account that weren't reverted. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: Fascinating. Thanks Drmies! Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The sad thing is that in Special:Diff/1195257229 this was not "vandalism" at all. The sockpuppetteer replaced BBC News that rounded the area to 3 significant figures (83,900) with a source that gave 5 significant figures (83,879). And the source's figure is just 8 off from the 2009 CIA world factbook figure for Austria (83,871).

And in Special:Diff/1198275908 The ed17 has broken the markup, and there's a legitimate case to be made that the area of Suriname indeed cannot be given to that level of accuracy given the border disputes per another of the sockpuppeteer's edit summaries at Special:Diff/1189317361, albeit that xe then went on to piss about with two further accounts just repeatedly blanking the figure rather than actually making the point.

A 21st century Gale encyclopaedia says 163,270, the 2004 Collins World Atlas says 163,820, the 2003 CIA World Factbook says 163,270, the 1990 Britannica Book of the Year says 163,820. The 2008 Britannica Book of the Year sticks to its guns with the 163,820 figure and has a footnote explaining that the dispute is the reason for the figure and what the difference is.

Whereas Wikipedia is so focussed on sockpuppeteering and supposed "vandalism" that it is missing the actual problem with the content.

Let this stark fact be an incentive to focus: Wikipedia is doing worse than Britannica does as of The ed17's latest revision. ☺

Uncle G (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Uncle G: Thanks for the feedback, but I fear you've missed the forest for the trees. I've spent multiple hours of my day today fixing these edits, many of which (but yes, not all) deliberately falsified the area totals of various countries, cities, and regions.

  On the first edit you cite: A PDF "migration profile" about Austria, published by www.migrants-refugees.va, is not as reliable as the BBC or the CIA World Factbook. See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Moreover, both of those provide a more specific area total. I don't see what's wrong in that edit.

  To the second edit: thank you for letting me know that I accidentally left a rogue "ref" in my edit. It's fixed now. If you'd like to argue the content point, I'd point you to Talk:Suriname. There are similar issues with Morocco. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  • No, it's you that is missing the forest for the trees. I just made this point, but I'll repeat it. You are so focussed on reverting that you've missed that (a) one figure went from BBC News's 3 significant figures to 5 significant figures in this purported "vandalism", and went much closer to the World Factbook's figure than the BBC gives, and (b) the sockpuppetteer in an edit summary actually pointed out a valid problem with the area of Suriname. Stop holding the CIA World Factbook above all others, too. Ironically, it does worse than Britannica, as well. And not recognizing the Vatican's Migrants and Refugees section when you see it or checking out the references at the bottom of the PDF is problematic, too.

    Gadfium is being just as bad as you. Look at Special:Diff/1196341773 where BBC News is restored as a source. You are mischaracterizing these as "deliberately falsified" which you two are "fixing". They aren't, and you two aren't. The sockpuppetteer has improved upon BBC News in both cases.

    The sockpuppetteer's 268,838 figure is actually the better one, confirmable ironically with the the very CIA World Factbook that you like and a number of other sources, and the BBC News figure of 268,021 is contradicted by those. There's also a problem where some sources are not including Stewart Island and some (e.g. A. E. McQueen, who totals to 270,534) are. You two are so focussed upon reverting a sockpuppetter that you are missing all this.

    No, you are not in fact "fixing" "deliberately falsified" stuff. Yes, geography is complex, and no the CIA World Factbook is not the be-all-end-all, let alone BBC News. And you've become so lost in fighting a sockpuppeteer that you are missing that the sockpuppetter is actually giving decent data, and simply pissing around when people foolishly revert to BBC News, probably not holding the attention of Wikipedia editors to actual accuracy over "Oh no, sockpupetteer! Revert!" in high regard.

    Uncle G (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

    • @Uncle G: I get that this is an insidious style of vandalism which mixes a few useful edits in with poor ones. It's designed to get this sort of reaction from someone like you. Unfortunately, those poor edits had been in articles since at least 2 December, no subject matter experts had vetted them, and I'm only one person with only so much time that can be dedicated to Wikipedia. So I maintain that on balance, spending hours manually reverting these edits and checking each country figure against the CIA Factbook or BBC before taking action, is a net positive. If there were any errors along the way, I apologize.
    • If you'd like to spend your own time going through these edits and doing that level of research for each one, Special:Contributions/Just a random geography fan and Special:Contributions/SkibidiToilet303 are available alongside all the other accounts at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RussianFanboy2010/Archive. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Well caught. I was wondering how the Philippine area dispute erupted again. CMD (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Biryani

As these two reports involve the same users and article page, I have condensed them into a single section. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

User TheCherryPanda engaging in Pov push

User TheCherryPanda is engaging in constant pov pushes in article Biryani. He is pushing his 'muslim origin of biriyani' saying it has reached from the talk , but realit is opposite. From the talk discussions editors has rejected the claim that 'biriyani originated from muslims'. Please see the archieved talk here : [55]

All those accounts who put forward of 'muslim origin of biriyani' has been blocked of sock puppetry

Suspect that this account is also a retuning blocked sock account. Afv12e (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Afv12e: Don't accuse another editor of being a sock without evidence, and if you have evidence, then take it to WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Afv12e, I don't see where this has even been discussed? Please instead of making your arguments in the edit summaries, go to the talk page, ping the other editor, and discuss. Valereee (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

It has been discussed from 2016.

please see this discussions also :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Biryani/Archive_1#Biryani_and_Muslims.

Afv12e (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Biryani_and_Muslims - talk

Afv12e, consensus can change, and the fact something was discussed six years ago doesn't mean you aren't required to discuss instead of simply reverting. Go to the article talk, ping the other editor, and discuss. Valereee (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

He is telling that 'this has been debated for a long time and from the talk page the consensus has reached' which is a lie and the thing was opposite.

No one in the past agrees to it.

If he has any argument let him come in talk page and discuss instead of editing without references and pushing his pov and original research

Again he made these vandal edits[56] now, which i removed. Afv12e (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Those edits are obviously not vandalism, and simply calling them that does not mean you can then continue to edit war. MrOllie (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

And Afv12e is in violation of the 3RR. A boomerang might be in order here. MrOllie (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

It was a removal of sourced content, so restored.

Apologies if i made a mistake, as I never did like this beofore Afv12e (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Not ware of 3RR, just now realised, apologies and promise that i won't repeat this mistake again of 3RR Afv12e (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I've fully protected for two days. Afv12e, you are in the wrong here. If you continue to edit war after this protection lifts, I will p-block you from editing that article. Valereee (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I promise not to repeat 3RR Afv12e (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I seriously recommend, @Afv12e, that you develop a habit of making only a single revert before taking it to the talk page. Valereee (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Poor editor etiquette and seeming unwillingness to improve.

I am requesting that action be taken against the user @Afv12e. Following a minor edit dispute, they refused to start a dialogue on the talk page and instead reported me to administration. Any future edits I made until the “Biryani” article was locked were referred to by the user as invalid due to my supposedly being under “admin review.” At the same time, that same admin review backfired and the admin Valereee said “Afv12e, you are in the wrong here.” After the article was placed on a permanent block and the user was repeatedly told to take their dispute to the talk page, the user and I talked under an edit request I made. They were further chastised there by the admin MrOllie for making empty threats against me. Despite my attempts to clarify my viewpoint and the reasoning behind the edits I am trying to make, I was repeatedly accused by the user of having an agenda or of making claims that I was not. Furthermore, instead of putting their efforts toward elaborating their opinion more strongly beyond rehashing the same accusations repeatedly, they launched what I can, from my perspective, only describe as a one-main smear campaign against me, going through the history of my talk page to find any evidence of problematic behavior of my own, only able to pull up a single article concern from nearly 5 years ago. This behavior has gone well beyond obstinacy and I am now increasingly uncomfortable engaging with this user who has repeatedly called my values and motivations into question in unsubstantiated ways, even though their behavior has been criticized numerous times by administrators and they have told my administrators that they are at risk of being banned from the article. I am requesting that this user be banned or that some kind of action be taken against them. The relevant links of evidence are the “User TheCherryPanda engaging in Pov push” discussion at the page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and the “Protected edit request on 23 January 202 discussion at the page Talk:Biryani. Thank you. TheCherryPanda (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I should not that although the user has only had an account for 6 months, this is already the second or third time that this has become an issue. Regarding a previous issue, another administrator left a notice on their talk page with the following: “Now this here is a warning because multiple editors do seem to take issue with your editing. Stop WP:SEALIONING. Learn the content guidelines. Read the cites. Continued complaints about content that is cited and in keeping with our guidelines is disruptive and may lead to a block if it continues.” TheCherryPanda (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, I reported the issue because there was a disagreement over the content in the "Biryani" article. Specifically, I noticed that sourced content was being removed, and a claim about the "Muslim origin of biryani" was being added without proper consensus or discussion on the article's talk page. This led me to raise the issue with administrators.

My intention was to ensure that content in the article remained properly sourced and that significant claims, such as the "Muslim origin of biryani," were discussed and agreed upon collaboratively by the Wikipedia community.

Subsequently, I created a section on the article's talk page dedicated to discussing the topic of the "Muslim relation to biryani," providing a space for a constructive dialogue among editors. However, despite this invitation to discuss the matter, you chose to report the issue on the administrative noticeboard.

I want to emphasize that my primary objective has always been to maintain the quality and neutrality of Wikipedia articles by adhering to Wikipedia's content guidelines and policies. I believe in the importance of discussing and achieving consensus on significant content changes, especially when they pertain to the cultural and historical aspects of an article.

I am open to engaging in constructive discussions to reach a resolution on this matter, but I strongly urge all parties involved to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and policies while doing so. Let us work together to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles and ensure that content is accurate, well-sourced, and agreed upon through consensus.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Afv12e (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I am amazed by the change in writing style between this posting and what you have been posting on the talk page, for example this. Did you use ChatGPT to write this? MrOllie (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a native English speaker , corrected my grammar and usage using an ai tool so that users from all over the world can understand, when someone is blatantly accusing without any proper reason and bombarding with his long paragraphs.

Ai for good! Afv12e (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not good to use AI to post your responses here. Especially since you have no idea if what it's saying is accurate. If your English proficiency is low enough you have to rely on AI to explain yourself, you should not be editing the English Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

TheNeutron and Andy Vidan unblock condition

TheNeutron was blocked in 2020 for Narrow self-interest or promotion of themselves or their business. They were unblocked a couple weeks later under the agreement that they would not edit content related to Andy Vidan or Composable (see [57]). They have made only a handful of edits since, but have lately become active again, starting and editing Draft:Andy Vidan (this is an attempt to restart an article deleted at AFD). Is this OK, given their unblock condition? - MrOllie (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Just a quick glance, no that's a direct violation of the terms of their unblock. Unless I am missing where that was no longer a factor of course, but that appears to be directly in violation of their unblock. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I've reinstated the indef for the clear violation of their unblock conditions. I have also G5'd the draft. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

They have requested an unblock, just saying that they won't do it again, which sorry to violate AGF but I feel like that is untrue. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

That is what they said last time, after they recreated the article after the AFD closed. MrOllie (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Exactly as I thought. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 17:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Lemabeta

• Lemabeta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Adjarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I think this needs to be evaluated by the community. Editor, with 298 edits working in ECP area, removing content and posting personal attacks on other editors claiming they are "inciting hatred".[58] + see edit summaries in diffs below

• [59],[60] removing sourced content with PA in edit summary.
• [61], content was restored and removed again with PA in edit summary.
• [62] more removing sourced content
• Warned on talk page about personal attacks, responded by repeating them. User talk:Lemabeta#January 2024
• Three editors (including myself) have objected to this editors changes, the EW could be ignored, but the personal attacks claiming editors are "inciting hatred" cannot be allowed.
• See other warnings at User talk:Lemabeta.

 // Timothy :: talk  22:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello,
After a quick look through their contributions, I definitely think that they do have a tendency towards personal attacks. I think that the user should be careful in their edit summaries especially, and think about if their conduct could be construed as a PA. I would like to see their response here as well. Geardona (talk to me?) 00:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: tbaned in plain text, really (diff)? But, yeah, likely to end that way if Lemabeta doesn't moderate their language and avoid edit warring. El_C 06:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Legal threats & persistent vandalism by User:2601:1C2:881:3070:90D6:F9FA:C0B9:8D2C

See edit description here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Hayes&diff=prev&oldid=1198373752

"Persistent" comes from other vandalizing edits from same IP range: see: User:2601:1C2:881:3070:E089:BBBE:669E:F4B9

Staraction (talk | contribs) 23:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NLT is very strict, if the statement is not withdrawn (after notification) the IP would need to be blocked. Geardona (talk to me?) 00:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Update: blocked by @Robertsky (thank you!) for legal threats. See [63] Staraction (talk | contribs) 00:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Also to note that the same /64 range was behind the earlier vandalism. If the user hops to another IP, a page protection might be required instead. – robertsky (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Mrsecurity39 392; continued disruption, attacks, and now WP:HOUNDING

Mrsecurity39 392 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous report auto archived [64], and I was silly enough to think they would stop.

Another classical case of a user making WP:TENDENTIOUS edits in Azerbaijan/Iran/Central Asia/Turkic related articles.

If this user was more active (they have 107 edits since 17 January 2022, a lot of which have gotten reverted [65]), they would have been taken to WP:ANI long ago;

1. WP:SYNTH at Hunnic language [66]
2. Long term edit warring and pov pushing at Luandi throughout several months in 2022, removing sourced info about a possible Iranian connection [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72]
3. Pov pushing at Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh, trying to minimize the Azerbaijani role in the event, which was reverted by another user [73] [74]
4. Pov pushing at Jie people [75], changing "other authors have proposed a Turkic language" to "most authors have proposed a Turkic language", despite only one citation being cited and other cited citations saying otherwise..
5. WP:SYNTH at Safavid Iran [76] [77] [78] [79] and Turco-Persian tradition [80] (none of the cited sources mention anything "Turko-Persian"), not to mention altering sourced info (removing "Turkified" in the Safavid Iran article)

Random personal attacks;

1. Go ahead, lying and being dishonest is not w good trait to have, but I, can't say I'm shocked.
2. This is the second time Ermwin don't fabricate information that ISN'T there, just for your own COI and or political goals.
3. .....that you're using to fabricate information that ISN'T there, just for your own COI and or political goals.

That above was my previous report, but now they've continued edit warring/disruption [81], including more attacks [82] [83] and now even WP:HOUNDING in an article they have no connection to [84], restoring information that was unsourced and cited by non-WP:RS (but why would they care, they got to revert me).

Would appreciate if something would be done, I fail to see how they're a networth to this site (I'm not gonna respond to Mrsecurity39 392 here unless an admin wants me to, as it was clearly a waste last time (WP:BATTLEGROUND from them)). --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

More attacks; You must have quite a sad life to maliciously edit a bunch of Turkic related wiki articles furthermore going as far and trying to undo not just my but other users sourced backed edits by searching up their edit history all because your previous reports were dismissed, you edit these pages because they don't fit your narrative, I don't answer to threats make whichever report you'd like the truth is edits should be made from a NPOV something you're clearly not doing. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

have you not deliberately edited out sourced material on numerous wiki sites because they don't support your narrative, when edits should only be made from NPOV? Have you not deliberately gone though mu and other Turkic editors edit history to make malicious edits oh no but it doesn't stop there. Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Removing source backed NPOV material and getting upset that not just I but other users undo those malicious edits makes it all the more obvious (aswell as the edits of mine you undid from weeks ago) makes it all the more obvious just how dishonest you are. Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The above statement is also a personal attack, all of this shows a refusal to attempt to find consensus, or to WP:AGF. As the personal attacks continue your position does not improve. Geardona (talk to me?) 01:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

it's quite hard when the user slandered be on the previous archived post (I urge you to take a look at that) and now undid edits of mine from weeks ago and accuses me of which he is guilty of. Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

From editing my and other users contributions to going out of his way to edit contributions I made weeks ago even just now this user went out of his way to also remove my wiki common uploads (something I put my response in and just came back from) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Zengids-_territory1174.png Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Mrsecurity39 392 has now made 4 reverts (you could argue 5) at Turco-Persian tradition since 15 January 2024 [85]‎ (the date gap is due to their inactivity, so arguably a violation of WP:3RR), they've just reverted another user [86]. Now that I think of it, a lot of their 120 edits is just edit warring (especially the afromentioned Luandi, [87]). --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  Never received a WP:3RR or other violations, most of my edits are not "edit warring" yet again a false statement.

  Since you copy pasted your previous dismissed report I'll just paraphrase my response that I gave at the time (which is just as relevant to this complaint of yours).

  the sources are there and can be checked by anyone (same goes for my edit history which you falsely claim is mostly "edit warring") you trying to bring up unrelated events and taking them out of context is disingenuous.

  The wiki article you claim I made reverts in were reverts of you that were not source backed that I removed (as you had no valid reasons to remove said sources nor did you provide any sources in your editing, these sources/info that has been largely on that wiki page for years while another was more recent by me) which you happened to have "randomly" carried out after your last report. While undoing your edit I told you you could state your case on the talkpage of that wiki article.

  Similarly today you just happened to have "reported" my wiki Commons upload, tried to remove some of my edits from weeks ago. You seem to mainly revert edits (in general not just of me but also other users) on Turkic related pages. Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  As I stated earlier you seem to have some type of bias which Is why I stated edits should be made from a NPOV.

  But it's quite ironic that you accuse me of Hounding.. Then what do we call all these actions of yours? Reporting my wiki Commons uploads today, going through my edit list and undoing my edits after your previous report got archived. I'll refrain from making further comments and speak to admins from here on out. Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:Mrsecurity39 392#Indefinite block. El_C 06:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! HistoryofIran (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Blatant Sockpuppetry by User:Klavensky kly

They are a quite blatant sock of User:Wheenkly pierre see [88] for more context. Draft:Wheenkly klay (soccer) was created by them promoting the same exact person Wheenkly Pierre was blocked for promoting. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 01:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

 Indeffed -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Wikidrifterr ECP gaming

A quick look at the contributions of Wikidrifterr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shows that after a string of ~150 grammar edits in the span of two hours (which caught my eye), they reached their 500th edit and immediately edited the ECP-protected page K. Annamalai. This is clear WP:PGAMEing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 I wanted to edit the page and improve it, true. Since I felt that page needed major improvement.

I have been editing Wikipedia for a long time now.

But all of those 150 grammar edits that I made were improvement to the pages and correct.

if you think I am at wrong I will revert those changes and not further edit the page in concern.

Sincerly trying to learn here and improve Wikipedia, which was also my motive to edit the page in concern Wikidrifterr (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

But all of those 150 grammar edits that I made were improvement to the pages and correct. Um, not really. Some were unneeded: [89], [90], [91], [92] etc. Some were just plain wrong: [93], [94], [95], etc. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The edits do seem very rushed. This one added "and killed" as "context" (edit summary) to a sentence which already mentioned that there was killing. Some engvar and per/cent among them too. CMD (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Many of your "grammar" edits were improvements, but not all of them were. I just reverted half a dozen of them that were wrong. Largoplazo (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

K. Annamalai has been frequently hijacked over the past year; see the page history and Talk:K. Annamalai#Page protection. Curbon7 (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

That possibly explains why the information about legislative elections was removed in the "Added college and current work details" edit. CMD (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it does. Right at the start of the series of edits is this, which created a redlink to the salted K Annamalai. CMD (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

That article has a tortured history, best (and most recently) covered at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 2. Daniel (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

First thing first would be Wikidrifterr responding to the conflict of interest disclosure I posted on their talk page (link). I also left them an introductory alert to contentious topics (WP:ARBIND). El_C 06:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I;'ve removed ECP, obvious gaming and their statement above seems to admit that. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• At the DRV linked above, it was clearly stated "The AfD (deletion) is endorsed, and recreation (under any title) is disallowed, pending submission of a competent draft to DRV.". So shouldn't this version be deleted (and possibly salted) as well? Black Kite (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  The K. Annamalai article is apparently for a different K Annamalai, however the salting might be interpretable as a cause to revdel the hijacking. CMD (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I would personally support indef blocking on WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIR grounds. A few days ago they baselessly accused me of vandalism in an edit summary [96], and refused to retract this allegation. They have been repeatedly warned about copyright, which has seemingly not been heeded. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely by Doug Weller. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  I have looked through a number of the rushed edits manually and reverted most of those that I looked at. They are neutral at best, many introduce errors as noted by AirshipJungleman29 above. If there are no objections I will rollback the remaining 145ish. CMD (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I see that "gaming ecp" has been included in the block log. This is helpful. It would be useful to be able to reliably select all users where gaming ECP was one of the reasons for the block without having to deal with lots of variations of the terminology. Standard-ish descriptions (like the standard "checkuserblock-account" log entry) would be even better. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Ethnic slur at ITN

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

Ouro has used what appears to be an ethnic slur against Russians at ITN: Casual mention of NK support for russkee criminal acts in the Ukraine (diff). I confronted them about it, saying that the ethnic slur was inappropriate and should be struck (diff), to which they responded simply I acknowledge Your opposition to my honest and open usage of this term (diff). Considering the doubling-down I consider this beyond my capalities to solve, so I believe that it should at least be brought to the attention of administrators. WP:CIVIL is a pillar and I'm pretty sure editors aren't allowed to use ethnic slurs, regardless of our takes on the Russo-Ukrainian War. JM (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Post to a user last May about an ITN issue [97] "Hello, Knight! Didn't mean to bite, but I just ... get negatively emotional when it comes to that country beginning with r, You know... Will compose myself in the future. Cheers! --Ouro (blah blah) 17:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)" Same ITN post ]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=prev&oldid=1156145521] "*Close just close just close and stop listening to those people. --Ouro (blah blah) 11:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)" Although I think Russia is a threat to the West, it does look as though this editor can't edit Russian or Ukraine-Russia related articles without pushing their pov. And ever since their first post in Nov 2009 all their edits are marked minor. Doug Weller talk 11:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Asked them to stop marking edits minor, gave them a General sanctions notice for the topic area of the Russo-Ukrainian War and the CT alert for the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Doug Weller talk 11:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all the notifications. As for the marking of my edits as minor, I will refrain from doing that. Promise to read into WP:MINOR. As for any other topics that might be mentioned, rest assured I will not make any edits to topics surrounding the Ukraine, because I know that I have a particular point of view. You need not worry about that. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I had heard the word used in movies but never looked it up. I just did. Dictionaries seem to agree on "disparaging" and "offensive". If this were about any other country/ethnicity, the response would be an immediate indef. So, I hope we can at least get an acknowledgement of the problem and assurance to stop. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Acknowledgement of the situation. --Ouro (blah blah) 13:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  Notice the use of the word "situation" instead of "problem", and no assurance to stop. JM (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  You've already stated your concerns. Let the community vet the situation; otherwise, it will appear that you are overeager to get Ouro punished. By the way, the Wiktionary link you provided in the OP doesn't actually say that the term in question is a slur; it states that the term is "usually derogatory;" I consider that to be a substantial difference in nuance (and yes, our article does describe the phrase as an ethnic slur, but you didn't argue based on our article). It is best for all editors, including Ouro, to refrain from using that term; it would also be best if you, JM2023, would refrain in the future from making strong claims without proper support. (One could also question whether this incident really belongs in the category of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems; hopefully you won't make a habit of running to ANI every time you disapprove of something.) LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  1) The link actually does say it's an ethnic slur: (usually derogatory, colloquial, ethnic slur), so your concerns about "strong claims without proper support" and "substantial difference in nuance" are moot;

  2) My account is about a year old and I've brought something to ANI only once before, four months ago, when I was specifically told to do so, and which resulted in an (unlogged) warning against the person I made the case against and an apology made to me (see here), so I don't have a "habit of running to ANI every time [I] disapprove of something";

  3) Someone just brought an IP to ANI in a similar case last week and it resulted in a month-long block of that IP (see here), which is what motivated me to go here when I saw someone double-down on an apparent ethnic slur after being called out on it. JM (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  As the person who brought up the previous IP, I can agree that this one should also be blocked, ethnic slurs shouldn't be considered acceptable. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 19:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  Also agree they should be blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Apt observation.--Ouro (blah blah) 15:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Is ruskee an ethnic slur? I don't know. I thought it was simply a short/nick for Russians. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yup according to the article we have on the term. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Language is confusing. Isn't it the Russian word for Russian i.e. русский? Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The Polish word for themselves is "polak". Go to downtown New Britain, say that, and see how many people jump you. I don't get it either. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Slurs depend entirely on context. Use by the in-group is fine, as it's usually either self-identifying or an attempt to "reclaim" the term. Use by out-groups is pretty strongly rejected as reinforcing the insulting use of the term. At the very least, it's impossible to tell if an outsider is simply unaware of the insulting use of the term, or is relying on "I didn't know" as a get out of jail free card. Either way, best to avoid it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

And how about those times I'm now remembering where I said it as a single word greeting to new neighbors I was seeing for the first time while out walking the dog and thought might be Russian (and were). Do I need to move? Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean, if you haven't been beaten and thrown into a ditch yet, you're probably okay. They may just have put you in the former category. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Or the later, I mean even if someone used a slur, most people are just going to minimise future contact etc. Some might be used enough to it they're probably going to forget it happened, so depending on how long it's been there might still be no point bringing it up.

Getting back to the original post I think an important point here is we're not simply referring to a case where an editor used the term to refer to someone with no reason to think anything was meant by it. It's possible that this editor thought "I want to refer to criminals but I'm going to use the most neutral term I can for them". But let's be realistic, there's a very good chance this isn't what happened and they chose the term precisely because they intended it as a slur.

I'd also note that there's no indication from the editor's responses above that they were not aware it was a slur, I mean even their assurances not to repeat it are decidedly lackluster.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Relating to my other post below, my impression is Russki, while generally seen as a slur has far-less use and recognition as such that say a word like Jap or Paki. So I suspect people offended by being referred to as such are far more likely to just think maybe they just didn't know. For that reason I'd probably often not necessary to do anything about it later.

Jap and Paki however are well recognised as slurs nowadays, so very people who actually use them especially Jap when used in the US and Paki when used in the UK, are not going to know. So if someone did use such terms without realising, it's probably well worth considering whether as uncomfortable as it may be, it's worth bringing it up and apologising next time you see these people.

I'd note that especially with things the way they are now, it's probably quite risky to make assumptions anyway. If you refer to Ukrainian even a Russian speaking one as a Russki, you might very well find you cause great offense but for different reasons. I'm reminded of the joke about someone in the UK calling someone who looks British Asian a Paki and the person who's from modern India not Pakistan responding something like, "I'm not a Paki I'm from India, I hate Pakis!"

Nil Einne (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd also emphasise it's important not to get distracted by the origins of a word. This can sometimes be the cause of a word being a slur, but the way the word has been used historically is often far more important as to whether it might be a slur. And yes, a term which is perfectly fine in one language may be a problem when translated or transliterated to another. And even within the same language, it can depend on region etc.

Jew is a term that can be used even by outgroups without being seen as a slur, but can also be a slur or pejoratively depending on how it's used etc. Edit: Jew (word) goes into this a bit as well as the history of the word which makes it clear it was not originally intended to be offensive but given a long history of anti-semitism has also long been used in offensive ways. Paki (slur) might be short for Pakistan or Pakistani but because of the way it has been used, it's well accepted as a slur. Shortened forms of accepted edit: words are often used as slurs e.g. Jap is another one. I suspect, but have never looked for evidence, that is in part because slogans etc work better when shorter, e.g. Japs out or Pakis go home. Flow may be another factor, and I wonder if this is partly why Ruskee is a slur.

The n word, negro and black all ultimately come from the terms referring to the colour black. But the first one is well recognised as one of the worst slurs to the extent many people just do like I do and use the euphemism even when simply talking it, when used by outgroups. And even when used by ingroups is generally spelt and pronounced different. The second one is often consider at best antiquated in much of the English speaking world. The last one can still be acceptable when used by outgroups depending on context and group, although as mentioned by our article, some groups historically found it more offensive than negro.

Gay has a complicated history, you still get the odd person insisting it should only have the original "happy" like meaning. But while it has been used as a slur or pejoratively at various times and there is a a more recent rise of it's use in a new pejorative manner (I think this trend might be dying down a bit, but I suspect it's something many people who played games with online chats are familiar with), it's often still acceptable even by outgroups depending as always on how it's used.

Queer meanwhile is sometimes considered a reclaimed slur and does have a fairly long history of being used as a slur. It's use especially but outgroups is often still controversial. However while it has been used as a slur for a long time, the perception of it being clearly a slur is as I understand it, more recent and indeed it was used by ingroups non pejoratively before it became to be seen as a clear slur let alone reclaimed Queer#Early 20th-century queer identity.

I think there are very few people who would say 'I'm fine with gay because it it's fine to be called "happy" but I don't like queer because I don't like being called "strange"'. That's nothing to do with the reason why the terms are seen as they are now.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC) Edited at where marked 04:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I apologise to anyone who dislikes seeing any of the terms I used spelt out like that, but I felt in the interest of clarity it was my best choice. Nil Einne (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

P.P.S. Yankee is a particular interesting one since in contemporary usage to refer to specific people it can often be a slur or at least pejorative. But precisely which specific subset it's used against varies depending on who's using it. Nil Einne (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

In this particular case it seems reasonably clear from the responses elsewhere and in this thread that Ruskee was specifically used as a pejorative slur, "honestly and openly". CMD (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Yup, and based on that, I'd say a NOTHERE block is appropriate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Wjmadisonlee

Call me unnecessarily paranoid, but this user quickly made ten trivial edits then stopped. That sounds like somebody gaming autoconfirmed. Could I get a checkuser needed , please? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I think doing a check would be too big an escalation (for the moment at least). I have seen a few editors who appear to be gaming autoconfirmed by making ten trivial edits just not show up again after they do so. To give the all-important benefit of the doubt and without indisputable evidence of intended misuse, I would just keep an eye on this account's contributions so that you can take decisive action if it does turn out to be disruptive. Wait and see if they start gaming autoconfirmed. Though this is just how I see things, and a CU can do what they wish if they believe this is enough grounds for a check. The Night Watch (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

As a checkuser, I don't think that's sufficient grounds for a check. PhilKnight (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by various IPs on Precure anime series pages

Repeated disruptive edits by 75.167.148.117 (talk · contribs), though seeminly not just from this IP address. They've continued applying the same edits[98][99] after a final warning, possibly previously editing (CheckUser, perhaps?) under 60.102.57.4 (talk · contribs), 75.167.140.65 (talk · contribs) and 60.69.75.128 (talk · contribs)[100][101][102]. This user keeps replacing sourced/referenced information on various pages of the Pretty Cure anime series with their own fan theory/opinions. No communication. Should this instead be filed under AIV? Rctgamer3 (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The checkuser tool won't be of much help in this case. They seem to be an IP hopping disruptive editor. Yes, reporting at AIV would get a quicker response. I have blocked 75.167.148.117 (talk · contribs) for 3 months. They will probably respond by using another IP address, so report them to AIV when that happens. PhilKnight (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

someone is removing unblock requests and changing them.

User:Sjsjsjsisisisisk keeps changing the unblock request on their talk page so it shows that they are unblocked but he isn't. Been trying to revert edits but they keep reverting it back. Please revoke TPA. Toketaa^talk 15:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done That's enough of that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I am getting harassed on my talk page

Can anyone just block this kid who is harassing me? Toketaa^talk 15:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Any objection to me revision deleting the thread on your talk page? PhilKnight (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

delete the hebrew text one, the other one is ok to keep. Toketaa^talk 15:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done. PhilKnight (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

A user from an IP address is accusing my account of belonging to a sockpuppet farm

Hi, a user from IP address is targeting my account. I don't know who this person is or who the blocked sockpuppet farm operator is. You can see the ip address' contributions here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.151.38.106

You are welcome to run a check on my ip address or account and see for yourself that it's not connected to any farm whatsoever.NamanNomad 17:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

What does “targeting my account mean”? Also, you are required to leave a notice on their talk page, per the note at the top of this page. Celjski Grad (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I think "targeting my account" refers to all five of the IP editor's edits accusing NamanNomad of being part of a sock farm. TSventon (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to assume good faith and ignore IP's "sock farm" accusations, but when I look at NamanNomad's contributions - excluding their interest in Jeffrey Epstein - they frankly look like the typical contributions of an undisclosed paid editor. Cavarrone 07:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cavarrone the user NamanNomad has been recently blocked for sockpuppeting per SPI case. You were right - they were doing undisclosed paid edits. 91.230.98.228 (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

146.199.218.132, unsourced additions, personal attacks and inappropriate talk page messages

This IP user, 146.199.218.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been adding unsourced content to three pages - GWR Toad, Class 508 and Merseyrail. This in and of itself is of course not exactly egregious, but after being reverted and notes being left on their talk pages, they have left aggressive and inappropriate edit summaries (diff: [103]), and inappropriate talk page messages (diff: [104] - now reverted, as I have no intention of replying to such a message), despite being warned on their talk page not to direct personal attacks to editors (diff: [105]. Quite frankly, I don't want to interact with the editor after the message left on my talk page, so I would rather someone with more experience look at this. Danners430 (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

In fact, since writing this report, they left a second message on my talk page, which I am again about to revert - "rub salt in the wound", really? [106] Danners430 (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

And another... [107] Danners430 (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Before this ends up getting archived, is someone able to look at this? Danners430 (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Yeah that definitely fits under WP:NPA. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 13:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the userlinks template from the header because that causes issues with jumping to that header. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 14:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Block evader IP making personal attacks in edit summaries

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

---

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

This IP is an obvious WP:BLOCKEVADE sock of this sockmaster (whose edits they are restoring a couple of days after the last sock was blocked). I'm reporting them here in light of these summaries: [108], [109]. If it's worth reporting to SPI as well, let me know. R Prazeres (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

While I was writing this, Favonian has hidden the edit summary in the first diff I linked above. Thank you. A block is still warranted I think. I'm assuming admins can see the hidden edit summary? R Prazeres (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

It didn't take long for them to repeat the attacks yet again. Thanks for the block, Favonian. R Prazeres (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Continual adding of WP:BLP breaking content

The IP user 24.255.50.59 is currently repeatedly adding controversal content without reliable sourcing to Jeff DeWit; see Diff. My attempts to explain our policies on biographies of living persons and referencing have fallen on deaf ears, and I am not wanting to become involved in an edit war (note, I have reverted more than three times, as I believe this is an acceptable exception from WP:3RR, but have decided to stop reverting and instead bring the issue here. Apologies if I've made a mistake with this report, I've never used ANI before. CoconutOctopus talk 19:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

It appears the problems with the page have been sorted by various editors adding in proper formatting and sources, so thank you to those editors. CoconutOctopus talk 20:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The IP user is continuing to edit the article to make the section regarding the recording more heavily biased, removing other editors contributions to include words like "scandal" in the header, and add unsources references to threats to make the topic highly one-sided. CoconutOctopus talk 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP user for 72 hours for edit warring, and done a bit of copyediting. Using "bribery" in connection with a dispute first reported by the tabloid Daily Mail, and where there have been no criminal charges let alone a conviction, is definitely a BLP violation. Cullen328 (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Not convinced they'll come back to edit nicely, but I guess we'll see. CoconutOctopus talk 21:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

CoconutOctopus, if any disruptive editing resumes on that article, let me know, and I will take additional protective steps as needed. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

After another disruptive edit by a different IP I posted to WP:RPP, and the article is now semi-protected for a year. Let's hope this is the end of it. CoconutOctopus talk 22:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I attended to that RfPP request by semiprotecting it for one year as AP2, independently (unaware) of this thread. I've also WP:REVDEL'd some stuff (BLP vio). El_C 02:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Turkish coordinated POV-pushing

In December last year I had to spend some weeks dealing with a very annoying user who despite having no understanding of Wikipedia's policies or even about the distinction on primary and secondary sources was sure as hell stubborn and kept dragging me into a stupid edit war that finished in them getting topic banned after another user reported them to ANI ([110]) and after I also had to start a WP:DRN request. The bulk of this dispute was at Night attack at Târgoviște, however this user's edits also extended to other articles like Siege of Krujë (1450), Siege of Svetigrad and Battle of Valea Albă. You can check this by checking the user's contributions (Keremmaarda (talk · contribs)) or the pages' edit histories. May I note these are all battles that involved the Ottoman Empire. The ANI thread ended on 6 January, Keremmaarda's topic ban from Ottoman history entered into force and their last edit was on 4 January [111], expressing fear they were about to get blocked.

Guess what. Out of nowhere Nabukednezar03 (talk · contribs) has appeared, again reigniting the very tiring and annoying crusades to remove any "exaggerated" military losses suffered by the Ottomans and to show how their enemies got destroyed. Nabukednezar03 is editing exactly on the same pages that Keremmaarda did, Night attack at Târgoviște (comparison with Keremmaarda's edits: [112]), Siege of Svetigrad (please notice the vertical citing style, same as the example from Keremmaarda from earlier; comparison with Keremmaarda: [113]), Battle of Valea Albă (comparison: [114]). And there are also more different accounts involved in this, see Semihas1234 (talk · contribs) and Son of nationalism 1488 (talk · contribs). All of their edits are being reverted and they are draining the energy of a lot of users.

I call to admins to be WP:BOLD and put an end to this situation and save everyone's valuable time. Indefinite blocks for Keremmaarda, Nabukednezar03 and any other involved accounts. I don't know if these are WP:SOCKPUPPETS of Keremmaarda or friends he has given notice to about the disputes he was involved in (WP:MEATPUPPET); per WP:DUCK there is reason to be suspicious, there is defintively some coordination here. I also literally beg to admins to permanently protect Night attack at Târgoviște. Look at its edit history [115], it's literally filled with disputes, reverts, edits by accounts without user pages. I also think other mentioned pages should be protected there.

Pinging editors that have in some way or another been involved in disputes with these users: OrionNimrod, AlexBachmann, Vbbanaz05, Rosguill, Kansas Bear, Jingiby, Daniel Case. I'm sure they can bring other valuable evidence. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Update: Nabukednezar03 has been blocked for 48 hours for breaking the 3RR rule. Still I don't think this editor should be allowed to return to Wikipedia. Notice WP:CASTINGASPERSIONS [116] [117], personal attacks [118] [119], and them talking about Keremmaarda [120] (obvious connection, again they should be banned too). Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  If we find that this user is a sock, go ahead and indef. Daniel Case (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with OrionNimrod below. I think it's rather a case of WP:MEATPUPPET and WP:TAGTEAM. Which should still be sanctioned. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that this is the same user. Observing his contributions, I've noticed that he still continues to insult users and accuse them of nationalism on this website. Compare [1] to [2]. Super Dromaeosaurus has said everything that needs to be said: indefinite ban - we have got to do other things than dealing with nationalistic socks. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Sometimes I see the similar boring pattern: "Ottoman army was small, they lost just a small men and they always win" some new users are rewriting many battle articles in this way. I talked a lot with Keremmaarda for a longer period, I think the communication style and behavior is different than Nabukednezar03 who pushing agressive way his things in a very short time. This was also a similar pattern but somehow different by another user: [121] Btw I am not wonder that many different users are doing the same, as for example in Turkish wiki in the battle of Mohacs the Hungarian army is 200,000 which is super nonsense and unrealistic (based by medieval God-Sultan propaganda source), but modern Hungarian historians says 25,000. OrionNimrod (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

wikipedia umm Hello, it's been about a month since I left Wikipedia. If you want, you can permanently ban my account. I have nothing to do with other accounts and I will not force myself to convince you of this. As Murat Bardakçı said; "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is considered an insult to history books that even children can edit." I am interested in my academic success and I try to learn for my own sake. Not to waste time arguing with people who devoted their whole lives here. From here I send my greetings and respect to Orion Nimrod, he is the only one among you who is really trying to do something right. In short, as I said, ban my account permanently if you want. I do not care anymore. I do not have any contact with other accounts. Have a nice day. Keremmaarda (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I was considering requesting a sockpuppet investigation for the very reasons outlined above by Super Dromaesaurus, but they beat me to it. I too am convinced that these users are either sock puppets of Keremmarda, or at the very least RL friends or “collaborators” for lack of a better term.

Not only do they edit the exact same articles with the same edits, but they use the same “sources” too. Furthermore, they speak in the same broken English which would appear to be translated from Turkish via a translation program such as Google Translate. Keremmarda was here for the wrong reasons, casting WP:ASPERSIONS, pushing WP:OR interpretations with an ahistorical POV, violating WP:CIVIL and WP:GOODFAITH and just about every other Wikipedia guideline. There should be no place for that sort of editor on Wikipedia, and I encourage the admins to take action before this continues any further. Botushali (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

*sigh* There he goes again

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

---

Suspected sockpuppets of StealthForce

• 2601:84:8D00:1E9D:0:0:0:0/64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2601:84:8D80:22:0:0:0:0/64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

There he goes again. It's that guy once again, StealthForce, and please, DON'T LISTEN to what that guy says. He's just going to rant and make out that I'm the enemy here, and do his "screaming" method of talking; both IP ranges trace to New Jersey, once again. I'm sorry, but this is just frustrating. Please, PLEASE do what you can. He just never learns his lesson. Thank you.

Enclosed is another blocked IP range to prove that this is consistent with his past actions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:84:4501:5B21:0:0:0:0/64 174.61.189.42 (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are or why you didn't take this to WP:SPI, but I've blocked the range that has edited recently for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Meredithw2024

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

---

• Meredithw2024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It's been almost a full a year since I last warned Meredithw2024 about adding uncited genres to music articles, but they are still going strong. Take a look at their contributions. You can see a lot of questionable edits. They often mark their edits as minor when they in fact make major edits by adding unsourced content ([122]). They almost never disambiguate when they link ([123][124][125]). For some reason, they feel the need to link random subsections when all they do is edit the infobox or lead, like they're trying to mislead us or something ([126][127][128]). If you look at their talk page, you can only see two types of messages: those from DLP bot telling them they added dab links, and warnings from me, the only user who has done so. I'm astounded nobody else has taken issue with their edits. Meredithw2024 has completely ignored all messages and warnings and continues to make problematic edits. I believe it's time for an intervention. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 02:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked Meredithw2024 from article space. The editor is free to make well referenced edit requests on the talk page of any article. Cullen328 (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Editor Augmented Seventh – request for rollback of reverts

Godfather, I have a stone in my shoe which only you can remove. My issue concerns the article Cave wolf and the actions of the User:Augmented Seventh.

• On 24JAN24 I updated the Cave wolf article with information contained in Diedrich 2022 that was published in English only this month, and from Marciszak 2023 that was published 11 months ago. The material was properly WP:ATT through WP:CITEs to WP:RELIABLE sources.
• On my final edit at 5:01, this one being diff: [129], it contained the word “Relationshits” – it should have read “its”, however the word “Relationsh” crept in as an error from part of a prior deletion I had made. This was my fault.
• While I was proof-reading the entire article, at 5:03 user Augmented Seventh reverted 11 of my edits, and left a message on my talk page stating “i went ahead and reverted your recent edits, because vulgarity.” Please be aware that the message that was originally left on my talk page has since been amended. Talk page discussions between us did not resolve the issue.
• The word “Relationshits” does not exist in the English language, however the word “mishit” does – nobody regards that word as a vulgarity. Augmented Seventh could have reverted just that one final edit, or perhaps corrected the minor error before I found it during the proof-read.

Request

I would be grateful if a responsible editor could:
(1) roll back Augmented Seventh’s 11 reverts on the article Cave wolf
(2) in that article, amend the word “Relationshits” to read “its”.
14.2.205.177 (talk) 06:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Augmented Seventh: and 14.2.205.177 4.2.205.177, I note that the Talk:Cave wolf, which created in 2017, has no recent activity. Perhaps it might be best to start a discussion there first? Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• I restored the removed material. It is obvious that Augmented Seventh saw that one accidentally slightly vulgar-looking typo, and directly flew off the handle by reverting a dozen perfectly fine content edits. Not justifiable, does not need to be dicussed on the talk page, and probably deserves a trout to the neck. Oh, and I fixed the typo as well... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  thank you for taking the time to look at these edits.

  have a wikipedia day, Augmented Seventh (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Abuse of editor power and fake/misleading articles

Going to be long read but very important. Our user here is Imperial^[AFCND] .

I will narrate the whole issue below.

• Gajapati invasion of bidar - he created | 1 on 26 november 2023.

To start with the whole article is problematic/based on fake interpretation on cited sources . Our user has cited " R Subrahmanyam , NK Shahu , R.D Banerjee , Satish Chandra in the citation for the context of the article.

However a quick read of these sources gives a complete different story, to what is actually written in the article.

All these scholars has completely rejected this notation of the so called surrender of gajapatis , one of them even question if such invasion ever happened.

For instance ,the actual assessment R subharmanyam gave towards the battle after narrating the primary source .

" On the very face of them the account of Muslim historians show that that they were not giving a correct picture of the events , ferishta account bears the stamp of untruth to it " - - - - continued

Source - the suryavamshi gajapati of odisha . Pg -56 (link not available atm)

What our user did he deliberately added the part where the author was narrating the primary source and then ignored the actual assessment of author. Remarkable

N.K Shahu , Banerjee and manhabat whose work are cited has given the same remark His statement : | shahu remark. Banerjee

The whole article is based on such mess . It's remarkable no editor verified what exactly was given in citations.

This exact situation is true for the article " bahmani invasion of odisha" , but wont discuss here right now

This user has been POV pushing for a very long period of time and has been active in pretty much all the hindu related battles pushing it Muslim POV . Often times changing the results of a Hindu victory to a stalemate and a draw or removing the result Maratha Mysore war ,[Maratha invasion Bengal] , battle of singoli , battle of mandalgarh , battle of talikota and hundreds of more , not only that vandalizing pages of kings as well lalitaditya , hammira deva. And then he uses his privilege of being a high edit user to revert back any edit he didn't likes , makes accusations of vandalism as well [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lalitaditya_Muktapida 7] All of this needs to be noted

Keeps on making hundreds of edit of battle where Hindus were defeated but on the other hand tries his best not a single one is done opposite way . All this could be seen in his edit history.

Would like the administrators attention here to take some action on the user or look into his edit history, he has been on spree of such articles/edits. Philknight , Utcursch , Trangabellam , kautilya3Summerkillsme (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates on the principle of collaborative editing, allowing users to create and edit articles based on verifiable information from reliable sources. If there are concerns about my involvement in editing articles, kindly specify the exact reasons. The issue related to the "Gajapati invasion of Bidar" has been addressed. Regarding "Lalitaditya Muktapida," I've been awaiting a response from an editor for weeks (refer to its talk page). Given the contentious nature of the subject, users might perceive bias. I consistently seek input from experienced editors in disputed areas rather than unilaterally resolving conflicts. Imperial^[AFCND] 08:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

While I am on a break, I welcome any concerns regarding the edits I've made. Please review the talk page and edit summaries of the articles I've edited. If you still have concerns, bring them to the talk page with the expectation of input from someone more experienced in these areas. If I fail to provide satisfactory answers, feel free to proceed with your accusations, and I am willing to address them. Imperial^[AFCND] 08:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

things that I have referred here is quite different than what apparently you had called being already addressed in talk section. These two are different.

Anyways top administrators will look into it . We shall see. Summerkillsme (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, two of the users you mentioned (TrangaBellam and Kautilya3) are not administrators, just for your information. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 09:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks from User:Skyerise

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

---

I would like to bring attention to a recent incident on Tollens (talk · contribs)'s talk page, where Skyerise (talk · contribs) grossly overstepped the boundaries of civility to outright personal attacks -- which she was recently blocked a couple months back for. This includes calling Tollens an idiot and suggesting he doesn't belong on Wikipedia as well as accusing him of not having a college education several times. This is in addition to casting WP:ASPERSIONS and refusing to assume WP:GOODFAITH. Tryin to make a change :-/ 12:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Small typo, the links to Skyerise's uncivil comments should be Special:Diff/1197651043 and Special:Diff/1197663279, the ones you gave display the versions before the respective comments. Full agree that these definitely cross WP:NPA. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 13:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The OP doesn't include a diff, just a link, but your diffs don't show the comments referred to.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, I made the exact same mistake and linked the diffs from before the edits. That's definitely a Self-trout for me! ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 14:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

This appears to have been addressed and they apologized already User_talk:Skyerise#Yikes..While not excusing the comments, without any indication the behavior continued, I see no reason to block now. Star Mississippi 14:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

She did address it but did not apologize to the editor in question, and even if she did -- this seems to be a recurring problem with her. Tryin to make a change :-/ 14:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Star Mississippi, there's no reason to block for this incident, and we are not going to use it as a launchpad for allegations of a pattern; it's unfair.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I will admit I am biased here as I was the one who was insulted during her last block. I will defer to admin opinion on this. Tryin to make a change :-/ 14:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I did apologize directly to the user in question the next day, pinging them. This was before the conversation on my own talk page. However, I would like to question why @User:Mychemicalromanceisrealemo is hounding me. I served my time for insulting them, is it proper to continue to hold it against me to the extent that they now seem to be inappropriately following my edits? Skyerise (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The policy you link to notes that fixing [...] violations of Wikipedia policy is a [c]orrect use of an editor's history and that wikihounding has no overridingly constructive reason. Reporting another user's personal attacks -- especially one who has a history of making personal attacks -- is not a frivolous or meritless complaint. Furthermore, I have not been following your edits -- much the opposite.Tryin to make a change :-/ 15:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Says the editor who just reverted me twice at Western tulku. Skyerise (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

This is very disingenuous when the edits you made were contentious and already being discussed on the talk page. You also didn't edit the page until after this report was made -- did you think that this would bolster your claim of WP:HOUNDING because you knew I would rightfully revert your edits? You seemed content to wait for other editors until I made this report. Tryin to make a change :-/ 16:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• I'm a little curious why we're giving someone with multiple blocks for personal attacks a complete pass here. Those are really shitty things to say to someone, and the "apology" was just for the "tone". If there weren't two admins above saying they think everything is fine, I'd have blocked for 3 months. or even indef, as an "enough is enough" block to solidify in their mind that this. has. to. stop. now. Even if we ignore everything else, considering people without college degrees inherently inferior to you is a significant character flaw. And I'm unimpressed by the complaint of hounding. If you don't want to be brought to ANI, perhaps keep your smug elitist bullshit to yourself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @User:Floquenbeam Shouldn't you be blocked for that last phrase, then? Skyerise (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

    You're kind of missing the point here. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

    @User:Floquenbeam So are you. I apologized twice. Once the same day, then again the next day. Both before this report. I haven't heard an apology from you, and you haven't even struck your own personal attack. Skyerise (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

User Floquenbeam, please do not use WP:UNCIVIL language like smug elitist bull****. Be mindful of WP:BOOMERANG. It's entirely possible to disagree with other commenters on an ANI thread without personal attacks or rudeness (just as I will say to Skyerise that it's entirely possible to clarify WP:GENREF without calling another editor an idiot), including against the reportee's alleged character rather than their behavior. Since I'm not aware of a long term pattern of chronic and intractable misbehavior, I'd hope a WP:TROUT is sufficient in this case. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Making comments about an edit (as opposed to about an editor) cannot be uncivil, regardless of whether you disagree with the language used; Floquenbeam's opinion was fairly accurate. Skyerise has got a long history of doing this stuff and really needs to stop doing it. Having said that, evemn a half-arsed apology is better than no apology. Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• I'm glad apologies have been offered & personal attacks withdrawn. It's not nice to equate lack of a college degree with WP:CIR, on this project. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I second GoodDay's statements. @Skyerise, since incivility has been a pattern, do you have any thoughts on how you'd avoid it the next time you have a bad day?

@Mychemicalromanceisrealemo, I would like to hear how you came to be aware of that interaction on somebody else's talk page. What it looks like is that you were keeping tabs on someone with whom you had a dispute in the past, which is not a good look.

I agree that, provided Skyerise gives some assurance that there won't be such egregious incivility the next time they have a bad day, this could be closed. MCRIRE may be reminded that this noticeboard is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems; Skyerise had apologized and that particular episode ceased, so it was clearly not urgent. It may be chronic, but the apology suggests it may not be intractable, especially with some action plan in the event of a bad day. If Skyerise has no way to prevent a recurrence, or if such incivility does reemerge, THEN would be a time to propose sanctions. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I should have just fixed it without making any comment. It's what I would have done if I'd not already been having a bad day. Skyerise (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

That's good enough for me; if, the next time you encounter an abrasive situation and are having a bad day, you correct without comment (or comment only after you're feeling better) that is enough for me to believe it's not worth any action now. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

As for how I became aware of that interaction, I was going to make a separate report at WP:AN3 about Skyerise re-opening an edit war at Western tulku and I saw the scolding from Butwhatdoiknow (talk · contribs). Tryin to make a change :-/ 16:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Great explanation - except that at the time you filed this report, I hadn't edited Western tulku since January 17 and there was no call whatsoever for a WP:3RRN report. That actually supports my contention that your intent is to hound me! Skyerise (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

You can keep making this accusation, but hounding doesn't apply even if I was (or am) keeping tabs on you -- which, despite being a bad look, isn't against policy. Tryin to make a change :-/ 17:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

It may not be technically against policy, but it is a bad idea to treat Wikipedia like a WP:BATTLEGROUND nonetheless. MrOllie (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be a good time to discuss @User:Mychemicalromanceisrealemo apparent ownership issues with that article, as evidenced by their edit summaries when reverting and the talk page discussion? I am just trying to apply sumarary style: I get that Emo doesn't like my particular summary, but rather than improving my summary, they just repeatedly wholesale revert me. Is this because they created the article and think that gives them special privileges with respect to it? Skyerise (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that this is actually a horrible place to discuss that page. If you genuinely think I have acted against policy because I disagree with your unilateral merge -- and don't want to wait for consensus or other editors to weigh in -- then you can file a report wherever you like. Which you have threatened several times and have yet to follow through on. Tryin to make a change :-/ 17:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I opened an RfC this morning, which is the only thing I have said, not "threatened", that I would do. Perhaps you haven't noticed yet? Skyerise (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

You threatened making a report at ANI here and said you've already opened a report at ANI here. As you saw with the original Western tulku page, you are free to do as you please within policy. Tryin to make a change :-/ 17:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Wow, you think that mild post from mid-December is a "threat"? Perhaps you should read our no personal attacks policy yourself? It's not even about the article in question! Skyerise (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Just to avoid misinterpreting, the second comment appears to say she brought up the topic on this ANI report, rather than making a separate new report. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 17:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Could be the case; I assumed that she was making a separate report and carrying out the necessary requisites. Tryin to make a change :-/ 17:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I clearly emphasized WP:BOOMARANG, which in case you are not familiar with it, implies that posting a complaint on ANI might end up exposing the complaintant's own bad behavior. You've also just supported my argument by showing that I complained about WP:HOUNDING directly to you over a month ago, and yet you are still doing it. Skyerise (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be explicitly ownership, more like run-of-the-mill edit warring from both sides. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 17:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, the comment mentioned in OP about not wanting a user on Wikipedia is about concern that a user being a vandal and disrupting bibliographic formatting contrary to WP:GENREF. This of course doesn't excuse calling someone an "idiot" which is still an aspersion, and it's also not appropriate to assume that unfamiliarity with alphabetizing bibliographies is a symptom of one's level of education (in any case, I've encountered college graduates who also don't know how to format bibliographies). I only mean to be precise, and I think user Skyerise's apology matters a lot in this case. Another user mentioned that the apology was just for the "tone"—but isn't that precisely what's being reported? Skyerise is not wrong that per WP:GENREF, bibliographies on Wikipedia are usually sorted by the last name of the author or the editor, so it is understandable if Skyerise wants to clarify that they are not apologizing for alphabetizing a bibliography, but are apologizing for being WP:UNCIVIL while discussing that on the talk page. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• BTW - This report shouldn't have been made by a third editor. Only @Tollens: should've done so, if they wanted to. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of this policy. Do you have a link for future reference? Tryin to make a change :-/ 17:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  Not a requirement, but it's good practice. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think that this discussion has come to an end and I'll drop out now -- I'll refrain from making third-party complaints in the future. Tryin to make a change :-/ 17:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  No, I think we should continue to discuss your hounding, which you have above pointed out that I complained about directly to you on December 15, yet here we are. Skyerise (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  I will not reply to you further: the complaint you made to me were about edits that have since been held up by consensus. It is ironic that you complain about page ownership but consider a move that was clearly warranted to be hounding despite having very little, if anything, to do with you. Tryin to make a change :-/ 17:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm quite happy to drop it, once you agree to stop hounding me in the future. Skyerise (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Skyerise Given that you are convinced of hounding and want it addressed, may I suggest starting a subsection and populating it with diffs for administrative review? It would be useful to establish the pattern of behavior for easy viewing, and would allow this section (regarding the incident on Tollens' talk) to be closed if the rest of the community agrees that your apology was sufficient. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  @User:EducatedRedneck, I agree this section can be closed. I'll file a report against Emo if and when it happens again. Skyerise (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'd prefer you make a report now instead of 'waiting' and threatening me with it. If I'm hounding you, report it. (Yes, I broke my own promise.) Tryin to make a change :-/ 18:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  Nah. If that's what you want, I'd rather wait. Skyerise (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  In other words, you aren't making these accusations in good faith. Tryin to make a change :-/ 18:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  No, I have complete good faith, that's why I am giving you the benefit of the doubt until it happens again. Skyerise (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  P.S. There's a big difference between a "threat" and a warning. I have never "threatened" you, only given you fair warning. This, and the above, are simple warnings, not threats. Skyerise (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by User:Zoeleephine43935

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

---

User:Zoeleephine43935 has directed 2 personal attacks to me (because I reverted their addition of unsourced promo and deleted their copyvios at Commons). I was going to just ignore it and I reverted my talk page, but there is another one on their user page. I feel an official warning (or other disciplinary action) and removal of the content on their user page is required. Thanks. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the comment from their userpage and left an "only warning" about personal attacks on their Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing patterns by Danielg532

User in question: User:Danielg532 (talk • contribs)

• The user's talk page contains four warnings against removing AFD deletion discussion headers (1, 2, 3, 4), which did not prevent a fifth removal earlier today at 01:05, 25 January 2024.
• WP:RS and WP:V concerns. Specifically, the user has a penchant for making unsupported claims asserting Russian military control over settlements in specific areas in Ukraine. For example, see Kocheriv and Verkhnia Rudnia.
  • The pattern of adding unverifiable claims to articles has been observed by editors in other areas. (Most recently here. Much of the talk page deals with unverifiable claims in live articles or drafts submitted for creation without any sources)
  • Sometimes, in "support" of the claims, the user adds deceptive references that make it appear that the information is sourced, but do not actually contain any information relevant to the claim. See the "sources" for Staseva, Syrnystia, Selezivka, Zaporizke, and much of Russian occupation of Zhytomyr Oblast.
  • When I added citation needed / failed verification tags to this editor's excessive unverifiable claims on Russian occupation of Zhytomyr Oblast, they were later reverted without explanation. See: 04:28, 19 January 2024.
  • The user also referenced a self-published source that appears to be self-published in a very literal sense, as it is a user-generated map by somebody with a similar screen name. See: 03:58, 7 May 2023

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

A1FanGirl

The user keeps reverting my redirect and the redirect was approved by an AFD Toketaa^talk 17:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like they've been blocked already. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 17:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Scorpoin125 - account with less than 10 edits closing AfD

User:Scorpoin125 appears to be an account with less than 10 edits and which was apparently started today - there is some confusion about this because there are messages on the talkpage which go back many years. Anyway, they are clearly not in a position to close AfD discussions on a day-old account.JMWt (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

anyone can close afd. Instead of worrying about who closing worry about if they closed against consensus. --Scorpoin125 (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

How can you possibly even know what those terms mean on a day-old account? JMWt (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but if you know how to close AfDs, that implies you've previously edited using a different account. That requires disclosure of the previous account(s) on your user page. Skyerise (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Those older comments were because the user started the talkpage by cloning Talk:data. I nuked them. As others observe, this is certainly not a new editor. DMacks (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Checkuserblocked as an LTA (see AGreene1117, MagicSoiuret etc.). If you see any more of these pop up, just block them with talk page and email disabled.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks :) JMWt (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)