Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1150

Proposing topic ban on PenmanWarrior

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

---

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

Quick timeline of 9 January, which is quite revealing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repeated issues with attempts to block Michele Evans article

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

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

Some of the issues have been:

Please use diffs and links, not enormous copy/pastes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blocked indefinitely

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just to add a 'me too' on receiving email solely about content rather than addressing their block. I have obviously ignored the request (didn't even read it closely enough to know what it was asking). DMacks (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

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

User:AidanParkinson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AppGoo0011 and racist editing

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

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

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

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

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

A few things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commenting to add that this behavior has continued on Murder of Laken Riley, Murder of Mollie Tibbetts, and Murder of Kate Steinle, all murders of white women with non-white suspects, where the victim's race in itself was not notable. I'm not about to start an edit war about it, but considering the existing ANI, I thought it worth mentioning. Thesixthstaff (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

COI / SOCK editor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued MOS:GENDERID violations by User:Angrycommguy

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

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

Laying out specific issues:

MOS:GENDERID:

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

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

WP:BLPCRIME

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Knson

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

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

Legal threat

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

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

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

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

Persistent creation of Indian election articles by Maphumor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regular vandalism, edit warring by Maphumor

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete-Undelete assistance requested

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

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

User:Muhammad Jalal al-Din

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

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

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

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

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

- WP:EDITWAR

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

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

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

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

[44] (5th, rv some text)

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

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

[46] , [47] warned by @HistoryofIran

[48] by @Kuru

[49] by @Diannaa

[50] by @Isabelle Belato

[51] by @AhmadLX

[52] by @Gotitbro

[53], [54] by @LouisAragon

[55] by @Girth Summit

[56] by @Apaugasma

[57] by @Toddy1

- WP:OR; source misrepresentation

[58] Pointed out by @AhmadLX

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

[60] Unsourced.

- WP:CIR or WP:IDHT

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

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

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

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

[69] Removed sourced content that

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

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

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

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

[72] Trying to remove this sourced material:

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

- Again WP:CIR or WP:IDHT

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

- Trying to mislead people to win over an argument.

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

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

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

2. Misrepresenting the minor issues as significant ones.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is one example of duplication.

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

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

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

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

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

WP:EW:

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

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

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

the other forum report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to become an Administrator?

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

---

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

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

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

Oh, sorry about that. ActualPrimeNumber1567v (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Juniorpetjua

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, OK.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I note that no human editor has edited Talk:Recife for over a year. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Milan Knežević (Montenegrin politician)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JassyGamer - Overlinking spree

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

---

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

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

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

 Note: blocked as a sock by Spicy. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Jiabao Li

I have reason to believe that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Starting a new category

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

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

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

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

Disruptive or keen but inexperienced editor

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

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

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

User talk:ScarletViolet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reopen of discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Long term battleground pattern of NOTHERE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Otuọcha

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruption and personal attacks

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

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

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

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

What you accuse me about is applicable to you also

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

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

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

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

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

for example

1. (Special:diff/1209938590)

2. (Special:diff/1209787884)

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

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

no explanations in the edit summaries

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

You are the one deleted those without proving anything

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:PoliticsMaps

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

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

User:Salmoonlight

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good thing admins should know exactly what is vandalism. How can vandalism be disguised as a report? Whereas removing the report is clear vandalism. Weisz21 (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

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

IP-hopper continuing to disrupt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

compromised account

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Editani, promotional edits

• Editani (talk · contribs · logs)

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

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

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

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

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

Page move appears to be vandalism

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

---

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

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

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

Per WP:RM, there's nothing wrong with making a move without discussion if one believes in good faith that it is an obvious correction to make, whereas controversial moves should be discussed first. I'm not seeing any evidence to indicate that jps made the page move in bad faith, and it's obviously not "vandalism". So the dispute as to whether it should have been discussed first is really a content dispute, not a conduct matter requiring administrator attention at ANI. Once the move has already happened, the solution is to start an RM discussion, as Natg 19 has done. Let the discussion reach its consensus, let the bots self-revert if that's what ends up being the result, and close this ANI discussion without further action. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

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

I don't really agree with Tryptofish's comment. WP:BOLDMOVE is quite clear that while bold moves are allowed, when they are quickly disputed they should be reversed. The move from 2007 has clearly been in place way too long that it can simply be reversed but the recent move has not [122]. If User:Skyerise cannot revert the move themselves, then the proper place to deal with it would be at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests where experienced page movers, admins or not, could deal with it. That said, since it is something admins can deal with, it's arguably technically not wrong to post it here, or at least Skyerise should have been directed to the proper page. In other words, it might not be a behavioural issue, but it's still something that might need the intervention of admins or page movers. Since Natg 19 has already opened a RM, it may or may not be more confusing to revert the move now, however it's important to emphasise that the old title Spiritism is the WP:STATUSQUOANTE in the event of no consensus and while I normally dislike worrying too much about no consensus (e.g. when editors get into an edit war rather than just starting a discussion), I think in the particular case of article titles, they are important since there's often no middle ground so no consensus is a somewhat common outcome. Skyerise should be reminded though that false accusations of vandalism are personal attacks and they have been here way too long to not know what vandalism is. Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Potential Disruptive Behavior by Elinruby

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

---

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

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

Behavior objections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Content objections

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

Requested Action

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

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

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

The Arbcom motion is linked at:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikilawyering:

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

Wikihounding

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

Crybullying

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

Proposed Actions Towards Consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I need help with the Brazilian coup attempt. They are gonna arrest Bolsonaro any week now. But be nice to the Portuguese speakers if you join us. They are hard to come by. Elinruby (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

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

User Loservilleas repeatedly ignoring guidelines

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

---

Moved from WP:AN (diff)

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

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

Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Harassment by Star_Mississippi

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

---

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

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

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

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

https://w.wiki/9K9b

https://w.wiki/9K9d

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For anyone trying to follow breadcrumbs, Zzremin's block was short (probably shorter than they deserved given the incessant badgering) until they escalated to socking. Thanks all for handling while I dared sleep. Courtesy heads up to @Ponyo whose protection they've been complaining about here and AfD. Star Mississippi 14:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Hoanghao314159

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

---

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

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

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

Revoke talk page access of 160.79.33.71

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

---

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

Block was extended and TPA was revoked by @NinjaRobotPirate. Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Editor conduct

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I did the same exercise as Canterbury Tail, last time Historyofiran was involved in a dispute at ANI a month or two ago. I did it because I thought "geez I've seen that name here a little bit lately, surely where there's smoke there will be fire". Nope. I found nothing that was even moderately objectionable, which wasvery significant considering the topic area they operated in. I am not ashamed to admit I was surprised by these results, given the topic area and frequency at ANI, and for that they are to be commended. Daniel (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

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

User:WikiE2024

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

---

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

I have blocked them for a week and warned them if they continue to revert on this article when the block is over, they will likely receive an indefinite block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Belgium IP range needs a timeout

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

---

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

The Belgian IP range Special:Contributions/2A02:A03F:68FA:CD01:0:0:0:0/64 has been adding unsupported text and edit-warring, getting blocked twice along the way. A new low was reached today with a personal attack against Sricsi.[135] Can we get a lengthier rangeblock? Binksternet (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Edit warring at Sylhet Division

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Term Five Accounts your assuming the blocked account and the IPs are nothing to do with me. As I said came to maintain only the infobox and nothing else. Just dont assume I socked the article just because your tasting WP:Duck. If I made a mistake reverting your edits I have no inquiry if you change it back. GANI7199 (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

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

User:DollysOnMyMind

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

---

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

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

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

Ah, the classic boomerang! - Master of Hedgehogs ^{(converse) (hate that hedgehog!)} 18:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

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

TPA at User talk:Shakdust487

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

---

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

Pinging @Bbb23:, @Ponyo:, @Deepfriedokra:, and @Daniel Case:, all of whom have attempted to discuss the matter of sockpuppetry with the user on their talk page. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

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

IP User:203.45.252.147 returned after a 1 year block

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

---

User has been blocked multiple times in the past for inserting BLP vandalism on Jarryd Hayne and Manoa Thompson. Has recommenced the same behaviour today. example1 and example2. I believe both pages need oversighting (which has been done with this editor's previous edits) and the block reinstated. I put a joke2 warning on the user's talk page before I realised that this was a pattern of behaviour on the same two pages. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Summerdays1 and WP:BATTLEGROUND

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I didn't see all those.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block proposal (Summerdays1)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:GAMING to achieve ECP status

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From what I can tell, over 350 edits made to their user page and sandbox. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 22:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Systematic distortion of historical articles

Dear All,

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

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

- How are we supposed to communicate back?

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

- Who is the accuser?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:PowerRanger200 ignoring seven years of warnings

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cross-wiki CITESPAM and stalking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most sources of Wikipedia do not have authoritative peer reviews.

Academic journals making nuanced historiographical claims should.

Should delete all of these?

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

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

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

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

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

 Courtesy link: zh:Special:Diff/81456027

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Khmer Rouge Tribunal

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

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

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

Sock farmette (or bored kids) at Talk:Cube

Talk:Cube is getting a lot of childish vandalism from

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive behaviour of User:UtoD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

well there you are wrong, I was correctly using the policy of WP:BURDEN and WP:VERIFY on those edits, which is about the reliability of the source. You nor UtoD were questioning the reliability of the source on the Sri Lankan Armed Forces page regarding the pedophile ring of the Sri Lankan Army, but the policy of WP:BURDEN was consistently being cited (incorrectly). Oz346 (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, didn't you say "But you're also disputing its reliability, therefore you also have burden to demonstrate why it is not reliable." Please tell me what part of WP:BURDEN states this? Cossde (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Eventhough WP:BURDEN explicitly states that when a content addition is challenged for any reason "and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back." you and Petextrodon have entirely ignored that and consistently abused reverting to brute force the content through. And that you two are coordinating across multiple pages as a pattern. Even after I pointed it out in both revert summary and talkpage you action was to revert yet again to force the problematic content. -UtoD 14:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

"WP:BURDEN explicitly states that when a content addition is challenged for any reason"

WP:BURDEN says nothing of the sort. Stop making things up. It is disruptive behaviour. It's not a policy that you can abuse for any reason that you can think of. WP:BURDEN refers to the sourcing of the text, nothing more. Oz346 (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, you yourself has misinterpreted WP:BURDEN in the past such as this [186]. The problem here is your style of using brute force to enter a content of your choice without open discussion and removing content you don't like without discussion. Cossde (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

A personal attack. Nice. Right below Cossde's complaint about your previous personal attacks against them. Claiming WP:LIAR against me is meaningless. You won't get to claim WP:IGNORANCE as I have repeatedly told you about it before and claiming its only about the "verifiability of the source" contradicts your past posts where you showed knowledge of note C of WP:BURDEN, I pointed it on 22 2021 December and you said in 24 December 2021 which would contradict your current claim that it's exclusively about "verifiability of sources". So please don't bring the "you didn't see it" defence because I have told you multiple times, you knew and then went back to trying brute forcing edits into pages coordinating reverting with Petextrodon across mulitple pages. Now in February 2024 you suddenly claim the guideline doesn't exist and straight up throwing WP:LIAR at me. -UtoD 17:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

my use of the word burden there was not in the wikipedia WP:BURDEN policy sense, but in the more general use of the word. Namely that an independent third opinion had agreed with me, therefore, it is only reasonable that my version of the page should be the status quo. And that it was up to you to seek further wikipedia moderation if you still disagreed with me and the independent third opinion. Oz346 (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Your response to my request to establish a WP:RS under WP:BURDEN was to say "No you dont have to 'PROVE' each and every blatant reliable source". . Cossde (talk) 02:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Another humble request to the admins reading this discussion, please try to avoid being side tracked by the multiple messages not directly relevant to the initial complaint. If others have other complaints they should be filed separately. Otherwise the whole point of this discussion will be derailed. Oz346 (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, the root cause of all this is the brute force tactics you and Petextrodon are engaging in as part of your WP:NAT edits. Cossde (talk) 02:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@UtoD, you still have not explained why you refused to give explanation for twice reverting my other edit on UN war crimes report. I was and am willing to engage in the talk discussion that's why I asked you to explain what you meant by those Wikipedia rules that you kept throwing at me without further explanation (you have a history of doing this and another user had called you out on it too) but you refused to do so and simply insisted I alone had the burden. That's not how a collaborative effort works. --- Petextrodon (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon, right like how you added content that appeared to be a minority view [187] without engaging in the talk page discussion of Talk:Sri_Lankan_Tamils#Eelam_Tamils_name, yet used WP:FALSEBALANCE in this edit [188] without bothering to explain it in the talk page. Cossde (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cossde, is that your other account? They do keep showing up to your aid every time we are in disputes on Sri Lanka Armed Forces page. If not, I would like the person addressed make a reply themself. --- Petextrodon (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon. Are you accusing me of WP:SOCKING? Cossde (talk) 02:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

No I don't know what your relation with that user is. If you don't represent them in any way, let them explain their behavior themself. --- Petextrodon (talk) 03:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I don' think that is what you meant by .. "is that your other account?" ? Cossde (talk) 13:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

(Non-admin uninvolved summary)

• Cossde opens a case at DRN (still in progress)[189]
• Cossde reports Oz346 and Petextrodon to ANEW, result: no violation[190]
• Petextrodon reports Cossde to ANEW, result: out of scope, take to ANI[191]
• Petextrodon opens ANI thread and says that UtoD reverted two edits and only explained one.
• UtoD says Petextrodon and Oz346 edit war to include content without justifying its inclusion across multiple articles
• Cossde says Petextrodon and Oz346 multi-page edit war, and says it's WP:NATIONALIST editing
• Oz346 says Cossde and UtoD incorrectly cite WP:BURDEN

I see four very passionate editors who differ in their views of what the article should say. The four participants have been engaging in similar discussions on Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces since June 2023 (and possibly other talk pages). The best result would be if each of you would explain your reverts when asked and stick to discussing content/sources (not commenting on each other). At its heart, this appears to be a content dispute and you should all continue to try to work it out at DRN. (That's my recommendation; an admin may look at this and decide otherwise.) Schazjmd (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

User UtoD is guilty of WP:STONEWALLing in this particular article (please see the talk page exchange)

An editor refuses to accept a change unless some condition is complied with, but it is not a condition that has any basis in Wikipedia policies or guidelines.

Example: Editors reach a consensus, except one (or a tag team) insisting that the change sought violates some policy or other principle, in a way they cannot clearly demonstrate'.'

The other accusations made by Cossde and UtoD have no evidential basis, and I feel are being made to drown out the actual problem this initial complaint was filed for.Oz346 (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

This is his latest response to the reasonable questions asked of him on the talk page [192]. He is refusing to take part in the consensus building process and is continuing to revert war. He has been emboldened by the lack of action since this initial complaint was filed almost a week ago. An admin intervention is sorely needed to correct this behaviour.Oz346 (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Legal threats

• User_talk:BalaM314#Trouted_(incorrectly,_for_reverting_COI_content_removal_on_SETS)
• User_talk:120.154.50.154
• Talk:Sydney_Electric_Train_Society

The user with IP 120.154.50.154 (talk) is connected to the Sydney Electric Train Society and attempted to remove negative information from their page, claiming that it is incorrect. I reverted because the information has sources.

They then threatened to sue Wikipedia for defamation.

Not sure what to do, but WP:SUE tells me to report it here.

『π』BalaM314〘talk〙 14:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

[193] Relevant diff with the legal threat. Conyo14 (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Calls for a block. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't actually read that as a legal threat. It's more of a statement related to the other stuff they're droning on about regarding AI and Wikipedia's (perceived) inability to avoid bad information being put in by AI. That last part needs to be read in context of the entire comment. In other words, I don't read it as "fix this or I'll sue". ButlerBlog (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The criticism section in Sydney Electric Train Society is terribly written and clearly violates the Neutral point of view. I am going to delete that section. Cullen328 (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It may not be the intent, but invoking legal threats (whether indirectly, as here, or directly) has a chilling effect on other editors. It's never a good idea to go there. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

[T]here needs to be a clear path... for Wikipedia to promptly clear pages of misinformation as on display here. Otherwise Wikipedia... will become the subject of legal action for defamation, as the publisher of such material. is most definitely a legal threat. NM 01:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

IP back to disruptive edits

I encountered 82.45.48.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) in recent changes and reverted obvious disruptive edits. They seem to be POV pushing and whitewashing edits and they have already been warned in the past for similar edits. I want to know what the appropriate course of action would be. Awesome Aasim 00:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

 Blocked x 6 months for POV pushing and personal attacks. Clearly someone with an agenda who was not deterred by a previous 3 month block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Good call. I just examined more closely some of the other contributions and they seem insistent on putting anything with ties to imperial Britain "British". There is a duty of care that has to be taken with BLP. Awesome Aasim 02:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

User:2A02:C7C:A05A:BA00:1C87:989A:69F1:1E5F

On the Workers Party of Britain page, 2a02:c7c:a05a:ba00:1c87:989a:69f1:1e5f (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) continues to make disruptive edits and continues to violate WP:SYNTH despite multiple warnings and reversions. I have noticed looking through the edit history on the page they have a history of this, and acted in bad faith by accusing other users of "spreading lies" who revert the their changes. To me this suggests they are clearly POV pushing. I want to avoid an edit war with this user, which is why I am flagging it up here. User:Xander 2801 Talk Page 04:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I just see the editor adding sources which are then rejected. So, this is a content dispute. Have you tried starting a discussion about sources on the article talk page? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Text as a graphic

Coming here as I've hit 3RR if I'm wrong about this. Mainerlife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding (five times so far) a list to Thomas College. The only issue is... it's a list they have neatly typed out in Excel and uploaded a picture of to Commons. They're not responding to attempts to communicate to them why this is A Bad Thing. Would someone else care to? 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Let me know if I am wrong, but I think the 3RR noticeboard is better for this. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 19:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so. AN3 is for reporting people who have violated 3RR. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 19:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not really to do with 3RR. It's to do with the text in a graphic, the MoS issues and the lack of communication – the latter especially, for which the venue is ANI. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

If they continue to do this, please simply guide them to WP:ACCESS, because a PNG of a spreadsheet is simply not accessible and should be a paragraph or table of prose rather than an image, and they can easily make a WP:TABLE using Wikicode just as well that meets ACCESS. Nate • (chatter) 20:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

User was Pblocked from Thomas College by Cullen328. User has admitted to working for the school, and expressed intent to keep adding it. I'm holding off on a full block for now, let's see if they're willing to accept advice. The photo itself has also been deleted from Commons. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I left a COI notice. DMacks (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: and @DMacks: A Thomas College staff member looked up my personal e-mail address (not hard to find - I link to my webpage from my User page) and sent me an e-mail today demanding that I not edit their article because "I am the authority on our brand and what is listed on the page, and you are not." So there's definitely a COI/paid editing issue here and hopefully this partial block addresses the issue. ElKevbo (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This is interesting. Judging by what this person has written on their talk page and at the Teahouse, they have no idea what Wikipedia is, let alone what it is for. They appear to be assuming that this place is like Google's "claim this knowledge panel" and Apple Maps' "is this your business?" features – click on it, provide vague proof, get pretty well complete control of the entry in question. If their confusion as to why they've been prevented from adding photos of Excel spreadsheets and promotional material to the article is genuine, a belief that the article is just an extension of being able to update your info on Yelp or TrustPilot is probably why.

They were given a {{welcome}} template upon first arrival, but that explains Wikipedia in terms of how to physically edit. It doesn't explain what we are and what we're for – we assume all 7bn people know that by now. There doesn't appear to be a welcome template that actually explains we're an encyclopaedia and what our mission is. I tried drafting some text for their talk page, but every attempt looked like I was taking the piss, or at least being very condescending.

Is there someone reading this who could do better than me and help them out with a "What is Wikipedia" 101 on their talk page? Perhaps there is a template that does this and I've missed it? 81.187.192.168 (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I made a post on their Talk page to try and help out, but we'll see if they're willing to listen. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Awww, that’s brilliant and far, far better than what I was clumsily trying to say. Thank you! 81.187.192.168 (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Repeated and unexplained insertion of dubious content

• Nwaiotbaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have recently noticed that Nwaiotbaw (talk · contribs) has inserted a lot of unusable content into articles about railways in Hong Kong and mainland China, including obvious factual errors such as the reversal of a railway service's driving direction (even though it is obvious and indicated by the cited source that it runs on the left), changes to cardinal directions that are clearly wrong just from looking at a map or comparing the coordinates shown on the respective pages, and unsourced and overly detailed prose. Others have previously warned this user for inserting speculative information from their imagination (so this seems to have been going on for some time) and never writing edit summaries. I should note that I think it is possible that some of their edits are constructive.

I am at a loss for what to do in this situation, as the user has apparently never communicated with other editors in any way in talk pages or other forums, and has never responded on their talk page. Nowadays there don't seem to be many active editors in this space to keep track of dubious edits. I haven't edited much in recent years, so I'm not sure if this is the right place to mention this or if this issue would be considered not severe enough for this forum. Jc86035 (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

We do sometimes block users for complete failure to communicate. I've left an admin warning at User talk:Nwaiotbaw. They have never responded to any of the issues raised by others on their talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

If they continue to edit without discussing things (their most recent contribution was several hours before this thread was opened) then the first step is probably a partial block from the article (and maybe template) namespace. They don't seem to be using a mobile device so this doesn't seem to be a WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU issue. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: It appears they have continued to edit without acknowledging the concerns. Jc86035 (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked from the article, draft and template namespaces until they communicate either here or on their talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Portal:Current events/2024 February 29 - ARBPIA edit war

I just took a look at the history of Portal:Current events/2024 February 29 and there is an ongoing edit war related with a recent and news event from the Israel–Hamas war. I just tagged the talk page with the CT notice, but administrator notices and/or warning for ARBPIA edit warring is needed.

• אקעגן – Reverts: 1 (technical reversion of this edit despite being first edit on the page), 2, 3, (4 - Done after AN/I started).
• Jebiguess – 1, 2, 3.

אקעגן and Jebiguess are in a full-blown edit war, both with 3 reversions, on an CT, so both at least need formal warnings or a short block for edit warring on a CT topic. While here, I need to alert Mount Patagonia that they too have technically violated the CT 1RR restriction (not in an edit-warring way though) with this and two grammatical edits which were reverted: [194] and [195].

Basically administrator overwatch on that specific page is needed due to ARBPIA recent controversial news event. ECP has been requested as well for the article, but this does involve EC editors. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't know that the last two edits would have constituted a violation of the 1RR rule. I was just trying to remove repetitive phrasing, and I assumed the removals was an unfortunate by-product of the constant revisions going on. Mount Patagonia (talk • contributions) 22:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you on that. I wanted to mention you here more as an informal alert to not revert anything else on the page since you did revert more than once, all for the good non-warring reasons. When the war first broke out, I too learned about that. The restriction is truly 1 reversion of any kind (excluding vandalism reversion) on an article in a 24 hour period. The first of the two grammatical edits might not constitute as a true reversion, however, the 2nd one for sure would. I do not think you need a block or even a formal warning. I was typing this out and noticed it, so I wanted you to be alerted this way. And, since I was requesting administrator overwatch due to the edit war, mentioning you here felt better than you getting a block without realizing it was an edit war/second reversion. But yeah, just don't revert anything further, even if it is grammatical amid the edit war. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note, I just added a fourth reversion edit by אקעגן to the chart above. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Valid, I completely forgot this existed. I won't edit that section anymore, but on a side note, I do think the language should be more neutralized to reflect the sources. It's still a rather new event, so not everything is known yet. Jebiguess (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Neo-paganism in the Republic of Ireland

IP 80.233.17.139 (talk) made a legal threat on Neo-paganism in the Republic of Ireland. Never dealt with this before, reverted and looked at Wikipedia:No legal threats which told me to post it here. Greatpopcorn (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

And they repeated their threat on their talk page. I'm not sure what the appropriate block duration is for IP addresses in these circumstances but I gave them a 48 hour block. Admins, feel free to lengthen that if I underestimated the situation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The inappropriate content they were complaining about (which was added three weeks ago) has been removed by Caeciliusinhorto, so further disruption is unlikely. --JBL (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Multiple WP:SPA accounts at Leysin American School

I'm tired of dealing with this. Help requested, including possible blocks of socks and page protection. IP created a second registered account after I warned them not to make further inappropriate edits. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Fanchen886374 (talk · contribs)
• 39.44.128.177 (talk · contribs)
• Fanchen847473 (talk · contribs)

These are a select few of the recent edits that removed sourced content, added unsourced content, added promotional content, and edit warred to restore said unacceptable content. [196]; [197]; [198]; [199]; [200]; [201]; [202]; [203]; [204]; [205]; [206]; [207]; I especially like this: [208]; [209]; multiple MOS:OL edits like this [210] and [211]; [212]; [213]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• One step at a time. User claims to have lost access to earlier account; I blocked the earlier account. The IP--no comment, but they have a partial block now. Looking into the COI matter. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Drmies. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    • My pleasure. Now I'm off to go skiing. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
      • Excellent. I hear the snow is finely packed in Tuscaloosa this year. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
        • Unfortunately it's cold and it's raining cats and dogs around here and in Selma, where VP Harris is attending the commemoration of the Selma to Montgomery marches. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
          • Sorry to hear that--I hope the rain relents for the commemoration. We've had more rain than snow this winter. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Systematic distortion of historical articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear All,

Please check urgently this post on reddit detailing how a few Hungarian editors are systematically rewriting articles on Romanian history. It needs intervention and professional editors to correct the changes. Adam Harangozó (talk) 07:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Adam Harangozó: There are big mechanical problems with an off-wiki complaint, which I am choosing to address without looking at the actual accusation:

- How are we supposed to communicate back?

- How do the accused defend themselves from someone who isn't even around to participate in any discussion?

- Who is the accuser?

The reddit poster appears to be currently accusing 2 users of something(doesn't matter to the point I'm making):

- Do you now need to notify those 2 users per the rules of ANI, since that off-wiki discussion involves them?

- The argument is theirs, and you're linking it, are their arguments your arguments now?

The post talks about "network of Hungarian nationalist users" and ends with the poster claiming that "There are many accounts, and I have been doing this for many years."(*edit: talking about finding these accounts) - well, then has the poster of that thread reported them before? The archived ANI thread they linked (which is from 2021), seems to have ended with no action, the person who made it ultimately retracted it....

Honestly I would advise you against making this post into a thing, because you will have to deal with defending someone else's arguments while also somehow making the accusation with your own independent judgement, while pointing out how exactly they are violating wikipedia's policies (while avoiding WP:MEAT, both from yourself or from others coming from that thread).

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who has these concerns looking at this. – 2804:F14:80E5:6B01:2D28:AD06:B149:7F62 (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I'm ought to be discouraged from letting administrators know about a potentially serious issue concerning the reliability of Wikipedia. I also don't think that the potential difficulty of contacting the original poster is a reason for not checking this out. This debate would need editors who are experts on history and can review the edits without national(ist) bias. Adam Harangozó (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Dude, you linked to a Reddit post that in turn links back to a historical ANI post—one that wasn't the least bit convincing to me when I read it for the first time. The administrators have been notified, they can't help but be reminded every time they have to lock an article being warred over. Remsense诉 14:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The ANI post might be historical but the examples in the Reddit post are from 2023-24. My argument is still for the need for expert review of the concerned topics. Adam Harangozó (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

But getting expert attention is more difficult if you remove my notification about this discussion from the WikiProject History talk page. Adam Harangozó (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

It seemed like forum shopping because you noted this post, but did not direct discussion there.

Casting aspersions of a conspiracy without evidence is not acceptable on Wikipedia. There are, as always, biases with individual editors and in articles which may broadly reflect systemic biases. Your conclusion of a concerted review effort targeting specific editors is unacceptable, given your premise has no basis in any evidence. Remsense诉 14:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, one of the mechanical issues IP 2804⸻7F62 mentioned involves the fact that your post has the effect of laundering the absurd claims made in the reddit post. You've simply said a few Hungarian editors are systematically rewriting articles on Romanian history, but the post you have linked uncritically makes numerous unevidenced claims and personal attacks that are totally unacceptable here. This is a big reason why we don't do things off-site. Remsense诉 15:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: I have notified editers mentioned in the Reddit post of this thread, if they wish to comment. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense. Borsoka (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: The original reddit posts cites a historical ANI but otherwise brings many recent examples from 2023-24. My argument is for the need of expert review, to find out if there is indeed a systematic effort to distort history or if this was a false accusation.Adam Harangozó (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Genre warring on Led Zeppelin III

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On February 4, a South Africa-based IP added an unsourced genre to the article for Led Zeppelin III ([214]). After being reverted multiple times, the IP editor added the unsourced genre back ([215][216][217]). On 25 February, I applied for page protection at WP:RPPI ([218]), and Favonian instituted a range block on the IP to prevent further edits to Led Zeppelin III ([219]). A few hours before the block, the IP editor created an account, HighPriestOfSaturn, which the editor has used to continue genre warring ([220][221][222][223][224][225][226]), despite being reverted by myself and Carlinal, and having been warned on his or her talk page by Favonian and FlightTime. Tkbrett (✉) 11:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I improved Led Zeppelin III to GA status, so I'm WP:INVOLVED and won't take any admin action myself. However, this looks like a silly spat over genres in infoboxes. I've dropped a WP:ARBINFOBOX2 contentious topic debate on their talk page and explained why they're wasting their time. So if the disruption continues with snarky edit summaries or comments on the talk page, any uninvolved admin should be free to issue an Arbcom-enforced block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Why does the user Tkbrett continue referring to my genres as unsourced? How many times have I mentioned that the Rolling Stone article is my source and how many times have I explained my position? The user Tkbrett continues to call me a genre warrior, and yet he is behaving in precisely the described manner of a genre warrior: "prefer monolithic labels rather than subtlety, e.g. by reducing one band's output to a single genre, e.g. "Metallica = heavy metal". "

My genre change is not only sourced but is also explained. I have explained that "folk rock" is a large genre, and there is a difference between the straighter varieties of folk such as Bob Dylan, the Mamas and the Papas, Peter Paul and Mary and the spacey, trippy variety of folk such as early David Bowie, Tim Buckley and post-Floyd Syd Barrett.

The Rolling Stone article describes this album as "trippy" folk. Am I lying or not? If not, then why are my changes being reverted without due explanation? Or do we have a misunderstanding over what "trippy" means? HighPriestOfSaturn (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

While the description of the album as "trippy folk" may pass WP:EXPLICITGENRES (I'm not going to be adding it in, though), I do have to comment on this: "I have explained that 'folk rock' is a large genre, and there is a difference between the straighter varieties of folk such as Bob Dylan, the Mamas and the Papas, Peter Paul and Mary and the spacey, trippy variety of folk such as early David Bowie, Tim Buckley and post-Floyd Syd Barrett." To be clear, this seems like original research to me, and does not have any bearing on consensus regarding genres on any article. I don't want to discount all of your points, but the genres in the infobox must be supported by reliable sources -- if all you have is your own analysis, they will be removed. I just wanted to chime in here to explain this. Thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. There is no page for trippy folk, and to say "trippy" means "psychedelic" is original research. The source never uses the word "psychedelic", but it does use "folk rock". As a side note, the editor has [227][228] continued to genre war after this discussion opened. Tkbrett (✉) 15:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked HighPriestOfSaturn for 24 hours for edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm being called an edit warrior when users like @Carlinal are able to revert my changes with no explanation given, then be given a seat on this mock council. And now @Lavalizard101 wants me to be blocked for battleground mentality. I have explained my position, time and time again, using only the facts of the situation. And yet I have had my changes deleted for no reason, I have been banned, I have been told to "let it go", but not a single person has been able to refute my changes in a logical way. So what further avenues are made available to me except to go through all this stuff with all you people? I stand for my changes and I am able to back them up. Unless one of you can provide sound and reasonable counterarguments, I see no reason why my changes should be deleted/reverted. HighPriestOfSaturn (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

𝙄 𝙖𝙢 𝙜𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 𝙢𝙖𝙠𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙡𝙤𝙤𝙠 𝙖𝙨 𝙙𝙞𝙛𝙛𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙖𝙨 𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙗𝙡𝙚, 𝙨𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙩 𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙩 𝙙𝙚𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙫𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙢𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙙𝙧𝙤𝙬𝙣𝙚𝙙 𝙤𝙪𝙩. 𝙏𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙨 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙄 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙢𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙡𝙤𝙜𝙞𝙘 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙣 𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙨𝙚 𝙨𝙤-𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙙𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙨, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙮𝙚𝙩 𝙄 𝙖𝙢 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙝𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙙, 𝙤𝙣𝙡𝙮 𝙨𝙞𝙡𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙡𝙞𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙤, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙡𝙞𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩.

​There is no page for trippy folk, because psychedelic folk in and of itself is, and I quote,: "a loosely defined form of psychedelia" that "retains the largely acoustic instrumentation of folk, but adds musical elements common to psychedelic music" .

This same genre is also known as "acid folk" and "freak folk", amongst other names.

The point of the matter here is that it is NOT straight folk rock, it is literally "trippy" folk, aka spacey folk, aka trip folk, aka freak folk, aka psychedelic folk.

You come with your lies, again and again and again and again, and you hide behind your mob (which I suspect to have some sockpuppetry going on) but yet you will continue to fall flat because you are a LIAR, Tkbrett.

The definition of "trippy", according to Merriam-Webster, is: "of, relating to, or suggestive of a trip on psychedelic drugs or the culture associated with such drugs."

𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐋𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐥𝐞𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐝𝐞, 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐮𝐧𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐬𝐭 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐞. 𝐈 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞. 𝐍𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐝, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐲𝐞𝐭 𝐈 𝐚𝐦 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐝, 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐚 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥. 𝐈 𝐚𝐦 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐝𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬.

So by very definition, in clear, conspicuous and concise wording, YOUR article says that Led Zeppelin III is a trippy folk album. This means that it is an album that, according to the cited reviewer, is folky yes, but has elements that are common to psychedelic (trippy) music.

In other words, back to the original point, it is a psychedelic-sounding album of the folk music category. Or, in shorter words, psychedelic folk. HighPriestOfSaturn (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, this constitutes your own original reasearch, which we cannot use to justify edits. In addition, the above screed is full of personal attacks, which will likely result in your editing privileges being revoked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, if you don't want to have a discussion based on policy, I've listened to both sides of LZ3 about a thousand times, and it's extremely obviously distinct from anything else that people call psychedelic folk. Every single song is either classic rock, blues, acoustic folk or Hats Off To Roy Harper. Sure, it has -- as you say -- "elements that are common to" the psychedelic folk genre. The very simple thing you seem to be deliberately refusing to understand throughout this conversation (instead saying that everyone else is lying) is that a thing having elements in common with a second thing does not make it be that second thing. I am a man who owns more than one guitar; Jimmy Page is a man who owns more than one guitar. Do you see how these two facts fail to prove that I am Jimmy Page? jp×g🗯️ 06:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I, on the other hand JPxG, only own one guitar, a slender little C. F. Martin & Company Backpacker, the guitar that has been to the summit of Mount Everest and to outer space. Cullen328 (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• @Tkbrett: This report should have been made at either WP:ANEW or protection filed at WP:RFPP. While it involves a degree of behavioral infraction, it does not constitute urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems (a minor content dispute over the difficult third acoustic album where they went to Wales and smoked too much weed is none of those things). It is purely a content dispute. ——Serial 15:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, Serial Number 54129. I am sorry, I do not know much about how and where to report stuff like this. After the page protection request at WP:RPPI did not stop the issue, I reported it here because that is the only guidance given at WP:GWAR § In case of dispute. Tkbrett (✉) 15:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  No problem at all Tkbrett, the right result was achieved... and was an opportunity to describe the creation of LZ3 from a different perspective  :) ——Serial 15:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Two good results, I guess you could say. 😉 JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Either I'm late to the party or this got resolved fairly quickly (got unrelated bad sleep regardless). I'm glad this got taken care of, and since I'm part of the warring as well I may as well add a few more noteworthy details and thoughts.

The February edits were not the first from HPOS, with them saying they did similar edits last July (as evidenced) and also was careless about abiding to reliable sources (also here, ignoring WP:MEDIUM). I even reported one of their edits for vandalism thanks to their continuous disruptiveness and stubbornness. I agree with JeffSpaceman's reply completely, in that "trippy folk rock" doesn't mean "psychedelic folk" as it's an adjective to a phrase and not an established label itself, and HPOS's insistent beliefs is original research.

While the 24 hour blocking is fair, I do not believe this will affect their arguments or prevent similar edits in the long run, so I'm still watching out for Led Zeppelin III as a result. Oh well, it's one of my favorite albums to read about and listen to, anyway. Also, you guys keep a GWAR recency report here?! God damn! I'm sorry for any further nuisance this caused. As per Tkbrett's explanations for reporting here, I think the GWAR essay needs an update so things can go in a better favor next time. All in all, thanks again for killing some of the heat. Sorry for killing a kitten. So this is what it's like to love Led Zeppelin, huh... Carlinal (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, I have watchlisted the article in case the editor resumes the genre warring once the block is over. Something tells me this won't just go away... JeffSpaceman (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, the offending editor indicated his or her plans to get right back to reverting once the block expires. Tkbrett (✉) 14:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

If you ask Google what the definition of "trippy folk rock" is, the very first result is Psychedelic folk, the second result is Psychedelic rock and coming in third is Britannica with psychedelic rock. Isn't that a trip it's equated with psychedelic. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Given his response above. I suggest User:HighPriestOfSaturn, be blocked indefinitely for battleground mentality. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, I really wanted to assume good faith, but it sadly seems that the user is not here to build an encyclopedia. An indef is probably the only preventative measure here, unfortunately. I would not be opposed to an unblock if the user agrees to avoid such original research in the future, but as of now, I don't see that happening. Disappointing, but I kind of imagined that this edit warring would resume, given the battleground editing the user has been engaging in. JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

What original research? Everything I say is cited. HighPriestOfSaturn (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

As noted above, trippy folk does not automatically equal psychedelic folk. See WP:EXPLICITGENRES for more information, with particular emphasis on this section: "When classifying music, sources must explicitly attribute the genre to the work or artist as a whole." Partial attributions and synthesized claims are unacceptable and often skirt the edge of the no original research policy. Please stop edit warring, and discuss your changes on the talk page. Similarly, your battleground attitude is unacceptable and goes against WP:NOT. I think a lot of people (myself included) really want you to succeed as editor, but this kind of disruptive editing will result in a block or sanction of some sort. Please stop and get consensus for your changes. JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but WP:EXPLICITGENRES does not work in a genre that is defined as " "a loosely defined form of psychedelia".

Psychedelic folk is a loosely defined offshoot of folk that goes by multiple names, the two additional (but not only) names listed on the Wiki article are also "acid folk" and "freak folk".

Trippy is interchangeable with psychedelic, as by definition it describes states induced by or reminiscent of those experienced under psychedelic drugs. This is not original research, or do you want me to link Merriam-Webster?

I am not edit warring when my changes are sourced. How about those who delete my changes for no reason come and explain here on the talk page? I've reasons, they've not. HighPriestOfSaturn (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

This is not original research Yes it is, as you have been told multiple times, if a source does not explicitly describe an album as "psychedlic folk" we cannot call it that. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

That's because "psychedelic folk" is a loosely defined genre as per its article. Psychedelic folk goes by many names, but is folk music with psychedelic elements. Heady, trippy, elements. Like how this article describes it. HighPriestOfSaturn (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

HighPriestOfSaturn has gone back to edit-warring on Led Zeppelin III. Can an uninvolved admin (as mentioned above, I'm not) partially block them indefinitely from this article, please? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Done by Widr. Should be indeffed full block. They're only here for one thing, and when that one thing is disruptive, we'll get no profit out of them. It's a good example of how sometimes P-blocks just put off the inevitable. ——Serial 16:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Totally agree on a full indef. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

User is now making personal attacks on their talk page, as seen here. Should absolutely be full indef, based on this. WP:NOTHERE. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Crap, I was gonna try and save them by saying that genre-related edits are not taken lightly, and the only way "psychedelic folk" can even begin to be accepted there is if they can provide a (reliable) source proving that "trippy rock" is a common synonym for psychedelic rock and whatnot. Alas, they chose to become the victim of another day.

Since HPOS previously fought under various IPs and only recently had a username, I fear sockpuppetry could arise. Or maybe I'm getting paranoid. Jesus. Carlinal (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

That's possible, but I found no evidence so far--and such genre warriors and Crusaders for Truth are often easily recognized anyway. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

HighPriestOfSaturn, time for indef?

"And guess what? I will come back to this article and change it to the genre it deserves. Month after month, year after year, decade after decade, until the day I die." .

It goes downhill from there.. Zaathras (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

User should absolutely be indeffed. Based on this behavior, a partial block is insufficient, and a full block necessary to prevent disruption. JeffSpaceman (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked HighPriestOfSaturn and the person calling themselves that as not here to improve the encyclopedia but rather to vindictively disrupt it. If the person behind the username is reading this, please be aware that Wikipedia administrators will use all of the many tools at our disposal to prevent genre warring at Led Zeppelin III, as well as any other article that you might fixate on. Please find another hobby. Cullen328 (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Nice but of work, Cullen328, excellent advice elegantly phrased :) ——Serial 12:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lawyer.F

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Lawyer.F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is not WP:NOTHERE and clearly lacks WP:CIR. After being unblocked for promotional username, they have only caused trouble.

Despite being told multiple that they have to cite a WP:RS for their additions/changes [229] [230] [231] [232], they still don't get it. In fact, they kept doubling down on the WP:OR/WP:SYNTH rants in their talk page. To make it even worse, they rejected countless WP:RS because it did not fit their views, such as their last comment [233], where they even randomly made assumptions about my place of education...? "I guess, you have been educated in Iran and have never been educated somewhere else". Now, they are adding their newly created and unsourced category "Qizilbash confederacy states" (whatever that means?) to several articles, even edit warring [234] [235].

To get a better picture of this and how bad it is, I would advise you to read this whole talk page section [236]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Clearly does not meet CIR requirements. Should be blocked to prevent further disruption to the project. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  Also, the category he adds to things ([237]) seems to only be added to by him with 2 added pages. Is there a CSD for categories? I like Astatine (Talk to me) 04:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Lawyer.F for disruptive editing, with a notation that competence is required. Cullen328 (talk) 07:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328! HistoryofIran (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Account deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could you all delete my account Wikirizzler (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Why? Wikirizzler (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Attribution of content. See WP:UNC. Schazjmd (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Wikirizzler: The closest process to account deletion is courtesy vanishing, which will rename your account to something like "Renamed user [random characters]" and delete your user page and subpages. You can then clear your preferences Preferences → User profile → Restore all default preferences (in all sections) and remove your email address Preferences → User profile → Change or remove email address. ~~2NumForIce (^speak|_edits) 18:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Yall gotta approve my courtesy vanish Wikirizzler (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikirizzler, there are people here who can help you achieve what you want, but remember that they are all volunteers, who may not take kindly to being ordered about. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Ghost train" IP

A variety of IP addresses, mostly found within Special:Contributions/2001:BB6:9800:D00:9143:7563:8EF8:15F/64 and most recently (today) User:2001:BB6:9800:D00:8C64:4076:F7CA:F2D8, has been adding nonsensical content about "ghost trains" to various articles, which has had to be reverted for being irrelevant, terribly written, and unsourced every time. I invite you to read Draft:Police train to see their editing capabilities. They've been at it consistently since early February, along with identical edits in January and a few in October 2023. They've accumulated a heap of warnings across the various exact IPs, all of which have been ignored. This editor clearly cannot be reasoned with, and as I cannot see any collateral on this /64, which appears relatively stable, could we block it for at least a month to stop the disruptive edits? I'm coming here rather than AIV as this is persistent behavior across a number of IPs within the /64. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Done, though I chose a slightly longer and more arbitrary block length because I could. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

User contributions for 93.218.55.200 take 2

Previous report ...back as 79.245.112.78. ....same edit summary style. @HJ Mitchell: previous iadminMoxy- 08:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Will need help reverting this.Moxy- 08:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks like only the first edit has an edit conflict, clicking undo on <these> seems perfectly fine.

I'm a bit wary of doing it though, lest I accidentally make it more complicated. – 2804:F14:80E5:6B01:8497:A051:760:1011 (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Well never mind then, further edits changed the title of one of the sections and removed some brackets, so that revert is not possible anymore. – 2804:F1...0E:888D (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Block evasion using IP

Taeisawesome21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2601:14C:8001:ABD0:6063:466F:2423:A6B6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Taeisawesome21 was indefed on Feb 27. The IP began making edits on March 1 to the same pages that Taeisawesome21 favored, and pushing the same previously reverted edits. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Clasus1453

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Clasus1453 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Fail to see how this user is a networth to this site. All their edits have been reverted (mostly by me) and for good reason; they're unsourced and revisionism. Their talk page is also full of warnings (mostly by me).

They have never written a edit summary once, let alone written in a talk page. Back in January they created the revisionistic Category:Ottoman-Azerbaijani wars, adding it to conflicts between the Ottomans and Aq Qoyunlu [238] [239] [240], referring the latter as "Azerbaijani", despite the ethnonym first emerging in 1918 and the Aq Qoyunlu article literally stating that they're Turkoman, not Azeri. After reverting them, I tried to explain this to them at their talk page [241], but it was clearly ignored, as they went on a second time to create Category:Ottoman-Azerbaijani wars after it was speedily deleted for being empty, and after being reverted for that´too, they started edit warring [242] [243] and then created a even more revisionistic category, Category:Azerbaijani-Uzbek wars, this time not only calling the Turkoman Aq Qoyunlu (and Turkoman Qara Qoyunlu) for "Azerbaijani", but now also calling the Turco-Mongol Timurid Empire for "Uzbek" [244] [245] [246].

Bonus; altering sourced information [247]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Clasus1453 made their last edit at 05:22 on 26 February. If they resume editing without responding to this complaint, please let me know. A block should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Will do, thanks EdJohnston! HistoryofIran (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: They have resumed editing by doing more edit warring [248] [249]. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I have partial-blocked them from article space until such time as they agree to communicate and discuss their edits. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! HistoryofIran (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LTA MakaveliReed 2

• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MakaveliReed
• Special:Contributions/2601:240:CD00:0:0:0:0:0/46

Yesterday, I noticed an IP editor who was mass replacing non-abbreviated dates (preferred per MOS:DATERANGE and used in dozens FAs I checked) to abbreviated ones in the infoboxes (and in some cases adding unsourced dates). Upon closer inspection, the IP turned out to be an LTA. Already reported here last month by @Binksternet (thank you!), the IP returned right after the week long block and went on an editing spree. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 00:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is certainly MakaveliReed getting back into the usual disruption. Binksternet (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I’ve renewed the /46 rangeblock, this time for two weeks, doubling the previous block. I noticed some lengthy /44 blocks in the history, which expired in December, but that was for a different matter. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

User vandalising other's pages with porn-related userboxes.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Squazyzilla added these userboxes to my page, then the same to another user's talk page. Not sure if compromised account or just gone WP:NOTHERE, but not great either way. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 23:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Indef'ed by User:Aoidh. I agree it seems out of character from their edit-history, but whatever...blocks are preventative, and all that. DMacks (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Given the concern above I ran a check on the account, and there's no indication from the result that the account is compromised. - Aoidh (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, peculiar. Cheers for handling it. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 00:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I also had a look. This is probably a sock of Drhunterhamilton21, who seems to have a predilection for US politics, weed, and userpage vandalism. Spicy (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated unexplained addition of Arabic-like scripts by IP address 180.75.238.55 in multiple Penang-related articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Calling for urgent intervention on IP address 180.75.238.55 persistently making unexplained additions of Arabic-like scripts without WP:ES, despite multiple warnings and attempts to start discussion on their talk page, with zero response from said address. 1 2 3 4 hundenvonPG (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

first of all, those are not arabic script, those are jawi script which was used to write malay language in malaysia for many centuries. i cannot understand how you can tolerate tamil and chinese scripts while native malay jawi script is considered vandalism? Jawi is the only writing system besides latin to have status in Malaysia so if you don't know the history of Malaysia better be quiet! 180.75.238.55 (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@HundenvonPenang: I don't see anything "unexplained" here. The user simply added names in different script, and indicated it as Jawi script. If you think the text should be removed, please, try to reach consensus with other editors. Do not use ANI for content disputes. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Vanjagenije, that does not excuse IP address's persistently avoiding discussions on their talk page and making unexplained additions with zero WP:ES. Said IP address' aggressive response above says it all. hundenvonPG (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I have explained it, Jawi script is a native script of Malaysia. Don't be a racist. 180.75.238.55 (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Final warning given to this IP. Next step will be a block on editing Wikipedia. Deb (talk) 12:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Putting Jawi script is considered vandalism? How is that so? I have made an explanation and you don't want to read it? 180.75.238.55 (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Mandarin, Hokkien and Tamil are not indigenous nor regional nor official languages of Malaysia but there is no restriction for them to put their writing on Malaysian town names which is not even Chinese nor Tamil in origin. 180.75.238.55 (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Refer to your own talk page. Multiple times, I had requested you to show proof that Jawi has official status in Penang. You not only ignored them, you proceeded to add scripts wholesale and then accuse me of racism? "Better be quiet"?

Classic example of treating WP as a battleground and accusing others in bad faith.

Not even an effort to reach WP:CON, yet said IP address is pushing their edits all over, then "asking permission"? hundenvonPG (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Need a rangeblock for Oregon IPs

• 5.78.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone from the western suburbs of Portland, Oregon, US, has been repeatedly vandalizing music articles. The most recent effort is from the last four days at Special:Contributions/5.78.0.0/16. Every single edit in this range has been vandalism since March 1, so no worries about collateral damage. Some of the IPs in this range have already been blocked by Ohnoitsjamie, including Special:Contributions/5.78.61.251 (one month), Special:Contributions/5.78.62.210 (one month), and Special:Contributions/5.78.63.193 (one week).

Please block Special:Contributions/5.78.0.0/16 for at least a month. Thanks in advance! Binksternet (talk) 09:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Given that this IP (according to WHOIS) seems to belong to Hetzner, a provider of web host and colocation services, and that this IP range has been blocked as a colocation webhost before (2 year block in Feb 2022), I've filed a block request over at the open proxies Wikiproject. — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. Hopefully that will give the open proxy folk time to take a look. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

CPPConstruct

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@CPPConstruct seems to be an obvious sockpuppet of blocked user @WaseemAbbaass, who also has another blocked sockpuppet named @DaDefeender.

The sockpuppet investigation can be found here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WaseemAbbaass

If you look at CPPConstruct’s contributions, he goes onto my profile the first day his account is made, (which is only 3 days old and only boasts around 11 edits) and asks me to let him do his changes (which are the exact same changes of WaseemAbbaass and DaDefeender). It’s so painfully obvious, he is now vandalising pages such as the ISPR one.

Here is only ONE example where his disruptive editing matches the disruptive edit of, where he removed controversies despite not taking it to the talk page.

CPPConstruct: 1

WaseemAbbaass: 2 VirtualVagabond (talk) 08:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

CPPConstruct and DeDefeender (WaseemAbbaass’ sockpuppet) also have an obsession with removing the “green entertainment” part of the page.

CPPConstruct: [1]

DaDefeender: [2] VirtualVagabond (talk) 08:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism and hostile behavior from Rocketman777 and Yellowboy7

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

My talk page was recently vandalized by User:Rocketman771 (diff) after they had a contrary opinion to mine in a discussion at Talk:Tornadoes of 2024/Archive 1#New Model for main tornado article: 2024 suggested changes and improvements. In that discussion, the same user was engaging in personal attacks by calling me a coward for disengaging (diff) and based on perceived national identity. I'm not sure what sort of action is appropriate in this situation.

Following asking for admin help on my talk page, I recieved similar vandalism from (diff) from User:Yellowboy7. Seems like possible sock puppetry which I will take to WP:SPI shortly. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 18:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Don't bother with the SPI.  Confirmed and will block. Courcelles (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Both blocked and tagged. Within the checkuser window, those two are the only once I can see. Courcelles (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response and resolution! DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 18:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TPA revocation of blocked user Hegazeebot

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please revoke TPA. Making personal attacks (including homophobic ones). —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 03:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

It appears User:Malcolmxl5 took care of it a minute before I posted this. Thanks! —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 03:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Asparagusus. Yes, Untamed1910 dropped a note on my talk page. Keep an eye on the IP too please. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

COI and CIR

• Ahmed brens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hakawi News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Abdel Nasser Abdel Fattah Mohamed Hassan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Misleading articles in bad English about a non-notable Wordpress website and its owner, by editor recently banned from Commons for participation in a cross-project promotion about these two entities. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Good morning, my article is about the spread of knowledge, sports, news sites, website owners, company owners, and businessmen. Goodbye, have a nice day.

(Ahmed brens (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC))

The abuse report at Commons is at this link (dated 29 February 2024). The editors who worked on this problem at Commons are User:HouseOfChange and User:TheAafi. EdJohnston (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Obvious  Looks like a duck to me, given how their contributions transect with each other. Their logs at Commons are pretty much evident of this. There's one more player in this: Maryam AlAkini, whose spam uploads were mostly nuked by Pi.1415926535. Ahmed brens asked for an unblock twice on Commons which was declined. ─ Aafī (talk) 07:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Hoaxes going on. I took care of the articles, will let someone else connect dots and issue blocks if needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  The user CIR issue is also important, as AB continues to create articles with no indication of notability. The Sky News articles may be part of a continued promotional work with कटासमुला (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Katasmula, now blocked at Commons for a leading role in the Abdel Nasser hoax). Katasmula also has an interesting Wikimedia page, apparently copying affiliations and conference images from another user. The Meta userpage history shows Katasmula considered also describing himself as a Wikipedia employee but decided against it. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• I have to go out for the day so can't examine more closely, but would ask another admin to finish cleaning up this mess. My guess is that a block is needed and a lot of articles need CSD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

209.214.83.194

209.214.83.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – requires revocation of talk page access. Remsense诉 01:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk page access removed for the duration of the block. Cullen328 (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Personal Info on Page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Looks like a user added their contact info to this page in an effort to contact the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sandy_Stimpson#Old_fire_department_equipment 71.38.43.164 (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the post.-Gadfium (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, anyone could have done that. Was hoping an administrator would delete it permanently instead if just rollback/undo. 71.38.43.164 (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Please don't bring notice to said information in public, it tends to cause people to become curious and go see what it is – the recommended way of handling/reporting personal information is detailed at requests for oversight. The Oversight Team deals with exactly this sort of thing (as a member has done since). – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:D4DC:46FF:5933:EF85 (talk) 07:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Also there is a very large red notice when you are starting a discussion in this board that gives much the same instructions: This Large Notice

Perhaps the second title could be more something like "Private Information, Libel or Defamation" instead of "Oversight and revision-deletion"? I'm not sure if that would help, but you're not the first to have come here to report something like this, despite said large notice. – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:D4DC:46FF:5933:EF85 (talk) 08:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Zanahary (talk) 09:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

"Oversight and revision-deletion" means nothing to most people. The heading would be more useful if it followed WP:COMMONALITY. Private information, libel, defamation or legal actions would be much better. Other wikijargon there, such as "diffs" and "suppression action", could do with linking. Bazza 7 (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I too agree. In particular, "oversight" has a variety of common meanings none of which really conveys the purpose of WP:OVERSIGHT. That word in the template can only confuse or mislead concerned newbies who are trying to be helpful. (I was already pretty experienced the first time I came across oversightable material, and knew enough to dig out the relevant email addy and to not post anywhere public.) Narky Blert (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2A00:23C5:1B03:5301:2804:35AB:1A12:F4BA

Ip disruptive editing and vandalism, editor is added unnecessary spaces, change words, repeatedly changing format on several Thomas episode pages.Magical Golden Whip (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Magical Golden Whip,

Unless you provide diffs/edits of the content changes you are concerned about, it's unlikely that anyone will take action on your complaint. Be specific and demonstrate what edits are inappropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Dilemma

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I recently shared a blog post I had written to a relevant subreddit. I've posted to this subreddit a few times and got good responses.My most recent post had a response on it when I checked it in the morning (I usually post just before I go to sleep) that insinuated I had engaged in some kind of vote manipulation due to how well the post had been performing in terms of upvotes and the lack of any other comments at the time of their comment.The post has since received more comments that are responses to the actual blog post. However, the accusatory comment has received some amount of support and is the second most upvoted comment (which means it will feature fairly prominently when people view the reddit comments), beating out relevant comments.I found it unfortunate that this comment would be waiting there for all the other people who came to comment on the post so I wanted to respond to it .The problem I had was that I can't prove that I didn't engage in vote manipulation. It would benefit me to do so as it would get more people looking at my post and aware of who I am (or so the hypothetical reasoning could go). Additionally, if I tried to defend myself against the claim I would only make myself seem more suspicious. I also don't want to leave the comment unanswered as I believe it gives the wrong idea about not only my character, but also the quality of the blog post I shared (since I didn't do any vote manipulation it would appear that it is doing well on its own merits!). So how could I respond to such an unfalsifiable claim without seeming suspiciously defensive and maintaining a good face?Note that there aren't any ads on my blog site and the content is all free. I was also surprised at how well the post performed, most of my other posts didn't do quite so well so I can understand it looking like a suspicious outlier. Holland trip (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello there, Holland trip. Can you please explain, concisely if possible, why you are discussing Reddit and blogs at this Wikipedia noticeboard? Neither Reddit nor 99% of blogs are reliable sources on Wikipedia, and administrators care nothing about the massive amounts of foolishness that crawl across the internet like a fungal infection. We are writing an encyclopedia here instead. Cullen328 (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328, If you look through the edit log, this is another probable LTA account ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 07:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

That the 4/5th account that has vandalised this page over the past hour. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Holland trip as obviously not here to build this encyclopedia. If any sockpuppet detectives want to work on this, please feel free. Cullen328 (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Cheers. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 07:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And they've all been created back in 2016-2017. I've lodged a sock puppet investigation under the name of the oldest of them. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

That's a long sleep, Daveosaurus. Approaching 1/3 of Rip Van Winkle's nap. Cullen328 (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The sock investigation is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Home-made goodiness if anyone wants to add names of any more sleepers overnight (it's getting late in my time zone). Daveosaurus (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

More auto-confirmed socks have disrupted ANI. They have been blocked. In worst case, if it keeps up, ANI would have to ECP to stop auto-confirmed socks, but it would prevent good-faith auto-confirmed users from defending themselves. --Stylez995 (talk) 10:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Erbmjha2 NOTHERE

Erbmjha2 (talk · contribs · count) has been editing since last November, making a total of 24 edits. In that short time, they've managed to amass several warnings, including three level-4 warnings, and a block. Today they repeated[250] an edit of theirs that was reverted with a level-4 warning 12 days ago[251]. With only one of their 24 edits possibly regarded as constructive, the user is now wasting too much of other editors' time. May I suggest a sanction per NOTHERE? — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

what are u saying,almost all my edits are constructive.You seem not to know any sanskrit and is commenting.ask any person how is kumari कुमारी written in devnaagri and what it means in sanskrit.I added meaning of names in vishnu sahastranam and you are saying it non constructive.

Harivarasanam is in pure sanskrit,ask any sanskrit knower

You are multipletime reverting mine without proper explaination Erbmjha2 (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Erbmjha2 is someone who has made 27 edits to Wikipedia and 2 to Commons. He/she got a three-day block in December for persistent removal of sourced article content, with no explanation apart from the fact that you don't like it, and no attempt to respond to messages from other editors beyond telling them that you know best.^[252] He/she has had quite a few warnings on his/her talk page since then.

I suspect that the problem is one of competence.

• In this edit on 3 March he/she deleted a big chunk of cited text from the article on Varanasi. He/she never thought to provide an edit summary. It got reverted, and the editor who reverted it (1) explained why it was reverted in the edit summary, and (2) left some guidance and a warning on User talk:Erbmjha2.
• In this edit on 5 March he/she deleted cited text in some places, and added a thousand-line long table, some cited text, and some uncited text. He did leave an edit summary: better; that gave no clue as to what the edit was, or why it had been made. The editor who reverted this edit left a more useful edit summary, saying that the edit Deleted a lot of useful info.

I do not understand why Erbmjha2 is complaining that people revert his/her edits without explanation. It would be more truthful to say that Erbmjha2 makes his edits without explanation, but they get deleted by people who say why they reverted Erbmjha2's edit.

Suggest a two-week block.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Erbmjha2 By saying that they should ask any "Sanskrit knower", that's essentially considered original research. You need reliable, independent sources from websites that can be trusted. Also, based on my check of your edit, you also seemed to write "List of 1,000 names of Lord Vishnu" in the short description. While that may seem like a good idea on paper, the Vishnu Sahasranama is a hymn and not some guide of how people can chant. Finally, you also removed sourced content without proper explanation. @Kashmiri and @Toddy1, I can certainly agree with your decision. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

why block,its too harsh

I want to do constructive edits only Erbmjha2 (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Erbmjha2 Then you need to seek out a mentor to guide you. You wouldn't be at this discussion board if your edits to this point were all constructive. —C.Fred (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

That might be what you want to do, but it's not what you are doing. The fact that you don't recognize that is why I have now blocked you: to prevent your continued disruptive effect regardless of your motivation. DMacks (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Jadidjw

Jadidjw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi again ANI. This has been ongoing for too long, the WP:GF and WP:ROPE has run out for me. Jadidjw has been doing this type of stuff since 2021 (the same year they first started editing), as seen in this ANI report where they got blocked for 72 hours [253].

In July 2023, I made a SPI [254] of Jadidjw because their conduct was extremely similar to that of a sock, which includes WP:CIR and attempts to minimize the (sourced) Mongol aspect of the Hazara.

A half year later, they are still doing the same, removing sourced information at Hazaras [255] [256] [257] [258] [259] [260]. Apparently the reason behind some of these edits (probably all of them tbh) is because it clashes with their opinion, as they literally demonstrated in this recent talk section [261].

Right now, they are currently edit warring to have their way at Hazaras [262] [263] [264], which is not the first time. They already got blocked for a month for violating 3RR in that article during their attempts to minimize the Mongol aspect [265]. They are also being dishonest (not the first time, see the SPI), claiming that there was some previous consensus for this massive removal of sourced info [266] - which there wasn't.

At Sheikh Ali (Hazara tribe), they randomly manually reverted me to restored an unsourced edit of a sock [267], pretty strange. Based on this, I don't think they are networth to this site, at least not in Hazara related articles, but that's where all their edits are. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

What I see is an editor who has been disruptive for yours, and has received a 72 hour block, a two week block and a one month block. And yet their disruption continues. I have indefinitely blocked Jadidjw. Cullen328 (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen! HistoryofIran (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

LordRockall/HOUNDING/NOTHERE

• LordRockall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I had the temerity to query the reliability/independence/accuracy of some of the sources used, by LordRockall, at Talk:Baron of Tirawley. And tag some of the other sources as failing verification. And, the issues not being addressed, to open a related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron of Tirawley. The editor appears to have taken offence - to the extent of trawling through a range of my edits (including to my user page, user Talk archives, sandbox and other User namespace pages) to tendentiously revert a volume of changes. See (just as an example): [268][269][270]. Note, in particular, the "threat" in this EDSUM [271]. I might please ask if someone could review (and take action as needed). Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/LordRockall shows explicit WP:HARASSMENT of Guliolopez. LordRockall needs to be stopped. Schazjmd (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

This is plain an editor on the attack against Guliolopez. The Banner talk 17:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what games they are playing, but they sent a wikilove of a pie to Guliolopez with a message that seems to be WP:PA. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 17:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Bullshit like this is textbook harassment. From a 100 edit account, the introduction to the door was the only real choice for me. Indeffed. Courcelles (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

This gets stranger... I found their sockpuppets BaronOfIrrus (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and TirawleyHistory (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). That last account made this edit. Blocked the socks. Courcelles (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Courcelles. In honesty, the user behind those profiles was likely just seeking a block in the end. I had anticipated, if/when LordRockall was blocked, that the user would shift to the other connected profiles. Including those you mention. Which QUAKEDed away from the start. While I was steeled for that eventuality, and prepared to move to SPI in that event, I appreciate that it has now been preempted. A bridge further than I'd hoped. Much appreciated Courcelles. (And thanks also to the other non-admin contributors for their support/input/etc). Thanks again. Guliolopez (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Guliolopez Just for (hopefully unnecessary) future reference, if you know someone is using multiple accounts and are filing an issue like this, please bring up all the sockpuppets to begin with. Makes it a lot easier to get the full picture. Courcelles (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Will do. A very fair point/comment. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Burma moves

MM abc.xyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Making a mess doing undiscussed moves and renames against consensus, such that Burmese language is currently sitting at Template:Myanmar language because they couldn't delete the redirect. Help! Remsense诉 17:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we can safely assume this is a new account for MmRebot (talk · contribs). However, that account was soft-blocked, so it's not block evasion. I moved the page back to article space under its previous title since there's been an objection here. A requested move seems like the most useful next step if MM abc.xyz still wants to move the page. It looks like the process has been explained on User talk:MM abc.xyz. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Remsense诉 18:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

What is soft-blocking? Zanahary (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:SOFTBLOCK. – 2804:F14:80C2:4F01:854E:D615:43E6:D3ED (talk) 03:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Problem

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User Robinvp11 on the page of The Seven Years War has removed lots of belligerents who he claims are not involved, but does not cite any sources. Á lot of important material has been removed, for example, how it is called the first world war, and a quote by Winston Churchill has been removed because he claims he is a “bad historian” and resulting in lots of opiantented editing. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• You should have notified Robinvp11 of this, which I have done. This is all premature since there has been little discussion on the article talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  I did notify him, but you’re right, more disscussion should of been on the takk page. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  No, what Kansas Bear meant is that you need to notify users that you have opened a discussion on this board that involves them. It says so in the red notice at the top of the page and in the yellow notice when you edit this page.. – 2804:F14:80C2:4F01:854E:D615:43E6:D3ED (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)*03:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  I told Blackmamba31248 that go to ANI. Sorry for my ignorance. --호로조 (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why this has been raised as an ANI, given Blackmamba simply reversed all my edits. What's the issue? However...

(1) Having a go at me when I'm not the person who introduced major changes to a stable article without discussion seems odd.

(2) Infobox; the basic problem here (which has been discussed in enormous detail elsewhere) is lack of understanding as to what constitutes a Belligerent. It is formal, legal, phrase which Wikipedia helpfully defines.

The Infobox was relatively stable until recent additions. If you look at the TP, various other editors have expressed concern - so far, Blackmamba's response has been to tell us we're wrong.

(3) I removed the Churchill quote because the original wording says "Churchill argued it was the first "World War", but no one else agrees and there are other candidates. So how it that useful to the general reader?

I have invited a couple of other editors to comment. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I will happily abide by the consensus, and I assume Blackmamba will do the same.

@Johnbod: @DavidDijkgraaf: @호로조: @Remsense: Please feel free to comment, and/or invite others to do so. This is a major article which needs considerable work. Robinvp11 (talk) 06:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, all I'm really seeing on the talk page (permanent link) is Blackmamba31248 introducing material against the advice of other editors. I don't think what's happened here really rises to the level of urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. I suppose Blackmamba31248 may be due a WP:BOOMERANG for a misuse of ANI (seemingly to stifle other editors' behavior)? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 07:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing on Heiner Rindermann

I have made repeated requests on Talk:Heiner_Rindermann and WP:BLPN, and engaged in voluminous correspondence on these pages, to try to reach a consensus edit on Heiner_Rindermann. The current edit contains innuendo suggesting that Rindermann is racist and that his academic output is pseudoscience. The references provided do not substantiate these statements. I consider the content to violate the conventions of WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH and have tried on several occasions to edit the page, and to add quality tags. The Rindermann bio touches on the Race and intelligence controversy, and as such is potentially contentious.

In spite of attempts at dialog on Talk:Heiner_Rindermann and User_talk:Generalrelative, my edits have been repeatedly reverted[272][273][274][275] without further discussion by User:Generalrelative. This behaviour is in itself suggestive of WP:OWNership, but User:Generalrelative has also made repeated references to a 'consensus'[276][277] that does not exist, and happens to align with the editor's own view. In the last of these reversions, User:Generalrelative named me as an WP:SPA. This is an WP:ASPERSION, and factually incorrect: I have 5000 edits over the last four years on a variety of topics. (See Special:Contributions/Nangaf)

User:Generalrelative is also accusing me of WP:PROXYING for a banned user.[278] It is true that I was canvassed to edit Heiner Rindermann, but I don't see why this means that all of my edits should be rejected out of hand by someone who is not themself an admin. Perhaps User:Generalrelative is right and I am wrong: I will accept a third party judgment on that. But it strikes me as high-handed behaviour, and an assumption of bad faith.

In any case I don't think it will be possible to reach a consensus edit on Heiner_Rindermann until User:Generalrelative desists from what appears to me an impolite and unconstructive pattern of behaviour, and would like some kind of intervention to assist in reaching that goal.

I have also raised the issue on WP:DRN, but don't see much hope that mediation can resolve the issue while this particular individual apparently refuses to participate in any kind of constructive editing. Nangaf (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• 2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This appears to be originating from at least one banned editor. The IP which prompted this by starting User talk:Nangaf#Original synthesis is topic-banned from race and intelligence, specifically because of past behavior like this. The IP has, yet again, politely contacted a sympathetic editor and encouraged them to make edits based on misinformation or outright lies. The IP user was previously evasive about their identity and reasons for editing with an IP, and gave contradictory information. The IP's denial on Nangaf's talk page is utterly implausible. There is no doubt, based on these comments, that the IP editor is the same as topic banned one. They write in the same florid style, they specifically discuss Rindermann, they post to user talk pages and not articles or article talk pages, and they edit from the same range which was was previously blocked from editing Talk:Race_and_intelligence due to the exact same brand of disruption.

The end result of this request, just like past requests, is to sanitize the reputation of an individual member of a walled garden of fringe race scientists associated with Mankind Quarterly.

The most recent discussion of this IP's behavior I could easily find was here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1069#Another t-ban violation by IP 2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 from 2021. I suspect there are more recent ones. Grayfell (talk) 07:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Grayfell is entirely correct about the t-banned /40. Johnuniq recently blocked a /44 within that range for precisely these interactions with Nangaf we're discussing here (see this comment). A more recent ANI discussion of this IP user (from June 2022) is here. It was followed up here (in December 2022) resulting in the IP's first long rangeblock. Generalrelative (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

From reviewing the the article and the talk page, I think both bear out Grayfell's and Generalrelative's assessments. WP:BLP certainly calls for careful consideration of content, but the main problem I see is an IP editor trying to project through someone else to suppress information about Rindermann's activities. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• (ec) Just a bit of context for now. This dispute began when I pointed out to Nangaf that they'd been enlisted by a topic-banned IP user (here). I was honestly surprised when they reacted so harshly (here). They continued to ratchet up the hostility (here) when the banned IP user was again reverted by Johnuniq. And when Johnuniq responded with a very even-handed reply, they WP:POINTedly did this, for which they received a warning from ScottishFinnishRadish. Nangaf's reply to that warning was this. Against that backdrop, four experienced users (including me) have explained on the article talk page why Nangaf's interpretation of policy is incorrect. This user appeared to be ready to drop the stick until an SPA called Mr_Butterbur showed up at BLPN to voice support for them. A quick glance through this Mr_Butterbur's contribs shows all the signs of a serial meatpuppet. That's the SPA I was referring to in my edit summary, not Nangaf, though I see now that I could have made that clearer. Generalrelative (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  You're not an admin, you don't get to decide who is a sock. I don't accept your explanation. Nangaf (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

At first glance, the controversial section appears to be sourced, and isn't directly calling him racist. It is a short paragraph that notes his affiliation with groups that are considered racist by other sources. That doesn't guarantee it gets included, but it does provide a reasonable rationale for inclusion, which might be why it has been the status quo for some time. Whether or not the sources are adequate isn't an issue for ANI. As the other editors involved appear to be acting in good faith, I don't yet see a behavior issue.

The problem here is that you have already shopped this at WP:BLPN and WP:DRN and now here, and the discussion on the talk page seems to have been tainted by canvassing [279] by an IP, which is suspicious in itself. You keep taking bites of this apple rather than continue the discussion at the other venues, which raises more issue with your behavior than anyone else's. The best thing you can do is continue the discussion at BLPN, as at the core, this is a content issue more than behavior, and BLPN is the right venue. So far, ONE editor there has agreed with you, best to let the discussion continue to develop. Best to leave the article with the status quo and develop a consensus (or not) at BLPN before changing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

That is exactly what I have been trying to do, but it is plain to see that User:Generalrelative is intent on wikilawyering to disqualify me out of hand, rather than discussing the detail of any particular edit. As for shopping it around, I have been fairly patient -- this has been going on for weeks already, and I honestly don't think I had much alternative to escalation in this instance. Every time I have tried to engage Generalrelative to discuss the actual content of the article, I get an accusation of bad faith editing in response, so ANI seems to be about the only place to adjudicate this. Nangaf (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, you are wasting time, since ANI doesn't decide content. And by the way, what is with the bizarre behavior on Johnuniq's talk page? Demanding he doesn't do his job for deleting a LTA's comments on your page, then you go and delete HIS calm reply on his very own talk page? That kind of behavior doesn't give me faith you are rationally trying to cooperate in a collegiate way here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

That was pointy, I'll admit.

I give up on Heiner Rindermann. I think it's a bad page and smears him by association, but if admins don't see it, I guess it stays and Wikipedia is the worse for it. Nangaf (talk) 07:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to let some time pass before continuing. There are two issues: the article and encouragement of a topic-banned IP. You won't get much support on the former while the latter is fresh. If you do take it further, please do not talk about other editors. Follow WP:DR although a dispute-resolution discussion will not achieve anything in a contentious topic so I would skip that. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I thought this was a pretty obvious BLP violation, I'm honestly surprised at the pushback. I guess that's the way with contentious topics.

Sorry about the pointy edit on your page, I was pretty frustrated at that point. Nangaf (talk) 07:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

This is why I said BLPN is the right venue. Keep it there, be patient. Don't reply to everything the moment someone comments, just let the consensus form naturally. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

There is being patient, and there is participating in a war of attrition. This is feels like the latter, so I am out. Nangaf (talk) 07:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Suspicious username

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not to be a heartless cynic, but is it allowed to have a username purportedly representing the victims of a major disaster? This newly-created account [[280]]'s first edit appears to be inserting their name into a section of 2024 Valencia residential complex fire involving the Grenfell Tower fire to which their account is named. See this edit [[281]] Borgenland (talk) 12:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re Sandhill dunnart

Hello,

I've just spent the day adding my research to the sandhill dunnart page (Sandhill dunnart).

Someone has just deleted it all.

There are obviously some issues with this person as my research has been peer reviewed and published. I uploaded the references. They were also deleted.

In the interest of publishing current science can you please revert it to my version.

Warm regards,

Dr Joanna Riley Dr Joanna Riley (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Dr Riley, this is a content dispute which should be discussed at Talk:Sandhill dunnart. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

We do not accept self-promotion. Your edits were to add information from papers that you wrote; that falls under the self-promotion banner. If your papers are sound, then otheres will find them and add the information to the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I recommend continuing discussion at Talk:Sandhill dunnart where I have initiated a discussion. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

HotArticlesBot stopped running

HotArticlesBot, which builds lists of the most edited articles in each wikiproject, normally runs at 2:45am ET every night but last night did not run. I reported it to an operator very early this morning, but there hasn't been a response yet. This isn't a very critical bot, but wikiprojects use the results. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I know the template says to report malfunctioning bots to ANI, but I think that's intended for if the bot is making bad edits (because then admins can block it).

I'm not sure if anyone except the operator can even restart it, the "emergency bot shutoff button" is just a quick link for an admin to block it.

Perhaps ask at WP:VPT? – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:D4DC:46FF:5933:EF85 (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Silly me for following instructions. :) OK, I guess you're right. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, ANI can handle bots making actively bad edits, and likely a good place to let admins know if a critical maintenance bot is down like an anti-vandal bot. But for this, yeah, nothing an administrator can do to help this situation, or needs to do differently because of it. Courcelles (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

• Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Edit wars seem pretty commonplace there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I have fully protected the article [282]. Though marked as indefinite, I will reduce the protection back to the prior existing indefinite ECP in three days. I've logged the protection as this is a contentious topic, per WP:ARBIPA [283]. I have placed a general warning on the article's talk page, pinging all potentially involved editors. See Talk:Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh#Article_fully_protected. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Hammersoft, you effected the full protection immediately after an editor reverted the article to reintroduce recent, contested changes that do not have consensus, an edit which removes a WP:STABLE section of the article that has been in the lead, in one form or another, for at least half a decade. I have no qualms with the edit protection and in fact think it is eminently helpful, but don't the WP:STABLE guidelines suggest that you should protect the, well, stable version? Full disclosure: I initially personally effected a number of reverts to this article, but completely desisted from continuing to do so, regardless of the activity of other editors, a couple days ago. Brusquedandelion (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It isn't for me to decide what is and is not valid content in this dispute. The point was to stop the disruption, which has been stopped (at least for now). If you disagree with the content of the article as it now stands, discussion is that way ->. The article will be reduced in protection in three days. If some administrator wants to reinstate an earlier version through the protection, they are welcome to do so as far as I'm concerned. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Nycarchitecture212 is deleting mainstream scholarship about Judaism

Nycarchitecture212 has been warned about deleting information from the articles ([284], [285], and [286]). Then they removed again mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP about Judaism at Ahab ([287], [288], and [289]). I get a feeling that they are only here in order to delete mainstream academic knowledge which they find offensive to their own religion. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I was warned by the person who posted this here. Look what he wrote here describing his ax to grind with Jews on a thread where I was having an academic discussion with zero extraordinary claims: "The POV of Orthodox Jews upon early Judaism is to a large extent void currency... Despite your protestations, it is clear that both these groups promote cult pseudohistory. I do have an ax to grind against pseudohistory, especially against fundamentalist pseudohistory."

I am here to write articles about architecture in New York City and Judaism, as I've had in my bio as always, including articles such as Vilna Goan, etc. Having a focus on Jewish articles is not incriminating or inappropriate by any means. I think my contributions to those articles are valid and I did not do the things he is accusing me of.

There is no edit warring going on on any of my active articles. My edits had detailed comments for context, made sense and were in good faith, and I'm currently on a few talk pages making progress with other users on contributions to articles. If I make mistakes, I own up to them and learn, as a new editor learning conventions on Wikipedia. I didn't think making edits with comments was worthy of a warning before from him, and I don't think starting a talk page discussion about the section on Judaism warrents being warned here by him either. You can read the post yourself he is complaining about here in Talk:Abrahamic religions which he responded to by coming here a minute after to complain about it instead of discussing on the talk page.

I have a strong background in Jewish scholarship and I've been always willing to talk things out on talk pages, of which this user is involved in a few articles I am contributing to. Of course if I come accross blatant Jew hatred online I will update it. For example, I removed some nasty thing about pigs and blood Ahab#DeathofAhab from the Ahab page and he reverted it back. Can an admin please help me out?

I think this man works for a Christian missionary organization and I don't know his motives but I notice a pattern that he and another user named VenusFeuerFall seem to be involved with a lot of the same pages doing the same things. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

"his ax to grind with Jews"—if you do provide evidence that I'm antisemitic, then I should get banned. But if you fail to do so, you should get banned for WP:ASPERSIONS. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Don't reduce my argument to something that simplistic. Let admins read what I wrote without you contextualizing it. Stop talking to me please. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, it sounds highly implausible that a Christian missionary would write something like Except for the bytdwd inscription, there is no attestation for David, independent of the Bible. Instead, there is a lot of evidence that David did not really had a kingdom worthy of the name kingdom. If you mean that he ruled over a loose confederation of tribes, then I might agree. ([290]). tgeorgescu (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

And VenusFeuerFalle is doing the same things, namely spreading mainstream academic knowledge through Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

FYI, I have no ax to grind against the civil and political rights of Orthodox Jews. It is just that their views upon early Judaism have been debunked by mainstream history and mainstream archaeology. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, that wasn't a deeply subtle remark. You were calling him antisemitic. Remsense诉 07:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

"Jewish scholarship and I've been always willing to talk things out on talk pages"

Okay, and why did you not went to the talkpage before deleting mainstream scientific consensus? You should be aware that the consensus is in history then. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Their previous deletion of WP:SCHOLARSHIP about Judaism was [291]. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I already said that was a mistake, and am a new user learning Wikipedia conventions; I thought writing a comment with explanation on the edit was enough, and didn't realize I need to go to the talk page to make longer edits like that. As a result, I am more involved on the talk pages now and haven't done that since. I will not repeat my points I made. I should be able to defend myself without you injecting a response to everything I say. I don't want to talk to you anymore.

Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, before you got warned, it was a honest mistake. But after you got warned, it wasn't. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

What you wrote doesn't even make sense. Just stop writing to me please and replying to everything I write. I should be able to defend myself without you contextualizing every single thing I write. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Your demands that I should not reply here are void by default. This is not your own talk page, it is a public noticeboard. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

"new user learning Wikipedia conventions" did you not say that you have always been willing to talk on the user-page? A claim which implies some experience with Wikipedia. How do these two things can be reconciled? Please do not track me into this awful accusations any further. and make yourself familiar with the Wikipedia policies. However, if your goal is promoting religious views, I recommand to write a blog or something. Alternatively, there are experienced Users always willing to help when they have time. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

My opinion as an uninvolved observer:

I agree that their first deletion of content was problematic, but I'm less convinced about those others, because the sourcing for them is really not great. I also think that the "In Rabbinic literature" section of the same page is a total mess and that this dispute feels very much like bikeshedding given that. Loki (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Yup, agree upon what are now links 62 and 63. But I disagree about 61. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Solution: I suggest that they receive a warning from an admin that they are not allowed to remove WP:SCHOLARSHIP because they think that mainstream history and mainstream Bible scholarship are Christian plots against Judaism. Why else would they say that I seek to convert Jews to Christianity? They think that I talk like a Christian professor from a theological seminary. Priests or pastors would not talk like that, but professors would. Priests or pastors usually abide by "What's learned at seminary stays at seminary." tgeorgescu (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Nycarchitecture212 received a page block from User:Bishonen for Long-term edit warring, violations of neutral point of view, filibustering, and generally wasting other editors' time. See also [292] after a report by User:ScottishFinnishRadish Doug Weller talk 08:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not anti-Jewish, I'm anti-pseudohistory. But asking them to understand this difference could shatter their worldview. So, their natural reaction is to fight against understanding it. Or, as Bart Ehrman has put it, "On one level I suppose for the same reason that most hobbits who have never left the Shire tend to think that everyone in the world is about three feet tall. They don’t have a wider experience of the world, for example by taking a trip to Gondor or Mordor." Hint: he does not literally mean geography, it's just a metaphor. Source: [293]. Nycarchitecture212 finds that the findings of mainstream Bible scholars are alien to their worldview. And, I do confess, for someone who has never read a book of mainstream Bible scholarship in their life, such views do come across as very odd (probably crazy, or just blasphemy for the sake of blasphemy). E.g. the view that the Earth rotates around the Sun is still a crazy view for many. For me the Bible is about a bunch of facts which could be historically true or historically false (usually a mixed bag); I have no strong feelings about whether mainstream archaeology finds certain facts true or false. For Nycarchitecture212, it is a matter of demolishing their personality. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, this paragraph is focused way too much on what you think Nycarchitecture212 thinks/believes. You need to stop speculating on other editor's beliefs. Focus on how they edit, not what they believe. Frankly, this post reads very battlegroundy and really should be struck. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

As Doug Weller has said, this is not Nycarchitecture212's first rodeo. I am seeing that same pit-one-editor-against-another talk page tactic rearing its head again at Talk:David § Historical sources for the lead of the article (see an example here). See an example of filibustering, poor understanding of WP:BURDEN and baiting here, the exact same behaviour for which they were already partially blocked. The statement I am here to write articles about architecture in New York City rings very hollow when a grand total of 9 edits out of a total of 157 (6%) have had anything at all to do with New York City or its architecture. Instead, they continue to give the impression that they are WP:NOTHERE to build and collaborate on a general interest encyclopedia (as they said here before they were blocked If there is a desire to raise a third question about whether editors are allowed to add their opinions, the answer remains 'no.') Rather, they appear to be in relentless pursuit of a rabbinic agenda in theological areas, and to 'prove' the historicity of Biblical figures by bludgeoning other editors into agreeing to accept their questionable sourcing. I would recommend an escalating block to deter any further disruption. Havradim leaf a message 06:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I had a brief interaction with NYArc on their talk page. As others have mentioned, the problems tend to arise in topics that are Judaism and Judaism-adjacent. While NYArc did not take my strong advice to avoid the topic, they did cease the immediate problematic behavior (on Abrahamic religions) and seemed to onboard the advice on how Wikipedia works. (WP:BRD) They did respond poorly to tgeorgescu's earlier attempts, however.

This seems like a good reason to aim for a topic ban from Judaism, broadly construed. It seems like this could still be a productive editor so long as they don't edit in a place where they have such a strong connection. They will have to watch out for a tendency to respond to criticism with hostility, but blocks are cheap, and I suspect that a less emotionally fraught subject would better enable them to be a productive and civil editor than escalating site blocks. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Rights removal request (Queen of Hearts)

Please take away all my hats (incl. IPBE, excl. extended confirmed). Life has "hit the fan", so to speak, recently, and I need a break. Thanks, Queen of Hearts talk
she/they
stalk 06:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Queen of Hearts: I removed most but kept extended confirmed and rollback. If you want rollback removed, please say so here and someone will oblige. Johnuniq (talk) 07:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Johnuniq, thank you. Could you (or someone else) please take rollback too? Queen of Hearts talk
she/they
stalk 20:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Long-term, persistent vandalism from same IP

92.66.185.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Bringing this IP to further admin attention: recently blocked for 30+ hours by Joyous!, but I think a much longer-lasting block is probably needed. They already have a long history (since 2022) of persistent vandalism continuing after multiple blocks and level-4 warnings, with no constructive edits coming from this IP as far as I can tell. This latest talk page reply implies that they intend to continue vandalizing or trolling, and there's a series of hidden talk page edits that I'm guessing were not gracious either. R Prazeres (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Note also this latest. R Prazeres (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#IP_address_blocks applies. I'm not really interested in granting this troll's wish. It's just run-of-the-mill vandalism. Nothing special. If they return to vandalizing after this block expires, we can apply a longer block than the current two days. Not a big deal. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Burma moves

MM abc.xyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Making a mess doing undiscussed moves and renames against consensus, such that Burmese language is currently sitting at Template:Myanmar language because they couldn't delete the redirect. Help! Remsense诉 17:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we can safely assume this is a new account for MmRebot (talk · contribs). However, that account was soft-blocked, so it's not block evasion. I moved the page back to article space under its previous title since there's been an objection here. A requested move seems like the most useful next step if MM abc.xyz still wants to move the page. It looks like the process has been explained on User talk:MM abc.xyz. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Remsense诉 18:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

What is soft-blocking? Zanahary (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:SOFTBLOCK. – 2804:F14:80C2:4F01:854E:D615:43E6:D3ED (talk) 03:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Problem

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User Robinvp11 on the page of The Seven Years War has removed lots of belligerents who he claims are not involved, but does not cite any sources. Á lot of important material has been removed, for example, how it is called the first world war, and a quote by Winston Churchill has been removed because he claims he is a “bad historian” and resulting in lots of opiantented editing. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• You should have notified Robinvp11 of this, which I have done. This is all premature since there has been little discussion on the article talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  I did notify him, but you’re right, more disscussion should of been on the takk page. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  No, what Kansas Bear meant is that you need to notify users that you have opened a discussion on this board that involves them. It says so in the red notice at the top of the page and in the yellow notice when you edit this page.. – 2804:F14:80C2:4F01:854E:D615:43E6:D3ED (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)*03:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  I told Blackmamba31248 that go to ANI. Sorry for my ignorance. --호로조 (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why this has been raised as an ANI, given Blackmamba simply reversed all my edits. What's the issue? However...

(1) Having a go at me when I'm not the person who introduced major changes to a stable article without discussion seems odd.

(2) Infobox; the basic problem here (which has been discussed in enormous detail elsewhere) is lack of understanding as to what constitutes a Belligerent. It is formal, legal, phrase which Wikipedia helpfully defines.

The Infobox was relatively stable until recent additions. If you look at the TP, various other editors have expressed concern - so far, Blackmamba's response has been to tell us we're wrong.

(3) I removed the Churchill quote because the original wording says "Churchill argued it was the first "World War", but no one else agrees and there are other candidates. So how it that useful to the general reader?

I have invited a couple of other editors to comment. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I will happily abide by the consensus, and I assume Blackmamba will do the same.

@Johnbod: @DavidDijkgraaf: @호로조: @Remsense: Please feel free to comment, and/or invite others to do so. This is a major article which needs considerable work. Robinvp11 (talk) 06:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, all I'm really seeing on the talk page (permanent link) is Blackmamba31248 introducing material against the advice of other editors. I don't think what's happened here really rises to the level of urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. I suppose Blackmamba31248 may be due a WP:BOOMERANG for a misuse of ANI (seemingly to stifle other editors' behavior)? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 07:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing on Heiner Rindermann

I have made repeated requests on Talk:Heiner_Rindermann and WP:BLPN, and engaged in voluminous correspondence on these pages, to try to reach a consensus edit on Heiner_Rindermann. The current edit contains innuendo suggesting that Rindermann is racist and that his academic output is pseudoscience. The references provided do not substantiate these statements. I consider the content to violate the conventions of WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH and have tried on several occasions to edit the page, and to add quality tags. The Rindermann bio touches on the Race and intelligence controversy, and as such is potentially contentious.

In spite of attempts at dialog on Talk:Heiner_Rindermann and User_talk:Generalrelative, my edits have been repeatedly reverted[294][295][296][297] without further discussion by User:Generalrelative. This behaviour is in itself suggestive of WP:OWNership, but User:Generalrelative has also made repeated references to a 'consensus'[298][299] that does not exist, and happens to align with the editor's own view. In the last of these reversions, User:Generalrelative named me as an WP:SPA. This is an WP:ASPERSION, and factually incorrect: I have 5000 edits over the last four years on a variety of topics. (See Special:Contributions/Nangaf)

User:Generalrelative is also accusing me of WP:PROXYING for a banned user.[300] It is true that I was canvassed to edit Heiner Rindermann, but I don't see why this means that all of my edits should be rejected out of hand by someone who is not themself an admin. Perhaps User:Generalrelative is right and I am wrong: I will accept a third party judgment on that. But it strikes me as high-handed behaviour, and an assumption of bad faith.

In any case I don't think it will be possible to reach a consensus edit on Heiner_Rindermann until User:Generalrelative desists from what appears to me an impolite and unconstructive pattern of behaviour, and would like some kind of intervention to assist in reaching that goal.

I have also raised the issue on WP:DRN, but don't see much hope that mediation can resolve the issue while this particular individual apparently refuses to participate in any kind of constructive editing. Nangaf (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• 2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This appears to be originating from at least one banned editor. The IP which prompted this by starting User talk:Nangaf#Original synthesis is topic-banned from race and intelligence, specifically because of past behavior like this. The IP has, yet again, politely contacted a sympathetic editor and encouraged them to make edits based on misinformation or outright lies. The IP user was previously evasive about their identity and reasons for editing with an IP, and gave contradictory information. The IP's denial on Nangaf's talk page is utterly implausible. There is no doubt, based on these comments, that the IP editor is the same as topic banned one. They write in the same florid style, they specifically discuss Rindermann, they post to user talk pages and not articles or article talk pages, and they edit from the same range which was was previously blocked from editing Talk:Race_and_intelligence due to the exact same brand of disruption.

The end result of this request, just like past requests, is to sanitize the reputation of an individual member of a walled garden of fringe race scientists associated with Mankind Quarterly.

The most recent discussion of this IP's behavior I could easily find was here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1069#Another t-ban violation by IP 2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 from 2021. I suspect there are more recent ones. Grayfell (talk) 07:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Grayfell is entirely correct about the t-banned /40. Johnuniq recently blocked a /44 within that range for precisely these interactions with Nangaf we're discussing here (see this comment). A more recent ANI discussion of this IP user (from June 2022) is here. It was followed up here (in December 2022) resulting in the IP's first long rangeblock. Generalrelative (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

From reviewing the the article and the talk page, I think both bear out Grayfell's and Generalrelative's assessments. WP:BLP certainly calls for careful consideration of content, but the main problem I see is an IP editor trying to project through someone else to suppress information about Rindermann's activities. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• (ec) Just a bit of context for now. This dispute began when I pointed out to Nangaf that they'd been enlisted by a topic-banned IP user (here). I was honestly surprised when they reacted so harshly (here). They continued to ratchet up the hostility (here) when the banned IP user was again reverted by Johnuniq. And when Johnuniq responded with a very even-handed reply, they WP:POINTedly did this, for which they received a warning from ScottishFinnishRadish. Nangaf's reply to that warning was this. Against that backdrop, four experienced users (including me) have explained on the article talk page why Nangaf's interpretation of policy is incorrect. This user appeared to be ready to drop the stick until an SPA called Mr_Butterbur showed up at BLPN to voice support for them. A quick glance through this Mr_Butterbur's contribs shows all the signs of a serial meatpuppet. That's the SPA I was referring to in my edit summary, not Nangaf, though I see now that I could have made that clearer. Generalrelative (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  You're not an admin, you don't get to decide who is a sock. I don't accept your explanation. Nangaf (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

At first glance, the controversial section appears to be sourced, and isn't directly calling him racist. It is a short paragraph that notes his affiliation with groups that are considered racist by other sources. That doesn't guarantee it gets included, but it does provide a reasonable rationale for inclusion, which might be why it has been the status quo for some time. Whether or not the sources are adequate isn't an issue for ANI. As the other editors involved appear to be acting in good faith, I don't yet see a behavior issue.

The problem here is that you have already shopped this at WP:BLPN and WP:DRN and now here, and the discussion on the talk page seems to have been tainted by canvassing [301] by an IP, which is suspicious in itself. You keep taking bites of this apple rather than continue the discussion at the other venues, which raises more issue with your behavior than anyone else's. The best thing you can do is continue the discussion at BLPN, as at the core, this is a content issue more than behavior, and BLPN is the right venue. So far, ONE editor there has agreed with you, best to let the discussion continue to develop. Best to leave the article with the status quo and develop a consensus (or not) at BLPN before changing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

That is exactly what I have been trying to do, but it is plain to see that User:Generalrelative is intent on wikilawyering to disqualify me out of hand, rather than discussing the detail of any particular edit. As for shopping it around, I have been fairly patient -- this has been going on for weeks already, and I honestly don't think I had much alternative to escalation in this instance. Every time I have tried to engage Generalrelative to discuss the actual content of the article, I get an accusation of bad faith editing in response, so ANI seems to be about the only place to adjudicate this. Nangaf (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, you are wasting time, since ANI doesn't decide content. And by the way, what is with the bizarre behavior on Johnuniq's talk page? Demanding he doesn't do his job for deleting a LTA's comments on your page, then you go and delete HIS calm reply on his very own talk page? That kind of behavior doesn't give me faith you are rationally trying to cooperate in a collegiate way here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

That was pointy, I'll admit.

I give up on Heiner Rindermann. I think it's a bad page and smears him by association, but if admins don't see it, I guess it stays and Wikipedia is the worse for it. Nangaf (talk) 07:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to let some time pass before continuing. There are two issues: the article and encouragement of a topic-banned IP. You won't get much support on the former while the latter is fresh. If you do take it further, please do not talk about other editors. Follow WP:DR although a dispute-resolution discussion will not achieve anything in a contentious topic so I would skip that. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I thought this was a pretty obvious BLP violation, I'm honestly surprised at the pushback. I guess that's the way with contentious topics.

Sorry about the pointy edit on your page, I was pretty frustrated at that point. Nangaf (talk) 07:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

This is why I said BLPN is the right venue. Keep it there, be patient. Don't reply to everything the moment someone comments, just let the consensus form naturally. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

There is being patient, and there is participating in a war of attrition. This is feels like the latter, so I am out. Nangaf (talk) 07:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Suspicious username

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not to be a heartless cynic, but is it allowed to have a username purportedly representing the victims of a major disaster? This newly-created account [[302]]'s first edit appears to be inserting their name into a section of 2024 Valencia residential complex fire involving the Grenfell Tower fire to which their account is named. See this edit [[303]] Borgenland (talk) 12:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re Sandhill dunnart

Hello,

I've just spent the day adding my research to the sandhill dunnart page (Sandhill dunnart).

Someone has just deleted it all.

There are obviously some issues with this person as my research has been peer reviewed and published. I uploaded the references. They were also deleted.

In the interest of publishing current science can you please revert it to my version.

Warm regards,

Dr Joanna Riley Dr Joanna Riley (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Dr Riley, this is a content dispute which should be discussed at Talk:Sandhill dunnart. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

We do not accept self-promotion. Your edits were to add information from papers that you wrote; that falls under the self-promotion banner. If your papers are sound, then otheres will find them and add the information to the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I recommend continuing discussion at Talk:Sandhill dunnart where I have initiated a discussion. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

HotArticlesBot stopped running

HotArticlesBot, which builds lists of the most edited articles in each wikiproject, normally runs at 2:45am ET every night but last night did not run. I reported it to an operator very early this morning, but there hasn't been a response yet. This isn't a very critical bot, but wikiprojects use the results. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I know the template says to report malfunctioning bots to ANI, but I think that's intended for if the bot is making bad edits (because then admins can block it).

I'm not sure if anyone except the operator can even restart it, the "emergency bot shutoff button" is just a quick link for an admin to block it.

Perhaps ask at WP:VPT? – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:D4DC:46FF:5933:EF85 (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Silly me for following instructions. :) OK, I guess you're right. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, ANI can handle bots making actively bad edits, and likely a good place to let admins know if a critical maintenance bot is down like an anti-vandal bot. But for this, yeah, nothing an administrator can do to help this situation, or needs to do differently because of it. Courcelles (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

• Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Edit wars seem pretty commonplace there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I have fully protected the article [304]. Though marked as indefinite, I will reduce the protection back to the prior existing indefinite ECP in three days. I've logged the protection as this is a contentious topic, per WP:ARBIPA [305]. I have placed a general warning on the article's talk page, pinging all potentially involved editors. See Talk:Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh#Article_fully_protected. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Hammersoft, you effected the full protection immediately after an editor reverted the article to reintroduce recent, contested changes that do not have consensus, an edit which removes a WP:STABLE section of the article that has been in the lead, in one form or another, for at least half a decade. I have no qualms with the edit protection and in fact think it is eminently helpful, but don't the WP:STABLE guidelines suggest that you should protect the, well, stable version? Full disclosure: I initially personally effected a number of reverts to this article, but completely desisted from continuing to do so, regardless of the activity of other editors, a couple days ago. Brusquedandelion (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It isn't for me to decide what is and is not valid content in this dispute. The point was to stop the disruption, which has been stopped (at least for now). If you disagree with the content of the article as it now stands, discussion is that way ->. The article will be reduced in protection in three days. If some administrator wants to reinstate an earlier version through the protection, they are welcome to do so as far as I'm concerned. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Nycarchitecture212 is deleting mainstream scholarship about Judaism

Nycarchitecture212 has been warned about deleting information from the articles ([306], [307], and [308]). Then they removed again mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP about Judaism at Ahab ([309], [310], and [311]). I get a feeling that they are only here in order to delete mainstream academic knowledge which they find offensive to their own religion. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I was warned by the person who posted this here. Look what he wrote here describing his ax to grind with Jews on a thread where I was having an academic discussion with zero extraordinary claims: "The POV of Orthodox Jews upon early Judaism is to a large extent void currency... Despite your protestations, it is clear that both these groups promote cult pseudohistory. I do have an ax to grind against pseudohistory, especially against fundamentalist pseudohistory."

I am here to write articles about architecture in New York City and Judaism, as I've had in my bio as always, including articles such as Vilna Goan, etc. Having a focus on Jewish articles is not incriminating or inappropriate by any means. I think my contributions to those articles are valid and I did not do the things he is accusing me of.

There is no edit warring going on on any of my active articles. My edits had detailed comments for context, made sense and were in good faith, and I'm currently on a few talk pages making progress with other users on contributions to articles. If I make mistakes, I own up to them and learn, as a new editor learning conventions on Wikipedia. I didn't think making edits with comments was worthy of a warning before from him, and I don't think starting a talk page discussion about the section on Judaism warrents being warned here by him either. You can read the post yourself he is complaining about here in Talk:Abrahamic religions which he responded to by coming here a minute after to complain about it instead of discussing on the talk page.

I have a strong background in Jewish scholarship and I've been always willing to talk things out on talk pages, of which this user is involved in a few articles I am contributing to. Of course if I come accross blatant Jew hatred online I will update it. For example, I removed some nasty thing about pigs and blood Ahab#DeathofAhab from the Ahab page and he reverted it back. Can an admin please help me out?

I think this man works for a Christian missionary organization and I don't know his motives but I notice a pattern that he and another user named VenusFeuerFall seem to be involved with a lot of the same pages doing the same things. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

"his ax to grind with Jews"—if you do provide evidence that I'm antisemitic, then I should get banned. But if you fail to do so, you should get banned for WP:ASPERSIONS. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Don't reduce my argument to something that simplistic. Let admins read what I wrote without you contextualizing it. Stop talking to me please. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, it sounds highly implausible that a Christian missionary would write something like Except for the bytdwd inscription, there is no attestation for David, independent of the Bible. Instead, there is a lot of evidence that David did not really had a kingdom worthy of the name kingdom. If you mean that he ruled over a loose confederation of tribes, then I might agree. ([312]). tgeorgescu (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

And VenusFeuerFalle is doing the same things, namely spreading mainstream academic knowledge through Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

FYI, I have no ax to grind against the civil and political rights of Orthodox Jews. It is just that their views upon early Judaism have been debunked by mainstream history and mainstream archaeology. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, that wasn't a deeply subtle remark. You were calling him antisemitic. Remsense诉 07:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

"Jewish scholarship and I've been always willing to talk things out on talk pages"

Okay, and why did you not went to the talkpage before deleting mainstream scientific consensus? You should be aware that the consensus is in history then. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Their previous deletion of WP:SCHOLARSHIP about Judaism was [313]. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I already said that was a mistake, and am a new user learning Wikipedia conventions; I thought writing a comment with explanation on the edit was enough, and didn't realize I need to go to the talk page to make longer edits like that. As a result, I am more involved on the talk pages now and haven't done that since. I will not repeat my points I made. I should be able to defend myself without you injecting a response to everything I say. I don't want to talk to you anymore.

Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, before you got warned, it was a honest mistake. But after you got warned, it wasn't. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

What you wrote doesn't even make sense. Just stop writing to me please and replying to everything I write. I should be able to defend myself without you contextualizing every single thing I write. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Your demands that I should not reply here are void by default. This is not your own talk page, it is a public noticeboard. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

"new user learning Wikipedia conventions" did you not say that you have always been willing to talk on the user-page? A claim which implies some experience with Wikipedia. How do these two things can be reconciled? Please do not track me into this awful accusations any further. and make yourself familiar with the Wikipedia policies. However, if your goal is promoting religious views, I recommand to write a blog or something. Alternatively, there are experienced Users always willing to help when they have time. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

My opinion as an uninvolved observer:

I agree that their first deletion of content was problematic, but I'm less convinced about those others, because the sourcing for them is really not great. I also think that the "In Rabbinic literature" section of the same page is a total mess and that this dispute feels very much like bikeshedding given that. Loki (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Yup, agree upon what are now links 62 and 63. But I disagree about 61. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Solution: I suggest that they receive a warning from an admin that they are not allowed to remove WP:SCHOLARSHIP because they think that mainstream history and mainstream Bible scholarship are Christian plots against Judaism. Why else would they say that I seek to convert Jews to Christianity? They think that I talk like a Christian professor from a theological seminary. Priests or pastors would not talk like that, but professors would. Priests or pastors usually abide by "What's learned at seminary stays at seminary." tgeorgescu (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Nycarchitecture212 received a page block from User:Bishonen for Long-term edit warring, violations of neutral point of view, filibustering, and generally wasting other editors' time. See also [314] after a report by User:ScottishFinnishRadish Doug Weller talk 08:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not anti-Jewish, I'm anti-pseudohistory. But asking them to understand this difference could shatter their worldview. So, their natural reaction is to fight against understanding it. Or, as Bart Ehrman has put it, "On one level I suppose for the same reason that most hobbits who have never left the Shire tend to think that everyone in the world is about three feet tall. They don’t have a wider experience of the world, for example by taking a trip to Gondor or Mordor." Hint: he does not literally mean geography, it's just a metaphor. Source: [315]. Nycarchitecture212 finds that the findings of mainstream Bible scholars are alien to their worldview. And, I do confess, for someone who has never read a book of mainstream Bible scholarship in their life, such views do come across as very odd (probably crazy, or just blasphemy for the sake of blasphemy). E.g. the view that the Earth rotates around the Sun is still a crazy view for many. For me the Bible is about a bunch of facts which could be historically true or historically false (usually a mixed bag); I have no strong feelings about whether mainstream archaeology finds certain facts true or false. For Nycarchitecture212, it is a matter of demolishing their personality. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, this paragraph is focused way too much on what you think Nycarchitecture212 thinks/believes. You need to stop speculating on other editor's beliefs. Focus on how they edit, not what they believe. Frankly, this post reads very battlegroundy and really should be struck. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

As Doug Weller has said, this is not Nycarchitecture212's first rodeo. I am seeing that same pit-one-editor-against-another talk page tactic rearing its head again at Talk:David § Historical sources for the lead of the article (see an example here). See an example of filibustering, poor understanding of WP:BURDEN and baiting here, the exact same behaviour for which they were already partially blocked. The statement I am here to write articles about architecture in New York City rings very hollow when a grand total of 9 edits out of a total of 157 (6%) have had anything at all to do with New York City or its architecture. Instead, they continue to give the impression that they are WP:NOTHERE to build and collaborate on a general interest encyclopedia (as they said here before they were blocked If there is a desire to raise a third question about whether editors are allowed to add their opinions, the answer remains 'no.') Rather, they appear to be in relentless pursuit of a rabbinic agenda in theological areas, and to 'prove' the historicity of Biblical figures by bludgeoning other editors into agreeing to accept their questionable sourcing. I would recommend an escalating block to deter any further disruption. Havradim leaf a message 06:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I had a brief interaction with NYArc on their talk page. As others have mentioned, the problems tend to arise in topics that are Judaism and Judaism-adjacent. While NYArc did not take my strong advice to avoid the topic, they did cease the immediate problematic behavior (on Abrahamic religions) and seemed to onboard the advice on how Wikipedia works. (WP:BRD) They did respond poorly to tgeorgescu's earlier attempts, however.

This seems like a good reason to aim for a topic ban from Judaism, broadly construed. It seems like this could still be a productive editor so long as they don't edit in a place where they have such a strong connection. They will have to watch out for a tendency to respond to criticism with hostility, but blocks are cheap, and I suspect that a less emotionally fraught subject would better enable them to be a productive and civil editor than escalating site blocks. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Rights removal request (Queen of Hearts)

Please take away all my hats (incl. IPBE, excl. extended confirmed). Life has "hit the fan", so to speak, recently, and I need a break. Thanks, Queen of Hearts talk
she/they
stalk 06:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Queen of Hearts: I removed most but kept extended confirmed and rollback. If you want rollback removed, please say so here and someone will oblige. Johnuniq (talk) 07:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Johnuniq, thank you. Could you (or someone else) please take rollback too? Queen of Hearts talk
she/they
stalk 20:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Long-term, persistent vandalism from same IP

92.66.185.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Bringing this IP to further admin attention: recently blocked for 30+ hours by Joyous!, but I think a much longer-lasting block is probably needed. They already have a long history (since 2022) of persistent vandalism continuing after multiple blocks and level-4 warnings, with no constructive edits coming from this IP as far as I can tell. This latest talk page reply implies that they intend to continue vandalizing or trolling, and there's a series of hidden talk page edits that I'm guessing were not gracious either. R Prazeres (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Note also this latest. R Prazeres (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#IP_address_blocks applies. I'm not really interested in granting this troll's wish. It's just run-of-the-mill vandalism. Nothing special. If they return to vandalizing after this block expires, we can apply a longer block than the current two days. Not a big deal. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

User:O recomeço and WP:CIR 2: Electric Boogaloo

Follow-up from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#User:O recomeço and WP:CIR, which was closed with (unfortunately) no action taken.

O recomeço continues to make edits with grammatical errors, such as improper capitalization and spelling mistakes, and has shown no improvement, if any, in their mastery of the English language since the original discussion ended:

• [316]
• [317]
• [318]
• [319] - was highlighted on user's talk page by Chris troutman as an example of "sloppy work"
• [320]
• [321]

It very much seems like the user in question blatantly ignored Darth Mike's suggestion to only edit versions of Wikipedia where they have a full grasp of the language. I say it's time to end this. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 01:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• CIR block We have many editors fixing typos and grammar errors but if the amount we see comes from one editor and the matter comes to ANI, then its time to cut bait. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose block If they are willing to edit topics about Brazil. Tres Fronteras has been languishing for example. Mathglot and I frequently need help from a Portuguese speaker, which the name indicates they may well be. Maybe they are just not in a welcoming topic area? 2023 Brazilian Congress attack urgently needs help.

  In any event I ask that we not move too fast on a CIR while we discuss a collaboration if he/she is willing such as has been taking place at Regency of Algiers. Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose For starters, blocking on the basis of an essay about a guideline seems a stretch. Where are the diffs showing a persistent pattern of vandalism, of adding phony information with real or phony references, endless edit-warring at contentious topics, brow-beating other editors, deleting sourced content, or continually adding their own opinion to articles despite warnings to stop? Let's look at your diffs:

1. three capitalization errors, and one relative pronoun error; totally comprehensible.

2. one wrong verb form, one typo; totally comprehensible. (I was going to label Equatoguinean here as some kind of weird demonym error, but turns out they are right, and I was wrong (or ignorant).

3. one typo, one particle error, one preposition, one cap error; totally comprehensible.

4. three typos, one def. article problem; totally comprehensible.

5. two typos; totally comprehensible.

6. five typos in this paragraph; one cap error; totally comprehensible.

So you want to block them for capitalization and typos? Really? This editor is doing their best to improve the English Wikipedia in fully comprehensible, if faulty English. So what? Just send them a thank you note, and fix the problems. Tell them that months and demonyms are capitalized in English, like September and Cuban, even though they aren't in most Romance language—that should fix about half the issues. The typos and most grammar issues can be fixed by a grammar checker, or just suggest they use ChatGPT to fix all the problems at once. There are so many editors seeking to damage the encyclopedia in so many ways that are clearly contrary to policy, I find it an utter waste of time to discuss good editors improving the encyclopedia whose English is not up to native level, when the problem is so easily fixed by others with native competence in English or by tools. I hope they ignore suggestions to edit only in their native language, and stay here and continue to improve the encyclopedia. Não desanime; você é muito bem-vindo aqui. Isso vai passar. (canvassed); (Non-administrator comment) Mathglot (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Amplify Ooh if they edit West Africa even more so do we need them. I am willing to help with English cleanup if that's a problem. Elinruby (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

CIR in a nutshell: "Sometimes editors have good intentions, but are not competent enough to edit in a net positive manner. They create work that others have to clean up." The editor in question has created work that other editors have had to clean up, myself included. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 06:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Mmmm sometimes editors have good intentions but fail to leave an edit summary or a section header, and other editors have to redo their ANI notifications for them. To be completely fair to you (which I do not think you are being this user, really) I also expected the ANI notification template to create a sectipn header the way that the 3RR template does. But still. I went back and fixed mine. Elinruby (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Block until they respond. Everyone makes mistakes, but not everyone ignores 5 warnings and one ANI notice and pretends nothing has happened. If they showed up here or on their talk page to acknowledge the problem and promise to improve, I’m sure everyone is happy to welcome their contribution. Until then it’s just creating unnecessary works for other editors. NM 04:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not seeing any notification of this ANI thread. Or any formal warnings for that matter. I think it's a bit unreasonable to expect them to Intuit the existence of this thread. Elinruby (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: You replied^(diff) to the notice? Or do you mean something else? – 2804:F14:80E5:6B01:B594:C013:3E0E:888D (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Nope, was expecting a section header or an edit summary mentioning ANI is all. Since I was fooled I will do ahead and fix that. But if they were looking at the edit summary they could easily have missed it as well. Elinruby (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

PS @Northern Moonlight: in your comment above you should

• works->work,
• contribution->contributions,
• it's->they are

if you want go discuss the dust in someone's else's eye. I realized as I was typing this that I didn't check the talk page history. Doing that now (later) nope not even... Elinruby (talk) 10:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not seeing any notification of this ANI thread

Hope this helps. Northern Moonlight 17:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

yes yes, that's the notification that was buried in a thread with no edit summary. Discussed above. I missed it and I was looking for it. I have redone the notification in a more visible manner. They should see that one when they log on. Elinruby (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Northern Moonlight: You want to "Block until they respond", and that would be based on what part of WP:Blocking policy? As far as responsiveness: they don't edit every day—this thread started 01:26, 4 March and their last edit was three days prior. Also: you are aware, are you not, that once you join the fray here about another editor, your own behavior is subject to scrutiny, right? I wonder if the fact that the sole userbox on your user page states "I do not grant permission for the Wikimedia Foundation to relicense any of my contributions" makes you liable for a block for violating Wikipedia's Terms of Use. Mathglot (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Northern Moonlight: Your signature (above) does not meet the requirements of WP:CUSTOMSIG/P, in particular A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username. Please fix it. Bazza 7 (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bring it to my attention. Done. Northern Moonlight 17:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

(squint) your signature is still longer than most of your comments. I don't usually concern myself with such things, but it is making it hard to navigate this highly threaded discussion. Elinruby (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot "Block until they respond" is described at WP:LISTENTOUS. Nobody (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to their original ANI thread which I mistakenly thought they didn’t respond. My apologies.

The userbox is a verbatim copy of {{WikimediaNoLicensing}} with a different CSS and doesn’t negate any licensing rights Wikipedia requested when I submitted my edits. It’d be quite a thing if I get blocked for using a template that has been on this website since 2004. Northern Moonlight 17:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Now at Templates for discussion Elinruby (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

So... I really truly hate to be That Editor, but as someone who was just bemoaning the paucity of Portuguese speakers on this board, I am rather concerned by this pile-on. WP:LISTENTOUS is an essay usually invoked when a new mobile editor hasn't yet discovered their talk page, is it not?

I am finding it hard to see what damage this editor could possibly do to an obscure gee-whiz article while logged out. Especially since the cited concern is rather trivial and the way it's been handled so far falls so far short of ideal. Rather than telling them to stop contributing, has anyone politely asked them to make edit requests on the talk page? "Sloppy work" is not exactly constructive criticism, and more effort has been put into this lolsuit than would have been needed for a page watcher (because clearly there are page watchers) to simply fix the problem.

Beyond all that, am I now understanding that whoops, we were talking about the *previous* attempt to criminalize their contributions and it was a mistake even then? I need coffee. Clearly I must have misunderstood that. smh Elinruby (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The previous ANI discussion was pertaining to the myriad grammatical errors present in the user's contributions, and months later, I brought up the issue again because they have shown little to no improvement in that field, and continue to edit a version of Wikipedia where they are not proficient in the language's capitalization and spelling. Also, why are we bemoaning the lack of Portuguese speakers here? If they are more proficient in Portuguese than English, then they should stick to editing the Portuguese Wikipedia. And furthermore, I fail to understand how a Portuguese speaker who stumbles in the English language could be of help in Brazil-related topics on English Wikipedia. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 01:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

That would represent a failure to see on your part, sir. I gave two examples further up the thread, wikilinked for convenience. There are quite a few others that he or she could work on, without having to deal with you.

I am not going to debate this with you any further, since you fail to see. The notification wasn't even properly made until what, not quite 24 hours ago? Smh. Elinruby (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Neither of the articles you linked to above have maintenance templates on them, so I'm not sure what problems you think the non-fluent user in question can help with. Perhaps if you took responsibility for the situation and prevented them from causing the rest of us problems, we'd be fine having you corral them into editing you find useful. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

(scrolling through another immense signature) @Chris troutman: Why would there be maintenance templates? You were expecting some? Because it was produced by Portuguese speakers? Congratulations btw on posting a complaint about someone else's English in good English. It's refreshing given the rest of this thread.

I think that you and the others who have been trying to make this editor go away need to re-read the guidelines on civility and collaboration. It seems to me that the editor's main transgression has been to persistently try to contribute in the face of ethnocentrism. I invite them to help out in other areas where their language skills could be invaluable. And yes, I can make some suggestions in addition to the above, which you don't seem to have examined in much detail.

"Sloppy work" indeed. 2023 Brazilian Congress attack, as discussed on its talk page, needs to be updated with the legal proceedings against Bolsonaro and the various military co-conspirators. Tres Fronteras is important in terms of the immense damage cartels are doing to the Amazon. None of that is in these articles really, and almost all of the sources are in Portuguese.

Lest you retort that that is not what we do here, I will mention that somebody disagreed and gave me an editor of the week award for coaxing a bunch of Portuguese speakers into producing Operation Car Wash, which also needs updating, btw, but I am dealing with a dumpster fire elsewhere. Elinruby (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Yes, if articles need improvement we often tag them. Many so-so articles like the two you point out aren't visibly deficient to those of us not knowledgeable in that field. There are perhaps hundreds of articles which could benefit from the contributions of Lusophones. O recomeço, however, is not editing with the degree of language proficiency required, hence my request for a CIR block. I have nothing but respect for your longevity, your edit count, and your ability to teach, coach, and mentor. I exhort you to do your best to redirect O recomeço's efforts lest the community collectively lose patience. Surely we share the same goals in this regard. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with ethnocentrism. It has everything to do with their grasp of the English language not being up to the standards expected of contributors. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 22:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Good grief. This thread is unnecessarily difficult to follow, and probably a nightmare for anyone with accessibility issues. Those commenting should review WP:COLAS and be mindful of their formatting. Grandpallama (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Tempted to hat this as having devolved into pointless bickering that isn't going to result in anything productive at the board for urgent action by administrators, but I'm involved, so I can't. Mathglot (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I know right? I wanted to ask for a close in my last comment, but the person this is about apparently hasn't even found out about it yet. It's clearly unfounded IMHO but obviously I am involved as well.Elinruby (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Unfounded? The user in question is leaving grammatical errors that other editors had to clean up. A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 22:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this thread is a mess starting with your attempt to notify the user. Now stop, please. Everyone knows what both of us think Elinruby (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

You might want to remove the starting with your attempt to notify the user part. Northern Moonlight 03:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Why? I questioned whether the editor would ever have seen it and redid it, even as you were characterizing the editor's silence as blockable. All that looks pretty messy to me. Elinruby (talk) 03:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Wait and see I've been following this discussion for a while (as my gripe about formatting probably suggests). O recomeço hasn't edited WP since before the ANI notification was posted on their talkpage. The last time they received an ANI notification, they responded by coming to ANI and discussing their edits, and they did so in good faith. I see no evidence that they are trying to be deliberately disruptive, so it's not clear that a block is needed at this time to get their attention. Yes, we block people based on competence, as any experienced editor surely knows, and I'm concerned this editor doesn't demonstrate the necessary level, but they deserve a chance to respond.

Mathglot deserves a trouting for knowingly (per their inclusion of "canvassed" in this edit) responding to an instance of canvassing, and proceeding not just with joining the discussion, but actually voting on the block. Grandpallama (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Wait and see these concerns need to be addressed, but the editor deserves a chance to respond. However, this thread should not be archived without some kind of resolution. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Elinruby's conduct

Throughout their bludgeoning of this discussion (they've commented fifteen times as of this edit), Elinruby's behavior has frequently crossed the line into unacceptable, and they have been unnecessarily belligerent and hostile.

• This is a textbook example of explicit bad-faith canvassing, which alone merits a formal warning.o
• This particularly bad-faith aspersion I think that you and the others who have been trying to make this editor go away need to re-read the guidelines on civility and collaboration. It seems to me that the editor's main transgression has been to persistently try to contribute in the face of ethnocentrism. makes a groundless insinuation about the motivation of OP and others who disagree with Elinruby. I've seen other editors blocked for making this sort of insinuation, a cousin of a racism accusation, especially when it is so blatantly false.
• Claiming the ANI notification wasn't placed, despite having responded to it, then falsely claiming an additional five times that it hadn't been done. This is even without getting into the WP:TPO violation of removing The Grand Delusion's notification in order to replace it with their own.
• Repeated sniping about others' usernames: (squint) your signature is still longer than most of your comments; (scrolling through another immense signature)
• This initially sensible claim that there are relevant articles O recomeço could work on, followed by a fairly rude attack on Christ Troutman (Why would there be maintenance templates? You were expecting some? Because it was produced by Portuguese speakers?) when he quite reasonably asked how O recomeço would know about those articles in the absence of maintenance tags.
• This confrontational, pointy grammar nitpicking.
• And just overall ongoing needling and assumptions of bad faith, even as others responded courteously, of which this is pretty emblematic: That would represent a failure to see on your part, sir. I gave two examples further up the thread, wikilinked for convenience. There are quite a few others that he or she could work on, without having to deal with you. I am not going to debate this with you any further, since you fail to see.

I've seen editors pick up a block just for problematic canvassing or casting serious aspersions alone, but there's a lot more than just that going on here. Given their clean history, though, I propose that Elinruby's behavior here merits a formal warning from admins about both conduct and canvassing. Grandpallama (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Grandpallama (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support - I'd also support a block if need be. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 17:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Just wanted to point out that Elinruby never removed The Grand Delusion's notification, they just added a new one (see page history). – 2804:F1...33:EF85 (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  You are correct. Sheesh...that's even worse in some ways, though. I'll strike the incorrect comment. Thanks for pointing it out. Grandpallama (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Answering again only because yet again discussed:

• I was not suggesting, nor do I think Chris troutman understood me to be suggesting, that the editor should have found these articles themself. I seem to recall presenting them as examples of my own projects that could use the editor's help, in response to a suggestion that they were unable to contribute.
• It's amusing to be accused of nitpicking grammar. Yes, nitpicking grammar is nitpicky and that is exactly what I am saying. If you are going to nitpick about grammar, run a grammar checker on your complaint. Or just heed the underlining the wiki editor provides.
• As for Mathglot, yes I notified them of this thread! They were mentioned and are a concerned party as co-author of two of the three articles I mentioned that need help. I did not not tell them what to do about it.
• I think the encyclopedia that anyone should edit should discourage editors being told to leave, is all, and yes, I did make the point that graver errors have in my view been committed in this thread than by the editor in question, whose contributions appear to have been in good faith and on-topic.
• The Grand Delusion said they failed to see; I agreed with them. AGF does not require me to continue arguing with a brick wall, nor to repeatedly point out my prior responses. I did do this a couple of times but have tried to disengage since then, only answering remarks about me.
• Yes, I have answered (repeated) posts about my own behavior in the past day or so. This is ANI where I do get to do that.
• I agree with Grandpallama that we should wait and see, despite my disagreement with their ABF characterization of me.
• I have already told The Grand Delusion that we have both made our point. As for the suggestion that I too be blocked made by that clean start account -- I am giving that the silence it deserves. Elinruby (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I see I pinged The Grand Delusion twice. I apologize for that. I meant to remove the second one when I added one above it, and forgot. Elinruby (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I can only say that I think it's unfortunate, when provided with these diffs and examples, that every one of your responses is a justification, doubling down on what you said and did. I think my post does speak for itself, so I'll just rebut two things and leave future comments for other editors. You invited Mathglot because of articles you invoked, not because Mathglot had participated in a previous discussion about this editor or on the article in question; you, in essence, created the pretext by which Mathglot could be post hoc justified as involved. Did you approach other editors--ones with whom you don't have a close working relationship? Do you think your notice to Mathglot was neutral in the way WP:CANVASS requires it to be? Your post on Mathglot's page could be used as a classic example of WP:CAMPAIGNING.

Secondly, I had hoped that my proposal would jar you a bit, and make you realize that you should probably strike a couple of your earlier comments and reconsider some of your interactions in this thread; your "brick wall" comment here feels more reflective of your behavior than of The Grand Delusion's. I do not, as a genuinely uninvolved editor weighing in, think Chris or Northern Moonlight or The Grand Delusion merited the hostility you directed toward them, nor do I think Chris (or any reader) would look at your response to him and think it was the type of interaction you are now describing it as. And I think it falls beneath the expectations of our civility guidelines. Grandpallama (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: Regarding Elinruby's "suggesting, that the editor should have found these articles themself", I agree; I understood Elinruby to be interested in re-purposing O recomeço's efforts, which I welcome. As for Elinruby's conduct here, I'll give a pass though I do not think you were inaccurate in your thrust. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, although that phrasing is some real revisionism from what was initially said to you, quoted in my proposal, though I think we both agree on Elinruby's interest. Grandpallama (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I really didn't want to get involved again, and when "problematic canvassing" was mentioned previously (@17:46), rather than extend a conversation that I hoped would quiesce by replying here, I responded at your UTP instead. But as it's a bullet point in an argument about possible sanctions on an editor, I feel I have no choice but to link that discussion to give a fuller picture, as imho, per the guideline no canvassing occurred. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Re Given their clean history: Elinruby has actually received
  1. a block for "personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy" (ANI link)
  2. a warning for "abusing conduct processes to thwart content opponents" (ANI link) in the past. Northern Moonlight 21:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Since nobody else can answer this probably

1. Lourdes indeffed themself shortly thereafter
2. El C had a point, kinda, but this is ancient.

Now I really do have stuff to do. Elinruby (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose the proposal as a bridge further than fit and necessary. Perhaps a wet trout is called for with some articulations. But Elinruby's interest in repurposing an editor's efforts where they can be helpful seems like something our project's guidelines favor when it's possible, and coolly disengaging is common advice for what to do when interactions become un-generative. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
• Not sure a formal warning is necessary at this stage, but I encourage Elinruby to tone it down a notch. While they may not intend to be aggressive, some of their comments come across that way. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Augmented Seventh

I am here to report User:Augmented Seventh for constantly reverting my edits to Wikipedia claiming them to be "vandalism" and "unconstructive". My edits only serve to align existing articles to current conventions in Wikipedia and to eliminate unnecessary embellishments in terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.189.116.236 (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

howdy

the editor in question is removing the word Roman from every link to Roman Catholic Church.

claims it isn't necessary. asked them to stop and discuss, dismisses out of hand. Augmented Seventh (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTBROKEN, "Roman Catholic Church" is a perfectly acceptable way to refer to the Church, so it's tons of edits for no benefit. Q ^{T C} 02:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@203.189.116.236: What is your reasoning for edits like <this>, which swap the order of Indonesia and Philippine in the entire article, including moving entire sections around? – 2804:F1...33:EF85 (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@2804:F14:80C6:A301:D4DC:46FF:5933:EF85:, the IP comes from the Philippines so there may be some bias there. Q ^{T C} 02:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The usage of the term "Roman Catholic" to describe the entire church is inaccurate considering that the Eastern Catholic Churches exist within the Catholic Church. He is also reverting my link simplifications returning them to the absurd long form of [[Catholic Church|Roman Catholic Church]] when simply typing [[Catholic Church]] would suffice. The user also insists on reverting links named Catholic Church in Country X to Roman Catholicism in Country X despite the former being more accurate and being the actual name of the article in the links.

In one of his other reversions, he reverted my correction of a mistake in the article page of Caliraya lake that states that Laguna de Bay is a bay and not a lake. 203.189.116.236 (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The argument that "Roman Catholic" isn't sufficiently descriptive enough to disambiguate the Eastern Catholic Churches might hold more water if you weren't actively vandalizing explicitly Roman Catholic articles with these edits such as this one. Sorry, but Augmented Seventh isn't the one in the wrong here, IP. It's you. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

your changes, at a minimum, should be discussed on the talk page, as you're changing long accepted content to reflect your own pov.

there's a reason why the links point to the Roman Catholic Church.

you're lake edit could be a mistake. when i was reverting your contentious edits, it may have become swept up in the mess.

have a wikipedia day, Augmented Seventh (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Augmented Seventh: I'll say though, the IP's changes, albeit likely disruptive, are not obvious vandalism and therefore are not exempt from the the 3-revert rule, please proceed with care. – 2804:F1...33:EF85 (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

noted, and thank you for the heads up. this is a topic with which i am unfamiliar, i stumbled upon the mass changes while engaged in other tasks.

I'll check back. Augmented Seventh (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Trying to bail @Augmented Seventh out here. I myself reverted several of the Roman removals. I did this because of no response or explanation in the edit summary. If I did such a thing, I would expect someone to revert what I was doing also. A message from the IP to A. Seventh, instead of blanking, then responding almost an hour later to @JayCubby made no sense. Bringingthewood (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm learning a lot from this discussion. thanks for your help . Augmented Seventh (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, the way I was looking at it I was considering the reverting of multiple of the same change from multiple articles, in this case, as a single "revert". Clearly, unless there is a MOS: or some other such consensus that defines one or the other as the preferred way then there is nothing policy based supporting the IP's mass changes, which makes it disruptive from them to continue doing it despite objections - but I'm of the opinion that reverting them "once" is said objection.

That said, IP, IS there a policy or consensus based reason for your changes? – 2804:F1...33:EF85 (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I think I made this last post too conclusory. I second Bringingthewood's points on the IP's lack of communication. Edit summaries and actually responding to people's concerns rather than just bulldozing through them would have been a much better way of handling this situation. – 2804:F1...33:EF85 (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

comment on the issue. This is a rehash of endless edit wars over the decades:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Catholic_Church - is a good start, see the requested moves, and more recently This article should be called Roman Catholic as the term 'catholic' is not unique to the Roman Church conversation. Regardless of the current argument, maybe someone needs to look very carefully at what is pointed out at that talk page about the many thousand words at that page about this issue... JarrahTree 05:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I really wouldn't bother; this has been going on endlessly for years. Many articles will have had references in text changed back and forth several times over the years. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Ignoring Talk discussions on Zoroastrianism in Iran

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Started talk discussion on the merits of a previous edit to a page. Was ignored, edit warred against, and the editor claimed that "consensus" had been established when there was zero discussion on talk and I had posted a talk discussion. Seeking arbitration on this issue, as the editor has a friend in administrating and clearly refused to debate normally. KanzazKyote (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

If multiple editors revert you, the onus is on you to try to justify your edit. I'd suggest closing this filing, which is full of unsubstantiated aspersions and returning to the talk page before it becomes a WP:BOOMERANG situation. Zaathras (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

One editor has reverted me. I edited that page exactly one time. I can't return to the talk page when the discussion that I started has not been responded to at all and the merits of my statement have been ignored in favor of a claim of "consensus." KanzazKyote (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

You should be clear: are you accusing me of socking?  // Timothy :: talk  23:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

KanzazKyote: Firstly, as noted below, you've been edit warring as an IP before using this account. Secondly, you've been told that the change a year ago has WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Thirdly, you've failed to explain, despite being asked, why you want to revert an article about the Zoroastrian religion to the Christian Anno Domini format despite it being the article's format for the last year. DeCausa (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Boomerang

These issues should be reviewed:

• I think these are personal attacks, [322], [323], [324], [325], [326]
• I think this is edit warring against consensus, [327], [328]; see [329], [330], [331], [332], [333], [334] for editors that have rv this change.
• I think their talk page warning about edit warring on @DeCausa: [335] page is inappropriate.

Full discussions: Talk:Zoroastrianism in Iran#Dating, Talk:Zoroastrianism in Iran#Unbiased Dating.  // Timothy :: talk  23:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

To add it's not really a smart thing to post this on multiple messageboards: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Ignoring Talk discussions on Zoroastrianism in Iran. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I actually told them to post here instead of WP:AN, so that is my fault.[336] I thought they would move the OP. Sorry.  // Timothy :: talk  23:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

A further point: an IP has been edit warring exactly the same point at this article. 15 minutes after that IP was blocked for edit warring (per this) the user appeared at the article arguing the same point and edit warring. Seems to be WP:DUCK. I don't think they've notified anyone of this thread, AFAIK.DeCausa (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

A further point: you appeared at exactly the same point at this article after TimothyBlue started a debate. Seems to be WP:DUCK. KanzazKyote (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked for the obvious block evasion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, who was the editor evading a block? Is there a sockmaster? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

KanzazKyote was evading the block of 173.244.8.254 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Nomoskedasticity and Douglas Murray

User:Nomoskedasticity has repeatedly restored contentious material to the lede of the BLP article Douglas Murray without discussion, despite being reminded to seek consensus by multiple editors.

On 5th February 2024, User:ShanGuy37 added to the lede that the subject of the article is "widely described as far-right": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&oldid=1203825036

On 7th February 2024, User:Leftistman reverted this edit with the edit summary "Weak sources based predominantly off Humza Yousafs own opinion. Seek consensus." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&oldid=1204620153

22 minutes later, Nomoskedasticity restored the material without discussion, with the edit summary "You can seek consensus for an edit that removes a bunch of reliable sources." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&oldid=1204624154

On 13th February 2024, I looked at the sources and confirmed that they did indeed not support the text used, so removed the material with the edit summary "Leftistman is correct, these sources do not support the statement "widely described as far-right". Seek consensus before restoring per WP:BLPRESTORE." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&oldid=1207060141

The next day Nomoskedasticity restored the material for a second time without discussion, this time without leaving an edit summary. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&oldid=1207162880

The material was removed a third time by User:Hemiauchenia roughly 15 minutes later, who left the edit summary "The WP:ONUS is on those who wish to include disputed content. Needs discussion on talkpage." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&oldid=1207166021

Later that day, I left a message on Nomoskedasticity's talk page, reminding them of the need to follow WP:BLP policies when editing BLP articles. Nomoskedasticity has made no reply to this in the intervening time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nomoskedasticity#Douglas_Murray

Today (7th March 2024), Nomoskedasticity restored this material for a third time, again without discussion, leaving the edit summary "your edit summary didn't reflect this substantive change to the article -- so, I'm reverting that portion of it". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&oldid=1212354126

Since Nomoskedasticity has ignored three different editors asking them to edit properly, it might be beneficial at this point if an admin could intervene. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@FirstPrimeOfApophis: Per the instructions at the top of this page, you must notify anyone you report here. You haven't notified anyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23:I have added a section to Nomoskedasticity's user talk page using the ANI template. Did I use it incorrectly? FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but I would post the same notice to every editor you mention above, even if your principal complaint is against Nomoskedasticity. As an aside, I'm not convinced this is the proper venue for your complaint, but I don't have time to get into that now.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, I will do that. Thanks. I am more than happy to move this to a different venue if another is more appropriate, I just want to see it resolved. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skyeskyns

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skyeskyns could use a going over and a semiprotect, seeing a lot of sock activity and IP editing from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kavex98162 / Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Steal qatar. MrOllie (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It probably does, the IPs are blatant socks The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 17:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Plus, one IP even had the audacity to strike every delete vote [337]. I have reverted the edit. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 17:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

GOOD LORD! Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Exactly! Out of the one year I've been here, this is the most absurd and horrendous thing I have ever seen! The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 17:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

In a whole year you haven't seen anything more absurd and horrendous? You must be living a very sheltered life. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi'ed for a week. I don't have time to look into the sourcing/article to determine whether there's unseasonable weather in the forecast. Star Mississippi 17:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the semi! Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{King Crimson} 18:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2601:205:4300:54F0*

IPv6 user 2601:205:4300:54F0* (IP alias 67.166.136.47) has engaged in repeated addition of unsourced, disruptive, and non-WP:RS content. User has received two previous bans for the same, and has continued disruptive editing without any acknowledgement of the repeated messages left on talk pages and edit summaries. Diffs for this most recent round—that is, after his latest ban—here: [338], [339], [340], [341], [342], [343]. User is clearly WP:NOTLISTENING. Rift (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Ongoing violations of MOS after warnings, failure to engage on talk page

User Williamstonhead has been making edits violating MOS formatting, specifically MOS:GEOLINK (like this [344]) for months and has been warned repeatedly by myself and @Magnolia677. They have not responded to a message on their talk page since July 2023, yet continue to disrupt Wikipedia by making these edits en masse. glman (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

More examples from today (3/7/24) of this continued disruptive editing: [345], [346], [347], [348], [349]. glman (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I think a brief block is the best option. They've been told four times to not do this, and continue to do so even after the AN/I thread was added. Clearly warnings aren't working, so hopefully a block will get the message through. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Glman and JML1148: I left this editor some messages about MOS:GEOLINK and overlinking: [350], [351], [352]. Then today, they are still linking places like North America. I'm not sure they "get it". Magnolia677 (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

User is now ignoring WP:REDDEAL and removing all redlinks in articles. glman (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism to Asian TV articles coming from IP range

Vandal(s) coming from an IP range (Special:Contributions/2405:4802:1800:0:0:0:0:0/37) have been conducting ongoing large amounts of subtle vandalism and adding correct incorrect information (including changing dates, times, number of episodes, etc.) on a number of television shows originating in Asia (especially those from India, Korea, and Vietnam). This range is currently blocked from editing List of flags of Vietnam. One IP will get blocked when reported to AIV [353], but as soon as that is blocked, they are onto the next one. Examples of articles that are being vandalized include, but are not limited to: Arjun (TV series), Achanak 37 Saal Baad, Veer Shivaji, Gangaa, Angel's Choice, Forever Young (2014 TV series), Krishna (TV series), ect. From a quick look, this activity appears to have started around February 5 [354] and has been going on up to edits just today [355]. I have been cleaning up some of the vandalism, but it is a going project to ensure I do revert any possible good edits mixed in; there is still more work to be done. I have also posted about this on the Wikiproject television talk page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Help with the clean-up of subtle vandalism on Asian TV shows coming from an IP range). Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 03:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Wikipedialuva: - I presume you mean incorrect information? Narky Blert (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: Yes, I meant incorrect information, not correct. Thank you for catching that; I wrote this in haste and apologize for not doing a better job identifying my errors. Wikipedialuva (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

NmWTfs85lXusaybq

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I posted to this editor's talk page earlier today, raising concerns about their JWB-powered mass-removal of {{talk header}}, as well of the removal of the |living= parameter from WikiProject banners, on talk pages of redirects (permalink). As I was going to continue this discussion on their talk page, I noticed that - since I posted there (and they responded) - they continued making these changes via JWB (at a fast pace); which I believe was in violation of AWB rule 3 (which states that it should not be used to make controversial edits, and that [i]f challenged, the onus is on the AWB operator to demonstrate or achieve consensus for changes they wish to make on a large scale). I then re-posted to their talk page asking them to stop making these JWB edits for this reason, to which they responded OK, I will do it manually (diff).

I'd like to discuss my objections to these changes in the normal manner, but that's made difficult when they're being mass-made before such a discussion has occurred (and after NmWTfs85lXusaybq's been made aware of my objection to them). Since my request that they halted the JWB edits, they have continued to make the same edits in a WP:MEATBOT-like fashion (but without using JWB); which I'm finding hard to see as something other than a 'workaround' to my request that they stop these JWB edits, in addition to continued mass-editing without consensus.

If there are any queries, please let me know. I apologise if anything is worded poorly. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 05:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I will keep an eye on this thread. So, please leave comments here if there's any further concern from other editors. Thanks, NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Primefac: I noticed that you removed their AWB perms - thank you for doing that. However, NmWTfs85lXusaybq has continued to make these problematic mass-changes without consensus - only, doing it manually now, rather than using a semi-automated tool. Please can an admin ask them to stop? (On a side note, I'm happy to expand on my reasons for objecting to these changes; I just haven't yet, as I didn't know if it would be appropriate/helpful to do so in a discussion about editor conduct.) All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 07:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

 Note: The task has already been completed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

NmWTfs85lXusaybq, this is what, the second time you've been at ANI in addition to WP:BOTN for this sort of mass editing? You say that this task is done, but what about the next time? Will you simply ignore any complaints and just power through until it's done, and then say "well, you can't complain any more, as I am done"? In other words, I am looking for a reason not to block or partially block you for continually refusing to acknowledge others. Primefac (talk) 07:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

None of my edits have ever been reverted regarding these threads. I haven't received any objection from editors other than a smart kitten. And I haven't got any response from them after I replied to all their concerns. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't reply further on your talk, because you continued making the edits (without giving me time to respond) after I objected twice; leading to me starting this ANI thread. As I said above, I would have liked to discuss my objections to these changes in the normal manner. That I started this thread rather than responding further at your talk doesn't mean that my concerns were alleviated - the contrary is true. ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 08:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

You haven't reverted any edit of these tasks and you only asked me not to use those tools to make edits. I did exactly what you asked. You can't just claim to object all my edits because I just don't like it. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Noting that I've unarchived this thread, as the proposals have not yet been closed. All the best. ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 05:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Mass rollback proposal

I would like to propose that the (around 1,300) mass-edits by NmWTfs85lXusaybq that (a) removed {{talk header}} from redirect talk pages, and (b) removed the |living= WikiProject banner parameter from redirect talk pages, be rolled back; due to being mass-made without obtaining consensus (and after receiving an objection), and for the following reasons:

• Regarding the edits removing |living=yes from WikiProject banners - NmWTfs85lXusaybq stated at their talk page that they believe the {{BLP}} banner obviously doesn't apply to redirects (diff). I disagree with this - redirects (as with all pages) are subject to WP:BLP; and redirects can still have BLP implications (e.g. a redirect from a living person's name could be validly added to categories within the scope of WP:BLPCAT).
  Furthermore, even if {{BLP}} didn't apply to redirects, that would (in my opinion) be an issue better brought up at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell and/or Template talk:WikiProject Biography; where the banner could be set to not display on talk pages of redirects, if that's what the consensus was for - rather than the living parameter being unilateraly removed en masse to achieve this outcome.
• Regarding the edits removing {{talkheader}} - NmWTfs85lXusaybq stated that they believe it to be helpless and...in conflict with {{tpr}} on redirect talk pages (diff). I can't see why it's helpless, and - if it's contradictory to {{tpr}} - that's more of an argument to modify {{talkheader}} so that it isn't, rather than mass-remove it from redirect talk pages.
  Furthermore, on redirect talk pages with archives, these edits also removed what may well have been the only link to said archives from the talk page itself - e.g., after Special:Diff/1210736966, there's no link from Talk:Autism to that page's archives. In response to this concern, NmWTfs85lXusaybq stated that {{Archives}} can be added to those pages - however, my point is that it shouldn't be necessary for a third editor to perform this sort of manual 'clean-up' after the mass-removal of a template that (in my opinion) doesn't even need to be removed. (I, for one, don't feel up to going through all of the edits removing this banner to check which talk pages have archives and which ones don't.)

Per WP:FAITACCOMPLI, the fact that these edits have already been made should not be a reason to justify them. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 08:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

All my edits of these tasks are made on the talk pages of redirects only when there's a {{tpr}} banner on them.

• Regarding the removal of {{BLP}} and {{BLPO}} on the talk pages of redirects, it has been stated clearly in their template documentation that This template is intended for article talk pages.
• Regarding the removal of {{talkheader}} on the talk pages of redirects, it has also been stated clearly in its template documentation on when it should be added to the talk page. Besides, {{tpr}} is already the banner for talk pages of redirects and its introduction that Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at xxx completely contradicts the introduction on {{talkheader}} that This is the talk page for discussing improvements to xxx and Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. If there's any need to show archive links, add this feature directly to {{tpr}} instead.

NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Reserving judgement for now. Oppose mass rollback, support other sanction given WP:IDHT, wikilawyering, or WP:CIR below. @NmWTfs85lXusaybq Do you have a link to where you got consensus for these changes? The reasons you gave would be a good way of establishing consensus, but my understanding is that mass changes need approval prior to implementing them. That goes double when there has been an objection voiced. @A smart kitten While Fait Accompli does state that "it's already done" is a poor justification to keep edits, perhaps we should develop consensus for or against these edits before rolling them back. After all, if it's decided they're good, there's no point in duplicating work. However, even if they're good, I agree that the reported editor should NOT have continued in the face of objections, and if they don't acknowledge this, their access to semi-automated tools may need to be restricted. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC) EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Although there's no consensus about how to deal with these talk pages of redirects, I made these edits based on previous discussions. The conditions of misuse of {{talkheader}} have been stated in its documentation, which is based on consensus. In addition, a TfD for merging {{Auto archiving notice}} into {{Talk header}} suggests the replacement by {{archives}} for this-is-only-for-archives functionality. As a convenient way, there's an alternative option to bring the functionality of archive box directly into the {{tpr}} banner. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

That might be true, but nothing you have linked shows a consensus for this change. After all, WP:MEATBOT is also based in consensus, and WP:ASSISTED (which may apply more cleanly) also makes it clear: get consensus for your proposed changes first. If you did, I think it'd be useful to link to that specific discussion; hand-waving at templates is not convincing. Again, your edits do seem to me to be good, so I'd like to hear that you understand why this was a bad way to go about it, so I can just say "I trust you", be reassured that this problem won't recur, and let you get back to editing. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck: Apologies if you're already aware of this, but this is at least the second time a problem like this has occurred - see WP:BOTN § Fully automated edits without BRFA - Request for assistance for further context. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 20:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I was not, though I should've been; I missed Primefac's link to it above. Thank you for directing me to it! That link shows that it is even more important that NmWTfs85lXusaybq shows their understanding here, and pledges to get consensus (ideally via seeking WP:BOTAPPROVAL) before undertaking mass changes. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck: I'm relieved that my edits seem good to you. And I clearly understand I won't use automatic tool or semi-automatic tool to do a task without consensus. But WP:MEATBOT also states it clearly that For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. As long as I'm not editing against a consensus or causing errors, I can do it manually. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The very next sentence in the passage you quoted is No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked. I think I've stopped reserving judgement. That policy says the opposite of your conclusion that you can do it manually. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck: And the very next sentence after the one you quoted is However, merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time, is not by itself disruptive. Additionally,

as you stated above, my edits do seem good to you. If that's still disruptive to you, then disruptive editing looks good to you. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

You're not "merely quickly editing" though, you're making bot-like rapid fire edits. Trying to wikilawyer around this is a bad look. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Support mass rollback proposal. Doing so is in line with WP:BRD. Additionally, the loss of archives on redirect talk pages is an issue. Instead of obliging someone else to go through the mass of edits to find which pages have lost archive links and clean things up, a rollback is appropriate. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support per BRD. Queen of Hearts talk
  she/they
  stalk 22:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Behavioral Sanctions

I believe NmWTfs85lXusaybq needs to be restricted from making mass edits to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia.

• They have used semi-automated tools and operated in a bot-like manner without approval.
• When objections were raised, they refused to stop the mass editing.
• As pointed out above, this is at least the second time this has happened.
• When confronted, they first pointed to template instructions on their use, as if that overrode policies and guidelines.
• When the P&G were referenced, they then cherrypicked passages, misrepresenting them to justify their actions.
• This shows they either didn't actually read the policies, couldn't understand them, or are deliberately misinterpreting them.
• Therefore, I propose that NmWTfs85lXusaybq is prohibited from mass editing indefinitely. Until such a time that they show they understand and will abide by policies, in the judgement of any administrator, they should be prevented from further disruption.

Reviewing their talk page has also shown that they seem to have trouble collaborating with others. To quote User:Chris troutman to NmWTfs85lXusaybq, I'm becoming increasingly concerned that when a variety of Wikipedians address problems with your editing, you either ignore their issue, explain away as if it was not your fault, or change the subject. N.b.: This message was responded to by removing it with the edit summary: "Harassment or Personal attack". I'd also like to propose a 31 h block for disruptive editing, with the understanding that continuing to edit disruptively and failing to respond to other editors will lead to increasing blocks. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support both as proposer. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Chris troutman have made personal attacks on me in Talk:Trenkwalder#advertising? and leave a comment to a thread on my user page which he has never got involved in. I have to call this WP:Harassment. And pinging an editor who is clearly against me could also be WP:Canvassing. You should have also pinged all the other participants who have got involved that thread, including @Liz and Formyparty:. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Chris Troutman made a comment about your behaviour, not a personal attack. Calling that harassment and canvassing is at least not helpful. The Banner talk 13:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I see no difference between Chris Troutman's comment in Talk:Trenkwalder#advertising? and Arminden's comment in Talk:Horon#Horon_is_a_term_with_many_meanings_in_several_cultures about the behavioural issue. And Amakuru's comment in the latter thread may be helpful: If you have specific behavioural issues with that editor that you want to discuss then you can continue to post those at the WP:AN/I thread, but they don't belong here. And WP:harassment is about Chris Troutman's comment in a thread on my talk page they didn't participate, but WP:canvassing is about EducatedRedneck's behaviour as they only pinged the one who is clearly against me in that thread. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 13:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

While this to me feels like a WP:BATTLEGROUND-style Tu quoque, upon reflection I can see how my actions fit the bill for canvassing. My thinking was that it's only polite to ping the person I quoted, so if I misunderstood or misrepresented them, they could set the record straight. Given the context, however, I agree that it was for all practical purposes canvassing. I apologize for that, and thank you for pinging a broader base of editors. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

As for the second proposal, I have to cite WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE for you. And if you haven't realized what personal attack I have experienced, Arminden's comment in Talk:Horon#Horon_is_a_term_with_many_meanings_in_several_cultures is such a case and is similar to Talk:Trenkwalder#advertising? I cited before. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

My feeling is that, even in this very thread, you remain unresponsive to other editor's concern. As such, the block would indeed be preventative, not punitive. If other editors disagree on one or both proposals, that's also okay. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• As the original filer, Support editing restriction (with the caveat that - as a community-imposed restriction - the community, not a single administrator, should be the body with the power to remove it). I would also be supportive of a block for disruptive editing, but I wouldn't want to dictate the length of such a block to an admin that decides to place it. Block or no block, though, I believe that such an editing restriction is clearly necessary; given (among other things) the disruptive mass-editing without consensus, the refusal to stop following objection, and the apparent wikilawyering both during this thread and on their talk page.
  To be clear, I still support my rollback proposal above, per WP:BRD if nothing else: short of mass-rollback, I don't know how I'm supposed to undo these edits that I strongly disagree with; and I don't believe that ANI is the ideal forum to be deciding whether or not the edits were an improvement from a content perspective. However, whether or not the rollback proposal is passed, I believe the proposed restriction is also needed.
  All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 04:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  No objection to stricter sanctions. My thinking was that it's better to have it be an agile editing restriction, so it can be removed easily if no longer needed, and can easily be strengthened if circumstances merit. Similarly, I was thinking of starting with a short block. However, if others believe the weaker sanction would waste community time, I have no objection to a stronger one. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support both. On reading the evidence presented, and seeing NmWTfs85lXusaybq's ongoing WP:IDHT behavior, the mass editing restriction is warranted, and the block would be preventative. I also agree with a smark kitten that if this editing restriction is community-imposed, it falls to the community to be the body to determine its removal. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
•  Administrator note This user has apparently retired. Primefac (talk) 07:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• They have also changed names and are deleting their pages. I'm not sure that complete deletion of talk pages is allowed when other editors have left any comments. This should not be allowed. They can blank it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  I deleted the page earlier today and I only noticed this discussion now. I will not be available for most of the day today, but if consensus is that the deletion was not appropriate (which it might very well be, I have not even read this thread fully) every administrator is welcome to restore. I will check later in the (European) evening. Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, I see, it has already been restored. Perfectly fine with me, and my apologies, I apparently did not check the history of the page well enough.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• I now it is moot by now, but seeing that he removed criticism with a summery of "Harassment or Personal attack" gives me serious worries. The Banner talk 10:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• This is moot, but support restriction if they ever do unvanish. Queen of Hearts talk
  she/they
  stalk 18:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose block as moot, but Support an editing restriction against mass edits, whether automated or manual. The above comments demonstrate a complete disregard for the concerns of other editors, and no indication that they understand why people were upset about a mass-edit without consensus.

— The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Support Both The editor in question has almost certainly already created a CLEANSTART account or will do so soon. I want it on the record that the community does not allow these heedless mass edits. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

 Renamer note: Vanishing is not a means to evade scrutiny or sanctions. It does not offer a fresh start or guarantee anonymity. If the user returns with a new account, the “vanishing” will likely be fully reversed, linking the old and new accounts, and any outstanding sanctions or restrictions will be resumed. – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Meh. Probably our old compañero, Commander Waterford. ——Serial 11:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  Well, CommanderInDubio (their current username) is active elsewhere, so it should be easy enough to take it to SPI, where accusations of sockpuppetry belong... –FlyingAce^✈hello 14:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I spent a little time looking into this possibility and it seems very unlikely these are the same person based purely on behavioral evidence. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  +1, all I could find in common was having a case of editcountitis (probably thousands of people, occasionally including me, I'll admit) and being (ex) page movers (407 people, also including me (this is a magic word; it was 401 when I posted this.)) Queen of Hearts talk
  she/they
  stalk 02:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  ... so it follows that the accusations of sockpuppetry should be struck, right? –FlyingAce^✈hello 02:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  That's what it would seem like to me. Suggestions of sockpuppetry without evidence comes across as aspersions. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 09:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question regarding a user with prior restrictions for bludgeoning and edit warring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A user with tban and anti-bludgeoning restrictions believes that "edits in Article space have nothing to do" with their restrictions. I would appreciate clarification on whether this is accurate because they appear to use edit summaries to make statements and express opinions that cannot be challenged without risking edit wars. It's worth noting that they have not previously edited this BLP before, and as of this writing, they have yet to engage with the BLP Talk even though they been politely asked to. List of User’s edits with summaries. User’s posts in Talk (empty). XMcan (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Looking at that BLP, the clear aversion from every participant to any form of discussion is so noticeable that I hardly think Newimpartial alone can be blamed for it. That said, that comment shows that their battleground tendencies are alive and well... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

As someone who voted in favour of NewImpartial's bludgeoning restriction (and has perhaps even been on the receving end of said bludgeon!) I can say I don't think this is a violation of the restriction. I agree with AirshipJungleman29 that all users could do with participating on the talk page more, but that's about it. — Czello ^(music) 16:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

1) well no, bludgeon refers specifically to overinvolvement in discussions and belaboring the process, you really cannot apply that to edits and edit summaries.

2) speaking of wp:bludgeon tho, one should note that XMcan has been on the same tangent for almost 2 months now at that article talk page but their position has not gained consensus.

3) XMcan's rationale for their latest edit war is lots of IPs are saying it so they must have a point.

3) also note that XMcan has been indeffed from the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory page, and the subject matter that the user is involved in at the blp is Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. wp:boomerangs may be in play. ValarianB (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

A tban from the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory broadly construed maybe in order. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not okay with how much XMcan has been edit warring at James A. Lindsay, which I agree is an article that is related to Cultural Marxism. Edit warring was part of the disruption that led to their page block from the Cultural Marxism article and its talk page. The opening statement here suggests that some edit summaries "cannot be challenged without risking edit wars", which doesn't make sense, and leads me to think the edit warring will continue. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I meant it per WP:REVTALK: Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors! Sorry, if I didn't make it clear. XMcan (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The OP seems confused about WP:BLUDGEON, as they demonstrated in this accusation shortly after their block from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Valereee tried to clarify XMcan's understanding of my restriction here, but that doesn't seem to have changed their impression that I must have some done something wrong when our perceptions of a topic differ.

In the present instance, what I see on Talk:James A. Lindsay is essentially a WP:1AM situation where they are the "1"; I generally agree with the other editors in that discussion (which I have been reading in installments long before editing the page), but I haven't felt compelled to add anything to that conversation - quite the opposite of BLUDGEON, I should think.

I would also point out that XMCan's convictions animating their participation on the Lindsay page appear to be precisely the same convictions that animated their disruption of the Cultural Marxism page. Newimpartial (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

but I haven't felt compelled to add anything to that conversation - quite the opposite of BLUDGEON, I should think. Agree completely. The talk page seems to indicate 1am as you have said, so perhaps some level of WP:BOOMERANG is in order. I'd endorse ActivelyDisinterested's tban suggestion. — Czello ^(music) 20:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• I think this attempt by XMcan to make this an issue in an unrelated thread is indicative of a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, and I would support a topic ban on them as proposed above. Hatman31 (talk) 05:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  Since we are cherry picking, we should pick this cherry, too. 🍒 XMcan (talk) 10:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  WP:BATTLEGROUND might also be indicated by XMcan's contributions to an XfD discussion - contributions that include obvious ASPERSIONS about my motives in this vote. Once again, the avowed topic of their behaviour is related (by editing history of the author of the page up for deletion) to the Cultural Marxism topic (and, in this case, to other conspiracy theories as well). Newimpartial (talk) 12:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  Editors who read my brief comment to NI in context will notice that the user who initiated that exchange appears determined to have the last word. Such tendency could explain a preference for making dismissive comments in edit summaries rather than participating in Talk. XMcan (talk) 15:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  Given that you did cast aspersions in your reply, I don't think this is last-wordism from NewImpartial. If I received such a comment, I'd probably want to reply and say what they said.

  I can't really see any wrongdoing from NI in any of the comments you've linked; I'd suggest it's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK because this could boomerang. — Czello ^(music) 16:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  NI and the author, whose two articles are up for deletion, have a lengthy and contentious history that involves at least a couple of AE cases that I know of. I'm unclear on why NI is introducing the XfDs or involving that author in this discussion. The purpose of this ANI is to seek clarification on whether the existing anti-bludgeoning limits (two comments per discussion per day) extend to edit summaries, not to revisit past disputes involving other parties. I encourage NI to moderate their behavior, but I'm not advocating for their ban or punishment. If it's determined that they've inadvertently violated limits, a simple warning or clarification would be satisfactory from my perspective. If it’s determined that they are an upstanding wiki-citizen and no longer need anti-bludgeoning restrictions, that’s fine with me too. XMcan (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, XMcan, I mentioned your XfD interventions (not anyone else's) as "similar fact" evidence (of ASPERSION-casting and IDHT) that might help editors to understand your filing here.

  Namely, you exhibit a pattern of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, centered in the topic of Cultural Marxism, and have repeatedly made unsubstantiated assertions about my editing - most recently, that I have a lengthy and contentious history with Sennalen and that I appear determined to have the last word in my MfD participation. Both statements are half-truths at best, and your constant misinterpretations about what my BLUDGEON ban is supposed to address strike me as BATTLEGROUND tactics as well.

  Incidentally, for the record, I am not asking for my BLUDGEON restriction to be lifted at this time; it would be welcome for it to be modified so that my own editor Talk page is excluded, but I understand if the community would like to ask and answer that question through a more formal process than this one. Newimpartial (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

As others have said, editing articles isn't really bludgeoning. Of course edit summaries aren't the place for details discussions over changes, and if an editor with a bludgeoning restriction moves on from bludgeoning to edit warring to force their version in, without bothering to discuss their changes, they might quickly find themselves blocked for reasons that have nothing to do with bludgeoning but I see no evidence this has happened here. Nil Einne (talk) 10:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

(univnolved non-admin comment) Given the background and previous reports, I propose that User:XMcan be topic banned from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, this would prevent him from bringing it up tangentially in discussions and other pages regarding the issue such as James A. Lindsay etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support, though I would word it as "broadly construed", as otherwise I believe XMcan will move to other related articles and continue this disruptive, battleground behavior.

— The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support with broadly construed per continued edit warring since the pblocks. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support and yes, also add the broadly construed verbiage. They appear to be hear to debate this specific topic, nipping that seems the only recourse. Zaathras (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support with broadly construed. I think that this is the very minimum that can be applied at this point given the extent and duration of the trouble caused and there being no obvious prospect of stopping it in any other way. (Disclosure: I was the filer of one of the previous reports that Lavalizard101 mentions.) --DanielRigal (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support with broadly construed. If it’s not Cultural Marxism or James Lindsay it will be something else unless a tban is in place. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Support, broadly construed. The continued disruptive behaviour on the same subject but in a different article leaves no room for anything less. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support with broadly construed. XMcan has wasted enough editor time in this topic area and does not appear inclined to change. Generalrelative (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I feel appreciative of Kafka now more than ever. Does “broadly construed” mean everything related to politics? ;) XMcan (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support, broadly construed otherwise this behaviour looks like it will be moved from article to article. TarnishedPath^talk 05:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Muhammad Jalal al-Din

Muhammad Jalal al-Din (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Got a ANI hattrick here. Unfortunately the previous report of Muhammad Jalal al-Din by User:TimothyBlue got auto-archived [356]. Muhammad Jalal al-Din is still at it (eg [357] [358] [359] [360]). I recall seeing another editor referring them as a "sock" some days ago, but now I can't find the diff so I can ask for more info about it. Wouldn't be surprised be if this was indeed a sock. They still haven't used the edit summary let alone a talk page. --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely partially blocked the reported user to prevent edits to articles. I accidentally did a full block initially and had to change it to my intended partial. Johnuniq (talk) 04:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Johnuniq! HistoryofIran (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Persistent disruption at Ben Akabueze

WP:COI, with DeezaLabs (talk · contribs) apparently using multiple accounts to edit war. Removal of sourced content, addition of unsourced content, and most recently, copyright violation. See [361]; [362]; [363]; [364]; [365]; [366]; [367]; [368]; [369]; [370]; [371]; [372]; [373]. Requesting at least a topic ban if not block, and page protection, given that the account has used multiple IPs here, too. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Eternal return

Soothsayer79 is engaging in battleground behaviour at the article Eternal return. It began a few weeks ago, with Soothsayer79 continually inserting and re-inserting original research into the article over the objections of myself and William M. Connolley. After our talk page discussion reached a stalemate, Soothsayer79 requested a third opinion. They got two third opinions for the price of one, with both Nemov and IOHANNVSVERVS endorsing my point of view [374][375]. Soothsayer79 indicated that they did not intend to abide by this consensus (see this exchange), so I reverted their edits myself. Their response was to POINTedly remove a large chunk of long-standing content [376], ostensibly on the grounds that they believe it to be original research [377]. I made one last effort to engage with the substance of their argument, but it was clear that this content removal was done in bad faith and not out of any sincere desire to improve the article.

I do think Soothsayer79 was acting in good faith up to that point, but that doesn't change the fact that they just don't seem to understand the OR policy or how consensus works. I had hoped to avoid bringing this to ANI, but I think the threat of sanctions may be the only way of convincing them to back down. I'm not sure of the pinging etiquette; apologies to those pinged, please don't feel any obligation to comment. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

So this definitely appears to be a situation where one editor (Soothsayer79) has decided that the concept originated from Nietzsche, rather than its scholarly recognized earlier origins, and is attempting to force the article to comply with that view. They are also taking issue with the fact that cited sources speculate & disagree about the classical origins of the term, incorrectly applying our WP:OR rules to the sources themselves in order to remove the cited sections about that scholarly speculation.

This also has the knock-on effect of the lede mentioning that Nietzsche revived the concept from ancient sources, but all documentation about the ancient sources has been excised from our article, leaving a puzzling gap for the reader. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

A few indefinitely confirmed users

Seen here, there are multiple additions of the confirmed right to two members of edit-a-thon staff (?) and the event coordinator themselves, as well as multiple indefinite grants to attendees as well. Notified event coordinator on their talk page as this concerns them. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe this is what event coordinators do. You might have asked the admin who granted them this user right, User:Femke. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, there are instructions(link) in their talk page by the admin who gave them the right, instructions which say "You should not grant this for more than 10 days" about the confirmed right. – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:D4DC:46FF:5933:EF85 (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this works as I don't spend time at PERM but this editor no longer is an event coordinator so they don't have the ability to remove this right. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Mostly just posting to have someone fix the confirmed status, not necessarily to propose anything specific regarding the event coordinator, especially given that their rights have indeed expired as of the end of February. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 05:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Mistakes happen, no biggie. I've removed confirmed from all the accounts: they'll be autoconfirmed if they hit the 10 edits (none of them have come that far yet). This is not the first time I've seen this happen, so I'd like to improve the message that people get when they are granted the perm. Can't find where it's stored though. I don't think the 'account creator' bit is relevant, better to highlight the basics. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Femke: Looking into the JavaScript, it seems that it substitutes using this template: {{Event coordinator granted}}. – 2804:F1...33:EF85 (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks :). The standard text is hopefully clearer now. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Femke: By chance, any opinion on also bolding the text: "You should not grant this for more than 10 days." in the granting template? Would that come off as hostile to the grantee? EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@EggRoll97: I had it bolded, looked at it in preview, and found it too bitey. That's mostly because I see the last bullet point as overly bitey already (The event coordinator right is not a status symbol...). I couldn't find words to soften that last bit. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Dispute over editing of incorrect information

Hello.

I'm accuse this to User:Passportrack7 because he continues to correct incorrect information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_Paraguayan_citizens

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Visa_requirements_for_Paraguayan_citizens&action=history

https://www.henleyglobal.com/passport-index/ranking

If you look at the "HISTORY" page... I entered the information through the website source, but User:Passportrack7 keeps correcting the incorrect information.

So i accuse this. Lades2222 (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Lades2222, I have fixed the username, moved the report to WP:ANI and notified the user for you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so there are two issues here: Passportrack7 has added information without providing a source, and Lades2222 has reverted their contributions to the point of edit warring without attempting to talk to the user on their talk page once.

In the future, please try placing {{welcome-unsourced}} or {{uw-unsourced1}}, then {{uw-unsourced2}}, {{uw-unsourced3}} and {{uw-unsourced4}} on the user's talk page before reporting. You can skip "unsourced2" if the issue is significant. See WP:UWARN for more of these templates.

Administrators will rarely block users who haven't been informed about the issue, unless the issue is so obvious/significant that a prior warning wouldn't have made a difference either. If the issue persists after warnings, please re-report. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Lades2222:, please don’t forget in the future to alert the user you are reporting by placing {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ on their talk page so they can respond to your thread here. If you are accusing them of adding information without a reliable source, it’d be helpful to include links to the revs (see Help:Diff#Linking_to_a_diff). Northern Moonlight 00:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Revdel request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This edit, although reverted, qualifies as a death threat, or at a minimum a death wish, against a certain group of editors and their families. A revdel is requested, and a temporary block of the IP would also be appropriate. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@JoJo Anthrax Ouch. That is actually pretty scary. Yeah. I think it should be deleted because this is pretty serious for a death threat. I support the block. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

(I think it's been recommended to email Oversight about revdels when possible, especially when they're particularly sensitive, to avoid potential Streisand effect.) Remsense诉 13:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Both done. For future reference, @Remsense is correct, please do not bring these type of things to a high profile noticeboard! Courcelles (talk) 13:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, and I now know to email Oversight if similar trash removal is needed again. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

IF PUBLIC VIEW
WOULD BRING DISGRACE
A NOTICE-BOARD
IS NOT THE PLACE
Burma-shave

—Odysseus1479 02:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• I wasn't sure if people still used these. Something something, Burma Shave. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 18:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  I hope we can bring back the haiku closes too. EEng 15:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I shall close the thread

in five, then seven, then five

syllables of verse.

IronGargoyle (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat?

MaithilDil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See [378]: The word you've chosen in some of your public comments are not only misaligned with the respectful and inclusive tone Wikipedia promotes but also potentially cross ethical boundaries and legal standards in India. For background, User:MaithilDil has confined all their editing history, beyond a couple of initial edits to another article, to promotional content concerning Sangram Singh, an Indian wrestler and actor. The Singh biography has unfortunately in the past been the focus of considerable amounts of questionable editing, with unsourced and/or badly-sourced content being added by a succession of single-purpose accounts. Given this history, and MaithilDil's singular focus, I originally enquired on their talk page as to whether there might be a conflict of interest. It took two efforts to get a response (a denial), and I noted that (along with other comments made by MaithilDil on their talk page: see the response to the earlier thread on edit-warring) the responses given were written in a manner that seemed to me to be very much in the style of ChatGPT output: repetitive, formulaic, and full of abstract evocations of good intentions toward Wikipedia that failed to adequately address the points I'd been making. My tolerance for such apparent stonewalling not being indefinite, I then enquired as to whether the posts were indeed being written by ChatGPT, resulting in the response above. If it isn't actually a legal threat, it gives every appearance of an attempt to intimidate, and incidentally once again entirely fails to answer the question I'd asked. I assume that WP:NLT policy applies to chatbot-generated posts as much as any other, and regardless of whether a bot wrote it, it clearly merits some form of admin response. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked MaithilDil for the legal intimidation, exacerbated by the reality that they are using ChatGPT or some other AI technology to mass produce evasive bullshit instead of engaging in genuine human communication. Competence is required. Cullen328 (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The endless 'evasive bullshit', as Cullen so wonderfully put it, didn't stop. I've revoked TPA and sent them to UTRS if they want to actually appeal their block. Daniel (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Serious side question here. Why is it that so many of the legal threats at the moment, and over the last year, have been coming from editors from India? Has there been some kind of law change there that people are grossly misinterpreting as giving them rights on Wikipedia? Canterbury Tail talk 13:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Not really a law change but most social media sites (including Facebook, Insta, Twitter etc) remove posts, block accounts etc based on government directives, although judicial directive is legally required. People lump Wikipedia in with those (just see the contributions of those who make legal threats and there'd be no difference between what they write here and what you'd find on a closed FB group or on Twitter etc) —SpacemanSpiff 17:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It's been an issue for a long time. I think the recent increase is a combination of more editors from India, Indian social media criticism of Wikipedia (i.e. not liking factual articles about current affairs or politicians), and an odd belief that Indian law has any effect here. Black Kite (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a precedent: [379]. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

A lot of it is due to lowest level courts exerting their authority, this also fueled the IIPM scandal (which had its own paid Wikipedia admin to sort things out here) where they got interim injunctions against publishing from a court in a remote district and even had Indian govt websites blocked. Takes a long time for these cases to actually get a final judgment and/or move to an appeals stage at higher level courts. I remember one recent judgement from Delhi HC where the judge actually said "Anyone can edit Wikipedia, if you don't like what's written then go edit it, don't ask us to block the website".—SpacemanSpiff 17:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that might have been the one referred to here. Brunton (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It's the same sort of situation that's led to discretionary sanctions in many other areas: cultural wars, fraught politics, linguistic/religious tensions, governments pushing sectarian ideologies and seeking to impose their partisan POV as The Truth. Then you toss in that India has more English speakers than any other country in the world, and there you have it. Ravenswing 16:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The fact that I'm from India and so many people do this is just... disappointing. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Another factor (relevant to the Sangram Singh biography where the trouble above started) is probably the propensity of sections of the Indian media (including the otherwise more reputable ones) to include what is clearly paid-for material, unmarked, amongst their more legitimate content, per WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Nobody likes being told that the source they are citing for the subject of a biography being a 'philanthropist', 'health guru' and the rest is unacceptable, because it presents nothing in the way of further commentary, never mind evidence, to back such flimflam up. Its a shame really, because biographies of people with genuine talent never reach any sort of stability, and flipflop between hagiography and stubbiness, as the battle between fancruft and legitimate content goes back and forth. Not just a problem for India-related content of course, but it does seem to be more frequent than elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with AndyTheGrump on this point. As a young(er) Wikipedia editor ten plus years ago, I incorrectly assumed that coverage by long established newspapers like the Times of India and Indian Express was reliable. I have learned the hard way that these and many other Indian publications regulary print paid advertising masquerading as legitimate news coverage. This a disturbing fact that greatly complicates our coverage of the entertainment industry in India. Cullen328 (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Fred Zepelin edit warring

Fred Zepelin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaging in edit warring to reinsert "far right" into the opening sentence of the article despite there being clearly no consensus on the talk page to include this statement and is baselessly accusing me of doing this because "WP:IDONTLIKEIT [380]" [381] Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

There actually is consensus from 4 editors to include the descriptor, and the editors have cited the dozens of sources that use the term, while the editors opposed to it have not cited any sources, or policies, to justify their removal of the term. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I also note that Fred has previously accused editors who opposed him in another different discussion of being white-supremacist-apologists [382] Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a blatant lie. I said "I do have a problem with white-supremacist-apologists who show up at these articles periodically to attempt to market their favorite cause in a more positive way." I did not accuse any particular editor of being a white supremacist. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Is it worse to be called a white supremacist or a white-supremacist-apologist or a liar? How about following WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and not call editors any insulting names at all, and focus on content? This isn't the first time you've been admonished about this.[383] BBQboffin^{grill me} 06:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how this could be considered a consensus for inclusion. Another 4 editors (Springee, Peter Gulutzan, FirstPrimeOfApophis and me) don't agree with the inclusion. That's clearly no consensus for inclusion. You assert in this edit summary [384] that because you consider the opinions of opposing editors invalid, that this gives you a license to edit war. This is simply not how Wikipedia discussions and consensus works. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

No, it's actually very clear to me what the opinions of the opposing editors are. The problem lies in the fact that they offer no policy-based justification for the removal of the term "far-right", in the face of dozens of sources that describe the subject as such and/or describe his endorsement of political positions that are accepted as being "far-right". The editors that added those sources are describing their edits based on policy. The opposers are simply saying "so what, we don't like "far-right" in the lead" without any justification in policy. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that the concerns about adding "far right" are reasonable WP:BLP concerns, you may not agree with them, but that doesn't give you a right to edit war, and you've been here long enough that you should know that. If you want to gain consensus for the inclusion of "far right" in the opening sentence, I would suggest creating an RfC and letting the closer judge whether or not the arguments opposing inclusion are valid. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

FZ hasn't violated 3RR but I think it is clear they fail to understand NOCON as they argue that editors opposed to a change have the burden vs those wishing to make the change. Their terse/condescending tone on the talk page doesn't violate CIVIL but is not helpful in finding a consensus. I think a gentile reminder regarding consensus would be helpful here. Springee (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

What is a "gentile reminder"? Anyway, I started an RfC, and am eagerly awaiting some policy-based discussion. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa - WP:Battleground behavior and WP:NOTHERE.

@Kaalakaa, whose either neutrality and/or cherry-picking of sources on Islam related articles have been questioned by several editors, including @Iskandar323 [385], and here [386] where he compared Muhammad with Hitler, and by @DeCausa [387], @Anachronist [388], and @Chxeese [389], as well as by @Neutralhappy on the ANI board [390], and who has also been accused of sockpuppetry by @NEDOCHAN (see SPI investigation), and is also used to making snarky personal attacks on much senior editors such as @Louis P. Boog, "It is very concerning that someone who has done over 42,000 edits since 23 December 2006 still doesn't quite grasp basic Wikipedia guidelines", and is now what looks like, Wiki:Hounding me on my old edit on a Muslim section in History of Hinduism.

@Kaalakaa first tried to report me regarding my discussion at Aisha article, but other editors did not found any violation and simply warned both of us to avoid causing timesink, after that he raised the current issue on the OR board about the edits on History of Hinduism saying that I misrepresented a source, I simply addressed them by removing the source whose reliability was questioned by others and provided alternative ones in accordance with the responses and editors like @Eucalyptusmint and @Joshua Jonathan and @Asteramellus were all fine with it. Done.

After that he kept pestering for the sources that I just gave in the talk page to merely demonstrate a point. And when I addressed that too, admitted a mistake, and then gave another source to support the statement, he then started questioning the sources. I warned him about "cherry-picking sources with the same bias to forcefully insert critique where it is not WP:Relevant, disregarding all others, and then WP:BLUDGEON the process to achieve it" after that I once again requested him to stop WP:ICANTHEARYOU and sheer time wasting of other editors; he then challenged me to report him[391], clearly treating Wikipedia as a WP:Battleground which he has been accused of by other editors[392] and he feels he has to WP:WINIT at any cost.

In summary: lack of neutrality by cherry-picking the sources, battleground behavior, challenging other editors to block him; clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia.

A full NOTHERE block must be implemented if not a recommended partial indef block on Islam related articles. StarkReport (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Bluishebrye

• Bluishebrye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sarah Geronimo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user keeps disrupting the Sarah Geronimo article by adding "Guidicelli" and the {{Philippine name}} hatnote on the lead section, whereas I'm working on the article to have it listed for GAN/FAC. I've seen the Regine Velasquez article does not have "Alcasid" when the article's primary contributor worked on it. Recently, the user disturbed me twice to add the Guidicelli thing in the lead. ScarletViolet (talk • contribs) 02:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@ScarletViolet, the IP Special:Contributions/103.132.168.197 has edited the article saying they are her manager in the edit summary. Also, they’ve said the same on ScarletViolet’s user talk. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 03:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that the above IP, who said they were the "manager" for the article subject, was blocked for one month (by Ad Orientem). I've also informed them about WP:COI expectations (diff). El_C 06:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Sharontoo7

Apparent legal threat. Also WP:NOTHERE by the looks of it. Kleuske (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

ALL I WAS DOING WAS EXPLAINING WHO WROTE IF I WERE A BOY , WHY ARE YOU HARRASSING ME AND TAKEN YOUR ANGER OUT ON ME , WHO IS YOUR MANAGER? THIS IS INSANE HOW YOUR TREATING ME . Sharontoo7 (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

DON'T WANNA WIFE
HENRY VIII^th
KEEP YOUR HEAD
ASSUME GOOD FAITH
Burma-shave

Also WP:CAPSLOCK violation. GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 19:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

ok Sharontoo7 (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

what's I don't wanna a wife , suppose to mean Sharontoo7 (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it's refrencing how most of Henry VIIIth's wifes didn't meet a good end. GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 19:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

And not just his wifes but his wives too. EEng 15:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

This one is more explicitly a threat to sue Wikipedia. 57.140.16.57 (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I've indeffed as NOTHERE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio revdel requested for Back in Black

This copyrighted book by Susan Masino was plagiarized today by new student user Augustkey who copied text straight from the book into the article Back in Black (song). Can we revdel the edits? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. Much of the rest of the article is inappropriate in tone. Acroterion (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I can't check that Guitar Player reference by the same editor, but it looks fishy too. Acroterion (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Acroterion: A Google search found nothing except our article "Back in Black" (song), and searches for "Gress" and "AC/DC" in the Guitar Player online archive turned up nothing. Very fishy. Narky Blert (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Possible WP:OR in List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces

Requesting Administrator review of the list created in the article List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces for possible WP:OR. An extensive list has been created with incidents that are very controvical and have been added with only a single source that are either Qualified as Pro-Rebal (WP:BIAS/WP:QS), and non English sources (WP:NONENG/WP:RSUEQ).

Qualified as Pro-Rebal (WP:BIAS/WP:QS)

TamilNet - Accepted as a pro-rebel - Qualified source (A source that may be reliable in certain contexts, but always needs to be used with a qualification (also called “attribution”) such as “pro-rebel”, “state owned” or the name itself.) in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/Sources#List_of_sources

NESOHR - Accepted as a pro-rebel - Qualified source (A source that may be reliable in certain contexts, but always needs to be used with a qualification (also called “attribution”) such as “pro-rebel”, “state owned” or the name itself.) in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/Sources#List_of_sources

Non English sources (WP:NONENG/WP:RSUEQ)

Uthayan - Tamil language daily newspaper

Eelanadu - Tamil language daily newspaper

Cossde (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Tamilnet and NESOHR have already been vetted at Sri Lanka Reconciliation project with admin supervision, and can be cited with explicit attribution as they have been. This does not fall under category of OR, as the entries reflect their citations. It is not controversial that massacres of civilians have been committed by the Sri Lankan Armed forces, as this has been well documented by multiple reliable sources. Oz346 (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

and the sources are qualified sources, not questionable sources, two very different things. A search on the RS notice board regarding this subclass of sources can be found. Oz346 (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:QS states "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest". In the case of TamilNet and NESOHR, Sri Lanka Reconciliation project has confirmed these (though disscussion) that these are pro-rebel - Qualified source since these are "source that may be reliable in certain contexts" and they need to be used with "a qualification" due to the obvious conflict of interest. Cossde (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no evidence that these sources have a poor reputation for fact checking or lack meaningful editorial oversight. In fact, the opposite could be said. Like most sources in Sri Lanka, including the Sinhala owned national newspapers, they have their biases, but it is not sufficient to claim they are questionable sources.

In any case, discussions of these sources have already been done to death at the Sri Lanka Reconciliation project, and you are replicating these discussions here. Countless times you have attempted to remove mentions of Sri Lankan Army war crimes from multiple pages, including those cited with the highest level of reliable and scholarly sources, as you have done here recently: Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces#OHCHR report regarding sexual violence and Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces#Peacekeeping sex scandal. This would fit WP:NAT editing. Oz346 (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

On the contary, I have mentioned here that both these sources as Qualified (pro-rebel) sources, and that this has been done in the Sri Lanka Reconciliation project by disscussion and I do not challange it. If you read carefully what I have said this would be clear. As per the alligation of WP:NAT editing, one must only look at your edit history to find that your contributions are only limited to Tamil nationalist topics, where as mine is much broader. Therefore please be mindful of your continued personal attacks on me. Cossde (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The OP seems to have misread WP:NONENG/WP:RSUEQ. Sources that are not in English should be evaluated in exactly the same way that sources in English are. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. English sources are preferred if available and of the same quality. But if not English is not requirement. (A trans-title parameter in the references is extremely appreciated however as is a quote).

I have no opinion about these sources however, and no information on Sri Lanka. Elinruby (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Wait, isn't this directly related to the dispute in WP:ANI#User:Cossde flouting Wikipedia policies earlier on this page? Both involve Cossde and Sri Lanka articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Attention: Toini Ivanov

User @Toini Ivanov is reverting constructive edits and putting threatening vandalism notices left-and-right. See a small sample of good edits that this user has reverted:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_Jalil_Andrabi&diff=prev&oldid=1212749012
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cot%E2%80%93caught_merger&diff=prev&oldid=1212748265
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kochi_Metro&diff=prev&oldid=1212746684
• and many others

Most of his "reversions" are garbage. On top of that, this user adds a threatening vandalism notice to those who made constructive edits. 88.118.7.240 (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

This user made 100 mostly crap edits in half an hour and keeps going unhindered. 88.118.7.240 (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Moved from the Teahouse; endorsing report. Needs to be mass-reverted as well, as the editor appears to be targeting IP editors with no other consideration. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm currently working my way through their edits now to check which need to keep at least some notice and which need to be completely removed and reverted, so far I've only re-applied a notice to one user and that was nothing more than an editing test. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding to the weirdness is the account of registered in 2016, yet made no edits until today when a campaign of similar edits and messages started. Could it be a bot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.200.213 (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The strangest part of it for me is that some of the people they warned they didn't even revert? The edits just remain there, such as the edits on Vanchi Bhumi by this user (which has since had their warning removed). CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

On a side note, the number of reverts done by the user per minute and the usage of a warning template that I have never heard of before {{uw-vandalism4jew}}) seems somewhat fishy to me. EnIRtpf09b (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

This is  Confirmed to The local bishop. It's probably some other sockmaster in reality, but this is the one I saw earlier today. Blocked and tagged. I'm sure they'll be back. --Yamla (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully not for a while. I'll keep running through their edits to see which are actually warranted and which aren't, but I'm doubting that any are at this point. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind then. Thanks! CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

They certainly had the right idea about being effective at doing the most harm before they're stopped. Just look at their talk page. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

This is some sort of LTA, whose mission appears to be to game the EC permission on some old accounts to vandalise EC-protected pages. That's exactly what happened with the 'Timefordindins' account earlier today. Some earlier usernames I've come across are 'A really cool tour' and 'Big Whack'.

A key characteristic of this 'LTA' is they always, always use the edit summary "Your recent changes to [page]" when leaving warnings. Note: I'm not trying to give this user recognition here, just point out an easy to find piece of modus operandi of this LTA for easier identifications of future socks. Thanks all. — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

No, that was very helpful. Just looked at Timefordindins. Same thing. Again a 2016 account. Someone must have found their file with all the alts and passwords for 2016, but I have no idea who. Today is the first time I have seen this tactic. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

There are 30-some accounts related to this (including the ones mentioned above), all blocked already. I have to assume they'll log in to more, but I see no currently unblocked accounts at this time. --Yamla (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Yamla, and thanks CommissarDoggo for your quick move to damage control. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Yamla, please restore User talk:88.118.7.240. I think it had additional discussions, as they were the one who wrote up the nice report and posted to the teahouse. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

By your command. --Yamla (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again — Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Could this be this guy? Especially since it's an old account. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 00:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it's confirmed. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 00:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Yup, I think it was just me mentioning to Toini not to bite the newcomers, aside from that it was the 4im and the IP user's replies. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 13:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

If it weren't restored, I'd never have seen the heartwarming message they'd replied to me with — Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Toini Ivanov now indef blocked. Thank you. David notMD (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Fred Zepelin edit warring

Fred Zepelin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaging in edit warring to reinsert "far right" into the opening sentence of the article despite there being clearly no consensus on the talk page to include this statement and is baselessly accusing me of doing this because "WP:IDONTLIKEIT [393]" [394] Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

There actually is consensus from 4 editors to include the descriptor, and the editors have cited the dozens of sources that use the term, while the editors opposed to it have not cited any sources, or policies, to justify their removal of the term. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I also note that Fred has previously accused editors who opposed him in another different discussion of being white-supremacist-apologists [395] Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a blatant lie. I said "I do have a problem with white-supremacist-apologists who show up at these articles periodically to attempt to market their favorite cause in a more positive way." I did not accuse any particular editor of being a white supremacist. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Is it worse to be called a white supremacist or a white-supremacist-apologist or a liar? How about following WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and not call editors any insulting names at all, and focus on content? This isn't the first time you've been admonished about this.[396] BBQboffin^{grill me} 06:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how this could be considered a consensus for inclusion. Another 4 editors (Springee, Peter Gulutzan, FirstPrimeOfApophis and me) don't agree with the inclusion. That's clearly no consensus for inclusion. You assert in this edit summary [397] that because you consider the opinions of opposing editors invalid, that this gives you a license to edit war. This is simply not how Wikipedia discussions and consensus works. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

No, it's actually very clear to me what the opinions of the opposing editors are. The problem lies in the fact that they offer no policy-based justification for the removal of the term "far-right", in the face of dozens of sources that describe the subject as such and/or describe his endorsement of political positions that are accepted as being "far-right". The editors that added those sources are describing their edits based on policy. The opposers are simply saying "so what, we don't like "far-right" in the lead" without any justification in policy. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that the concerns about adding "far right" are reasonable WP:BLP concerns, you may not agree with them, but that doesn't give you a right to edit war, and you've been here long enough that you should know that. If you want to gain consensus for the inclusion of "far right" in the opening sentence, I would suggest creating an RfC and letting the closer judge whether or not the arguments opposing inclusion are valid. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

FZ hasn't violated 3RR but I think it is clear they fail to understand NOCON as they argue that editors opposed to a change have the burden vs those wishing to make the change. Their terse/condescending tone on the talk page doesn't violate CIVIL but is not helpful in finding a consensus. I think a gentile reminder regarding consensus would be helpful here. Springee (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

What is a "gentile reminder"? Anyway, I started an RfC, and am eagerly awaiting some policy-based discussion. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa - WP:Battleground behavior and WP:NOTHERE.

@Kaalakaa, whose either neutrality and/or cherry-picking of sources on Islam related articles have been questioned by several editors, including @Iskandar323 [398], and here [399] where he compared Muhammad with Hitler, and by @DeCausa [400], @Anachronist [401], and @Chxeese [402], as well as by @Neutralhappy on the ANI board [403], and who has also been accused of sockpuppetry by @NEDOCHAN (see SPI investigation), and is also used to making snarky personal attacks on much senior editors such as @Louis P. Boog, "It is very concerning that someone who has done over 42,000 edits since 23 December 2006 still doesn't quite grasp basic Wikipedia guidelines", and is now what looks like, Wiki:Hounding me on my old edit on a Muslim section in History of Hinduism.

@Kaalakaa first tried to report me regarding my discussion at Aisha article, but other editors did not found any violation and simply warned both of us to avoid causing timesink, after that he raised the current issue on the OR board about the edits on History of Hinduism saying that I misrepresented a source, I simply addressed them by removing the source whose reliability was questioned by others and provided alternative ones in accordance with the responses and editors like @Eucalyptusmint and @Joshua Jonathan and @Asteramellus were all fine with it. Done.

After that he kept pestering for the sources that I just gave in the talk page to merely demonstrate a point. And when I addressed that too, admitted a mistake, and then gave another source to support the statement, he then started questioning the sources. I warned him about "cherry-picking sources with the same bias to forcefully insert critique where it is not WP:Relevant, disregarding all others, and then WP:BLUDGEON the process to achieve it" after that I once again requested him to stop WP:ICANTHEARYOU and sheer time wasting of other editors; he then challenged me to report him[404], clearly treating Wikipedia as a WP:Battleground which he has been accused of by other editors[405] and he feels he has to WP:WINIT at any cost.

In summary: lack of neutrality by cherry-picking the sources, battleground behavior, challenging other editors to block him; clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia.

A full NOTHERE block must be implemented if not a recommended partial indef block on Islam related articles. StarkReport (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Bluishebrye

• Bluishebrye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sarah Geronimo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user keeps disrupting the Sarah Geronimo article by adding "Guidicelli" and the {{Philippine name}} hatnote on the lead section, whereas I'm working on the article to have it listed for GAN/FAC. I've seen the Regine Velasquez article does not have "Alcasid" when the article's primary contributor worked on it. Recently, the user disturbed me twice to add the Guidicelli thing in the lead. ScarletViolet (talk • contribs) 02:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@ScarletViolet, the IP Special:Contributions/103.132.168.197 has edited the article saying they are her manager in the edit summary. Also, they’ve said the same on ScarletViolet’s user talk. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 03:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that the above IP, who said they were the "manager" for the article subject, was blocked for one month (by Ad Orientem). I've also informed them about WP:COI expectations (diff). El_C 06:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Sharontoo7

Apparent legal threat. Also WP:NOTHERE by the looks of it. Kleuske (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

ALL I WAS DOING WAS EXPLAINING WHO WROTE IF I WERE A BOY , WHY ARE YOU HARRASSING ME AND TAKEN YOUR ANGER OUT ON ME , WHO IS YOUR MANAGER? THIS IS INSANE HOW YOUR TREATING ME . Sharontoo7 (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

DON'T WANNA WIFE
HENRY VIII^th
KEEP YOUR HEAD
ASSUME GOOD FAITH
Burma-shave

Also WP:CAPSLOCK violation. GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 19:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

ok Sharontoo7 (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

what's I don't wanna a wife , suppose to mean Sharontoo7 (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it's refrencing how most of Henry VIIIth's wifes didn't meet a good end. GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 19:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

And not just his wifes but his wives too. EEng 15:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

This one is more explicitly a threat to sue Wikipedia. 57.140.16.57 (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I've indeffed as NOTHERE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio revdel requested for Back in Black

This copyrighted book by Susan Masino was plagiarized today by new student user Augustkey who copied text straight from the book into the article Back in Black (song). Can we revdel the edits? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. Much of the rest of the article is inappropriate in tone. Acroterion (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I can't check that Guitar Player reference by the same editor, but it looks fishy too. Acroterion (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Acroterion: A Google search found nothing except our article "Back in Black" (song), and searches for "Gress" and "AC/DC" in the Guitar Player online archive turned up nothing. Very fishy. Narky Blert (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Possible WP:OR in List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces

Requesting Administrator review of the list created in the article List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces for possible WP:OR. An extensive list has been created with incidents that are very controvical and have been added with only a single source that are either Qualified as Pro-Rebal (WP:BIAS/WP:QS), and non English sources (WP:NONENG/WP:RSUEQ).

Qualified as Pro-Rebal (WP:BIAS/WP:QS)

TamilNet - Accepted as a pro-rebel - Qualified source (A source that may be reliable in certain contexts, but always needs to be used with a qualification (also called “attribution”) such as “pro-rebel”, “state owned” or the name itself.) in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/Sources#List_of_sources

NESOHR - Accepted as a pro-rebel - Qualified source (A source that may be reliable in certain contexts, but always needs to be used with a qualification (also called “attribution”) such as “pro-rebel”, “state owned” or the name itself.) in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/Sources#List_of_sources

Non English sources (WP:NONENG/WP:RSUEQ)

Uthayan - Tamil language daily newspaper

Eelanadu - Tamil language daily newspaper

Cossde (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Tamilnet and NESOHR have already been vetted at Sri Lanka Reconciliation project with admin supervision, and can be cited with explicit attribution as they have been. This does not fall under category of OR, as the entries reflect their citations. It is not controversial that massacres of civilians have been committed by the Sri Lankan Armed forces, as this has been well documented by multiple reliable sources. Oz346 (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

and the sources are qualified sources, not questionable sources, two very different things. A search on the RS notice board regarding this subclass of sources can be found. Oz346 (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:QS states "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest". In the case of TamilNet and NESOHR, Sri Lanka Reconciliation project has confirmed these (though disscussion) that these are pro-rebel - Qualified source since these are "source that may be reliable in certain contexts" and they need to be used with "a qualification" due to the obvious conflict of interest. Cossde (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no evidence that these sources have a poor reputation for fact checking or lack meaningful editorial oversight. In fact, the opposite could be said. Like most sources in Sri Lanka, including the Sinhala owned national newspapers, they have their biases, but it is not sufficient to claim they are questionable sources.

In any case, discussions of these sources have already been done to death at the Sri Lanka Reconciliation project, and you are replicating these discussions here. Countless times you have attempted to remove mentions of Sri Lankan Army war crimes from multiple pages, including those cited with the highest level of reliable and scholarly sources, as you have done here recently: Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces#OHCHR report regarding sexual violence and Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces#Peacekeeping sex scandal. This would fit WP:NAT editing. Oz346 (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

On the contary, I have mentioned here that both these sources as Qualified (pro-rebel) sources, and that this has been done in the Sri Lanka Reconciliation project by disscussion and I do not challange it. If you read carefully what I have said this would be clear. As per the alligation of WP:NAT editing, one must only look at your edit history to find that your contributions are only limited to Tamil nationalist topics, where as mine is much broader. Therefore please be mindful of your continued personal attacks on me. Cossde (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The OP seems to have misread WP:NONENG/WP:RSUEQ. Sources that are not in English should be evaluated in exactly the same way that sources in English are. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. English sources are preferred if available and of the same quality. But if not English is not requirement. (A trans-title parameter in the references is extremely appreciated however as is a quote).

I have no opinion about these sources however, and no information on Sri Lanka. Elinruby (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Wait, isn't this directly related to the dispute in WP:ANI#User:Cossde flouting Wikipedia policies earlier on this page? Both involve Cossde and Sri Lanka articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Attention: Toini Ivanov

User @Toini Ivanov is reverting constructive edits and putting threatening vandalism notices left-and-right. See a small sample of good edits that this user has reverted:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_Jalil_Andrabi&diff=prev&oldid=1212749012
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cot%E2%80%93caught_merger&diff=prev&oldid=1212748265
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kochi_Metro&diff=prev&oldid=1212746684
• and many others

Most of his "reversions" are garbage. On top of that, this user adds a threatening vandalism notice to those who made constructive edits. 88.118.7.240 (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

This user made 100 mostly crap edits in half an hour and keeps going unhindered. 88.118.7.240 (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Moved from the Teahouse; endorsing report. Needs to be mass-reverted as well, as the editor appears to be targeting IP editors with no other consideration. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm currently working my way through their edits now to check which need to keep at least some notice and which need to be completely removed and reverted, so far I've only re-applied a notice to one user and that was nothing more than an editing test. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding to the weirdness is the account of registered in 2016, yet made no edits until today when a campaign of similar edits and messages started. Could it be a bot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.200.213 (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The strangest part of it for me is that some of the people they warned they didn't even revert? The edits just remain there, such as the edits on Vanchi Bhumi by this user (which has since had their warning removed). CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

On a side note, the number of reverts done by the user per minute and the usage of a warning template that I have never heard of before {{uw-vandalism4jew}}) seems somewhat fishy to me. EnIRtpf09b (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

This is  Confirmed to The local bishop. It's probably some other sockmaster in reality, but this is the one I saw earlier today. Blocked and tagged. I'm sure they'll be back. --Yamla (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully not for a while. I'll keep running through their edits to see which are actually warranted and which aren't, but I'm doubting that any are at this point. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind then. Thanks! CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

They certainly had the right idea about being effective at doing the most harm before they're stopped. Just look at their talk page. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

This is some sort of LTA, whose mission appears to be to game the EC permission on some old accounts to vandalise EC-protected pages. That's exactly what happened with the 'Timefordindins' account earlier today. Some earlier usernames I've come across are 'A really cool tour' and 'Big Whack'.

A key characteristic of this 'LTA' is they always, always use the edit summary "Your recent changes to [page]" when leaving warnings. Note: I'm not trying to give this user recognition here, just point out an easy to find piece of modus operandi of this LTA for easier identifications of future socks. Thanks all. — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

No, that was very helpful. Just looked at Timefordindins. Same thing. Again a 2016 account. Someone must have found their file with all the alts and passwords for 2016, but I have no idea who. Today is the first time I have seen this tactic. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

There are 30-some accounts related to this (including the ones mentioned above), all blocked already. I have to assume they'll log in to more, but I see no currently unblocked accounts at this time. --Yamla (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Yamla, and thanks CommissarDoggo for your quick move to damage control. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Yamla, please restore User talk:88.118.7.240. I think it had additional discussions, as they were the one who wrote up the nice report and posted to the teahouse. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

By your command. --Yamla (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again — Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Could this be this guy? Especially since it's an old account. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 00:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it's confirmed. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 00:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Yup, I think it was just me mentioning to Toini not to bite the newcomers, aside from that it was the 4im and the IP user's replies. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 13:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

If it weren't restored, I'd never have seen the heartwarming message they'd replied to me with — Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Toini Ivanov now indef blocked. Thank you. David notMD (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Roll back the page move

Requesting an administrator to roll back the page move of War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War to Tamil Eelam Genocide. Move has been done without a move/article renaming disscussion on a personal POV. Cossde (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted the change, though if the user does so again without getting a consensus on the talk page, I will report their behaviour here. SinhalaLion (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - This is another WP:ANI request in a dispute about Sri Lanka. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Race-related edits by AppGoo0011

User:AppGoo0011 has been going around decapitalizing Black to black ([406]), while capitalizing White ([407]) and adding capital-W White to articles, as well as making a lot of other one-sided racially-charged edits that don't really confirm to the MOS or follow the sources, such as adding the race of white murder victims to pages about white victims killed by undocumented immigrants, in cases where the sources don't mention or focus on that at all, and sometimes even edit-warring over this or using misleading edit summaries - [408][409]; [410] (note misleading edit summary), [411] (note misleading edit summary.) Also see eg. [412] and [413]. This was discussed on ANI just a few weeks ago here, where people unanimously told them to knock it off and warned them of the possibility of a block, but they haven't listened; note that all the diffs provided here are from after that discussion. --Aquillion (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

So which is it? Do you want me to capitalize races or not? My goal is to bring consistency. If white is uncapitalized and Black is, I seek to bring consistency. If White is capitalized and black isn't, I seek to bring consistency. If there's already consensus for mixed use, I don't touch it, even though I disagree.

I do understand the issue with providing race when no sources stated it, though. I won't do that anymore. AppGoo0011 (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

"So which is it" You stop doing these types of edits. Period. End of story. Will never not be amazed by editors being told to stop doing edits that others find problematic, then after awhile doing them anyway. Stop doing these types of edits. Now. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 20:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked AppGoo0011 who clearly did not get the message of the February ANI discussion. Personally, I will oppose any unblock request that does not include a topic ban on race and ethnicity, broadly construed. Cullen328 (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Good block. The misleading edit summaries and baiting tone of the changed phrasing is quite galling. I think it would also be right to oppose any unblock request that doesn't include a broadly construed topic ban on race and ethnicity. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

AppGoo is now asking for an unblock to stay out of race/ethnicity and stick to mobile payment articles; I personally would also see that they stay out of any violent crime articles as that seems to be the broader hot point for them. Nate • (chatter) 23:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

What about articles about White-collar crime? Or Blackmail? EEng 14:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

With the reveal of transmisogynistic edits, I'd say we should just revoke TPA and forget about any potential unblocks. This person is WP:NOTHERE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, we're not letting them past GO, no support for an unblock whatsoever. Nate • (chatter) 19:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Iff this user is unblocked, they shouldn't just be topic-banned from race-related articles; it should be all race-related edits in general, broadly construed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse block and propose community ban this user is going to need an amount of handholding and eyes to avoid they don't oops, accidentally skirt the edges of t-ban since they seem so intent on arguing everything. They're a drain on the community and our resources. Star Mississippi 22:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support community ban proposed by Star Mississippi. I already supported the block, but my earlier comment had some openness to an unblock with a broadly construed topic ban on race and ethnicity. On seeing the additional evidence, I no longer think unblocking with a topic ban is tenable (though it's definitely the only condition on which unblocking would be tolerable), and I'd support a community ban. Measures like topic bans are preventative and are meant to spare the community from spending time and energy fixing policy violations and misbehavior. This user's attempted willingness to use misleading edit summaries is ample evidence they would try to skirt and sneak around a topic ban, whether for race and ethnicity related edits, crime related edits, etc.. Unblocking isn't worth our time. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 08:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

User:REETO25

REETO25 (talk · contribs · count)

User seems to be a net negative, I just reverted two edits for overlinking, 1, 2. After reverting I went to the user talk page to place a warning and noticed many warnings, mostly for overlinking (and other issues). - FlightTime (open channel) 23:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I’m sorry REETO25 (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Me too. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems like you've contributed four WP:OVERLINK warnings to this user of two-and-a-half years. There appears to be somewhat long-term disruption from this user too. Conyo14 (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Shirt58 has blocked them from editing articles and seems to be handling this on their talk page. I don't think anything else is needed from here for now. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I neglected to include the usual "unblock" template on their talkpage (Yay! Summer is finally over, the days are getting shorter, and I can look forward to bicycling into work in the morning while there are still stars in the sky!) but I blame that on the weather here. Seriously though: happy for any other admin to step in there. --Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Block pls

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

175.106.53.102.....as per this. ...Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HazaraHistorianMoxy🍁 08:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding page Ken Ham to partial block

Hi, Due to disruption, would it be possible for an admin to add the page Ken Ham to this IP 2A02:C7C:D6EE:B500:588C:BDBC:40E5:FF52?

Thanks 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a single IP who has edited a single page 5 times in a little over 10 minutes. An indefinite /32 block is excessive. For future reference, less extreme actions include blocking the IP and semi-protection. Here I've applied a block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing on Portal:Current Events

Moved from User talk:ToBeFree

 – ToBeFree (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello @ToBeFree: - You previously issued a block to editor GWA88 for engaging in edit-warring. I recently come across GWA88 on Portal:Current Events, where it appears that they are engaging in similar disruptive behavior.

I removed an edit added by GWA88 citing WP:SENSATIONAL, which was restored without discussion, based on personal conjecture. I started a disccusion, with GWA88 responding by reiterating previous conjecture without basis in policy. When asked for a policy-based rationale, no further replies were made.

After almost a week, as no other editors had made any comments either, I removed the entry again. GWA88 replied to my notification, claiming I was "wikilawyering". GWA88 then canvassed editors through mass pinging, claiming that the talk page was obscure, despite being watched by over 6,000 other editors.

Concurrently, I removed a second entry, citing WP:ROUTINE. The entry was again restored by GWA88 without discussion. Upon being asked to follow WP:BRD and self-revert the restoration, their response seemed to miss the point of WP:BRD.

After reviewing GWA88's revert log, it becomes apparent that there is a recurring pattern of reversions without engaging in discussion. A significant portion of this activity involves contentious topics. As this conduct is clearly not in line with acceptable behavior, could you please look into this and take appropriate measures? 33ABGirl (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi 33ABGirl, I have moved this to the Incidents noticeboard because I see no immediate need for a quick page protection or block, but a discussion of the behavior here may help. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @ToBeFree. Firstly, let me start by saying I highly suspect 33ABGirl is a sockpuppet of the extremely disruptive user @Carter00000 who was indefinitely blocked by @Theleekycauldron last October for persistent abuse of process after reporting me and many others over content disputes just like this one. The WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour of 33ABGirl and Carter00000 is strikingly similar, from the wikilawyering to the blatant attempt at getting me blocked over a content dispute. Note the account was made before Carter00000 was blocked but the user only became active on the current events portal after Carter00000 had been suspended, also note the editing of Hong Kong related articles, again another topic where Carter00000 was active if you look through their contributions and this ANI thread. The user edits all of the topics where Carter00000 was active, from the WP:YEARS pages to the Current events portal, and Hong Kong related articles. The editing style and behaviour of both users is almost identical.

Also, with regards to disruptive editing on the current events portal, 33ABGirl was recently warned by @Cryptic over their reverting on Portal:Current events/2024 February 10.

I also reject the claim of canvassing as I only tagged in users who were active on that particular portal, the talk page is watched by over 6,000 editors but discussions are usually ignored. I will accept any consensus reached and they are free to oppose or support its inclusion. Again, assuming bad faith where there was none. Just more battleground behaviour. I note that 33ABGirl also recently left a final warning threatening a block on User talk:137.122.64.205 for what appears to just be a good faith edit on 2024. Again, more battleground behaviour from this user.

With regards to my own editing, I'm always open to advice from other editors on how I can improve, and I apologize for any wrongdoings. I always try to stay away from drama and stick to my own lane but obviously I'm here to defend myself from what appears to be a blatant attempt at landing me a block. I hope this issue can be resolved as I'm concerned this user will keep coming after me. In fact, this is exactly what I thought would happen. Thank you. GWA88 (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:SPI time to me, you seem to have a pretty well-built case. The Kip 02:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @The Kip. 33ABGirl has now been blocked for abusing multiple sockpuppet accounts, confirming my suspicions. Coincidentally enough, one of these accounts @Marwanaircalm also left me message on my talk page last December, same routine as seen here, has content dispute with me, leaves message on my talk page then reports to me ToBeFree, likely hoping to land a block. This user clearly has a strong personal grudge against me as they keep coming at me on different accounts. I'll keep an eye out for any more sockpuppets. GWA88 (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

6000 watchers? Do nonadmins not get the stat that says how many of those have actually looked at the page recently? (It's absurdly lower.) —Cryptic 03:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The watcher numbers at Special:Pageinfo/Portal talk:Current events are public, as can be confirmed through an incognito window or a different browser. Pages with fewer than 30 watchers behave differently to avoid encouraging vandalism where noone is watching. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

User:That guy who plays games

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to make other editors aware that That guy who plays games has been moving pages related to bridges without permission or discussion. I have no authority to block, but I think this issue should be dealt with. EmperorOfTheUS (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

you haven't notified the user, so i did it cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) You were supposed to notify the editor using the template at the top of the page. I did it for you. That said, the speed in which he is moving articles does appear to be a problem, as I am betting most of those are contentious moves. I'm off for the evening, I will let others jump in and figure out what to do about it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you, I completely forgot about it. EmperorOfTheUS (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but most of the articles I renamed were articles about bridges that weren't notable without being merged with a similar one.

That guy who plays games (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Merges like this sound like the sort of page moving that warrants discussions to determine a variety of attributes: Is the bridge indeed not independently notable? Is there a notable topic to which to merge it? Which topic is that? These are the sorts of questions merger moves like this entail and that call for discussion, not unilateral action. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The article they were talking about was the old Cooper River Bridges, which I merged because the Silas N. Pearman bridge is historically unotable, while the John P. Grace Memorial Bridge was. He was also talking about how I renamed the article on the Rainbow Bridge because there is no generic term to describe it and the Veterans Memorial Bridge, which the article it also covers. That guy who plays games (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@That guy who plays games: Can you explain this? - FlightTime (open channel) 23:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

didn't know grammar fixes of others edits weren't allowed. The removal of that comment was a accident. That guy who plays games (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Not other's talk page comments. Articles are very different. Secretlondon (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• There is a real question if you are moving these to the WP:COMMONNAME or not. The pace of which you have made changes raises real questions as to whether or not each was thought out, and makes the moves contentious. If you know a move (or a series of moves) is contentious, then you shouldn't make the change without discussion. If you are going to make a lot of changes to bridges, for example, one place to consider is Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, which attracts editors with experience in these articles. At the very least, when you are going to make a several rapid changes, you need to explain it somewhere obvious, like the talk page of the articles. Looking at your logs [414] show you seldom even use an edit summary, which is a problem when you do mass editing, and frankly, not acceptable because it causes threads like this. And yes, it is best to NOT correct someone else's edit, unless it is obviously a serious error (ie: bad wikilink) AND you notify them or leave a very clear summary. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  No, not every one was thought out. But some were. That guy who plays games (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Also the common names for the John P. Grace and Silas N. Pearman Brides were from what I can see the Coper River Bridge. The old and new phrases added to the beginning were only there to distinguish them. That guy who plays games (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  This kind of proves my point. Moves are not the same as edits. Edits are easy to revert by anyone, moves are not. Before you move several articles in the future, I strongly suggest they be "thought out" to avoid this drama. If someone is likely to object, you instead put a notice on the talk page of the article, to the effect of "I'm going to move this from XXX to YYY in a week if no one objects." and allow them to pursued you otherwise. This was just a lot of moves in a rapid succession, and that is something you need to avoid unless you've made it clear why you are doing it, and if likely contentious, sought input. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  I would add that while I'm sure Dennis Brown meant no error, on the matter of allow them to persuade you otherwise I'd clarify that to something like, create an opportunity to find out what the consensus is. If That guy who plays games wants to move pages, the onus is on him to create a consensus, rather than move pages against consensus.

  I just remain a little concerned about whether this advice is sinking in. From earlier in the thread, it's not it hasn't become clear if That guy who plays games really recognizes the issue with making controversial moves en masse; instead he has defended the edits with explanations that should've been given on the talk pages before making moves. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  I do. I reverted the move that this compliant resulted from. My merger of the other articles and I'd say is constructive though considering they were already underscored, its not like I reduced their sources. That guy who plays games (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, I don't see it necessary to labor it further, I take it you get the concerns and understand to be a little more careful in the future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

That guy who plays games blocked for one week for continued disruptive editing. This is a regular admin action rather than any enforcement of a community sanction. --Yamla (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

EmperorOfTheUS, the original poster, has been blocked by another admin as a block-evading sock. Therefore, there's probably nothing more to be done in this section. I'm not closing it myself solely because it's breakfast time and I don't have time to read the entire section before my coffee. --Yamla (talk) 10:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AzerbaijaniQizilbash

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

FYI

 – Removed distracting use of <big>...</big>, underlining, etc. from AzerbaijaniQizilbash's replies, leaving only boldface per WP:CAPSLOCK. Remsense诉 03:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Reporting them before they cause any further damage, because that's what inevitably going to happen (eg [415] [416].)

Severe WP:CIR issues; inability/refusal to even remotely listen to what they're being told, including the rules of this site and what WP:RS states (a long read, sorry, but can't really link diffs for this one [417], well maybe except this one, where despite after being told countless times of WP:RS and WP:CITE, they state this [418]). They've already been blocked recently for edit warring. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

You say that Azerbaijani Turks have no ethnic origin and you say that I need to give sources to prove the contrary. Azerbaijanis descent from Oghuz Turks. It has established many states throughout history. I gave you reliable sources that Safavids were Azerbaijani, but you did not read them. AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Those reliable sources are on your talk page, still. AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Not what I said (despite both me and another user trying to tell you about it dozens of times, that is your conclusion...?), and you did no such thing. More evidence of WP:CIR issues, and why it's best to read the whole talk section. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

What I said matches WP:RS. AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Not what I said and you did no such thing.

↓

The native language of Ismail I, the founder of the Safavid empire, was Azerbaijani Turkic. He wrote poems in this language under the nickname "Khatai". In fact, the official language of the state was Azerbaijani Turkic, and the people of the palace, as well as the military and religious men of the state, spoke this language.

–

There is also interesting information about the place of Azerbaijani Turkic in the Safavid palace in the memoirs of the German traveler and diplomat Adam Oleari, who met with the Safavid ruler Shah Sefi I in Isfahan in 1637. A.Oleari in his work “Detailed description of the visit of the Qoldshin embassy to Moscow and Persia” writes:

“Especially, those in the service of the shah in Isfahan speak Turkic with greater enthusiasm, you rarely hear Persian words from them.”

–

French traveler Jean Sharden, who traveled to the East in the second half of the 17th century and lived in the Safavid lands as well as in Isfahan for a long time, wrote in his memoirs:

“Persian language is the language of poetry and literature of the people. Palace magnates, soldiers, influential men and wives of rich people all speak Turkic (Azerbaijani) at home. Because the sultan and the members of the dynasty are from Azerbaijan, where the entire population speaks Turkic. The Arabic language is considered respectable because it is the religious language of the community."

–

Stop ignoring the messages I wrote to you and the reliable sources I gave you. AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Sigh…. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

? AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The native language of Ismail I, the founder of the Safavid empire, was Azerbaijani Turkic. He wrote poems in this language under the nickname "Khatai". In fact, the official language of the state was Azerbaijani Turkic, and the people of the palace, as well as the military and religious men of the state, spoke this language.

–

There is also interesting information about the place of Azerbaijani Turkic in the Safavid palace in the memoirs of the German traveler and diplomat Adam Oleari, who met with the Safavid ruler Shah Sefi I in Isfahan in 1637. A.Oleari in his work “Detailed description of the visit of the Qoldshin embassy to Moscow and Persia” writes:

“Especially, those in the service of the shah in Isfahan speak Turkic with greater enthusiasm, you rarely hear Persian words from them.”

–

French traveler Jean Chardin, who traveled to the East in the second half of the 17th century and lived in the Safavid lands as well as in Isfahan for a long time, wrote in his memoirs:

“Persian language is the language of poetry and literature of the people. Palace magnates, soldiers, influential men and wives of rich people all speak Turkic (Azerbaijani) at home. Because the sultan and the members of the dynasty are from Azerbaijan, where the entire population speaks Turkic. The Arabic language is considered respectable because it is the religious language of the community."

–

How many times do I have to show you the reliable sources above? AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

However, during the 1930s, [the Turkic language]'s name was changed to "Azerbaijani".

It's odd how you keep needing to put "Azerbaijani" in brackets when quoting any pre-20th century source. This is the only thing we are really arguing about, the term "Azerbaijani" was not used in this way, and it is misleading to apply it to historical peoples in this way. Remsense诉 03:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I give you reliable sources and all you do is sigh. AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I GAVE YOU THOSE RELIABLE SOURCES. YOU CAN READ THE RELIABLE SOURCES I SHOWED YOU INSTEAD OF SIGHING. AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

That is a violation of WP:CAPSLOCK. Do not use all caps to make emphasis. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 18:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

If you continue not responding, I will report you. AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Sir, please: There is a debate here and you are the one who started it. You said I didn't give reliable sources. So I gave you reliable sources. But all you do is sigh. Please give a proper answer instead of making nonsense. AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@AzerbaijaniQizilbash: Sorry, but those are not what we consider reliable sources here on Wikipedia. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 17:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

From where? Things noted by Adam Olearius and Jean Chardin during their trips to Persia. Why is it not a reliable source? There is a lot of more reliable evidence that the Safavids were Turkish, I can send it if you want? AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSAGE. Remsense诉 03:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

mistake

From where = why AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Our guidelines on what constitute reliable sources are available here. If you would like to discuss the reliability of particular sources, there is a noticeboard here specifically for that purpose. --JBL (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@AzerbaijaniQizilbash, Are you aware on Wikipedia, you cite the book/website you got the information from via the <ref> functions? ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Like this: <ref> (link to book book or article, page number, publish date)</.ref> ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we've seen enough. Move to indef? 208.87.236.202 (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I hope so. I was unfortunately right, AzerbaijaniQizilbash would indeed cause further damage, once again removing sourced info [419]. I fail to see how AzerbaijaniQizilbash has a net positive on this site. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

If the text I wrote was unsourced, it would not be used on another Wikipedia page. AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not care anymore. AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

You're not fooling anyone. You removed sourced information about its Iranian aspects, and even the Turkish version of Safavid Iran (which is a translation of an older English version of Safavid Iran) which you claimed you copied from does not say what you added (you added "was one of the most important Turkic dynasties in Iranian history" while the Turkish version says "The most important dynasty in Iranian history"). You are WP:NOTHERE. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not WP:NOTHERE! I'm just trying to preserve and defend my History. Check your talk page for reliable sources. AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

That's enough. You do not understand what a reliable source is. That we would educate you about. Your POV pushing and communication style are so disruptive that a block however, is the best move for this project. Indeffed. Courcelles (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Good. I was about to say the same thing. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

•  Administrator note I went to go add a WP:ARBAA2 ban and designate the first year of the block as an AE action (in case of an appeal), but I found that this user hadn't actually been notified of the Contentious Topic designation. It seems like a moot point now, but in the future (and if there is a successful appeal here) this should probably be done first. That can make dealing with future disruptive editing simpler. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
• This surprised me too when I checked the filter, but given I had decided to indef block, adding the notice now felt unnecessary. I can't believe this account had a prior edit warring block without getting the CTOPS notice. That slipped through the cracks somewhere, for sure. Courcelles (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  I checked out the scope of AA2, and it seems a little confusing for me. The original scope was Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts, but the CTOP conversion altered it to Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts. This is probably a distinction without a difference, but it did trip me up when I was trying to make sure this dispute was within scope. Might be worth an ARCA to clarify. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

SPI report closed based on misunderstanding of my arguments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to preface this by saying that I'm not here to cast aspersions on anyone, but I feel like this is pretty imperative to address this because it involves extremely extensive, disruptive LTA by a sock puppet. A few days ago I made an SPI against what I believed to be a sock account of HaughtonBrit, a user who has been hounding me non stop, particularly since his accounts Javerine and Ralx888 were blocked in April 2023. I laid out my evidence-[420] , however it was closed by The Wordsmith today. When I went to their t/p to inquire about the reasons why; it immediately became clear that there were fundamental misunderstandings about the arguments I laid forth, which I laid out here-[421]-[422].

For example, it seems that my argument that RangersRus made his first few edits on Wikipedia two hours after HB's blocked IP sock was editing it, with the exact same type of edits- [423] were misconstrued by TW as HB editing with that IP only on June 3, and the preceding and successive edits by the IP not being HB, hence the creation date of RangersRus being sufficiently detached from the IP.

It also seems that TW misunderstood my arguments about RangersRus' AFD votes as me claiming that RangersRus's first AFD vote was on my AFD nomination, and that his first AFD votes were on an unrelated topic.

My argument was that RangersRus' first AFD vote was 3 hours after my AFD nom despite being on Wikipedia for 3+ months and having almost 1000 edits, where hitherto I had made it clear that I would start AFD nominating poorly written and sourced articles that the sockmaster had an extremely long history of mainpulating to aggrandize his religion and embarking on campaigns to hound anyone who affronted his convictions; RangersRus first two AFD votes were concerning the Marathas (a topic area in which the sockmaster has an extremely extensive history of fixating on and which I detailed in my SPI), hence the topics were indeed related. Subsequent AFD votes were either made in close proximity to HB socks such as this one-[424] where HB made 14 edits on the t/p of the article and 4 VOTES logged out on the AFD. Another one lined up with the sockmaster's MO of tacitly messing with me in order to aggrandize his religion-[425] like he did in a previous AFD I nominated in 2023-[426].

I think it was unfair that the SPI was closed prematurely based on these misunderstandings. I've been dealing with the sockmaster virtually non stop since 2021, but they drastically ramped up their harassment since April 2023 after 2 of their accounts were blocked. Had there been more ambiguity or plausible deniability regarding RangersRus, I would have dropped this long ago, but I believe the red flags are quite glaring and to see an SPI closed like this doesn't seem right. Once again, I think The Wordsmith is an excellent admin, and I can't blame him for not being familiar with the sockmaster's history; I hope we can come to a peaceful resolution. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

You are required to notify users involved in this post, which I've done for RangersRus. Remsense诉 04:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I also want to state that Southasianhistorian8 has accused me of being a sockpuppet for the mentioned user [1]. However, I was subsequently cleared of these allegations by a check user. At the time of the investigation, I, like RangersRus, was a new user. Once I was cleared, Southasianhistorian8 went on to post a case on me on the Administrators' noticeboard, kind've like how they are doing now with RangersRus. Suthasianhistorian8 (or southasianhistorian8, as they use both for some reason) has a tendency to convict individuals who do not align with their narrative. They have a scorched earth mindset, particularly in their editing in contentious topics. Not only have they consistently bothered The Wordsmith, even after Wordsmith declared their decision would not change [2], but The Wordsmith also highlights how Suthasianhistorian8 bothers many other admins on the same topic, engaging in WP:FORUMSHOP. It's worth noting that this level of obsession is concerning and unhealthy, as is evident in their walls of text in the previous links (to be honest, it's a sight to behold). This is just a case of the boy who cried wolf. Personally, I believe The Wordsmith was correct in their judgment, and I wouldn't be surprised to see another investigation up on me in the near future. UnbiasedSN (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

From what I can make of the case Suthasianhistorian8 seems to have misunderstood The Wordsmith's reasons for closure, rather than The Wordsmith misunderstanding Suthasianhistorian8's arguments. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Pretty ironic how this user throws accusations against me when they're clearly here to troll me-

their 11th edit on Wikipedia is messing with me here-[427] where they tried to re-add figures into the infobox which aggrandized their religion on an erroneous basis. You can see the info-box where they tried to push a narrative that a battle occurred in which 1800 Sikhs were involved fighting a much larger contingent of 50,000-100,000 belligerents and ended up victorious. and killing~ 90% of the opponent army. Of course, none of the sources were reliable, one was a Raj era source which editors in this topic area are explicitly told not to use (Macaullife) and the other was a 17th/18th century primary (Gurblias Patshahi). It should also be noted that by the time UnbiasedSN came on this page, I had already discussed and resolved this very matter with another editor-[428]. See the subsequent, blatantly tendentious edits by this user after the fact-[429], [430]. [431]. You can see that he refused to go on the t/p and instead kept pushing this ridiculous narrative better suited for sites like Facebook, rather than an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. He then left a bogus warning on my t/p-[432].

This user followed me again to another article-[433] trying to mess with me. On a later ANI thread, this user used a LLM/ChatGPT to make a complaint against me, which was pointed out by other admins involved there-[434].

This user follows and harasses me here again-[435] trying to reinstate content that was blatantly aggrandizing their religion; the article was as clear as day displaying incorrect, inflated numbers and casualties that the Sikhs inflicted on their opponents, which is why an unrelated editor reverted him-[436]. Instead of having a respectful discussion with me on the t/p discussing the veracity of sources, this user left another bogus warning on my t/p saying that I am insecure or have an inferiority complex-[437] and unprovoked made a personal attack on the talk page, telling me to get a life-[438].

Shortly after, he made another random, personal attack against me on talk page where I was previously having a respectful conversation with another editor about source reliability-[439]

The user then followed me to my AFD-[440] which I didn't particularly mind since it was a fair question and so I responded accordingly-[441].

He then followed me to HB's SPI for no reason whatsoever, despite the fact that I never invoked him on there since October-[442], [443] and also partially reverted some of my BANREVERT edits after HB's socks were blocked on March 2.

Now once again, despite not being pinged or invoked in any whatsoever, this user is deciding to follow me here, casting aspersions when I never involved him whatsoever. This user is clear as day just following me around trying to frustrate me, most evident from his numerous personal attacks against me. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Also some previous HB socks were also cleared by CUs-[444] but were later blocked since they were undeniably, unquestionably socks with extremely strong technical and behavioural evidence to show that they were linked to HB-[445] & [446] like making the exact same edits as HB's proxies. HaughtonBrit has numerous IPs and proxies at his disposal and has tricked CUs before-[447]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

UnbiasedSN's targeted accusations against Southasianhistorian8 are definitely concerning. This does appear to be ethnic POV editing, followed by multiple accusations of anti-Sikh bias against Southasianhistorian8. Regardless of anything else, this is unacceptable per WP:NPA. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

So 3 incidents with the user is considered personal attacks? You also got to realize i'm a new user here and slowly started learning about proper references and what's an appropriate source. Southasianhistory8 wasn't wrong with reverting the edits, he just constantly targets sikh history and warping sources to his benefit. Like I said before, i'm new. UnbiasedSN (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

File another checkuser on me. By all means, don't let me stop you. UnbiasedSN (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

You also can't say I followed HB's SPI for no reason. I'm literally on it... You also flatter me with such long walls of texts. UnbiasedSN (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Noting here that I stand by my assessment that the behavioral evidence suggests that RangersRus is a different person from HB. Any other admin is welcome to give it a second look, SPI needs more patrolling admin eyes anyway (though I've cleared out much of the backlog it had). I've tried to be understanding with Suthasianhistorian8 because he has dealt with and correctly identified a bunch of likely sockpuppets, but I think he's mistaken here. That's fine, sometimes we miss one or think the evidence is stronger than it is. What isn't fine is the WP:OTHERPARENT tagging of your preferred admins when the first one doesn't give you the result you want, demanding that the case be reopened until one of your preferred admins reviews it, posting walls to text everywhere, and now the OTHEROTHEROTHERPARENT attempt by posting walls of text here repeating the same thin evidence to get it reviewed again. Especially calling the reviewing admin a "layman" as if I couldn't possibly understand the signs of sockpuppetry from reading all the evidence and the walls of text from previous cases. I didn't misunderstand the evidence, I just don't think the evidence is strong. A several-month-old user making their first !vote at an AFD three hours after Suthasianhistorian8 nominates a (completely different) page at AFD is too weak to even be called circumstantial evidence. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I still stand by initial assessment of RangersRus and believe that he very well may be a sock puppet of HaughtonBrit, or at the very least there's some glaring red flags involved. I also stand by my claims that some of my arguments were misrepresented/misunderstood, most notably, RangerRus' first AFD votes being unrelated, and an unfair dismissal of RangersRus' first edits having a 2 hour gap as the 24* blocked IP sock on the same article; I believe I made a fair case for both on your talk page.

The points I made about RangersRus were as follows:

1) RangersRus' first few edits were on the same page HB’s confirmed IP sock was editing, with just a 2 hour gap between the IP and RangersRus, and both made the exact same type of edits (inflating census numbers, population figures etc). Ranger's additional first few edits were also on the Marathas, which has been a fixation and anathema of HB’s for years

2) RangersRus' first AFD votes were 3 hours after my AFD nom, on pages related to Marathas, on the same day HB was on a major evasion spree, openly gaslighting admins, editing logged out on an SPI filed against him, and filing competing sock puppetry reports despite being a major block evader himself. If you know anything about HB, you’ll know he always tries to undermine my edits by either editing the same page or sometimes by making a parallel edit on a page related to the Marathas within hours.

3) RangersRus along with 4 of HaughtonBrit's IPs made the exact same delete vote/argument on an AFD; an article HB was fixated on previously, and not too long after HB’s IPs made 9 edits to the talk page of the article just days before. That was also his 3rd AFD vote overall. Someone brazenly voting on an AFD 4 times is a clear indication that they’re desperate to undermine AFDs that affront their convictions

4) RangersRus arguing to delete a battle in which the Sikhs were defeated citing insufficient coverage from sources while subsequently arguing to keep a battle in which the Sikhs were victorious despite the sources clearly having marginal coverage, which is why he didn’t respond to me pressing him on the Battle of Rohilla AFD (an article which HB has also edited multiple times in the past). He’s undermined my AFDs before with his sock account Elifanta23

5) RangersRus going on an voting spree (60+) from the very moment he made his first Maratha related AFDs when he had almost 1000 edits beforehand and not one AFD vote, which clearly looks like him covering his tracks

6) Him finding out about the SPI against him immediately despite not being pinged and trying to absolve himself which is what HaughtonBrit has done on 3 separate incidents, as recent as January of this year, and previously with his aforementioned sock account Elifanta23

Of course if only one of my points or arguments is cited-"A several-month-old user making their first !vote at an AFD three hours after Suthasianhistorian8 nominates a (completely different) page at AFD is too weak to even be called circumstantial evidence", it makes my case appear quite weak, but my suspicions are the sum total of all 6 of my points, on a standalone basis, they don't mean much admittedly, but when taken together, I believe they coalesce into a fairly compelling case.

Also to address the aforementioned quote above, my whole point about his AFD vote being 3 hours after my AFD nom is that a user whose entire editing history is based on overtly or tacitly making edits to retain and change articles to glorify their religion as much as possible and embarking on extensive, relentless campaigns against editors who go against those religious sentiments ( he’s also done this to other users such as Kansas Bear, Noorullah24, Joshua Jonathan, admin Utcursh, KamalAfghan, FDW etc, albeit to lesser extents), would be vexed enough at a user who nominated some of these articles for deletion; the same user they’ve extensively hounded hundreds of times over the span of years, both furtively and overtly, that they would start a parallel AFD campaign and use it to tacitly hinder them.

And to reiterate, the reason I'm here is because I believed my arguments were misunderstood and that the SPI was prematurely closed based on those misunderstandings, which is what I gathered from your previous statements:"Correct me if I'm wrong, but RangersRus's first edit was two and a half months after that confirmed sock you linked in your first set of diffs, not two hours. That IP was blocked on 3 June 2023, RangersRus was created on 21 August" as well as "His rationales seem pretty reasonable; the fact that his first (in an unrelated AFD) was 3 hours after you nominated a different one isn't solid evidence". The confirmed sock I linked was an IPv4 which was clearly assigned to HaughtonBrit exclusively, who made numerous, consecutive duck edits with it across many months, including on the page which RangersRus edited two hours later. I'm also confused as to what you mean by RangersRus' first AFD votes were unrelated, unrelated in what sense? Because the votes were related to the Marathas, which HB has edited hundreds of times (500+ at least). Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

This ANI case is a repeat from the SPI case where all the bogus charges were found inane. I do not want to re-enter long texts here. I voted Delete on editor's nomination of page Third Battle of Anandpur (1704) because it was poorly written with unreliable sources but this editor had no complaints and when I voted against on the other AFD of Battle of Rohilla, bogus SPI case was filed. Initial revenge SPI case has now turned into WP:BULLY with this ANI. RangersRus (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Nope, if anything I'm being bullied by an editor who called me things like a criminal-[448], who openly interferes in my affairs by instigating admins against me non stop-[449]. [450], who creates sock accounts repeatedly solely to troll me-[451], [452], [453], [454], [455], [456], [457]. Even after Dazzem was temporarily blocked, despite being an obvious duck/sock which is why he was blocked by The WordSmith himself, the very first thing Dazzem did after his unblock to revert my edits-[458]. Finmas who was a duck sock, making the exact same edits as his proxies calling me a sock of Prince of Roblox, tried making a bogus unblock talk page request on his t/p-[459] which was unfortunately almost taken seriously by an admin. Elifanta23 who was blocked as a duck sock by Abecedare, an admin whom HB was gas lighting before, also tried absolving himself in a similar manner-[460]. HaughtonBrit openly logged out edited his own SPI cases trying to dissuade admins for investigating him-[461], [462].

Once again, I thoroughly reiterate my stance on RangersRus and still maintain that my arguments were clearly misunderstood by The Wordsmith. I respect the latter and appreciate the work he does in SPIs but I'm sticking to my guns, once again if there was genuine ambiguity here, I would have dropped this long ago. I strongly believe that the dismissal of my point that RangersRus' first edits were on a page which HB's confirmed IP sock was editing, with just a 2 hour gap & with the exact same type of edits, the erroneous claim that RangersRus' first AFD votes were unrelated, and the pretermission of other elements in RangersRus AFD votes/voting patterns should be adequately addressed. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you bring strong diffs (behavior evidence) in form of a short paragraph, so all of us can read? Wall of text like this is not helpful. 74.12.246.12 (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Good read: Wikipedia:Wall of text. 74.12.246.12 (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

You can read the initial SPI. It has the diffs. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

More same duplicate long texts of bogus erroneous petition. Once is enough. RangersRus (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I only expect more straw mans and gotcha statements like that, instead of actual, substantive replies to my concerns and points. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Actual substantive replies are here and on SPI case. RangersRus (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

User:The Wordsmith

• I've to agree with Suthasianhistorian8, this was another sloppy close by The Wordsmith (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), like this, where they connected a bunch of IPs to a SPI which we never do or this, where they were asked to tag the accounts (which they didn't) and closed it just by saying that behavior is not obvious. Just to note that they have been desysopped several times due to inactivity and come back claiming they are caught up with the guidelines of Wikipedia which is certainly not the case. 74.12.246.12 (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Something is wrong with User:The Wordsmith as well. On February 14, 2024, they self-nominated themselves as an edit filter without any scruitny. Should we file a case with WP:ARBCOM against them? They are certainly not behaving just like another user who holds the mop. They are not special or priviliged. 74.12.246.12 (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Administrators may assign the edit filter manager userright to themselves. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Got it. 74.12.246.12 (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• It seems like they are blocking users for fun, describing all of them as "duck". On Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Denosio, they blocked 440 edits account, User:Suomi2023, just because they are interested in visa-related articles. There is hardly any evidence to justify such a block. It could be a good faith editor. Someone should review their recent SPI closure spree.74.12.246.12 (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Here they again connected an IP with SPI publicly. This is a clear violation of WP:PRIVACY and they should stop. 74.12.246.12 (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't really know much about the ins and outs of SPI reports, but if I recall correctly, CUs/clerks are allowed to call IPs socks of an account, they can't however claim that the suspected sockmaster was operating those IP addresses through an official check. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Usually, they shouldn't act on such requests if filed via SPI, but User:The Wordsmith is commenting SPI in block logs - it is a clearly violation of person's privacy/location. 74.12.246.12 (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  A lot of socks use IPs to block evade, this has to be addressed by admins/CUs somehow. Tbh, none of this looks like outing or abuse of admin powers to me, just standard operating procedures for Wikipedia. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  There is nothing stopping an IP address from being logged as a sock of an account purely because it was reported through SPI. It's only the CheckUser tool that shouldn't be used to connect accounts to IPs, but The Wordsmith is not a checkuser. Giraffer (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Here they connected 38.107.226.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoaeter. WP:OUTING applies? 74.12.246.12 (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  It is perfectly common for IPs to be linked to accounts at SPI through behavioral analysis. Giraffer (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  • Here they connected a stale account Chilmiy29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with Chusada25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) by just saying "Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me". How they can justify such sloppy blocks? 74.12.246.12 (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

    WP:DUCK GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 21:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for this. Can you share any guideline or policy for me to read? 74.12.246.12 (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  The lead of WP:SOCK has some information on how socking is dealt with, mentioning IPs. Giraffer (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Here they connected a stale account Chilmiy29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with Chusada25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) by just saying "Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me". How they can justify such sloppy blocks? I will stop here. In my opinion, it is not a normal behavior from an admin. 74.12.246.12 (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Kinda strange this IP came out of nowhere and also started posting walls of texts that started attacking The Wordsmith... UnbiasedSN (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  IP also has no other editing history other than this specific thread... Smells a bit stinky... Like a sock... UnbiasedSN (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Kinda strange how you and the IP came into this thread, unprovoked, clearly serving as red herrings and undermining this thread, and both attacking me with the same "wall of text" gotcha. You're accusing me of socking with this IP? You came in 20 minutes after the IP's last edit to this thread which was mocking me +[463] . CUs can check my account ANY TIME ANY DAY if they have even an iota of suspicion against me. I'm clearly being trolled here. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  You clearly need to relax... IP's last edit was telling you about limiting walls of text... Which The wordsmith and I even brought up. IP is even targeting The Wordsmith in a behavior that is similar to yours... Walls of text. UnbiasedSN (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Can you please explain exactly why you seem to be so hellbent on doing damage control for RangersRus or HB, out of nowhere- You commented on HB's SPI the same day it was filed despite it not involving you for months-[464] trying to muddy the watters, you immediately partially reverted my BANREVERT edits of Finmas (HB's sock)-[465], [466], [467]. You follow me to this ANI despite not being pinged or involved -[468] and now you show up 20 mins after the IP, conveniently using it as an excuse to undermine my report-[469]. And this isn't even counting the numerous times you've been following me around on different articles, trolling me. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Suthasianhistorian8 and @UnbiasedSN can you please stop bickering here, it is getting in The way of any actual conflict resolution. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 19:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  You're right. I'll apologize. I'm not going to make any more comments and let the admin do their thing. This already has gotten out of hand. UnbiasedSN (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  The finmas accusations are edits that i went and and had to do manually, not reverts.... And two of them Finmas never even made.... How about you mention my other numerous edits that have nothing to do with religion.

  IP is in your support... Stop clustering us together. They wrote a whole essay against wordsmith which isn't a random IP who comes across would ever do. It's actually sounds like something you would do.

  You and I have similar interest in battles, Sikh battles are the only ones I read that have little no info so it's obviously an area of contention. The difference is I like reading them and you like deleting them. Why are you bugging out? I saw the HaughtonBrit Investigation through RangersRus account since he also commented on the Battle of Rohilla. Then I saw the investigation and then saw it was by you and lo and behold my name was on there. I went down this rabbit hole of you just straight up attacking RangerRus and then end up harassing The Wordsmith and then even going further by doing some intense Wikipedia:FORUMSHOP. Which you haven't even try to absolve yourself of. If you really have a problem with me, file another checkuser, also make sure to ping me unlike last time.

  You're a zealot hellbent on getting anyone who goes in your way of just targeting sikh articles. Even your last edit on a sikh article (literally in between this mess because you can't resist yourself) is mad rude. Unexplained edit [1]???? with proper sources too... Like relax... You're one of the reasons Wikipedia can be such a toxic environment.

  Initially as a new user my edits were wrong. It was cause of you I learned, but unlike you and many others, I don't have a specific niche for targeting a specific religion. UnbiasedSN (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  {{Checkuser requested}} to check all users involved here. It is worth noting that a checkuser failing to failing to find a sockpuppet using the tools provided to them does not always mean a user is not a sockpuppet. Still, WP:AGF. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  That's perfectly fine by me. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Something we can both agree on. UnbiasedSN (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  CUs aren't going to connect accounts to IPs or randomly check half a dozen users based on vibes. Suggest treating the IP's comments with the amount of respect they deserve. Spicy (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think it's pretty obvious who the IP belonged to and what its intentions were; while I do have a disagreement with The Wordsmith, I would never in a million years, commit sock puppetry so blatantly throwing unfounded accusations of an admin abusing their powers and violating privacy rules. I even disagreed with the IP's bogus claims and tried addressing them immediately. Pretty strange how this IP who's supposed to be me made his last edit on this thread mocking me, and was subsequently used by you to undermine my report and insinuate that I was socking.

  Your name was on HB's report in October, you know if it then because you were active in the past 6 months, you even left a warning message on my t/p and made 2 personal attacks against me in January, so are you seriously going to pretend you only saw it just last week.

  You are clearly once again misrepresenting my recent revert on the page Ik Onkar, the IP was removing sourced content, I reinstated it. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly, I feel like the IP's yap should be removed, those are clearly nothingburger accusations. Or at least someone should collapse most of this section, for wasting everyone's time, and potentially wasting other people's times reading it (although I won't, on the off-chance it somehow shouldn't). – 2804:F1...53:5F6C (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Ostensibly, this is a request for a second opinion on a closure of an SPI case. It is not necessary for 4800+ words to be written about it so please stop. As it happens, Drmies also provided an opinion when declining a check. So there were two opinions, now let it rest. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
  • +1 Spicy (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

    The thing is Drimes seemed to be based off The Wordsmith’s assessment, which misrepresented at least of 2 pf my arguments. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

24.104.174.3 Active vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Multiple articles have been vandalized from an individual with the IP address of 24.104.174.3. I undid an edit on the article for Mark Burnett, but it appears there are more malicious edits. They also have a warning from 3/8/24 on their Talk page for previous vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.226.1 (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

24.104.174.3 is now blocked 3 months, and I have reverted their other unconstructive contribs. FYI, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV) is the place to go to for reporting obvious vandals. Thanks! — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not here / vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

MiltonDooby (talk · contribs) Despite Talk page warnings, persistent vandalism and/or WP:NOTHERE behavior continues from this editor. See this, this, and this for the most recent examples. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 10:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

(ec) Already blocked. In the future, clear vandalism may be reported to WP:AIV. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:BabiesCon and "Adolf Hitler clubs"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

After an AfD outcome they found objectionable, BabiesCon embarked on a campaign to spam the place with Adolf Hitler Club redirects. Thanks to an alert from Netherzone, I removed the redirs per G3, and issued a final warning on their Talk page. The user is now claiming to be "Adolf Hitler Infant Club" on their User page. With a total of 63 edits to their name, almost all of which are vandalism or otherwise reverted, I see a good case for a permaban, but wanted to get a second opinion. Thanks! Owen× ☎ 14:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

User is clearly WP:NOTHERE. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 14:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Side note: this is the one rung of patience that makes me worry I'm fundamentally too impulsive. I wonder if I could justify 'final warning' to myself rather than 'no warning'. Remsense诉 14:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

 Indeffed We really need a block template that says "You are the weakest link. Goodbye." -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Community bans could use an image of a snuffed torch that says "The tribe has spoken." Schazjmd (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

 Do not ever actually post this on another user's talk page unless they are your friend

I'm quite partial to this one. Remsense诉 14:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) User has been indef blocked as NOTHERE. User3749 (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to mark the user page for speedy deletion. Waylon (he was here) (Does my editing suck? Let's talk.) (Also, not to brag, but...) 14:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing from Gwikor Frank

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Gwikor Frank has been mass changing nationalities in numerous biographies from either British or English to Cornish (See their editing history for details). They have been requested to stop, but have refused to do so, and have edit warred when their changes have been reverted. - SchroCat (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

As I have mentioned to you several times already, your reverts are baseless. You claim Cornish is not a nationality, it is a legally recognised national minority on the level of Welsh and Scottish under the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCPNM). My edits are fully cited, sourced and referenced. You are reverting them on a false pretence.

Not to mention we have already discussed this matter and come to a consensus here, which I am abiding by. Gwikor Frank (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

1. Being born in an English county does not grant "nationality". 2. A couple of people talking about something in the Teahouse does not trump the guidelines, nor does it give you free reign to edit war. Gwikor Frank, can you stop edit warring on multiple articles? It's extremely disruptive. - SchroCat (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not "edit warring". You have baselessly reverted my sourced and referenced edits because you personally do not believe Cornish is a national identity on par with Welsh, Scottish, etc. Sadly, legally you are extremely incorrect. The Council of Europe's European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities gives us the same status as the Welsh, Scottish, etc. You can read a brief sumamry here: https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/people-and-communities/equality-and-diversity/cornish-national-minority/ Gwikor Frank (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course you're edit warring. You made an edit, it was reverted and you re-reverted: that's the very definition of edit warring. - SchroCat (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

So in future I should just let you baselessly undo my hard work? Perhaps you can tell me what I should have done instead of just having a go at me? --Gwikor Frank (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

We should probably just let others weigh in, at this point.  Tewdar  16:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

There are some cases, and Brenda Wootton is an obvious one, where Cornish is a far better description of her than English. She was well known as 'La Grande Cornouillaise' in France, where she appeared many times in their biggest festivals and concert venues. She was famous in Japan, for being Cornish, not for being English. To revert references to her Cornishness is a travesty of the true situation, and one done on little basis. I can see no references to her Englishness replacing those inserted by GwikorFrank. In other words SchroCat seems more intent on displacing references to her Cornishness than improving the article. It is SchroCat who is edit-warring here, as he/she has nothing positive to add to the article, whilst GwikorFrank added reputable references, whatever SchroCat's objections. Brwynog (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

"It is SchroCat who is edit-warring here": please try not to lie here. As can be clearly seen from the history, Gwikor Frank made an edit, I reverted: he they then reverted. Only one person has edit warred, and it ain't me. - SchroCat (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Don't "he" me, my pronouns are RIGHT THERE on my main profile. First you're reverting to sourceless edits from sourced ones with "Not a nationality" as your (incorrect) 'reason', then you're misgendering me. And you're qualified to judge my edits? Someone who can't read a userpage? Gwikor Frank (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no information about your gender on your userpage on this Wiki. Still, I apologise for using the wrong term. - SchroCat (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

When we don't know someone's gender, we have a word called "they". Seems you default to the majority a lot. Gwikor Frank (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

What I do or don't don't do is neither here nor there. I have already apologised, if you hadn't noticed, while pointing out that neither your gender nor preferred pronouns are shown in this wiki. Again, to bring this tangent to a close, I repeat my apology. - SchroCat (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

my pronouns are RIGHT THERE on my main profile They are not on your enwiki userpage; I just checked. It is not reasonable to expect other editors to click over to some other WP in order to search for your preferred pronouns. If it's that important to you, put it in your signature. Grandpallama (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It's one signposted click. If they can't manage that, why should I take anything they say about checking sources seriously? Gwikor Frank (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Put it on your enwiki userpage, or in your signature if the correct pronoun usage is of that degree of importance to you. Again, it is not reasonable to expect other editors to click over to some other WP in order to search out pronouns (which may or may not even be there). I would counter your question by asking, why, if you are prepared to engage in active combativeness about something you could easily resolve yourself, we should take anything you say about what is appropriate Wikipedia practice seriously? That sword can cut both ways. Grandpallama (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Because I didn't write my Eng Wiki profile, it's automatic. I am happy to change it for the future, but I don't see it as an excuse for actions in the past. I didn't choose it. Gwikor Frank (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Gwikor Frank: No but you chose your meta profile which didn't provide such information until you added it. As others have said, expecting people to check out another wiki is a little problematic, I think it's in part why the meta profile is shown by default when it exists since it's unrealistic to expect people to check out even meta from some other project. But plenty of people don't want to create profiles on every single wiki they might edit once so it's a good way to ensure people can provide basic information to such wikis.

Personally I dislike defaulting to "he" so try to avoid it as much as possible and always try and use "they" by default. But we have no clear consensus that it's wrong provided people adjust for specific editor's when requested, and not everyone likes the use of "they" either. However I also never check even an en profile so unless it's either in a signature or someone tells me of a preference, "they" is how I will refer to them.

I think we also have to be realistic that even in your Kw profile, the she/her infobox is way down at the bottom of a page full of stuff most people here aren't going to understand so even someone who does check it out aren't going to see it [470].

Note also you can set your gender term preferences in your user preferences which some people will check and use e.g. via the template {{pronoun}} but when I do {{pronoun|Gwikor Frank}} I get "they" (they). By comparison I don't really care much but if you do {{pronoun|Nil Einne}} you do get my preference "he" (he).

While it's limited to "unspecified", "feminine" and "masculine"; setting it as "feminine" will give she/her which you prefer. This suggests either you intentionally set unspecified as your preference or you didn't set "feminine" for some reason which I find weird since although you're fine with they, you seem to have a strong preference for she/her. Unless it's an objection to the preference being called "feminine" which I can understand, but I might suggest it's still worth considering.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It was also not an unreasonable assumption, given that "Frank" is a masculine name in English, even though it was an incorrect assumption. People make a similar (in this case correct) assumption about me because of the "Grandpa" in my name. But ultimately, if you have a particular set of pronouns that you want used to refer to you, it's on you to make sure users know that. If you don't, and they don't, it's okay to correct them, but not to rage at them as if they should have magically known on their own. Grandpallama (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

And yet we are still to see the reputable references produced by you in support of Brenda Wootton being primarily an English icon. The whole point about wikipedia is that it is supported by reputable references. Why are GwikorFrank's references not acceptable? My assertion about her being famous in France etc for being Cornish is easily supported by references, if you should so need them. Brwynog (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

This place's attitude towards anything Cornish is utterly disgusting. Most of Gwikor Frank's edits seem to be reasonably sourced, and mine (now reverted by SchroCat, with four sources replaced with, erm, zero sources) most definitely is (British nationality did not even exist in Carew's day). Perhaps there needs to be better guidance on this somewhere, but calling this "Disruptive editing from Gwikor Frank" deserves a boomerang, in my opinion.  Tewdar  15:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I have nothing against Cornwall at all, having lived there for four years when I was younger, but just because someone was born in Cornwall doesn't make them Cornish. This pseudo-nationalistic editing is never constructive and always a pain. - SchroCat (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I have cited sources listing them as Cornish. You have nothing (except, apparently, a history of participating in our colonisation). Gwikor Frank (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

No, but four scholarly sources saying they're Cornish, and zero sources saying they're British or English, does.  Tewdar  16:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Aside from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, of course. Some of the sources used are as "reliable" as IMDB, others are just lists of people born in Cornwall, which is not the same thing as being "Cornish", particularly when there is no record of them claiming Cornish "nationality". Carpet bombing the term into articles based on their place of birth is not the way to approach the question - nor is edit warring to keep that description in. - SchroCat (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Still four to one, and Wikipedia prefers secondary, not tertiary sources, so I'm always being told. None of my sources are from the IMDB or anything like that. And hey, look what I've found.  Tewdar  16:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

IMDB was used as a source for one of the changes made by Gwikor, on a page which ignored references to Englishness, which in comparison to another change on a different page took account of references to being 'Cornish' as the reason for the change. It seemed to be held to a different standard. The blanket style approach seems, not accurate.Halbared (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

"You have nothing (except, apparently, a history of participating in our colonisation)": don't be so bloody ridiculous - I've never colonised anything. - SchroCat (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not the one who thinks they know better than the Council of Europe ruling that is upheld by the UK Government, mate. Gwikor Frank (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

No (not that I'm your "mate", so please don't call me that), but many of the claims you make are not based on what the people themselves think, and go against many other reliable sources - cherry picking sources is not a good way to go. - SchroCat (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Wait for some of the admins or other users to show up, and see what they have to say.  Tewdar  16:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I will say though, if we are allowed to use terms like English, Scottish, and Welsh, why not Cornish? I'm willing to hear both sides of the argument. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Gwikor Frank, are you saying that you have sources for all these individuals stating that they self-identify as Cornish as a nationality? Just to be clear just having a source describe someone as a "Cornish historian", "Cornish writer" is not enough (You also get "Yorkshire writer", "Dorset artist"). Also, European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities is a red herring. It doesn't mention the Cornish. It's a series of aspiring personal rights (none of which is to have the "power" to name someone's nationality as Cornish in wikipedia or otherwise) for those that are in a national minority. In 2014 the British Government (not the Council of Europe) declared it would treat the Cornish as having those rights. It didn't define who was within the Cornish national minority. DeCausa (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

What sourcing would you require to describe someone as Cornish, then? Or do you think Wikipedia should just never describe somebody as Cornish in the lede?  Tewdar  16:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

1) To be clear, I'm not even stating that their nationality is Cornish, I am calling them "a Cornish writer", with sources, and then getting it reverted to English with no sources and the reason SchroCat gave is "Not a nationality". Also, you'll note that "Yorkshire" and "Dorset" are nouns (unlike the adjective "Cornish") and that neither of those identities is a legally recognised national minority with the same rights as the Welsh and Scottish as stated by the UK government and the Council of Europe.

2) The Cornish are absolutely covered by the FCPNM. Here is a page from local government going through it: https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/people-and-communities/equality-and-diversity/cornish-national-minority/

3) The FCPNM gives us the same national minority status as Welsh. If you can put Welsh, you can put Cornish.

4) Several of the people I have sourced absolutely do/did describe themselves as nationally Cornish. The biggest example of this is that was reverted is Loveday Jenkin. Gwikor Frank (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Cornwall has been given observer status at the British and Irish Council precisely because it is a recognised minority. That is not true for Yorkshire, Dorset or any other region named by DeCausa Brwynog (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

A "recognised minority" is not the same as nationality. Neither should it necessarily be plastered over numerous articles just because the person was born in a specific county. The subject's of the majority of the articles you added to today do not self-identify as Cornish as a nationality. - SchroCat (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

and those that do self-identify presumably are fine with being designated as Cornish. Is that your rationality? Brwynog (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

"The subject's of the majority of the articles you added to today do not self-identify as Cornish as a nationality."

1) Please cite this claim.

2) If true, subject to citation, that means I am not allowed to write that they are "a Cornish [occupation]", even when reliable sources state that that is what they are? Gwikor Frank (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed - SchroCat's edits are counterfactual and baseless. It seems that they are debasing valid corrections with their personal opinion on the validity of the Cornish identity. I support Gwikor Frank's position. BranVyghan (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: This is this editor's first time interacting with anything on Wikipedia. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 16:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

And I'm sure they'll be back again with that attitude. Gwikor Frank (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

A single edit since their creation on 1 September 2022, an edit which is in a place people with no other edits won't normally be aware of, implies a single-purpose account that was incubated.

It is simply a note to ensure that other editors are aware. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 17:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a single purpose account. I edit on Wiktionary. Your "simple note" only serves to misdirect. BranVyghan (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I feel like I should say something here as someone involved at the teahouse discussion, and having weighed in there. As I noted there, it is my opinion, that given the recognition of Cornish as a national minority [471] akin to Scottish, Welsh, and Irish. It would be acceptable to describe them as Cornish, if that is how they are described in reliable sources, not just as someone "born in Kernow/Cornwall". Also that given MOS:INFONAT, there is no need to have nationality in the infobox when it can be inferred from birthplace, however, when it is relevant (i.e. they were born abroad) it should be British, as they are/were legally British nationals, as are Welsh and Scottish people. As I also noted there, others may disagree and I should have gone on to say that if others revert changes, a discussion should be had to resolve any dispute through dispute resolution, instead of reverting changes.

I would also remind everyone involved to assume good faith and be WP:CIVIL, some parts of this so far appear to have strayed uncomfortably close to personal attacks. Shaws username . talk . 17:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I mean, it started that way as all the edits I spent ages on were reverted because SchroCat falsely claims that my nationality is not real. Sadly, Cornish people get this all the time, despite our history and the legal recognition we have won, and I hope you can see why that makes it very difficult to stomach. If SchoCat had said "some of your sources aren't reliable", I'd be taking this differently. But he told me I'm making up my nationality and the nationalities of my countrymen, based on... Well, I've no idea. He hasn't cited anything yet. Gwikor Frank (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

As someone who finds it difficult at times to remain calm and avoid insulting people, I respectfully recommend that you, er, remain calm and avoid insulting people. 😁  Tewdar  17:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

A recognised minority isn't a nationality. Actually, I did refer above to poor sourcing: you used IMDB as a source for one of the changes. That's not reliable for anything, let alone for something that the subject never claimed. - SchroCat (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

You didn't refer to poor sourcing in the edit reasons. Could you please show me where an adjective usued by a source has to be a nationality in order to use it in a page? Thanks, friend. Gwikor Frank (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

i strongly support gwikor frank. should we hear from a person who claims an entire nationality doesnt exist? so then i can say scottish, irish and welsh nationalities dont exits only english....hypocrisy from colonials (no offence lol) General Phoenix (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I personally support that Cornish should be used where it can be appropriately sourced. The Cornish have a clear identity (something those I've met from Cornwall will pretty quickly remind you of), a distinct language and even their own Wikipedia fork, something I was completely unaware of until today.

More to the point, I don't think there's any particular reason why it shouldn't be specified where appropriately sourced, which is (strangely) what seems to have kicked this off. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 17:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Q: Why should you never ask somebody if they're from Cornwall?

A: If they were from Cornwall, they would already have told you. 😂  Tewdar  17:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The bumper and window stickers going up and down the motorway in Somerset should give you a little bit of a clue as to who's who as well. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 17:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for poor formatting, I am on mobile, but with a search through Wikipedia for comparable precedent, there are clear examples of the use of minority nationalities in such cases as Breton, west Papuan and various indigenous Australians. There seems to be insufficient reason for Cornish, with more legal recognition to not be valid as a listed nationality. 202.7.194.150 (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

While there may be some legitimate arguments to be made here regarding using "Cornish" as a nationality, they are being strongly overshadowed by what appear to be editors here to right great wrongs and assume bad faith against anyone who undoes edits or requests them to discuss. Mass changes require consensus, and I see way too much readiness to fight rather than explain and gain that consensus. Being correct on an issue doesn't justify edit warring or bad behavior. As an example, the world isn't going to implode tomorrow if the article on Brenda Wootton says she's English vs. Cornish; there is time to start a larger discussion about this, and in the meantime, editors should stop with mass changes and direct their energy into starting that discussion and formulating good arguments to use in it. Grandpallama (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Might I suggest an RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cornwall Shaws username . talk . 17:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes please. This thread has gotten WAY out of hand. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 17:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Whilst I'm OK with that, I will note that so far only SchroCat and perhaps Grandpallama is against being able to use "Cornish" as an adjective when supported by sources and everybody else here is either cautiously or keenly in favour? Consensus seems in my favour already. Gwikor Frank (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Can I suggest not Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cornwall, which is likely not exactly a neutral audience. One of the MOS pages dealing with biographies will have a better turnout and a more rounded input from editors. - SchroCat (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm ok with that if you are @Gwikor Frank, I can put a draft in my sandbox and then I (or someone else) can post it if it's ok (It's my first time making an RfC so please bear with me) Shaws username . talk . 18:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The thing is, considering the English language role in dominating Cornish identity over the centuries and the pervasiveness of imperial propaganda, among other things, I feel like WikiProject Cornwall would actually be as close to a balanced view as we could get? Gwikor Frank (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Ye gods... No, the Cornwall project wouldn't be anywhere near neutral. If we can move away from the Big Nasty Imperialist nonsense, the WP Biographies section of the MOS is watched and commented on by a global audience who will look at it within the confines of the MOS and similar situations. - SchroCat (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense? There are buckets of sources on the colonisation of Kernow by England and its language. Gwikor Frank (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

What about putting it on the MOS pages and linking to it from the Cornwall project given the shared interest? Shaws username . talk . 18:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

That would be - in my opinion - the best route (as long as it is a neutrally worded comment). It would give a much wider input from the community (rather than just being from a narrow part of our editor base) but still be flagged up to a highly relevant project. - SchroCat (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, that sounds good to me. Thanks, both. Gwikor Frank (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

As I understand it, Righting Great Wrongs means that I am trying to change something on wikipedia rather than accurately use sources as they exist. What I am actually doing is accurately using sources as they exist. Indeed, it is SchroCat who is attempting to Right Great Wrongs by saying that Cornish is not a national identity whe, legally and factually, it is.

I understand this doesn't seem important to you, but you didn't spend all day painstakingly researching and juggling books and you are not part of the minority that is in question, a minority that is under attack daily. I shouldn't have to explain to people why I'm making the changes I am making when the article was previously NOT sourced for "English" or "British" and I *am* sourcing for Cornish. My sources are enough. Gwikor Frank (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I am going to respond as calmly as possible to this insulting response, because you are clearly not listening, and I'm growing closer to supporting behavioral sanctions against you, regardless of the potential correctness of your argument.

this doesn't seem important to you I never said that, and you have no grounds to assume that. I said that the issue lacks the sort of urgency that requires immediate correction.

you are not part of the minority that is in question You have no idea of what my ethnic background is, or of any challenges I may or may not have faced as a result. No idea whatsoever. It's an absolute assumption on your part, like all of the other bad faith assumptions you've made throughout this thread.

I shouldn't have to explain to people why I'm making the changes I am making That is not how Wikipedia works. Period.

My sources are enough Unless/until other editors raise reasonable objections to them. Grandpallama (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

But they didn't raise objections to them. They just reverted everything with the reason "Not a Nationality". Nothing about my sources until they got resistance. Even now they've only mentioned one in specific? They also reverted edits that DID have reliable sources (books, etc.) Gwikor Frank (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

That's not true, I'm afraid. As I mentioned further up, some of these sources are not reliable. Some are from lists of people born in Cornwall, one was from IMDB. Can you show, as DeCausa as asked, do these sources show the individuals "self-identify as Cornish as a nationality?" - SchroCat (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

There's a nice passage in Carew's Survey of Cornwall, where he writes: I had also made a more painful than perfect collection of most of the Cornish gentlemen's names and arms, but because the publishing thereof might perhaps go accompanied with divers wrongs, to my much reverenced friends the heralds by thrusting my sickle into their harvest, to a great many [of] my countrymen whom my want of information should be forced to pass over unmentioned. Perhaps this is Carew self-describing himself as Cornish 'as a nationality'?  Tewdar  18:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

But the objection to the changes is not really related to the sources. Certainly my sources were good enough, and no objection was raised to them. It is a baseless universal objection to describing anybody as Cornish.  Tewdar  17:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it partly is, but you're both ignoring that. - SchroCat (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

What problems do you have with this source?  Tewdar  18:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Could you please tell me the problem with this source, friend? Gwikor Frank (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I have not said all your sources were problematic, so I'm not going to play the 'spot the sources' game. Either way, it is a larger point than just one (or several) sources, as should be clear. - SchroCat (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I see.  Tewdar  18:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Look, I'm genuinely not trying to upset you, but I'm not sure you're aware of how much this has upset me. If they'd said "this source is bad" in the edit reason, it'd be a different story. But they told instead told me my nationality isn't real. They could have picked something concrete and true (I do see now that IMDB is not a reliable source, which I was not aware of the one? time I used it), but they didn't. That's upsetting and it's infuriating when it's being taken seriously. Their edit reasons are simply irrelevant and incorrect.

I understand tone is difficult to read through text, but I'm not trying to rile you. I'm trying to explain my frustrations and situation. I hope you can take that in good faith and I will try to do better regarding what you say. Gwikor Frank (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

A national minority is different from a nationality. The sources do not show in the majority of cases that the people self identify as Cornish; descriptions of "a Cornish writer", etc, are not evidence of that at all - the location of birth does not endow them as being Cornish or English, only British - unless they claim something else. - SchroCat (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

So if there is evidence of self-identity, then you have no problem with them being labelled as Cornish. Is that what you are saying? Brwynog (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It depends on what the RfC says. - SchroCat (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Which is no answer at all. My suggestion is one that could easily avoid all of this spat and establish a consensus for the future. If the reference is good enough is surely something that applies to all references. If the reference indicates self-identity as Cornish, would you be OK with the person being labelled as Cornish? Brwynog (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It is an answer, it's just not one you want to hear. Given there's no deadline and no urgent need to move away from the extant text for a couple of weeks, the RfC would be the best way of ensuring there isn't a back-and-forth in the text. - SchroCat (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

A national minority is different from a nationality. But is it really? The term "nation" is not so well defined, but look, this is what the OED says: "nation: a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory." That applies to Cornwall, doesn't it? So does anyone call Cornwall a nation? Sure. But perhaps they are biased. I wonder, is there any large body tasked with education of those in the British state and with a charter of neutrality that calls it a nation? I give you [472].

Does that settle the matter? No, of course not, but it should give pause. Just be pragmatic here. Assume WP:ETHNICITY applies to Cornish too (see particularly note a), and go with the sources. No one should be blanket changing from one to another without discussion, but neither is it wrong to describe as Cornish someone who was certainly Cornish and self described as Cornish, and is called Cornish in sources. Ethnicity as a distinctive is particularly a matter for minorities in a way that it does not concern a majority population. It is a matter for the sources and the subject. The same as for English, Welsh and Scottish subjects. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I think pause and pragmatism is the sensible way. Each subject can be looked at individually. Somebody above (Cat I believe) said there's no deadline, which there isn't. This stuff will never be settled. And each subject may very well pose it's own problems. Cornish can be an adjective, like Lancastrian. I just took the time to look at one subject, Carew, and see that a simple adjective used in a description doesn't seem to give his full identity as perhaps some think it should; when the full context is taken into account.Halbared (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

See the quote from Carew above. What do you think?  Tewdar  19:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It's too ambiguous to use. "Countrymen" could reasonably mean "men of the country" (farmers, etc), "Men of the country of England" or "Men of Cornwall" (ie. Cornishmen). It's not clear from that which he was referring to. - SchroCat (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The suggestion that 'countrymen', in this context, might mean men of the country (farmers, etc) is the most preposterous thing I have ever heard in my entire life.  Tewdar  20:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

That is because you are only seeing what you want to see. You should note that I have not said that is definitely what it is, I have said that is "could reasonably mean" that (as one of three possible meanings. I have seen the term used in that fashion before (Countryman (magazine), for example, was a magazine aimed at those in rural areas) and even our disambig page of the term defines one of the possible uses as "2. a person living in the countryside or rural area, and often working in the trades typical of rural areas". You can think it preposterous if you wish, but maybe stop and think a little before reaching for the hyperbole next time? - SchroCat (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

A Countryman is quite different from "my countrymen", though? Gwikor Frank (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

For the third time... I have not said that is definitely what it is, I have said that is "could reasonably mean" that (as one of three possible meanings). - SchroCat (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it's difficult, and I'm glad the buck doesn't stop with me to decide. I am put in mind of Kenneth Brannagh, he is proud of being Irish, he is proud of being British (where he makes the distinction he is not English), for him (and others of his period and place) there is no exclusionary aspect. But on the web/wikipaedia...there are issues as it rubs some people the wrong way. I would have to read more...which is starting to sound like work. ;) Halbared (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I think what's particularly irking, though, is that these changes have been reverted not just where the sources point to them being Cornish, but also where the sources point to them being Cornish and not English as in the case of, to give just one example, Loveday Jenkin. Gwikor Frank (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

No-one has described her as English. The article says British, which she legally is, or is she not British? - SchroCat (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Legally Palestinians are Israeli. The law is not the arbiter of identity. Identity is. Do you need me to go and get a source of her saying she's not British either? I can text her if you like. Gwikor Frank (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

What does her passport say? Or her birth certificate? As I said, she's legally British. She may feel more Cornish than British, or not like being British, but she is. Again, have the RfC, wait until the result comes out and then the situation on individual cases will become clearer. - SchroCat (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Just as a point of order, a British birth certificate usually (but not always) does not mention British nationality anywhere. E.g. Birth certificate#/media/File:Specimen England and Wales Long Birth Certificate.jpg Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Some of your edits seem more accurate, like the one you reference, some others, seem more nuanced; and perhaps it would be better to ease off with the iron fist in the iron glove editing, and try a move velvet glove approach?Halbared (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

That's the point I was making earlier. How do we distinguish simple origin adjective with natonal identity? Describing someone as a "Cornish writer" is not necessarily any different to a "Dorset artist". Are we to relabel Melvyn Bragg] as a "Cumbrian broadcaster" based on this source? The ONS has said that 18% of the population of Cornwall self-identify as Cornish by nationality or ethnicity (or both).[473] That probably means that a minority of the "Cornish" self-identify in that way. Should we extrapolate from that? Probably not but I don't know what the answer is. Making these changes just because a source says someone is "Cornish" doesn't make sense to me. DeCausa (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it helps, but I absolutely would support called Melvyn Bragg a Cumbrian broadcaster on his page. People can always click Cumbria if they don't know what it is and it's a region with a very distinct identity (one not dissimilar to Kernow). Gwikor Frank (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• I have blocked Special:contributions/86.3.208.127 for one year for WP:LOUTSOCK. I should block Gwikor Frank as well, but at least for the moment have not done so.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure why I should be blocked? This is a shared house, if that's relevant. Gwikor Frank (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) "shared house"? Are you saying that someone else in the house is making these edits, not you? It strains credulilty. See the intersection between you and the IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Bbb23, these edits made by the IP, then removed, then reinstated, don't even require the EIA. Grandpallama (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, no, sorry! Apparently a "shared address" is not what I thought it was, have had it explained to me now! Thanks for your patience. Gwikor Frank (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  I would support a block. The IP socking was blatantly obvious, which makes this explicit denial problematic. The double-down right now makes it worse. Grandpallama (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  To be fair, 'By Tre Pol and Pen, Shall ye know all Cornishmen' is well known in Cardiff also. ——Serial Number 54129 19:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Pur dollys ov vy 😭  Tewdar  18:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  I would hope that GF is not blocked at this time, but I hope that they take on board the seriousness of the situation and ensure it does not happen again (not that I have any say in the matter). - SchroCat (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'd be more forgiving if she hadn't denied it was her. Grandpallama (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, not attempting to deny anything! I genuinely didn't clock what the user on my Talk page was on about and have now had it explained to me! I apologise profusely for the misunderstandings. IP stuff is really not something I know much about. I understand now that the problem is I was logged out at first when making the edits? I'm sorry, I have multiple devices and it just didn't occur to me that I'd be logged out on one. Luckily, with the IP ban, it's not a mistake I can make again as I'll have to be logged in from now on! Thanks all for being patient with me. KW Wiki is a lot simpler than it is over here. Gwikor Frank (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I am an adminstrator and I want to begin by saying that I am an American and we are beginning the celebration of the 250th anniversary of our successful revolution against the British. As a matter of fact, the Boston Tea Party happened 250 years and three months ago. Some of my father's ancestors left Ireland during the horrific Potato famine around 1850. I live in Grass Valley, California, a historic gold mining town that had a population that was 60% Cornish in the late 19th century. They were hard rock miners. I say all that to indicate that I am no friend of the British Empire and no enemy of the Cornish people. What hasn't yet been said is that this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. We deal with behavioral issues here. It is entirely possible for an editor or group of editors to be generally correct about a content issue, but still engage in inappropriately combative and divisive behavior while pursuing their goals. The general term that I use is ethnonationistic activism, and that never ends well here. Wikipedia is simply not the place to campaign to Right Great Wrongs, and the Neutral point of view is a core content policy that all editors are required to comply with. Change does not happen on the English language Wikipedia through indignation or denunciation or divisive, hyperbolic rhetoric. Change comes through thoughtful, respectful discussion of reliable sources and how best to summarize them in the context of established Policies and guidelines. Change comes by building consensus, which is a collaborative process based on mutual respect and assuming good faith. So, please conduct yourselves accordingly going forward. Cullen328 (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Well said. This thread is about 5 times longer than it should be because we (myself included) have gone off down a content dispute rabbit hole. DeCausa (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Can I clarify? I want to be sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that it is "divisive behaviour" to undertake research and then slowly spend my afternoon updating posts under a certain topic with the results of my research or is that OK? Sorry, it's unclear to me if that is "divisive" somehow. Thanks. Gwikor Frank (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

"Divisive" is responding to Cullen328's rather gentle warning on your talkpage about combative behavior by responding with the statement you're not trying to be combative while simultaneously insinuating the warning is tied to your gender (itself something you made a point of bringing to the fore). Grandpallama (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Gwikor Frank, I suggest that you try to put yourself in the shoes of an uninvolved editor, and then carefully re-read each of your own comments in this conversation. If you are unable to detect the divisive hostility and bitterness that pervades your comments, then I simply do not know what else to say to you, except "be well". Cullen328 (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

People put themselves in uninvolved shoes too often. Just for once I'd like someone to imagine what it's like to live this. because it's not just me. I've had so many messages on socials from fellow Cornish people who are seeing this and are reminded, again, how we don't matter. It's OK. I was wrong to think it could be different if I played the game and cited the sources like others of you told me to. Gwikor Frank (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

"Played the game". careful. You're sounding like you're here for a purpose other than building an encyclopedia. DeCausa (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, for Christ sakes', I'm not sure I can say anything any more that won't be twisted by one of you. Gwikor Frank (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Weirdly, over on Kernewek Wikipedia, I've built more Wikipedia than almost anyone else and I'm a respected admin. If only I could put my finger on what's different. Gwikor Frank (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

According to this there are 26 active users over there. There's a few more than that over here - might require a different approach to collaboaration. DeCausa (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking at Kernewek Wikipedia's recent changes page, they only have four editors who are actually regularly active. It would probably be harder to not be a respected admin there. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I could even run for admin over there 😂  Tewdar  08:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

All jokes aside, maybe you should! I've been impressed by the combination of insight and restraint from you in this thread, where you've made good points in the sort of collaborative manner that really exemplifies what WP should be. I suspect you'd be a great benefit over there, and perhaps a good balance for a wiki that currently has only a single admin. Grandpallama (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I've been impressed by the combination of insight and restraint from you in this thread LOL you should see me in some of the other threads 😂 or more accurately 😭.  Tewdar  16:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking at :kw:Special:Statistics and :kw:Special:ListUsers/sysop, it looks like Gwikor Frank is the ONLY admin, actually. – 2804:F1...65:4199 (talk)08:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

No, SchroCat brought up my gender, they just did it wrong, so I corrected them. Since then the old "combative" has come out to play. It's OK. I can't show you. Gwikor Frank (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Emphatically no. SchroCat used a pronoun, which you had every right to civilly correct. But you brought up your gender and then pushed it to the fore, attacking SchroCat over it. And have subsequently quarreled when it was pointed out that your assumption other editors should have known better is misplaced. Grandpallama (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that you're an experienced user on your home Wikipedia. I hope you'll appreciate that the norms on the English-language Wikipedia may be different from what you're accustomed to. For starters, most of us aren't from the United Kingdom. Many have a first language that isn't English. We don't have a decided view, one way or another, on the question of Cornish nationalism. We don't know you at all. SchroCat is a familiar face, yes, and I'll declare for my part that I've had at least two run-ins with SchroCat and I will happily describe those run-ins as "combative", but that's neither here nor there.

You've been given good and disinterested advice: to start an RfC in a neutral place and gain consensus. A RfC run out of WikiProject Cornwall would inevitably be seen as an example of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. This would be no different than one of the sports projects trying to establish a subject notability guideline on their own talk pages. You should also bear in mind that there is a long, sad history of nationality disputes on the English Wikipedia going back to its founding. This isn't a new problem, and you're not the first well-intentioned editor who had never met such obstinate people in her life. Please consider this. Mackensen (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

+1. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

+1 The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 15:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

+1 I echo this as well as someone else has crossed paths with SchroCat. Nemov (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• What is left to do in this thread? Is GF supposed to start an RfC? Is she even interested in doing so? Is anyone still seeking sanctions against GF? If so, what for? This thread, like so many at ANI, has gotten out of hand, including the latest distraction criticizing ShroCat's past behavior, which I really don't think is useful. As an aside, just in case anyone knows, has anyone found a good machine translator for kw.wiki (Cornish)? It's very frustrating not being able to read that wiki. It's pretty bizarre, too, because some phrases are in English and some not. Finally, with respect to GF's adminship, she is a temporary admin, which, for all I know, is all they ever have at kw.wiki.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  including the latest distraction criticizing ShroCat's past behavior If that's referring to me, that's not how I intended that comment to be read and I apologize for being unclear. I was responding to the idea that she was being singled out, and in particular being called "combative." I thought it best to lay my own cards on the table, as Cullen did, and disclose my own past history with SchroCat to make it clear I'm not just taking the side of a friend. The main thrust of my advice is that an RfC is necessary and she should start one, and that she should be aware that this is not the English Wikipedia's first go-around with nationalist disputes. Mackensen (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  Same intention here, SchroCat isn't the issue. Nemov (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why we can't describe people as Cornish especially with a number of good quality sources, we have an article all about them too Cornish people and a category Category:Cornish people 117,350 people identified as Cornish in the 2021 Census through the national identity question, including myself. Theroadislong (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.