Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1168

User:Ritesh8040 and WP:SELFCITE after warnings

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

---

User:Ritesh8040 had an article about himself ("Ritesh Sahu") speedily deleted three times in one week in 2011. [1] That should be water under the bridge now, but the user's editing is still about self-promotion.

I found Ritesh8040 on the page Maggie Smith when I reverted his edit because it introduced redundant information and his source said it was "powered by AI". [2] Upon closer inspection, his source was authored by "Ritesh Sahu" and had been shoehorned onto the page three other times. [3] [4] [5]. I warned the user about using sources he wrote himself, late on 27 September. [6]

On 28 September, Ritesh8040 returns not just to citing his website, but citing his exact same article for Maggie Smith [7] and two other pages [8] [9] I give a second warning later on 28 September, and Ritesh8040 cites himself again on 29 September. [10]

Since returning to Wikipedia in February 2024, Ritesh8040's only actions have been to cite his own website [11] which he has also made a speedily deleted article for [12]. There is no doubt that User:Ritesh8040 who created four articles for "Ritesh Sahu" is his favourite author Ritesh Sahu from the website Live8040.

TLDR: user is WP:SPAM linking his own website into Wikipedia articles, in breach of WP:SELFCITE as he is citing the most profitable source, not the most accurate. Further WP:ICANTHEARYOU with ignoring two warnings about the consequences of doing this, and we have a user who is WP:NOTHERE for improving the project. Unknown Temptation (talk) 08:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 29 September 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 IP user

IP user 2a02:1811:b731:a200:e934:e172:55ad:98cc (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) recently reverted my edit on Clara Shafira Krebs with the summary : "Think twice or thrice before adding/deleting or go only make wiki pages about Pakistan as you’re a gay Paki." ([13]) I suspect an unnamed editor who recently argued with me is behind this IP address, but since I have no proof, I'm hoping something can be done to the IP for this personal attack/harassment. Thank you. — ‎‎‎hhypeboyh 💬 • ✏️ 11:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The /64 range has an extensive block log. I've blocked them for 6 months (last time was 3).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23: The IP 2a02:1808:5:162a:5d6b:bb70:b454:e8e2 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) reverted me again with the summary "Reverting vandalism by gay Paki" ([14]). The attacks seem persistent and I'm not sure how to handle it except reporting it here. — ‎‎‎hhypeboyh 💬 • ✏️ 19:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Not much else you can do. I've blocked that range too, but only for a week. They might keep hopping, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thank you anyway. I'll let you know if there's more of these. Appreciate the help. — ‎‎‎hhypeboyh 💬 • ✏️ 20:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Persistent attacks and provocation by Zemen

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

This is just their attacks, I could cite their disruptive edits too. Their talk page history is full of warnings [15].

• I'm sure u, like all other porsians, will resort to the saying that the word 'Kurd' is a word used for shepherd.

Focusing on my alleged ethnicity again. E and O are not even close to each other on the keyboard, it's not that hard to spell "Persian". Clearly, he means "Poorsian" ("Poor-sian"), a common xenophobic remark against Persians.

• your opinions on my edits don't 'look natural' u are too farsist

• Yeah, what I expected, these words, I know what you want, on the pretext of 'Wikipedia rules' (which I respect much) exactly what you don't want to see: 'Kurd' why don’t you go get [[Wikipedia:Wikibreak|some rest]]? nt: my talk page history, which is common mistakes made by new users, is irrelevant. and im right that youre a farsist (maybe اطلاعات) glo.

"Farsist" means "Persianist", whatever that is supposed to mean. More namecalling.

When I tried to explain to them why it was not nice to resort to namecalling ("farsist") and WP:ASPERSIONS, they instead resorted to provoking me

• good that you understood your purpose. good look

• Just wishin' you good luck? now u can end this discussion.

• ok [Laughs while eating chips ] --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I asked you once directly and three times indirectly to end the arguments because we won't reach a conclusion, and you don't like to see 'a word', but you kept going, that I don’t know what you want. you can just remove my edits and let me know what to do in the edit summary, not come to my talk page and arbitrarily tag just because three of my edits don't 'look neutral', which is an indictment of racism and I'm against it, I didn’t even know what you meant that time. All that aside, why is "good that you understood your purpose. good look" a bad thing? btw it's my talk page, laughing or eating chips, not your problem. Zaman (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Not only what you said makes no sense, has zero diffs, and barely addresses my report. Now you're doubling down at Talk:Gordyene (in the very section I opened by asking you not continue your attacks [16]) regarding your attacks against me [17] [18]. Would appreciate if an admin would look at this, fail to see how this user is a netpositive to this site. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Everything you say is nonsense, look I can tell you so. If you think everything I say now and in the future is 'nonsense' why don't you try to avoid me? why do you keep replying? you're almost bothering me. Zaman (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Nt: I actually wrote that in porsian not poor-sian and it's a typo, I used it on my keyboard before so the system set that. I didn't write this on purpose, it's childish to blame me with that. Zaman (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Your talk page exists for other editors to communicate with you. It's neither a blog, nor a Discord chat, nor a jocular texting conversation. Ravenswing 14:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: He keeps bothering me and keeps replying to only three edits, what do you want me to do? he's annoying, and I text the way he deserves. Zaman (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Zemen, you need to stop the personal attacks. Nobody 'deserves' incivility. If you wish to make amends, I suggest that you strike through the personal attacks and do not make any more. Would you be willing to do that? QwertyForest (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Still don’t know which personal attack you guys accusing me of. he called my edits 'non-neutral', simply because I tagged his language and not the other, and I told him in return that your comments are 'too persian' not following wiki rules. What is there to accuse me of here? Zaman (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Zemen, placing notices like the ones you've received is a very normal thing that editors do here, to give some explanation for why they are reverting another user's edits. You need to be able to receive these notices without perceiving them as personal attacks. @HistoryofIran, you need to be able to assume good faith and try to work things out more thoroughly before threatening other editors with ANI. If they're a sockpuppet, they'll step on a rake soon enough. -- asilvering (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think that Zemen is a sockpuppet? And I was not threatening them, I was warning them, which I did after they had engaged in WP:ASPERSIONS and namecalling several times. As you can see, they're still doubling down, showing signs of being WP:NOTHERE. The worst of these attacks is no doubt "Poorsian", which is just xenophobic and has no place on this site, yet they clearly don't care. I have already tried to work out stuff with them, such as the afromentioned Talk:Gordyene, which resulted in a barrage of attacks. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

My apologies for the assumption; I misunderstood your comment, These don't look like "common mistakes made by new users" to me. I did read that talk page before making my initial comment, and I think you would have gotten much further with more patience. Please try to work things out, rather than further provoking editors who are already clearly upset. -- asilvering (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

"Further provoking editors who are already clearly upset"? Sorry, but really? What gives them the right to be upset? Are we just going to ignore their blatantly xenophobic (borderline racist) attacks? I am the one who should be upset here. I am just following procedure, I can't have the patience of a saint when a user is persistently attacking me and just generally disregarding our policies. You gave them a chance to strike their personal attacks, they refused and doubled down. Are there not any repercussions? Or is WP:ASPERSIONS and namecalling due to ones alleged ethnicity (my ethnicity is not disclosed on my userpage, in fact Rasht is not even a Persian city..) okay now? I hope you understand my frustation. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Anyone has the "right" to be upset. It's a normal human emotion, and it's perfectly normal to feel that way when someone has frustrated you. Reversions are frustrating; they're upset. You feel attacked and are also upset. I can certainly understand your frustration. But neither of you are going to be much good at communicating with each other while you're both upset, and as the significantly more experienced editor, I'd expect that you know when to take a step back. I haven't looked at the sources, but given your experience, I expect you're the one who has the right of the content dispute here. Once you can explain that to the other editor without feeling needled by their response (which may be confused, or ignorant, or rude), you should try again. Engaging further right now, and getting into arguments on each other's user talk pages, is just going to make both of you more upset. -- asilvering (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Asilvering, Zemen is persistently engaging in WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA, which you and I both know is not okay. Especially not due to ones alleged ethnicity. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering: So does Zemen just get away with all their attacks, including in this report, where they have called me "childish" twice? Do you think that's okay? Is it allowed to attack users and engage in namecalling due to their perceived ethnicity? Two other users have called them out for their behaviour in this report, whilst you haven't told them anything. Facing no repercussions from their actions, they will no doubt continue, especially as they clearly think their behaviour was justified. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: what I see here is an experienced user deciding to bully a less-experienced user with an ANI report instead of trying to calmly resolve a content dispute that went only mildly sideways before the ANI threats started. Has Zemen behaved well? No. Have you? Also no. Please make a serious attempt to try to take the temperature down when dealing with content disputes, even if you think the other editor is stupid, wrong, rude, or all three. What you've done here instead is try to get the other editor blocked. You should both apologize to each other for the misunderstandings (yes, both of you), and try to start over. -- asilvering (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, that's it. I would a more experienced admin to look into this. I won't tolerate more WP:ASPERSIONS, now from you too. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

And now up above Zemen is calling me childish (yet another attack) [19] Claiming "Porsian" ("Poorsian") is a "typo", which I find it hard to believe, when O and E are not even close to each other, how could the "system" possibly change those two. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran, Your interpretations are not good, I hope you think a little better. I don't have to lie to you, I've used the 'porsian' phrase before, and the system suggests that I've used it before. Zaman (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to explain how my "interpretations" are not good and what this so called "system" is, and what "Porsian" means, since it's not a synonym for Persian. I've given you more than enough WP:GF, and you have responded by attacking me. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

What do you want from me now?? I wouldn't lie to anyone to do it for you, you apparently know nothing about the ADVKu keyboard recommendation system. Plus I didn't call you childish, but your thoughts and accusations are childish. Zaman (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

It's absolutely mindboggling that you can get away with so much WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA behaviour. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok Zaman (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering, Im glad you wrote this comment in this way, thank you very much for letting me know that my goal was not achieved properly, thanks again! I will try to improve on this. Zaman (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Request for secondary admin opinion; since when is attacking others for their ethnicity okay?

This is the updated list of WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA by Zemen (imagine if I included their disruptive edits too).

• I'm sure u, like all other porsians, will resort to the saying that the word 'Kurd' is a word used for shepherd.

Focusing on my alleged ethnicity. I don't care what they claim, E and O are not even close to each other on the keyboard, it's not that hard to spell "Persian". "Porsian" is a not a word. Clearly, they meant "Poorsian" ("Poor-sian"), a common xenophobic remark against Persians.

• your opinions on my edits don't 'look natural' u are too farsist

• Yeah, what I expected, these words, I know what you want, on the pretext of 'Wikipedia rules' (which I respect much) exactly what you don't want to see: 'Kurd' why don’t you go get [[Wikipedia:Wikibreak|some rest]]? ...and im right that youre a farsist (maybe اطلاعات) glo.

"Farsist" means "Persianist", whatever that is supposed to mean. More namecalling.

When I tried to explain to them why it was not nice to resort to namecalling ("farsist") and WP:ASPERSIONS, they instead resorted to provoking me

• good that you understood your purpose. good look

• Just wishin' you good luck? now u can end this discussion.

• ok [Laughs while eating chips ]

After the report, they continued the attacks at Talk:Gordyene:

• What attack? this is the idea of the persian Iranians, which some Kurds also have, sir. and ofc something you don't like isn't reliable.

• haven't said anything about you, you confirmed this theory yourself with your comments.

Two other users in this thread called Zemen out for their behaviour (one even asking them to strike their attacks and cease them). Admin User:Asilvering, however, instead of warning/blocking Zemen, joins the WP:ASPERSIONS fiesta and accuses ME of bullying Zemen [20] with no diffs to back it up. And before that, they asked ME to not "further provoke" an editor who is already clearly "upset" [21]

In fact, this only encouraged Zemen to continue their attacks:

...it's childish to blame me with that.

....Plus I didn't call you childish, but your thoughts and accusations are childish.

If anyone is getting "bullied" and should be "upset" that is me. I tire of constantly being attacked due to my background by new users with barely any edits and who ultimately end up getting indeffed for being WP:NOTHERE. I patrol a long list of Western, Central and Southern Asian articles, which are constantly plagued by these type of users. The majority of them would be a shitshow if I didn't almost single handedly take care of them (including making hundreds of SPIs). I don't do or say this to get thanked or some sort of badge of honor. However, I am not a fucking punching bag, and I wonder if the same carelessness was shown if I belonged to a more historically persecuted group, such as an African American or Jew. Let's be honest, it wouldn't, and that's a good thing. Such behaviour should be taken seriously - but that should equally apply to ALL backgrounds. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

As this report is ongoing, Zemen is still causing disruption. They just replaced "Azerbaijan Province (Safavid Empire)" with "Safavid Kurdistan" at Siege of Dimdim [22], not even bothering to read the Safavid Kurdistan article, which does not support Zemens replacement, as the Kurdistan province did not extend that far. Go on, say that I am "bullying" them. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

And now source misuse [23]. This is just scratching the surface. WP:NOTHERE. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

...E and O are not even close to each other on the keyboard... They are if you're using a Dvorak keyboard layout. _WADroughtOfVowels^P 11:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment :HistoryofIran engages in WP:Gaming the system post WP:Disruptive sanctions. He has no problem using offensive language when it is directed at groups other than his own. M7md AAAA (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

See #WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS with a dose of xenophobia by M7md AAAA. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) While I quibble over a couple of HoI's points, I think there's enough for at least a short block on civility grounds against Zemen.

First, HoI has a history of being taken here, typically by NOTHERE editors who don't like their reliance on scholarship. While I below may assume too much good faith, I by no means fault HoI for having exhausted theirs; they edit in a topic area prone to vitriolic nationalism, and I commend their efforts. I think they've shown remarkable restraint and WP:AGF given the circumstances.

The "Porsian" comment is suggestive, but I've seen weirder typos happen. Given Zemen's imperfect grasp of English, I don't think it's beyond the pale to suggest it could have been an honest mistake. Similarly, the "childish" exchange I could chalk up to translation errors.

Even discounting those, there remains a core of incivility which should be addressed. The biggest one is the focus on nationality; I'd expect anyone who said, "Of course a Mexican would think X" or "Naturally a Czech would believe Y" would get a swift block for WP:NPA. I'm willing to extend AGF to its breaking point and accept that Zemen was alluding to a common argument, but even so it needs to be made clear that they must comment on edits, not editors.

Other comments, such as the "laughing while eating chips" one, come off as dismissive, implying that reaching a compromise is not Zemen's objective. I don't think an indefinite block is needed, but something should stop the disruption now and make it clear to Zemen that it will not be tolerated in the future. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Context is key when it comes to something along the lines of "Naturally a X would believe Y"... If Zemen was making a simple bias argument there is a way and a place to respectfully bring up a potential bias based on nationality or ethnicity... What Zemen absolutely can not do is use a real or perceived nationality or ethnicity as an adhominem (which is what they appear to be doing). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I don't have time to dig too deeply into this. But I do agree that there are repeated personal attacks in there, and that the repeated claims that they're all just typos is untrue on its face, and that HoI does not need to just take them forever. I've left a warning at their talk page here: User talk:Zemen#Simplicity. That should cover the low-hanging fruit. Another admin may want to review this in more depth and see if anything else is in order. @HistoryofIran: Let me know if the attacks on your ethnicity or motivations continue, and I'll block indef. I know that WP:BITE exists, but we also need another essay (if it doesn't exist) that we can't just let new editors come in and attack long-term editors with no consequence. That's a good way to lose long-term editors, too. For old-timers, I'm thinking of Malik. HoI does not need to accept attacks on his ethnicity because the user is new. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• HoI has been dealing with a constant barrage of harassment from POV-pushers in a highly contentious area of the Wiki for years. Their reports to ANI have been extremely on-point, and at this point deserve the benefit of the doubt. EducatedRedneck is correct, a lot of ethno-nationalist editors take offense to HoI keeping strictly to our requirements for sourcing and NPOV in this topic area. Zemen's personal attacks should not be taken lightly, and their claims of "typos" around ethnic insults are not believable. Seeing admins dismiss them out of hand & accuse HoI of "bullying" is appalling. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  I do not believe I have dismissed anything out of hand here. I have said (quite clearly, I think) that Zemen has behaved poorly, and that it's entirely understandable that both editors here are upset. I have not said that there should be no actions taken. I remain convinced that it's always best to be collegial to editors you're in a content dispute with, even if they're dicks. (For one thing, if you remain calm and they nevertheless double down on being a dick, it's very easy to tell that the issue is, indeed, that they're not the slightest bit interested in building an encyclopedia.) -- asilvering (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  The issue was I think caused by your comment here: what I see here is an experienced user deciding to bully a less-experienced user with an ANI report. I agree with The Hand That Feeds You, that was an appalling comment to make in response to an editor rightly reporting being repeatedly attacked, especially as some of the attacks were clearly on ethnic grounds.

  You then said to Historyof Iran Has [your attacker] behaved well? No. Have you? Also no. That sort of false equivalence is, I'd suggest, really quite offensive. Anybody being racially abused, in any walk of life, clearly has an absolute right to file a report and for that report to be taken seriously. To imply that raising such a report is itself an abuse is grotesque.

  You've made a serious error of judgement and it would be better if you were to acknowledge that fact and apologise, rather than seeking to reframe your involvement in a positive light, as above.

  HistoryofIran is a very hard working editor operating in an unbelievably difficult topic area. While doing that work they are consistently beset by uncivil ethno-nationalist POV pushers. HistoryofIran is fully deserving of the community's support and thanks. They shouldn't have to put up with being treated in such a shoddy way at ANI. Axad12 (talk) 07:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  I remain convinced that it's always best to be collegial to editors you're in a content dispute with, even if they're dicks.

  While WP:CIVIL is a cornerstone of the wiki, demanding editors remain perfectly calm and professional while being subjected to ethnic insults is just tone-deaf. Accusing said editor of bullying by bringing those attacks to ANI is what I found to be dismissive of their concerns.

  We are all volunteers here, not professionals or robots. The insistence on politeness over everything else just encourages sealioning and punishes good editors who are understandably upset at being targeted repeatedly by ethno-nationalist POV-pushers. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  @HandThatFeeds, what I was talking about was the behaviour on the talk pages, not the act of bringing the question to ANI. I see that's not fully clear from my original post, and I'm happy to apologize for that, and for describing the behaviour as "bullying". -- asilvering (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for clarifying. I still stand by my opinion on the insistence of politeness at all times, but at least I understand where you're coming from now. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks to everyone participating, I highly appreciate it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Flood of brand new accounts at WP:Articles for deletion/Renz Nathaniel Cruz

• Loewemathers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TOOLINK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ixo490 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thompson.walkins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Editlife1tr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can an admin please consider applying blocks and protection? There's five brand new accounts swarming the discussion in a span of less than two hours. Left guide (talk) 08:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Let me add my two cents; that this influx is a clear attempt to disrupt Wikipedia procedure. Geschichte (talk) 08:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• I added a request at WP:RPPI a few hours ago. APK hi :-) (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
  • All sorted, did the same that I did at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 September 13. Daniel (talk) 09:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Do these five accounts qualify for SPI? Borgenland (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Borgenland: In theory yes, but since those accounts are singularly-focused on one page with a very short shelf life, and unlikely to cause disruption anywhere else, an SPI would be an unnecessary drain of editorial and administrative resources for no meaningful benefit when page protection is sufficient. Left guide (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Edit the error not reading talk page

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

---

A new editor (Edit the error (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) uses the iOS mobile app to edit. Although they've only been editing since 6 September, their talk page is full of messages and warnings. They found their user page (and are using it to draft an article) but there's no sign that they've seen their talk page. Some of the messages are about copyright.

Could an admin apply a gentle mainspace block to get their attention so they read their talk page? Schazjmd (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you know if they can read page histories? I could make a dummy edit with a link to their UTP in the summary. QwertyForest (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

No clue, they're completely unresponsive. Schazjmd (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU, messages on the iOS app is a bit wikt:up in the air, so, depending on how ‘up to date’ that is, it’s anyone’s guess. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 16:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

There was recently another editor also using the iOS app who didn't discover their talk page until they were blocked,[24] so I'm just guessing it's the same issue. Schazjmd (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I wish they were responsive; I assumed WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU but I'd like to ask them if they used an LLM to create e.g. this or this. I left them a message about copying another bit from within Wikipedia but those two had some other origin. NebY (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I've p-blocked them from mainspace for now. -- asilvering (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @Asilvering. Hopefully they'll respond on their talk page and it can be lifted. Schazjmd (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

This isn't looking promising. After their draft article on their user page was deleted, they've just started a new one (User:Edit the error). Schazjmd (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

That was after I blocked them, and if they haven't gotten any of their talk page messages, they won't have much reason to understand why their user page spontaneously evaporated in the first place. -- asilvering (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Either they've created that very quickly - at LLM speed - or they'd already spent time off-wiki creating a new article on a subject on which we already have one. NebY (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

It looks very much like LLM copypasta to me. -- asilvering (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Whilst it may, theoretically, be misuse of their user page why not put a message there, referring to the discussions and user:talk warnings - at least we know (assume?) they read their user-page. Arjayay (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't like editing other editors' user pages, but it seems worth a shot in this instance. I've left them a message there. Schazjmd (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

They've continued working on their user page, adding an image File:Mala_Beads.jpg that they've just uploaded claiming they're the copyright holder, that it's their own work and that it was created today. It's also at unsplash.com[25] as published in 2020. NebY (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

They've now deleted a {{copyvio revdel}} from that page.[26] They deleted Schazjmd's message about an hour ago but carried on editing their user page. They haven't edited their talk page. NebY (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The file's been tagged for copyvio speedy on Commons, so we might as well wait for that to happen since they keep restoring it. Obviously they saw the message about their talk page and decided to ignore it. I guess as long as they can't be disruptive in mainspace or add copyrighted content to articles, it's not an urgent problem anymore. Schazjmd (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Besides the two Copyvio notices removed ([27])([28]), I’d like to add that this user has three declined AFCs. The user page is probably also good for WP:CSD#U5 if anybody fancies the inevitable edit warring. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 20:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Following U5 deletion of their user page and deletion of the copyright-breaching image from Commons, they've recreated the page with a different copyright-breaching image. They still haven't responded on their talk page or here. Their creation still seems to be low-quality LLM copypasta to which they're adding citations of unacceptable sources, and we already have a better article. It seems as if they're just using the user page to play at making an article. NebY (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Sigh. I've blocked them from uploading files too. -- asilvering (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Propose site block Edit the error (talk · contribs) has been made aware of their talk page but does not respond there or here. Since the mainspace-block, they have repeatedly recreated an article on their user page and repeatedly uploaded a copyright-violating image to Commons to use on their user page ( that's being dealt with on Commons). The article on their user page was deleted yesterday by Justlettersandnumbers under U5, and Edit the error has just restored it. With their problematic edits, refusal to communicate, and misuse of userspace, I think it's time to stop the disruption. Schazjmd (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Support site block which would of course constitute a community ban. Not building the encyclopedia, not collaborating, not communicating, not respecting copyright in images, previously inserted errors and copyright-violating text into articles, repeatedly made nonsense AfC submissions, all despite many messages and warnings. Enough. NebY (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Support Site Block: [29] How many times have they remade this page, with Copyvios, now? Aren’t we supposed to come down hard on folks who don’t take the hint on copyvios?

For that matter, what’s to say this isn’t someone planning to make that draft up, then have a sock replace the existing article with the junk they’ve ripped? Maybe let’s not take that risk? This is, of course, in addition to the Copyvio notices they’ve removed, and AFC declines, that I pointed out, above.

NebY has pretty much said all else that there is to say. Blocks are meant to prevent, and a site one will definitely >prevent< more Copyvios, in this case. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 21:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Support site block as user is clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia. Tavantius (talk) 16:28, 27 September 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.

Promotional editing and possible UPE by two SPAs

Editors reported:

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

Gingeksace has created over 60 articles on the Italian poet, Menotti Lerro and his so-called “cultural movement”, Empathism, Lerro’s poetry prize Cilento International Poetry Prize, 55 articles on members and “adherents” to Lerro’s "Empathic Movement" Empathism, 4 articles on Lerro’s works and at least one article on a family member. Articles created by Gingeksace:

• Menotti Lerro – “founder” of the “Empathic Movement” Empathism
• Empathism – a so-called “cultural movement” founded by Lerro who also wrote its “manifesto” New Manifesto of Arts (which was redirected to Menotto Lerro’s article) (Note: this has now been blank-and-redirected to Empathy)
• Cilento International Poetry Prize – founded by Lerro to give “prize awards” to adherents/members of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• New Manifesto of Arts AfD merged to Menotti Lerro article[30]
• Contemporary Center of Arts which was G11’d{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gingeksace#August_2022]
• Paolo Guzzanti - member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement (Empathism)
• Antonello Pelliccia – an associate of Lerro who authored along with Menotti Lerro the manifesto of Empathism, New Manifesto of Arts
• Bernardo Lanzetti – a member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement, who was also awarded Lerro’s Cilento International Poetry Prize
• Vincenzo Missanelli – adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Enrico Testa – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Elio Pecora – adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement who was also awarded Lerro’s Cilento International Poetry Prize
• Umberto Curi - adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement who was also awarded Lerro’s Cilento International Poetry Prize
• Omar Galliani – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement who was also awarded Lerro’s Cilento International Poetry Prize
• Maria Rita Parsi - adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement who was also awarded Lerro’s Cilento International Poetry Prize
• Elena Pontiggia – adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Edoardo Boncinelli – adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Raffaele Nigro – adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Vincenzo Schettino – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Aldo Castellano – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Giuseppe Gentile – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Victor Lucena – adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Domenico Giordano – adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Francesco Abbate – adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Ezio Guaitamacchi – adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Mauro Afro Borella – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Andrea Granchi – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Maurizio Zenga – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Carmelo Strano – member of Lerro’s Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Annibale Giannarelli – member ingeksace
• Francesco D'Episcopo – member of Empathic Movement
• Luigi Rossi (scholar) – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Vittorio Santoianni – adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Edoardo Landi – adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Stefano Pantaleoni – adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement, writer of the “official anthem” of the Empathic Movement
• Roberto Guidetti – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement, and interviewer of Menotti Lerro
• Tomaso Kemeny – adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Marco Baudinelli (artist) – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Alessandro Quasimodo – adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Vivian Lamarque – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement and received Lerro’s Cilento International Poetry Prize
• Lucrezia Lerro – sister of Menotti Lerro
• Diego De Silva (writer) – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement and received Lerro’s Cilento International Poetry Prize
• Corrado Calabrò – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Maurizio Cucchi – adherent of Empathic Movement and received Lerro’s Cilento International Poetry Prize
• Davide Rondoni – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement and received Lerro’s Cilento International Poetry Prize
• Alberto Bertoni – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Mario Santagostini – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Vincenzo Guarracino – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Lino Vairetti – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Annamaria Galeotti – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Giorgio Verdelli – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Giancarlo Pontiggia – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Rosanna Lupi – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Marius Chelaru (writer) – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Giancarlo Turaccio – adherent of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Elvio Annese – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement who also participated in a presentation about Lerro’s manifesto
• Anna Bianchi – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Angelo Casciello – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Tomasz Krezymon - member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Alessandro Serpieri (writer) – an associate of Lerro who wrote about Lerro and Empathis
• Donna Giovanna, l'ingannatrice di Salerno – a play by Lerro
• 2084: Il potere dell'immortalità nelle città del dolore – a novel by Lerro
• Augusto Orrel: memorie d'orrore e poesia – an autobiographical novel by Lerro with the “critical reception” section of the article cited to Andrew Mangham a member of the Empathic Movement and former professor of Lerro, and to Maria Rita Parsi and “adherent” of the Empathic Movement who was then awarded one of Lerro’s Cilento International Poetry Prize
• Il Dottor Faust – play by Lerro

Articles created by Nihaon:

• Michele Pecora - member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Carmine Padula – adherent to Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Enzo Tinarelli– Member of E Lerro’s mpathic Movement
• Franco Arminio – member of Empathic Movement
• Gianni Macalli – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement
• Renato Galbusera – adherent to Lerro’s Empathic Movement, an “Empathic Master” of Empathism
• Maria Teresa Chialant – member of Lerro’s Empathic Movement

Forgive me for the length of this report. I am bringing it here rather than to COIN because it’s an ongoing problem, and there have been efforts to resolve these issues, but the problems have recently escalated, and it seems that a type of "walled garden" has been created. These two editors are involved in what appears to be an orchestrated effort to promote Menotti Lerro & Empathism and their associates. Efforts were made to resolve the issues, see Gingeksace’s talk page [31] an Nihaon’s talk[32].

Regarding User:Gingeksace - of the 68 articles they created, all except 5 are about the Italian poet/entrepreneur Menotti Lerro, his “movement” Empathism and its adherants/members of Lerro’s Empathism manifesto, his Cultural Pyramid of Cilento, Lerro’s “international poetry prize” Cilento International Poetry Prize, his plays and books and associates.[33] Interestingly, Lerro’s article on Italian Wikipedia was deleted for lack of encyclopedic value/notability[34] and there were a few sockpuppet investigations on it-wp. Gingeksace has removed COI templates in the past.

Regarding User:Nihaon created 7 articles on Lerro’s Empathic Movement members/adherents during the same time as Gingeksace creating dozens. Nihaon also removed COI templates from several articles involving Lerro & Empathism. Of their 900-some edits most have been to add content or name-drop Lerro and or Empathism or Empathic Movement members.

This seems to be a coordinated PR/PROMO effort by two SPAs to promote Menotti Lerro, and his “Empathic Movement” Empathism, and it’s various projects and members. It’s obviously a COI project, and I feel confident in saying it is likely UPE – perhaps the work of a PR firm to promote Lerro and his associates and projects. Both editors have denied having a COI, claiming to be fans, however Gingeksace admitted asking Lerro for photos to publish, however for an “unconnected” editor they sure know a lot about Lerro’s life.

Since this campaign began, Lerro is now mentioned hundreds of times on en-wp [35]. While I am not claiming Menotti Lerro is not notable, his article is supported with a lot of local sourcing, and sources by his professor, Andrew Mangham and Francesco D'Episcopo, who is a member of Lerro’s Empathism, other members/adherents of Empathism or other affiliated sources.

The promo has been occurring at a highly accelerated rate this past month. Administrator attention to this situation is requested. Netherzone (talk)

Cambridge Scholars Publishing for The Empathic Movement. The "day of pickaxes" is fun tho, anyone with a good translation of E qui si precisa, ugualmente a gran voce, che le speculazioni armate ad arte dall’indomito teatrante, palesano ulteriormente una pomposa esaltazione ben conosciuta.[36] fiveby(zero) 04:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Just a brief note to say that I entirely agree with Netherzone's analysis above.

I only have one further point to add…

Looking at the Menotti Lerro article I noticed that although both of the users spend a lot of time there editing over extended periods they never seem to be there at the same time.

I then looked at the two users’ overall editing histories and noticed that they never seem to be online at the same time, often having clear days when only one is online, or otherwise apparently tagging each other in and out through the course of a day (as for example on Sept 1, 15, 17, 19, 20 & 22).

It looks to me as though one end user has been editing the various articles as essentially a full time (and thus paid?) endeavour over the last 4 weeks, alternating between 2 different accounts. Either that or the activity is closely co-ordinated, which would strongly support the idea of COI/UPE. Axad12 (talk) 04:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

One other thing, I note that when directly questioned on COI the user Gingeksace has responded along the lines of (and I paraphrase) “never mind about the COI, just concentrate on whether Lerro is notable or not”, for example here [37] where the user also states their opinion that We all know that behind almost every page of living authors there is often someone close to the same author, which the user goes on to state is (in their opinion) not a big problem if the author is indeed Enciclopedic. They then state the desirability, in their eyes, of a bit more of flexibility and asks Netherzone do not be so focused on the "COI problem" and help the page to be developed if [the subject] earned a place on this FREE Encyclopedia. Life is too short to be so strict.

As far as I can see that post is an obvious tacit confession of what is going on here. Otherwise why would a non-COI editor suggest that COI concerns are irrelevant if the subject is notable and that in their opinion there should be far more latitude on COI issues?

Over the last 3 years the user has made 761 edits to the article for Menotti Lerro and 392 edits to the article for Empathism, as well as making a further c.2,000 edits to other Lerro-related articles (most of which they created themselves).

The exact degree of association between the editor and Lerro seems unclear, but that they are someone close to the author seems obvious. There is clearly something wrong when the connection has gone undeclared in over 3 years (and 3,000+ edits) despite various attempts to ask them to declare COI.

It seems to me that this is a straightforward promo only account (and ditto for Nihaon). Axad12 (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

(I paste here the answer I gave to Netherzone). Ok thanks for letting me know. Frankly, I am a bit surprised about your vision (even after I tried to explain a bit myself...). However, I will try to explain it better than I did in the past. I start from the Cilento International Poetry Prize: I read that many times you wrote that it is a Prize that Lerro gives to people to make them to adher to the Movement. As I have already told you, the Prize was born 2017 while the Movement was born 2020, therefore it means two things: first, that important authors accepted the prize before of the movement existence, and second that they have chose to adher to the Movement in a next moment (did you consider for a moment that maybe great authors, included a Nobel Prize for literature, are trusting this movement and wanted to be part of it? I do not think Menotti Lerro was so able to corrupt even all of them to promote himself and his movement...). Still, the Prize has been financed by Italian Ministry of Culture for 140.000 Euro (it happened in the last two years because they liked and trusted this Prize and the same Movement, which is part of the artistical project). Moreover, I wish to tell you I was creating these profiles starting from the list included in the ACCADEMIC VOLUME "The Empathic Movement, Cambridge Scholars 2023 and paperback 2024" published in UK of adherents to the Movement: I DID NOT do it to promote people and the movement in a malicious way, but I was thinking, in good faith, they were encyclopedic profiles, therefore I thought it would have been nice to create the lovely ferment which is involving so many important people both in Italy and abroud... (please look things from another point of view: a beautiful, new Movement is born and 200 and more good artist and scholars and people of culture wanted to be part of it... and now, after all this is already "living" in volumes and articals, I thought It was nice to put it also on Wikipedia! The thing that you say that "someone adhering a Movement cannot talk of the same Movement or of his founder", is a bit unconfortable to answer for me: high literary cultured world is connected (thanks to God) therefore it is normal in this field they talk to each other and adher to a Movement of one of them if they respect him. But it is not a limit, or a cheating thing, it is just genuine relations and collaborations among artists, critics, poets, scholars, academics, ecc... they like the work of someone else in the same field or related field and want to talk, write criticism and sometimes adhere to a new movement... Critics such Alessandro Serpieri (writer), Francesco D'Episcopo, Roberto Carifi, Maurizio Cucchi, Giorgio Barberi Squarotti and many others have not been teachers of Menotti Lerro but just in the years they appreciated him, wrote of him and finally wanted to be in his Movement (what is wrong with this?) (and what is wrong if also his own old academic professors trust him so much to adher to his movement?) all this is just a merit, I think, not a bad thing. IN ADDITION: Please, do not quote only local articals: Lerro has been mentioned on many national and international articles such as Corriere della Sera, Il Mattino, Il Sole 24 Ore, The New Arab, "Gradiva" Magazine, "Poesia" Magazine, Nuovi Argomenti Magazine. I understand that something as this movement does not happen often... But can you just for a moment consider that a pretty interesting new Movement arose in 2020, from Italy, going on in a more or less fast way towards the World (it happened after so many decades that something like this did not happen... and never in the past something similar happened starting from the South of Italy...). Lerro is not a powerful, rich person who could be so able to influence so many important authors just to "cheat" academic publishers and now Wikipedia... It seems just a relevant, new, beautiful situation spreading good feelings and literature and art in the World... (therefore i thought that also, and in particular, it should have be on Wikipedia as the amazing expression of "free encyclopedia" to welcome new pretty important, and maybe very relevant things.) In the Movement there are also young artists and cultured, passionate people and maybe ONE, TWO or THREE OF THEM WANTED TO MAKE THIS EFFORT to tell to the world also through Wikipedia the beauty that all of them, starting from the founder - which has 4 academic titles (included MA in Uk and Phd) and studied and taught or was visiting around ten different universities, and wrote 40 creative fiction and no fiction volumes - are creating! You, maybe, should help all of it and be pleased to help to put it on Wikipedia... Do you think that good authors could exist just in the past? Maybe Lerro is one that is working pretty well nowadays... cannot be? (would you so surprised for instance if a Nobel Prize was creating this Movement?). Well, Lerro is not a Nobel Prize but it does not mean he cannot create a notable movement or being a good author the same... I think. In conclusion, dear Netherzone, I ask you to not go too far with your thoughts and ideas about what is going on. All of this is extremely clean, and fruit of deep work and passion. Please look things from another point of view and, if you can, I ask you even to help to improve some of the profiles have been created. Maybe not all of them are encyclopedic (sorry if I thought so) but many are at 100%, starting with the Nobel adhered to the movement who DID NOT receive the "Cilento Prize", while the Nobel Prize for literature 2023 got this year the "Cilento Prize" and I see he did not adhere to the Movement... (so as you can see, maybe things are not really as you are thinking. I hope you can change your mind and, as I said, even help a bit if you like...). Thank you a lot to give me the opportunity to explain a bit better everything. With very best wishes. Gingeksace (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Please explain how Gingeksace and Nihaon have the same editing style and agenda, but are never editing on Wikipedia at the same time, and can frequently be seen to tag one another in and out through the course of a single day. You operate both accounts, don't you? Axad12 (talk) 09:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, for the sake of transparency, this would be a good opportunity for you to clarify what your connection is to Lerro. Let's be honest, you aren't just someone who once asked him for some photos, are you? Axad12 (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not know... but: in case, (it is ipothetical) I would have another house and I go there to eat and pass my other kind of time and maybe I created a second profile because I did not remind the password of the first account, would it be such a bad thing? It seems to me you are so curious to know this thing (arriving to mock me... "indomito teatrante" and such) which, sorry, doesn't seem so relevant to me... (but maybe I was and I am wrong. I don't reeally know so well all these rules... Sorry!) My connection is that of someone, with a bit of knowledge of literature and art, passionate of all this new work has been done and the nice ferment is going on. If I can I will keep writing happily of it, if I cannot anymore, because I did something wrong, I will stop. Thank you a lot. All the best. Gingeksace (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

You ask would it be such a bad thing?. Yes, it would be an obvious breach of WP:SOCK. Also, why would you need to use a different account when in a different house anyway? And how could you consistently alternate between forgetting the passwords for two different accounts?

Presenting your abuses as hypotheticals, such as your sockpuppetry and the comment earlier about We all know that behind almost every page of living authors there is often someone close to the same author, is fooling nobody.

Just state your wrongdoing clearly. You might as well because this is the least convincing attempt at deception that I've seen. Axad12 (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

NO. I tried to give an hipotethical answers at the question you did. Another hipothethical answer is someone else has what (you) see as "similiar style". In additiopn: PC keep (remind) the passwords, so maybe I could just use two different accounts because one password is reminded by one PC and one by the other. I repeat, they are only hipotethical cases, just to tell you, that there are possibilities... (but I see you just want to find a good reason to offend myself...). Maybe another thing is that in the second house in the same little village lives there with old parents in a secon house he goes to visit sistematically.... (you should not be so strict to imagine the reasons of others, in case it would be really the same person). Anyway, all of these are only suppositions to let you consider reasons at your focused question. All the best Gingeksace (talk) 10:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

PS about my words "we all know that about many authors there are people close to that authors" I just wanted to say that usually it is clear that very often behinde contemporary authors there are people close to them... It is at the least my impression. But I did not mean myself in that close way... Thanks so much! Gingeksace (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what the reason is, it is still sockpuppetry. However, the real reason for the multiple accounts is presumably to allow you to make statements like this one, above, In the Movement there are also young artists and cultured, passionate people and maybe ONE, TWO or THREE OF THEM WANTED TO MAKE THIS EFFORT to tell to the world also through Wikipedia, i.e. passing yourself off as more than one end user.

Hopefully someone will open a sockpuppet investigation at WP:SPI and the question can be resolved one way or the other. I'd do it myself if I knew how.

Further WP:SPA accounts operating in the same topic area over the last 18 month can be seen by looking for the redlink users in the contribution history for Cilento International Poetry Prize, here [38]. They all have the same editing pattern of making large numbers of small edits minutes apart over periods of perhaps an hour or two. It's obviously not credible that these are all separate end users. Axad12 (talk) 10:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Let me say even for a bank robbery there are not so many ivestigations and strong wish to prove something pretty seconday in all this. But I understood it is your main interest in all this. It is fine than. Cheers! :-) Gingeksace (talk) 10:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

"One, Two, Three" is just to say I DO NOT KNOW if there are more people involed in creating the articles... It could be one, or two or three or ten as for all Wikipedia articles i guess, (I was not really thinking at all of this). I really let me know I do not understand your aim starting from personal little mocking you did on me since the beginnig. Maybe someone should look at yo too... Kind regards Gingeksace (talk) 10:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mock you, the post you are referring to was by another user.

Sadly your approach over the years has always been that your abuses are unimportant and that other users should overlook them. If only you had just read the relevant policies and abided by them we wouldn't be here now. But here we are looking at a sockmaster operating multiple accounts in one narrow subject area and who refuses to declare his transparent conflict of interest. Axad12 (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, it was not you "mocking" indeed. But anyway that was very bad behaviour... About myself, I did not do any abuse, what would be the reason for me to do that when I could with a single account? Anyway... All the best Gingeksace (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

As I said above, it would be the usual reason for sockpuppetry. i.e. passing yourself off as more than one end user. The deception in that regard between Gingeksace and Nihaon was actually quite subtle, including using two entirely different styles of language for the edit summaries for the two different accounts. E.g. when adding wikilinks one account consistently used the summary "underlined name" while the other consistently used the summary "highlighted name". However, you were given away by the fact that the two accounts were never online together and tagged each other in and out. Axad12 (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, please, try to consider that in that case I even did not could imagine these things... (people I guess does not even know about all these a bit inedd strict rules...). And honestly I think that I have explained very deeply my reasons and goood faith even if I did some whatever eventual thing without knowing it was not permitted... Thanks. Gingeksace (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately the attempt to make the two accounts look different by using different forms of edit summaries gave you away. How could that possibly have happened other than intentionally, and what possible intent could there have been except to deceive?

It did occur to me at one point earlier today that I must be looking at two different people taking turns using the same computer - but obviously if it had been something as innocent as that you would have said it a long time ago. Axad12 (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

ok, I see and now I understand a bit. Yes if I would have used two accounts on a same PC changing like that sistematically it would be very intentionally. I can confirm I did not do it. Have a nice day. Gingeksace (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I want to be entirely fair here, so I'll give you another chance. Can you explain why the two accounts were never online at the same time and used different edit summaries to make them look like different end users?

Denying it is no good, because it can be demonstrated that that was indeed happening. In the absence of a plausible explanation the only possibility is that you created the two accounts with intent to deceive. Axad12 (talk) 11:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Be patient, I think I have already answerd at all possibilities and more...

Have a great day! Gingeksace (talk) 12:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so evidently there is no plausible good faith explanation for your activity. Good day to you. Axad12 (talk) 12:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

If you read again all you will find the answer... I talked about the possibilities at your question... But if to tell you one reason will mean to have attacks on me I prefer you immagine by yourself which of that possibilities ragards myself.

Thanks again. Cheers Gingeksace (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, maybe we'll get a straighter answer if you log out and then log back in with the Nihaon account? Axad12 (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12 I think you'll have better results from filing an SPI (it's very straightforward, I've found) than trying to badger Gingeksace into an admission. A good faith explanation does exist: two editors with similar interests and different schedules. I'm dubious, hence why I think the SPI is a good idea. I've gone ahead and created one; please add any other evidence you think is relevant. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

This walled garden is full of some of the wordiest least penetrable articles ever put on Wikipedia. It seems the only reason these articles haven't been instantly deleted is because of a Gish Gallop WP:REFBOM of sources. Even if the users in question aren't WP:COI, or socks, they definitely fail WP:CIR with flying colors. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you think an SPI would be useful at this point? QwertyForest (talk) 13:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Nvm, Educated created one. QwertyForest (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Update, it seems this has happened before [39], I think we should salt the article titles. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, well spotted. Axad12 (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I think one could take a loaf of bread down to the nearest pond and get less WP:QUACK. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

For anyone wishing to avoid reading through the 2015 SPI linked to the 2015 AfD which Allan pointed out above, the brief version is as follows:

Lots of articles all about Menotti Lerro etc., lots of socks all with indistinguishable interests and editing patterns. Ringleader seemed to be an account called Rainermaria27 who used poor English to express sentiments very similar to those expressed by Gingeksace above (e.g. rules breaches are trivial, what is the problem, why are you concentrating on this irrelevant stuff. Also, notably, I created different accounts [...] because [I] edited the page from different places so I did not have with me the password of previous accounts). Basically, it was transparently the same user operating the same racket. Axad12 (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

And the purpose of the multiple accounts was... to cast multiple votes at AfDs. Axad12 (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

In the meantime, I would suggest mass draftification of all articles created by these editors (that are not undergoing WP:AFD) given the obvious WP:COI of the editors. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The SPI report from 2015 that Axad12 found: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leicesterdedlock/Archive is quite revealing; I agree that the excuses by Rainermaria27 sound a lot like Gingeksace. The Lerro AfD on en-WP from 2015 is also very interesting: [40]. Lerro's AfD on Italian-WP occurred in 2018: [41]. Then the PR campaign moved back to en-WP in 2021. It has been quite a persistent effort, more than just a random "fan" or two of the poet. Netherzone (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• I was going to INDEF for DE, which this absolutely is, but @Izno: has already blocked as sockpuppetry. Do we need a CU to link the two SPIs? Star Mississippi 16:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  That would be a good idea. Netherzone (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Question: Anyone have thoughts on whether this "garden of delights" is undisclosed paid editing, or just the garden-variety COI? The reason I ask is I've been tagging some of the articles as COI, but am wondering if PAID would be a better clean up tag to use. Many thanks to those who are already starting to help clean up. Netherzone (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it's the fan excitement flavor of COI. I doubt they're literally paid to do this, but I think either tag is fine @Netherzone Star Mississippi 17:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The number of times that the same ambitious plan has been put into action, affecting more than one version of Wikipedia, suggests it was paid, as does the sheer amount of time that was being spent in creating and developing so many articles.

But then the fact that the ringleader was apparently the same in both 2015 and 2024, despite the fact the the 2015 campaign failed, makes me question that idea. Similarly the rather amateur nature of the activity, using someone with poor English skills and no understanding of Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

So on balance I would conclude it was someone close to Lerro, or otherwise involved in his movement, but perhaps not paid specifically for this work (for which they were evidently unsuited). Maybe it was an agent who was doing this as well as other non-wiki related duties. Axad12 (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• I've looked at some of these articles and I think the claim that all of these scholars are part of this intellectual movement is tenuous and probably added to their articles and infoboxes by these socks. The primary source I've found to ascertain their "membership" is a publication of the the Empathetic Movement that lists all of their names or the claim is based on the fact that they won this literary award. I think this is a weak attribution and the statement that an academic belongs to a literary movement should be based on statements by that author themselves, we should take the claims of the movement on who its members are. And I think if the article subjects have a demonstratable notability based on their academic or literary work, we shouldn't hold it against them that an editor with a different COI created or contributed to these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Liz, I agree that many of these claims were added by the socks promoting Empathism rather than a neutral source or the person themself. I too found that the list of "members" or "adherents" were coming from Lerro/Empathism or from the socks. Many of these people are indeed notable, some are not. To my way of thinking we should keep the notables but remove the promo/spam, and either AfD or redirect the non-notables that were simply added because they signed the Empathism manifesto or were designated a "member". Netherzone (talk) 02:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Most of the BLP articles listed at the top of this thread contain a sentence in the lede along the lines of "is an adherent of the Empathic movement". The relevant sentence always(?) seems to be cited to a webpage for the book mentioned by Liz, which includes a list of adherents.

  I agree with Liz that whether an individual belongs to a movement should be based on their own comments, rather than claims made by others. However, given the significant practical problems of sourcing such comments in Italian, and the very large number of articles involved, can I suggest that it would be best for the claims to just be removed from each of the articles? At the end of the day the relevant sentences in the ledes are perhaps best viewed as spam.

  Any comments on Empathism further down in the articles would obviously need to be treated on their merits, which in some cases may influence retaining the sentences in the lede. Axad12 (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  I have removed all empathist content/claims from Andrew Mangham, as one example. I don't think the listing of his name among many others on an empathist web page is adequate sourcing for this. He did edit a volume of poetry by Lerro but it doesn't seem very central to his publications. I agree with Liz above that if any of the rest of this pile of articles avoids deletion, we should look carefully at whether any empathist claims are warranted.

  I don't think we need to speculate on whether the editors adding this content are fans, subjects, or publicists in order to push back against it. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Question- I have lost the action item on this ANI. Will there be a mass WP:TNT on the promotional items listed or do they need to be nominated one-by-one? Thanks for any guidance. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I think they need to be nominated one-by-one, because there is the potential (and in at least one case actuality) of claims of notability unrelated to the promotionalism. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Just for full disclosure, I have semi'ed the Menotti_Lerro AfD so we don't play whack a sock. Star Mississippi 02:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@WomenArtistUpdates, there is not a defined action plan to my knowledge. Some of the editors have opened AfDs (for example WP:Articles for deletion/Menotti Lerro and WP:Articles for deletion/Cilento International Poetry Prize, and others, while other editors are draftifying those with potential or redirecting others if there's a suitable target; I've been cleaning up the ones that seem to be notable and doing a little of all of the above. This sort of teamwork on a clean up effort like this is such an amazing aspect of this community. Netherzone (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reponses. Netherzone ping me with particular tasks. I can make a source assessment table or remove cruft from artist pages. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing, there are a few AfD's for some with questionable notability, and I noticed this morning that another editor had PRODDED 4 or 5 articles. Mostly what needs to be removed from the notables is the spam/promo about Menotti Lerro and his "cultural movement", the Empathic Movement (Empathism). Most of this material is sourced to Lerro himself or to his "members/adherents" - to it's all COI sourcing: "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine". So if you see any sources written by any of the names listed at the bottom of this page:[42] they are COI. Netherzone (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

If anybody knows Italian, it might be a good idea to hop over there and let them know about this operation, I've seen a few sock articles that may have made there way onto their Wiki. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Allan Nonymous, I mentioned it to an administrator on Italian-WP who agreed that it looked like promotional content. See User talk:Netherzone#about Godofredo86. Netherzone (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Grammar issue regarding POV on titles for objects in preservation.

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

---

I am deciding to officially issue this thread as I have investigated through Wikipedia and determined that there is a grammar issue for machinery in preservation. Most people are using the grammar "surviving" for machines instead of "preserved". I have moved some of them due to the following grammar issue (which I will highlight in bold to convince you guys in order to fix this issue), but for one example, it has been reverted many times.

1. The word "surviving" is only used for a term to describe organic beings (e.g: Pets, humans).
2. The word "surviving" (although could be used for machinery) sounds more like the Wikipedia article was titled from a fan's point of view instead of a neutral point of view as per this thread and per WP:POV.

Grammar issue being referred to machines in preservation Airbus A320-100 (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, this is not really the best place to file this thread, as this is a forum about user behavior issues. Something like Wikipedia:Village pump would be a better place to discuss this issue and gain consensus before implementing these changes. Also, please do not repeatedly make the same change after being reverted, that is called edit warring and is frowned upon. Instead, if reverted, you should discuss it (at the talk page, or in a more central place like the village pump for wide-ranging changes) to gain consensus. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Its here:

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 80#Grammar issue regarding POV on titles for objects in preservation. Airbus A320-100 (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Moving this to Wikipedia:Village_pump Airbus A320-100 (talk) 01:38, 30 September 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 abuse

Severe personal attacks in User talk:24.228.200.205, please shut them up. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Link to rev. Northern Moonlight 05:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done I'll see if anything needs revision deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Edits regarding Siege of Lisbon in 1109

Mamilios (talk · contribs) had repeated reinstated disruptive edits on Siege of Lisbon (1109). (diffs: revert 1, revert 2, revert 3) And with revert 4 the user had breached 3RR. Also, the only edits of this account was those reversions, so despite having only two warnings I think this is sufficent to say WP:NOTHERE. I would also suggest protecting the former page because it is going through an edit war from other editors. Replicative Cloverleaf (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Oops, revert 4 was supposed to link to special:diff/1248496914 instead. Sorry for the inconvinence. Replicative Cloverleaf (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

There seems to a sock (Special:Diff/1248500242), perhaps this as well. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 21:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Adding user links:

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

Nigurd The Ape I (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

ElGoblino88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 21:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like they have all been blocked now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

0NENESS DANCE

0NENESS DANCE (talk · contribs) keeps inserting a nonsense dance created in User:0NENESS DANCE/sandbox into List of street and vernacular dances ingnoring warnings in the user page. --Altenmann >talk 08:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

nu? --Altenmann >talk 09:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Altenmannblocked. Doug Weller talk 09:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Ukrainian Wikipedians don't like criticism of Ukrainian Wikipedia.

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

---

see Ukrainian Wikipedia: Revision history

see Talk:Ukrainian_Wikipedia

The situation is the following:

After gaining the consensus, some criticism was added to the article [43], and reviewed by an experienced user [44]. Sure, there were reliable sources.

Then a Ukrainian Wikipedian came and removed it, saying that "your criticism is not criticism" [45].

Obviously, he has a strong conflict of interests, like a person who edits an article about himself.

If the criticism was added after several-day discussion, a Ukrainian Wikipedian removed it as if it was his own page.

I think a Ukrainian Wikipedian has strong disrespect for the core principles of Wikipedia, which proves the criticism, by the way.

Here is his comment on the talk page: [46]

Ukrainian Wikipedian said that critics were just insulted by Ukrainian Wikipedians. But we are not psychologists. If there is a reliable source, it is enough for Wikipedia.

Ukrainian Wikipedian said that "such criticism in the article is nothing but WP:POV". Each criticism is somebody's point of view. Such deletion of criticism is obvious violation of neutrality, and a Ukrainian Wikipedian cannot be neutral in this case by definition.

Also, a Ukrainian Wikipedian said that "there are so many such discussions in the Ukrainian Wikipedia that the article will become one of the largest". It just means that he has to find reliable sources and improve the article, but not vandalize it!

Criticalthinkerua (talk) 10:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I am unsure what you hope to achieve with your post here, but your contribution to Ukrainian Wikipedia seems to have been reverted for a good reason. Criticism based on an interview with a Wikipedian of uncertain notability and a claim sourced via Facebook seems problematic wrt eg WP:RS. Lklundin (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

See the talk page. It was discussed and the decision was made. Criticalthinkerua (talk) 11:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I see no consensus on the talk page in favour of the "criticism" section being kept, or in favour of Facebook and Twitter being reliable sources for the claims. --bonadea contributions talk 11:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

It was discussed that if it is Ukrainian Wikipedia's social media it's reliable source. I have written above that the experienced user reviewed the edition[47]. Criticalthinkerua (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

"Discussed", in the sense that you stated it, yes. But nobody else agreed, and your claim above that the decision was made is not reflected in the talk page discussion. --bonadea contributions talk 12:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

It was also discussed that those Wikipedians are quite notable: the Functionary of the Year 2024 and ex-member of Wikimedia Ukraine. Criticalthinkerua (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

it is normal from the point of view of such personal attacks? And I am say 'is not criticism', dont say 'your criticism'. Statements of some people were added, and some from a negative position, as if this is a special campaign to smear Wikipedia. I think this WP:POV. I used it too essay WP:CRIT & rule WP:BALASPS. I also see personal attacks on me in the post above. 『Shiro Neko』^Обг. 11:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that you have a strong conflict of interests. Criticalthinkerua (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiro D. Neko (talk • contribs)

when people say that, they have a strong conflict of interests 『Shiro Neko』^Обг. 11:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

You are a Ukrainian Wikipedian. So if a Ukrainian Wikipedian edits the Ukrainian Wikipedia it is like a person edits an article about himself. It's the obvious fact. But what you are saying is personal attack and another "psychological" speculation. Criticalthinkerua (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't have the right to defend Wikipedia's rules? Surely everyone knows who I am, but I don't know who you are, and it doesn't matter when standing up for the rules. 『Shiro Neko』^Обг. 11:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Another personal attack. Criticalthinkerua (talk) 11:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

These aren't personal attacks. Meanwhile you're casting aspersions by assuming Shiro's ethnicity hampers their ability to edit an article. Comment on contributions, not contributors. — Czello ^(music) 11:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Ukrainian Wikipedian is not ethnicity. Criticalthinkerua (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Ukranians are an ethnic group. I'm assuming Shiro might be one judging by their user page. You seem to be implying the same thing. — Czello ^(music) 11:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

First of all, Wikipedia's rules are that you cannot edit the article Ukrainian Wikipedia as if it were your own page, ESPECIALLY if you're a Ukrainian Wikipedian! Criticalthinkerua (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

This looks like a content issue than anything else.

1. you need to have a third-party reliable source that describes WMUK post and the reactions to it. Do not synthesize your own observations or offer primary sources for this. This is regardless of what you think of how reliable social media is.
2. the apostrophe piece is an interview without further inputs or analysis from the reporter, and is this considered a primary source. And since it is under contention, regardless of who is the interviewee, find another third party source to back the assertion up.

– robertsky (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I see that the OP's sole activity on en.wiki, after their first edit (reverted), has been to insert a "Criticism" section into our Ukrainian Wikipedia article and argue about it. The first part of that section concerns the system used to transliterate Japanese into Cyrillic. The other part concerns one editor's claims to have been blocked for patriotism, which OP has described in our article as "some Putinists are present among the administrators". This complaint looks uncomfortably like using ANI to force poorly sourced and WP:UNDUE content into the article. NebY (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi. This topic starter is a globally blocked LTA, known as Marat Gubaev. See also Пинча (talk · contribs). I have locked this, yet another, of his accounts. I suggest simply deleting this thread to avoid legitimizing his "contribution". --Mykola 12:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Babysharkboss2 please tell me what to do about the continuation of the editing war and the POV of the globally blocked? 『Shiro Neko』^Обг. 13:17, 30 September 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.

Schools/rapper

Posting here as vandalfighters as well as admins will most likely see it.

Our articles about high schools in the United States (mainly, some Canada and some UK included) are currently getting a pounding [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] from IPs and new editors adding Sean "Diddy" Combs as a faculty member or headteacher. It appears to be some sort of social media 'viral' challenge. They're mostly not getting seen and reverted, so the edits are remaining visible for days.

I've been reverting, although that has also caused someone to pop up on my talk page and say that my edits look like vandalism. Some help would therefore be useful: why not watchlist your nearest local schools for a bit?

I've requested an edit filter but these things take time. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you ip 81. You've done a great job. Knitsey (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed it yesterday at a couple of school pages, including one in New Zealand from multiple vandals. AusLondonder (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Here's one edit that survived three days. AusLondonder (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

81.2.123.64, please don't be disheartened by a registered editor who seems to have an irrational prejudice against unregistered editors. As far as I can tell you are doing everything right. I won't say what I have watchlisted, because that would probably help the vandals more than good-faith editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Cognitivism, problematic translations and SPI

Cognitivism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user has created approximately 160 articles in just the last 15 days. All of them are 'translations' from French Wikipedia, and all of them substandard and problematic. They duplicate frwiki articles then immediately move onto the next translation, doing none of the research required to create articles on Wikipedia. Translation or not. My immediate concern was the blatant WP:BLP violations, most immediate of which were unsourced DOBs (WP:DOB) and birthplaces, among many many other unsourced material. The user has communicated that they will supposedly correct this behavior, but it appears to still be a problem[66][67]. These articles are being created in a manner and pace which precludes them from being ready for the mainspace. However, this discussion ought not overshadow the fact that this user is the subject of a sockpuppet investigation (with a frankly exhaustive and maddening SPI archive which resulted in a total ban from frwiki). As indicated on the user's talk page, where all of these concerns have been discussed, the backlog at SPI is part of the reason that this user's frenzied spree has been allowed to continue. Οἶδα (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

In the meantime, it might be a good idea to mass-draftify their content. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

User is now indeffed as a sockpuppet and globally locked, and all of their creations seem to have been deleted; checking their contribs I found only two remaining page creations, both redirects to now-deleted pages, which I have tagged for speedy deletion as G8 Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Really great work by Guerillero, and credit to SashiRolls for their help and insights. Οἶδα (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism only account needs blocking

See Special:Contributions/Blakesussybaka. 81.106.71.55 (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

It's been handled by Cullen328. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 22:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Likely SPA demonstrating WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior on Algeria

Monsieur Patillo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

With just over 200 edits, this user seems to be using English Wikipedia as a battleground to promote a narrow ethnic POV, specifically centered around Berbers and Berber languages. Every one of their edits (just take a look at their contributions) is controversial or contentious and raises questions as to whether they are here to build an encyclopedia or to push some sort of ethnic agenda as an WP:SPA. This pattern of contentious disruptive editing of theirs goes all the way back to 2017 and 2020.[68][69] They have repeatedly engaged in edit wars and constantly WP:BLUDGEONED discussions[70] against established consensuses.[71][72] @Nourerrahmane made a similar point,[73] but as expected, Monsieur Patillo made yet another off-topic personal attack against them.[74] The user frequently employs personal attacks and casts aspersions against other editors whenever their edits are reverted or their arguments are challenged. They have been engaged in slow edit warring on Algeria for months, and the continuous cycle of unconstructive edits made without consensus and personal attacks all the time is becoming exhausting for editors.

WP:PAs and WP:ASPERSIONS by the user:

• [75] "You have no concern for the Tamazight language, your convolutions just serve to hide it from the article and the infobox."
• [76] "However, it was formulated on an erroneous basis that the name in Amazigh has no standardization which is a lie given the existence in the APS and in certain ministries."
• [77] "You want to use a closed chat that only validates your pov-pushing. We always bring you more sources which prove that your presuppositions are erroneous but you fall back on them with the principle of not changing anything.
• [78] "Besides the last time I saw your name is when you were blocked indefinitely on the French Wikipedia for "Disruptive Contributions"..."

• [79] "correction of a source diversion for an ethnic pov"
• [80] "diversion and suppression of sources to support a pov pushing of Arabization"
• [81] "Please do not delete the name in one of the official languages ​​of the country (reiteration of pan-Arabist pov). This mention is present on the pages in French, Spanish, etc"
• [82] "As long as you cherry-pick and divert sources, you won't find solutions."
• [83] "Indeed, Skitash account opposes the introduction of Tamazight for the official name of the country. even the official language is not spared from pov-pushing. (In addition to the manipulation of sources which aim to make people believe that 85% of the population of Algeria originates from the Arabian Peninsula)."
• [84] "I also suggest not getting lost in the delaying method on the part of the pov-pushers who oppose this writing."
• [85] "Once again you select the information from the articles that suit you without explaining the concepts which is a misappropriation of sources.... These diversions of sources and these tinkerings are not encouraging"
• [86] "You are appropriating the Wikipedia article and preventing any improvement of the article... you are not reasonable in your way of interacting with other contributors and preventing them from contributing"

Skitash (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

I am quite surprised by this presentation. Indeed Skitash accuses me from the outset of "Every one of their edits (just take a look at their contributions) is controversial or contentious and raises questions as to whether they are here to build an encyclopedia or to push some sort of ethnic agenda as an WP:SPA. " The accusations he makes by linking me to a group that contributes in 2017/2020 on ethnic subjects are precisely from WP:PAs and WP:ASPERSIONS I contribute to the French Wikipedia and am quite bad at English (which explains my haphazard or abrupt turns of phrase).

I am absolutely not an "ethnic troll" as Skitach describes it. I participated in labeling articles on the French Wikipedia such as Casbah d'Alger, or that of Béjaia. My contributions to Wikipedia are old.

To make a long story short, I would like to remind you that Skitash is not lacking in personal attacks and hostilities on the

• Algeria talk page :

- If you have nothing of value to add to this conversation besides unfounded aspersions, perhaps it's time to stop wasting everyone's time. I'm not sure how many times this needs to be repeated for you to be able to understand

- You knowingly cited a different source (from 2013) which does not include such information.

• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 248 : During the DRN Skitash, in addition to being aggressive towards me, allowed himself to modify the article (it is not a modification to return to the status quo but rather a new version that he improvised). ([87])

- Since you're not open to reaching an agreement or accepting a compromise, it appears that we'll have to retain the version of the article as it was prior to this discussion per WP:NOCONSENSUS

- It's funny how you're still going on about this when Kovcszaln6 said this is beyond the scope of this discussion, but here are several sources which disprove your claim anyways

- What part of "Please do not continue arguing about this" do you not understand? Genetics has no place in Algeria#Ethnic groups or the infobox.

He even accused me of false intentions when I had just answered the opposite:

- The only issue here is Monsieur Patillo's insistence to impose genetic data in the infobox, which is not the standard practice in any country-related Wikipedia article. Skitash (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

All this aggressiveness deployed by Skitash was useless because the arguments were denied: Quality articles like Australia, Germany, Canada, Japan contain this kind of genetic data. A consensus by RFC was found and Wikipedia users did not accept Skitash's arguments : statu quo were rejected. I think that is the reason why he wants to criticize me to « eliminate » an opponent on the editorial line. The heart is an editorial problem: Skitash wants to impose as the only motion that Arabs represent as an ethnic group 85% of the Algerian population. He systematically opposes any nuance in the article: we cannot say that they are Arabized Berbers, nuance ethnic divisions (e.g. Arab-Berbers), or support with arguments nevertheless used in the featured articles (like genetics etc.). He opposes with a ready-made block of arguments each time (selective definition of ethnicity etc...), cherry picking, abusive interpretation of sources (CIA word factbook). He also adds mentions that the medieval migrations of Arabs to the Maghreb modified the demography. From then on the reader is misled because it is explained by the fact that the Arabs have an origin of Arabization of the first populations but it is suggested that they are originally from the Arabian peninsula. This point is specifically refuted by all historians and ethnologists (Chaker, Ageron, Hsain Ilahiane,...). But Skitash opposes any introduction of diverse data (contrary to the WP:NPOV). In the article Arab_migrations_to_the_Maghreb#Demographics we understand that migrations lead to the demographic majority while no academic specialist supports this theory. Since we cannot delve into the concepts (what is an Arab? or a Berber in Algeria? speaker? origin? ancestry?) the reader is taken hostage to read that there are 85% Arabs with the quote of Arab migrations which thus misleads the reader.

And when we cite sources which demonstrate the opposite (existence of the concept of Arabized Berber: "Arabization", Berber Encyclopedia, URL: [88]), or Matthias Brenzinger, or Oxford Buisness Group...) it's called UNDUE by Skitash ...

During the DRN the following was decided:

Ninth statement by moderator (Algeria) If I'm correct, we agreed that the body of the article will contain both sources, and the only issue remaining is what should be included in the infobox. There are three options: 1. The current state: 75–85% Arabs, 15–24% Berbers, 1% others 2. 99% Amazigh-Berber, 1% other 3. Nothing. (Kovcszaln6 (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC))

So why is Skitach going back on what was agreed in mediation? Why prevent any change? I started the discussion on the Algeria talk page Talk:Algeria#Blocking_the_article_(infobox_and_ethnic_group_section) and I asked Skitach for an alternative version. And this, in order to include a plurality of sources as Skitash accepted in DRN. Result: Skitash is sticking to the status quo and is therefore contravening the commitment to include the diversity of sources mentioned (and therefore WP NPOV). His request to block me now is therefore a delaying tactic, I am willing to make all possible diplomatic efforts but it must be reciprocal (when Skitash and Nourreahmane make accusations and attacks on me, it must stop). Finally, I am asking for the application of the editorial provisions taken in mediation, even with the help of a third opinion. Thanks for reading, sorry for being long and for my broken English too, I'm doing my best. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Your characterization that Quality articles contain this kind of genetic data is acutely misleading: neither Canada, Bulgaria, Australia, nor Japan cite any genetic study directly. Madagascar does so exclusively to describe variance within or regardless of ethnic group, not to instantiate distinctions between ethnic groups. Remsense ‥ 论 23:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

You are right, my message was too long and I got confused in my notes. I had noted the list of countries since two messages from Kovcszaln6 of August 22, 2024 in the DRN page and it is indeed the one below where he only cites Madagascar which is the article which contains genetic data.

I have not argued that this induces a distinction between ethnic groups. You should not attribute this intention to me. it is enough to report what the sources told about this data and to restore the information, nothing more and nothing less.

In the case of Algeria/Maghreb it is even the opposite logic of a division on a genetic basis (many of the Arabs are of indigenous origin and have no ancestry difference with the Berbers because they have undergone linguistic Arabization) . Genetics is thus a data invalidating the hypothesis of a massive neo-population from the Arab peninsula in the Middle Ages which allows us to take a step back from politically proclaimed identities (with pan-Arabism in particular). This is the point raised by Dmoh Bacha p.191-192. In the DRN, as I cited above, we noted that this data did not have to go into the infobox, but that the section could be enriched. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Monsieur Patillo, you mention "mediation" in your comments. What attempts at dispute resolution have been tried? Because this looks like another heated content dispute, not problems with editor behavior that is out of the ordinary in these situations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

A DRN was carried out Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_248, which resulted in 2 points: include the various elements in the section, and decide by RfC which option to put in the infobox (see Ninth statement by moderator (Algeria) especilly what moderator said : If I'm correct, we agreed that the body of the article will contain both source). The Skitash option in infobox which imposed the status quo was not retained by the community.

Skitash cannot ignore the first point of enriching the section with both sources because he then approved it... It prevents any modification of the article and does not give a proposal for an alternative version when we initiate the discussion on the talk page. And this, despite the presence of quality sources and a nuance on the concepts clearly present in the secondary sources. I simply ask that the first point of the DRN on the possibility of completing the section be respected (and related to WP: NPOV). Regards. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be attempting to shift this into a content debate, when the real issue here is your behavior as an editor, which is what ANI is about. Instead of addressing your repeated history of contentious editing, edit warring and personal attacks against multiple editors, you've responded with a wall of text filled with accusations and mischaracterizations serving to deflect from your disruptive behavior. It's clear that the sole purpose of your account is to promote a specific narrative on Algeria-related articles through bludgeoning, edit warring and personal attacks, which you've been doing since 2017, resulting in a block of your account. You've made just over 200 edits, and not a single one falls outside of the context of edit warring and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.

All of these false claims you continue to make, such as accusing me of "aggressiveness", engaging in "cherry picking" and "abusive interpretation of sources" (when I've provided a myriad of RS supporting mainstream views, in contrast to the handful undue sources you found via Google Search) are continued aspersions from you. This only further proves my point that you habitually resort to such tactics in an attempt to get your point of view across.

The RfC you're referring to dealt exclusively with the inclusion of ethnic groups in the infobox. While some voted to keep it and others voted to remove it, it had no bearing on the genetic data you've persistently tried to insert from the start, which has never been part of any consensus. Judging by the article's edit history and the most recent talk page discussion, it is evident that at least three people disagree with the changes you’re pushing. This shows that you're clearly bludgeoning and attempting to push a POV.

In your most recent addition to Algeria, which you labeled an "improvement", you ignored the myriad of sources backing the already established ethnic breakdowns, and you resorted to edit warring when your edit was challenged. You prioritized random sources that you found which specifically align with your POV. For instance, you cited a source which does not in any way support your claim that Arab-Berber "means that almost all the inhabitants are descended from Berber populations". You've misinterpreted the source and introduced factually incorrect WP:OR. You’ve also included genetic data (which has nothing to do with ethnic identity) pertaining to Morocco, Libya, and Tunisia (which do not belong in an article about Algeria), and you’ve included an undue passing mention that Arabs "consist of mainly Arabized Berbers", which is a WP:FRINGE viewpoint. This is not an improvement, but rather a POV-driven edit, executed without consensus and through edit warring.

Going back to behavior (the point of ANI), it is evident that your continued aspersions, unwillingness to respect consensus, and persistent edit warring indicate that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Instead, it appears you are intent on promoting a specific ethnic POV in Algeria-related articles. Again, none of 200 your edits have been contributed constructively to articles. All of them revolve around edit warring and controversy. Therefore, I must conclude that you are engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior as a single-purpose account rather than collaborating to build an encyclopedia. Skitash (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

We have yet another demonstration of aggressive and inaccurate remarks from Skitash.

It's clear that the sole purpose of your account is to promote a specific narrative on Algeria-related articles through bludgeoning.

I have been contributing mainly to the French-speaking part for over 10 years with featured articles, on the English-speaking part I have been contributing since 2014: with contributions on Historical subjects: Zirids [89], Regency of Algiers, creation of articles such as Conflicts between the Regency of Algiers and Morocco. Some of your more regular contributors on Wp:en even use some of my maps [90]. The 2017 block is a short block to respond to a simple R3R on a map of the regency of Algiers. I have been trying to scrupulously respect this rule since then. So Skitash's narrative is completely wrong and aims to mislead administrators. In reality, I only addressed ethnicity in the Algeria article ... in August 2024, 15 years after my registration on Wikipedia and 10 years after my first contribution on the English-speaking part ...

The RfC you're referring to dealt exclusively with the inclusion of ethnic groups in the infobox.

Yes, but before the RfC there was a DRN whose object was the two types of sources: postulated ethnicities (including cherry-picking and source diversion that you practiced) and genetic/ancestral data. The moderation (and your acceptance) that both types of sources can be included in the section but not in the infobox (for genetics). For my part, I respected my commitment and the mediation and I no longer asked to include this data in the infobox. But you are apparently going back on your commitments.

you've persistently tried to insert from the start,

This [91] link points to a modification before the consensus (DRN+RfC), I did not insist after the consensus to insert it, the motion without data suits me very well (it is the one I chose for the RfC). On the other hand, you have exceeded your rights as patrollers, because you have introduced in the middle of mediation a new version which contrary to what the diff comment indicates has no consensus at that time. This indicates a certain disregard for the ongoing debates and a breach of the principle that administrative rights do not constitute an editorial privilege.

For instance, you cited a source which does not in any way support your claim that Arab-Berber "means that almost all the inhabitants are descended from Berber populations".

Oxford Business Group, The Repport, p.10, Arround 99% of population is Arab-Berber ethnicity, which means that nearly all of the citizenry is descended from Berber or Amazigh populations – the indigenous pre-Islamic peoples of North Africa..

I was just wrong about the date of the book, and therefore the link, but the Oxford Business Group book, The Report, p.10, Around 99% of population is Arab-Berber ethnicity, which means that nearly all of the citizenry is descended from Berber or Amazigh populations – the indigenous pre-Islamic peoples of North Africa. When I pointed out the error under discussion (which is part of normal exchanges between two people on Wikipedia) you launched a trial of intent and a personal attack on me: You knowingly cited a different source (from 2013) which does not include such information ... Why am I deliberately going to give the wrong link to weaken what I can easily prove? It doesn't make sense...

You've misinterpreted the source and introduced factually incorrect WP:OR

WP:OR = for which no reliable, published source exists. The information that the Arabs in Algeria are largely Arabized Berbers and not arrivals from the Arabian peninsula is not an unpublished synthesis. I cited Oxford, I can only re-invite the administrators to consult the sources that I cited in DRN (so as not to weigh down the page here) to see that the source is not unpublished. The real unpublished work is the undue synthesis of Skitash which maintains the ambiguity by the writing in the article Arab_migrations_to_the_Maghreb#Demographics and Algeria#Ethnic_groups. The idea is to make the reader believe that the majority of the Arabs of Algeria arrived by migration while preventing the academic opinion (that they are local Arabized Berbers) from being written in black and white in the article. Here is the wording currently defended (de facto) by Skitash: Centuries of Arab migrations to the Maghreb since the seventh century shifted the demographic scope in Algeria. Estimates vary based on different sources. The majority of the population of Algeria is ethnically Arab, constituting between 75%and 80% to 85%of the population. For this Skitash resorts to all the means of contortion of the sources. For example, when CIA Factbook says that there are 99% Arab-Berbers, it decrees that this does not exist and substitutes a real WP:OR by deducing that the 15% who do not feel Berber are necessarily 85% Arabs ... It was Skitash who modified the article to remove the mentions stable at the end of 2022: [92], and to introduce the contentious misappropriation of the CIA source in the infobox [93]. This last diff shows that Skitash deleted the information actually provided by the source (99% Arab-Berber) to replace it with his personal deduction (WP:OR) of 85% Arabs. Since then, any attempt to come back on this misappropriation of source ends in an edit war by revert on the part of Skitash who exceeded his rights as revocator to protect a version that he himself introduced. I only arrived 1 year and a half later (September 2024), so everything that happened in the meantime is not my fault. Obviously when we raise these issues (absence of information from Arab-Berbere, or Arabized Berbers...) we come up against Skitash who practices WP:OWN on the article, and by a learned mastery of the rules, which we must recognize, manages to hide his pov-pushing. Another example is the misuse of sources on Arab migration to the Maghreb that I explained in this section (Talk:Arab_migrations_to_the_Maghreb#Remarks). So obviously a contributor who brings an editorial contradiction is a bad thing in the eyes of Skitash, so he tried to paint a bad picture of me and my contributions. The goal of this request is therefore to eliminate an editorial contradictor, it is not at all a question of behavior.

I will not answer everything because it is very long but I remain available to provide explanations on a case-by-case basis. The challenge is to ensure that the mediation (DRN) is respected by Skitash, who does not have to oppose contributions to the article and what has been mutually agreed. Using a third person or mediator is possible or desirable. It would also be beneficial to warn Skitash that its extended (administrative) rights do not give it more editorial rights. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Here is a sample on the linguistic, ethnic or cultural question which proves that WP:BATTLEGROUND is Skitash's method and not mine because it started well before I arrived on this article. You will notice that there is a common thread to all these interventions: to increase the Arab element of identity, and to repress the Berber/Amazigh element or foreign influences (French, English etc...). Skitash's methods and lack of neutrality must be discussed. He does not defend the status quo because in the long term the article has been modified in a significant proportion by himself on different points. [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], Monsieur Patillo (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Once again, this is ANI, where the focus is on behavior, not content. By repeatedly bringing up previous content disputes, you are deflecting from the central issue of your editing conduct. The main concern here is your WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:SPA behavior, as well as your repeated history of edit warring, personal attacks, aspersions and failing to respect consensus, not the specifics of article content, which we've already discussed extensively and ad nauseam. This is English Wikipedia, so anything you've done on French Wikipedia does not matter here. This also does not refute the fact that you've been specifically using English Wikipedia to promote an ethnic POV on Algeria-related articles. Your record on French Wikipedia isn't looking great either, where you've been blocked 11 times for edit warring. This only nullifies your claim that you've been trying to respect 3RR ever since. I will not respond to the content disputes and the continued aspersions of yours as this is ANI (which is about behavior and not content), but what I will say is that your most recent addition to the article was opposed by three editors and was not backed by any consensus or RfC (since you keep bringing up an unrelated RfC concerning the infobox). When you accuse me of WP:OWN and WP:OR, you are misrepresenting the situation to support your changes without proper consensus, aimed at deflecting from the central issue, which is your repeated attempts to push through these edits despite opposition from multiple editors. All of those links you've inserted documenting my edits to the article were actions taken to revert disruptive editors (mostly block-evading sockpuppets) who inserted unsourced WP:OR or attempted to impose changes against the established consensuses on the talk page (reading my edit summaries will help a lot), much like what you're attempting to do now. Your contributions and block logs (not only on English Wikipedia) speak for themselves. Skitash (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not have a more problematic attitude than yours and your aggressiveness towards me and that you do not seem to want to collaborate with me. Concerning the R3R I am talking about the English-speaking part, where I only had one small blockage. Concerning the French-speaking part, you should have found out about the context. For 2 years and the arbitration which made it possible to eliminate the problematic elements of the French-speaking encyclopedia and the return to calm on the historical articles: I do not have a problem with blocking. So I think that the ratio between my positive and negative contributions does not make me a user who is there "to promote a narrow ethnic POV" as you said and I try to question myself and to dialogue. This accusation is purely gratuitous and my old contributions on Wp:en (Zirid map, articles created on the Algerian-Cherifian conflicts ...) do not concern ethnicity or specifically the Berbers. I repeat, my first intervention on this ethnic subject is September 2024, i.e. 7 to 8 contributions out of 200 and 10 years after my first intervention on WP:en. Maintaining this accusation discredits your procedure. Afterwards, I am passionate about the history of the Maghreb, so I am not going to write you an article on horses ...

The content is an integral part of the problem. It is your attitude of hindering any neutral writing and of complying with the commitment made in DRN that is at the heart of the problem. Pointing out a behavioral problem is a delaying tactic to eliminate any contradiction. The only thing that changes in the article is not more editing wars (I never insist more than once and I engage in discussion on the talk page). The diffs that I have made demonstrate that you are still in an editing conflict on this same page. When you state to revert disruptive editors (mostly block-evading sockpuppets) who inserted unsourced WP:OR or attempted to impose changes against the established consensuses it is false because you have introduced an editorial modification which is a diversion of the source of the CIA Factbook (which indicates 99% Arab-Berber), the previous version was correct word for word with the source and you have modified the infobox by diverting the source while keeping its referencing [102]. Of course this was done without prior discussion and without consensus, and when those who have read the source want to correct this diversion you use your role of revert to preserve this editorial "advance" [103]. So there is a confusion between an administrative role of patrol against single object and IP accounts, and your editorial role. This is one example among others that can be developed, I will not be too long. Basically, you are blaming me for having made barely 7 contributions in 1 month and 15 days on the Algeria article after 10 years of presence on the encyclopedia, we have seen better as an ethnic POV-pusher... The reason why this ANI request is filed is not my behavior at all but on the contrary the fact that a DRN and an RfC were filed and that the WP:OR mention that you had introduced in 2022 did not retain the consensus of the community. When I started the discussion in Pdd, I proposed in my point 4 that you make a counter-proposal. You stuck to your position with a ready-made sentence: I propose that we stick to what the vast majority of reliable sources say and that you to stop edit warring and POV-pushing.. So I ask you, do the majority of reliable sources on the subject say what the article states in its current version (which you co-wrote), namely Centuries of Arab migrations to the Maghreb since the seventh century shifted the demographic scope in Algeria. Estimates vary based on different sources. The majority of the population of Algeria is ethnically Arab, constituting between 75% and 80% to 85% of the population. Berbers who make up between 15% and 20% to 24% of the population are divided into many groups with varying languages, thus suggesting that 85% of the so-called Arab population would come from this migration movement? Why refuse a clearer formulation? More WP:NPOV? And above all, escape the commitment made in DRN? Filing an ANI against me allows you not to answer these questions, escape the terms of mediation and eliminate an editorial opponent...

So my proposal is that we resort to mediation for this body of text concerning this ethnicity section, like that we can arrive at a neutral and consensual wording. But leaving the article in a state where we mislead the reader by making them think that 85% of the population of Algeria owes its ethnicity to medieval Arab migrations is a WP:OR. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

This has become a two person discussion which generally on ANI means that it has devolved to bickering. You have both made your cases, please refrain from posting any longer so that other editors can try to make sense of this dispute. Right now, to me, it looks like this should go back to DRN. But this continued back and forth will just serve to drive away any uninvolved editors who might be able to offer you their opinion. The longer this complaint gets without additional participation, the more likely that no action will be taken here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

"Lechitic" editor

There is probably one and the same person who under various IP accounts pushing various subcategories of the category:Lechites into articles that have no corresponding references. I was patiently leaving warning messages at all these IP pages, but apparently they either don't see them or ignore them. I guess it is time to start issuing blocks.

• 89.245.176.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 89.245.176.247 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Rangeblock?

• 2001:9E8:54DA:3D00:F476:9BDB:952D:28B5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2001:9E8:54DA:3D00:834:1934:320F:A324 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2001:9E8:54C0:E700:4544:2C29:4B54:D212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2001:9E8:54F4:4900:B15A:EA5:7F4B:676A (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2001:9E8:54F4:4E00:5489:43F5:9D4:8D04 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2001:9E8:54FF:6700:180F:EB86:1CC5:F007 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2001:9E8:54F4:4E00:6173:6F18:90DB:3090 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2001:9E8:54F4:4E00:2456:82FA:42B3:A2B5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

--Altenmann >talk 22:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Altenmann, if you supplied a few diffs (I'd say between 3 and 8) of edits you were concerned about, rather than just listing accounts, you might get more of a response here. You need to point out the obvious rather than expecting editors to go looking for what the problems are. That's just my suggestion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

There was quiet for the past 3 days. Maybe they got the message finally. If they pop up gain, I will do what you said. --Altenmann >talk 23:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Potentially concerning user

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

---

Pretty much what the title says. Hexerade's user page proudly states their status as "Wikipedia Evader" and also calls for people to use their talk page to chat with. I wasn't very sure whether ANI was the right place to put this since it's labeled as "for urgent incidents", but AN says that narrow issues, like user related ones, should be put in ANI. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Link to rev. Northern Moonlight 09:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I am kind of confused. From what I can see on their profile I don’t think they are an evader. Or did they edit their profile? I can see a decent edit made by them on List of African countries by population. Wikishmodias (talk) 09:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I meant List of African countries by area. I didn’t mean the population version. Thanks! Wikishmodias (talk) 09:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, Northern Moonlight linked the version of their userpage above in their reply. You can see Hexerade makes that bold claim about ban evasion themselves. As for their edit to that page, it's a pretty simple and honestly trivial addition to the lead of a list article. I am assuming good faith for now but will continue to observe their account's contributions. Sirocco745 (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I will also keep a lookout for concerning contributions from Hexerade. I have just looked at the revision from Northern Moonlight. Have an amazing day! Wikishmodias (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• I've created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kirbstyre 63.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  What is wrong with Kirbstyre 63? Wikishmodias (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked Hexerade for a week and we can see how the sockpuppet investigation plays out. Cullen328 (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Creation of Bigg Boss 18 article

I am creating the Bigg Boss 18 article but every time someone gave this into the draft and then delete that they told that you didnt gave enough references I gave every references so please help me {{subst :ANI - notice}} 2000editor (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

2000editor, the proper place to discuss this is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series) season 18. Cullen328 (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328, this may be a legitimate user conduct issue. Looking at 2000editor's talk page, they've been recreating this article over and over again, apparently because it's about to air. As far as I'm aware of, a show being about to air doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or WP:V, a problem which has caused 2000editor's drafts to declined. This is looking like WP:IDHT or WP:CIR. @Ravensfire (pinging as involved) had already warned 2000editor that if 2000e didn't stop making low quality drafts on this topic, ANI was the next stop. I think 2000e misunderstood that as an instruction for them to go to ANI as a way to get the draft published.

I'm not sure a formal warning against recreating the drafts would solve all the problems, but it'd certainly be a start. Another possible remedy is a topic ban from the show Bigg Boss, or a restriction on creating new pages. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

So, I've got a WP:IAR option for dealing with this. Between the current article and the draft, it's probably pretty close to meeting WP:GNG and with the show being broadcast in a week, will definitely be notable by then. My proposal would be to warn 2000editor that this is not acceptable and in the future they should work with others on improving the draft so it will be accepted. The contents of Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series) season 18 would be merged into the draft article (I'll probably do that after this anyway, with some attribution) and a histmerge performed so the work for all will be recognized. The draft article would then be accepted, the AFD closed as moot with the draft accepted. I think this meets the overall aims of the encyclopedia, recognizes the work that has been done before on this article and lets 2000editor know that this is not something they should do again and they will face a block if this happens again. With nearly a thousand edits over 6+ months, they aren't new, but clearly don't really understand that they can't just do whatever they want. Not a perfect solution and probably nobody walks away happy, but the encyclopedia benefits. Ravensfire (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Ravensfire, I endorse this solution. Cullen328 (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

+1 EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Content has been merged into the draft. Ravensfire (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the solution above. As far as editor conduct, having a look at the talk page for 2000editor, some type of formal warning is in order. There are numerous warnings for editor behavior that they still do not seem to want to hear. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Group of WP:NOTHERE editors "banding together"

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.

---

So I am impartial to this entire thing, but I'll take it here since I stumbled across it and it isn't looking good. On Talk:FIFA Club World Cup and User talk:SinisterUnion, there appears to be a group of editors trying to band together under some "faction" (these users are SinisterUnion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and CrazyLoverFutbolLoko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), who are personally attacking others and basically vandalising pages ([104] as an example). They have been warned several times about this now. Apologies if this is formatted improperly, this is only my second-ever report here. SirMemeGod  01:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I have given SinisterUnion a firm warning against factional WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, you might wanna see this: [105] Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Very Busy) 01:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, One of them just requested that an ArbCom case be opened against me. This is more than WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, from what I am seeing. They're just harrasing people now. SirMemeGod  01:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked CrazyLoverFutbolLoko for one week for disruptive editing including factionalism and battleground behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Not mentioned here, after the above edit, block extended to 1 month, and TPA revoked by Cullen. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Very Busy) 01:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I also blocked SinisterUnion for a week. Cullen328 (talk) 02:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

and I just yanked TPA. Hope this ends the nonsense.

NB, I also closed the malformed ArbComm request. Star Mississippi 03:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you, appreciate it. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Very Busy) 03:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if they are the same person, creating an illusion of a group, since they coincidentally want to improve the same articles about FIFA and football. We'll see if any socks appear. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

An obvious sock (Special:Contributions/FckkOf) has already been blocked. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 04:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, that was predictable. New editors wanting to "revolutionize" Wikipedia do not have the patience to wait out a week or month-long block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I got called "crazy" by an editor whose sidekick is CrazyLoverFutbolLoko. I got called a "dictator" even though 316 Wikipedia editors supported me becoming an administrator and I do my best every single day to justify that support. Most amusingly, I got called "little". There are quite a few active editors who have met me face to face over the years, and they can all attest that I am 6'-3" and about 240 pounds. Cullen328 (talk) 05:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, I was "forgiven" for posting a warning notice to their User talk page earlier this month. Looking into this point of disagreement, I'm wondering if there is any connection between SinisterUnion and User:Fa30sp who had a very different writing style but was making a similar argument about a FIFA World Cup and was blocked in July. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you guys and gals need an SPI chucked together on this? It feels like folks are finding bits and pieces, and a CU could find the lot. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 08:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm about 95% confident that SinisterUnion and CrazyLoverFutbolLoko will come up as a match. Okay, maybe 98%. -- asilvering (talk) 09:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: I was the admin who blocked Fa30sp and I would lay a small bet that both the editors named above are linked. Black Kite (talk) 09:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Black Kite and Liz: Well would you look at that. Both blocked as confirmed socks of Fa30sp. Yoshi24517 (mobile) (talk) (Very Busy) 16:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for clearing this up. I think I had a nightmare that the ArbCom case was accepted! :) SirMemeGod  12:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

And thus ends the rise and fall of "Encyclopedic Revolutionary Faction". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:33, 28 September 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.

They're Back

Not sure if there's an SPI, but just duck blocked FahFahBc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The FiFA article is a nice honey pot but any reason not to full protect the blocked users Talks to stop the faction nonsense? Star Mississippi 02:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Mahmud ale

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

Despite the age of the account, Mahmud ale has been unwaveringly adding unsourced/poorly-sourced maps and other images to various articles. They have not indicated any wish to discuss the issues with their edits for years. Although they are often inactive for months, their sole purpose up to this point was to restore their problematic additions despite opposition. As a sign of their cross-project indifference, they were blocked on Commons as they have been constantly uploading unfree files, which caused 251 of their 255 edits there to be deleted. Aintabli (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Aintabli, you would probably get a better response if you provided some "diffs", that is, examples of edits that you find problematic. You have named the problem and now you have to provide evidence that other, uninvolved editors, can assess. Look at other complaints on this page and which ones are addressed quickly to see how you might proceed next. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I thought a glimpse of their edit history would be telling enough and forgot about adding diffs, which are plenty. As pointed out above, they have been trying to add the same maps and other images most of which have been deleted and only one that I've encountered cites a source on Commons, which is unreliable according to RSN. This is a very limited list of the typical edits they make: ...27 Dec 2021, 26 May 2022, 5 Aug 2023, 6 Aug, 13 Dec, 10 May 2024, 24 Sept, 30 Sept... I've been trying to explain the issue to them since December 2023 to no avail as they do not respond to warnings and continue their problematic edits most of which are fairly careless and break the source code, which is surprising for an almost 4-year-old account. The reason that there haven't been any tension build-up despite this is that they become active once or twice in several months. But given years of demonstrated indifference towards the warnings on their talkpage and elsewhere, there is no way to communicate, regardless of their opinion on the matter. Aintabli (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

User:PajaritodeSoto and cut-and-paste copyvios past third warning

User:PajaritodeSoto PajaritodeSoto has been repeatedly adding copyrighted material to the article Leonardo Torres Quevedo. They have been warned three times since July for this behaviour ([106][107][108]). The most recent of these warnings was given by me, two days ago. Today, they made this edit, which contained material cut and pasted from pages two and three of this external document. Interested parties may view the copypatrol report here. They have not responded to any warnings so far.GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked until they commit to editing without adding copyright violations. -- Whpq (talk) 06:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Whpq Thank you! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Romani are not Indians (again)

I ask that the account Wentigo (talk · contribs) be checked to see if they are a sockpuppet of the "Oilcocaine group" I've reverted all of their relevent edits. We spent a lot of time last December dealing with this (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#Seeking en masse rollback of disruptive edits, User Talk:Oilcocaine). A block of this user may be warranted. Thank you. _signed, Willondon (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

You should probably file this at WP:SPI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Willondon, I blocked that one as obvious, and CU-confirmed two others. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much. _signed, Willondon (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Willondon, this should still probably be reported at WP:SPI for visibility. When filling note that the accounts have already been blocked. TarnishedPath^talk 06:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Repeated addition of Jawi scripts by User:Guotaian in multiple Penang-related articles

Calling for urgent intervention to User:Guotaian's edit behaviour, especially the persistent addition without WP:CONS of Jawi scripts, and removal of Hokkien and Thai scripts in Penang-related articles.

• George Town, Penang: [109]
• Seberang Perai: [110]
• Penang: [111]
• Penang: [112]

Said user has apparently exhibited similar behaviour to previous ANI cases:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#180.75.233.40
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1150#Repeated unexplained addition of Arabic-like scripts by IP address 180.75.238.55 in multiple Penang-related articles. hundenvonPG (talk) 11:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Chipmunkdavis, following his latest edits on Penang, safe to assume he is intent on persisting with edit-warring. Calling for urgent intervention on this. hundenvonPG (talk) 11:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, the aim of my editing is to standardise articles. Most malaysian articles have Jawi in them as a transcription due to "the position of Jawi is protected under Section 9 of the National Language Act 1963/67". As Jawi is used in most articles, I don't see a reason not to include it.

It is also important to only use recognised languages such as Standard Chinese and Tamil, both which are taught in vernacular schools. Chinese dialects do play an important historic role but they have no recognition whatsoever. Thai is also not recognised in malaysia. Guotaian (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I also don't have any intentions to downplay the significance of minority languages as I myself is malaysian-chinese, but I only want clarity and accuracy for readers when looking at articles. Guotaian (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

So? Where was WP:CONS? Just because you said "it is right to remove them", does that mean you don't need consensus? Why is it that not all states are officially adopting Jawi, and your removal of other scripts with historic or linguistic significance?

Please read the previous ANI cases before persisting with your edit-warring behaviour. hundenvonPG (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Consensus should be obtained before mass additions of Jawi to articles, or any other mass language changes. The current spree of additions and removals, especially given they are being done completely unexplained without any edit summaries, is disruptive. CMD (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Ponyo, apparently said user is exhibiting similar behaviour to previous cases mentioned above. hundenvonPG (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked them for a month for disruptive editing as looks like a large number of articles affected. May be need to go for full block if no consensus can be found on these editing changes. Keith D (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Non-consensus moves in Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present)

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.

---

Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) was unilaterally moved thrice within a week by Thistheyear2023 (talk · contribs) based on personal POV and commentary without seeking consensus from other editors on talk (see [113], [114] and [115]) and despite warnings by reverting editors. See [116] and [117])

Borgenland (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I've made them aware of the ARBPIA CTOP designation and warned them about move warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I also submitted a move protection request. Hopefully I formatted it right. Borgenland (talk) 17:11, 30 September 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 editor

I am having an issue with an editor. The editor in question, Clawpelt, was making disruptive edits to Springville-Griffith Institute. After reverting the disruptive edits for the third time, I left a polite message on their talk page. They then left a reply on my talk page, which I deleted (I shouldn't have), and shortly after that they were given a warning on their talk page from a more experienced editor. They have subsequently created their User page and edited to include the "other name" of 'gabe1972 hater'. This isn't exactly disruptive, but it's a personal attack. I hope I've done this properly and in the right place, as I'm not at all versed in anything other than editing pages for grammar and punctuation, and I've never been a target of someone on Wikipedia before. I'm going to add the ANI-notice to Clawpelt's talk page, as I believe I'm supposed to. Thank you. Gabe1972 (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Pretty clearly a bad-faith account, and as such I have issued an indef block. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Just Step Sideways. I appreciate the help. Gabe1972 (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Gabe1972, just to be clear about your comment about your own user talkpage (They then left a reply on my talk page, which I deleted (I shouldn't have)), you are perfectly entitled to remove anything anyone posts to it. You didn't do anything improper by deleting it. Grandpallama (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I know. I just meant in relation to the issue, as I know it's a good idea to have all of the evidence to show when something like this happens. The funny thing is, after all was said and done, I realized that I could have just performed an 'undo' on the revision and it would have shown again. It wasn't particularly nasty or anything, just a message asking me to stop undoing his edits, though in context, still uncalled for. Gabe1972 (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Gabe, as long as you’ve tried everything else reasonable, to get a problem sorted (which I think you did, here), it’s reasonable to swing it by ANI. My old mentor, Yunshui, once told me (Oh and, for anyone getting déjà Vu with this, yes, i’ve told this one at ANI before), ANI is your big, shiny red button. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 17:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by IPs

The number of teams in the 2025 IPL has been confirmed to be 74 matches as per this source. But a set of IPs keep changing the number to 84, I even added a citation right next to it in the infobox. But, the IPs keep changing it irregardless of the citation. I also sent them talkpage warnings, but no use.

• 117.213.168.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – diffs [118][119][120]
• 117.213.168.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – diffs [121][122][123][124]

Note: All these diffs are from the last few hours. I also posted at RPPI like 23 hours ago... but, no response thus far. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Ymblanter has now semi-protected the 2025 Indian Premier League page, so there should be less disruptive editing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Emiya1980's use of RFCs

Emiya1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created 8 RFCs since May 27th. All of these RFCs have been on stable biographies.

• Edward Heath
• Philippe Pétain
• Woodrow Wilson
• Martin Van Buren
• Hermann Göring
• Hosni Mubarak
• Benito Mussolini
• Frederick the Great

All of these RFCs ended with the status quo except for Woodrow Wilson. The editor has been approached about creating too many RFCs on this topic[125] and about pinging multiple projects. [126] Every time there’s push back, Emiya1980 goes into defense mode and lobs accusations at others of stonewalling[127][128][129] or harassment[130]. They have even gone further and made personal attacks[131]. The 8th RFC was started today on Edward Heath, and it’s another completely pointless RFC that wasn’t necessary after the original discussion.

Outside of this focus on infobox image RFCs, Emiya1980 seems like a good editor, but they’re taxing the RFC process with needless RFCs. I could understand if they were improving the project, but most of the RFCs are ending in status quo. Maybe it’s time to focus on something else? The RFC process is a valuable part of the project and this doesn't appear to be a productive use of it. Perhaps I’m overreacting, so I’m presenting this here for comment. If the community believes this is a productive use of resources, I’ll drop it. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Emiya1980, I have a question for you and would appreciate a direct and concise answer: Do you understand that writing shut up for the rest of the discussion is an utterly inappropriate thing to say to a fellow editor? If so, will you commit to never saying anything like that ever again? Cullen328 (talk) 05:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328 Yes, I will commit to refraining from making such statements in the future. Emiya1980 (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, that was a good answer, Emiya1980. Now, please respond in detail to other editor's concerns about your use of the RFC process. Do you have a good understanding of the circumstances when an RFC is the best solution, as opposed to situations when less dramatic forms of dispute resolution are more appropriate? Do you understand the concerns that other editors have raised? Cullen328 (talk) 06:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Before I answer that question, please tell me how you (not Nemov) feel I have been abusing the Rfc process and when you believe it is (or is not) appropriate to open one in the first place. Emiya1980 (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

No, Emiya1980, I have no obligation to give you my assessment at this point. As an administrator, I am still investigating and I expect you to answer my questions frankly and honestly as you did my initial question. Please do so. Stonewalling is not a good strategy for you. Be fully responsive to the concerns about your RFC conduct that have been raised here. Cullen328 (talk) 06:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I confess to pushing the envelope with regards to publishing notices about Rfcs which I have opened or am otherwise involved. I also admit fault with regards to opening more than one or two Rfcs at a time. However, if more than a few editors are involved in a discussion and a decisive consensus has not been reached in favor of either position, I do not see the problem in opening an Rfc as I did on Edward Heath. To restrict myself otherwise feels like censorship designed to discourage changes to the status quo which I feel certain users like Nemov are trying to impose on me. That is my opinion on the matter. Emiya1980 (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

But if the assessment at the beginning of this case is true, all of these RFCs have not resulted in any changes. So, I guess I would try to appeal to the fact that we all have limited amount of time we can work on this project and ask whether starting another RFC is a good use of your time and that of other editors if they so rarely change the status quo. I'm not against change but it looks like this hasn't been an effective way to change articles. It could be low participation (an issue all over the project) or the wording of the RFC or just your timing. But if you keep trying a method with little success, I'd probaly move on and try something else. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Emiya1980, consider yourself formally warned for your suboptimal conduct regarding RFCs and I urge you to behave appropriately regarding RFCs in the future. You have used up your assumption of good faith in this area, so be cautious. Cullen328 (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328 If I do what, exactly? You have yet to provide me with specific criteria on when it is or is not appropriate to open an Rfc in the future. Unless you say otherwise, this seems less like a constructive warning and more like an indefinite ban on my ability to open Rfcs even if I have a valid reason for doing so. Emiya1980 (talk) 07:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: For how long? Emiya1980 (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Emiya1980, I am under no obligation to instruct you on the precise circumstances when you can or cannot open an RFC. It is incumbent on you to be fully conversant with dispute resolution procedures more broadly, and RFC procedures more specifically. It is also your obligation to fully take on board the legitimate concerns that other editors have raised about your RFC conduct. My warning is by no means an indefinite ban on my ability to open Rfcs. I will not hold your hand. You are on your own and you are completely responsible for your own edits. So, conduct yourself accordingly. Cullen328 (talk) 08:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328 No, that is not good enough. When I have a biased editor like Nemov ready to throw anything he can at me to stop me from bucking his preferred version of the status quo, I need clarifications on what is acceptable and what is not (especially when dealing with guidelines as contradictory and open to interpretation as these). If you are not willing to provide me the answers I want, you can at least point me in the direction of a page or forum where I can find others who are. If you are sincere in wanting me to be a more constructive part of Wikipedia, you should have no problem doing this much for me. Emiya1980 (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Emiya1980, I have already directed you to the appropriate pages and asked you to take on board the feedback you have received from other editors. If you choose to reject that advice, then please be prepared for some negative consequences if you ignore the warning that I gave to you. The choice is entirely yours. Cullen328 (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I think I can help on the signposting. The central RFC page, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, describes the process, including instructions for how and why to create a request for comment (RfC), to participate in one, and to end one. Have a read down what that page has to say, yes? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 08:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

This response reads like you still intend to push RfCs as a way to force your changes into articles when other editors disagree with you. Also, be careful of WP:NPA, accusing Nemov of being a biased editor with no evidence is going to get you in hot water. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing here to suggest the editor is going to change their behavior. Nemov (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• As WP:RFCBEFORE says "RfCs are time consuming, and editor time is valuable". RfCs are a heavyweight process which should only really be used when other, less time-intensive, methods have failed. Unfortunately there seems (e.g. [132][133])to be an increasing trend of users jumping straight to RfC immediately on getting any pushback, or as a kind of last roll of the dice when they are in a WP:1AM situation. This maybe goes hand-in-hand with an increasingly "legalistic" approach to Wikipedia, especially among newer editors: they want a case and they want a ruling and they want precedent. I really wish there was something the community could do to tamp down on this. Bon courage (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• It's very peculiar that no one, neither the OP nor the reported party, thought to point out that all of these RfC's have a common purpose--specifically, that they are all for the purpose of deciding on a lead image. So here's the thing--this is just one of those areas where the policy language is so loose and the precedents so indeterminate that subjectivity creeps in and you just have to bring in extra voices and have a straight forward consensus. RfC is one of my main modes of talk space contribution; I think I've contributed to somewhere between 1,000-1,200 over the last 15 years. And what I've noticed over the last few years is an absolutely startling uptick in efforts to shoot down most RfCs before they have even started on either procedural grounds or a general implication that the RfC is unnecessary. Honestly, it's the vast majority today: it is much more the norm than the exception, now.
  We actually just had what might be reasonably described as our most important important RfC to take place on an article talk page in years, and the very first comment in that discussion? A suggested procedural close because WP:BEFORE hadn't been satisfied. Nevermind that the most cursory search of the archives and the circumstances would have immediately revealed that it was a highly contentious issue going back to the article's inception, that there had been numerous previous discussions, or that the Supreme Court of the world's second most populous nation had just ordered the project to remove certain content which was the subject of the dispute. Pretty much the best case for the necessity of the process, and someone questioned it, reflexively. Now, I'm not stating that editor's name here because their approach isn't the issue. My point is that if you open an RfC at present, it gets challenged; that's almost always a given reality. So from the start I'm not considering pushback an automatic indicator that there is a problem with an given proponent's approach to RfC. Now, are the number or the hit rate more concerning to me? Not really on the number: one or two a month on average is well within what I consider acceptable rates.
  The fact that the status quo was retained roughly 84% of the time does suggest that at least some of these could have been avoided. But as I mentioned at the outset here, opinions on the best lead images tend to be quite varied and loosely bounded by the policy language on point. It is just one of those things which often best solved by bringing in a cluster of un-involved editors to break the deadlock. And they are often the quickest, most painless and straight forward discussions you will have, with a clear consensus usually formed quickly. Yes, when I get to one, I do often honestly do a little eyeroll that this discussion couldn't have been resolved short of RfC. But then commenting is quick and these RfCs more often than not end up being a little amuse-bouche of a dispute. And for me, the aggregate community time spent only has to be lesser than any disruption that might have been caused by leaving the issue unresolved between two small, entrenched camps unable to reach a consensus by itself. Long and the short of it: I'm not seeing the issue with the existence of these discussions, so far as has been presented here so far.SnowRise ^{let's rap} 13:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

That is not, however, to say that I see nothing wrong with Emiya's conduct inside the discussions after they have started. Emiya, let me be blunter than my diplomatic colleagues have been above: your conduct on the Mussolini article was so over the line that had there been even a single extra example of you speaking to a second community member like you spoke to Nemov there, we'd probably be talking about a serious sanction right now. I know I would be amenable to a topic ban at the minimum. The fact that, even in the heat of the moment, you thought that was an acceptable way to interact in a collaborative workspace raises serious questions about your competency for this project. I would strongly urge you to not get within a kilometer of the kind of "Ok, time for you to shut up." style of statement to a fellow community member going forward. It was very hard for me to separate my thoughts about your decision to open the RfCs, as discussed above, from how you engaged once they started, and admins and the community won't care to make that effort in general if you give them low-hanging fruit to block or CBAN you on. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 13:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

SnowRise while they could have been clearer, in fact Nemov/the OP did say in their first post "Outside of this focus on infobox image RFCs" so did sort of tell us what these RfCs were about. Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I stand corrected: thanks for pointing that out, Nil Einne. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:World War II#Who should be listed at the top of the main Allied leaders? seems another example of this, where Emiya1980 has in the last 24 hours or so started an edit war and dispute on a much debated topic in an overwise stable and high profile article based purely on their personal views (see [134] in particular for where they acknowledge that this rationale is their personal views, not what reliable sources might say). Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

That is a complete misrepresentation of my conduct on the page. I did not go over the three-revert minimum so this feels a draconian application of the edit-war ban; especially considering I consented to the reverting editor's recommendation for a discussion after being reverted only twice. Most significantly, Nick-D's complaint is completely unrelated to Rfcs which is the primary focus of this thread. Emiya1980 (talk) 06:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

It is exactly the same conduct. I note that you have never edited the World War II article before starting this edit war, and your only previous edits to the talk page were to advertise some of the RfCs noted at the start of this thread. Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I did only two reverts. That's pretty common in terms of what I've seen of other editors' conduct. Emiya1980 (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

(I also did two reverts. I revert twice and thrice much more than I'd like, I will admit. I think I'm at my worst when I revert twice and thrice without being particularly communicative or helpful, and I could've been better here I guess.) Remsense ‥ 论 08:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Upon further review of the edit history for World War II, I actually reverted Remsense only once during the incident in question. The original change I made to the infobox should not be counted as a reversion for purposes of edit-warring. Emiya1980 (talk) 08:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Emiya1980, in the same way that even an entirely different editor's conduct can become the focus of an ANI discussion, so too can other behaviour by the reported editor--even be it very distantly related to the original matter raised. And I'm not so entirely convinced that the intersection here is as small as you frame it.

Now obviously, I just very vociferously defended your opening of those RfCs as presumptively valid actions, absent more particular evidence on disruption on your part. That is because, for better or for worse, wars of subjectivity over lead images are just a phenomena on this project that aren't going anywhere, and RfCs are probably the quickest way of resolving them. As such, even given that you are opening more of them than is typical for a given editor, I didn't see that it was reasonable to penalize you for what I assume are good faith (if arguably mostly pointless) efforts to make your case for a change on each article.

That said, this additional infobox issue highlights just how pedantic you are willing to be about the smallest and most inconsequential of changes, how divorced your arguments can be from a policy predicate, and how many characters-worth of time (your own, and finite community time) you are willing to spill to pursue your preferred vision of these tiny details. The order of those names in that infobox is not something even your typical devoted WWII history editor would think was worth invoking an edit. Among those few who would, almost all of them would recognize it was certainly not worth edit warring over, and among those who did edit war (however briefly), fewer still would have thought the matter worth a talk page dispute.

Now, I discount the lack of perspective there somewhat, because the discussion clearly illuminates the fact that you are not the first to dispute the ordering of those names--which just goes to show that, much as with some of the persons they cover, for some of our military history editors, there really is no hill too small to die on. But what really pulls this behaviour into potentially disruptive territory is that once you created the discussion, the arguments you proceeded upon were constructed of nothing but idiosyncratic views and WP:Original research. If you were going to open a discussion on the matter, that's an engagement that requires a certain type of munition: arguments predicated in WP:reliable sources. But you brought absolutely no such to bear, and the main thing that seems to have animated you was the perspective that Stalin, "a mass-murdering dictator with a death toll that rivals that of Adolf Hitler [should not be listed] at the top of the Allied Powers" above FDR.

Now, is all of this worth a sanction? No, not really. But taken with the rest above, it does highlight some very salient points you clearly need to take on board. You are chewing through too much community time for too little gain (both because your positions in these cases are generally non-winners and even if they were, the benefit of the changes is too minuscule compared to the effort needed to effect them). In short, you need to do a better job of picking your battles, because sooner or later it will not just be community time that these issues will be sapping, but also community patience. Even good faith activities by well-intentioned volunteers can be judged net-negatives to the project, given certain particulars. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Snow Rise Characterize me as "pedantic" if you want, but listing Joseph Stalin in the infobox in a way that suggests he was the leader of the Big Three is an issue I consider worthy of continued debate. If the sticking point to my continued involvement in said discussion is that I presented no reliable sources in support of my argument, then I am more than willing to provide some.

However, the fact remains that Nick-D's claim that I started an edit war over at World War II is based on fairly flimsy evidence and does not involve any abuse of the Rfc process which is the primary focus of this thread. Emiya1980 (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

There may be some definitional issues here. From the top of the Wikipedia:Edit warring policy, see the main definition: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions."

The word repeatedly means "more than once"; it does not mean "more than three times within 24 hours". Also, the definition of an edit war doesn't technically have to involve reverts. It is possible to fully comply with WP:3RR while still edit warring. @Nick-D says Emiya "started an edit war"; Emiya's response is basically to claim that there was no violation of 3RR. Both of these statements can be true at the same time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Not if I reverted another editor only once on said page regarding the infobox issue which (as I've already indicated) is what happened here. Assuming you are characterizing my original change to the infobox as an "override [of another editor's] contributions" and therefore edit-warring, then what is the point of Wikipedia's "Be bold" policy? Emiya1980 (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:EW and WP:BB are in tension. What looks like "bold editing" to one person can look like "edit warring" to another.

You have made three edits to WWII: [135][136][137] The first makes your bold change; the second reverts to your bold change. (The third is unrelated.) Making a change, getting reverted, re-reverting, and being re-reverted again actually can constitute edit warring. It might not be a problem worth enforcing – you know that if the speed limit is 40, but you drive 41, you are both breaking the law and also very unlikely to get stopped by the police for it? This is similar, in some respects – but there is no "right to re-revert". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Ok, what I am about to say may seem far-fetched but is genuinely the truth. I have no recollection of consciously editing the size of the Soviet flag in the World War II infobox as set forth in your link. One of the reasons I want to point this out is something strange happened like this before around a week ago. Over at Hindenburg's talk page, another editor confronted me over my reversion to his edits in the "Locarno Treaties" section of Paul von Hindenburg. Similarly, while I recall making changes to the lede, I have no recollection of undoing said edits. Either I have an undiagnosed case of DID or somebody is piggy-backing on my account to make additional edits without my knowledge.

If anybody else viewing this thread has any ideas what's going on, please chip in. Emiya1980 (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The first two edits don't show a change in the flag size. They only show you copying the whole line (carefully preserved in their original form, with no changes at all) to a new location. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, I misread the link. That being said, the problem over at Hindenburg did happen so that might be something for the admins to look into because I don't know how that happened. Back to the matter at hand, one of the edits which you are referring is a notice I posted at the top of the page indicating the lede for World War II was too long. For the record, I do in fact think the lede is unnecessarily detailed and contains two bloated paragraphs which could use some trimming. Again, however, I am only seeing one reversion here by myself; classifying this as edit-warring is frankly overkill. Emiya1980 (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I see one reversion (though edit warring isn't limited strictly to reversions) by you and three by another editor. That's one bold edit plus four reversions within 72 minutes, which is easily into the edit warring territory. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Why are you holding me responsible for the behavior of another editor? You should be taking that up with them, not me.Emiya1980 (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I hold you responsible only for your part of the edit war. You did not believe that you were involved in an edit war. I have explained that there really was an edit war underway. Your part in the edit war might be smaller, but that doesn't mean that there was no edit war. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, it seems I'm the only one who is being slammed for an edit war on World War II; which you yourself admit I bore a smaller part of the blame for. From what I can tell, Remsense has received no reprimand whatsoever for his conduct on the page while I have a big, ugly edit-war tag on my talk page posted by Nick-D. Call it a coincidence if you want, but Remsense's opinion on how the page should look just so happens to coincide with the views strongly articulated on the talk page by Nick-D. So you can excuse me if I feel at least one of the editors calling me out in this situation is somewhat biased in their application of Wikipedia's rules. Emiya1980 (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

To be totally honest: firstly, if anything I did on World War II deserves any particular sanction or redress, that's news to me. Secondly, could you please relax? Casting aspersions against me or others seems like another unneeded ratcheting up of what is already a fairly manic dialogue on your part. As someone who is also capable of mania, it is not fun to reply to. I really don't feel like taking the aspersions seriously, but it's fairly clear that our positions expressed were not the same: I thought the ordering was arbitrary and likely shouldn't be changed because it could cause further disruption, while Nick-D did not think it was arbitrary, and claimed the ordering was based in what RS say. Remsense ‥ 论 00:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Remsense If you read my last post closely, my criticism was primarily aimed at Nick-D, not you. With that being said, I'm not going to be only one taking the fall for an edit war which WhatamIdoing has admitted you also had a part in. Emiya1980 (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm still hashing out my position on drive-by templating: at this moment, this is a case where putting a big maintenance banner atop a highly developed, highly visible article for what is a potential but not universally perceived problem—is more disruptive and unhelpful than you starting a discussion on talk first, and then only placing a banner if no consensus or improvements result from that. Remsense ‥ 论 00:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I meant what I said above: if you feel people need to "take the fall" or write a page's worth of dialogue over a tiny incident, that's a you problem, and others really aren't required to follow your logic to its conclusion. What matters is that editors are able to work with each other, which I feel I'm perfectly capable of on that article going forward if you are: if there's anything here others need to worry about, it would be the longer-term patterns of behavior that said tiny incidents constitute. Remsense ‥ 论 00:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Remsense I don't know how long you've been reading this thread but the tone is hardly what I would characterize as friendly. The overall aim by some of the editors here seems to be to significantly limit if not outright stifle any further contributions of mine to this project. If I sound "manic", that is the reason.

If I just received an edit-war tag on my talk page, I would not feel the need to complain. What I take issue with is Nick-D not only (1) characterizing me as a "problem editor" in the discussion which I started at your recommendation but (2) encouraging other editors to pile on me in this thread in what seems as a barely disguised attempt to muzzle any further participation on my part. Emiya1980 (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

If you don't want your editing to be seen as problematic, I'd strongly suggest taking the feedback various editors have provided in this thread on board as this type of editing and the way in which you participate in related discussions (including this discussion) is not constructive or helpful. Nick-D (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

If I'm being singled out for an incident where blame is clearly shared by another editor, there is nothing wrong with me pointing out. Your willingness to turn a blind eye to Remsense's part in said edit war clearly shows your bias in this matter. Emiya1980 (talk) 01:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is turning a blind eye to Remsense's part. Remsense's part has already been addressed and solved. They have said things like "I could've been better here" and "As someone whose biggest point of self-critique is easily that they revert too much". They admit that their behavior wasn't ideal, and they're working on ideas to improve. We don't need to make a big deal out of it, because they've already said everything that needs to be said. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Emiya1980: you seem to be making way too big a deal over the templated warning you received about edit warring. First a template warning isn't really a "reprimand", it's a warning that your behaviour, in the opinion of the person leaving the warning is violating our policies and guidelines and so if you continue down that path you may be blocked. Notably, although Nick-D may be an admin, since they were WP:involved their warning was just a typical editor to editor warning, it wasn't an admin saying they'd block you if you continued down that path. So if it came to it, any blocking would have considered the behaviour of all involved as relevant.

Anyway I have no idea why Nick-D chose to give you one but not one to Remsense but I can good reasons why it made sense and you've IMO proven the point on this thread. While you've been here for a while, it's apparent from what you've said and done in various places that you're still fairly unfamiliar with our policies and guidelines. Even after receiving the warning, you apparently continued to believe you weren't edit warring when you were. Your understanding of what is edit warring was fairly flawed. While apparently the edit warring didn't resolve your confusion and there is always debate over templated warnings vs a personalised message, it seems fair for Nick-D to have tried.

By comparison Remsense is experienced enough that they really should know what edit warning is, and their responses seem to have been much more accepting of their mistakes than you further re-enforcing this PoV. While there's also debate about templating the regulars, this does seem a definite case where a simple "cut out the edit warring" message was sufficient for Remsense if need be but an attempt to explain the problem even if via a template to you made sense.

Also, while warnings should primarily be intended to inform an edit so they change their behaviour and no further action is needed, because we don't generally block editors when they were genuine unaware they were violating our policies and guidelines the possibility a warning may be needed for a block is something many editors will also have at the back of their mind. I don't hang out at WP:AN/EW and am also not an admin so I'm not familiar with what standards are nowadays, but I can reasonably see without the warning admins would have been reluctant to block you since you were genuinely confused what edit warning was and there had been no recent attempt to inform you.

By comparison Remsense is active on warning editors for edit-warring, and reporting them to WP:AN/EW and has been blocked in the past for edit-warring, so I cannot see any way an admin would have let them be because they didn't know. I wasn't aware of all these details when I wrote my earlier comment but this very strongly re-enforces my point that if Remsense didn't know, a template was fairly pointless.

BTW about your two reverts point, note that some editors chose to follow WP:1RR or even WP:0RR even when they are not required to. While doing so will not completely protect you from edit warring issues; and outside of areas where it's required, making 2 or 3 reverts doesn't mean you will definitely be blocked for edit warring; IMO it's a bad idea for any editor to think two reverts is okay because a lot of editors do it.

As a final comment, you might want to read WP:NOTBURO and Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. Do understand that while it's important editors follow our policies and guidelines and we have some that are fairly strict (like more than three reverts), we don't generally follow an overly legalistic system where there are firm objective rules which you must follow and anything not in violation of these firm rules is fine. While I understand this can be difficult for some editors, unfortunately if you want to edit here you're going to have to learn to work within a system where we don't have such strict rulemaking. If multiple experienced editors are telling you what you're doing is not conducive to building and encyclopaedia, you generally should take their advice onboard rather than demanding they point to some specific rule you're violating.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Emiya1980, I don't think that anyone is expecting to issue sanctions specifically for the WWII edits.

Of course, any and all edits provide information about the editor's abilities, interests, and behavioral patterns. For example, the WWII edits indicate that Emiya1980 is willing to carefully follow clearly stated, objective rules to the letter. Remsense's comments here and elsewhere indicate that they are already aware that their contribution there was, even though in alignment with the ultimate disposition of the infobox, less than ideal behaviorally. My comments here and elsewhere (forever) indicate that I am sometimes pedantic and am usually willing to continue arguments when others would think it a waste of time and effort. If those other edits can illuminate a behavioral pattern, that can give us an idea of what to expect in the future, and therefore what changes to recommend. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Emiya1980, at this point, I think that this discussion would end if you simply stopped replying to everyone and stopped trying to defend yourself. No one has proposed sanctions, they raised concerns and I hope what they said had an impact on your future conduct around RFCs and a reconsideration if all of the ones you started were really necessary. But I think this whole discussion would end if you ceased replying to every comment and returned to regular editing. But if the problems perceived by other editors persist, there might be a return visit to ANI. As for now, I recommend disengaging from this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• it appears that the community is willing to tolerate Emiya1980's commitment to wasting more valuable resource time on infobox image RFCs and is it pretty clear that the Emiya1980 sees no wrongdoing. So I guess this pointless crusade will continue. If that's the community's opinion so be it. Nemov (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  Infobox images and details such as the precise order in which WWII world leaders are listed are attractive to new editors, and we tolerate a degree of futile editing and discussion while hoping that they'll soon move on to greater improvements. I'm baffled that a long-standing editor would spend so much of their own time and other editors' time launching discussions on them, with or without RfC tags, and without even checking whether the matter has been discussed already, all for the most diminished of diminishing returns. Still, before this thread was sidetracked onto counting reverts, Emiya1980 has been formally warned by one administrator and strongly advised to move on by another. Maybe it's not unreasonable for the community to hope that's sufficient without formal sanctions at this time. NebY (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  The editor had already been approached and cautioned over the course of several weeks. I really wanted to avoid bringing this here. History suggests the editor does not get it and will not get it. It seems wasting community time with RFCs is more acceptable than I expected. Anyway, thanks for everyone's feedback. Nemov (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Nemov:, I sort of get your frustration, but a formal warning is pretty much a 'final chance' in terms of this editing issue, so while no blocks etc. have been placed, if it happens again the editor will very likely be blocked if it is brought back to this noticeboard with a link to this discussion. A final warning as an outcome is definitely not 'tolerating' the behaviour (quite the opposite), and achieving this outcome makes this ANI report absolutely worth the time you put into it. Hope this helps. Daniel (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  And Emiya1980 has held off starting an RfC apparently at least in part as a result of this Talk:World War II#c-Emiya1980-20240929074600-Emiya1980-20240929011700 ([138]). I do think it's fair to say that Emiya1980 seems to have been a bit slow at learning what's acceptable here and too focused on specific rules but I'm not sure there's a reason to be so pessimistic about their use of RfCs. Nil Einne (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm inclined to agree. I'm not sure what some here were expecting, but with specific regard to over-use of RfC, we're talking about a sub-optimal approach to a policy grey area at most, not a brightline violation of policy--and certainly no indication of intentional bad faith. While I think it is very fair to say that Emiya's significantly IDHT-heavy responses to concerns in this area have exacerbated rather than alleviated concerns about that behaviour, there's still not enough here to justify a community sanction at this time--not even a TBAN, imo.

  Some of the peripheral commentary in at least one of those discussions was way past the line in WP:CIV terms, but that has received a pretty substantial warning. I do consider it the clearest policy violation reported in this discussion, and the issue most worthy of a quick block if if it ever resumes in a similar manner again, but it's a somewhat separate issue from that of whether the RfCs were so out of order with regard to typical process that a sanction is due specifically to address that issue. I don't think that they were, but I also feel that Emiya would do well to see the writing on the wall from what others have said here about the cost-benefit value of precipitating major discussions over small issues, particularly where they have already been robustly discussed.

  If they have not, I will offer them this insight: I think a lot of the veteran community members are increasingly cognizant of the gap left between our work loads in article maitenance, and trends in recruitment and retention of longterm volunteers, and those editors are increasingly coming to the conclusion that we cannot endlessly indulge the recruitment of two dozen editors, even FRS volunteers, for a debate over every line and feature of an infobox. I have opposed and will continue to oppose any attitudes that substantially attempt to increase the minimum standards for RfCs in general, because I believe their basic function must be maintained as is, insofar as that function typically saves much larger amounts of time for the community overall (as compared to the kind of dysfunction and disruption that can fester on talk pages when small camps continue to try to hammer against one-another without easy access to outside perspectives to break minor and even petty deadlocks).

  But the flipside of that is that leaning into those processes willy-nilly is going to be more and more likely to get your habits flagged in a negative light, and probably a faster route towards a finding of de facto disruption, even if individual RfCs are mostly procedurally above-board. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

IP with a history of vandalism

I noticed that the edits made by IP 62.4.32.90 on various chemical compounds such as Dichlorine monoxide have a pattern of being unhelpful and disruptive. Their actions consist of adding unnecessary hazard symbols to the chemboxes of these compounds and changing the flammability of these compounds (found in source code as "NFPA-F =") to 0. Not only have they been warned about this before on their talk page by @Graeme Bartlett [139], but they got blocked a day later by @DMacks [140] for that same reason. Once that block expired, they literally went back to doing what they were doing before. This IP has a history of disruptive edits dating back to March 2021.

While most of their edits have been reverted, a few remain current. Diffs for the edits of note are as follows:

[141] (the first of these I noticed and reverted)
[142] (current) [143] (current) [144] (current)

My recommendation would be an indefinite block and reverting all edits made by this IP. They have been notified on their talk page. Sirocco745 (talk) 07:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

You could have asked at WP:AIV or on DMacks' or my talk page. I will check what needs to be reverted. I think a longer block is warranted. If disruption has been going for 6 months, I think a 6-month block is appropriate, rather than indefinite, as someone else may appear on that IP. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

OK I have reverted unsourced changes, and blocked 6 months. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that, and apologies, I hadn't thought to use your talk page or DMacks'. I'm still getting used to the written procedure of Wikipedia and the common practices of its users, and to be perfectly honest, my one interaction with an admin on my own talk page wasn't the most cordial or helpful, so I was reluctant to reach out via talk page. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Glad it got sorted. No harm in asking here, especially if you don't know who to ask or don't feel comfortable asking someone directly, it's just not always as efficient depending on the situation. DMacks (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

62.4.32.90 has started to respond in Cyrillic on their talk page. But nothing yet to appeal the block. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Translations for anyone curious:

"which?" [145] and "pictograms are just some properties and they don't necessarily belong to a high hazard class" [146].

I'm pretty sure the flammability ratings they edited aren't "just some properties" that should be taken lightly either, IP that changed quite a few of those to 0 despite some being rated at 3 or 4 prior to their now reverted edits to chemical compound articles :P

Sirocco745 (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from IP 49.255.248.147

IP 49.255.248.147 has a long and almost exclusive history of making unsourced POV changes to articles about films, typically changing the adjectives around reviews to make them seem more positive or negative. In edit summaries, the IP has previously indicated the changes are based on personal experience of the films reviews. The IP has been repeatedly warned and blocked for this behavior, as recently as August. It appears that the temp ban did not work though, as the IP is back at it today. I believe this is at best disruptive editing and potentially subtle vandalism. The ban should be reinstated. --Lenny Marks (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate blocks and WP:BITE by Graham87

After the recent thread about Graham87 (talk · contribs) overzealously blocking a user based on "vibes", I saw a thread on his talkpage where Liz had questioned an indef of MarcArchives00 (talk · contribs) he had made back in February 2024. I checked and it seemed to be a completely unfounded block based on "padding his edit count" by doing the tutorial that we show to new users plus a deleted stub Draft:Nur (influencer) that looked promotion-ish but hardly worth a block without discussion. I lifted the block and left a message on Graham's talkpage, then went back and checked all his blocks from September 2024.

There ended up being a total of 4 user blocks that I ended up lifting. Two were probably okay but not needed anymore; the block of Flight709 (talk · contribs) looked especially unwarranted, as well as 8 IP blocks that were anywhere from 1-10 years that I shortened because I felt them excessive. There were several more that I thought were questionable but within reasonable admin discretion, so I left those alone. Graham87's response[147] acknowledges some of them were excessive, but comes across as deeply suspicious of new/anonymous editors with an immediate WP:BITE reflex, so I think it needs to be brought to the community for review. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not offering to do it, but what exactly is it that you are asking the community to do? Talk to him? – 2804:F1...05:9F62 (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a prelude to an ARBR request (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Wordsmith). After reading through Graham87's talk page, the previous ANI thread, and the WPO thread, I would support such. Sincerely, Dilettante 22:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I was hoping that there would be some introspection so it wouldn't be necessary to go to WP:RFAR; part of me still hopes for it. Given the response, either Graham's sense of when to block is far outside community norms or mine is so I'm not sure it can be avoided one way or another. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like they’re being less BITEy per User talk:12.25.163.113. I hope it continues and, on second thought, was hasty with my earlier comment. I don’t want to see him deysysopped, but the community doesn’t have the power to decide whether or not someone has used the tools fairly. When there’s reasonable arguments to be made for either side, I do support escalation. Sincerely, Dilettante 01:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• The rationale provided here for some of the blocks is remarkably childish. "I raised it to five years because they complained that three years was too long". I hate spammy editors as much as anyone but the block of MarcArchives00 was an utter abuse of power. It also appears Graham87 blindly reverted every single contribution by Flight709. This included restoring an unreliable, deprecated source. They blocked Flight709 for editing "far too quickly, recklessly, and suspiciously" and then abused Flight709 as "completely untrustworthy and are not welcome here". How is this not plain and simple abuse of admin power? The block of StattoSteven was beyond completely unreasonable - look at their contributions before being indefinitely blocked (per WP:INDEF, intended for "significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy") and disappointingly the unblock request was twice declined (first by 331dot on the basis they had engaged in overlinking in their first edits and hadn't been on here in a while and didn't immediately request an unblock). What's the point of the unblock process if such an obviously inappropriate block is allowed to stand? AusLondonder (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I will endeavour to use more warnings than blocks from now on where feasible (it can be harder for IP and especially IPV6 users ... and in my experience many warnings are ignored, but that could be confirmation bias) ... and I'd forgotten there was a separate section of the blocking policy about indefinite blocks. Also, I'll copy something I wrote at Wikipediocracy re IP school blocks: I check the last school year's contributions of an IP range before I block them and if a significant portion of their edits are tagged as reverted (a relatively new feature), I block them ... and sometimes find unreverted vandalism that way. Usually for the ones I've blocked like 90% of their edits are vandalism to either articles or talk pages and the other 10% are either silly but harmless replies to their user talk page or updates to their school's article (which are sometimes good, sometimes not). A lot of pages are on my watchlist because of vandalism, often from school IP's, that has gone unreverted for a while. Graham87 (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not going to weigh in here in either direction as I closed the prior thread but I'm not sure what another ANI achieves when these are about blocks that happened before the prior thread. Were you hoping Graham would go through their past blocks and reassess? If you think it merits tool removal, it needs ArbComm anyway so this step appears unnecessary. Star Mississippi 00:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  The previous thread (which I didn't participate in) was about a single bad block. Every admin makes an occasional mistake, I've made plenty. My digging showed that it looks to be a much larger issue, but realistically Arbcom is not going to accept a case, admonish, or yank the bit unless the community has agreed there's a problem it can't solve through normal means. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for lifting that block, The Wordsmith. I came across them when I deleted that draft and they had such a brief contribution history, I didn't see anything blockable. As for sanctions, in my limited experiences, cases like this are posted on WP:AN, not WP:ANI. You might consider moving this case to that noticeboard. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• I've skimmed through all of the accounts blocked by Graham87 over the last six months. I only took a brief look, and many of them are routine, but a few stood out. I ask that an uninvolved admin review the blocks of Lisabofita, Imtisig, and Ainguyen9 to determine whether they were appropriate. I also ask that the appeal by Sigmaxalpha be evaluated on a procedural basis, as Graham87 reviewed himself and revoked talk page access. One other general note, I noticed that Graham87 has used the phrases "your editing pattern is highly suspicious" and "you are not welcome here" toward multiple editors whom he blocked for relatively mild infractions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I've deemed an editing pattern highly suspicious when it seemed like an editor was trying to get to autoconfirmed/extended-confirmed (perhaps for nefarious purposes) using minor edits to pad their edit count. My use of "you are not welcome here" has probably been rather harsh and I'll avoid that phrase in the future. Graham87 (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The @Sigmaxalpha: block + unblock request denial + TP revocation looks absolutely horrendous on the surface. We have yet another case of blocking someone off of "a ... really weird feeling" and "because [their] attitude is incompatible with writing an encyclopedia" when the user was apparently being receptive of advice and I don't see anything in their recent contributions to warrant such a quick block, especially since they ceased editing mainspace after the "really weird feeling" comment.

I'd also say that, with this being a new editor, that Graham87 really ought to have known better than to interpret them tagging him in their unblock request as "specifically ask[ing] that *I* review my own block and that you don't want a review from other administrators (contrary to the purpose of the unblock template)" (bolding mine). Honestly, that is mind-boggling how someone would come to that conclusion. Support another admin unblocking and restoring TPA post-haste though it's likely too late with that editor. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I've gone and done the unblock and we'll see what happens. The Indian entrepreneur bit of their user page (the combination of the two, because it seems to be a hotspot of paid editing) plus their tendency to make very minor edits like this one (which is how I found them ... and isn't in any sort of tutorial) set off alarm bells. I knew that asking for me to review their unblock request probably wasn't what they meant but by then their general evasiveness was getting to me. And they did promise a paid editing disclosure in the end. Graham87 (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I've unblocked Imtisig as the reasoning for the block wasn't particularly strong to begin with and the user acknowledged their wrongdoing (pl) and agreed not to repeat it (sadly, no one looked at that unblock request within a reasonable timeframe). Elli (talk | contribs) 05:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

For a further look, I pulled up recent ANI posts involving Graham87's admin actions. There have been several of varying merit, but the most relevant one was in May 2022, which was closed as There is a general agreement that, for some time now, there have been intermittent issues with Graham87's use of the block tool, and of issues with WP:INVOLVED. Graham87 has been admonished for doing so, and has agreed to work harder in the future to abide by the restrictions on admins using their tools in disputes where they could be considered substantially involved. At this point, no formal sanctions are enacted, without prejudice to opening a new case some time in the future should problems of this nature persist. This has only further convinced me that every time an ANI discussion is closed without action, it's tacit permission to continue whatever behavior was being scrutinized. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The only possible "action" here is to take this to ArbCom, no? Seems they'd be likely to accept an WP:ADMINCOND case if some form of recidivism exists. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  07:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I personally don't have confidence in this admin at all, unfortunately. Everyone makes mistakes, of course, but this is way, way beyond that. It is active, repeated and ongoing abuse of admin tools. I think an apology by Graham87 to some of the inappropriately blocked editors such as StattoSteven would have been an start of acknowledging that was has happened is unacceptable. At the absolute bare minimum, Graham87 should no longer be blocking editors or reviewing unblock requests. AusLondonder (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm neutral on whether anything ought to be done about Graham87, but I do want to suggest that the current state of the unblock request list perhaps aggravates this type of thing. You have a relatively small number of admins taking on an extremely large workload that -- let's be honest -- consists of a large proportion of bad faith editors who are freuently abusive and/or lie. It's much easier for someone to WP:AGF when they just come in to review a single editor's appeal on a request than it is for an admin who has just spent hours dealing with UPEs, angry failed autobiographers, and vandals. If there are admins who have the ability and time to provide assistance here, I'd urge them to consider reviewing more unblock requests. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

That's not an excuse nor does it explain the initial block of an editor like StattoSteven. AusLondonder (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't, but it can be a symptom of a larger problem. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs: Having attempted to deal with the oldest of the appeals a few weeks ago, which was extremely time consuming and led to a quick burnout, I want to say that I saw many of your comments at the appeals and found them thoughtful and helpful. So thank you.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I've tried to be at least mildly helpful when I can be. I figure any question that I or another editor can field is one less thing to deal with for you or Yamla or 331dot or any of the others. I know what a workload it is for you and the others. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I do a lot of SPI work, so I completely understand how difficult it can be to maintain a good attitude when dealing with the worst of the worst. Still doesn't excuse this. I often close SPI cases without action even when my instincts tell me they're a sock, because I can't prove it. Even for UPE, it often can be hard to distinguish a paid editor from somebody who just wants to write an article on a musician or influencer they like. That's why the SPI backlog is so long. Still, it's better to let a sockpuppet or COI go than it is to block legitimate editors who are trying to learn. We do need a lot more admins to handle various backlogs, but driving out newbies before they can gain experience is only going to make the problem worse in the long run. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Here from the Wikipediocracy thread, where I've weighed in a few times and so for transparency's sake, I should join the conversation here, too. Speaking as a former admin and also just as a long-time editor ... I appreciate Graham87's working to protect the encyclopaedia. As it used to say somewhere and may still do, Wikipedia is not a utopian social experiment. Vandals exist. Point-of-view pushers and promotional editors exist. Well-meaning doofuses can do a lot of damage, and that includes newbies and people lacking the competence to edit for whatever reason, and also people fixated on "correcting" the English of articles. Admins are made admins in large part for their cluefulness in identifying all of those problems and figuring out how to deal with them. What's largely happened in this case, I think (I disagree with Graham87 about school IPs) is that his use of the blocking tool has indeed diverged from community expectations, as The Wordsmith suggests. It's become abusive at times. With an added problem that he isn't good at explaining to the user in plain English what they've been doing wrong (far from the only admin with that issue, but our PAGS can be counter-intuitive and our jargon can be hard to understand, and admins should be explicators first, and it's always best to avoid the block. And I see both in the discussion above and in the user talk examples cited here and at Wikipediocracy, Graham87 getting frustrated. And trying again and again in the same vein of comment.

I think we can avoid bothering ArbCom. My recommendations:

• Graham87, stop blocking people (except for the most obvious and nasty vandals) and recalibrate your sense of blocking policy and its implementation. Maybe choose 2 or 3 admins active in blocking (and not checkusers or other special cases) and analyse their blocks in recent months: what do they do in different kinds of cases, how rapidly do they block, when do they use indef, how long are their blocks on IPs. Some of your comments, here and elsewhere, indicate you study editors who you think might be promotional, and schools that produce problematic edits. Step back from blocking and instead turn that analytical focus on current blocking practice for a while. You've drifted from best practice.
• When you resume blocking, always watchlist the blockee's user page (or maintain a separate list of user pages to check every day). It's courteous, I think most admins do it, and for whatever reasons, a large percentage of people don't follow the instructions for filing an unblock request using the template that puts their page in the category. And anyone can make a mistake; with the best will in the world, an admin will sometimes make a block that, after reading what the blockee has to say, they decide to reverse.
• You've been promising to be nicer, but also try to be clearer. In particular, explain more from the start, and change tacks if the person isn't getting it. That could include linking to simpler explanations like WP:42 about new articles, suggesting they ask at the Teahouse, using short-term protection rather than repeatedly reverting, or asking at a noticeboard or on another admin's user talk (or, dare I suggest it, on Discord/IRC/e-mail) if you are at wit's end over something that seems, for example, like promotionalism. (And personally I think you're overly suspicious of new editors who show clue or even familiarity with the rules or the mark-up. Sometimes they're long-term IP editors, people using some WMF gizmo, retired professors, computer professionals, or simply geniuses ... but I'm known for my naïveté.) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

All good advice. To respond to it in order:

It's good that we have a handy-dandy list of admins by number of blocks in the last month and I think studying the ones around my position (#40 for now) seems like the best approach ... and seeing how many people do indeed come back after a block (zero on a quick check of blocks by Paul Erik (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

OK, I'll watchlist talk pages of people I do block (not always possible for IP ranges though, obviously). Sometimes I do find their requests when checking contributions.

OK, all good alternatives to blocking. Short-term semi-protection has seemed to work so far at a recent edit-warring case I filed (my first one ever) so I'll keep in mind options like that in the future.

A short aside re school blocks: I started blocking schools more aggressively after noticing that some IP's would have gaps of years in ther contributions, and figuring out that was due to long-term range blocks by other admins ... so I emulated and perhaps overextended those. Graham87 (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I think Yngvadottir's analysis is (as usual) pretty spot-on and gives a useful framework for how to move forward. The third bullet point is especially critical; the biting, suspicion of anyone making mistakes or anyone editing without mistakes, and blocking as a first resort are the core of the issue. If the problem stops with a commitment to assuming good faith and trying alternatives before blocking, that's the most important thing. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Graham87, you didn't step back from blocking sufficiently, or do a thorough enough evaluation of current practice. You blocked Robbandstra earlier today as a DUCK sock of Skatevortex, who you had previously blocked for disruptive editing. (Actually you'd failed to block them until today although you'd put the block notice on their user talk; judging by that page, the main concerns with their editing were misreferencing and ENGVAR violations.) You filed the SPI only after blocking Robbanstra, and although a checkuser judges the match "likely" on both technical and behavioural grounds, Izno has pointed out that neither account edited after August 12. Both are dubious blocks, especially the sock block on a hunch of a no longer active account that you believe to be the same person as another account you blocked. I said "except for the most obvious and nasty vandals"; these aren't that. Both accounts are relatively new - started in April, 95 and 93 edits - and I see the "newcomer task" tag on at least one edit. Not enough effort to explain things on their talk pages, IMO. At the very least, there was no urgency to block Robbandstra; you should have filed the SPI first and waited for its result. Stop blocking; instead, file at noticeboards and consult with other admins.

Are any of you admins up for forming a small pool of consultants that Graham87 can ask about cases where he would like to block? There's been a little conversation on his user talk; maybe for the privacy of the suspects, an off-wiki private chatroom would be better going forward? Yngvadottir (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The fact that he's still blocking editors while the ANI discussion is ongoing is the end of the WP:ROPE as far as I'm concerned. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd learnt well at the last ANI in 2022 that blocks shouldn't be done long after the fact ... bubt I thought it didn't matter so much for WP:DUCK cases, especially when they're as obvious as those ones. We're not allowed to have user watchlists and many articles aren't properly watched ... but I'll keep that in mind and will endeavour to consult more. Graham87 (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Graham, you talk a great talk about change but I find your promises to be vague and impossible to track to see if there is any improvement. Sure, you can "consult more" but if you are doing no consulting now, that means that hesitating to enforce one questionable block on a new editor could be considered "more" at least compared to zero times. I think you just need to holster your blocking gun and not do any blocking unless it is active vandalism. Don't block, in advance of a Checkuser, based on suspicions of sockpuppetry because, if you are wrong, and you have been wrong, the consequences are terrible. A bad block prevents an editor from participating on this project and blocking should only be done in serious cases, not trivial ones. You are depriving them of the ability to participate here, that is a severe consequence when you are blocking based on "vibes". The editor should be actively disrupting the project RIGHT NOW to warrant a block, not based on behavior from months ago that you think is suspicions or because you don't like the way they phrased their unblock request. Seriously, if these "quick draw" blocks continue, I can see this case being taken to ARBCOM so right now, I think you are being extended some ROPE. I hope this is all sinking in as serious concerns and you are not just saying things that you think people want to hear. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: OK, from now on any block I make will be based on concrete disruption, adequate warning (where feasible and appropriate (excluding the couple of long-term IP vandal editing patterns where I intimately know their modus operandi and am often the first admin on the scene , such as the boy band vandal and JohnLickor372), and recent disruption (a day old at the most, depending on when I get to my watchlist). If I come across a situation I've never encountered before, I won't use blocking as a first resort and will try to think about other solutions or explanations before resorting to blocking. I've started this sort of thread before, but a while back. Graham87 (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I've been wrong before but I've also been right; this edit on my watchlist led to my contributions to this SPI and, much more recently, this edit led to this global block request. But I get the sense that from now on investigating should come waaaaaay before blocking should I ever encounter cases like that, not the other way around. I well remember what happened to User:!!. Graham87 (talk) 09:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I've been wrong before but I've also been right -- I think the point that people are trying to make is that this is really the wrong question to be asking. The consequences of being wrong and biting a new user are much worse than the consequences of being right and having to clean up a bit of extra vandalism. CapitalSasha ~ talk 12:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this a really crazy thing to think ... vandalism degrades the experience of readers, so we should minimise it whenever possible? But it also attracts editors, who *try* to remove it, with varying levels of success ...

Anyway, on tonight's watchlist check (which was my craziest since this particular iteration of the ANI opened), I did consciously try to change my approach.

• I encountered Special:Contributions/2804:248:F6C7:4300::/64, an IPV6 /64 ranange (so probably used by just one person) that has made six problematic edits in the last two days. I for one find this one particularly bizarre and may well have blocked on the strength of that edit previously, despite that range not receiving a single warning. But I didn't ... I gave them one, and we'll see what happens (though honestly I'm kinda cynical that it'll make much difference, partly because it's an IPV6).
• FacrFinderW has had a litany of issues in their short editing career, including copyright violations, adding unsourced/unreliably sourced text, and English variety issues (perhaps from using an American English spell-checker, even though they may well be in India per some of their edits). I would have been tempted to indefinitely block them before as, frankly, not being suitable for editing here, but they seem to be editing in good faith so I sent them messages letting them know what they've done wrong and the fact that they're doing more harm than good here.
• ThumannInsurance: I probably would have blocked a username like this no questions asked, but this time I gave them a warning.

I hate to throw these editors under the bus, so to speak, but I can't think of another way to explain my thought process and how I'm trying to change it. I'll notify these editors in due course. Also see my ramblings at Yngvadottir's talk page. Graham87 (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Graham87, I note that you haven't imposed any further blocks since Robbandstra. I think that's wise, whether or not it was attributable to my suggestion. I also see you trying templating and explanation. But you're still jumping to an assumption of bad faith too readily for my taste. One instance is above, where you defend your actions with respect to Skatevortex and Robbanstra by calling them "obvious" DUCKs. To you, maybe. But I'm still not sure Skatevortex's edits were bad enough to justify a block, and without that certainty, the DUCK test loses its force. It can be hard to balance protecting the encyclopaedia with being welcoming, but I repeat: you've got far out of line with community expectations. Specifically, I think you are overly ready to suspect sockpuppetry. (Granted, as you say, there are specific sockmasters where you have expertise.) Stay out of the blocking and remind yourself to consider alternative explanations to socking.

I've shadowed your recent edits and here are some case study examples from me to go along with those above.

• User talk:Victoria Twat#Your username. Don't block that user for the user name. Report her to WP:UAA if you didn't come to her edits from there. Template and/or report her if you think the edits to Vehicle registration plates of Victoria are bad (I can't judge them). But as the off-wiki peanut gallery are screaming (well, saying), it could well be her last name. And she's using the mobile app and may not be aware of your messages.
• VivekLife made a single edit back in August 2023 (unless of course there's something I can't see), expanding an article with undue emphasis and rather empty prose. It turns out it was copied from the cited source. You reverted, and I'm glad you did: the text turns out to have all the e's replaced with the corresponding Cyrillic letter, which you noticed because you use a screenreader. But your edit summary refers to it as "refspam". A single edit with a single reference to the site hardly qualifies as spamming. And you started the editor's talk page by templating them for spamming external links. You're jumping to a hasty conclusion about their motives. The Cyrillic letters constituted a better reason to revert; another valid reason would be that the expansion is poor; a third would be if you'd detected the copyvio. You led with a less good reason, because it may not be true, and a more impolite one. Your action was good, but your messaging was sub-par.
• TechScribeNY's edits are problematic. We've jointly uncovered referencing problems (both misused refs and refs that appear not to exist) and prose that smells promotional or AI-generated to varying degrees; see User talk:TechScribeNY and my talk page. I've generally agreed with your reverts of the user's edits, and I note that you've plainly been going carefully through them, and have written clear and to the point edit summaries in several cases: "um that ref's about a completely different person", "takes it content from Wikipedia, and even if it hadn't, it would never ever be a reliable source ... the link doesn't work now but believe it or not it used to! https://web.archive.org/web/20240723171625/https://lalakfrenzy.s3.waw.io.cloud.ovh.net/journalist-is-penny-marshall-jewish-or-christian.html", "rv, not in source", "rv unneeded changes ... The Times link is broken (was dead on arrival) so these edits were probably AI-assisted". But in the case of your second revert of an edit by TechScribeNY, the edit summary "way too much linking, disruptive editor" is far from good. It was much too soon at that point to label them a disruptive editor, and I'm not sure what was going on in their edit, which also restructured the article, so I don't think overlinking cuts it as a specific revert reason. I also wouldn't have tagged that revert as minor.
  So, my advice (which won't even buy a coffee, I realize): keep working on the communication, keep the safety cover on the block button, keep reminding yourself it may not be socking, it may not even be intentional disruption, and acting to avoid the necessity of a block on that basis. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: OK, pretty much all makes sense. I haven't been tempted to block anyone so far today (my time). Will reply to your three case studies:

• Victoria Twat: There could well be a twist to the tale with that one. I found them (Victoria is an Australian state, so we can't assume their gender) because I was going to mention that I found this user due to having Vehicle registration plates of Western Australia on my watchlist and I was going to link to the reason it's there ... and then found this revert of mine on an editor called Victoria 2AT (which I'd completely forgotten about). See their block log; I'd blocked them as a sock because their edit reverted to a version by a previous account (which often but does not always indicate sockpuppetry and I think I would've gone through SPI now), then it was confirmed by a checkuser. So my next logical step is opening a SPI, which I've done.

  Fair enough, having read the refspam section of the guideline. But the spam guideline overall doesn't say that spam has to be repeated (but it notes that spam is worse when it is). If I were the lucky recipient of an individualised advance-fee scam email, I'd consider it spam as much as I would if I knew it was a bulk email to many people. The chance that particular edit was made in good faith is almost zero, given everything.

  Makes sense; thanks for the deep evaluation. I consider Skatevortex, Robbandstra, and TechScribeNY as basically the same person (or entity) in my head and I shouldn't have let that bleed through into my edit summary.I'm glad I'm not the only one who can't make head or tails of what that edit was supposed to accomplish though! I'll continue to try to block for only extremely obvious stuff and communicate for the rest. Graham87 (talk) 12:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Voyagerstype - repeated copyright violations, low quality contributions, and refusal to communicate

User:Voyagerstype has accumulated a remarkable number of deletion and draftification notices, copyvio warnings, and pleas for them to answer other editors. All have fallen on deaf ears. A quick perusal of their talk page shows copyvio warnings from July, August, and most recently on September 19th, the latter of which was an article so blatantly plagiarized it was G12'd. As User:JarrahTree observed a month ago:

It has now got to the point where editors are seeing you as a point of contact for draftifying new articles - which questions the notability or verifiability of a particular railway station - it appears that no one has offered you links to the state of the policies and practices in wikipedia in relation to railway stations and notability. You are now at a point where talk page silence, and lack of effort in clarifying railway stations as notable may well be at your disadvantage.

I'm at a loss as to why they continue creating articles such as Rabila railway station. I'm not joking when I say the article verbatim reads "Very little is known of this station". But above all, they simply ignore any efforts to engage them on their talk page. Since they are either unable or unwilling to communicate, an indefinite block should be applied until such time that they change their mind. They seem to mean well, but we can't let someone go around adding copyvio. Best case scenario, they don't know what a talk page is (or they're on mobile and can't see it) and a block will allow them to learn. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The only edits they've made to talk pages the entire time they've been here are to add wikiprojects and to contest a G12 (deleted edit: [148]). Accordingly, I've p-blocked them from mainspace and draftspace so we don't get any more copyvio while this is being sorted out. Other admins, feel free to reverse/update as needed. -- asilvering (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

No, that's a good block. Lets them answer here, but keeps them from disrupting while they're trying to figure out why they're blocked. Valereee (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

No tags on their edits that suggest Mobile edits. Can’t say I’d want to gamble on WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU this time, myself. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 17:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

No gambling here. :) I just wanted to stop this before it got any worse, but I'll let someone who isn't the second-rookiest admin handle the rest. -- asilvering (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I've subscribed to the last few sections on their user, but this is pretty much the same action I would have taken for someone who doesn't look ill-intentioned but isn't responding to concerns. You didn't overcorrect, you used the minimum restriction necessary to try to solve the problem. Valereee (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Ack! I meant to reply under Trains’ bit. Sorry man! Self-Minnow’d. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 06:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking action. I've gone through some of this user's edits and found an alarming amount of blatant copying from online sources. Not sure if it's at the level of needing a CCI, but it's quite bad. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

"An alarming amount of blatant copying from online sources" sure sounds cci-worthy to me - unless it's so blatant that you can G12 everything, in which case, you can just do this yourself and save the CP clerks the time. -- asilvering (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

It's more along the lines of using many sources and copying a sentence or two from each one. Much more time consuming to verify. And not everything appears to have been copied, but enough that I'd have serious reservations about an unblock without a clear assurance this user understands copyright. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Soliciting for buiness

I had a DM on LinkedIn from someone offering to write wikipedia content for me. Statments incluide:

1. I have more than 600 accounts with more than 4000 articles
2. I am a wikipedia moderator
3. Nope, I'm not an admin But close to
4. (on being challenged). :You should be available to know auto patrol, Roll backer, new page reviewer position on Wikipedia
5. I have been organizing seminar for Wikipedia because I'm also Wikipedia coordinator

Refused to give any ID but claimed he had declared them all. Not sure if it worth a notice here so feel free to ignore. But if some wants to I have the LinkedIn ID captured. -----Snowded ^TALK 08:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Snowded, you are dealing with a scammer and a paid pathological liar. Please read WP:SCAM and make the appropriate reports. Cullen328 (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's address the second point: Wikipedia does not have moderators. That statement alone shows that this is a liar. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that will make the report on WP:SCAM -----Snowded ^TALK 10:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does not have moderators." Well, yes and no. NebY (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe I should expand my statement a bit. Wikipedia has a moderation function, but anyone can volunteer to take part in it. There is no well-defined class of editors known as "moderators". Phil Bridger (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Legal threat

This ("if you threaten me again, expect a visit from my legal council") is a pretty clear legal threat, particularly combined with the aspersions of threat making (where none occurred, as far as I can see). In any case, they seem to be reigniting an issue they had with the user from December last year which itself involved personal attacks such as "You have an attitude problem". All pretty unsavory stuff. SerialNumber54129 14:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. 331dot (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Justice is swift in these parts. Cheers, 331dot SerialNumber54129 15:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Serial Number 54129, what a weird, weird message. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: What, my message? Sorry! SerialNumber54129 18:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Haha no man, this one! ;) Drmies (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

​ Heh  :) yes! Starts off as an abject apology and ends up threatening to see them in court! Kind of a Schroedinger's apology or something, that. SerialNumber54129 19:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Considering their username, I can issue an apology on behalf of the Liliana Council if you want. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

No worries, LilianaUwU, we all know that was just one rogue element in the greater Liliana collective  :) SerialNumber54129 16:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

She changed her name: “Raven LaRue FKA Liliana Cutrere“, so you’re ok. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

GregoryWAndrews COI and legal threat

The user GregoryWAndrews (talk · contribs) has repeatedly edited the article about themselves to remove content they don’t like despite WP:COI, even possibly using using another account and IPs to do so when advised to use the talk page due to the COI. This user also removes sections with cited WP:RS and replaces them with sources which either do not actually state what he claims they do in his edits, or links to his own company website. The user has also now threatened WP:LEGAL action on my talk page here. Thanks. R0paire-wiki (talk) 08:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

If you don't cease and desist I will pursue this through legal channels is a clear legal threat. WP:DOLT may also apply.

1. Our article says he claimed that paedophile rings were operating within Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. He objects on your talk page that he did not say "paedophile rings" and so far as I can tell, our sources don't say he did either.
2. Our article says Andrews gave the same evidence to the NT coroner in 2005 ("the same" being that paedophile rings were operating...). This only cites a WP:PRIMARY source, the coroner's report, and I've been unable to find any mention it that Andrews told the coroner that paedophile rings were operating.
3. Our article says His allegations, later found to be false and unsupported by evidence. This is a strong statement that really should be supported by more than a single source which says "His comments were later found to be false, but the damage had already been done" without saying who found the allegations to be false.[149]

NebY (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I amended the article based on what you said:

• I corrected the "paedophile rings" allegation to what he was actually sourced as saying.
• I also removed the mention of "same evidence" to the NT coroner.
• I added who found his allegations to be false, provided additional sources, added more detailed findings from the Little Children Are Sacred Report, and updated existing sources with quotes or page numbers.

R0paire-wiki (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I know only that it's a complex subject, what with the controversial government actions that followed, and I imagine this article - like any other - could be improved, but that does look better to me. NebY (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

His legal threat and potential socking is concerning. Might it be worth opening an SPI to clear up the latter suspicion? QwertyForest (talk) 10:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

There is an SPI, but has yet to have a clerk look into it. R0paire-wiki (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

GregoryWAndrews is now blocked per WP:NLT. QwertyForest (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

User:NelsonWilson1976 has been confirmed to GregoryWAndrews and both are now Checkuser blocked. The IP is stale. QwertyForest (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Peacocking by SPA at Fernando Garibay

SPA Themiromusic (talk · contribs) has been virtually the only editor of Fernando Garibay. Currently edit warring with Bourne Ballin (talk · contribs), who has been fruitlessly trying to remove some of the peacock-ery. I just removed some myself. But the SPA is persistent, even removing a peacock tag somebody added ten days ago. I think this article and the SPA could benefit from some administrator attention. -- M.boli (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I previously reported this user at the edit warring board as well. These edits are clearly not in good faith. 162 etc. (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

User Keith-264 and Channel Dash

Would someone please look at the behaviour of user Keith-264 on Channel Dash. They show an total unwillingness to work with other editors, therefore leaving problems in the article.

This dispute started with[150]. I had added[151] new information to the article, but had had to take care to paraphrase the source (most of the key bit of the source, and the article text, is a list of ships, so there is not much one can change in paraphrasing). Keith-264 rewrote this addition (if you look at the article's edit history, they usually alter any addition by a different editor). This, inadvertently, introduced the words I had gone to particular trouble to not use. So, this is not a problem at this stage. However, when this choice of words was corrected, with an explanation[152], this was resisted[153], despite explanations on the talk page[154]. This has now ended up with threats and some name calling[155]. This dispute seems to be a ridiculous price to pay for trying to paraphrase a source.

This is part of a pattern for Keith-264. As pointed out on the talk page[156][157], they have ignored two obvious spelling corrections offered by other editors (to be clear, not me in these first instances) and a very helpful rewrite of part of the lead by another editor. (We now learn from this edit[158] that Keith-264 has misunderstood a source on one of these cases. The ASV mentioned in this part of the article is the radar set in the aircraft. It is an electrical fuse that failed (no source is cited for this, but the story can be found in sources). Yet this latest edit on the subject makes clear that they believe that it was a Fuze. A little bit of discussion with with either of the two editors who raised this would have prevented this error being reinstated in the article several times.)

As a postscript, I now see that Keith-264's habit of rewriting any contribution by someone else has introduced a misleading impression to the reader.[159] The words "the six Beaufort torpedo bombers that were available at RAF St Eval" have been altered to "the six Beaufort torpedo bombers from RAF St Eval". There were 9 Beauforts on detachment to St Eval, but 3 were out on other missions. So the word "available" has some importance. Nor were the aircraft "from St Eval", as they were on detachment there. I don't know if Keith-264 does this rewriting with or without the source to hand, but this habit may explain some weird errors in the article (latest candidate[160]).

At a minimum, how do we get this article fixed when so many improvements/corrections get reverted or rephrased in a problematical way? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 20:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

This sounds like a content dispute, and Talk:Channel Dash is active. Administrator intervention isn't required. Mackensen (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I beg to differ. This is a case of WP:OWN with a certain amount of Wikipedia:Competence is required thrown in. The article talk page is clearly not a workable solution as explanations as to why things need to be fixed give rise to threats and name calling. Is there another solution, if not here? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

ThoughtIdRetired has made some useful contributions to the article but does not take constructive criticism in the spirit that it is offered, has made an allegation against me of "inadvertent plagiarism" which can't exist but impugns my scholarship and good faith by association. It is a content dispute but his allegation of plagiarism, however fatuously worded, rankles. I suggest that he would benefit from being warned not to do it again. and shows a rather distressing tendency to dismiss some sources rather than integrate them into the narrative. He treats every edit I make as an attack on him rather than a basis for discussion. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Keith-264, when you're directly attacking people by calling them fatuous ignoramuses, I'm not sure what kind of spirit you're offering this criticism in, but it certainly doesn't sound very much like a basis for discussion. I'll add that you absolutely can inadvertently plagiarise from a source - this is a very common form of plagiarism! -- asilvering (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mackensen, did you see this diff? [161] That's pretty bad. -- asilvering (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty bad, and you're correct that inadvertent plagiarism is possible. I'm reconsidering my position. Keith-264, you can't reject a plagiarism accusation sight unseen. Mackensen (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Legal threat at Richard Meier

See here [162] LizardJr8 (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I am morbidly curious what they even think the cause of action would be. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for a month for making a legal threat. Cullen328 (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Editor not retracting aspersions

Crashed greek told another editor that "You being an Iranian you are likely to be biased in favor of Abdali of Afghanistan over Marathas of India."[163] I told him to retract this statement because it violates WP:ASPERSIONS. Instead of complying with the request, he went to engage in wikilawyering.[164] Ratnahastin (talk) 08:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I have given Crashed greek a firm warning against this type of behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Editor has been blocked for a week. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry at AfD by Mellis

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.

---

Single-purpose editor Mellis has repeatedly recruited off-wiki help to prevent deletion of fringe health theories. The previous discovery of this was intentionally concealed as an "attack" by Mellis. After a new AfD, the same Reddit user ((Redacted)) posted the following:

The proposal to delete the page needs help, many Wikipedia editors need to agree to the deletion in the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seed_oil_misinformation
There are already many many editors very actively opposing deletion.

(Redacted)

— Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 04:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if it's possible to connect a Wikipedia editor with an account on Reddit. I see evidence of canvassing but I don't see strong enough evidence of who is responsible for it or who (Redacted) is or if they edit on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd say this advice given by User:GorillaWarfare last time this came up still applies [165]. Editors should not be publicly linking Mellis with any off-wiki accounts unless they have done so themselves per WP:Outing. Such things will need to be handled privately either via arbcom or by emailing some admin. However it's fine to link to and discuss that off-wiki canvassing has occurred and what to do about it. Nil Einne (talk) 09:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I saw Mellis’s edit notice of I removed all of my off-wiki references to this AFD as a fairly clear admission. — Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 13:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Digging up my Wikipedia edits from 2018 and resorting to WP:Harrassment are not appreciated, please be WP:Civil. ~ Mellis (talk) 13:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

It was your most recent AfD and at the time appeared in your most recent 20 or so edits on your contribution page as you did not edit much between 2018 and today. I did not go "digging" through your edit history, I was checking your contribution page to see who you notified of the AfD and happened to spot the edit summary. — Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 14:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

What you wrote and shared in an attempt to smear me was still WP:Harrassment. ~ Mellis (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I did not openly attack you on a talk page. I went directly to ANI for administrator involvement to keep it discreet, and they have made a determination. There's a vanished user and oversighted edits involved, so it is the purview of admins and I won't push it any further. — Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 14:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Mellis, this is not harassment. Please stop defaulting back to that as your response to concerns raised. This is not "digging through your history" when it's in your last 100 edits - that is an absurd position to hold. Daniel (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The attempted WP:Outing was the WP:Harrassment. It has been addressed.~ Mellis (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note that the AfD has been closed as Speedy Keep due to lacking a suitable deletion rationale, which is always likely to happen when you write your rationales using AI. Black Kite (talk) 14:11, 2 October 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 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.

---

I am writing to formally report the disruptive behavior exhibited by user during the ongoing RFC process. Despite the warning, they continues to undermine the purpose of the RFC by repeatedly closing the discussion: they has repeteadly derailed the RFC and refusing to engage in constructive dialogue. Preventing consensus. they has actively worked to prevent the community from reaching a wider consensus by monopolizing the discussion and dismissing opposing viewpoints. Gagging the procedure: their actions have effectively stifled the RFC process, preventing the community from having a fair and open discussion. I urge you to take immediate action to address this issue and ensure that the RFC can proceed in a productive and respectful manner. DwilfaStudwell (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

My apologies, seriously: I should've been far less impulsive, and more willing to listen to the type of editor that can pick up all this lingo and knowledge of site procedure over the course of 30 edits made in less than a day. Remsense ‥ 论 08:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging your error. The Request for Comments has been reopened, and additional secondary sources have been incorporated. I invite you to participate in the renewed discussion. DwilfaStudwell (talk) 07:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Good grief. Remsense ‥ 论 07:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd say someone's irony detector needs to be taken in for recalibration, but ChatGPT doesn't do irony. EEng 04:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

And I closed it again. The consensus here seems to be that it was a good close, and it certainly is not appropriate to reopen it and change the question being asked after editors have already replied to it. Meters (talk) 07:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Or trying once more to cite WP:MEDPOP, while not addressing WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Remsense ‥ 论 07:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Meters Thank you for bringing the oversight in the question to my attention. I should have included a reference to the secondary source in the discussion.

I respectfully request that you reconsider your inadvertent reversal. It appears to be hindering open discussion on the talk page. Please allow the community to thoroughly explore alternative perspectives on this matter. DwilfaStudwell (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

You're hindering the discussion by not engaging with the points of site procedure and policy communicated to you by literally everyone who has engaged with you so far. You're not entitled to discussion on your terms alone, and there's no particular reason we care about "alternative perspectives" if you can't make a case for them like everybody else.Remsense ‥ 论 08:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

{ec} "Inadvertent"? There was nothing inadvertent about my revert of your edit. It's bizarre that you interpreted Remsense's comment as justification to reopen the RFC, it was inappropriate for you to reopen that RFC (let alone for the second time), and it was even more inappropriate for you to change the wording of the rfc after it was already replied to. Nemov's comment about a WP:BOOMARANG is looking better and better. You need to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Meters (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I have attended to 1. modified RfC by changing the query 2. including the supplementary material and being prepared to include further supplementary materials till you cease gagging the process 3. and using every available method to allay the worries of any participating editors . DwilfaStudwell (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like this ANI notice filed for the User conduct is not working. DwilfaStudwell (talk) 08:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

As is clearly stated at the top of the page, the filer should expect scrutiny applied to their behavior as well. Remsense ‥ 论 09:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like a good RFC close to me. The RFC was malformed (see WP:RFCNEUTRAL) and the outcome of the discussion was obvious to anyone but you. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

It would be a practice point for me to remember to state explicitly that the RfC was malformed next time. Remsense ‥ 论 19:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I am writing to formally request the restoration of the Request for Comments (RFC) that I initiated regarding a content dispute and user conduct with @Remsense. Despite multiple attempts to resolve this issue through Talk Page discussions and the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incident (ANI), I have been unable to reach a satisfactory resolution.

Unfortunately, due to my current travel schedule, I am unable to devote the necessary time to further escalate this matter at present. However, I intend to follow up on this issue as soon as possible upon my return.

In the meantime, I kindly request that you and the concerned editors reconsider your stance and engage in a constructive dialogue through the RFC process. I believe that open communication and a willingness to participate are essential for resolving disputes and maintaining a collaborative editing environment.

I have secondary sources to support my claim, and I would like the opportunity to properly present the RFC. I believe that the RFC process is a valuable tool for resolving disputes and ensuring that WP:NPOV are followed.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I respectfully request that the administrators intervene to ensure that the RFC is restored and that a fair and equitable resolution is reached.DwilfaStudwell (talk) 10:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Blatant use of a Large language model shows lack of respect for the people you're addressing. You don't even seem to be giving it sensible instructions ("Thank you for your attention to this matter.") Stop it before you're blocked. Bishonen | tålk 12:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC).

While it's frustrating to respond to, I am sympathetic to people who might have limited comfort writing in English and might be apprehensive about it, or think the LLM or machine translation is smarter than it is. Remsense ‥ 论 12:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

No one agrees with your premises. This is not a failing of the system. Remsense ‥ 论 10:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Its not about system; its about you. You are abusing the system DwilfaStudwell (talk) 10:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

From reading the RFC, it is pretty evident that even a new RFC (even with more sources) wouldn't yield any different result. Remsense isn't abusing the system, your RFC was soundly rejected and the responses on it explain pretty well why it was. R0paire-wiki (talk) 11:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I've done things like close RFCs where I was pretty sure I was right and someone else disagreed. As such, I got reverted and life goes on. That isn't happening here, because no one else agrees with your premises. Remsense ‥ 论 11:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Damn, that GPT 4 has a lot more spirit than 3.5. Levivich (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Probably a WP:BOOMARANG situation. Very strange that DwilfaStudwell's fourth edit was to template warning an experienced user. Now this user is opening up a discussion here. This doesn't seem like a editor who is here to improve the project or work well with others. Nemov (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry @DwilfaStudwell, but that looks like a good close. You'll have to accept that you're outside consensus on this one. -- asilvering (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

You really ought to be WAY less combative if you want to collaborate with other people. If things worked like your template warnings would lead us to believe there would be very few editors left that didn't get blocked. This isn't the way to go. – 2804:F1...A5:98DF (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• There is too much here that is strongly suggestive of WP:NOTHERE and the response[166] to questions about other accounts does not inspire confidence. Bon courage (talk) 06:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Remsense, my question to you is why did you close this RFC after one day? RFCs typically last at least one week or longer. And I don't think 3 editors' opinion merits a SNOW close after just one day. I think our understanding of SNOW has gotten way out of whack, it's used too often when there is just a small group of editors who agree when it is supposed to be used for a tidal wave of Keeps, not just 3 editors. That's a "consensus" that could easily change with a few more participants and 1 day is not long enough for editors to even discover that the RFC is going on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  In addition to the opinions already expressed, the RFC's question was clearly both out of scope for the article, and a violation of WP:RFCNEUTRAL. If any of the those three points were not the case, I wouldn't have closed it. Any RFC that had a chance would require rewriting—as their attempt to do so in reopening shows. I have no compunctions about it being a SNOW close if I'm to trust my own faculties, and I feel that's been vindicated by the fact that no one has challenged the close on its merits—as opposed to challenging it on procedural grounds as you're doing here (and are completely within your rights to do, of course). That it seemed appropriate to do after only a day is a function of just how weak the RFC's premise was. Remsense ‥ 论 08:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  I was watching this as it happened, and it's my understanding the RFC was closed within two hours. In @Remsense's defense it followed closely on an earlier discussion with @Bon courage, a vigorous but fruitless attempt to impress on @DwilfaStudwell that their use of sources violated medical referencing and fringe content rules. Oblivy (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  If my logic is satisfactory here: if a single other editor was to indicate they would've done anything but oppose in that RfC, then I was totally in the wrong to close it, and would naturally more seriously reconsider my future calculus with this incident in mind. Remsense ‥ 论 12:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  I started writing a discussion point asking whether the frequency with which this issue arises (and is shot down) on Turmeric suggests a need to acknowledge the health claims without suggesting they are accepted. I didn't post it because (a) things quickly turned to whether curcumin = turmeric, an argument I didn't (and don't) understand, and (b) it was hard to frame it in a way that gave due weight to medref/profringe. Then the discussion got closed, and things turned into a revert war over the close.

  To your point, @Remsense I doubt I'd ever have gotten to the point of agreeing with the RFC (whatever it was supposed to mean). There were good reasons to believe that conversation wouldn't go anywhere, but closing the discussion guaranteed it wouldn't. Oblivy (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  I can at least promise I've gotten enough constructive feedback here that I won't find it necessary to close anything this quickly in the future. Remsense ‥ 论 21:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  That's the good spirit to acknowledge your shortfall. @Remsense.

  Now lets all participate in the RfC DwilfaStudwell (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  You mean you got some finger-wagging for taking a step to try and improve the running of the Project with an action that actually has strong WP:CONSENSUS? Yup, classic WP:ANI. Bon courage (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Bon courage I appreciate your suggestion for improving the RfC (if you have any). Lets talk and give the RfC a Chance. Thanks DwilfaStudwell (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  Why did you not answer the questions about other accounts that admins asked you on your Talk page? I don't see any point in a RfC until and unless some prior source-based discussion has taken place to determine what issues might be discussed. But first I would like to see the WP:SOCKing suspicions cleared up. Bon courage (talk) 04:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  Hey, I would just prefer that I both do an obviously correct close and not leave anyone with anything they would think to wring their hands over, if at all possible. Remsense ‥ 论 05:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  Remember, no good deed goes unpunished! Bon courage (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  @DwilfaStudwell: Stop reopening that RFC in Talk:Turmeric. This is at least the third time you have done so. That was a badly defective RFC. As you have already been told, you were asking to include content about health benefits of turmeric in Turmeric based on sources that discussed curcumin, not tumeric. If you want to include any of that material then it would go in curcumin, not in turmeric, and only if the sources met WP:MEDRS. Meters (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  This argument about a "small group" of "three editors" reaching a consensus was raised in the debate above. and without granting RfC more than a day to live, the agreement might have been altered. There should be more editors involved in the conversation. DwilfaStudwell (talk) 08:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Could someone pull a Remsense here and close this given there's no reason for it to be obliquely about me, please? Remsense ‥ 论 08:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

It looks like you're always rushing to close things Here [167] and here [168]. Is there something wrong with you? @Remsense DwilfaStudwell (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

A few things: arthritis, liver disease, major depression, and a pretty crummy memory. Plus, I'm pretty sure I've recently come down with either melanoma or colorectal cancer, if not both. Any advice? Remsense ‥ 论 08:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

One thing I've found helps a lot is to buy a 250g packet of powdered turmeric, use it a couple of times, then just leave it on the shelf above the sink so that you can stare at it occasionally while washing the dishes. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked. After all the templated warnings DilfaStudwell has posted on everybody who disagrees with them, repeated opening of an inappropriate RfC, and their general battleground approach, I find the attack on Remsense above ("Is there something wrong with you?") to be the last straw. Compare also my warning here. I have blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | tålk 09:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC).
•  Checkuser note: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidWood11. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:53, 30 September 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:CarnelianSun108

User:Qalandar303 was indefinitely banned here January 2023. Some IP addresses made the same edits a few weeks ago and a range was blocked for 3 months here. As soon as the range was blocked, User:CarnelianSun108 came back from a 7 year hibernation and made the exact same edits. I requested a sock investigation here. The checkuser has been pending for two weeks and looks like it will take a few more weeks based on backlog. The user has continued making the same disruptive reverts and comments, including accusing me of working for the "Baha'i Internet Agency" and collaborating with the Israeli military:

It is also interesting to note that you literally waited to revert once Israel attacked Lebanon. This needs to be noted far and wide in that the Bahai Internet Agency appears to be taking cues on how it vandalizes entries on Wikipedia from Israeli military strategies.[169]

A one-month ban would be helpful to let the checkuser investigation to play out. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Informed user here. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Cuñado is lobbying and bullying because he cannot establish a sourced counter-narrative to the Subh-i-Azal entry. He is talking out of his backside. This person is literally vandalizing the entry and then comes complaining wanting to ban users once called on their vandalism CarnelianSun108 (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked CarnelianSun108 for a week for some really vile personal attacks and harassment at Talk:Subh-i-Azal. Cullen328 (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Now checkuser blocked. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

They have now been blocked for sockpuppetry. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

It took just over 24 hours and they came back as newly created User:John Eternity. The page being targeted is now semi-protected for 1 month. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Harmful editor making major caste-motivated changes to Indian biographical articles without any sources

Hello, the user LubanaPB02 keeps making unsourced and POV-motivated edits to Indian biographical articles. I have warned them on their talk page (see: [170]) but they continue making problematic edits of this nature.

They are removing sourced content to claim certain historical individuals belong to a different caste than what reliable sources agree upon. Why they are doing so, I do not know. I am not the only user who has reverted their edits.

There is a pattern to their edits: They remove any claims that a historical figure belonged to the Jat caste and then they add a claim that they actually belonged to a different caste (without any source or based on their own opinion/reasoning).

Examples of the problematic edits: [171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176]

Also, see their blatant POV-loaded edit summaries, example: [177]

They have done harm to the Wikipedia project, I hope that an admin may take appropriate action against them. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. Caste warriors get no rope from me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

User:BottleOfChocolateMilk - WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL

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.

---

BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly failed to follow WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL on the 2024 United States Senate election in Texas article. They have made three revisions falsely accusing me of making a "vandalous edit":

• [178]
• [179]
• [180]

This is also not the only example of BottleOfChocolateMilk failing to follow WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL in their edit summaries:

• "Lying in your edit summary is a violation of Wikipedia's politicies"
• "Guess someone must be upset at me"
• "Not going to bother explaining again, this editor clearly isn't even reading my edit summaries"
• "I know you understand this, so I don't get why you're pretending that you don't"
• "lmfao, removing someone's comment on a talk page discussion is a new one. You're seriously pathetic"

Bluerules (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I have been watching this editor for a while, and he seems suspicious. He probably needs a topic ban for elections if general, but I'm unsure. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 08:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I also found him reverting warnings from his talk page, seen here. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 08:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with editors reverting warnings from their own talk page; it is explicitly allowed. Daniel (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

lol BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to add that this user has made 4 revisions to 2024 United States Senate election in Maine in a short period of time as well. They seem to be engaging in edit-warring across Wikipedia.--User:Namiba 16:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

This editor is clearly not taking these reports seriously (replying "lol" to both this topic and a warning from Namiba, and deleting warnings without acknowledgement) and has continued making personal attacks/bad faith assumptions in their edit summaries ("Reverting vandalism from sad individual who seems to have nothing better to do than to troll a dead man"). Bluerules (talk) 17:00, 3 October 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.

Yes, I blocked BottleOfChocolateMilk for one month for making false accusations of vandalism, edit warring, and failing to assume good faith of their fellow editors. I chose the duration because the disruption has to do with the US elections on November 5. Cullen328 (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive edits by 65.102.188.122

65.102.188.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I and others have warned this IP numerous times. They vandalised past my 4th warning so I reported them at AIV but was directed to take the issue here. Their edits are varied but focus on horror film-related articles. They include incorrectly altering sortkeys, refactoring book ISBNs without hyphens (against WP:ISBNs), disrupting existing reference/footnotes, widespread superfluous and disruptive cosmetic edits which, among others, include removing spaces, proper punctuation (violations of WP:LQ), removing Wikiquote templates, Rotten Tomatoes templates, as well as TCMDb, AFI, stub sorting templates et al. Supported with no edit summaries. They are now edit warring to restore their desired versions. Given their far-reaching dedication I would not be surprised if this is an IP sock of a past persistent vandal. Οἶδα (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I was told at AIV this is not obvious vandalism. Except how are revisions like [181] and [182] not obvious vandalism? They will not stop. Οἶδα (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

This IP has just restored their preferred infobox poster at Dracula (1931 English-language film) for the third time, after being given a warning for edit warring it yesterday. Belbury (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The IP's edits are not vandalism. Please do not call them that, see WP:VAND. In brief, "poop" is vandalism but changing a default category sort may be an incorrect good-faith edit. Also, Commons links are sometimes unhelpful and their presence needs at least a nod of discussion. However, the IP is making about a hundred edits a day but has never commented. Many of their edits have been reverted so I issued a partial block for three days to encourage them to start discussing their proposed changes. Let me know if it continues without consensus but please try to engage them in a discussion without templated warnings. Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Johnuniq. Sorry for any imprecise language. I was going to start a non-templated discussion on their talk but noticed you have already done so. I already (as required) notified them of this ANI discussion. So I won't repeat all of my grievances listed here. But I will make mention of the specific issues with their most recent edits. Οἶδα (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

If you have posted a lot of templated warnings on their talk page, they really do not need you repeating it all again. Post a regular talk page message, trying to connect with the editor rather than posting any more notices. The goal is to get this editor to communicate, not to scold them. But this can be challenging with IP editors due to few of them participating on talk pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate the guidance Liz. But to be fair, this IP has never once posted an edit summary in their extensive nearly 1000 edit history nor did they respond to the first templated warning from Peaceray and if you noticed on their talk page Wafflewombat had already appealed to them to explain their edits. Not a peep since their block either. I understand reaching out (non-templated) and I often do, especially on conflict-specific article talk pages with pings. But I was not expecting much from this IP, and I'm still not going forward. Communication of their reasoning is clearly not of interest to them. I however completely expect them to resume their disruptive edits and edit warring upon the removal of their block. Οἶδα (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Just as I suspected, I have discovered another IP, 65.102.177.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is undoubtedly the same editor.
• Found another 65.102.190.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – blocked three separate times for this behavior.
• And another 65.102.185.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Pinging Johnuniq, and Peaceray, who first noticed[183] this IP was a sock of 98.97.112.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They have resumed their same old editing and engaged with none of the appeals for discussion. But none of this should be surprising when you probe the consistent nature of their cumulative 2200+ edits (minimum), and after repeated IPs and blocks. Johnuniq Liz You do not wish for me to leave any more templated notices. So what now? I would love nothing more than to engage with this editor to broach some of their less problematic edits[184] and completely stop to their blatantly controversial/disruptive edits[185]. Consensus is otherwise impossible. I do not believe another partial block, of which there have been at least 7 issued so far, is going to discourage this pattern. Οἶδα (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Pretend they are human (WP:HUMAN) and are trying to help (WP:AGF). Post a message identifying a couple of pages where you disagree with their edits and politely explain what the problem is. If there is a simple guideline, also post a link to that. Ask them to respond to your message or at article talk. Then, if they repeat that kind of edit without responding, ping me from their talk page so I can see they were given an opportunity to respond but continued. The explanation to the IP will also help someone like me work out what the problem is. If that has already happened, post a link here and ping me. Johnuniq (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Thank you for responding. I believe I already did that on their talk page below your message User_talk:65.102.188.122#Administrators'_noticeboard_discussion_about_you. They immediately resumed their same editing after the partial block was lifted, responding to nothing I wrote. Οἶδα (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

It is impossible to post the kind of message that I had in mind in a section titled "Administrators' noticeboard discussion about you" featuring an ugly "you are blocked" template. I know it's difficult, but next time, please try to engage earlier without templates. However, I blocked the IP for three months. You might notice new IPs. Please try a couple of short and welcoming messages (do their edits have no redeeming features?). If problems persist after that, ping me. Johnuniq (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your judgement. I apologize that I did not create a second heading or develop that discussion earlier without templated warnings. I will make sure to assume extra good faith and provide welcoming messages. If not for them then for your sake as administrator and the expectations required of you. But this IP user's track record and previous IPs which were blocked by admins HJ Mitchell, Daniel Case, Spencer, Sasquatch and Ad Orientem leave me little to no expectation for an end to this behavior. Their edits are not totally without merit but are a soft and minor way to disrupt and do so persistently. The only edits they make which do not disrupt are usually changing capitalization of template names, which do not actually improve the articles they edit as they are "fixing" something not broken. But thanks anyway for the attention to this matter and I will likely be in touch because it is more likely a matter of 'when' and not 'if' they return with new IPs. Οἶδα (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Vandal-troll back again

Regular readers will have seen several instances of a vandalising troll who targets my edits (and sometimes those of others). They are back again, this time as Diabolical Diddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), with the same style of edits and the same edit summaries. If this little vandal could be blocked again and the edit summaries revdeled again, I would be grateful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@SchroCat Thanks for reporting. I see they reverted me edits and now they are blocked. Mehedi Abedin 11:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Sher Singh 45 reported by User:Fylindfotberserk

At Zamindar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), User:Sher Singh 45 keeps edit warring and removing longstanding sourced content despite requests to discuss and seek WP:CONSENSUS in the talk page. [15:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)], [06:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)], [17:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)], [06:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)]. Note WP:UNCIVIL comment in this edit summary. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

May be a sock of Truthfindervert, since their addition of Punjab - [186] was removed by another user, and hence possibly wanted to remove this. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of sock status, they're obviously WP:NOTHERE, and I have indeffed them as such. Black Kite (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

persitent disruptive editing by ip editor

IP editor 103.151.209.123 - appears to be the same person as previously warned user @Stats&Data: - persistently adding self-published and spurious data onto Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election.

Diffs of the editing in question: [187] [188] [189] [190] ...and so on and so forth. 15 such edits by my count. Same behaviour as @Stats&Data:, e.g.: [191] [192] [193] [194] [195]. 31 such edits over the span of just under two months. User has been warned multiple times and advised not to insert self-published data to no avail: [196] [197] [198] [199] [200] (full disclosure, last one was me).

CipherRephic (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, the source is statsanddata.my.canva.site, I see why you think they're the same person. There's also this summary: "I predicted 2024 Uk ge with 94% accuracy which was highest then I do not know what is the issue in my content than other polls" – Special:Diff/1249261236. For reference the account said pretty much the same thing in Special:Diff/1239312774.

Edit warring and LOUTSOCKing to add their own website/predictions to various election pages (well, logged out to do it to this page at least, but the account tried to push their predictions to multiple pages)... have I got everything? Seems pretty damning. – 2804:F1...A9:C75B (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Filed an RFP for 16RR edit warring. Borgenland (talk) 06:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

aye, that appears to be the long and short of it. CipherRephic (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by user @Jayanthkumar123 despite consensus achieved through RFC

I am writing to bring to your attention an ongoing issue involving disruptive editing on the RRR article, specifically related to the inclusion of content regarding the reception by international filmmakers.

The background is as follows:

1. Consensus Achieved: Following extensive discussion, the community reached a consensus on including this content. This was determined after multiple levels of formal dispute resolution: Long discussions on talk page, 2 dispute resolution processes which user @Jayanthkumar123 refused to participate in. And then finally a month long RFC where a clear consensus was achieved.
   • RFC: RFC: Section on Reception by International Filmmakers was conducted, which clearly favored inclusion.
2. Disruptive Behavior: Despite the above formal processes resulting in a clear consensus for inclusion, User: @Jayanthkumar123 continues to remove the section repeatedly. I anticipated this behaviour and talked with the admin of RFC user @Robert McClenon and he advised specifically to reverse such a disruptive edit once and cite the RFC and if that doesn't work either then to raise a report here, which I'm now going ahead with. (Link of discussion with the admin: User talk:Robert McClenon#Closure for RRR RFC ) As mentioned earlier, user has evaded participating in 2 dispute resolutions so far and once RFC went against his position, has decided to completely ignore RFC. I kindly request administrative intervention in this matter. The user is deliberately ignoring Wikipedia procedures and making edits despite consensus being against him. Specifically, I seek a block for User: @Jayanthkumar123 to prevent further disruptive removals.

SaibaK (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Diffs of removal [201], [202]. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a content dispute about the inclusion of a paragraph on "Reception by International Filmmakers" that is being complicated by conduct. The filing editor requested dispute resolution at DRN. I had to warn the filing editor not to refer to a content dispute as vandalism. The other editor did not participate in DRN. A Request for Comments was composed and published on whether to add the paragraph. The RFC ran for thirty days, and I closed it as having found that there was consensus to include the paragraph. My involvement had been as a neutral party, and I was neutral in closing the RFC. It appears that the filing party now has added the paragraph based on the RFC, and the other editor has reverted the inclusion of the paragraph, with an edit summary that they are reverting vandalism. Both editors have yelled vandalism to "win" this content dispute. On the one hand, a reasonable argument can be made that the comments of the international filmmakers should be merged into the "International Reception" section. On the other hand, User:Jayanthkumar123 has not been discussing the content dispute, and has been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely block @Jayanthkumar123 from being able to edit the article as they continued with their behaviour without responding here or their talk page or the article's talk page, and also in hopes that they respond to the issue that have been brought up here. – robertsky (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Superastig posting references that don't line up with their edits

User:Superastig has been posting information, along with references that don't line up with each other. The episode titles, the user has been adding in multiple articles don't match up with the references that the user also added. So, I'm wondering where is this user getting the episode titles.[203][204][205][206] The links I've posted are just recent examples, and there are plenty more in the past several months. I've already discussed this issue in their talk page and the editor said they would "try". Only for the user to continue the same habit. For the second time, I warned the user about this through their talkpage, the user then made this comment in their talkpage through their edit summary - "Make stricter rules. I'll not tolerate any hissyfit regarding episode titles in my talk page."[207] How is this okay? This breaks the rules of posting reliable sources, when the references added don't even match the content posted in Wikipedia articles.Hotwiki (talk) 06:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Superastig: also claimed that "no one dares to question their edits about episode titles" and they claimed that they know what they are doing.[208] Hotwiki (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

1. you should leave my edits as is than to waste your time arguing with me about it (21 August 2024)
2. So, better leave my edits as is. Or else. (31 August 2024)
3. I have the right to remove them (6 September 2024)
4. calls editors who disagree throwing a hissy fit (1, 2), get the funk out (3), triggered (4)

Did someone forget Wikipedia is a collaborative project? Northern Moonlight 08:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I recall them having been indefinitely blocked for edit-warring and WP:OWN last year [209] but they got unblocked on appeal [210]. Borgenland (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Firstly anyone who uses "I know what I'm doing" as a justification for anything doesn't know what they are doing, and secondly recent editing by this user is nothing like what was promised in their block appeal. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You would hope someone blocked for ownership of content and incivility would avoid edit summaries like these [211] [212] [213]. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Should be reblocked indefinitely. (Disclosure: was original blocking admin, this was the straw that broke the camel's back. Looks familiar?) Daniel (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I've just indeffed them. Clear violation of their unblock conditions that they agreed to. They knew what they were doing, there's no ignorance excuse here. Completely incompatible with a collaborative editing project. Canterbury Tail talk 13:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support Block, was about to do it but found you'd beaten me to it. Long overdue since the behavior hasn't and won't change. Star Mississippi 14:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hotwiki Getting back to the original complaint - on their talk page Superastig seems to be saying that they got the titles from unreliable sources like IMDB, but because they've gotten into trouble for citing unreliable sources in the past they've been adding fake citations to the other websites to disguise where the information has come from [214]. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't recall Superastig getting their references from Imdb. Superastig was using Facebook links of GMA Network for their contributions in the past.[215][216] If I remember correctly, the issue about Superastig using facebook links as references for episode titles, was brought up by me in ANI. I think someone responded to my complaint and said "Facebook isn't the best source for Episode titles, but Facebook could be used". I didn't comment after that. I don't remember when Superastig started using gmanetwork.com as their source for episode titles. From my recollection, Superastig just stopped using Facebook. I also didn't know Superastig was using IMDb as a reference until their account was blocked. Hotwiki (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Nothing to say about me really spambot

As per m:NTSAMR, please can someone delete User:ZOSCarl62719 and block the account? IPs can't tag userpages for deletion. Thank you! 81.2.123.64 (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Fabulous! Thanks Rick! :-) 81.2.123.64 (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Worth getting a steward to lock it if it's NTSAMR. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Anzor.akaev

Anzor.akaev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Vast majority of edits reverted [217], click here and then Ctrl + F "reverted"

And for good reason, they're disruptive. Their talk page is full of warnings (I count 10 [218] [219] [220] [221] [222] [223] [224] [225] [226] [227]) by four different users, including me. They managed to do that with only 53 edits thus far. Some examples of their disruptive editing;

• Changed sourced numbers of Uzbek speakers twice at Uzbek language (9 September 2024 30 September 2024). They also did the same at Uzbeks (11 September 2024)

• Removed sourced info about Persian and Turkish at Timurid Empire 17 August 2024

• Removed +2k information at Timeline of Tajikistani history with no edit summary [228]

• They randomly reverted me twice at Uzbek language [229] [230], amongst other things restoring info not supported by WP:RS and in reality heavily contradicted by it per the talk page section [231] I made before making those edits, all which I mentioned in my edit summary.

WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS (despite being told several times to refrain from it, eg by myself [232]):

• Go and look for your own Persian history, vandalizer (this was made in response to the info I removed which was not mentioned in the cited source [233]. Apparently I'm not allowed to edit other topics.)

• Why do you still vandalising on Uzbek history? Can i edit you history?

• User called ”HistoryOfIran” trying to vandalize Turkic-Uzbek history

• I added source profing chagatai is old uzbek. So please stop vandalising this page.

• I added source profing chagatai is old uzbek. So please stop vandalising this page. (yes, they said it twice)

• I beg Wikipedia to ban him.

They have also been asked twice to take WP:TWA [234] [235], which they have ignored. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

And now they're removing sourced info at Tajiks [236], claiming that Richard Foltz is not "reliable" (he is), despite not even being cited there. They also reported me to the Swedish wiki but still wrote in English??? [237]. There are clear WP:CIR issues here. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

And now they violated WP:3RR at Tajiks, doing their best to remove sourced information [238] [239] [240] [241]. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Expanded @Asilvering's p-block to sitewide, 31H Star Mississippi 01:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Cheers. And wow, the report on sv-wiki... -- asilvering (talk) 01:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Star Mississippi! HistoryofIran (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

you're welcome. If this isn't resolved, please ping me if I'm online. Star Mississippi 03:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Will do, thanks! HistoryofIran (talk) 03:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: Well, that didn't last long. Not sure if a SPI is needed or not; User:Uzbekistan.mod.wiki created their account on 3 October during Anzor.akaev's block, even editing on that day [242]. And today they've resumed Anzor.akaev's edit warring at the afromentioned Uzbek language [243]. And like Anzor.akaev, they're also editing in the Swedish Wiki [244]. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure about the SPI and will defer to a CU there, but  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me so upgraded Anzor.akaev to a month and inDEFFed the new account. Thanks for flagging (again) @HistoryofIran Star Mississippi 01:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

And thank you for dealing with them again! HistoryofIran (talk) 01:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Hieronymusharold's use of AI

Hieronymusharold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created several AI-generated articles:

• Battle of Point Coupe
• E. W. Townsend
• Cuca fera
• Bicho Papão
• Bonhomme Sept Heures
• Nemognatha angusta
• Bucharest Herald
• Dimitrios Zaphiropoulos
• Autopista Regional del Centro
• IK Baltichov
• Geonoma longivaginata

Most have been draftified as unreferenced or deleted as outright hoaxes. I've warned them about these problems, but they have continued to create these articles without responding to me (or anyone else). I think they should be partially blocked from the article namespace, at least until they are willing to communicate. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

P-block from mainspace applied. Star Mississippi 01:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Possible disruptive editting by User:Steven1991

User exhibiting WP:NOTHERE and battleground behavior. Idk where else to go.

• 695 of their 824 edits on english are within the last month.
• Has been editting zh.wikipedia for a while, though 63 of 90 edits are also within last month
• Review of their edit history on both wikipedias indicates they are WP:SPA. Sometimes editting near WP:ARBPIA topic area.
• approximately 300 of their edits have been to the Antisemitic tropes, where approximately 100k characters and ~400 additional sources have been added nearly unilaterally (at least 95%) by single user. I don't have the time to go through all 300, but here are some highlight diffs I can find.

• Article has significant issues of WP:OVERCITE as a result of citation inflation. First sentence has 8 different sources.
• edits include usage of unreliable sources from facebook, medium, and self-published blogs and religious blogs
• this edit by user includes a 5000 word deletion and significant content change with the only summary as Fixed grammar [245]
• I did bold WP:TNT to previous version before all this fiasco[246] which immediately got reverted back.[247]
• Got template warned by user for blanking on my talk page [[248]] even after discussion on talk page of the wikipedia article[249] and NPOVN [250]
• Further discussion on talk page about issues is immediately shut down by user who reposts the same template warning 3 times on all my replies on the talk page of article [251]

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't agree that the editor is NOTHERE; editor appears to be very much HERE to write and add content. You perhaps have a dispute, but you didn't post any discussion on the article talk before your TNT, which I would say is actually disruptive. Now this has been WP:FORUMSHOPped here from WP:NPOVN with not much of a basis since Steven1991 agreed to remove the unreliable sources in that discussion. Andre🚐 06:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, that's not quite a fair assessment to claim they reverted without discussion. I brought the issue to WP:NPOVN, a small discussion was had where rollback was suggested, I & @Bluethricecreamman agreed. They remarked as such on the talk page, then WP:BOLDLY made the change themselves.

It's also inaccurate to call this forum shopping when I was the one who made a post regarding article issues, then Blue made this separate post here about Steven's conduct. Those are 2 separate issues that have both been brought to the appropriate forums respectively & I think it would be highly unfair to call Blue's conduct disruptive. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant discussing it with the user in question. Discussing means more than just saying you're going to do something and doing it. Sounds like you reverted 100k of text, the editor was (justifiably) a bit annoyed, and then, after that discussion at NPOVN, they agreed to remove the unreliable source material and are already complying after agreeing to do so. It doesn't really seem that the discussion had concluded at NPOVN, that's what I mean by forumshopping it here, though you are correct that it was not the same person, so I apologize for being inexact there. Andre🚐 06:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The user reverted over 100,000+ bytes of my edits that I have made over the past few weeks to which I have dedicated a tremendous amount of time and effort. The user didn’t even discuss the issue with me on the Talk page, while I humbly acknowledge all of their concerns and have been removing all the sources not being considered as reliable. I have shown all the willingness to improve the article, but it seems they are doing this over some political disagreements and trying to get me ousted from the platform, which is totally unfair and making me think that it is a form of harassment instead. Steven1991 (talk) 06:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd advise you not to characterize other users' activities as vandalism or harassment. I understand you're feeling a bit annoyed but it will be ok. WP:NPA does include talking about editors' mental states or motivations. See also WP:AGF Andre🚐 06:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I started contributing edits last month – after a few years of break – as a hobby, but that these issues seem to have created a hostile environment for me. I only want to contribute just as anyone else does and I believe that this complaint is unfair to me when I have shown more than enough willingness to remove the disputed content as much as possible. I have the right to disagree with the user’s unilateral WP:TNT action when a substantial amount of the article’s content has my contributions. Steven1991 (talk) 07:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You don't have a right to do anything here, you do so at the pleasure of the community, whose knights are the admins. If you're at this board it's because someone else thinks you aren't following the norms adequately - while I also do not think their report has merit, don't give people a new reason to criticize your actions. You don't have a right to do anything, but you certainly can, within reason, discuss, make edits, and seek a consensus, and you might have to compromise or change things, WHICH YOU ARE, which is the important part. So, just take a deep breath, read a few wiki articles, like WP:COOL is a classic (or WP:KEEPCOOL), go take a walk or have a smoke or imbibe or whatever you do to relax, and then come back prepared to deal with constructive criticism on the article. You don't have a right to edit here - but, if you listen to what I'm saying, you may enjoy the privilege. Andre🚐 07:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that the user reversed all of my edits, which I have taken almost a month to make, without discussing on the Talk page of the article. Even for the concerns raised by other users, I acknowledged very politely and promised to try my best to rewrite the content, including removing sources not being deemed reliable. I have done everything I could, but I simply have the perception that such complaint is being made over political disagreements rather than issues related to the article itself – it is not accusation to make a judgment based on personal observations and feelings. Steven1991 (talk) 06:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You can have whatever perception, just don't talk about it! People are paranoid sometimes when they're upset. Or maybe gremlins. Regardless, just don't write it here, because it's against the rules and decorum. You have a right to remain silent. I agree with you that the TNT and this ANI report were not justified, since you're cooperative and trying your best, and I trust you'll take the advice to heart. But keep in mind that includes being studious of Wikipedia's norms of communication. Andre🚐 06:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't TNT, the article was not started from scratch. It was simply reverted to a more neutral version. If any useful edits were undone, they can be added back later, but right now the current article's state is worse then it was before. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a question to discuss at the article talk page, not here. This is about behavioral issues. It was charged that Steven1991 was NOTHERE and BATTLEGROUND. That charge rings false as he is clearly cooperative and has both the appetite and the ability to defend his edits, which appear to be good-faith improvements, with excessive citations. Now the 3 of you go back to the talk page and discuss. I'll join you there. If you want to show some maturity Bluethriceman could withdraw this meritless report. Andre🚐 07:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• I am not disputing that my revert of 100,000 words added by a single user was not WP:BOLD.

• Arguably, the addition of 100,000 characters and 400 sources over three weeks by a single author on a page that originally only had 200 sources is just as WP:BOLD. I think editor got away with it because nobody could review all the changes.

My point in bringing this report is that I don't know where else to bring this and what next steps are.

1) A relatively newbie editor has been rapid fire editting significant portions of articles since at least Sept 12, potentially contentious WP:ARBPIA,WP:ARBAP2 articles, without anyone noticing for a few weeks.

2) Edits show significant signs of not full understanding of Wikipedia policies including reliable sourcing,WP:OVERCITE, copyeditting etc. Thats ok, newbies learn over time if given time but...

3) Edits are at such volume and speed that it remains difficult to give advice or inspect. dozens of gigantic 300+ byte edits with no edit summary are all added in within short time periods, which makes inspection harder to figure out. the few that do may have misleading titles such as "grammar fix".

4) There was approximately 400 added sources, and 100,000 added characters by Oct 3. Upon a bold attempt at reverting to previous version, given some discussion and reasoning on NPOVN, it gets reverted back which is fine, WP:BRD cycle, but then...

5) Get template warned on my User talk page.

6) Claims of vandalism, etc. are bandied about, and my replies on Talk page are answered with template warning three times in a row

7) User continues to show significant defensiveness when advice is given, claims harrassment above. New edit summaries since this are mostly "removal of allegedly unreliable sourcing" or "removal of allegedly excessive citations"

This is hardly a content dispute, and I never posted this as a content dispute.

I saw some of the complaints about NPOV, but when I attempted the bold TNT reversion, the response back was significant defensiveness. WP:DONTBITE and all, but getting template warned by a newbie on my talk page, and on the article talk page, being accused of harrassmnet [252], and dealing with a newbie who was no WP:LISTENing to feedback and ploughing through with dozens of 100+ word edits per day makes it impossible to work on the article, and impossible for newbie to take real advice.

Steven appeared to be showing WP:OWNING behavior, and current article has been tremendously unstable for past three weeks at least for anyone else wishing to edit the article.

To Andre: I don't get what you are talking about with this complaint being "meritless". I am not withdrawing my report until an uninvolved admin provides next steps on how to proceed. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks to me if you look at Steven1991's contribs he's been spending most of the day fixing the issues you pointed out. I suggest you collaborate constructively instead of arguing here. Andre🚐 01:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I choose which pages I want to edit on and will take a break from that page for now. I'm glad Steven seems to be fixing issues.

Let others deal with the content, the overall behavior concerned me enough I want an uninvolved admin to take a look. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

speaking of Steven1991's contribs, i see them posting warnings on other users talk page, such as [253] Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, and I told him not to template the regulars on his talk page. Andre🚐 01:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Because the relevant users engaged in actions that appeared to be edit warring, one of them even personal attack on me and several other users. I guess it is important to look at the context? Steven1991 (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

You were specifically told to stop posting warnings on other's pages like this, by both Andre & @ScottishFinnishRadish. You need to stop picking fights as those warnings you keep leaving people are not only rude & unnecessary, but also easily be seen as a provocation. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, my warning was after them doing it. Andre🚐 01:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

“picking fights”

Sorry, is this an accusation? Steven1991 (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• sigh* please, just stop & breathe. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

  If there are further concerns related to the content, I recommend you taking it to the Talk pages, i.e. mine or the article’s, as it would look more constructive. Steven1991 (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Steven1991, it's not an accusation. You were understandably upset when all the edits you made were reverted. Now we are going to constructively engage to make good changes. Right? Maybe take a break and walk away for a bit and come back feeling less put-upon. I get it, I really do. This can be overwhelming for a new user and you're in a controversial area where you may not be familiar with the rules of engagement. That's why the best advice is 1) keep fixing the problems with the article constructively, but slow down so others can catch up, 2) don't take it personally when people criticize your edits, 3) focus on the content not the contributors. Andre🚐 02:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I am not quite new though. I have been on Wikipedia since the 2000s, but didn’t set up an account on English Wikipedia until 2018. I rarely edited until recently, so effectively, I need time to pick up the rules and expectations. Steven1991 (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, same thing. You're new to all this editing. Read a bit of the rules. Andre🚐 02:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, showing up at an the talk page of an editor that you're in a dispute with to comment on a three month old warning is picking a fight. If this continues you'll be topic banned for battleground behavior. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

As you can check again, I politely acknowledged almost every single suggestion and already removed most of the duplicate or “unreliable” sources from the article. The article is much cleaner than it was yesterday. I am still working on it and would need more time to sort that out. Also, you can’t claim that I am “defensive” just because I hold my ground on some of my edits and respond to comments that I find difficult agreeing with. For content disputes we are allowed to disagree. It is unfair to me when you label all responses in kind as “defensive” or interpret it as any signs of being “unwilling to listen”. Steven1991 (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Move Protected Page Parshurama

Moved to Protected for having image that was deleted due to copyright. A lot of info is pending to be updated. Kindly move to unprotected. Adbhonsle (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Adbhonsle Parashurama is the actual article, your link was to the redirect. I can't see any reason to unprotect it. You can always use the talk page. Others might disagree. Doug Weller talk 09:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

But reason to protect was image that violated copyright and not the content which is 99%. Kindly reconsider. Updating data via admin will severely affect the quality of article. Adbhonsle (talk) 13:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The page protection had nothing to do with copyrighted images. The protection rationale was "Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: WP:CASTE", and the fairly long history of vandalism and other unconstructive edits backs it up. Liu1126 (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No you're mistaken. The protection had nothing to do with any image or copyright. The protection reason is given here [254] "Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: WP:CASTE". Can you briefly summarise what sort of info you want to add? Edit: Also the article is only extended-confirmed so any extended confirmed editor could answer WP:edit requests that you might make. It does not require an admin to modify the article. Nil Einne (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC) 14:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The correct venue would have been WP:RFPP, but like others have said, the article is extended-confirmed protected due to contentious editing on that article in the past, so changing protection levels is unlikely. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, since this is under CASTE sanctions (and yes it is logged), RFPP in the first instance isn't the best place for such a request. Instead, it would be best to ask User:RegentsPark first. If they object or otherwise don't respond, then you'd need to open a thread at WP:AN (not here). An admin who decides to reduce protection could do this themselves, but it would likely be easier for the editor wanting to reduce protection to start with RegentsPark which I think is the norm for such sanctions like with CTOP. AFAIK, unless RegentsPark agrees or has agreed somewhere that any admin may reduce this protection, either specifically or generally, no admin can unilaterally reduce the protection, and since this is community authorised you can't appeal to arbcom either; AN is the only venue. If someone asks RegentsPark and they are unwilling to reduce it themselves but agrees that any admin may reduce it if they feel it best, then it would be okay to just open a thread at RFPP. Nil Einne (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Three years is a long time so it's worth trying to see if the disruption won't resume. So, unprotected. I've also commented on the protection on my talk page (here) RegentsPark (comment) 15:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

User @Nooritahir734: on page Pashtuns.

Persistent disruptive editing from this user via replacing sourced content with Britannica, a non-WP:RS Tertiary source -- as well as removing swathes of sourced content and then developing an edit war claiming it was unto me to discuss the edit(s) he made, and not unto him, which clearly is against WP:ONUS.

Edits seen here replacing population figures which make no sense with hundred(s) of other correlated sources on the page especially the template right below it.

[255] - "Please do not remove source material and replace it with false and unreliable" [256] - "rm false information and unreliable source (tribune.com.pk" He then updates the countries population figures here; [257] I revert him and then he re-reverts; [258] "Well, provide more reliable than Britannica, but now don't remove the information that is more reliable than the previous"

I tell him to take his concerns to the talk-page per WP:ONUS, especially as Britannica is not WP:RS. - [259]

He reverts again with whatever of an edit summary this is... [260]

he is reverted by ANOTHER editor: [261]

He again posts his revision(s): [262] - "You can also see the comments. Sourced content should not be removed. If you have better sources than the current source, add them but don't remove anything now. Or discuss on the talk page"

I threaten to take this to ANI: [263]

And again :/ : [264] [265] [266] Noorullah (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I've given this individual warnings; [267] and [268]

and the ANI report warning: [269] Noorullah (talk) 05:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

They've also been reverted by another editor again: [270] Noorullah (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:BRITANNICA, Britannica can absolutely be a useful source, but context matters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång There's numerous secondary sources on the page he replaces over with Britannica, secondary sources are preferred over tertiary sources LIKE Britannica. Noorullah (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Create a template - inability to use edit summaries

Editor user:Create a template has a very low percentage of using edit summaries when editing pages. Per WP:FIES, "According to the consensus policy, all edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page." User Create a template does neither.

Examples of particularly large edits which lack a summary are [271], [272], [273], [274], [275], [276]. At the time of this notice, zero of their most recent 100 edit contributions have had edit summaries.

User Create a template has been contacted by three different users on their talk page to politely ask them to use edit summaries. Instead of making any behavioral changes or replying to these attempts to educate, User Create a template deleted all these comments in the following three locations: [277], [278], [279]. They proceeded to immediately make more edits without an edit summary, including [280], [281], [282], [283]. At this point we are running into a WP:CIR issue. I would like an admin to ask Create a template to increase their usage of edit summaries from about 10% to an acceptable number, perhaps 80%, over an appropriate time period. This will dramatically help other users who are interested in editing the same topics, which generally include speculative fiction literature. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Liz

I have no history for the most part because I do not like other editors. I have only ever had bad interactions with most editors, or 90% of the time, and it's not because I've done anything disruptive to pages. They arrogantly demand to be heard, believe that their way is always best, and edit war if we deviate in preferences of what should be said. I give summaries when my edits are getting reverted or when there's a good-faith confusion about something. Other than that, I don't bother with explaining because the edits are all pretty self-evident. This is especially when the edits are smaller. My history speaks for itself that every edit I make is good-faith and constructive, even the longer ones, so if people are seeing me over and over and noticing that I haven't done anything very wrong with the content, then I don't see why I need to . And the more I get bombarded with demands, the less I want to hear them out anyway, since I've never made a bad-faith edit or an edit that's completely unsupporrted by refs or at least a basic google search. also i make complex edits in which many different improvement are made; writing a summary of those is annoying, taxing, time-consuming, and could be inaccurate or not complete. What am I supposed to do in those situations, just talk bout the most major thing?

I also view the report as an aggrievance of not being listened to, rather than anything practical. Shouldn't those boards be for people who are causing chaos on the website? which I clearly am not.

If I need to give supplementary rationale for every or almost all edit going forward, and banned if i don't comply, then that annoys though doesn't surprised me, and I may be amenable. This talk of sanctions and official notice over such a low-priority complaint is ridiculous and from my standpoint unwarranted, though given all of wikipedia's user rules I expected something dumb like this to happen every few weeks.

Create a template (talk) 09:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Create a template, if you do not like other editors (remembering that this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit) then maybe Wikipedia's collaborative model is not for you? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Create a template, I resemble that remark! Seriously though, this is a massive collaborative enterprise, a little tolerance of your fellow editors, please. And while I also tend to make big sweeping holistic edits and therefore sympathise with the challenge of summing up everything I did, it's basic politeness as well as self-protection to explain a bit of what you did and why. Your edit summary usage is 11.6%, 9.3% for major edits. That's awfully low. On the other hand ... not long ago I was involved in a section on this noticeboard concerning an editor who also rarely uses edit summaries (as well as misusing the minor flag), and there was disagreement about the need for edit summaries. The closing statement includes the sentence: All editors should, as a matter of helpful and collegial editing make best efforts to use edit summaries and other tools to accurately describe their edits, but they are not required. That may partly have been because that editor took on board the advice to start using edit summaries and to turn on a reminder widget. Create a template, will you undertake to try to craft an edit summary, maybe with a lot of abbrevs about ce, refs, rem'd and + like some of mine, especially for your big edits? Yngvadottir (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

should not shall, so I won't do it most times, though if you all want me to, if it's one of these I'll do it, large edits of 800+ bytes, major reorganziation of the page, potentially cont ones, reversions, special cases. is that reasonable?

I will never go up to 80%, it's not happening. LOL. Create a template (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I thought rare usage of edit summaries wasn't something ANI-worthy based on a response I got for a similar report of mine. But it is concerning that Create a template did not respond in any form to recurring notices about their behavior. I believe they should assume more good faith in other editors and at least give very brief responses to address others' concerns. Aintabli (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Aintabli, re: I thought rare usage of edit summaries wasn't something ANI-worthy based on a response I got for a similar report of mine., it depends. If you'd like to leave a link on my talk, I'll take a look. Valereee (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I like to be left alone. most of the time I can do my edits without people getting in the way or complaining about anything. I ref well most of the time and know how to organize and opt the pages I work on.

it was not worthy of this, you are right. the reporter is angry that I didn't pay attention to what he had to say, it was partly motivated by ego.

in order to avoid this in the future maybe i'll just provide a bare though substantive respond Create a template (talk) 09:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

While I understand the desire, ultimately Wikipedia is not yours. It is sometimes required that editors communicate with one another, because we are accountable to the community for our actions. You are not entitled to total quietude because you trust your own judgment. Remsense ‥ 论 09:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

this was about edit summaries, though. it had nothing to do with content. what I was saying is that I make it so that most of the time people don't have to complain about anything that I've done in terms of content. so when someone does finally complain and it has nothing to do with content, I'm like "I'm going to ignore this". I'll avoid saying it's "justified" or whatever.

I am entitled to not respond, though I have no control over if someone with the pwoer to restricts my acct Create a template (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand, I just hope you understand that as others aren't living in your head with you, they would often like to share your level of confidence in the changes you're making. Edit summaries are often very effective in transplanting understanding from one user's head to another's. Remsense ‥ 论 09:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Create a template, maybe it would help you to understand that when you don't include an edit summary, you may be wasting other editors' time. That's because editors see an edit on their watch list with no edit summary and feel like they need to go check it. Sometimes multiple editors will go check it. If you'd included an edit summary, they might instead look at the diff and think "Sounds about right."

As a general concept, edit summaries are just as important as edits. And, yes, complex edits need them, too. It doesn't have to be exhaustive. When I make a complex edit, I might use the edit summary "reorg sections, rem trivia, exp + ref". But even for tiny little edits, leaving an edit summary will help prevent other editors from wasting their time checking your edits.

Does that help at all? Valereee (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

An example that I saw recently play out on my watchlist was when an editor removed a sentence without an edit summary. Another editor reverted the unexplained blanking. The first editor removed the sentence again, but this time used an edit summary explaining that it was a duplicate sentence. Time would have been saved if they'd done that initially. Schazjmd (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

For both editors, too. Cat, think about the amount of time you feel like you're wasting here in this discussion. Edit summaries can prevent a repeat. Valereee (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

yeah. this was definitely a waste of time having to def and worry about potential conseq. though I'm not going to do it most times. I'm thinking of other solutions, like using my page and article pages to organize and communicate my updates instead. the edits that I do are uniform across hundreds of articles. the goal is to standardize every relevant page, explaining the same edits 1000x is not happening. Create a template (talk) 09:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Create a template: if you're making the same updates to many articles, you can just use the same summary for each of them. You don't need to type out a unique summary for each edit, so long as it applies to all of them. "Standardize to XYZ, see <link to explanation>" is a fine edit summary. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

yes, though I completely disagree with "edit summaries are just as important as edits". there's no way that can be true. sure, it can save others time, so I'll acknowledge that, though the crucial thing is editing accurately

the example you gave can work in the future. I'll try during the large or major submis. Create a template (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

In my mind, the crucial thing is consensus, through which editors can collaborate to build the encyclopedia. Accuracy as such can be collectively assured if we communicate enough to explain to one another what we're doing and why. Remsense ‥ 论 09:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit summaries are documentation, so other editors can easily see what you did and why. That makes them just as important as the edits themselves. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Create a template, if an article you're editing is on the watchlist of 20 people, and 8 of them have visited recent edits, that likely means those 8 people came to check those edits.

If you make an edit that takes you three minutes to research because you had to check the source, and the actual edit takes you three seconds to make, and you leave that edit without an edit summary -- something like corrected per source which might take you another three seconds -- and those 8 people come along behind you and need to do that same three minutes of research, you have wasted 24 minutes of other editors' time in order to save yourself the three seconds of writing the edit summary. So you've spent 3 minutes and 3 seconds instead of 3 minutes 6 seconds, and you've potentially caused the waste of 24 minutes of other editors' time in order to save yourself 3 seconds. If the number of editors who have visited recent edits is 200, that timewasting expands. And that's assuming they came in and decided to guess that you were making the change per the source and immediately went and read it; if they have to ping you to ask about your reasoning, then read your response, that's going to waste even more time. For both/all of you.

That is why edit summaries are just as important as edits. Valereee (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I have no history for the most part because I do not like other editors. I have only ever had bad interactions with most editors, or 90% of the time, respectfully, there's a common denominator here ... sawyer * he/they * talk 11:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

While it's true that edit summaries aren't explicitly required, WP:UNRESPONSIVE DOES require you to explain your edits. Be helpful: explain your changes. (Emphasis original.) If you leave a talk page post, that works as well, even if edit summaries are preferred. Per Valereee above, the edit summaries (or other means of explaining your edits) are part of using all volunteer time effectively. I understand this is not what you want, Create a template, but this is a collaborative project. WP:NOTHERE point number six, Little or no interest in working collaboratively, is grounds for a block. I can't stand crowds, so I don't go to music concerts. If you won't or can't stomach working with other editors, this is not the project for you. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Mikeblas replacing incomplete citations with citation needed tags

Mikeblas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to routinely remove incomplete citations and replace them with {{cn}} tags. For example, in this Sep 28 edit, Mikeblas replaced {{sfn|Penslar|2017|loc=Staging Zionism}} with {{cn}}. In this case, the "Penslar 2017" incomplete citation was a simple error: it's Penslar 2023, not Penslar 2017. Penslar 2023 was already listed in the references section of the article at the time Mikeblas removed the citation. But instead of fixing the mistake, or tagging it with {{full citation needed}}, or pointing it out on the article's talk page, Mikeblas deleted the incomplete citation and replaced it with {{cn}}. Mikeblas made similar edits at the same article: 2, 3, 4, 5, and recently at other articles: 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.

This is a problem because (1) the statement was not unsourced, it's simply that the {{sfn}} had the wrong year and thus didn't correctly link to the reference in the references section, (2) for any other editor seeking to fix the broken {{sfn}}, including bots that "rescue" these incomplete citations or orphaned ref names, it becomes much harder to find the correct citation and repair it if we remove the incomplete citation altogether, and (3) an incomplete citation is still of more value to a reader than no citation at all. Mikeblas knows that orphaned refs can be fixed by going into the article history, as evidenced by this comment and this edit summary (and apparently many others like it; Mikeblas sometimes rescues the citations rather than removing them).

Other editors have complained to Mikeblas about this on his UTP at least one (relevant edit), two (edit), three (edit), four (edit) times in 2024 (I didn't look further back than 2024). I posted a fifth complaint on Mikeblas's talk page a couple of days ago at User talk:Mikeblas#September 2024. I suggested if he didn't want to fix the broken citations, he tag them with {{full citation needed}} instead. He did not agree.

I checked his contribs today and saw that he did this again here and here. Without doubt, Mikeblas has done more good volunteer work on Wikipedia than I will ever do. But I think he's damaging articles by removing incomplete references and replacing them with {{cn}}. He clearly thinks what he's doing is right. What say the community: cool or not cool? Levivich (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking through the talk page here and some of the related links, it's not clear: how am I meant to respond to this? Maybe not at all? -- mikeblas (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Personally I didn't have a problem with Mikeblas' action. The responsibility of editors adding citations is to make sure they work properly. It's easy enough to add a cn tag and easily enough removed or reverted with a proper cite. Andre🚐 22:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Andrevan: I'd strongly disagree. How are editors supposed to know that cn means there was a citation which might be easily fixable but it was removed? Simple answer is they won't. So they're not going to look through the history to find this possibly easily fixable citation. They're going to have to find it again, or another citation instead of just fixing this potentially easily fixable citation. Even if they did know there was a potentially easily fixable citation, looking through the history to find this is far more difficult than just fixing the citation in situ. Your comment might make sense if mikeblas was adding the cn tag while leaving the flawed citation although some other tag might be better than cn. Nil Einne (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To put it a different way, what's the advantage of removing the potentially fixable citation and replace it with a tag? Readers looking at the article should be able to recognise there's a problem when it's tagged as suggested by Folly Mox below, or frankly even with the cn tag. I don't know if you can even say it's "clearer" with the cn tag without the flawed citation. Yes it might be less confusing why there's a cn tag but seems to be a citation. OTOH, readers might believe there never was a citation and this is more likely to be just nonsense rather than there was but it was broken so perhaps this is more likely to be true. And if the flawed citation remains and they are confused so want to check, when they try to access the citation, they'll encounter the problem and so better understand what the problem is. (Which could be reduced by using a better tag like those suggested by Folly Mox.) If an editor wants to fix the citation, if it's tagged better as suggested by Folly Mox, it's easier for them to find such problems although again even with the cn tag it's still marked as something they need to look into the same way when the citation was removed. But now with the flawed citation remaining, they can then decide whether it's worth fixing the citation or just finding a replacement. If they find a replacement and chose to remove the flawed citation that's fine then but they at least had the choice. If they fix it, their work was presumably made easier by the citation remaining. If the citation is just removed, as I mentioned above they don't really have a choice. I mean they could look through the history perhaps because they're wondering who added that detail so they can ask them, but more likely they just won't bother, as I think most don't. So instead only thing they can do is find a citation anew. Nil Einne (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The only advantage I can think of is that it's a quick way to clear a citation-error maintenance category. Actually repairing the citation would take significantly longer, and tagging it with {{fcn}} would not clear the error. Personally, I don't think the benefit of clearing the maintenance category outweighs the harm of removing the incomplete citation.

On a related note, it's a truism on Wikipedia that most article content that doesn't have a citation or is tagged {{cn}} is actually correct. I wonder if that's because the content used to have citations but the citations were removed. I worry about how many citations we've lost this way. Levivich (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the reason is because if an editor sees something uncited that they feel is clearly wrong or which no citation could possibly exist for, they're more likely to just remove it. When I tag something with {{cn}} it's usually because I believe a citation might exist; if I'm reasonably sure none exists then I'll just delete the uncited text instead. This dynamic would tend to bias CN-tagged stuff towards things that are citeable. To your first point, I wonder if there is a technical solution to this. Could {{full citation needed}} be given an argument that could allow it to wrap a partial citation so it no longer shows up as an error? (And would that even be desirable?) --Aquillion (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

As {{fcn}} templates get left unfixed for decades, at least if the error is tracked it might get fixed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I had a whole thing typed out here then realised I was just repeating all the points Nil Einne made above. So +1 to all that. Folly Mox (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

+2, then. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mikeblas: Best way to respond would be to recognise you should have responded to the concerns earlier, but made a mistake and did not, but you're going to now and change what you're doing going forward. Nil Einne (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I responded to Levivich several times on my talk page. I was reading up on how to take the matter to WP:THIRD when they said they were not really interested in an extended debate about this, so I thought they were no longer going to pursue the matter. Instead, they escalated it here. It sounds like you're saying there's no room for my side of the story, and no way for me to clarify some of the substantive misrepresentations, misconceptions, and assumptions being made here and on my talk page, including repeated accusations of vandalism, disruption, and dishonesty. Is that the right takeaway? What about clarifying questions about what to specifically do going forward? -- mikeblas (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Mikeblas is right about this part. The other day, when I saw the edits on my watchlist, I thought WTF? and assumed it was some new editor making a newbie mistake. When I looked at Mikeblas's userpage and read "admin, 19 years 2 months old, with 78,854 edits", I thought WTF?!, and looked at his recent contribs to see if this was a one-off or a regular thing. When I found six more examples at six different articles just in the past week, I thought WTF?!?. Then I looked at his user talk page archives to see if anyone had raised this issue with him before and found multiple examples in the past year including a template from another admin, so by the time I started writing my message to him, I was at "WTF?!?!", and that's not a good place to start a conversation. Starting at "WTF?!?!" was not going to be effective. Looking back, I realize I should have taken a minute in between reading and writing, and I apologize to Mikeblas for coming in so hot, that wasn't cool of me. Sorry. Levivich (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your apology if it weren't for its condescending and self-aggrandizing tone. No editor should ever be subject to the kind of treatment you have shown me in this process. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

mikeblas, there's space for your side of the story. I doubt people will change their minds about this sort of activity, but I recognise everyone in this thread so far as being a respectful adult, and I'm interested in hearing your clarifications. Folly Mox (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll post something soon. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mikeblas: Sorry I assumed someone had already told you when they approached you. You need to stop doing what you are doing right away. If possible you should try and revert any cases where you've done this. Going forward, instead of removing a broken citation, please tag it with some appropriate tag, probably {{incomplete citation}} or {{full citation needed}} so someone else can fix it in the future. Alternatively you can try and fix it yourself. If you're unsure what tag to use, feel free to seek help at WP:Teahouse or WP:Help Desk. However using the wrong tag isn't such a big deal, provided you do not remove the broken citation. Although if someone approaches you and says "you used this tag {{abc}}, you really should use {{xyz}} instead", do take their advice on board. If you feel their suggestion on which tag to use is incorrect feel free to discuss it with them and if you're still unsure, feel free to use WP:Teahouse or WP:Help Desk for further clarification. Generally speaking is a bad idea to ignore advice unless you're sure it's wrong according to our norms, and going by your confusion here, I do think your understanding of our norms is limited so I'd strongly suggest you never ignore advice until you've come to better understand our norms; hence why I'd suggest you seek further advice from others if you think you've been given bad advice rather than just ignore it. Although just to repeat, I wouldn't be so worried if the issue was you were using a less suitable template even after someone had suggested an alternative. The main concern is you removing broken citations, potentially making cleanup of these problems far more difficult. If for some reason you're unwilling to keep such broken citations when doing such work, then your only option is to cease doing such cleanup work point blank instead of removing the citations. If even that isn't something you can do, then the only real option I can see is for you to cease editing all together. Nil Einne (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Just to further explain, it's not such a big deal if an inexperienced editor ignores advice or concerns raised about their editing because they wrongly think it's incorrect or they don't understand it, and so continue to make mistakes. But as editors gain experience, we expect them to start to learn for themselves when something they've been told is incorrect or unhelpful and so they can ignore the advice given; and when it's not. Likewise if an editor doesn't understand something it starts to become incumbent on them to recognise this. This doesn't mean they automatically know what to do. They may need to read the relevant policies and guidelines or seek further feedback such as in the manners I suggested. In your case, since multiple people have approached you on this, if you were an experienced editor it would be very concerning that you just ignored those concerns and advice since it was correct. But if you're not experienced, then just take this as part of learning to edit here. Nil Einne (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking further, I'd only count the User:Joseph2302 (two (edit) example as the same thing (replacing a potentially fixable ref with a cn) so it's more accurate to say "two people" than multiple. However Levivich's approach in particular, was IMO clear enough on the specific issue of replacing broken citations with cn, even if they were more aggressive than needed be, so it was really time to either change or at least seek further feedback if you felt Levivich was wrong (which they weren't).

I don't think it'd necessarily count the User:Elinruby example (one (relevant edit)) as even wrong since deciding to accept Elinruby's judgment that the source was unreliable and so remove anything referenced to it seems acceptable.

The User:GiantSnowman example (four (edit)), well I don't think that should have been removed however removing the entire thing is a little different from replacing a potentially fixable reference with a cn tag since if you have strong doubts it's correct, it's might be okay to remove it even if it's possible there is a reference when you can't even be sure the reference is reliable.

The User:Kimen8 (three (edit)) is a little different but also potentially the most concerning. @Mikeblas:, I can see there were other references for every sentence hence I guess why you didn't add a cn tag [284]. But did you verify every single detail given there was supported by at least one other reference that you didn't remove?

Because it's very common someone might write "Nil Einne is widely regarded as the stupidest Wikipedian of all time and has been banned multiple times from the English Wikipedia. ref A, ref B". But ref A might only support Nil Einne being widely regarded as the stupidest Wikipedian of all time and ref B might only support Nil Einne being banned multiple times. So if an editor removes ref A but leaves ref B, suddenly we end up with a situation where only part of the sentence is support by a reference when the whole sentence was sourced before.

So unless you verified every detail was in another reference already cited, just removing the pmid19584973 was even more problematic. Potentially you changed an article from one where every single detail in that those sentences were supported by a reference to one where they weren't. Further since there are references there, people are going to assume that every single detail is referenced when perhaps some aren't. No editor is likely ever know this even needs to be fixed until someone tries to verify the detail in the future. At the very least you should have added the {{verificationneeded}} tag so editors know there is a possible problem although as per the cn example, that still isn't the correct course.

Instead just tag the broken reference and leave it be. You cannot assume pinging whoever added it is sufficient. They might miss the ping, ignore it, (suddenly?) become inactive, forget about it, not understand it, not care, or whatever. As you've said every editor is responsible for their edits and so this means if you're removing a citation no matter if it was broken because another editor made a mistake, it's you're responsibility to ensure you aren't make the article far, far worse by doing do.

Note that pmid19584973 was surely trivially fixable. Logically this must mean the article with the PMID (PubMed ID) which is [285] which unsurprisingly has a title strongly suggesting it was the intended reference. So personally, even if every detail was in some other ref, I would not have removed it. However if you verified every single detail was supported by another ref, then it's a fair enough judgment call to condense refs so we can leave that example aside. Although you really should have said you did so in the edit summary to prevent another editor checking out the history seeing it, getting concerned and spending their time redoing your effort of verifying every detail.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Have not been following this but in the example above where I am mentioned, I removed Jewish Virtual Library because it was (and still is) my understanding that this source was deprecated in an RfC because it cites Wikipedia. I have only quickly looked at the mention, but I would have left the claim and added a cn tag if I was fairly certain the claim was accurate, but being left uncited because I removed Jewish Virtual Library, and could not for reasons of time or whatever immediately find another source.

It looks like the issue here is replacing incomplete but valid citations with cn tags. I personally think that this should be avoided in most cases, and that the citation should be fixed if possible. If this is not possible for reasons of bandwidth or time or whatever, I think it would be better to leave an incomplete but valid citation alone than to remove it. I hope this comment is helpful. Elinruby (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

on looking further, I do not think that the example where i am mentioned is an instance of what the OP seems to think it is.

The reference should *not* have been rescued, assuming I was correct to remove it in the first place, which I think I was. The only device I have access to right now is mobile, and my complaint on his talk page says that the table will not display on my phone, so I cannot double-check, but it sounds like a bot restored a reference that should not have been restored and mikeblas removed it again. According to me, that was the right thing to do. Finding another reference might have been better, but I had noticed the reference problem as an incidental finding while doing something else, and the same may have been true for him. My complaint on his talk page was not that he removed the reference. I simply had an issue with the tone of his notification, but patroller notifications do tend to come across as patronizing, and I would not say that his was unusually so.

Bottom line, I would like to disassociate myself from this complaint and do not think my issue is a good example of what is being alleged here Elinruby (talk) 11:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in, Elinruby. Indeed, at least a few of the examples given were not accurately described by the OP and this is one of them. I am sorry that you were caught up in this mess and completely understand your desire to distance yourself from it. I do very much appreciate you having the courage to point out that the reports made here aren't completely trustworthy. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Which of the 15 diffs in my OP is not a diff of you removing a <ref> or {{sfn}}? Levivich (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

That question is replied to in full just above in this thread you are replying to. The diff in Other editors have complained to Mikeblas about this on his UTP at least one (relevant edit) is not a complaint about "this". It was indeed a complaint, but not about what you say, and I would have told you so had you asked me about it Elinruby (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

And answered even more broadly by Nil Einne's analysis of Levivich's examples, also above. I'll be WP:BOLD and post my own analysis of their claims:

one: Elinruby explained themselves directly, above.

two: This user did say that they wished I fixed the reference instead of just adding a template, but didn't say it was wrong not to do so. In my response to them, I explained that I couldn't fix their reference name and what I had done to try. Sure: I just missed it. But since I pinged them about the error, they were able to immediately make a fix. Point is, tho, this writer indicated they were upset about being pinged and didn't offer specific and prescriptive advice of not replacing broken footnotes or using some specific tag instead of {{cn}}.

three: This user simply asks how they can spot their own errors -- Is there a way to tell that it was never defined ...?. Super constructive and very positive: they turned down the free fish and now have a new lure for their tackle box. They do not ask me to change anything about my editing style.

four: This user posted {{uw-vandalism2}} but didn't explain why when I responded to them. With no explanation, I figured they were just upset that I reverted their unreferenced edit and lashed out.

Thus, none of these users prescriptively indicated that I should be doing something else, and didn't direct me to any Wikipedia policy or essay or even template documentation about handling broken footnotes in some different way. Because of Levivich's representation of these posts and my edits here, other participants are working under their false implication that I don't try to find a fix before doing so. And have started telling me that I have competency issues and doubting my responsiveness to feedback.

Hopefully, this sheds some light on why I don't think Levivich's reports are completely trustworthy. -- mikeblas (talk) mikeblas (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Further to this point, I do not agree with the way my interaction with Mikeblas is being represented here and do not have an issue with his behaviour in that instance. I took a huge amount of grief for trying to address some Jan Grabowski's more valid criticism from people who had uncritically read him, then found me editing in the area and ascribed responsibility to me for what I was trying to fix. With some distance on these events, I would say that I identified a genuine issue with the article but because of the table format did not completely remedy it everywhere in the article because I did not see all instances of it, it looks like. Which Mikeblas fixed, it seems. So again, I do not appreciate my complaint on his talk page being used against him in this way, since in retrospect I think I was unnecessarily defensive and more hostile than I like to remember. I apologize for that. I do not think the interaction should have been depicted as it has, and believe that Mikeblas reacted quite well considering. Elinruby (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your very kind words. They're very meaningful to me, and a ray of light in this difficult event. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

For sure, I can use {{fcn}} to mark broken footnotes going forward, and will work to clarify the documentation so that others know that template is appropriate for that usage. And a majority of the changes I made are already "fixed" by the editors I pinged to notify them of the problem at hand. But I'm still wondering how to address the misinformation and uncivil accusations posted here and on my talk page. Why do you seem to be ignoring that question? -- mikeblas (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time telling who you were replying to, but is Why do you seem to be ignoring that question? a general question, or specifically to one person?

If it's a general question, and you believe someone has intentionally posted misinformation and made unsupported accusations on your talk, you can bring that to AN or ANI. I'd recommend starting a new section so that this one can be archived promptly. Valereee (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm responding to Nil Einne. Sorry -- I thought that would be made clear by using the "Reply" link under one of their comments. Is that not the way replies are meant to work? -- mikeblas (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's the way it works! The problem is the indent that I had to try to follow up thread to see which post you were replying to, and when it's that many intervening posts it can be hard to figure out. Valereee (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, got it. Indeed, my vision is quite poor and using this interface is very difficult -- particularly when the discussions become incredibly giant. -- mikeblas (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey, Mikeblas, I don't want to pile on here, but in addition to rescuing or tagging instead of removing, it would be helpful if you'd be aware of where you're working. The edits that ended up with you here -- which is a good thing, it's good you're getting this advice here -- were at an article that is the locus of ongoing intense drama over...wait for it...sourcing. :D If you land on a page that is within a CTOP while in the course of doing what you believe is routine maintenance, it's never a bad idea to take at least a quick look at the talk. The drama there doesn't need anything to fan the flames, and it's likely made the drama here more than you were expecting, too. Valereee (talk) 11:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

So in terms of that article... those errors were caused by someone recently rewriting or adding new additions to large portions of the article. That user should not have put so many broken sfns because it is making it hard to follow along, check their work, check the quotes and the page numbers, and generally have the page still be working and not throwing a bunch of harv errors. They are a pretty new user so maybe that's why. However, it shows that maybe they were being a bit hasty. Could Mikeblas have instead, looked at the bibliography and fixed the cites himself? That would be better, but I think the original user causing the broken cites had a responsibility to know that. Even now there are at least 4 broken citations that still haven't been cleaned up. Andre🚐 10:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

As someone who has done a not insubstantial amount of work fixing others' citations, including gnoming Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, I would say that replacing a nonfunctional shortened footnote with a {{cn}} tag instead of the more correct {{incomplete citation}} or {{full citation needed}}, or even the less worse {{verify source}} or null action— this is mondo not cool. Like patching a hole in a garment by tearing the hole wider. Folly Mox (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Around ⅓ of no-target errors are trivially fixed using a source already cited in the article: usually the problem is a typo in the year, forgetting to use a custom |ref= parameter, or one pipe too few in the template call. A further ⅓ are easily fixed by looking at related articles linked in the same section as the broken footnote (often in a hatnore) whence text has been copypasted. The remainder are usually cited fully somewhere unexpected, but findable using Special:Search, but some require checking offsite. Folly Mox (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Mikeblas, I am in complete agreement with Levivich, Folly Mox and Nil Einne on this matter. Please take on board the feedback that you have been given. Cullen328 (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly analogous to removing uncited but clearly citable material per WP:BURDEN—if it is clear an edit (1) makes the article worse for readers and (2) makes the article harder for other editors to improve in the future, then it is an indefensibly bad edit, regardless of what policies an editor thinks they can point to. Remsense ‥ 论 05:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, that seems entirely contrary to WP:BURDEN. How would you clarify the wording at that policy in order to make your interpretation clearer? -- mikeblas (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Broken citations to legitimate sources should be fixed, not removed. Removing them just makes it harder for other editors to fix the problem. It's much easier to correct a typo or other minor problem than it is to dig through the page history or try and find a source from scratch. XOR'easter (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I've fixed thousands of no target errors, and would be happy for editors to take them more seriously. A short form reference without anything defining what it means is worse than no reference, as it fools readers into believing it is a valid reference. Saying that, removing the reference should be a last resort after all other avenues of correction have been tried (of which there are many), including trying to find a different source to replace it entirely. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree with everyone above that Mikeblas' behavior is a net negative compared to the status quo before he touches these articles. Mike, if you're not going to understand the issue when multiple editors are repeatedly telling you something over the course of years, that's a competence issue on your part. If you can't practice better discretion, then stop doing those edits. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Let me make my question more specific: how does this process work? What else is needed here? How much roasting is enough? -- mikeblas (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I wrote on your talk page before raising this at ANI:

What I'm looking for here is for you to commit to not doing this again in the future, and to fix the ones you already did (including diffs # 6-11 and any others you can fix).

I can't speak for anyone else, but that's still what I'm looking for here. Levivich (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Did you miss this comment? Or are you subtly saying you deserve more than that? By my inspection, the problems you've reported have already been fixed, and mostly by the editors who created the referencing errors in the first place. -- mikeblas (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I posted 17 problematic diffs. I checked before I wrote the above comment, and I just checked again: they are not all fixed. Please go through them and ensure they are all fixed. Levivich (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Please provide your specific list of "problematic diffs". -- mikeblas (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

They're already linked in the OP. Levivich (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I see diffs numbered 2 through 11, so there are ten. You're asking for seventeen. Sorry -- this leaves some confusion for me in what it is you are demanding. I'm sure you have the list handy since you're able to check it so rapidly, so if you could just post it that would be helpful. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Here are all 17 of your article edit diffs I posted in the OP:

... in this Sep 28 edit ... 2, 3, 4, 5, and recently at other articles: 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... relevant edit ... edit ... edit ...edit ... he did this again here and here.

I don't know which of those have been fixed, but I'm sure that the ones where your edit is still the current revision have not been fixed. Levivich (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! That's helpful. I'll chip away at it today. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

please cross "relevant edit" off the list. As discussed above, Jewish Virtual Library is not a valid source and he was correct to remove it. Elinruby (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, done. Levivich (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

thank you Elinruby (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

See User talk:Mikeblas/Levich's list. -- mikeblas (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused by diffs #6-11, as there's nothing to fix. These are undefined refnames that cause an error message, unless it's possible to find a recent reference that was removed they should be replaced with citation needed tags. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

They should not be replaced by a citation needed tag, that's sort of the point here. They should either be repaired, left alone, or tagged with {{fcn}}. Gosh, AD, please don't tell me you've been replacing incomplete refs with cn tags, too? Levivich (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no full citation, so fcn would be inappropriate. This is just an error stating that the citation details are missing completely. If editors don't want there errors to be replaced with citation needed tags they shouldn't add errors to articles.

These are not the same as incomplete short form references, that gives some idea of what might complete them. If there isn't a matching reference that has recently been removed these could be literally anything.

Please dear god tell me you haven't been adding error messages to articles thinking they are valid references. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean, There is no full citation, so fcn would be inappropriate.? {{fcn}} is short for {{full citation needed}}, it's specifically for use when there is no full citation. A full citation is needed. And no, it could not "literally be anything." Take a look at this edit, for example: Special:Diff/1216711110 with an undefined ref name. Do you know what citation that is? Yes, of course we all do.

And another thing you're very wrong about: these errors aren't created because people are "adding errors," that's ridiculous AD. You're highly experienced, you know how these come about: somebody adds a complete reference, then later somebody else removes something including the full reference definition, without moving the full reference to another instance of the ref name being called. That's why these undefined ref names can be recovered from article history, and we have bots that do this. That's why removing them is bad.

Seriously, do not remove undefined ref names, please. This is kind of a big deal because it makes articles much worse to remove undefined ref names or incomplete sfn's. Levivich (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I do know how these come about, the way you give is but a small subsection of them. Most of which are fixed automatically by Anomiebot. If you want to know how to fix them see my edit between creating an account and sometime around May 2022 when I cleared the historical back log of them.

Undefined refnames that can not be fixed should be replaced with citation needed tags, if only because as this very thread proves it actual causes people to pay attention. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Once again, this edit: Special:Diff/1216711110. Is that an undefined refname that cannot be fixed? I don't think any of my examples are undefined refnames that cannot be fixed. I think in each and every single case, if you dig in the history, you'll find what that undefined ref was. Levivich (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

And yes when the refname is "pmid19584973" it can be easily fixed, but how about the much more common ":0", "auto" or "ReferenceA". As I've repeatedly said, they should be fixed if possible, and if your not going to try you should leave them alone, but they can be replaced with citation needed tags if they can't be fixed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Are any of the diffs you mentioned, #6-#11, ":0", "auto", or "ReferenceA"? (Do you think I'm dumb enough to bring this to ANI if the refs were ":0", "auto", etc.?) And anyway, if you look at the article history, you can find even a ":0" ref. It's just a matter of finding the revision before the reference was removed. Levivich (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

No but I see "term", "MCUphase6" and "BBC Iran", so nondescript names seem more the norm than a PMID. And no not all missing references can be found in the article history, or sometimes anywhere. Not all of these errors are created by removing a reference, and most of the ones creacted that way are fixed by Anomiebot.

I think we're getting off topic. mikeblas shouldn't remove these unless they have tried to fix them, but I stand by replacing them with CN tags if they can't be fixed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, I agree with you about that: try to find it and if you can't find it, then cn it. Although... "MCUPhase6" is a reference to Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Six, so that's an example where, if you leave the refname, at least it gives me some indication of what reference I'm looking for (one about MCU Phase 6). Similarly, "BBC: Iran" at least tells me the source is BBC Iran (although it doesn't tell me which article). These are examples where {{fcn}}, rather than removal, would be helpful. It gives the next person something to go on. "Term", however, is too generic to be helpful. If MCUPhase6 and BBC: Iran were removed and replaced with cn, it'd at least be helpful to post on the talk page, "I removed these undefined ref names..." Levivich (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Where the PMID example shows a problem, the others don't show that they haven't tried to fix them first. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this observation, and your other comments. Despite the sentiment built here, I do go out of my way to try to find suitable references. Sometimes I miss, and sometimes I make mistakes. But more often than not (who knows what the quantitative answer is), I can find something that works. When I can't, I've either reverted the change entirely (per WP:BURDEN) or replaced the broken reference with {{cn}} or {{cn span}}. When I do so, I ping the editor who made the change causing the error, and they very often fix the issue. And quite promptly.

Scraping away all the anger, derision, inflated claims, and harmful accusations, the issue just comes down to: what should be done with broken footnotes when an editor finds them? I don't think anyone disagrees that an attempt at a replacement should be made. But what if a fix wasn't found with reasonable effort? Since the {{fcn}} doesn't mention this usage in its documentation, I'm surprised there's this informal consensus about using it. Is there other guidance (policy, RFCs, ...) that support that practice? -- mikeblas (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence of Template:Full citation needed is This template is an alternative to , for the cases where a reference is alluded to, or given in part, but not specified in enough detail. This seems to describe the current situation perfectly. Levivich (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I know I'm wasting my time saying so, but I disagree. By my read, that text doesn't describe a broken footnote. It describes an incomplete citation. -- mikeblas (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I think "{{sfn|Penslar|2017|loc=Staging Zionism}}" is a case where a reference is alluded to, or given in part, but not specified in enough detail. "Penslar," "2017," and "Staging Zionism" are all parts of a citation. Similarly, "<ref name="pmid19584973"/>" is a reference given in part: "pmid" and "19584973" are parts of a citation. But I doubt anyone will object if you want to expand on the template instructions to say that it includes broken footnotes. And @Mikeblas, please don't ping me in your edit summaries for your correction edits, that is not necessary or helpful, thanks. Levivich (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The 5 Zionism ones (the first five in the OP) definitely show that they haven't tried to fix them first. They even posted on the talk page at Talk:Zionism#Referencing problems, I have cleaned up several referencing problems in this article. Yet the source they removed: Penslar, Shimoni, Masalha, etc., they are listed on the same talk page. IMO, not enough effort at finding the citation before removing the sfn. Levivich (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

How about the undefined short forms in that article are fixed, rather than having this discussion. Short forms without definition give the false impression that content is properly sourced when it isn't, and it is on the editor adding the content to do it properly. That editor are creating such errors in such an article at a time like this is a reason for those editors to be brought here, rather than the editor pointing them out. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. First, those are sourced. A citation like "Masalha 2016" is still a citation. It's incomplete, but it doesn't make the statement unsourced. And somebody removing that and replacing it with "cn" is not "pointing out" errors, but rather, making the whole situation much worse. Somebody who is in the middle of an article rewrite and adds some broken citations does not deserve to be brought to ANI. Somebody who replaces incomplete citations with CN habitually and refuses to stop when asked, does deserve to be brought to ANI. We really need to all be on the same page that like this and this are never supposed to happen. One of the reasons is because those kinds of edits make it harder to fix the problem! We need to all be rowing in the same direction: towards improving the article, not un-improving it. Levivich (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Rather than waste time with this thread I've fixed what I can and have asked the editor who added the broken references to add the required cites. This is what should have happened first rather than this mess. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

As someone who has fixed ten of thousands of such errors, the idea that such edits are always a net negative is just wrong. Especially in high profile articles have a much citation needed tags lead to the issue being corrected much faster than fcn, as in within days rather than languishing in the article for decades. If the end goal is to improve the encyclopedia I would have {{Full citation needed}} deleted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Edits like this and this do not improve the encyclopedia; in both of those cases, the page was better before the edit than it was after the edit; those edits should not have been made. Levivich (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the initial framing of this report was a little unfair to mikeblas. I could have done a better diligence and checked more of the diffs, but describing only the removal of a broken {{sfn}} where the source was already listed in the article, while leaving out mention that a lot of the removals were undefined refnames that didn't obviously refer to sources already cited in the articles— that was also pretty not cool.

Fixed a few of the affected articles. Folly Mox (talk) 12:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The one involving Jewish Virtual Library was also pretty far from being what was represented. Elinruby (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Folly Mox: leaving out mention that a lot of the removals were undefined refnames? I didn't leave out mention of that, the OP mentions orphaned ref names and orphaned refs. The pmid example I and others have brought up multiple times--the most egregious one IMO--was an orphaned ref name. Levivich (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I probably didn't use the clearest phrases I could just above, since I was hurrying to get to work on time. I mistook "orphaned refs" to refer to broken shortened footnotes (I ageee technically AnomieBot uses this term to refer specifically to undefined refnames), and I probably should have used description for mention. Anyway we've all agreed that these edits are disimprovements, and I wish mikeblas's own explanation hadn't been eaten by oversight. Folly Mox (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

None of his content appears to have been oversighted, just the diffs that included oversightable material by other editors that was removed. As stated below, it was a misunderstanding. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I wrote responses to the claim that Other editors have complained to Mikeblas about this on his UTP at least [...] four times, showing that those instances did not clearly ask me to stop doing what I was doing, nor did they offer prescriptive advice about what to do instead. This demonstrates that the claims in the opening post are at least somewhat inflated.

An un-discussed issue here is the difference between a citation (as used here: remove incomplete citations) and a "footnote" or a "reference" (wihch to me is a link to a citation). I believe that in no cases involved here did I remove any citation of any sort, and instead removed only broken footnotes -- either {{sfn}}s or <ref> tags that referred to undefined references. Again, this is counter to the accusations in the opening post.

If editors are meant not to remove broken references and replace them with some variant of {{fact}} tag, that's fine, and I've already indicated I would comply with that going forward. But if that the case, the decision should be codified. That would make me happy, as it would mean this arduous process produced some meaningful and positive outcome. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm probably not being very cool either, blaming other people for my own misunderstandings and not even communicating clearly myself. Sorry mikeblas and Levivich both. Folly Mox (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

You're one of the few people here seeking depth and balance, and I greatly, sincerely appreciate that. It's the coolest. Even if you tripped over your keyboard, I don't think you have anything to apologize for. -- mikeblas (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look into this issue beyond the superficial. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I again ask for procedural help here. I've implemented the demands of Levivich as seen here (or more directly here). And I've committed to using {{fcn}} to mark broken footnotes going forward. What else must be done to consider this issue resolved? -- mikeblas (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

please do not resign over this. As it is source verification is very fraught, especially in contentious topics, and will become even lonelier if people are driven out for doing it. I have not in investigated, but I give great weight to AD's opinion that some of the other examples were not erroneous either. I have not investigated enough to say that no errors were committed at all, but I don't think that should be the standard for.adminship and losing someone who is at least trying to do the right thing would deeply sadden when the incentives are already so stacked against trying to get the facts right on difficult topics. Elinruby (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Elsewhere in this thread, I refute Levivich's claim that four other users complained about this. (I can't link directly to that, since it was suppressed.) The premise set by those questionable claims seeded a belief that I wasn't listening to feedback offered to me and significantly biased the conversation against me. No surprise -- the very structure of ANI biases toward the aggressor.

The tone of Levivich's introduction here further sets up the belief that I wildly replaced citations that I thought were broken with {{cn}} tags, or similar (like {{cn span}}). I do replace broken footnotes with fact tags, and only after I make an effort to fix them. Sometimes, my effort is Herculean and correct. Sometimes, I make mistakes. Sometimes I'm impatient, sometimes I miss possible candidates. Usually (far more often than not) though, I think I do the right thing.

In Levivich's flagship example at the Zionism article, they say that I replaced {{sfn|Penslar|2017|loc=Staging Zionism}} with {{cn}}. And I sure did! But this is not replacing an incomplete citation, and is not a simple error.

Why? There's an important point here: I think that "reference" or "footnote" means a footnote. The "[15]" part. A citation is the actual meat of the citation: an author, a link, a page number, a title. The real citation of the published fact. A footnote is broken when it references no citation: when we have something like {{sfn|Penslar|2017|loc=Staging Zionism}} and no citation that matches, there's a visible error in the references section of the article.

Unfortunately, that still leaves the "[15]" superscript. To a casual reader, then, the text still looks like it is supported with a reference and therefore trustworthy. But it's not. The public puts a high amount of trust in Wikipedia, so much so that citations are often not verified. Just the presence of the footnote number infers that trust, and I think it shouldn't. That's why I think an explicit "[citation needed]" superscript is safer than a footnote number that doesn't lead to an actual citation.

In that example, the Penslar|2017 footnote was used three times. Beyond WP:COMPETENCE and WP:BURDEN, the editor who placed it didn't check their work and left it there. In fact, the article had twelve footnotes which were broken for different reasons: no target, multiple targets, undefined altogether. Were this fix so simple, why weren't the people tending to the article taking care of it, or the others?

And simple it wasn't. The article had *three* similar citations for an author named "Penslar":

• Penslar, Derek J., "Zionism, Colonialism and Postcolonialism", in Israeli Historical Revisionism: From Left to Right, Psychology Press, 2003, pp. 85–98
• Penslar, Derek, Israel in History: The Jewish State in Comparative Perspective, Taylor & Francis, 2007, p. 56.
• Penslar, Derek J. (2023). Zionism: An Emotional State. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 978-0-8135-7611-4.

These citations are all adequately complete so I'd never consider using {{fcn}} for them. I never removed or replaced any one of them -- just the footnote, which matched none of these three. Was one of these three intended? Or maybe some other work published by Penslar in 2017? Or maybe some other work published in 2017 by some other author? Only the editor who added that footnote knows. So I replaced two of the footnotes with {{cn span}}. And removed one, since it was correctly supported by some other footnote. I did not remove a citation, as Levivich claims. And when I made that edit, I pinged the editor who added that footnote so they knew what I did to try to fix the problem they had created.

Turns out, that referencing error was introduced a few days eailer than my change. Where is Levivich's unbridled outrage for that change? After all, didn't it also make the article worse, and harder to fix?

Anyway, the rest of his examples are similar. (Except the one where he didn't consider that I was following policy to remove a bad source, as listed at WP:RSP.) Maybe I missed a more obvious source that I just didn't see, maybe I could've dug into something more thoroughly. But I only replaced broken footnotes and didn't delete any citations. Maybe I misspelled "Pansler" and didn't find the "Penslar" texts I was hunting.

While my work isn't perfect, the tone that Levivich established here -- and flame that he subsequently fanned -- is that I don't make an effort to find replacements. That's objectively not true: I chase down edits, fix problems left behind by AnomieBOT and Visual Editor, and untangle constructs involving definitions passed through layers of templates, transclusions, and excerpts. I've fixed broken references, resurrected dead links, sorted out typos, sorted out duplicate definitions, and more.

Another errant notion in this thread is that it's hard to find and fix errors once I've made these changes. Why didn't Levivich notice that I ping editors (who aren't anonymous) when I replace their broken footnotes with maintenance tags? Those editors aren't surprised somewhere down the line: they're pinged immediately with the change. They were already shown their errors by the red error messages shown in the {{references}} section after their change went live, but now they've got a second indication to follow. In fact, the posts on my talk page that Levivich linked to mention my pings!

But this is all fluff.

The very core issue here is borne from differing definitions of what a "citation" and a "reference" and a "footnote" are: what should be done for broken references? There was some talk here agreeing with me, in that explicit "[citation needed]" markers are safer than dead "[15]" footnotes. I don't think that anything is made more difficult when something broken is removed and replaced with a marker as anyone who knows how to use the editing tools knows how to recover the diffs.

But maybe other people think differently. I don't know of any policy or previous consensus about the issue, and for sure Levivich themselves didn't point us to any. So at the heart of it Levivich is asking me to conform to his preferred style rather than to conform to widely-accepted policy or convention. What obligates me to do that? Just him yelling at me, and accusing me of disruption and vandalism and threatening me with bans?

In other words, Levivich is demonstrating that they're unwilling to consider any other opinion than their own. I don't agree with Levivich's opinion, but I don't think it is unreasonable. It's quite clear that Levivich thinks my opinion is unreasonable and is unwavering obstinate about that. How can someone find common ground with another that's so entrenched in their own?

That issue, about what do do with broken 'footnotes (not citations) as a best practice, is an issue this ANI might have productively solved.

At Levivich's repeated demand, I still agree to abide by the promise to not remove broken footnotes and instead augment them with {{fcn}}, even though I think its use would be incongruous. And, again at Levivich's repeated demand, I executed on replacing the referencing errors in the articles that weren't already properly fixed, even though I felt like replacing referencing errors into articles -- something I've spent thousands of edits fixing -- felt completely counter-productive.

I don't know how things are meant to proceed here, but I think now it's time for my own demands, responding in kind. Levivich should:

• Renounce and correct the false and bloated accusations they made on my talk page.
• Review and explain the reasoning for the faulty examples they gave of my previously being told to correct this issue.
• Commit to seeking compromise by always listening to the other side, considering it earnestly, in his future interactions.
• Write and sponsor an RfC for the practice they've demanded of me (and presumably every other editor) to codify it for all to come.

I don't think many would disagree with me that the ANI environment is flying goat rodeo. I don't think it produces productive consensus and instead is based on the duress established by the threat of castigation. Or the social pressure against dissent and questioning. Throughout this process, I felt that any question I asked would be used against me. If you think that this process does not entertain diversity in approach or thought, and does not foster evolution, then your views align with mine. In this experience, I learned that this non-process does not build trust or seek truth. I find it utterly unfair, significantly biasing for the aggressor rather than giving equal voice to the defendant. What good could become of mob-driven reviews where gang tackles like this are institutionally normalized?

I regret that my work on Wikipedia caused me to be involved in it, and am sorry that people who have shown me kindness and support have had to spend time and effort on it. If Levivich can execute on those requests, then I think we can all say something positive has come of this arduous and embarrassing event. Can we salvage just this one?

Until then, this user's treatment of me (and others), their overly-aggressive approach and refusal to pursue compromise or understanding, and Wikipedia's harboring of their behaviour through this frenzied free-for-all has -- at least for the foreseeable future -- intimidated me from contributing anything. It's just not worth the risk or effort, it's not safe.

Thank you for hearing my side of the issue. While I still don't know what puts this not-process to an end, I'm looking forward to the closure of this matter. -- mikeblas (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I can just about guarantee you that saying that you're doing everything right and someone else has to do a lengthy 4-part mea culpa is absolutely not the way to end this quickly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Wow, what a surprising comment! Never said I was doing "everything right", at all. Explicitly stated quite the opposite, in fact. Seems like a disingenuous read, but I can understand that given the severe bias here. I've just expressed my reasoning for doing what I did, which has not previously been examined here. Is there really no room for that?

In the above post I said I'd abide by the editing changes, and I've already done the fixes. Third or fourth time I've pointed that out -- still no response. Why, after the huge rush to open the issue in the first place?

If Levivich gets away with his distorted narrative and abusive posts, that's fine: I already know Wikipedia implicitly condones that behaviour, no surprise. I still comply, and we can close the issue. I've imposed no conditions on my compliance. OTOH, it would be a shame if that happened. -- mikeblas (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

given the severe bias here

This is why you're getting pushback. Just declaring the entire community here as "biased" is a self-fullfilling prophecy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Y'know what? I'm coming in here for fun to add my two cents. Let's just go with should auld acquaintance be forgot, and start this thing back over radically.

@Mikeblas, please do a quick bit of skimming over a ref when it seems to be not correct, before removing it outright.

@Levivich, please assume that things are right, and don't operate on the basis that an edit made that is not right is automatically wrong.

A discussion of content removal has turned into a civility dispute EIGHT MILLION MILES LONG. This should not be happening. Boys, it's time to turn the slinky of dispute back into a simple ring that gets to the root.

not an Admin, just bored and looking around. –BarntToust^(Talk) 22:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of good faith all around could be useful. I think Mikeblas is suitably chastened, looking to learn, and next time he'll do a skim or use a different, more specific template. Andre🚐 22:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's not. This portion was a misunderstanding, now cleared up, and is devolving into unproductive bickering. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Now, I see that my two most recent contributions here appear to have been suppressed. I've not received any notification about or explanation for that. One was a post that I made in my defense -- so my only takeaway is that is not actually allowed and was summarily removed. But why the lack of transparency? (Please see [286] and [287].) -- mikeblas (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC) If you look at the page's history, a number of unrelated posts were caught up in a suppression of possible outing (in a different thread). Schazjmd (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Often suppression is done without explanation for privacy reasons. Valereee (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC) One was a post that I made in my defense -- so my only takeaway is that is not actually allowed and was summarily removed. I would not expect to read such a comment from an advanced rights holder. Mackensen (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Even admins can't see "suppressed" diffs. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC) But they should know how suppression works: even non-admins can see that your comments were not summarily removed, they're still on this page. Levivich (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC) You're gas-lighting again: telling me what I do or "should" know isn't productive or WP:CIVIL. While I did eventually find my changes were intact, I've never before come across suppressed edits and certainly am not aware of any other edit I've made being suppressed. Again: I've been forced to participate in a process that's very serious, but for which I discover no documentation about how I should (must, could) participate. That leaves me feeling tremendous trepidation -- particularly in light of your tremendous anger and aggression -- and I hope you can find some empathy for that. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC) This is the first time in 21 years you've ever come across suppressed edits? Levivich (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Yes. Is this the first time you've ever met someone who didn't know everything? [288] But maybe it would be more productive to consider my repeated plea for help and guidance. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Artificialrights civility

I want to be clear: I am not making this ANI over content disagreements. This is not the place to discuss content disagreements; this is report is solely about behavior.

The user in question has been unnecessarily aggressive in discussions. They have a relatively new account and are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and style; both of these things are fine, but the issue is that they've immediately decided to edit controversial pages on World War II and get angry at people who disagree with their edits.

Relevant talk threads: Talk:J. Mark Ramseyer, Talk:January 28 incident, Talk:Racism in Japan. They're unnecessarily combative in each of these threads. It's hampering discussion.

Examples: [289] [290][291]

This behavior is making it really hard to discuss content. Every comment is loaded with sarcasm, baiting statements, or even insults (although they're mostly indirect). Disagreement is a normal part of editing Wikipedia; it shouldn't be so hard to discuss things. No writing is immune to feedback, and getting immediately angry at feedback (even when you disagree with it) is not helpful.

I don't know what kind of disciplinary action would be appropriate; at the very least could an admin reinforce that this kind of dialogue isn't helpful? seefooddiet (talk) 06:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe your response to me was very rude and provocative in the first place. Firstly, I want to make it clear that I only wish to discuss the content itself, but you, based on your own subjective inclinations, condescended to me and constantly making accusations against me personally rather than discussing the content itself and even directly claiming my edits are not worth taking serious therefore can be rolled back at will, which is annoying of course. I think your attitude and mentality has obstructed the peaceful discussion and dialogue on the content itself, as well as the way the other party responds.

Btw I think it's normal to feel annoyed when you spend a lot of time and energy on certain contributions and then have somebody rolled back without a second thought and with very lame reasons, especially when the excuse seems involve clear double standard.

Artificialrights (talk) 07:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

To be clear; this is the first response I gave to the user. My note about being skeptical is because I saw these edits, which I found alarming. I wasn't alone in feeling this way; 3-4 other users reverted this user's edits. You saying "subjective inclinations" is meaningless; all we have on Wikipedia are subjective analyses. Everything is a matter of perspective and is filtered through human narrators here. And alledging that I didn't discuss the content is patently false; I absolutely did in basically every comment I made.

Btw I think it's normal to feel annoyed when you spend a lot of time and energy on certain contributions and then have somebody rolled back without a second thought and with very lame reasons, especially when the excuse seems involve clear double standard. Why would you double down on this kind of rhetoric on the ANI board? This is exaclty the kind of problematic behavior I reported you for. seefooddiet (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, this is the your first response, not that one. You assert that I violated the principle of neutrality without pointing out any specific issue (actually you didn't read it at all, as shown in the later conversation). It is arrogant and condescending. Put this aside,

This edit should alarm any person without pre-existing propositions. Take a closer look for yourself to see how many unsourced assertions, factual errors, unexplained deletions, and biased, non-neutral language were added in this single edit. If you had people evaluate the two versions independently and in parallel, I think the results would be obvious. Let's be honest.

Which "3-4 other users reverted this user's edit"? Don't make up disinformation, please. As for Ash-Gaar, we have talked in the talk page that this user's reason for reverting isn't convincing. You can't explain why, after I revised his (subjective) complaints about minor wordings and grammar issue, he still obstructed the addition of information about the scholar's own opinion on his own page. How could merely adding the live person's own opinion, be labeled as a tendentious edit? Even you would agree it is absurd.

"You saying "subjective inclinations" is meaningless; all we have on Wikipedia are subjective analyses."

So you finally acknowledge that certain users' retraction of new versions (that have improved neutrality or accuracy) can be regarded as a tendentious editing behavior based on its inherent biases? Since you admit every edit is subjective, it is meaningless to make generalised accusations like "tendentious" without talking about specific concrete issues. Artificialrights (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not condescending; I don't know why you're getting that reading from that. I am calling out objectively bad behavior; you're demanding that others fix your work and you clearly still don't own up to the fact that your writing has had POV issues and that you don't really understand Wikipedia policy. My tone was a reflection of me seeing your behavior elsewhere and judging that it was poor.

I didn't have to provide evidence because Ash-Gaar did. Even though you fixed the POV issues later, that doesn't change the fact that they existed in the first place. Your edits having been reverted by other users is not misinformation, here's evidence: 12 and 3. What's absurd is your continuous rudeness.

In basically every comment I've outlined why your behavior is rude. I don't have to repeat myself. Reading comprehension is on you, not me. Whether the final J. Mark Ramseyer edit should have been reverted is debatable, but what's clearly unacceptable is your behavior all along the way, even here. seefooddiet (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

As someone who's been tangentially involved in one of these discussions so far, I hope it comes off as intended when I say that both seefooddiet and Artificial rights clearly seem like they're trying to do the right things and make quality contributions in good faith. Just as much, I understand the reasons for frustration stated by both of them: Artificialrights is a bit newer and is still learning the ropes, and I see them trying to do that and apply policy more consciously in their contributions. As someone who reverts a lot and gets reverted a lot, I also understand it is not fun, and the realities is that communication surrounding reversions often doesn't leave all parties in a zen state of mind. That is to say, I do not want to come off as dismissive or patronizing when I say "everyone seems essentially fine and perfectly able to work together here"—I'm chiming in with the hope of perhaps disengaging future misunderstandings. Remsense ‥ 论 00:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the input and understand the intent; considering that the user still rejects the feedback about POV that was given [292] and only begrudgingly made it to get their edits through, all while insulting the parties involved along the way, makes me still feel skeptical about their behavior. seefooddiet (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I totally get why, as the tone was significantly harsher than I would expect. With that said, I feel like with the content question itself in mind, I see their reasons for a bit of confusion and consternation, and see their begrudgement nonetheless as fundamentally in good faith, and would likewise ask them to please take a breath next time, as we're all on the same team here. Remsense ‥ 论 01:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I did come off firm, although I don't think I was unfair or rude. I regret making a few mistakes in my feedback, but ultimately every other point of feedback I stand by. If the topics weren't so contentious, I probably wouldn't have been firm or gotten involved at all; this user made the choice to immediately jump to these topics while not understanding Wikipedia policy.

Regardless, this kind of feedback will happen over and over on Wikipedia; it is a required experience of editing on the website. It is not acceptable to get so belligerent when running into disagreement. seefooddiet (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a perfectly cogent reflection. @Artificialrights, like I said above, I totally understand your situation as well and take you to be taking all this in stride—again, do not want to condescend here but editing is hard—and sometimes editing in certain areas can result in hackles being raised that wouldn't otherwise be for reasons that aren't anyone's fault. That is not at all to dissuade or discourage you: quite the contrary, we likewise always need more dedicated editors in these areas and you're already doing a lot right. Hopefully it's understandable how slightly sticky situations like these crop up, and that we're pretty well-suited to smooth this one out with that mutual understanding of good intentions. Is that alright with you? Remsense ‥ 论 01:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm alright with that. I have no problem with Seefooddiet as long as the user don't suggest something like "This page may need improvement but that one shouldn't be you". Artificialrights (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Fortunately I've never suggested anything like that. seefooddiet (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a general comment:

I am not an admin but please refute the central issue you have with someone, and state what they need to do to fix it. Also avoid assuming things about others except WP:Good faith. Please tell me if I'm wrong.

Not so general part of this comment:

I do see some subtle word changes that are interesting by @Artificialrights. Apenguinlover(🐧!) 00:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I've done that in each of my comments; each of them has actionable feedback. seefooddiet (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

And then, there are the not so subtle word choices... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I am genuinely so stupid. I'll hide in the wikicave of shame. Apenguinlover(🐧!) 09:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Steven1991's continuing misleading edit summaries

Steven:1991 continues to use misleading edit summaries, referencing substantive edits as "fixed grammar," as seen here. The User has been warned that this is misleading before. When I tried to inform them that this was not an acceptable edit summary, I was told that I was not assuming good faith and further accused of wiki lawyering, even after presenting evidence in the form of a diff.Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I apologized for the inaccuracies in the editing summaries. I promise that I would be more specific in future editing summaries to avoid misperceptions of them being "misleading", but I do hope that the phrasing of any reminders on my Talk page can be improved. Steven1991 (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I will withdraw this, but misleading edit summaries are disruptive by nature, and when someone warns you, its best not to accuse them of "wikilawyering" when they bring evidence to support a claim. Insanityclown1 (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand that you don’t see it that way, but I would pay attention in the future. Steven1991 (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

My intention is to clean up the article, keeping relevant content as precise as possible, i.e. reducing redundancy, while adding content that can provide more information related to subsections with which it is associated. Steven1991 (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Steven1991, writing false edit summaries is a form of disruptive editing, which can lead to blocks. Consider yourself warned, and always be truthful in your edit summaries. Cullen328 (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

OK. Steven1991 (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The atrticle is a highly controversial subject and massibe deletion is a cleaar red flag. You have to be careful with edits. Ideally you have to split your edits in two: (A) remove redundancy (B) do additions and fixes. It is insanelyt difficult to track and verify in the article diffs what exactly was done. --Altenmann >talk 21:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, you may want to note that Steven1991 has already been warned on their page and also at ANI, by me, for deceptive edit summaries, and blocked for the same by Drmies. I'm not sure a warning is enough for repeating the offense so soon and so egregiously, especially not with the aggressive and accusatory way they removed Insanityclown1's warning. This is not collaborative editing. It may be time for another block, rather than yet another warning. Bishonen | tålk 22:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC).

Bishonen, you are correct and I should have looked more deeply. I have blocked Steven1991 for 72 hours. Cullen328 (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I suspect sockpuppetry for block evasion: compare edits: 50.48.239.234 and Steven1991 in Antisemitic trope. --Altenmann >talk 05:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the writing styles do seem to bear similarities. I hope I'm mistaken, but this does seem to be a duck. Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

It appears that Steven1991 resumed editing logged out with an IP address to evade their block and also created the sockpuppet User:Zerpatidal. I have handed out blocks all around and semi-protected Antisemitic trope. Steven1991 is now indefinitely blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 06:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Cullen328 handled it. Was hoping for a happy ending to this but I guess this is the way the chips fell. Insanityclown1 (talk) 06:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

There are no happy endings for liars, block evaders and sock masters. Cullen328 (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Noting here for ease of reference that CU did not find convincing evidence of socking, and the old 72-hour block has been restored. The warning to avoid deceptive edit summaries stands. As a side note, Steven, this is an example of why misleading edit summaries are a bad idea; it erodes the community's faith in you, and makes it easy to believe the worst. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if it’s a big deal at this point but user has been deleting unsuccessful block appeals in contravention of Wikipedia policy. I welcome your input on this Cullen328.Insanityclown1 (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the sudden (un-)ban (*note that the IP is still blocked as a LOUTSOCK of the editor's) is very concerning. In reality, the Rochester IP is almost certainly part of a different LTA case.[293] I don't know about the other account involved, but this is all a fair bit negligent. Biohistorian15 (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Koar20104

Koar20104 (talk · contribs) longtime creator of multiple fake wikipedia articles. Obviously WP:NOTHERE and a considerable disruption. --Altenmann >talk 19:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Does not look good. I would like to hear from the user; absent of this we have to assume that the articles are indeed hoaxes. Ymblanter (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I endorse this block. Deliberately creating hoaxes on Wikipedia is reprehensible. Cullen328 (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

WatersignKing and Nuerland

@WatersignKing (previously known as Gatwech Gai) created an article named "Rol Naath". The article was put for deletion and then I made it clear that this editor clearly has an have an axe to grind as this term, Rol Naath, is used widely by separatist who advocate for a separate land for the Nuer people from South Sudan. I made that comment about "axe" because the original article looked like a fringe claim (maybe totally a hoax too) to bolster an ethnic group's land claims. If you look to the map in the original article and compare it to the on in Nuer people, that becomes clear as you look to the land in the west of South Sudan. See this video that comes as the top of the list when searching for the article title which exactly talk about ethnic separation. Plus, from this editor work at Nuer massacre, I really think they have an axe to grind and they are using self published books and primary sources, synthetic arguments, and editorialising to do that. This editor has refused to listen and accused everyone who is pointing to the problems with the way they operate, as "working for the genocidal government of South Sudan?", or some kind of conspiracy and has been warned for it but continued with the same behaviour when challenged. You can also look no further than the discussion below.

This context is important as I will try to demonstrate that this editor is using Wikipedia to support a separatist movement and a fringe theory.

After, the page was moved to Nuerland, a name that has credible sources as it was used during the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan occupation of Sudan and mentioned in many credible sources, and extensive editing to both Nuerland and Nuer massacre, I left the matter to that, after I also had discussed the matter with editor on his talk, see User talk:WatersignKing#June 2024

Until this edit, which starts with "Rol Naath, a de facto autonomous state that was politically, socially, and economically independent until 1943 and officially became part of the Sudan political system in 1947, is now seeking to unilaterally separate and consequently dissolve that 1943 political union with South Sudan." the citation given is two YouTube videos from Nuer separatist, which does not meet WP:RS. The rest of the edit is pure synthtic, mixed with sentences like "When the world's supper powers were conquering other African countries in the 18th and 19th centuries, the Nuer carried out their own territorial conquest" etc. Below is a references analysis

• 1st paragraph mentioned above with YouTube references 1 and 2
• 2nd paragraph has the "When the world's super .. phrase referenced to a book review and an entire book with no page.
• 3rd paragraph mentions "The Turkish who invaded Sudan in 1821 perceived the Nuerland as a sovereign state" with no inline reference, and checking the the reference at the end of the paragraph does no mention the word "Nuer" at all.
• 4th paragraph mentions "It was not until 1916 that the first patrol was sent to the Nuerland. the reference again does not support this claim and nothing there about Nuer at all. Also same paragraph it mentions "The British colonial administration in Sudan acknowledged that the Nuer country was an independent state" with no inline source, and the sources at the end does not mention any acknowledged that the Nuer country was an independent state excluding the entire book to was cited which I could not skim read.
• 5th paragraph mentions "the Nuer political system was relatively strong" and "Fangak region functioned as parliament, the source is a comment from a Nuer Spokesmen who talks about Nuer Chiefs including Guek Ngundeng and his son. Nothing there about Parliament. Again total fabrication and by now you can get the general gist. In the same paragraph "The Ngundeng pyramid became a strong symbol of the Nuer people's" no inline source, and the source at the end of the paragraph does not support this claim at all.
• 6th paragraph talks about the South Sudan struggle for independence and the "Nuer nation" sacrifice until it says "Years later, the Nuer believed that their sacrifices were overlooked.". No source at all. The paragraph ends with "The Nuer people and the Rol Naath authority seek to end the 1943 de jure agreement with South Sudan and return to the Nuerland political structure that existed before 1943." sourced to YouTube (same Nuer TV) and a [Human Rights Watch] report which does no support this sentence at all
• last paragraph is the most amazing one, it says "The Rol Naath leadership believed that the unification of the Nuer people with other nations in Sudan and later South Sudan ultimately resulted in a disastrous union. It costs the Nuer their lives, culture and traditions, customs, resources, and way of life, and restoring Nuerland's sovereignty is the only way toward addressing all of their problems." and has two sources after the first sentence which do not say any thing about what the leaders believed. Both articles (1 and 2) about how Arab in the North forces their identity on the South, with the word "Nuer" used twice, once with Dinka for participation in the North government (out of the other tribes) and 2nd for statistics for that participation. The 2nd sentence is sourced to a YouTube video that does not meet WP:RS.

I have removed this edit but it wad undone although I gave the editor clear warning about what their edit entail. From previous discussion, I do not think arguing with them will go any where, so this is why I came here to get a topic ban if possible given the neutrality problems (+ this) in any article that they created. Plus this extensive fake citation and not understanding WP:RS is worrying. Not to mention the earlier personal attacks (here and here). FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello there, I'm glad you started this discussion, I have been looking forward to it as there are really some behaviors from your end that have been bothering me.

Starting from the article Rol Naath, when I created the article under title Rol Naath, it was nominated for deletion simply because the editor who nominated it could not find a credible source that could back up Rol Naath but could find many many credible sources that clearly back up Nuerland. I brought it to the editor's attention that Rol Naath is Nuer language name for their land which was simply translated to Nuerland in English, mostly in the work of British Anthropologist E.E. Pritchards who spent years in Nuerland in early 1930s and 1940s and wrote books like The Nuer, Nuer Religion etc. The editor suggested the named be changed to the English name which is Nuerland instead of Nuer language Rol Naath. The title was changed and Afterward the discussion was closed and it was agreed to keep the article. Your goal @FuzzyMagma was to completely wipe the Nuerland article off Wikipedian even though you know much about the Nuer people. You was against it and you didn't like that the Nuerland article was retained to remain on Wikipedia.

Then again, you disputed the Nuer massacre original title Nuer genocide. After some discussion, we both agreed that the title should be changed to Nuer massacre because the Human Rights Watch didnot publicly recognise the December 15, 2013 Nuer massacre as a genocide. Instead of helping improving the Nuer massacre article at the time like any other Wikipedian would, you further went on and removed some contents from the article even though there are credible sources that support them. And for the second time, you used intimidation and threatening me that I will be blocked from the Wikipedia if i tried to improve the article. I begged you many time to just help like a normal Wikipedian in improving the article, something which you never did. Nevertheless, some other Wikipedian stepped in and helped improve the Article.

I have been a Wikipedian for a long time now and I have successfully contributed to the Wikipedia positively. The articles that I've brought to Wikipedia are all doing well. I have never encountered any form of intimidation or threat from any other Wikipedian or administrators except you. Concerning the recent incident that you clearly started, this article Nuerland has been included in the list of List of active separatist movements in Africa. So I added Nuerland independence section that address the separatist movement in the Nuerland article and you happen to disagree with my research. Again, you opted to your aggressive approach and tried to completely delete the whole section instead of just making some changes in paragraphs that you disagreed with like any other Wikipedian. Each of those paragraphs are backed by credible sources. To address the "The rest of the edit is pure synthtic" claims that you made. this line "When the world's supper powers were conquering other African countries in the 18th and 19th centuries, the Nuer carried out their own territorial conquest" is cleared mentioned here in the Nuer Conquest, a whole book that talk about how the Nuer people expanded their territory

"It was not until 1916 that the first patrol was sent to the Nuerland" This is also mentioned in both and here And the rests of the paragraphs were all referenced and each of those citations clearly backed up the paragraphs.

I have been following and respecting all the Wikipedia rules and improving on some accordingly. I took some time to check your profile @FuzzyMagma and I can see that you have created too many articles about Sudan and most of those article do not have enough credible citations to back them. Some articles only have one citation and that is also very concerning.

These User @FuzzyMagma ladies and gentleman has been trying to wipe out articles about ethnic groups in Southern Sudan region. He has always been trying to erase any content that show the Northern Sudanese marginalization of the Southerners which was the biggest reason why Sudan separated into two countries. Any documented incident that address the Arab Northerners Islamization of South is not about @FuzzyMagma, he needs to relax. And the same way that he publish articles about Northen Sudanese individuals, cities, towns and incidents is the same way that the Southerners who are now in their own country should be brought to Wikipedia as well. This Wikipedian @FuzzyMagma has been intimidating me for bring difference ethnic groups from South Sudan to Wikipedia. As a Wikipedian, our purpose is to improve articles and make Wikipedia a better place for our 70 millions reader, but @FuzzyMagma has been going against that purpose for a while now. There is no rule in Wikipedia that I have broken or misuse. @FuzzyMagma has misused some Wikipedia rules like blocking [[294]] in intimidated and threatening me. I urge the administrators and stewards to look into this matter, because @FuzzyMagma actions and approaches are very concerning and intimidating. WatersignKing (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

WHa..huh? you are bringing the December 2013 Nuer massacre into this? I see a problem in your approach. You've said "This Wikipedian @FuzzyMagma has been intimidating me for bring difference [sic] ethnic groups from South Sudan to Wikipedia". That is a WP:ASPERSION, and it is patently unacceptable to be writing things like that about Magma without a link to a diff (or a series of them) to back your claim up that they'd said anything in that manner about you. @WatersignKing, you can't just add a YouTube video in as a ref for a contentious claim like that. You say Magma deleted "well cited" stuff on the Nuer article? I find it hard to believe your word on that given your standard of a reliable source being as little as a random YouTube video. Any of those were like to have been no more than fringe theories or movements cited from random YouTube accounts, given what you've added in your Rol Naath subsection of Nuerland. I'd love to be proven wrong, though, but I find it hard to believe that what you added in the massacre article was of anything bearing reliability.

Also, WatersignKing, I have no idea where to start with policy about your following comment: "These User [sic] @FuzzyMagma ladies and gentleman has been trying to wipe out articles about ethnic groups in Southern Sudan region. He has always been trying to erase any content that show [sic] the Northern Sudanese marginalization of the Southerners which was the biggest reason why Sudan separated into two countries."

Goodness gracious.

not an admin, just bored and looking around. –BarntToust^(Talk) 02:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, Watersign, I'm concerned about something I've discovered upon a look on your talk page. you added a bunch of non-free files that have since been deleted to the massacre article. None of which fell under fair use rationale. Do not do that, for copyright concerns. I did see that you'd added much book-cited content on the massacre article, so that much appears to be in your favour. None of which, surprisingly, seemed to be YouTube videos.

not an admin, just bored and looking around. –BarntToust^(Talk) 02:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

A bit weird to accuse FuzzyMagma of incompetent sourcing when they've been helping me keep the Sudanese civil war (2023-present) and related pages readable and free of poorly-sourced content. Also ridiculous to complain about them creating too many articles on Sudan regardless of whether the sourcing accusations are true, but then again it may have been the way your counter-complaint was written which also raises more questions as to coherency. Borgenland (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Borgenland, I mean, WatersignKing is clearly not versed in the English language at a coherent level anywhere close to native-speaking proficiency, and yes, their entire argument here reads like rocky road ice cream. however, this incoherency, while comical and only just sort of difficult to understand, bears no effect on the proper way to judge this. The proper way to judge this would be by the questionable value of their contributions. Of which there are a few things to be questioned.

@WatersignKing, accusing a constructive editor–one whose merits have been advocated for here by another editor–of intimidation without explicit proof is another issue to deal with. And seriously, to WatersignKing, @-ing Magma seven times in your response was unnecessary. not an Admin, just bored and looking around. –BarntToust^(Talk) 17:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Come to think of it, a 7x tagging does sound like WP:HOUND. Borgenland (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

that is a good point, let's see the 7 tags:

1. for personal attacks, not only me but another editor (here and here)
2. for content removal when the discussion for a merge was on-going, see Talk:Juba Nuer Massacre#Merge proposal
3. for article ownership, i.e., Nuer massacre, and before warning them I put all of the issues on the talk but they refused to engage, see Talk:Nuer massacre#Using the "Genocide" description, Talk:Nuer massacre#Duplicate information, Talk:Nuer massacre#Machar dismissal, and Talk:Nuer massacre#Machar announcing running for presidency. also other editors made the same comment, see here User talk:WatersignKing#Nuer massacre
4. The last one was about this this edit, which as I explained at the beginning that it is totally fabricated
5. The other tags are for uploading images to Wikipedia that does not fit the criteria, which have all been deleted. and if you look to the talk, I already explained what was the issue which btw was also on Commons but WatersginKing seems to ignore the issue and just repeat it. See User talk:WatersignKing in commons

Just remember we edit around the same topics and frankly I do watch more than 2000 pages mostly around Sudan, and I do check any updates on these articles, approve drafts, an participate in their discussion.

As for the recent personal attacks, I am not going to respond to that but @WatersignKing "Nuer | Encyclopedia.com" is not a reliable source, and you cannot cite an entire book, you need to provide a page. Actually you cited the book review and not the book itself.

Lastly, Empire and the Nuer: sources on the pacification of the Southern Sudan, 1898-1930 was not used to support ""It was not until 1916 that the first patrol was sent to the Nuerland.", you used a different source that does not even contain the word "Nuer", so I am not sure what are you talking about or whether you think people here do not check! FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Possible CIR case

Background at User talk:Jeffreyerwin#Your email. I think this may be a case of competence is required. I started this conversation because they had emailed me to ask if I was currently a JW and that they were concerned that the "JW church" had written "extremely biased" content at Shroud of Turin (a topic that has almost no relevance to JW beliefs). I have tried the best that I can to help them understand our policies and guidelines, even if I'm very confused about why they reached out to me in the first place. The talk page thread I already linked has further details. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm doubtful that anything needs to be done. You gave good advice on how they could pursue the issue.[295] They haven't edited an article in 8 years and haven't edited an article talk page in 6 years, so it's not like they're disruptive. I suggest just waiting to see what they do going forward. (Personally, I think they're just enjoying having someone to argue their pet theory with.) Schazjmd (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I guess, but it's very weird that they started this out with a personal email after eight years, when I have nothing to do with any of this. Given the language they're using (e.g. I should be ashamed), I don't have much faith in this point that they'll edit collaboratively. I don't plan to really engage with them after this point but I'm concerned that this behaviour will continue if nothing happens. I've also set my email settings to prevent them from sending me anymore. If this had happened to someone else, I would be seriously considering a block. But I'm way too involved in this situation already. I would appreciate other administrative perspectives on this. I was under the impression that I was already giving them more leeway than most would get in a situation like this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:CIR includes the ability to read sources and assess their reliability as one of the bullet points. It's been explained multiple times to this person (not just me) that you can't insert content about burial shrouds causing a neutron radiation event. At the very least, they're an SPA for their fringe views. But emailing me (again a random person that had nothing to do with this until this email) years after the fact to interrogate them about their religious beliefs really isn't okay. I'd argue that's disruptive in itself. I had the faint hope that maybe I could get them to see why all of this is pretty problematic, but it's fairly clear based on their responses that that's not going to happen. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Having read the talkpage exchange, I agree that this editor seems unlikely to become a positive asset, and that even if they were to take their concerns to the relevant talkpage, their contributions there would probably tend towards bad-faith and timewastey. I also low key agree with the above comments that the highest probability outcome is no further action from the editor in question. I don't think we currently have a consensus-based block rationale for "pretty obviously never going to be a productive member of the community", though I've seen that kind of block happen before. Folly Mox (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Given there response to my gentle suggestion they take it to the Talk page instead of harassing Clovermoss was Sir, the charachterization of a legitimate bias complaint as "harassment" is, in itself, an indication of bias.[296], I'd say the user is WP:NOTHERE and should be blocked from editing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Jeffreyerwin as not here to build an encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Sinclairian

Pasting from attempt at Helpdesk. I've warned Sinclairian about the biased, inaccurate, and harmful edits they've been doing. These are on very niche topics that nobody's ever, ever going to notice. Like who's gonna actually check the source translation on the Arslan Tash amulets? Well, I did because the translation is so scrabblingly amateurish, (Also because I always look lately when I see that username on one of my watched articles) and the user's rendering of it actually had some "improvements" that might make the scholar look better or worse. The reader would think the translation has been accurately copied and pasted when that's not the case. The other translation's even worse by some scholar I don't know. Someone legitimate, I'm sure, but not good. I think questionable artifacts should be categorized as such and noted in the first paragraph, and translastions of questioned items and forgeries shouldn't be included for obvious reasons. Anyway, I think the user should be banned. Inaccurcies on minor Semitic languages that a dozen people know will stick around forever; the quietness of it means the ripples on public knowledge will spread with no end. Very subtly destructive stuff. Temerarius (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Could you elaborate a bit about the translation inaccuracy and show it in more detail? Andre🚐 00:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

What, the user's poor conveyance of an S David Sperling 1982? It was what might have appeared to them as cleanup and clarifying what's on what line, but it's harmful, was changed without note that or why, and I get the impression the user knows a modern Semitic language and inappropriately extrapolates, with a heavy dose of "should". Or something, you can't know what's in someone's head. It's the pattern and the fact they weren't careful enough to back off right after I yelled at them about it, clearly not gonna change, I said this has to go to administration now.

Temerarius (talk) 01:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Have you tried to discuss with the user already? Andre🚐 01:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I really don't want to spend all night getting a headache looking at the posting history, but this is characteristic: user removed the famous Yehud coin with the "wheelchair" and the Soleb inscription from Yahweh. Some of the most universally agreed upon for earliest and most meaningful pieces of evidence of Yahweh. I mean, the coin's not that early. The Soleb inscription is still missing from that page. And, somebody apparently made a page for the coin and called it God on the Winged Wheel coin, and somebody called "Fraud monsoon" added this AI garbage as a supposed reconstruction. Ugh. Anyway, Sinclairian doesn't want to believe those are attestations of Yahweh for personal reasons, and is hurting Wikipedia for that bias.

Temerarius (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence demonstrating that their reasons are personal and not rooted in site policy and reliable sources? Remsense ‥ 论 02:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

You're not serious.

Temerarius (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Beg your pardon? Are they making arguments rooted in site policy, or are they dismissing site policy in their arguments, and instead arguing based in "personal reasons"? There should be examples demonstrating your point that you can show here. Otherwise, you're casting baseless aspersions. To be clear, if they're providing shoddy translations that is an issue, but if you're insinuating the reasons you need to justify that. Remsense ‥ 论 02:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Damn, am I ever sorry I used the phrase "personal reasons." Pretend I didn't. Pretend I said "NPOV problems."

Temerarius (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to nitpick: that's genuinely a clarification I appreciate. Remsense ‥ 论 02:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I just think nobody will act on your report without diffs of attempting to resolve. Andre🚐 02:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Uh, okay? Well, then let's wait on Nobody and see if they show.

Temerarius (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing to do here if you can't point to specific evidence that demonstrates the issues you're talking about. Remsense ‥ 论 02:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm gonna go crazy quick if that's how you do things around here. Get me some serious admins. This is the first time I've reported anybody; I'm not a dossier maker. My first complaint above is passing one's own translation off as a scholar's work. That's not against policy?

Temerarius (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

That's why I asked you to elaborate. You just need more detail. or diffs. To add, I have concerns about this NPA violation by Sinclairian. But you need to give a report with diffs. You also need to notify the user of the report. Andre🚐 02:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the edit where Sinclarian did it and explain to us how to know it was not a scholar's work? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

https://i.postimg.cc/rpM4NZHm/image.png

Here's a screenshot of the edit

and of the article it refers to

https://i.postimg.cc/Qd2MxZ3d/image.png

https://i.postimg.cc/sxsgZ1D0/image.png

I didn't bother looking if the further parts became increasingly creative, it didn't seem necessary.

Temerarius (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

So this is the diff: Special:Diff/1248814929. And this is the reference for lines 19-29: https://hcommons.org/deposits/objects/hc:32262/datastreams/CONTENT/content. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Every single solitary edit you have ever made to this site has been a dumbfounding tapestry of OR, SYNTH, broken English, and profanity-laden rage at the slightest challenge or questioning. I have and will continue to ignore your rationale until you present a calm, legitimately grounded basis for a single supposed "improvement" you seek to make to any article on the site. I do not need to have "are you a fucking idiot" plastered on my talk whenever someone calls you out on your mistakes. Sinclairian (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

...diffs? At this rate you're both heading for a trouting and a warning? Andre🚐 03:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh! I see. You don't like me personally! Okay. That's fine, but why are you changing translations and transliterations to suit you?

Temerarius (talk) 03:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Can Sinclairian and Temerarius please stop editwarring? Andre🚐 03:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  There's also a callout for potential sockpuppeting on user's talk page from earlier this year. I agree that new people don't typically make 365 edits in their first 19 days. I know socks are frowned upon, it'd be worth looking into other username from same IP--or however you investigate them.

  Temerarius (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  You'll need evidence and a specific user that is sockpuppeting, but vague ideas that they might be socking aren't evidence. WP:SPI is thataway. You can't handle that here. Andre🚐 03:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  A sockpuppet investigation starts with magically knowing who a user was before? I'm learning a lot today.

  Temerarius (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, SPI is not for fishing. You'd need to use a tool like the editor interaction analyzer and show they are a WP:DUCK ie a close match to another blocked or banned user. Andre🚐 03:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Why fish when we can ask? We're all adults. User, is @Sinclairian your first account?

  Temerarius (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  WP:AGF, mainly. See also WP:PRECOCIOUS Andre🚐 04:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't want to distract attention from a separate issue, providing translations for dodgy artifacts and likely fakes. I think we should develop a policy discouraging it. We should categorize and mark prominently disputed items. Going back and forth on inevitable "issues" or "difficulties" in their inscriptions is big waste of good brain power. The Arslan Tash article is small potatoes, but it reflects a problem that'll come up again.

  Temerarius (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  So that is really a content issue. The issue you want to focus on here is the behaviorial stuff. WP:CIVILITY, for one. Or if they are misrepresenting the sources, that is a problem. I think they should explain or rebut that point. No admins have commented on the thread yet, by the way. Andre🚐 03:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Good point on civility, user is freely calling people dolts, idiots, and trash. The insecurity of someone without an argument. The defensiveness of the defeated.

  Temerarius (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  A couple people have told you this already, so I don't know how to convey to you that this is a serious demand and not simply a vague suggestion: stop saying stuff like this. At the talk page you opened a section called "ReConSTruCTioN" with the text What the fuck is this garbage?. Here you say "The insecurity of someone without an argument. The defensiveness of the defeated". You are beseeching people to volunteer to help you settle a dispute with another user. This does not help them do that. This actively prevents them from doing that, by creating other problems that they must deal with. For all of the complaining you're doing about people not being "serious" enough, you seem to be remarkably comfortable wasting their time by making silly hostile comments consisting solely of insults to other editors.

  Do not do this. Stop doing this. jp×g🗯️ 09:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  We have enough of a policy against it, in that faithful translation is specifically excepted from being considered original research. I don't really feel we need a separate guideline saying "don't translate material from a language you don't speak". Remsense ‥ 论 04:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, Temerarius, I'm an admin and you should listen to the advice you have been given. Here's how noticeboards like ANI work. You are concerned about an editor's behavior, you post a complaint giving specific examples (what we call "diffs" or edits) that illustrate the problems you are describing. An editor bringing a complaint always has to provide evidence so that interested editors can investigate and see if a problem genuinely exists. Complaints that are just narrative statments typically do not get much feedback or action taken on them often because it become one editor's word against another's. Also the editor bringing the complaint always has to inform the other editor that they have filed a case to give them the opportunity to respond. We see a lot of complaints brought to ANI that just go to the archives because necessary information is missing that would allow editors to evaluate the problem you believe exists. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The closest thing to a specific claim I'm seeing here is ... something about the translations on Arslan Tash amulets? I'm not entirely sure what. However, it was easy enough to find the diff in question and Temerarius is correct that the translations given in the cited sources aren't exactly the same as those in Sinclairian's edit. For instance, line 9 of AT1 in Sperling's translation reads "Eternal covenants were made for us." but in Sinclairian's edit the equivalent text spans lines 8-10 and reads "A cov- / -enant to u(s) was made, / eternal". It looks to me that Sinclairian has taken the Phoenecian text from those sources and provided their own translations? Which, unless there is any reason to believe that Sinclairian is deliberately mistranslating, is a content issue (should Wikipedia include translations of these texts and if so which ones) and not a conduct issue. That should be discussed on Talk:Arslan Tash amulets, which nobody is doing. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Caeciliusinhorto and perhaps ping one of our resident linguists? User:TaivoLinguist? User:Florian Blaschke? User:Austronesier? Perhaps they could give some insight and point the discussion(once it starts) in the right direction? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Sinclairian did attribute the text to the referenced author even though it is Sinclairian’s translation, so that’s at best sloppy editing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it's sloppy, but hopefully a curable issue. @Sinclairian, do you agree? If you're going to clean up the translations yourself that might be problematic if you attribute them to the expert. Wouldn't it be easier and cleaner to just use the expert's translation without improving it yourself? I mean, someone else mentioned that simple translations aren't considered original research, but translating an ancient language is not simple. Andre🚐 21:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

This is sanctionable. Daniel (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

They have an "interesting" User page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Returning to the issue of the translation, which as I read it was Temerarius' main point, the policy against original research explitly prefers published translations over Wikipedians' own translations: Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. (The section is specifically about quotations from cited sources, but I would be very surprised if policy was more lenient about primary sources such as this text in the article about the text.) Moreover, in their edit Sinclairian cited the translation they added to the Sperling article: Per Sperling. followed by the reference. That's falsification. It fails WP:V and it's dishonest. They didn't misread a letter or two in copying Sperling's translation; they deliberately changed it (or they actually copied a different translation that was derived from Sperling's, and copied over the citation from their actual source; but the inclusion of the JSTOR link would suggest they were in fact looking at Sperling.) Pinging Caeciliusinhorto, Florian Blaschke, Andrevan because I disagree strongly with the views you've expressed on Sinclairian's edit—despite the dog's dinner Temerarius has made of this report. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hm, I don't know that I've expressed a view yet, Yngvadottir, for you to strongly disagree with. I was trying to get Sinclairian to clarify their intentions with that edit, which they may not realize is a good idea or something strongly recommended to do (clarify, I mean). Well, I'd say it's benefit of the doubt or a misunderstanding until proven otherwise, but I did try to ask Sinclairian. I'll note that prefers doesn't mean categorically mandates over the alternative, I did agree with @Rsjaffe that it is sloppy at best, and I also agree with you, assuming this is your point, that the "official" translation should be used when possible. For a new user, not understanding this could be excusable. To me, what's less excusable is the incivility, so I'm not sure why that's not really attracting a lot of attention. At any rate, as was pointed out, Temerarius also has some funny stuff they've written (to me, much less bad than calling someone a dolt or trash, but interesting) and they also failed to substantiate their report adequately at first. But, I agree with Remsense as well, a translation is not original research per se. The bottom line is, as Caeciliusinhorto says, the question of whether the translation is accurate or whether the original must be used is a content issue that belongs on Talk:Arslan Tash amulets, whereas any behavioral problems, such as WP:CIR, failures to communicate or gross personal attacks should be addressed here. Andre🚐 00:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. I'm reading and absorbing them. I don't understand if @Liz above is telling me there's a problem with my user page. The profanity is to prevent it being rolled into AI datasets and output into sophist nothings of statistically unique phrases and citations so niche to be otherwise unknown in the open web. At the reweighting stage they--why am I explaining this? Is there a question about my page? About why I'm "interesting?"

Temerarius (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Less your userpage and more the "What the fuck is this garbage" comment, though honestly, I kind of understand the strong reaction to that terrible AI-generated image. Andre🚐 00:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Gezer calendar

Tabnit sarcophagus

The Arslan Tash amulet translation is a small matter on a minor artifact. But it was what made me report Sinclairian after seeing a pattern that made me sick to my stomach. He's an editor with a POV problem and the smarts to hide it. Nobody else is gonna notice because nobody but me edits so many pages in common so carefully. So the bigger problem is the harm to the community not to mention personally, me having to be on alert when I see user's name in the edit history, having to do careful and time consuming work like checking that translation source instead of contributing new things. That's the kind of thing that makes editing no longer fun.

The bigger bigger problem isn't "phony" translations but phony artifacts. An item like the Gezer calendar is widely referred to, no authenticity concerns mentioned among the huge number of citations. It's enigmatic with many translations available, an array appropriate and edifying becuase it may be poetry with multiple meanings and sophisticated wordplay. (I could come up with a better example in terms of appearance; any amateur knows immediately the Tabnit sarcophagus is genuine: its ancient majesty is self-evident. The Gezer calendar isn't like that, it's small, ugly, and would be easy to fake. Scholarship wouldn't have left it without question if it had been from the market.)

Anyways, then you look at the less cited and more questioned Praeneste fibula. Hoving talks about it being fake in a how-could-we-be-so-foolish tone. Items like that with "Authenticity" subsections shouldn't be overlinked and shouldn't include translations at all. Look at all the air over the Duenos inscription. Would you want a translation section that long for fake items? Obviously a waste. The Arslan Tash amulets are ugly, amateurish, and egregious to the point of sadness. Wasted effort on them and tainting the pool of public knowledge, allowing the confusion to escape academic confinement, is even sadder.

The Arslan Tash amulets, inscribed at two scales, look like they were whittled from petrified butter for the world's worst county fair. The forger doesn't know a k from an m or a d from an r--identical and open at the top--and accidentally includes a modern q and a modern shin. Look at table 1 to see what I mean.

Disputed items should be categorized as such and treated differently from provenanced and unquestioned evidence. Our requirements to the public are maybe higher than academia's in some ways; their audience is presumed to have certain knowledge and a critical eye baked in. Almost any kind of paleographic evidence is so lonely and priceless that pushing modern misapprehensions into scholarship can have a huge effect creating lasting ignorance. So items like the amulets should not only not have Sinclairian's translation, they should have a warning and none.

Temerarius (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC) Temerarius (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

PS I can't help but mention that totally nonsensical English translations like Sperling's and all of those of the amulets can be a clue there's a problem with the item itself. Good scholars with meaningless translations = bad artifact.

Temerarius (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

once again, though, this is a content issue. You haven't really explained how Sinclarian adding these translations for the dubiously provenanced or possibly fake artifacts is pushing some kind of POV. The issue of possibly passing off his own translation as the scholarly translation is closer to being a problem. But all this discussion of how Wikipedia should handle fake artifacts isn't really helping elucidate that point. Andre🚐 02:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

(I have no idea whether I'm allowed to shoehorn this response in above, so I won't.) Andrevan, presenting one's own translation as being a published translation by a scholar is not a mere content issue. Contrary to its characterisation as such by Caeciliusinhorto—who maybe missed the reference preceding the text and translation? The reference—which is in the text and not just the footnote—cannot be taken to apply to the text alone. One conduct issue—Temerarius' incivility—does not justify ignoring the other, particularly since Sinclairian's directly affects the reader. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

First of all, Sinclarian was the one being incivil in the original diff. Second, I did not say that presenting one's translation as being a published translation is a mere content issue, but Sinclarian hasn't done that in so many words, he simply included the transliteration and the translation and then cited the source, "per Sperling." It's conceivable that the "per Sperling" was the transliteration which he then re-translated, which again I agree is discouraged, but it's not at all clear that there is a behavioral issue with misrepresenting sources since it's ambiguous; technically, if a translation is explicitly not OR, I can see how he might say well he's still citing where he got it, and it doesn't say "the translation was done by Sperling" explicitly. Meanwhile, Temerarius is arguing that no article about a fake artifact should include the translation, which is indisputably a content issue, that is why I'm trying to steer him back to behavior, such as Sinclarian not communicating or collaborating. Caeciliusinhorto correctly explains that as yet there is still no thread on the talk about any of this. Andre🚐 04:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

If what Sinclairian is intending to do is to pass off their original translation as Sperling's, then yes that is a conduct issue. My initial (possibly naively optimistic) reading of their edit was that their intention was to convey that the translation was of the text as edited by Sperling. If that's the case then the solution is to explain to them how to be clearer about attribution. (The fact that they have dropped out of this discussion without addressing this, despite Andrevan's ping above, doesn't inspire confidence however. They made several edits yesterday after they were pinged, so it's not as if they haven't been online.)

Temerarius' view that articles about disputed or faked artefacts should not contain translations of their texts is a content issue. I'm not at all convinced that should be a general rule, and it certainly isn't currently. Edit warring on Arslan Tash amulets appears to have stopped, but if there is still dispute about whether a translation should be included (and whether it should be Sperling's translation, or an original translation of Sperling's edited text, or something else), that is also a content issue. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Caeciliusinhorto. Andre🚐 08:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah. I apologize for not responding to the previous ping, the notifications had become so frequent that I stopped actually looking at their contents.

As for the content of the edits – originally I had used Köllig's transcription and translations of both AT1 and AT2 – his work, however, was not only outdated, but entirely in German, which itself required translation. It seems the "personal flair", if you will, remained even after I found and then cited Sperling/Häberl/Belnap's English transcriptions and translations. That was an error on my part. Sinclairian (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for responding and clarifying. Does this mea culpa clear things up, satisfactorily, everyone? We're all going to be more careful in the future, more collegial, and discuss things on article talk. Righto? Andre🚐 21:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

No. Andre, I still haven't learned why you're posting here, and so repeatedly. This would go smoother without your contributions. What is it that fires your interest up to pile on, yet doesn't move your curiosity enough to peruse Sinclairian's edit history?

Temerarius (talk) 01:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Temerarius, the admins already advised you to listen to the advice I gave you regarding your report. Sinclairian has admitted their error here. Feel free to bring up new diffs. I already tried to throw you a bone about civility, but you seem unmoved. I'm an involved user based on the dispute you referenced above, preexisting edits on Yahweh and God on the Winged Wheel coin. Andre🚐 01:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Since I happened to be looking at the page, I remembered the user removing explanation of a word meaning priestess specifically of Yaho (Yahweh) on papyrus Amherst 63. The source was clear and explicit about this, and removing the religiously touchy part (tradition doesn't see priestesses of Yahweh; even the best that scholarship sometimes sees is temple prostitutes) was removing what's remarkable and relevant to scholars. The existence of the priestess of Yahweh is an important discovery that can put all kinds of evidence in a different light; its removal serves no good faith, serves no honest curiosity. It serves the sensitive constitution of the nervous traditionalist. Again this one is subtle enough to miss or confuse for copyediting. It's a huge tiny detail. It has no explanation or scholarly reasoning. It's feelings and a POV problem. The pattern continues with as I mentioned earlier the senseless removal of the universally-regarded-as-consequential Soleb inscription from the Yahweh page. The biased motivation is clear. The effect is whiteknighting for poor, defenseless tradition; -- O lonely hegemony!

Temerarius (talk) 04:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

If you're so insistent on shooting yourself in the foot, might I at least suggest downgrading to a caliber below high explosive? Sinclairian (talk) 04:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

You're treading very close to WP:NPA, Temerarius. I strongly suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK and try to work things out on the Talk page instead of continuing like this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The source is explicit that the masculine form, khn, specifically refers to priests of Yaho; as far as I can make out it carefully avoids saying that khnh specifically refers to priestesses of Yaho. Maybe Sinclairian has an agenda but that diff is hardly compelling. On the other hand, Talk:Papyrus Amherst 63 gives another example of your own uncollegial behaviour. It doesn't matter how right you are: this is not acceptable behaviour. (Similarly, when you post on a well-trafficked board like ANI, anyone who is reading it might weigh in; complaining about Andrevan doing so and making vague aspersions that something "fires up [his] interest" is not going to make anyone look more sympathetically on you here.) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Gotta love how the prospect of me having an "agenda" is still somehow being legitimately contemplated given Temerarius' chronic lack of CIVILITY and AGF being exemplified in nearly every single reply and posting they've made in this report. Sinclairian (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Well-meaning, but chronically disruptive, editing from TheNuggeteer

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.

---

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

I am here after every alternative means of intervention has been exhausted and with extreme disappointment that it has come to this. TheNuggeteer is a newer editor who has been getting involved in several content processes and some administrative tasks. While without a doubt approaching their work in good faith, they have consistently displayed a lack of competence in meeting community standards. They have received numerous warnings from numerous editors, most of which received no response, acknowledgment of error, or commitment to improvement. Below are the most recent of them.

• September 7 discussion opened by Freedom4U, which discussed several problematic GAN reviews and nominations.
  • Freedom4U: "I believe you need to learn more about the GAN/article-writing process first before taking on [the GARC coordinator role]".
  • Drmies: "I don't think the editor should be reviewing GAs" (message).
  • Rollinginhisgrave: "Please gain some more experience with Wikipedia and improve your writing skills before you review or nominate articles at FAC/FLC/GAN" (message).
  • Thebiguglyalien: "I don't believe this user is ready to participate in the GAN process quite yet" (message).
• September 14 Talk:Philippines at the 1928 Summer Olympics/GA1 quick-failed by Arconning.
• September 15 discussion opened by Wizardman, asking to "slow down".
  • Wizardman: "you seem to be taking on more than you can chew", "not wanting to listen to the constructive criticism you are getting".
  • Asilvering: "I think you should step away from Good Articles entirely for now", "avoid all content review, contests, and editathons for a while" (message).
• September 21 discussion opened by Mike Christie, asking "You've had some experienced editors telling you you need to slow down, but you seem to be ignoring them. Can you tell me why?"
• September 22 discussion opened by myself, advising "that you immediately disengage from content quality–related processes on Wikipedia and focus your efforts elsewhere for some time", which I meant as a final warning.
• September 27 Talk:A Boy Is a Gun/GA1 quick-failed by PSA, stating "You should hopefully know this by now, but you have to slow down".

TheNuggeteer has been given every opportunity to receive guidance from more experienced editors, but shows no signs that they understand they are being disruptive, nor that they are taking steps to prevent it. I cannot in good conscience recommend an indefinite block against a good-faith editor, so I propose an indefinite topic ban from good article nominations and reviews, and possibly other content venues as well. (please  mention me if you need my attention) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I can accept a topic ban, this is scary on my part, but I probably deserved it. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 05:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@TheNuggeteer I empathize with you when you say this is incredibly scary, because frankly, this forum generally is. Especially for people still new to some aspect of Wikipedia. What I would advise right now, before the heat gets intense and gets to you, is to step away from the site for a couple of days and allow your pending reviews to be claimed by someone else. You have already implied before that activities like reviews make you exhausted, and now seems like as good a time as any to take a break. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 07:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I will not edit for a few days, but I will still watch from the sidelines. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 07:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure I'd say you "deserved it", but you did have a lot of opportunities to get off this path, and you didn't take them. But it's going to be okay. Mostly what you've done is driven a bunch of people crazy, and we'll get over it. Let's find you something else to do. @Matticusmadness suggested copyediting, or maybe you could "adopt" some other backlog. How about de-stubbing? I see you're in WP:PHILIPPINES, and they have a whopping 10779 stubs that need expanding. You won't run out of those any time soon, and it will be good practice. -- asilvering (talk) 09:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

(ec) I’ve left Nugget a Talk Page message ([297]) suggesting that they chip in here with what they like doing. With any luck, we can find them a backlog that they’ll enjoy, and can benefit the wiki. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 09:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I love reviewing AFC articles, and I also like destubbing articles, though I didn't do much lately. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I really want to revert the wikibreak template and review and de-stub articles. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Go ahead. No one's obligating you to keep any templates on your user page that you don't want to keep there. -- asilvering (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support six month topic ban on article quality assessment, broadly construed. Use that time to substantively improve articles instead. Cullen328 (talk) 07:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  A good plan, I think. The open-ended nature of an indefinite ban would be extra stress for this particular editor, and would probably lead to unban requests that made everyone unhappy. I would broaden the topic ban to include contests as well, since I think they share the same perverse-incentives problem. -- asilvering (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Cullen328: does "broadly construed" include Wikipedia:Peer review? Peer reviews are not quite assessment and offer an opportunity to develop the skills needed for the areas that have been an issue Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  Rjjiii, I definitely believe that peer review is a form of article assessment. Cullen328 (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  Not me. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 00:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Rjjiii, I agree with you that it would help with familiarizing one with GA, FA, or FL criteria, but at the moment I don't feel comfortable letting them proceed without the guidance of mentors, which to me is a less destructive alternative than independent reviewing. Also @Cullen328, you used "template" and your ping did not work. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 01:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Weak support For me, I suggest two months or three. I definitely don't want it to be indefinite.

🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 07:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

A thought occurs. If you like doing GA Reviews, what else would be up your street, on-wiki? Let’s find Nugget something else to do, that they’ll like. Preferably something that is easier to pick up, and less damaging if it goes wrong. If it’s the “reading long things” aspect, the COPYEDIT drive Category:All articles needing copy edit still has a few days left. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 08:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I do see that most people are in agreement about a topic ban but I would also like to suggest that upon returning @TheNuggeteer does a review with a more experienced reviewer. I know co-reviews aren’t common with GA but I think this could be really helpful in the learning process. I did try to reach out with this idea but didn’t get much of a response. Either this or if they choose to do reviews after their ban someone checks over their first review back before final decisions are made. I know this creates extra work for others but personally I’m more than happy to take on this extra responsibility and I think it would be beneficial for everyone in involved. IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@IntentionallyDense, this is a reasonable idea, and I see Rollinginhisgrave has taken the initiative to take over some of the reviews. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 04:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• I want to comment that TheNuggeteer has chosen to take a wikibreak. In view of this, I will outline some of their pending nominations or reviews at GAN, DYK, and FLC. Anybody is welcome to volunteer to take over them.
  • Talk:Tumor necrosis factor/GA1 (review, with assistance from IntentionallyDense, although he has said onwiki and offwiki he would appreciate another pair of eyes due to the subject's medical nature)
  • Talk:Swawilla Fire/GA1 (review, with assistance from Rollinginhisgrave)
  • GANs for Tropical Storm Sonca, Tropical Storm Haikui, and Typhoon Tess
  • FLC for List of Olympic medalists for the Philippines
  • DYK noms for Asik-Asik Falls, A Boy Is a Gun, AmBisyon Natin 2040, Typhoon Nat (1991), Typhoon Virginia (1957), and Liberalism in the Philippines
  • DYK review for Christian Albright + De'Montre Tuggle

Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 08:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

of course i am not happy to see it come to this board, but i have to corroborate the issues raised here. i'd support a 6-month restriction from content assessment (GAN, FAC, PR, etc). i want to emphasize to TheNuggeteer that everyone here wants the best for both you and the encyclopedia. de-stubbing sounds like a great way to continue contributing :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 12:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

as an aside, i don't feel comfortable weighing in on a restriction on contest participation as a current coordinator of one (WP:DCWC). i mostly just want to encourage them to slow down and focus less on points or green circles and more on substantively improving articles without incentive. i also completely understand how nerve-wracking it can be to be taken to this board, and i appreciate the kindness shown here by everyone. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 16:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• I've recently seen some TheNuggeteer's contributions and warnings they received. I personally wanted to weigh in and recommend them to step away from what they've been doing at GAN, though I ultimately didn't because of the lack of responses at previous warnings. Despite everything they've done, I don't think that this user deserves an indefinite ban from GAN/FAC/FLC/PR/DYK. I'd support a 6 month restriction that sawyer proposed instead. TheNuggeteer should in the future address concerns and constructive criticism from other more experienced contributors instead of ignoring them. During this 6 month period (if approved), they could work on improving other parts of Wikipedia such as those that asilvering proposed. I feel like you've also received enough information on what things you should improve on from your GANs. The main concern seems to be the prose and the use of non-encyclopedic tone. As a side activity, I'd strongly recommend you take a look at our other (recently promoted) GAs and FAs, read the criteria more thoroughly, and learn how those articles were constructed. The restriction could possibly become indefinite if others conclude that you did not improve after your first temporary restriction. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• A six-month restriction from content assessment processes, broadly construed seems appropriate; they're clearly well-intentioned and willing to work on improvement and I think will become a valuable contributor to the project. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• My mind is sufficiently convinced: I support a six-month topic ban from article quality assessment as well as related contests. A focus on other endeavors, like expanding stubs, is highly recommended. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 16:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• I support a six-month ban too. I just don't understand why these things that were referenced above had to be said so often, why it had to come to this. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  As someone who has been involved in this often the person in question wouldn’t be very communicative and often didn’t respond to talk page messages or would just not seem to take other advice on the topic. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I also have a peer review in the Simple English Wiki, you can see it here. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 02:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• I have been watching this situation from a distance over the last week. At this time, I support a 6 month topic ban from participation in featured content assessment processes (e.g., DYK, GAN, FA, FL), broadly construed, at a minimum, based on the totality of what I have seen. Regardless of where TheNuggeteer chooses to work on Wikipedia moving forward, it is clear that they need to improve their communication with and ability to accept feedback from other editors when valid concerns are being raised. They seemingly ignored or did not pay serious attention to the issues that were raised on their talk page several times and the GAN talk page, and did not appear to take the feedback they were receiving on board. That is why this ultimately ended up at ANI. If this persists, I'm afraid we might end up back here again at some point in the future. In addition to temporarily stepping away from featured content processes, it is my hope that TheNuggeteer also uses this opportunity to make constructive changes in their approach to communicating with other editors and responding to their concerns. MaterialsPsych (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support 6 month topic ban from content assessment. I also think that TheNuggeteer needs to address their lack of communication with others as well as how they have seemingly ignored feedback from others. Their lack of communication is ultimately what led us here and I don’t feel that a topic ban will be sufficient without them improving this pattern of behaviour. Additionally I think they should do a co-review or at least have someone checking over their reviews if/when they return to the GA process. IntentionallyDense (talk) 05:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  I would like to second @IntentionallyDense's point here. While I generally take care to avoid discussions regarding other editors' actions I felt compelled to speak here. The Nuggeteer was very poor about communicating with me and fellow WPTC editor IrishSurfer21 during a long GA review for the fairly short Tropical Storm Harold article and ignored discussion about their actions (as well as frequent pings by me) on both their own talk page and the aforementioned article's talk page. I believe something needs to be done to address their lack of communication with others and the issues it's causing. Finding out that I'm not the first editor who's had problems with their reviews and purposeful ignoring of others was disheartening. JayTee⛈️ 04:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Explicit topic bans

Okay, it looks from the above that we have a general consensus that a six-month topic ban is in order. I do not think that a "broadly construed" topic ban is going to be helpful for this particular editor, so I think we ought to be very specific about which processes that TheNuggeteer should avoid for the next six months. Here is a list of everything that has been mentioned:

• GA nominations and reviews
• FA nominations and reviews
• FL nominations and reviews
• DYK nominations, reviews, and other participation
• Peer review
• AfC/NPP
• Contests of any kind

We have clear consensus for the first item. What about the others? I add AfC/NPP work here as I believe these are plausibly "article quality assessment, broadly construed", though they haven't been specifically mentioned here yet in the context of a topic ban. If I missed anything else, please let me know. -- asilvering (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with all of these. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

+1 Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

++1 Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 00:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

+++1 IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Treating all the quality processes together is sensible. It would be good (regarding ultimate broadness) if the contest ban is noted as not including cooperative drives for content development (eg. destubbification) on Wikiprojects etc., where the Nuggeteer seems to have been an enthusiastic participant without causing the issues raised for quality reviews. CMD (talk) 10:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I think in effect what this would mean is striking "contests of any kind" from the list above, since I can't think of any contests that aren't content development or any of the otherwise-listed review processes. Am I missing any? -- asilvering (talk) 11:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

So I can't participate in drives anymore? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

That hasn't been decided yet. -- asilvering (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

would a de-stubbing drive not count? or those unsourced article drives? i feel like those are perfectly fine. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 12:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I personally would be okay leaving out the contests part wince they wouldn't be allowed to participate in any contests involving good articles, where this editor has had issues with. IntentionallyDense (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

+1 ... sawyer * he/they * talk 12:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure they are, since I think they can encourage speed and sloppiness over attention to quality, which seems to me to be the underlying issue here. -- asilvering (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm somewhat ambivalent about lumping AfC/NPP into this topic ban, given that no really substantive issues were brought up with TheNuggeteer's participation in either of these areas on here, although there is at least one thread on their talk page that brings up an issue relating to NPP that appears to have been ignored/not addressed by TheNuggeteer. If we think that there are serious issues with their activity at AfC or NPP, I think it would be better to have a discussion about removing their NPP rights and/or AfC access, and that is something I would not be comfortable with supporting without more evidence. I'm also ambivalent about a topic ban from Contests of any kind, as that seems excessively broad, although I would be in favor of a topic ban from contests that involve participating in any of the other named areas (which should naturally follow from a topic ban in any of the other named areas anyways). So besides the last two items on the list (AfC/NPP and Contests of any kind), I'm in favor of the topic ban covering other named areas. MaterialsPsych (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I agreed with the contests restriction above, and I understand the concern about contests -- there's always a risk that editors motivated by contests might fail to do as thorough a job as needed. However, on reflection I think we don't have enough evidence to justify such a ban, even for a few months. I am also now wondering if it would it be a good idea to leave GA nominating out of the ban? Getting one's own articles reviewed is a good way to learn content quality norms, and nobody is obliged to do any reviewing of their articles, so maybe they would be picked up by those with an interest in mentoring. Perhaps with a limit of a small number of simultaneous nominations -- five? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Christie, that sounds good to me on principle, but it's my understanding that they were also nominating a number of very unready articles, which does start to get somewhat vexatious. -- asilvering (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed every single comment, but the main threads seem to be about reviewing. I think a cap on nominations would address the issue of unready articles. Perhaps a cap of just one or two then? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should make an exception to allow them to nominate GAs at this time. The whole point is that their participation at GA has been problematic and that they don't listen to feedback. Time off to learn how to contribute without worrying about formal review processes will give them a chance to learn to listen to feedback in an informal, no-pressure setting. Once they can show they've been able to do that, participating in things like DYK and GA will be more appropriate. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with PMC here. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

AFC and NPP seem the most critical of the content processes mentioned, if an editor is unfamiliar with en.wiki content standards to the point of disruption, they are unlikely to be very familiar with AfC/NPP considerations. CMD (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis, I agree, though it's quite easy for AfC and NPP to simply remove the (pseudo)perm whether someone is topic-banned or not. -- asilvering (talk) 15:23, 2 October 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.

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2603:8081:83F0:9B10:0:0:0:0/64

2603:8081:83F0:9B10:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and /64 has previously been blocked on July 8th for 31h and September 3rd for a week, behaviour continued after block expired. /64 has been adding unsourced content related to the film adaptation of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy for months. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Yup, clearly the same user. I'm AFK, but maybe someone else can issue a block with a nudge from a second user. :) IznoPublic (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Game$howFan

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.

---

The editor has made multiple edits to American game show winnings records that have broken the formatting of the all-time winnings table, not to mention introduced numerous inconsistencies. I'll admit I may have been a bit aggressive in going straight to a level 3 warning on their talk page, but a further attempt to reach out, in which I have multiple times tried to explain my reasoning for undoing their edits, has resulted in statements from them such as "it doesn't matter," "tuff nubs," "they can't be lied too," and "EAT MY SHORTS!!!!!" all while practically daring me to block and/or report them. While the user has not (yet) restored their version of the article, I'm afraid their complete inability to have a conversation without launching into childish behavior leaves me no choice but to bring this dispute here, as I do not believe my attempt to reach out has been met with good faith. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Considering that @Game$howFan's account was created an hour before their first edit, and IP addresses making edits to the article date all the way back to August 25th (which is when @Bcschneider53 first got involved here), and also that Game$howFan even uses the same edit summary that this IP address does, I think there's solid enough ground to say that our friend here is very likely a WP:SPA and WP:NOTHERE to be constructive.

A quick list of all IPs potentially belonging to Game$howFan:

• 2600:6C44:63F0:7690:32E5:A118:3929:7D3
• 2603:8000:AC00:2C14:FDCD:C9D7:A8EC:6215
• 2600:6C44:63F0:7690:898F:E17D:6100:9D08

Sirocco745 (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The first and third IP I believe are near certainties. I have serious doubts about the 2603 one, however, since one of their edits is the one that split Barinholtz's recent Millionaire winnings total, something Game$howFan has been insisting we not do despite the table doing the same thing for every other contestant whose winnings came as part of a team. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Noting that they’ve now been to the Teahouse about this. [298] which is probably a smart move, actually. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 12:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Valid point, I just thought it fit in with the pattern of disruptive IP edits at the time. Good pick-up on that. Sirocco745 (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bcschneider53: From your comment on the user's talk page, can this now be closed as resolved? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Sure. Unless the user does another complete 180, I don't see this getting out of hand again. Thanks, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 12:54, 6 October 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.

BLP disruption

AdeiEnnada908 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

AdeiEnnada908's very first notice on their Talk page is about unsourced edits to the BLP Shraddha Srinath two years ago, yet just about a week ago similar edits were made ([299]). The Talk page appears to be filled with warnings about such unsourced additions but no communication seems to come forth from the user, no edit summaries are apparent either. A clear example of this egregiousness, is this recent edit for example. I think a block has become necessary now, considering the ample warnings and time spent at enwiki basic policies should have been met with. Gotitbro (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

 Blocked x 72 hrs. If this resumes, an indefinite block is likely the next step. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Need PROMPT TPA block

I'm asking for a prompt TPA block for 88.92.173.16 (talk · contribs). The IP is currently blocked, so reports to WP:AIV keep getting removed by the bot. The personal attacks (including pings) are ongoing. Not to mention trying to impersonate an administrator. Thanks for attention paid to this matter. _signed, Willondon (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done and Talk page blanked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Sig ma rehan

Most probably part of a sock farm, adding "vote thief" to articles of living persons, clearly not here to contribute constructively. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Please review their contribution history Sig ma rehan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Nearly all of their edits have been non-constructive, such as adding death information for living persons, as seen in these examples: [300] and [301]. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about the "[m]ost probably part of a sock farm" part, but I agree that it is most likely that they are not here to build an encyclopedia considering that almost all of their edits have been reverted. _WADroughtOfVowels^P 20:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Sohvyan and History Of Yoruba

After several months of ethnically-charged POV edits and attacks on other users, I reported Researcherofgreatness on this noticeboard on 19 May. After the discussion, the user was blocked indefinitely citing POV edits (example), WP:NPA (example), WP:NOTHERE (example), WP:EDITWAR (example), and WP:FAKEADMIN (example) in addition to the account's refusal to engage with the evidence presented. An unblock request was rejected on 20 May for being "clearly disingenuous." Unfortunately, the Wiisstlo (talk · contribs) account was created on 21 May and immediately started right where Researcherofgreatness had stopped, continuing to edit war on the Agbada page (examples: 1, 2), repeating the same unsourced editing on the Yoruba people from the Researcherofgreatness' WP:NOTHERE charge, and continuing the personal belligerence from the WP:NPA violations along with editing pages on Yoruba clothing, food, and culture. It was finally blocked as a clear sockpuppet on 30 September after I initiated an investigation. Now, the History Of Yoruba (talk · contribs) and Sohvyan (talk · contribs) — created on 2 October — have taken up the mantle with near-identical edits on several pages (examples: 1, 2) and continuing with the ethnically-biased POV edits (examples: 1, 2). Like I said in May, the operator of these accounts clearly has a genuine interest on Yoruba culture and history which would be helpful for Wikipedia; however, their conduct is worrying and they are clearly incapable of being objective. Thank you, Watercheetah99 (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

My submission is based on the provided evidences in the wiki, this user just started accusing me of having multiple accounts out of nowhere while insisting on a submission contrary to documented evidences, they appear to have a bias on Yoruba history and seek to impose it regardless of any provided evidence. Today is the first time I am editing this post, and it was because of the inaccurate information. Sohvyan (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if this adds to discussion, but I believe that your comment makes it six Nigerian ethnicities I have been accused of being biased against (including one of my own) for removing obvious POV violations. — Watercheetah99 (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Reporting Maureen Wunsch

Maureen Wunsch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user judging by his user contributions is reverting and harassing other users thinking that their edits are vandalism, I was simply sorting Studio D and Studio D Recording to link albums/songs to the correct page (the latter) can someone please block him?

--198.54.211.2 (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked; feel free to restore any edits that were inappropriately reverted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Another Hamish Ross sock. Borgenland (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

User threatening something illegal

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.

---

[302] Definitely fits the ‘needs swift action’ clause, no?

Not OSable (I think) and doesn’t meet WP:EMERGENCY criteria, so bringing it to ANI. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 06:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it can probably be left as we aren't the police and we don't need to police every comment made. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 07:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, this doesn't require any further action. Daniel (talk) 09:28, 7 October 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.

Joseph Safina

Is Joseph Safina (racing driver) the same person whose article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Safina? If so, will the article be speedily deleted, or does the reason for deletion no longer apply? Batrachoseps (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is the same person. I will need more time to see whether the speedy criterion applies. Ymblanter (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

My conclusion is that there are additional references in the new article with might (or might not) help it to survive AfD. I believe it is sufficiently different from the previous version and is not eligible for speedy deletion. Any administrator is welcome to disagree with me though. Ymblanter (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Regardless, the qualifier is unnecessary per WP:PRECISE and the base title is not WP:SALTed. My hackles stir though not rise. Narky Blert (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I can easily move it but after this checking the deleted edits will be way more complicated than it is now. Let us wait a bit. Ymblanter (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I dislike actions which might muddy an open discussion. Narky Blert (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 38.41.40.118

38.41.40.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 05:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

 Blocked x 48 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Known sock of blocked IP active

IP range 2605:B100:B00:0:0:0:0:0/41, a known alternate address of currently blocked user 47.54.219.33, had its block expire. The blocked user is editing again and has started edit warring at Logan Mailloux and at least one other page. I would like the blocks on all of the IPs listed at the linked LTA page reinstated/extended to match the recent one year block on the original IP. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• 2605:B100:B00:0:0:0:0:0/41 Blocked x 6 months.
• 216.208.243.0/24 Current block extended to 6 months.
• 142.163.206.14 Stale. IP has not edited in 3 weeks.
• 142.163.116.80 Stale. IP has not edited in 3 weeks.
• 156.34.8.38 Stale. IP has not edited in more than 2 weeks.

-Ad Orientem (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Logan Mailloux protected x 1 week. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Diddy's Diabolical again

They were blocked yesterday I believe and now they are again trolling editors and attacking them with reverts with Diddy's Diabolical. (see this). Mehedi Abedin 11:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The need of the vandal-troll to stalk my edits, and those of others, continues unabated. With nothing better to do on a Sunday, they have returned this time as Diddy's Diabolical (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Could someone please block and revdel their insulting summaries (and probably block TP access, if previous practice is anything to go by. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. This account was created less than an hour ago, so if they did something yesterday, it must have been under a different username. — Diannaa (talk) 12:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Diannaa Yes different but similar username (Diabolical Diddy, just keeping this here for documentation). Mehedi Abedin 12:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Many thanks Diannaa. Would it be possible for the edit summaries to be revdeled too please? Yesterday's fun and games was under the name Diabolical Diddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see #Vandal-troll back again), but this is the fifth, possibly six ninth time I an others has been targeted by the individual. They're on their way to their own LTA page at this rate. - SchroCat (talk)

I am already working on that. It would be cool if people would stop pinging me so I can finish lol. — Diannaa (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Without somebody actually tracking the accounts/IPs publicly, it makes it difficult for us to build a LTA page/profile. I have created Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Diabolical Diddy as a starting point. GiantSnowman 12:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

This is likely related to Fistagon Diddy gon. Frost 12:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

That would make it FSF, no? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Yup, most likely. Frost 12:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I've added another eight socks that have targeted me over the last five months. I suspect there will be more. - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

If 'FiveSidedFistagon' is the original account, and if 'Fistagon Diddy gon' is a sock, then 'Bethsheba Ashe' is also a sock (as currently 'Fistagon Diddy gon' is tagged as a sock of 'Bethsheba Ashe'. I will re-tag everything accordingly. GiantSnowman 12:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

All socks should now be re-tagged in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of FiveSidedFistagon (or 'suspected' subcat)... GiantSnowman 12:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks Diannaa (deliberately not pinging you!) and GiantSnowman too - much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I have finished the revision deletion of Diddy's Diabolical. Some of the insults are British slang and not in use in this county (Canada) so anyone who is assessing edit summaries may have to look up some of the terms to decide whether or not to rev-del. Terminology such as "nonce" and "sharing CP" look harmless but are actually quite offensive. — Diannaa (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) In British English, calling someone a "nonce" is about as bad as it gets. Be prepared to carry your teeth home in your hat. Narky Blert (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

sorry to butt in, but, Um, I don't think there is anywhere in the anglosphere where the term "sharing Club Penguin"... is NOT automatically recognized as bad. That term has w/q meant CSAM material since the Disney game fell out. I don't think it's hard to understand what that quote means in our current day and age. not an Admin, just bored and looking around –BarntToust^(Talk) 17:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I have also rev-deleted the edit summaries for Fistagon Diddy gon but that's all I can take care of for the moment as I have RL things to do. — Diannaa (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Funny to think I had my rollback rights removed for calling this joker a vandal. And now look... - SchroCat (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  It’s really about time this user had their rollback permissions restored, with an apology for the tremendously poor judgment that accompanied the removal. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  Hey, second that. If what is said is true, and no other meaningful circumstances for the removal of permissions are recalled ie, unless someone brings forward explicit proof that the removal wasn't just for calling this vandal a vandal - It's pertinent that those who made the folly of the decision to remove SchroCat's permissions for their use of WP:SPADE should really be formally admonished for such poor judgement. Look at this stuff above. Restore their rights to rollback. not an admin, just bored and looking around. –BarntToust^(Talk) 17:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  Here's the original ANI that led to the removal of rollback, and pinging @NinjaRobotPirate: as the admin concerned. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  No evidence that that was this vandal was presented in that thread. I may be that it was - we just can't tell without evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  It was during that thread that two IPs (from, if memory serves, South Korea and proxies) started reverting and leaving insulting summaries, then (also at the same time as that thread was open), the first of the accounts WatchOutForDiddy started up. The 'coincidence' is too much for there not to be a connection. - SchroCat (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  Here is a link to the archived copy (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1155#User_keeps_assuming_I'm_a_vandal_and_refuses_to_communicate_to_clarify), though the permalink is the one NinjaRobotPirate linked in the removal of the right (and therefore shows the context at the time it was removed). I'll note that I am the 2804:F14... IPs that participated in that other ANI. – 2804:F1...32:A716 (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  SchroCat claims that it was a South Korea IP who was vandalising, if all is to be understood well. Need an admin or checker to check out the IP who began the listing, and corroborate that locale with Diddy-account, then. If so, vindication! if not, well, that's for the admins to decide. not an Admin, just bored and hanging around. –BarntToust^(Talk) 22:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  Oh wait, according to the log, it looks like one of the Diddy accounts was responsible for the exact same vandalism as the IP supposedly based in Seongnam had done. It looks like SchroCat is in the right here. huh. not an Admin, just bored and hanging around. –BarntToust^(Talk) 22:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Special:Diff/1222257939 is my explanation why the right was removed. Unexplained edits are not vandalism. That this person has persistently come back to engage in trollish harassment does not make the original claim retroactively correct. For example, if I, as a CheckUser, pick a user randomly and run a check on them to see if there's anyone else on their IP address, it doesn't retroactively justify my action if I find a bunch of a vandalism-only accounts confirmed to that user. I didn't have any justification for running the check in the first place. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  • But what the IP was doing was vandalism, and even if you want to define vandalism in an overly narrow way, it was still disruption - which can be within the remit of rollback use. The fact you didn’t bother discussing the matter with me at all or asking for clarification seemed rather odd, as does the fact that even if it wasn’t vandalism, there was no warning about it, just removal on a first offence, which is even more odd. You can blithely dismiss the fact they’re a massive sock who has been harassing and insulting me over the last five months, but it only reinforces my point about them more than anything else. All of this ignores the fact, of course, that the use of rollback is not confined solely to reverting vandalism, but as you didn’t discuss the matter with me, maybe you didn’t realise that. Looking at WP:RBREVOKE, removal of the right is for editors who are “persistently failing to provide needed explanations for their reverts” (emphasis in the original). Maybe you could explain why this was removed without discussion after you one event, for action on a disruptive IP engaged in vandalism? - SchroCat (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

    Rather than discuss this matter at ANI, couldn't you just make a request at PERM for rollback back? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

    Hi Liz, I wasn’t requesting it here (although is someone wants to revert the bad removal, it would be welcome). I’m just making the point that a bad decision made out of process looks even worse in the light of the fact that the disruption all comes from back to a sock. Ironically I didn’t really need or use rollback that much previously, but the lack of it over the last five months has made reverting the ongoing vandalism and incivility more difficult. - SchroCat (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

    I don't see how rollback could be re-granted where per your own comment you don't know what vandalism is on the English wikipedia and so cannot be trusted to use rollback correctly. As NinjaRobotPirate has said, calling something vandalism requires there is sufficient evidence at the time rather than the editor expects there to be evidence in the future. I don't know if the original removal was correct, but it seems to me after this long any regranting of the permission requires that editors understand what vandalism is which unfortunately after these 5 months is still not there. Frankly, I'd be more worried about whether you might end up sitebanned if you personally attack editors in the future by incorrectly calling them vandals when the evidence doesn't emerge that you expect to, than trying to get rollback back. Nil Einne (talk) 06:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) A. "you don't know what vandalism" is so wrong it's lamentable; B. The use of rollback is not solely confined to vandalism. There seems to be confusion in some people's minds that it is. Good work in trying to defend a sock who leaves messages accusing people of being paedophiles, but I think you've missed the mark by a country mile here. I knew there was a reason I avoid this cesspit as much as possible - and it's more to do with the pointless peanut gallery than any other factor.- SchroCat (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) I'd add that assuming other editors feel you can be trusted enough to identify this sock we could I guess grant rollback under the very limited provision that you only use it to revert this sock and no one else no matter how sure you are these other editors are also "vandals". But again, I'd personally worry more about your ability to continue to edit point blank if you continue down the path of misusing the term vandalism than on rollback. Nil Einne (talk) 07:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

    Given your attempts to shift goalposts while defending a clear vandal, with some form of threats against me, I really don't care about your suggestions. Given he is a vandal and has engaged in clear vandalism (as can be backed up by any number of users involved and the admins that have blocked him), your threats are unwarranted and ridiculous. - SchroCat (talk) 07:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

    How am I shifting the goalpost? My second comment exactly concurs with that I said the first time which is that you cannot be trusted to use rollback generally since you do not understand what vandalism is, a serious problem for an experienced editor one eventually likely to lead to a site ban. However recognising you asked for the toll for a specific purpose, it might be possible for us to grant that toll for solely for this purpose and nothing else. In both my comments, I did mention that it's far more important that you desist from calling stuff vandalism when it isn't since that will eventually lead to a site ban regardless of anything else. Nil Einne (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

    Firstly I will repeat that it is a lie to say that I do not know what vandalism is. Secondly, I have not asked for anything, so your suggestion is rather pointless. Thirdly, I think it's clear to everyone except you that this person has been engaged in vandalism on and off for five months while calling several user paedophiles. I'm bemused you seem to be unable to grasp that. - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) As for my comment on vandalism I stand by it completely. You're making the common newbie error of missing the key point of vandalism. Vandalism must be a deliberate attempt to harm wikipedia. For this reason, a lot of the time it is not possible to know if something is vandalism going only by one edit. With some typical childish vandalism e.g. an editor replacing text with "penis, penis, penis, penis, penis" or an editor who says something in their edit or edit summary indicating this is their intention (e.g. fuck Wikipedia); then yes perhaps it's fair to go by only one edit. But this only applies to a small percentage of edits.

    A lot of the time, it's simply not possible. For example, an editor removing sourced content might be trying to fix something but just not know how to do it. And in fact, in some cases removing sourced content is perfectly justified for any number of reasons e.g. WP:Undue. As an editor at WP:BLPN, it's actually quite common that we are removing sourced content. There was just a prominent example with clear consensus to remove sourced content Talk:2024 Kolkata rape and murder#RfC: Name of victim. Yes editors do need to offer an explanation, be willing to engage in discussion, not get into edit wars etc. But since removing sourced content isn't even always against our policies and guidelines, it's even further from being always vandalism.

    An important additional point here, while you might not quite make the same mistake plenty of newbies do in thinking anything I feel harms wikipedia is vandalism, thinking that anything the community feels harms wikipedia is vandalism is still wrong. Even if there is bot just consensus but unanimity that something harms wikipedia, this would still not make an edit vandalism.

    I'd note that for all the focus on vandalism, IMO the worst editors and edits on Wikipedia are not even vandals or vandalism. Instead our worse problems generally come from POV pushers and others who genuinely believe they are improving Wikipedia i.e. genuinely believe they are helping to "create a free encyclopedia presenting the sum of all human knowledge", when they clear aren't.

    Personally, I don't think persistent block evading PoV pushers should be called vandals. I've seen enough to believe that most of these editors still genuinely believe they are improving Wikipedia. However since it's been repeatedly explained to them and they are unable to, or refuse to accept the how wrong they are I can see how some might claim they are now "deliberately intend[ing] to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose". So it's not something I care enough to argue or would suggest a block over, but it always seems unhelpful to me. As I said, this seems to be based on the mistaken assumption that vandals and vandalism cause the worst sort of harm when they aren't and don't.

    This isn't just an abstract thing either it matters since it affects how we approach stuff. The wrong approach can easily be counter productive. If an editor is in good faith trying to improve Wikipedia but for some reason is causing problems, then communicating with them why what they're doing is harmful and ways they might be able to achieve at least some of what they're trying to achieve might work. Even if they can't achieve any of what they're trying to achieve, at the very least they're more likely to be receptive to stopping and maybe even moving on to doing other things which might help Wikipedia if they're approached in a decent manner.

    However if they're just called a vandal when they're trying to help and improve Wikipedia, if you're "lucky" perhaps they will just give up on Wikipedia completely. I say "lucky" with quotation marks since I question whether scaring of someone who might have been a good editor is really a good thing. But it's "lucky" since it's better than the alternative which could easily happen: An editor, annoyed by being reverted and called an vandal and therefore no proper explanation of why they aren't helping when they think they are and how they might be able to help; gives up and actually starts to engage in vandalism. Why help a project which treats you so atrociously? Some long term editors have threatened to do this when they feel they've been mistreated so we shouldn't be surprised if new editors who only barely care about wikipedia also do it.

    By comparison, with an actual vandal then yes it probably does help just to convince them, look you stupidity isn't going to be allowed, you're just going to be reverted and achieve nothing. (Although with trolls unfortunately it can get complicated as that disruption might be enough. Heck the attention might be more important to them than their edits being allowed to stand.) Although plenty of good editors probably did vandalise very early on, and there's still likely to be ways to approach vandals which will help more than others.

    Still the point is that there's a big difference between an editor who is deliberately trying to harm wikipedia and an editor who genuinely believes they aren't; since the former mostly needs to be stopped whereas the latter we should always try to educate first.

    To give a semi real world example, recently there were problems at Eliana Rubashkyn. The edits are enough that an admin felt rev-deletion was justified. I don't know what the sourcing was for these edits, but I can see this would apply even if it was sourced. If any editor had come across these edits, they might have tried to fix it in various ways. The best thing was just to remove the problematic edits. However I can easily see a passerby just blanking the entire article or at least blanking more than they need to because they're trying to fix the problem. This editor should never be called a vandal. Any editor who sees what they did should really have noticed the problem and only done a partial revert i.e. ensured the stuff that needed to stay removed was removed.

    Unfortunately experience at WP:BLPN suggests this isn't the case. Way too many RC patrollers often don't notice such things and reintroduced BLP violations. This in itself is a problem but it's compounded if they just call and treat the other editor as a vandal. (Per my earlier comment, I wouldn't call the IP who added the rev-deleted content a vandal either. They're a much worse kind of editor who genuinely believes they're improving Wikipedia by harming a living person as part of some culture war issue. Although I might still try to educate these editors, frankly I generally give them less hope than an actual vandal and they definitely need to put put to a hard stop even more so than a vandal.)

    I'm not saying editor judgment can't be used. To get back to the "I was sure that the editor was a vandal and I was proven right" angle, I'm it's fine for an editor to just give a templated warning or whatever if they're fairly sure someone is a vandal but there isn't yet sufficient evidence; when this editor might try a targeted approach when they don't think this. However such assumptions should generally stay internal rather than these editors going around calling their fellow editors vandals because they're sure they are based on their experience when there isn't really enough evidence at the current time. If you're proven right then great, however for good reason we still require there to be evidence at the time rather than you generally being right. This does mean great care should be taken when using {{Uw-vandalism4im}} or similar templates although personally the thing that worries me most is not such templates but when an editor persistently calls some other editor a vandal including in their own words despite there not being enough evidence.

    I'd acknowledge that a lot of the time, the evidence for vandalism can still be fairly weak i.e. all we really have is that an editor persistently did something that harms Wikipedia even when they've been told this and have offered no other explanation for what they're trying to achieve or why it benefits Wikipedia. Similar to the the case where editors have offered some explanation which suggests they genuinely thinking they're improving Wikipedia when they aren't, I don't think it matters much. And in fact, in these cases when the editor should really know by now that what they're doing harms wikipedia and they've offered no other explanation, it seems fine to me to just call it vandalism given our inability to read minds and hence why IMO we generally just accept this without issue. (Although other editors might have WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU concerns.)

    Nil Einne (talk) 11:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

    tl;dr. The bit I bothered to read is patronising dross that shows you don't actually understand what this vandal has been up to and you clearly haven't bothered reading what I've been writing, or just maybe you might have recognised the Wikipedia:Vandalism#Edit_summary_vandalism that I have referred to on several occasions. I went back over a few of the sock's edits and pulled out a few of the obvious ones and I'd love you to somehow try and justify these as not being deliberate

    • [303]
    • [304]
    • [305]
    • [306]
    • [307]
    • [308]
    • [309]
    • [310]
    • [311]
    • [312]

    There's also further vandalism at the following, which you can't see because of the revdel (which should be a big clue—even to anyone who is willingly trying to ignore the obvious—to the deliberately malicious nature of the edits)

    • [313]
    • [314]
    • [315]

    These are just the obvious examples of vandalism, but there are dozens of malicious edits over the last five months from a variety of sock accounts. Some of these are just stupid ([316], [317] [318], [319], etc), but at least 99 per cent of them are malicious reverts of constructive edits from numerous targeted individuals, accompanied by obscene edit summaries (the Wikipedia:Vandalism#Edit_summary_vandalism I have referred to numerous times). If you don't think these are vandalism, maybe you can take your rather silly comments to the admins who have blocked the socks and tagged the accounts as being Wikipedia:Vandalism-only account - their definition seems to coincide with mine - and having ten socks – TEN – harassing users, leaving obscene edit summaries and vandalising content over the last five months really does nail down the point of both "deliberate" and "malicious". So, yes, I understand what bloody vandalism is, so drop the lies about me and the patronising lecture. - SchroCat (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

    I'll make this one final comment before I stop responding and I'll say this at the beginning so any editors are aware before they waste any time on my comment. (With the exception if any editor feeling I need to either justify or strike something I've said because it's crossed some sort of line.)

    Just to emphasise, the only thing that matters to my point is any edits clearly linked to the editor on "20:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)". I've chosen it as as convenient starting time since it was the time of when you said "You’re a vandal and you need to stop" but really it should be even before this time since you were accusing the editor of vandalism before then. Any edits they editor performed after this time are irrelevant to the point I was making which is that we need evidence on or before that time when the accusation was made to justify your accusation back then which as I understand, you continue to support.

    If I'm mistaken on this, I apologise, but I didn't see anywhere where you acknowledged you were wrong to make the accusation at the time even if you were later proven right on the substance.

    If you're later proven right, great but it does not justify calling the editor a vandal or accusing them of vandalism at an earlier time. As I mentioned, the simple solution if you're sure an editor is a vandal and you'll later be proven right is to treat them as any other problematic editor who may or may not be a vandal. Given them appropriate warnings and report them where necessary. Yes this does mean if they reply to your warnings etc, you will need to engage in good faith discussion or alternatively stop reverting them. And yes because you don't have sufficient evidence they are a vandal you will have to obey WP:3RR unless some other exemption applies.

    Putting those complications aside, I'd also emphasise there is absolutely no reason why anyone needs to publicly call an editor a vandal anyway. That's the key thing all editors need to avoid when they lack sufficient evidence. It definitely doesn't help the complaint, when I see an editor throw around "vandalism" for an editor even if said editor is clearly disruptive but isn't clearly a vandal my first response is to figuratively roll my eyes. More substantially, I give much less trust to the judgment of the reporting editor since they've given me a reason not to trust them. From what I've seen, I'm not the only one who feels this way.

    Editors are always free to think privately what they cannot say publicly. I'm fairly sure most of us have such thoughts all the time be it to do with vandals or socks or COI editors or whatever else. Again often we're proven right, sometimes we're clearly wrong, other times we never get enough evidence. Even when we were right, it doesn't mean it was a mistake to hold of on making accusations that when they could not be supported by the available evidence. In fact, we made the right decision and likely made things a lot easier. We didn't risk distracting from issues we raised by making accusations which weren't supported and which might have become the focus of discussion. And at the very least we didn't make editors trust us less by making inappropriate accusations.

    Nil Einne (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

    Another wall of text? It’s rude to make people wade through long turgid posts; why not just shove it into Chat GPT and ask it to summarise it in 200 words?

    I see you are still fighting a fight from five or six months ago, rather than looking at the reality of today, which is why your statements about my understanding of vandalism are lies. We are dealing with the realities of a long-term sock and vandal who thinks it appropriate to harass several users, leave obscene edit summaries and vandalise articles as they go. But you’ve just ignored all that and want to try and re-litigate something from several months ago. How on earth is that useful or constructive? And when given undeniable proof of the vandalism (vandalism that has been confirmed and dealt with by retention different admins in the intervening time, you obfuscate through excessive text, rather than acknowledge that you may have got it wrong. Typical behaviour from the peanut gallery/noticeboard warrior in driving a thread off at a pointless tangent for zero reason. Well done, good work! I’ll repeat what I’ve said before: I know what vandalism is, even if you can’t bring yourself to acknowledge that, but that reflect more about you than it does about me. - SchroCat (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Please stop bickering at ANI. Move it to someone's user page, please. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

(HAT modified by SchroCat)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The (current) iteration of the vandal/troll has been blocked and the suggestions about how to request to regain rollback have been given - so I'll just say this as friendly advice: Saying things like "[...] a bad decision made out of process [...]" about NinjaRobotPirate's decision, without providing any evidence that that is the case, can and will be read by others as WP:ASPERSIONS if you keep doing it. – 2804:F1...32:A716 (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC) Oh tish. I've given reasons - see my 01:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC) comment where I quoted from Wikipedia:Rollback: (removal of the right is for editors who are "persistently failing to provide needed explanations for their reverts" (emphasis in the original); you can add to that the process is that "admins should normally notify or warn the editor sufficiently first": given there has been no "persistent" failure and given the lack of notification or warning from the admin, there are absolutely no aspersions in calling it a "bad decision made out of process" - it would be hard pushed to describe it any other way. Regardless of all that, calling an admin decision "bad" is not casting any aspersions: it's an opinion on a decision—and not an insulting or uncivil one—based on the facts at hand. - SchroCat (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC) That's not a requirement for removing the rollback right, that's an example of a situation where an admin may block an editor, or remove their rollback right, or remove some other right - that is, an user who does not explain their reverts, either done with rollback or not. There was another example afterwards, where someone might lose their rollback right if they edit war (not even from using rollback to edit war, but just doing it in general) as a precaution. The first paragraph of that section says another, different, reason too, as does the warning banner at the very top of that page. NinjaRobotPirate told you back then in the diff they linked above why they removed yours, which was mainly because you said (if that is really what you meant) that you didn't care how we defined vandalism, that you saw those edits back then as vandalism and were going to keep using rollback to revert them, again and again. If you don't believe that's justified then ask around, that clearly fits the 'admin removes rollback right to prevent its misuse' intent. (edit: calling it out of process, without evidence, is what I meant as something that, if done repeatedly, would likely be seen as aspersions - that's like saying an admin is abusing their powers) – 2804:F1...32:A716 (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC) You have a rather twisted way of interpreting what I have said, which is a little disingenuous: I have never said he was abusing his powers, nor did I even hint at such a thing. I do think he made a mistake, however, and didn't follow the process, or even have the common courtesy to start a discussion, let alone showed I had "persistently" failed to provide an explanation. I'll also remind you that rollback is not solely for the reversion of vandalism, which seems to be a common error round here. You can continue pushing this point as much as you want (it's not going to alter my position), but please don't put a meaning into it that is a long way from the truth. - SchroCat (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC) Well, my apologies if you didn't mean that. Admins are supposed to act to enforce policies and guidelines, acting outside of process (doing things outside of the community's expectations of what an admin should do) is at the very least WP:TOOLMISUSE - it would have been a serious accusation. Also just to be clear, I am aware of WP:ROLLBACKUSE, I just don't see how that's relevant to the removal. – 2804:F1...32:A716 (talk) 09:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC) I don't see where anyone has ever claimed that rollback is solely for reversion of vandalism. For all your comments about people misinterpreting you, you seem to be misinterpreting what others have said. Rollback isn't solely for reversion of vandalism, however because it doesn't leave an edit summary, the assumption is any use without an explanation given somewhere else is vandalism. Therefore it should never be used for reverting another editor when they were not engaged in not vandalism unless some other explanation was offered somewhere else. More importantly, an editor who clearly does not understand what vandalism is should never be granted rollback. Their inability to understand what vandalism is means they revert something under the mistaken assumption it's vandalism and therefore they can just use rollback without offering an explanation elsewhere; when they can't. Since this applies to you, you cannot be granted rollback unless we can come up with some option where we can trust you to use it, without violating our policies and guidelines which would likely require use to restrict how you use it, and trust that you will abide by our restriction. Nil Einne (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC) As I've said it's untrue to say I do not know what vandalism is, so please stop repeating that particular lie. - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC) I agree. If there was misclarification, NOBODY should have jumped the gun and just removed Cat's permissions outright. Maybe a semi-strict "be more wary from here on out, Cat, alrighty?" could have sufficed? Look, plenty of escalation on either side here. But Wikipedia:COOL is something that needs a lookover all around, for sure. not an Admin, just bored and hanging around. –BarntToust(Talk) 13:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC) Like, if this situation with Cat just calling "VANDAL" happened two or three separate cases, yeah, there should be consequences, and it's not good practice to assume either way that these edits were vandalism, or conversely, just misguided edits. It's good to not assume, but rather to attempt to speak with the vandalising IP, so either clarification could have happened, or so the IP could have been naturally allowed to play out Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you, (which is what would have doubtless happened in this alternate history). Both Cat and the Admins made totally reasonable assumptions about the nature of the edits, but assumptions are bad when answers are a talk page away from being gotten. Not an Admin, just hanging around due to boredom –BarntToust(Talk) 13:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC) This amounts to a personal attack and should be struck. That you feel it’s appropriate to insult another user’s intelligence is staggering. 66.220.213.193 (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC) who is the editor doing the attacking? Cat or Nil? Not an Admin, just hanging around due to boredom –BarntToust(Talk) 13:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC) Nil 66.220.213.193 (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC) I second this IP. Nil, I advise you to strike your paragraph, beginning with I don't see where anyone has ever claimed that rollback... and ending with ...and trust that you will abide by our restriction. That's a bit too heavy to be saying around here. not an admin, just bored and hanging around –BarntToust(Talk) 14:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC) How do you figure? I'm not seeing any comment on a user's intelligence (which WOULD be a personal attack). Perhaps I missed it? All I see is an assertion that Cat doesn't understand what vandalism is, and then a conclusion that they should not use a particular tool to combat vandalism if it may be misapplied and why. That said, if Nil would be willing to strike the comment anyway, PA or no, that could help ratchet down tensions a bit, which would only be a good thing. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC) Everyone knows what vandalism is, but the problem here isn't Cat not knowing what vandalism is, it's assumptions that they make which are the problem; given that all sides have been making assumptions, it's fair to call BS here. Saying an editor isn't smart enough to know what vandalism is, when the actual problem is them being, well, a bit too quick to judge, is no bueno. not an Admin, just hanging around –BarntToust(Talk) 15:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC) Where did it say Cat isn't smart enough? Understanding is not the same as intelligence. And no, not everyone knows what WP:VANDALISM is; it's caused problems before. Whether or not Cat does is a matter of interpretation. I agree that calling BS is acceptable, but that doesn't mean that Nil's reasonable (if possibly incorrect) interpretation of policy, and voicing Cat's stated disagreement with that interpretation, is a personal attack. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC) Which is an outright lie - it could be construed as a personal attack given its untruthfulness has been pointed out several times. - SchroCat (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC) Amen to that. not an Admin, just hanging around. –BarntToust(Talk) 15:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC) Perhaps someone with less than 800 edits should actually focus on improving the encyclopedia instead of endlessly focusing their attention on the drama boards? Your persistent presence here, in addition to the comment to which I’m replying, suggests that you don’t fully understand the nuances involved in matters of dispute resolution. 66.220.213.193 (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC) Speaking of personal attacks, this comes close to an ad hominem. I'll let others respond to your message if they feel it's warranted. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC) Less than 800? Alright, that's quite a provocative comment there, set-of-numbers, let's look at what I've done here. I've created a few articles: Pedro Pascal on screen and stage, Double Life (Pharrell Williams song), and Wanderstop, the ones I know off the toppa my head. I've been a significant contributor to Piece by Piece (2024 film), Pedro Pascal, Good Fortune (film) and others, and I've done GA reviews for The Last of Us season 1 and I Can Do It with a Broken Heart. Don't sass me about helping Wikipedia. –BarntToust(Talk) 16:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC) I think he was saying I shouldn't be commenting here, not you.EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Nil Einne and SchroCat dispute

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

---

At an earlier ANI listing, the users @SchroCat (Cat) and @Nil Einne (Nil) have become involved in a pretty heated civility dispute. The long short of it, being as objective as possible, was that discussion began when some editors were discussing an IP's edits at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Diddy's_Diabolical_again as being involved in a larger tangent vandalism. I and a few other editors were speaking about SchroCat's rollback rights being removed following Cat accusing said IP's edits of being vandalism, these edits which Cat believes are socking of the "Diddy" character. I cannot paraphrase this confusing discussion, but it ended with Nil telling Cat that they didn't know what they are doing with Rollback in regards to a definition of "vandalism", and what constitutes it, and Cat responding in characterizing this as lies and personal attacks.

It began about right here, and it's gotten quite salty. Someone else may be able to explain the situation better. I wanna personally bow out of this now, since it's only been confusing to me. But action needs taken. Thank you. –BarntToust^(Talk) 17:00, 7 October 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:CKirby09

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.

---

CKirby09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Something strange is going on here. This editor has a long history of creating draft articles about apparently fictitious "RACA" sports tournaments (e.g. Draft:Ultimate RACA Championship, Draft:RACA Cornish Tennis, etc), with thousands of edits to these articles and essentially no edits in any other namespace (including no responses to an inquiry earlier this year on their talk page).

I realize that Wikipedia:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity, but this seems like an extraordinary case which has gone on for entirely too long. Omphalographer (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I've noticed these RACA articles in Draft space for a while and I see I even told the editor that I would delete them all as hoax articles but the editor never responded and I guess I thought it was some sports league I was unfamiliar with so I didn't follow through with it. Is anyone here familiar with it or is it completely fictitious? I can't even tell what sport it is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Apparently it's MMA, but I can't find any sources for the existence of a supposed MMA championship with that name. R0paire-wiki (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there a single source in any of the drafts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Nope, not a single source on any. Found more drafts that, also without sources, for a supposed Grand Prix and World Series' bearing the same name. Pretty certain they're all fictitious. R0paire-wiki (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

They are all fictitious. Note, incidentally, that the user claimed to be 16 years old on their userpage - which I have deleted, as it gave far too much information away, including their full name, DOB and (non-fictitious) school and sports club. Black Kite (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit: I've deleted the lot. The last one I removed had the author's school team beating a professional club in a rugby union tournament, which would have been a story. Black Kite (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Good call. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Black Kite. I probably should have taken care of these months ago. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

bro can't lie i have no friends and just wanted to create some fantisy world to escape my sadness. its all fake but it was all that i had. im sorry if i upset anyone but is there anyway i can retrieve it and use my sandbox CKirby09 (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

This is sad, but I have blocked CKirby09 as not here to build an encyclopedia. I hope that this person can find a path to feeling better about themself. Cullen328 (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

good block. that said, this is clearly a struggling kid, and in the interest of kindness and compassion, i'm going to request that an admin grant their request and temporarily restore the pages as sandboxes (i'd suggest just emailing, but they have email turned off). i've pointed them towards Miraheze, and they've indicated that they would've just used that site if they knew about it before. i don't really see a harm to the encyclopedia in allowing CKirby to transfer their creations to another site, and it's patently obvious that this is a deeply upsetting situation to them. we could really stand to use a gentler, more human touch here. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHERAPY 173.22.12.194 (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

that is exactly the impersonal & uncompassionate approach i am taking issue with here, and is really irrelevant to what i've said - i am suggesting that we help them stop using wikipedia in such a manner. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

There is an offer to help them on their talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

As the blocking administrator, I am grateful for Sawyer777's suggestion. I think that it is clear that there are several administrators, myself included, who are willing to email the wikicode if CKirby09 adds an email address to their account. Cullen328 (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

This does not strike me as malicious and if CKirby09 were to promise to confine themselves to constructive editing (i.e. real world), I'd be inclined to support an unblock request. There are plenty of sport related pages that could benefit from someone with their skills in charting and tables. That aside, I strongly support giving them the code. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I, too, would support an unblock in that circumstance. Cullen328 (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

thank you both :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 09:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Based on the editor's promise to refrain from any disruptive editing, I have unblocked CKirby09 and emailed them a lot of wikicode. Cullen328 (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

a happy ending on ANI... rare and beautiful sight ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing and baselessly accusing and reporting me for COI

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.

---

Borgenland has been disruptively deleting my well-sourced edits on Edcel Greco Lagman without valid justifications. Previously, he has also erroneously and baselessly reported me for COI. He has been closely monitoring the biography page of Edcel Greco Lagman giving the clear impression that he has an ulterior motive in making disruptive edits on the page. Please do something about it. Gabnaparato (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I categorically deny the accusations. Their edit history gave me basis for citing a COI on them. Furthermore, I reported them twice in ANI for whitewashing serious cases of public interest concerning the article before, which had led to the page being protected. It is furthermore malicious on the part of the reporting user that they resort to filing this report rather than address such issues in talk. Borgenland (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore I would like to cite the offending user for WP:CIR use of Geni, a generally unreliable source, excessive WP:UNDUE insertions and tons of uncited material on the same page. Will submit diffs in 12 hours. Borgenland (talk) 03:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Your report is based on a hunch. Edit history alone is not conclusive to support your allegation of COI. For closely monitoring the page, is it not that I can say the same thing to you? You might have a COI with the political adversaries of Edcel Greco Lagman particularly with him being known as a political aspirant for re-election in the Province of Albay. Major edit history of Borgerland in Edcel Greco Lagman only started with the "Controversy" section which talks about Lagman being involved in illegal activity is also basis for reporting him as COI.

Further, I categorically deny citing an unreliable source. Why don't you make an in-depth research on sources about Lagman instead of disruptively removing the well-sourced edits of others? Gabnaparato (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

We don't have a fleet of PIs—COIs are often detected based on a hunch, and we're not bound to an exceptional standard of evidence when the edit history is clearly a cause for concern. The fact that you're having this outsized reaction to concerns other editors have raised in good faith isn't exactly exculpatory evidence for your case here. Remsense ‥ 论 03:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

But at least a well-founded hunch. If you are reporting someone for COI, at least do a research first. Gabnaparato (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

What research? The edit history of Edcel Greco Lagman clearly shows you making contributions without adequate concern for our content policies. That's often the case without any COI, but your conduct has otherwise made the conclusion that this is ignorance rather than bad-faith promotion distinctly less plausible. Remsense ‥ 论 04:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, thanks to your content policies which Borgenland has weaponized to advance his malicious and false cause. Gabnaparato (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The least you can do while cashing checks for your work here (see below) is not to trash others who aren't so lucky, but instead volunteer their time because they actually care about improving an encyclopedia. Remsense ‥ 论 04:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

That offending user suddenly rants about me being possibly connected to subject’s opponents tells so much about their outsized resort to WP:ASPERSIONS. Borgenland (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

You reported me for the same thing, and now you're a crying about malice? Nothing prevents anyone with valid cause to report a matter to the administrator's noticeboard. Gabnaparato (talk) 03:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, just like with an actual legal system, it's often pretty obvious which side (if any) is operating in bad faith in a given dispute, no matter what magic phrases they use or norms of procedure they gestur to. Remsense ‥ 论 03:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

"I reported them twice in ANI for whitewashing serious cases of public interest concerning the article before, which had led to the page being protected."

This is false. What is a serious case of public interest in the biography of Edcel Greco Lagman?? Nothing. You are fabricating allegations to cover your own issues of COI. Gabnaparato (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you erased a well-sourced and WP:DUE statement that a complaint was filed in the Ombudsman of the Philippines against them for being a hoax based on your own POV, and then pretend that I’m the one fabricating things, further demonstrates that this complaint of yours is unfounded and proves that you are WP:NOTHERE to edit a BLP. Borgenland (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I can understand why you were suspected of COI. Until recently, all your edits are about this subject. Furthermore, the photo on the page is described on Wikimedia as Official portrait of Hon. Edcel Greco Lagman. and the author is Gabriel Naparato. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

So we can no longer add official portraits on the page? What of it? You can remove the photo then. For all I care. Gabnaparato (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

You can even delete the biography page. For all I care. What I am after is justice for falsely accusing me of COI and disruptive edits! Gabnaparato (talk) 04:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I’ll also note that Bmjc98 states, on their user page, This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by Gabriel Naparato on behalf of Edcel Greco Lagman for their contributions to Wikipedia. sounds like you do have a COI. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I wish I had known that when I hauled them to ANI months ago. Borgenland (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

That’s what I do. I drink, and I know things. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Gabnaparato removed the COI disclosure from Bmjc98's user page with a false edit summary. I undid the edit. A type of cabinet (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Further evidence of malicious activity on their part. Added it as evidence below. Borgenland (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

It's like asking for more scrutiny. A type of cabinet (talk) 07:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Not even, since they were already done (if I have a head on my shoulders) the moment Rsjaffe pointed this out. Trying to hide a smoking gun (from who?) and claiming a privacy violation after repeatedly boasting about a lack of external evidence is very funny. Remsense ‥ 论 07:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) For more background, I found the two reports Borgenland filed here months ago ([1] and [2]), the latter ending with extended-confirmed protection on the article from May to July 2024. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

As promised earlier, these were the diffs the offending user was flagged for:

In March 2024, said user reverted the following fixes I made, which involved a legal complaint filed against the subject (not someone crying wolf on Facebook), the insertion of fraudulent and generic names of article authors, and inappropriate MOS:NUM issues:

• [320]
• [321] this second revert was misleadingly summarized as having no proper source despite WP:RAPPLER.

After these incidents, I warned them about possible COI, my mistake at the time being to improvise that warning instead of using the standard template. filed the first ANI, which went nowhere aside from a hint that they might have a COI if not an SPI. In May 2024, said user reverted the same items without bothering to explain why:

• [322]
• [323]

This led to my second ANI, which led to the page being temporarily protected, the said user resumed tendentious editing in September, posting items which I reverted due to tons of unsourced material, material seemingly copied out either as WP:NOTNEWS or plain-ass hagiography, information that strays far beyond the topic and thus WP:UNDUE and originate from generally unreliable sources per WP:RSP, not to mention their excessive reliance on which may possibly constitute WP:BLUDGEON. See:

• [324]
• [325]
• [326]

Note that their substandard editing was reverted not just by me, but a more competent user. See:

• [327]
• [328]

That I wished I could have further dug to find more evidence of COI I have expressed earlier, but to further underscore how WP:NOTHERE this character is, all but two of their edits on mainspace have been on Edcel Greco Lagman, and the only time they edited on something other than that is Albay Provincial Board, which although the edits do not seem suspicious by itself, happens to be an office in which the subject was at one point an ex presidio presiding officer by virtue of one of his former positions as vice governor.

The fact that a lot of bios on Philippine politicians are woefully lacking on content is one of the many challenges we in WP:PHILIPPINES strive to correct, but that does not excuse editors such as the one blaming me for their own incompetence and resorting to maliciously filing an ANI report instead of correcting their WP:IDNHT and lying about making financial transactions on the subject in question to bloat it with unencyclopedic drivel. As such I move that this report be shelved at the very least and the reporting editor be sanctioned for such WP:NOTHERE and uncivil behavior, not to mention their recent laughable attempt to lie about the issues I raised for a very long time:

• [329]

Borgenland (talk) 06:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Be my guest wikiwikipi (talk) 08:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Hiding a diff proving that you are a liar in the hope that it gets erased and now clumsily hiding behind a new username. How pathetic. Borgenland (talk) 08:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

What's taking you so long to have me permanently blocked? I am waiting. wikiwikipi (talk) 08:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Admins are volunteers and aren't on the clock, unlike yourself. Remsense ‥ 论 08:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

It is fun though seeing undeserving editors frying themselves in a pot of boiling oil. Borgenland (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

While waiting, I am also wondering what ulterior motives can they also attribute to the inclusion of 281 other pages on my watchlist. Borgenland (talk) 08:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked. Bishonen | tålk 09:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC).

  Finally, an end to this WP:BOOMERANG. Borgenland (talk) 09:14, 8 October 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.

Attitude that has been going on so far around the Nigerian editors.

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.

---

Greetings to everyone here, although I would like to make a statement about what has been going on around the Nigerian editors. How they treat unexperienced fellow and how an also Nigerian editor Reading Beans has seen me to be an arrogant person, partnering also with a foreign editor named Timtrent to defeat other peoples Good faith. Firstly I'm a Nigerian, not too good in English but that doesn't make me brilliant in other aspect in education. The attitude of not being a listener claimed by Reading Beans to me I believed might have being picked from a fight I had with my family relative here on Wikipedia few months ago for being a sock of which I didn't buy the idea because I know what I passed through (punishment) for sock few years ago. This all happened when I nominated the article Willie XO few months ago then I was called by my father that a report was sent to him by my family relative that am now being an obstacle to my family relative job. I never knew that a user named Afrowriter who is my family relative was the creator of that article not until the report by my father.Then I went further to check the contribution of that article and found out that there was a Similar name called AfrowriterX who made an unblock request here [330]. Not only that but also find out that both the Afrowriter [331] and the AfrowriterX [332] was welcomed at same month, same year and close dates. A Nigerian dude who is my family relative now faking to be a Cameroon because his Nigerian account was once block for sock. I choose to let everything die down all because am a man of peace and from the advice I have gotten from an editor about forgiveness. Now its Reading Beans who have seen me as a "No listener" and doubting the integrity of the WP:NAIJARS which can be found here [333]] instead of focusing on the WP:GNG declining the article Draft:Ulugbekhon Maksumov with a bad faith stating that the reliable source from WP:NAIJARS are not reliable but went ahead in accepting someone article [334] who I know too well is a sock and possibly doing paid jobs on wikipedia, same WP:NAIJARS he or she never trust their integrity went ahead to accept the article. Claiming that someone needs to have enough source from their birth country than other country. All photos shown on my user page I took them for the impact of Africa. Reading Beans has never done any but thats by way. I gamble on sports where I have become successful on that so I don't see Wikipedia as a platform to freelance. So it mess with my metal health when google people are to be suppress.--Gabriel-> Hello. 14:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

See the notice at the top of this page - When starting a discussion about an editor, or editors, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

This is an incoherent screed attacking other editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry, but @Bbb23 is right, this is an incoherent piece. Here's tip for you, next time summarise the above what you want out of this. Don't bring in new content while doing it.

That being said:

1. Someone has warned you already, I will do the notification for you. But the next time you open a discussion here without informing the other party, don't be surprised if the thread is closed unceremoniously.
2. Thanks for the back story about your family, we don't need to know.
3. Other than you feeling aggrieved by the other party, which I don't think there's a need to address at this venue, I don't see the need to bring the review you have received up here yet. The proper channel to ask for second opinions from other reviewers would be at WP:AFCHELP.
4. If you suspect of someone being a sock, file the relevant report with evidence at WP:SPI rather than slinging mud here and hope someone will do the legwork here.

– robertsky (talk) 15:23, 8 October 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.

Threatened lawsuit, expenses covered by us

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.

---

Ajmer Singh Randhawa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) See this. Reminds me of a Signpost article... '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

User was blocked by 331dot. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 10:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I knew the legal systen in India had some quirks (such as being extremely slow, even by the standards of legal systems) but awarding costs to the plaintiff before a case is even filed is a first for me. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:08, 8 October 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.

Edits made by potential sock to Manisha Ganguly

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 can I bring to your attention the edits made by on the article Manisha Ganguly by User:Happyaroundyoubabes. Although I haven't found the patience to go through every edit individually the user has:

1. Deleted a huge amount of content from the article, the edits I have been through are to put it mildly, problematic. eg this one which has the edit summary Not really encyclopedic, eh?.
2. Put several templates at the top of the article and nominated the article for deletion as non notable (the article still has 50 refs even after the user deleted several refs).
3. Claimed on the talk page that the article was written by Manisha herself, without providing any evidence.
4. The date this was done on appears not to be an accident, Manisha writes a lot on Gaza, this is the anniversary of the start of the Israel Hamas war.
5. The account is new across all wikis and hasn't edited any other articles but seems to be aware of many of Wikipedias rules and proceedures including templates and AfD, suggesting strongly to me this it is a sock account.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Update: The user reverted additional information I added to this incident report here, the original comment was 'And just to add this tweet was done about half an hour after the AfD was started. I don't know any more context than this, I thought it would be useful to search Twitter since the user page is just a link to a Twitter profile.' John Cummings (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I can understand their removal of what look like WP:OR (the edit that you cited above). Is there any other edit that you think is particularly problematic? M.Bitton (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Regrettably there are so many problems it’s difficult to list: tagging a neutrally written entry as an advert and “academic boosterism”, claiming material had to be removed because the subject isn’t a reliable source on such topics as where she lives, suggesting sources should be considered unreliable if not written in English, violating the extended-confirmed restriction on Arab-Israeli conflict content. Innisfree987 (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

A neutrally written article? I edited it from this to this! Happyaroundyoubabes (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that will be useful context for other editors to see. Innisfree987 (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The WP:ARBECR violation is indeed a major problem. M.Bitton (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Could you please share which specific edits you find concerning? It would be helpful to understand your perspective on those first. I must admit I was surprised by the accusations, especially since many of the claims in the article stemmed from original research and highlight a potential conflict of interest. I can certainly retract the "eh" from my previous description, but it would be beneficial if you could elaborate on your disagreements and review my edits, as I aimed to provide accurate and fair descriptions. Thank you. Happyaroundyoubabes (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Happyaroundyoubabes: Is this your first/only account? M.Bitton (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I had to review the AfD nomination guidelines to familiarise myself with the terminology used for the nomination. I also recommend that you read this, as it confirms my suspicions about some connections. This may involve other users who are currently monitoring the situation on Twitter.

Happyaroundyoubabes (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

It takes longer than 24 hours to become as proficient as you seem to be, and besides, the removal of the bothersome comment (assuming it was intentional) is beyond the pale. M.Bitton (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

M.Bitton I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, do you think there is enough information here to request one? I've never raised anything on ANI before, let alone a sockpuppet request. Or is there another approach that might be more suitable? John Cummings (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's impossible to request a CU without knowing who the suspected sockpuppeteer is providing some evidence that connects two accounts. M.Bitton (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation M.Bitton, as Black Kite described below, the new user User:Schwebebahn appears to be another account only interested in the one article, would this be the kind of thing that could be made into a request? John Cummings (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I missed that one. There is definitely enough there to start a SPI. M.Bitton (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you are aware of the conflict on Twitter indicates that you are familiar with the entire situation, even though it is a niche topic. Requesting assistance from other users without identifying specific issues with my edits suggests that you are making accusations before thoroughly reviewing the article's actual problems. Could I kindly ask you to address those issues first before we proceed? Happyaroundyoubabes (talk) 11:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Hmm, claiming that a reference is unreliable "because it's written in a foreign language" [335], or sending an obviously notable article to AfD after removing Awards because "it isn't a catalogue" [336]? Doesn't sound too competent to me, and the rest of this thread looks like someone who has a grudge against the subject, which there will be lot of given her work. If they are a sock, they're one of someone who doesn't understand our policies very well. Black Kite (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Also, there's now another brand new account with a fixation on Ganguly, User:Schwebebahn. Black Kite (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion: There are a lot of people taking part in this conversation and they are talking about different parts of the points I've raised at the same time, can I suggest we make subheadings or something to organise the discussion so its easier to follow for other users? Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I want to respect the community's wishes and acknowledge that, as a new user, I don’t fully understand how AfDs work. I appreciate the feedback and will ask a moderator, if possible, to block my account, as I no longer wish to contribute. I apologise for any inconvenience caused. Happyaroundyoubabes (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Update: The user has been banned from Wikipedia along with the other newer account for being sockpuppets, I've made a request for a wider investigation here, especially since the user was editing on an article under WP:ARBECR. Thank you to all who responded to my request for help and explained the process :) John Cummings (talk) 17:43, 8 October 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.

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 104.148.209.237

104.148.209.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings & continued after final warning. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Persistent addition of Tamil scripts by 202.190.53.59

Seeking urgent intervention on IP address 202.190.53.59 persistently adding Tamil scripts (and removing Chinese ones) on several Penang-related articles:

• [337]
• [338]
• [339]
• [340]

Said IP address is displaying behaviour similar to Visnu92, who is blocked following this ANI case, as well as going against consensus from a related ANI case on the mass addition of scripts. hundenvonPG (talk) 00:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Egregious incivility from Thecleanerand

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 has been some chronic, egregious incivility from Thecleanerand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The most recent example:

Inept editors like you treat all criticism, regardless of how scathing it is, as personal insults. You take pride thinking you're making this website better, when you're the reason why NO ONE should trust ANYTHING written on it beyond the cited sources (or lack thereof, because "good faith") at the bottom of the page. If not for Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy, neo-Nazis would be the only people calling out the hypocrisy of this website and its mediocre editors. It'd be more "productive" if you'd just "walk away" and said nothing; rather than complain like the overly-sensitive waste of space that you are.

Earlier, they were mocking Liz for experiencing mental health issues. Nor is this a new problem; this was their response for a warning from two years ago.

I'd ask an uninvolved admin please indef them until they learn how to express criticism without personal attacks. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to ask a fellow admin to talk me out of blocking them specifically for that comment to Liz alone. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

This is just actually disgusting, revolting behaviour. That tirade about the CFD discussion is unbelievable. The response to the warning in 2022 is actually disturbing. Asked to be less combative they replied Kiss my fucking ass. This is not "the encyclopedia", it's a circle jerk of self-righteous, gatekeeping, page-hoarding pricks This is an editor that simply cannot work constructively with others and they shouldn't be here. Support indef block immediately. AusLondonder (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 week for gross incivility. Further abuse down the road will end in an indef if I'm the one who gets there first. When we talk about competency is required to edit here, part of the competency includes the ability to interact civilly with other editors. Conceding that we all have moments when we we are not at our best, or may react sharply to certain types of behavior; this is still a collaborative project. If you are unable to communicate with people you disagree with w/o recourse to this kind of language and gross personal attacks, then you need to find another hobby. This is not a one off incident. It's a pattern of behavior. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I also note that back in 2022 I cautioned them about their behavior and just now see that they replied to me 19 days later, telling me to "piss off." I'm afraid a block is long overdue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Precisely. I second the possible need for an indef if there continues to be a pattern of incivility by this editor.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that block. If this happens again after this block, I'll indef myself. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

RickinBaltimore, why in the world would you block yourself??? EEng 17:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I mean, it's not the worst idea...RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I am frankly amazed that this insulting bully is not already indeffed. Cullen328 (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

(non-admin comment, not involved) This sort of stuff is beyond the pale, Support indef. Narky Blert (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I generally do not like starting with indefinite blocks except for obvious cases of VOA or NOTHERE. And FWIW Thecleanerand has demonstrated an ability to make positive contributions to the project. That said, I do agree that given their track record there will be little to no tolerance going forward. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I feel the need to clarify this but the "stress" post I put on my User talk page was not about mental health issues, I was taking care of my mother who was on hospice care until she passed away at the end of June and that was where my attention was at, not on responding to requests for help or closing discussions. I didn't even see this message. But I can see that this editor is easily frustrated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

My condolences, Liz. Cullen328 (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim. We're interring her ashes this week. Something probably every family has to go through. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Waffle-stomp that nugget down the drain and be done with it. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Just out of interest I briefly looked at their talk page edit history for the past few months (back until April 2024, the user has 5000+ edits in total going back years) and found some other comments that they have made that are also similar:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maple_Leaf_Pro_Wrestling&diff=prev&oldid=1244744080
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Floquenbeam&diff=prev&oldid=1241978265
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Animax_(Asian_TV_channel)&diff=prev&oldid=1232240749
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NWA_Hard_Times_(2024)&diff=prev&oldid=1212564283

I wont repeat what they have written here for convenience because it is so unpleasant. They are also breaking the Universal Code of Conduct.

John Cummings (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

... Their response to being blocked. Indef, please. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

What HouseBlaster said. Schazjmd (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

•  Indeffed Well that was quick. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

And may they never darken the door again. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Didn't even see any of this, but having to deal with them with their odd hair about the Triller category and so many warnings from me, the baiting of Liz over it was over the pale for me. Their anger is no loss to the project, and any attempt to compromise with them on articles such as barely-viewed video channels whose content I've merged with other networks has only elicited tantrums from them because they kept crying about needing sources...while finding none of their own. They were one of the reasons that many people don't dare deal with WP:PW. Nate • (chatter) 02:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I was the editor shouted at in the original example Houseblaster brought to this thread, by the way. Kinda relieved that TCA didn't ping me properly in the middle of their tantrum, and thank you HouseBlaster for taking action here. Nate • (chatter) 02:28, 9 October 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:Roman Spinner circumventing MOS

User has been participating in numerous move discussions by intentionally forwarding opinions counter to both the overall Wikipedia MOS (MOS:DIACRITICS) and MOS:KO. They have openly admitted to doing this as a tactic to shift common practice in order to get the overall MOS shifted to be anti-diacritics [341]. Threads where they've engaged in this behavior: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Here's the issue: if you want to change either the main MOS or the MOS:KO, you should propose changes to them directly. Trying to circumvent the MOSes by making numerous posts is ineffective and blatantly underhanded. Even when this has been explained to the user over and over again, they've doubled down on doing it.

Changing the MOS is not impossible; in fact we literally pushed a complete rewrite of MOS:KO a few days ago, where surprise surprise diacritics are asked for. I've even gotten practices that weren't common approved for the new MOS just because I had good arguments ready and took the proper channels for getting things approved. You don't need to underhandedly undermine common practice in order to get things approved; just have strong arguments and make a clean proposal once.

I'm not sure what disciplinary action is appropriate. I don't know if they've been behaving poorly elsewhere. Maybe a topic ban on opposing the use of diacritics? seefooddiet (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I think in the past they have been topic banned, but I do not remember for what. Also their behavior in RUSUKR discussions are substandard- they always take pro-Ukrainian position does not matter what, typically not providing any other arguments or "per topic starter" or "per excellent arguments of the topic starter" even if arguments are extremely poor), thus making an illusion of mass support. In the discussions where two-three votes typically determine the outcome this is disruptive. Ymblanter (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

If that's true maybe a timed broader ban from discussions is appropriate. seefooddiet (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

They were topic banned from editing DAB pages (ANI discussion, subsequent breach). Northern Moonlight 05:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Noting that only one of the diffs linked postdates the MOS:KO rewrite, and disagreeing with MOS aspects is totally fine, the boilerplate oppose Since English language does not contain accents or diacritics, transliterations into English from languages that do not use the Latin alphabet likewise should not contain any marks that are not part of English is wrong. English has two native diacritics. Also feels like some kinda cultural superiority / device only supports eight-bit ASCII thing. Folly Mox (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

English has three native diacritics - acute, grave (blessèd, etc.) and diaeresis (e.g. Boötes). Acute accents are common in Irish proper names, and it is both wrong and insulting to omit them. I think it was writer Colm Tóibín who said he couldn't really see the point, until it struck him that his countrymen had spent centuries fighting to keep them. Narky Blert (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Narky Blert, my apologies for the omission of the acute accent. No insult was intended; merely a display of my own ignorance. Folly Mox (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Folly Mox - No apology needed. It could me a couple of minutes to think of an example which is indisputably not a loan from French. (As a historical curiosity, Engliah law reports before WWI commonly used the word "employé", now fully anglicised as "employee".) Narky Blert (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

This isn't quite right. Even before the rewrite, the MOS asked for the use of McCune–Reischauer, which fundamentally has diacritics. We just made the use of diacritics more explicit because of cases like these. seefooddiet (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Reply. In the nearly 19 years of my editing Wikipedia, I have been a regular voter at WP:RM. As is the case with all RM participants, sometimes I vote "Support" and sometimes I vote "Oppose". Sometimes I am part of the majority vote and sometimes I am part of the minority vote. Nothing unusual. It is unusual, however, that a nominator who is dissatisfied with a user's vote takes that user to ANI.

Since one of the above commenters mentions my "Support" votes in favor of moving main title headers of Ukrainian place names from their Russian forms to their Ukrainian forms, it should be noted that, although I did not submit any of those nominations, they were all successful in having the headers moved to the places' Ukrainian names.

As for the matter at hand, the user who initiated this ANI submission, also submitted yesterday's nomination Lady Hyegyeong → Lady Hyegyŏng at Talk:Lady Hyegyeong#Requested move 4 October 2024 and apparently believes that the sole possible vote at this RM is "Support" per "community consensus in MOS:KO" and anyone who votes "Oppose" is being disruptive.

Thus the nominator appears to posit that the "community consensus in MOS:KO" is a decree that for all intents and purposes makes this RM superfluous and the move can be simply initiated without any need for a discussion. In that case, why bother submitting the RM?. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

There's no issue with voting against moves if there was better reasoning or if you immediately followed up by proposing modifications to the MOS. I have not once reported someone for merely disagreeing with me; I am reporting you for conduct. Your 19 years of experience has little bearing on this discussion; if anything we should expect better from you given your time on the platform.

I am dissatisfied with your side attempts to undermine the MOS through persistent pushing of this opinion (WP:REHASH), instead of doing the obviously better practice of proposing modifying the MOS. You yourself conceded that doing so would be better practice. Instead, we have to deal with your attempts to make numerous little cuts on common practice in order to get your way.

An analogue would be attempting to change the practice of how a guideline like MOS:DASH works by editing pages in violation of the guideline, and hoping that most of the edits will stick in order to make people eventually change the MOS. That would be unambiguously considered disruptive editing.

The fact that you're questioning why I made that move discussion indicates you don't understand the MOS:KO and literally did not take the time to read it. From the MOS: Use diacritics per WP:DIACRITICS, unless you can demonstrate that no diacritics is more popular for that term per WP:COMMONNAME.. The discussion was initiated to prove WP:COMMONNAME because it's not clearcut, and because the article is relatively popular among Korea-related topics. If it was clear cut and unpopular, then yes, I'd just make the move. I already have for a similar page: Princess Ch'ŏngyŏn. seefooddiet (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Although English language has no accents or diacritics, it uses some words borrowed from languages that do use such marks, with "naïvety" or "naïveté" along with "fiancé" or "café" among the examples that have become part of English language. All such words are also acceptable if rendered in English without accents or diacritics.

English Wikipedia has numerous main title headers of articles concerning topics from languages that do use accents or diacritics, such as Czech, French, Polish, Spanish or Turkish. The main difference in reference to the subject at hand is that such languages use the Latin alphabet and therefore those English Wikipedia headers appear in the same manner as in that language's Wikipedia.

However, languages such as Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean or Thai do not use the Latin alphabet and therefore transliterating text from such languages into English via insertion of accents or diacritics into the English-language text appears to be counterintuitive since such marks are not part of English language readership's orthographic experience.

Even insertion of accents or diacritics into text transliterated from non-Latin alphabet into Latin-alphabet languages that use accents or diacritics, such as French or Polish, is unlikely to produce the desired result unless the accents or diacritics used in such transliteration are the same marks that are in use and understood within the alphabet of the target country.

As for this nomination having been submitted to determine the WP:COMMONNAME, the sole choice presented was diacritics or no diacritics. Per the explanation above, my vote is "Oppose the use of diacritics". Other Wikipedians may hold directly opposite views and will obviously vote accordingly.

Finally, it should be noted that I do not submit nominations to change Ukrainian names, Korean names or any other matters that involve linguistics or nationalism and take no issue with unilateral changes such as the above-mentioned Princess Ch'ŏngyŏn.

However, when such nominations are submitted by other users or other users take issue with such moves, I react and express my views at RM. As a Wikipedian, I can do no less. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Great, now why don't you make that post at the MOS-level and not at these local levels? "I react and express my views at RM" is not always innocent or helpful behavior; repeating these points falls under WP:REHASH and tendentious behavior. Furthermore, your attempting to whitewash your admitted attempts to circumvent the MOS are frustrating.

As another metaphor: imagine all of this behavior was on a single talk page. They made a proposal, it was rejected, and they continue making the proposal over and over in other threads. They'd eventually get blocked. This is very similar behavior, but because it's spread out it doesn't obviously violate the rules. It sure does smell like tendentious participation though.

I don't think either of us have much more new to add. You've made it clear that you're just going to continually push your agenda, disrupt discussions and stonewall, and ignore community consensuses. To be clear, I don't even like diacritics but I'm just advocating for them because that's what the community decided to do and because it fits Wikipedia guidelines. I have no agenda, unlike you. Can others weigh in? seefooddiet (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Also to reiterate; this user effectively conceded that they didn't understand MOS:KO and didn't take the time to read it. This is all about pushing an agenda through side tactics. How is this helpful behavior to anyone but the user? seefooddiet (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Both Diaeresis (diacritic) and Grave accent are native English diacritics, although both are uncommon.

For Chinese specifically, there have been attempts to capture the lexical tonality using only letters: Chinese postal romanization and Gwoyeu Romatzyh. Neither of these was ever especially popular (although artefacts of postal romanization linger to the present day, e.g. Shaanxi), and the two most successful romanisation schema both use diacritics to indicate tone.

There's nothing objectionable to using diacritics in transliteration, unless you're using a typewriter or other twentieth century device that doesn't support Unicode. Using marks are not part of English language readership's orthographic experience is sometimes necessary for disambiguation of lexical differences in pronunciation that are not captured by alphabetic transliteration alone, and transliteration is always a lossy conversion.

I have my own qualms with certain bits of the MOS, as I expect most editors do. But I'm not going to show up to every RM with the same off-topic philosophical boilerplate instead of either accepting consensus or working to change the MOS at the guidance level. The arguments I'm reading here also smack of linguistic nativism, about which I've deleted a further few sentences I deemed too unkind to publish. Folly Mox (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Roman Spinner might be disappointed to learn that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in fact cannot override an explicitly stated guideline in a MOS. I agree that blindly copypasting the Since English language does not contain accents or diacritics argument over and over again counts for tendentious editing. Northern Moonlight 04:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Northern Moonlight, Folly Mox, Ymblanter, do you feel a topic ban is appropriate, maybe for 1 year? As linked above, the user was topic banned before for a separate issue and they violated the ban; if we just gave the user a light warning I'm not sure they'd actually listen to it over time. They've still expressed no remorse for this behavior, and I'm not sure they understand why it's bad behavior despite having it explained to them by me and several others. And even if they do now, it shouldn't have taken a user with 19 years experience on the site multiple people telling them to stop to listen. seefooddiet (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

(responding to ping) I'm afraid I lack the competence to opine on specific sanctions for this filing. Folly Mox (talk) 03:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Northern Moonlight 03:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I would support a topic from RM (for the record, the previous one was lifted, so they did not violate anything now), but I would make it indefinite duration and appealable after 6 month. Since they clearly disagree with everybody else here, I would expect them sit to sit out the finite duration topi ban and then continue the same behavior. Ymblanter (talk) 05:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I was worried that a year may be too short; their previous ban they violated after a long period of time. seefooddiet (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Whoa. We do not sanction or topic ban users for being "wrong". If we did, then we wouldn't need to have !votes at all, we would just have wise sages pick the "right" answer and not bother asking for opinions. I see evidence that seefooddiet and Roman Spinner do not agree, but that is cause for them to make arguments and !vote. Everyone is expected to be willing to subject their arguments to community consensus; if someone argues against them, that doesn't mean that they need to be banned. It means you need to marshal more consensus. This is 1000x times as true when there has been a very recent change to a MOS. Thought experiment: suppose Roman Spinner had made a huge edit to the Korea MOS a month ago that made exactly the opposite calls as seefooddiet and started filing RMs to support it. In such a case, seefooddiet would be completely justified in crying foul, opposing the moves, and moving to get the MOS change reverted. That's just how it works. If Roman Spinner has behaved badly, let's see some diffs, but right now it seems that he just disagrees. All of the diffs in the opening example are !votes, not sneaky page moves against consensus or sneaky editing. That's fine. If RS's arguments are too off-the-wall, they'll be ignored by page move closers. If anything, RS should be commended for being up-front about the nature of their opposition being wide-ranging (and thus potentially a less powerful vote to a closer paying attention).
• As a side note, seefooddiet proposed that RS would be in the clear if he "immediately followed up by proposing modifications to the MOS". No. This is a volunteer site. Nobody is obligated to do anything, no questions asked, full stop. But more generally, the MOS should follow community standard practice, not the other way around. If hypothetically the MOS is out-of-step, the way that is shown is via RMs that don't close the way that's expected. (Again, imagine that Roman Spinner somehow had his standard at the Korean MOS - you would be entirely justified in voting against it.) SnowFire (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  • This is not a recent change to the MOS. I already covered this above. Since the first version of the MOS:KO in 2004, it has always asked for McCune–Reischauer, which uses diacritics. We just highlighted to be even more explicit to clear up confusion. We used diacritics even before this new MOS, which is why Roman Spinner was overruled every single time they tried this argument even before this new MOS was approved. The rest of your argument that's built on this assumption doesn't work. The issue is not disagreement; I'm perfectly fine with disagreement. It's the tendentious attempts to subvert the MOS and community consensus. Asking someone to take the proper channels to make a change has nothing to do with this being a volunteer site. I never required them to do anything, but that action I suggested is clearly the better action
  • This is a volunteer site but certain actions are still encouraged and discouraged. The MOS was literally designed to reflect community standard practice. The use of diacritics has been the standard for the last 20 years; Roman Spinner is just attempting to subvert the standard.

  Respectfully, I don't think you understand this situation very well. seefooddiet (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  • • Please re-read my comment. I said absolutely nothing about McCune–Reischauer or diacritics, and am not here to argue about them. This is ANI, not the MOS talk page. I'm talking about this purely as a user conduct issue. Editors are entitled to have opinions that vary with the MOS (I suspect there are 0 editors whose opinions 100% match every single MOS recommendation in all situations). Closers may treat these opinions as having less weight, or discard them entirely in certain situations if they believe the MOS represents a wider consensus, but you're acting like everyone must be mind-controlled to agree with whatever the current standard is. Which is impossible and contradictory given that you just made some changes. Which you should be commended for, by the way! But the very fact you thought changes were required suggests that you had opinions that differed with the previous MOS. Ergo having opinions that differ from what is currently on some MOS page is not problematic nor worthy of sanction.
    • The policies and guidelines of 2004 are not those of 2014, or 2024. The way policies and guidelines change is discussion, debate, and consensus, which by definition has to include opinions that don't match the current guidelines. Your argument comes down to "Roman Spinner doesn't agree with the current guidelines," but this is normal and healthy. If you're confident you're right and that RS is an irrelevant gadfly, then trust that the page mover closer will agree with you and give the vote little weight, don't ask for a person with a different opinion to be sanctioned. SnowFire (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

      I think I read your comment fine. I don't think you're remembering your own comment very well. This is 1000x times as true when there has been a very recent change to a MOS. Thought experiment: suppose Roman Spinner had made a huge edit to the Korea MOS a month ago that made exactly the opposite calls as seefooddiet and started filing RMs to support it. In such a case, seefooddiet would be completely justified in crying foul, opposing the moves, and moving to get the MOS change reverted.

      but you're acting like everyone must be mind-controlled to agree with whatever the current standard is. No I'm not, and you're stretching into strawman arguments. Mind-control, what are you even on about? I don't even fully agree with what the current standard is; I prefer the use of RR myself. But when someone is copy+pasting the same poor argument over and over in various threads, that approaches tendentious behavior. Especially on topics where there already has been established practice for over 20 years.

      Imagine if someone decided to spell a word differently because they disagreed with how others were doing it (in fact this is literally what is happening). Then they started pushing to have that word's spelling changed everywhere, despite established practice in dictionaries and agreed upon by the community. Eventually that user would be blocked. This is not so different.

      The policies and guidelines of 2004 on this topic have not changed, so they're still the policies and guidelines of today. What are you even talking about?

      Again, I think you have strong opinions on a topic that you don't know much about. Why even have such strong opinions when you're getting the facts wrong over and over? seefooddiet (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

      • You are still completely misreading me. I'm the expert on what I meant, and it's not that, so please slow down and believe me. I don't have strong opinions about Korean romanization, didn't express any in the first comment; you claimed I did, and are continuing to claim I am despite the fact I literally haven't said anything on it. This is ANI, for complaints about user conduct, not about what an editor's favorite system of romanization is. I don't know how I can be any more blunt: I am making a larger point about consensus discussions, not a point about the romanization of Korean or the state of MOSKO in 2014. The 2004/2014/2024 comment was simply an example about how all guidelines change over time, and was not a claim about MOSKO in specific. But the overall point is correct. There needs to be a way for Wikipedia to collectively "change its mind" and handle edge cases. So someone advocating something against a current guideline - any current guidelines, could have nothing to do with Korea - is not in and of itself sanctionable. That is what I have strong opinions on - making it so consensus discussions are consensus discussions, not coronations. Someone with "wrong" views needs to cross over into disruptive behavior for it to be a problem, because spoilers, we're all "wrong" sometimes.

        But when someone is copy+pasting the same poor argument over and over in various threads, that approaches tendentious behavior. No, no, and no. Absolutely not. That's just called "!voting." The vast majority of discussions would be improved with more input, not less. There have been plenty of gadflies at RMs with weird opinions. I'm sure some people think the same of me when they disagree. And I certainly know certain people whose opinions I often find suspect in such discussions. If I think someone is really really wrong though, I just hope that enough other people with "right" opinions show up. If they do, great! If they don't, then maybe the closer will discount sufficiently weak votes anyway. And if it still seems like the consensus really is "wrong", then oh well. That's the solution, not asking for people with the "wrong" opinions to be sanctioned.

        As a productive way forward and example of how RM just normally works, I think you're absolutely correct in the Lady Hyegyeong RM and absolutely wrong in the Joseon RM. When Roman Spinner really is wrong and out of step with the community, fine, others like me will show up as in the Lady Hyegyeong case. And when he's on the winning side, well, it's bitter medicine, but sometimes the other side has the consensus in a group project. This is just how RM works: it's a consensus process. Finding consensus means inviting people to express their opinions. If you have confident you're right, just wait, and others will show up to agree, and Roman Spinner's vote won't matter very much. SnowFire (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

        I am not misreading you at all; everything you just tried to clarify I had already understood. I never claimed you had strong opinions on Korean romanization specifically, I just think you have strong opinions in general. Even your take in the Joseon RM was strong but clearly you've never read a book in Korean history; case in point you tend to hop into situations with little understanding of the situation and rely mostly on your gut instead of doing the basics of reading.

        I was absolutely correct that you didn't understand the MOS:KO or the nuances of romanization; you even just tried to brush over your mistakes in this recent comment by saying that your overall point stands. I don't think it does btw. There are better and worse ways to try and advocate for community consensus to change. Continually ramming your opinion through via side channels is discouraged behavior, falls under WP:TENDENTIOUS.

        I don't think we're going to convince each other. I'm pretty unhappy with every bit of engagement I've had with you recently; please slow down and read things more carefully before jumping in with strong opinions. seefooddiet (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  • (de-indent) I'm fine with saying "let's agree to disagree" and leave it at that, but then you bust out borderline personal attacks about how I'm totally incompetent and "didn't do the basics of reading". What the hell. You say you understand that my point has nothing to do with MOSKO specifically, and then say I "don't understand the MOS:KO" (when my argument had nothing to do with it for like the 4th time!). You also magically know that I always have strong opinions (when, if you are really bored, you can search up my 15+ year history and see that I quite rarely offer "strong" votes, and have offered "Weak" votes at times - no, Joseon was just an exception to normal). But I guess if you see RMs as about the wise dictating to the fools then there's no need to be polite. SnowFire (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

    but you're acting like everyone must be mind-controlled to agree with whatever the current standard is tell me this isn't borderline personal attacks? Tell me how calling me "absolutely wrong" is respectful? You came into this with combative tone and I responded in kind. I don't think I escalated it beyond anything you said. And yes, I don't think you did the basics of reading in either the Joseon move or in understanding what the MOS was actually saying, and yet you came in with strong opinions both times. Naturally both of those things are frustrating because you come in with strong and combative tone and get things wrong.

    I'm willing to deescalate if we mutually apologize. Unhappy with my interactions with you so far. Tone down your rebuttals. seefooddiet (talk) 03:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

    • • I will depart this discussion, but none of my comments were personal attacks. The mention of mind control was a silly example of the point that a change in the MOS doesn't instantly change everyone's minds, nor does it necessarily need to. Which is true, right? I'm not even sure what the alleged personal attack to retract is here. And at risk of pointing out the obvious, you are the one who has come demanding sanctions on an editor for something that is, as best I can tell, just Normal Wikipedia Behavior. You could have ignored him and probably succeeded in many RMs anyway, or if you really felt the need to go at it, drop a pro forma comment of "Roman Spinner is out of step with the community, see link to this well-attended discussion for proof" at the RMs to flag to the closer. But you've gone to ANI, and my initial reply was to request something more than "wrong" !votes. As a side comment, believe it or not, I actually have supported sanctioning editors for breaking the MOS here on ANI before! So it's not like I'm totally opposed to doing this ever. But these involved editors who were making questionable changes to articles that they knew were controversial and refusing to discuss them. Substantially worse behavior, in other words.
      • Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong, but you can't be shocked that other people have opinions on a request of sanctions, and they might not entirely agree with you. Exactly the same as the matter of article titles, actually. It's nothing personal unless you make it personal. If you had said that I was absolutely wrong, I'd have smiled and moved on; I certainly wouldn't take that as a personal attack, that's stating you don't buy my case. On the other hand, if an editor accused someone of being a blundering fool who doesn't know what they're talking about, and that wasn't substantiated, I'd say that was a personal attack, labels off. But what do I know. SnowFire (talk) 04:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

        None of my comments were personal attacks either. I observed your behavior, just as you claim to observe mine. My comments were substantiated; you even conceded your mistakes above (albeit while trying to brush them off). Let's drop this and move on. seefooddiet (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

        • • I guess I shouldn't have said I'd depart the discussion, but since you just had to get the last word in on my behalf too, for any passerby, I didn't concede any "mistakes" for the record, and don't even know what "mistakes" you're talking about (aside from perhaps the mistake of saying I'll depart, then getting drawn back in due to this falsehood). Which makes me all the more certain there is some sort of disconnect here between what I'm saying and what's being received, despite your comments saying you understand everything perfectly. We disagree, which is very different, and you also threw in some unfriendly claims in my direction randomly about my knowledge of Korea when this was not on topic. This isn't a case of "well, both sides are equally guilty and both admit it." SnowFire (talk) 05:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• Also this discussion has went on for a long time without admin input. Can an admin comment on this? seefooddiet (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
• There is absolutely no behavioral issue here. In fact, it's problematical that this has been brought to ANI at all. It is impossible to "circumvent MOS" and all of Roman Spinner's comments linked to in the complaint are perfectly reasonable. They have openly admitted to doing this as a tactic to shift common practice in order to get the overall MOS shifted to be anti-diacritics is exactly the way that should be done. WP is best when it is governed from the bottom up, not the top down. Guidelines are supposed to reflect true WP-wide consensus based on hundreds or thousands of editors' best practices, to guide others who may have questions without preconceived opinions. Guidelines are not supposed to be Rules that handfuls of editors impose on others, who must follow or get banned when they don't fall in line. I've participated in many RMs with Roman Spinner, sometimes agreeing, often disagreeing, but his arguments are always reasonable and more civil than many other editors. It will be a sad day for WP when differing opinions get editors banned. Station1 (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  This isn't a matter of differing opinions; I've said this numerous times already. I'm ok with differing opinions. My issue is with WP:TENDENTIOUS; if a user was acting this way on a single page, continually proposing the same thing over and over, they'd eventually get topic banned. Because this is across pages it's harder to spot as problematic behavior. seefooddiet (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree with your reading of WP:TENDENTIOUS, an essay. "Tendentious editing is editing with a sustained editorial bias, or with a clear editorial viewpoint contrary to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy." That doesn't seem to apply to stating an opinion on talk pages. And when there are several separate RMs of a similar type, it makes sense to state a consistent opinion on each. Not every editor who participates in one RM will necessarily see all such RMs. Bludgeoning one talk page is very different from stating a consistent opinion in several appropriate forums. I'd also respectfully draw your attention to WP:AOTE. - Station1 (talk) 04:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  seefooddiet, I recommend you look at other complaints on this noticeboard. Notice which ones admins respond to quickly and which ones get no attention or no action taken on them. If no admin is commenting on your complaint, then my guess is that either the evidence is less than compelling, or it doesn't seem like an urgent issue that needs to be addressed or it is less than clear who is at fault here (or if this is even a real problem that needs intervention). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough, it is less clear whether this is bad behavior. I still think it is, and I wasn't alone in thinking so. Will just have to agree to disagree for now. seefooddiet (talk) 05:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Dhol

An edit filer is stopping me from reverting this gigantic, weird edit (which appears just to be a repeated copy and paste of the entire article). Could someone with a bit more authority hit the RV button please? 81.2.123.64 (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

•  Done. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Photz9201's continuous unreferenced edits

@Photz9201: continues to make unreferenced edits in several articles[342][343][344] – despite being warned four times since August 24, 2024.[345][346][347][348] The user is also unresponsive in their talkpage and was last blocked in April 2024, for disruptive editing.Hotwiki (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Pblocked from mainspace, as they have never in their entire three years here ever touched a talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Olrac625's unreferenced edits

I'm reporting @Olrac625: for persistent unreferenced edits in dozens of Wikipedia articles. Just today, they made these unreferenced edits.[349][350][351] The reported user don't use the edit summary for their edits. They have also been warned several times in their talk page, and there's zero communication from the user. I don't think they have edited their talk page. The user have also been blocked last month for disruptive editing.Hotwiki (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Sigh. Pblocked from mainspace for now. -- asilvering (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Persistent MoS violation and refusal to explain

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

This editor has brought MoS problems to an awful lot of film/television-related articles and never explained their edits (see this, this, and this). They continued disrupting Wikipedia even though they had been warned about these multiple times (see this, this, this, this, this, this, and this). Thedarkknightli (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Quaerens-veritatem and @Nicholas0, could you please take a look at this? Thanks in advance! Thedarkknightli (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree. This editor has been asked to provide summaries on the editor's talk page (twice by me), and has been told about the MoS, but has made multiple edits ignoring it despite warnings by other editors, all warnings without any result. This is especially problematic as the editor's edits are often reverted or are otherwise problematic. Although the editor has been editing for only a year, the editor has over 3,000 edits and should have attended to his talk page warnings and stopped disruptive edits by now. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 05:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

This editor has never replied to any messages on their Talk page, so I have to assume that they have never read them. They probably don't even realize that anyone is sending them messages. I'm not sure how to contact them in another way to get their attention. Nicholas0 (talk) 10:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

With my talk page warnings I also pinged the editor. I don't think we can assume he's not reading them versus the editor is just ignoring them. Also, the editor hasn't learned from repeated direct and indirect reverts. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Noting prior to archival that User:Croystron has resumed editing, without response here or even to the polite message on their usertalk requesting their acknowledgement of this thread. Folly Mox (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. Also, they made an awful lot of completely inadequate edit summaries after resuming editing. This is a WP:NOTHERE editor imo. Thedarkknightli (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Placed another request to respond on Croystron's talk page and, also, pinged Croystron: this edit Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Weight of the problem aside, supporting block for failure to communicate until the editor replies to here or talk pages (such as the user's own). 172.56.233.104 (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for two weeks, for their persistent failure to communicate. BorgQueen (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Unusual activity at Dennis, Massachusetts

There is nothing wrong, necessarily, going on at Dennis, Massachusetts. However, I have noticed a strange pattern over the last week or so. This article is typically pretty sleepy. There were only 8 edits in 2022 and 10 in 2023. There have been 31 already in October. None of the edits, from what I can see, are a problem. All seem to be constructive. However, the vast majority are coming from accounts with only a few edits and which were created only a few days ago. They also don't seem to a rhyme or reason to the edits which might indicate that this was something like a class or group project. I'm not sure what I am asking to be done, but I thought it odd enough to at least raise the issue. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's anything nefarious. Almost all of those edits are tagged Newcomer task. It appears that Dennis, Massachusetts had multiple maintenance tags applied to it in April 2024, and hence became one of the articles suggested to new editors. Schazjmd (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Or, just as likely, we've got a new editor from the area who wanted to spruce the article up. I tend to do that myself: move to a new town, look up its Wikipedia article, rub my chin, and get to work. Ravenswing 18:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Possible block evasion by 83.6.206.183

I think Special:Contributions/83.6.206.183 matches pattern of editing of blocked Special:Contributions/Meellk. They are primarily edit warring regarding which system of government Poland is. IP user appears very shortly after named account has been blocked and continue same discussion that was started by named account. -- Svito3 (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The behavior continues since they have received a notice. Please take a look. -- Svito3 (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked based on behavioral and linguistic match. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Obscene personal attacks from a likely sockpuppet - please block

Reporting: User:Motherofnether

Please block this editor/sock for leaving obscene comments/personal attacks about me on my user page,[352], [353] their user page,[354] and for their username which mimics my username. I'm pretty sure it is related to the ANI re: the user Gingeksace and their socks in relation to the Menotti Lerro/Empathism promo/spam.[355] (FYI, Gingeksace also left another personal attack on Commons a few days ago.[356]. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I've requested CSD on the user page. Knitsey (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, @Knitsey and RickinBaltimore. The comments have been kindly reverted by another editor, Jeraxmoira, they are in my talk page history as a record. Netherzone (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe someone will kindly Rev/del them for you. Nobody needs to see that type of comment. Knitsey (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

As you were saying that I took care of it. Edits are revdel'd. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to all, what an amazing community! Netherzone (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

User:DotCoder and cut-and-paste copyvios past sixth warning

User:DotCoder, over the past few months, has had seven warnings for copyright and plagiarism issues: some for copying compatibly licensed material without attribution([357] [358] [359] [360]), but also for introducing standard copyright violations. ([361] [362] [363])

Today, they set off copypatrol with this edit [364], which contained material cut and paste from this [365] journal article. Interested parties may view the automated flagging of their edit here [366]. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I have RD1'd the edit in question. For the benefit of those who can no longer read it, it was a full paragraph (~80 words) of directly copied, clearly "non-basic" prose. Given the repeat violations, and apparent refusal to meaningfully engage with past warnings, I'm afraid I don't see any option but to block them indefinitely, and have done so now. Difficulty understanding copyright is one thing, simply carrying on while warnings about it pile up is another. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Emiya1980 redux

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.

---

• Emiya1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For the background, please see the recently archived discussion where Emiya1980 was formally warned by Cullen328 about their disruptive behavior around filing infobox-related RfCs, and informally warned by other editors and admins about their combative and uncivil interactions in those discussions, and their refusal to listen to multiple editors and admins all telling them the same thing about their behavior. As Daniel stated, a formal warning is pretty much a 'final chance' in terms of this editing issue, so while no blocks etc. have been placed, if it happens again the editor will very likely be blocked if it is brought back to this noticeboard with a link to this discussion.

Editors were optimistic that this edit suggested Emiya1980 was slowly taking on the advice from the ANI discussion. Instead, after it became clear their position at Talk:World War II had no significant traction, they simply waited a week and initiated a "discussion" that is yet another RfC in everything but name only, claiming that this was perfectly fine, since it's not a formal RfC. They went on to falsely claim the previous consensus discussion had no consensus (because it wasn't formally closed), that editors who don't support their position are shrilly objecting, and that the issue wasn't settled. This is a classic, ongoing refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK situation from an editor who has been open about wanting to institute this change for a complete non-content reason: There is no good reason to list Stalin, a mass-murdering dictator with a death toll that rivals that of Adolf Hitler, at the top of the Allied Powers.

Infoboxes are already under WP:CTOPS, and persistent disruption around them (whether it's about images, or ordering of information, or disputes about categories, or whatever) seems to be more the locus of the problem here than the RfC aspect itself; additionally, it's clear that Emiya1980 is perfectly willing to engage in the RfC behavior without formally opening one. As was noted in the previous ANI discussion, Emiya1980 seems perfectly able to contribute positively elsewhere on WP, so a block seems punitive rather than preventative.

I therefore propose a broadly-construed 6-month topic ban from infoboxes and infobox-related editing for Emiya1980, with the encouragement they spend their time productively on other things at enwiki. Grandpallama (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support as proposer Grandpallama (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment – as someone at least moderately involved and also has strong opinions about infoboxes, I do wish that Emiya would've more quickly internalized the central point here: these things ultimately matter comparatively little, and it is more important for people to get along and be able to hash things out when it's agreed that there is a major problem. Sometimes one editor just empirically cares about specific things a lot more than everybody else does (guilty!)—and that care is not even wrong to have, at all—but it's important to respond accordingly to the expressed apathy and exhaustion of others (which likewise is their right) when the things you care about changing have highly visible ramifications or are adjacent to the existing work of others. Otherwise, disruption will ensue. Remsense ‥ 论 18:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

As I have already stated, the current discussion in which I am involved is not an Rfc. Grandpallama's attempts to characterize it as one do not make it so.

While I initially began the discussion with the intention of replacing Joseph Stalin with FDR at the top of a list with Allied leaders, I have since changed my position to ordering the leaders in a neutral order (alphabetical or chronological). At least three other editors have come out in support of adopting a more neutral ordering for the Allied leaders and two of the three have specifically expressed concern about arranging the list in a manner suggesting that Stalin was the most important leader of the Big Three. Therefore, this is not a concern unique to myself. Emiya1980 (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Likewise, just because you haven't labeled it as one doesn't mean it isn't an expression of the same issues people have tried to communicate to you. The conversation died down, which is very natural and should often be allowed to happen when there is no consensus unless some new argument is made. Remsense ‥ 论 18:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support - Emiya1980 also continues to ping multiple projects[367] (3rd for this RFC) after stating they'd stop. This editor doesn't get it, won't get it, time to end the disruption. Nemov (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• As the administrator who gave the formal warning, I Support the infobox editing restriction. The wikilawyering above is concerning. Cullen328 (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

So pointing out that certain people are exploiting vagueness in the rules to silence me makes me guilty of Wikilawyering? Why don't you just come out and say that you're opting to ban me just because a select group of editors are annoyed by my editing? Emiya1980 (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Emiya1980, this is a collaborative project and that comment of yours is not collaborative and indicates that you are not getting the message. Please be aware that further sanctions are possible. Cullen328 (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Doing that to the total exclusion of engaging with what I was trying to communicate to you as if the distinction invalidated it is Wikilawyering, yes. Remsense ‥ 论 19:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Casting aspersions is a way to fast track from a TBAN proposal to a sitewide block. Strongly recommend you strike that comment. Grandpallama (talk) 19:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as how I am unlikely to walk away from this thread without at least some limitations on my editing privileges, I want to offer a compromise. As opposed to a broad ban on any and all edits to Wikipedia's infoboxes, I ask for one final chance with regards to my probation subject to a few nonnegotiable conditions. Until the admins on this page feel differently, I will commit to abstain from pinging any editors, opening any Rfcs, participating in any discussions regarding the infobox of any page, and engaging in any further editing to World War II's infobox.

Should I break this promise or do anything else that other editors view as disruptive to Wikipedia in the near future, I will accept whatever penalty that is handed down. In light of the positive contributions I have made to this project, I ask that the editors here please take this compromise into consideration before reaching a verdict. Emiya1980 (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Not good enough for me. Cullen328 (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I would like to point out that your prior warning to me was limited to Rfcs. It seems unfair that you are expanding it now to include my participation in discussions regarding the infobox. I also recall that I asked you for specifics regarding what was expected for me going forward and you refused to elaborate. Emiya1980 (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The fact that this offer came only after it was clear sanctions are likely to be imposed (rather than as a good-faith response to earlier concerns), the game-playing around the RfC-that-isn't-a-RfC, and the wikilawyering response to Cullen also makes me feel formal sanctions remain necessary over any informal, voluntary arrangement. Grandpallama (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

My beliefs have not changed. It is true I still think at least some of the arguments made against me here are unfair. However, when I say I will commit to not doing something, I mean it. Emiya1980 (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I should also point out that the WP:Canvassing Page specifically allows editors like myself to notify "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article" or "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". Both of the pings I engaged in on World War II's talk page fall under these exceptions. Emiya1980 (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Soft Oppose. The project they pinged has automated article alerts for RfCs and posting to its talk page is accordingly quite unnecessary. I'm the only one replying there at the moment. It's certainly no place I would go for WP:Canvassing purposes. Biohistorian15 (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I should mention: this is in reply to @Nemov. Biohistorian15 (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Biohistorian15 This issue goes back several weeks and the editor was advised to stop pinging multiple projects. Pinging bio is perfectly reasonable and they agreed to stop spamming others, but they went right back to pinging multiple projects anyway. Just another example of that Emiya1980 says they'll change, then they go right back to problematic behavior. Nemov (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nemov: If I recall, I said I would narrow down which projects I would ping. Not abandon the practice entirely. Conservativism is listed as a Wiki-project with an interest in Edward Heath. Therefore, it seemed permissible to post a notice there. For the record, this is the first time it has been brought to my attention that Wiki-projects are automatically notified of Rfcs pertaining to pages they have an interest in. If I would have known that, I wouldn't have wasted the time posting a notice on said projects. However, the fact is I did not. Emiya1980 (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support 6-month topic ban (and oppose accepting of the 11th-hour offer), and I would also support seeing it logged as an AE action (Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Infoboxes). Daniel (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support It's very disappointing that Emiya1980 has continued this unhelpful behaviour after being explicitly warned to stop doing it by an admin in the recent ANI thread and several other editors also provided them with strong advice in that thread to knock this off. Their behaviour in the World War II article is particularly concerning given that they have never edited the article or its talk page beyond seeking to dispute the infobox recently (article edits, talk page edits). Despite this lack of previous interest in the article, as part of re-starting this dispute yesterday they made a range of serious attacks on editors who have been engaged with it [368]. The hectoring of most people who've commented in this thread and this other ANI thread also indicates that this editor is primarily here to argue with people. Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support especially in light of the wikilawyering and bargaining here. With the note that if the same disruption happens elsewhere, it will be a full ban (which could well already be merited here). Star Mississippi 00:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support Emiya1980's wikilawyering on Talk:World War II shows that a bright-line prohibition has to be set to avoid further disruption. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support sometimes a forced break from editing in a particular area is needed, which appears to be the case here. This will be a chance to show the community that you can edit in other areas of the project without creating disruption. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Emiya1980 continues to edit infoboxes [369][370][371][372] despite not just being aware of this discussion, but recognizing the community is almost certainly about to restrict their editing in this area. It's true that no restriction has yet been enacted, but it's looking increasingly like an avalanche at this point, and Emiya1980's continued activity in this editing area is suboptimal. Grandpallama (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Emiya1980 suggests continuing to edit infoboxes but not discussing their edits, which is unnacceptable in a collaborative project. It's good that they recognise that we find their talk-page behaviour problematic, but it seems they don't themselves recognise that it is or appreciate that it stems from their continued (attempts at) tweaking infoboxes for infinitesimal gains – if any. NebY (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I just rolled back the archive on this topic. Can an admin close this? Thanks! Nemov (talk) 16:50, 10 October 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.

Apparent block evasion

I'm not sure where I should be reporting this and if this is the right place, but User:2883737hehu72736 appears to be block evading the block of User:91838jeu72737 (note the similarity in username format, the editing areas, and the newer account being created a day after the block of the older account; both have even edited the same page, see the edit history of Shwa). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toweli (talk • contribs) 16:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)^<diff>

Just file at WP:SPI next time. Ahri Boy (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Sock blocked.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Acairain96, uncivil comment

Hello, Acairain96 has changed 4 times the genre on Joker: Folie à Deux, despite reverts and explanations in edit summaries and they did so a 4th time (with a rather misleading edit summary) despite a message I had left on their talk page. That was disruptive enough but their last reply to me is extremely uncivil. Can this be addressed? Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive article creations

So I came across Гриша Андреасяан (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) via the New Pages Feed yesterday, and it appears that a large majority of this user's creations are speedy-deleted or draftified. (Lilit Karapetyan (singer) is a good example, Hey man im josh (talk · contribs) draftified it and the user immediately recreated it). They have also been approached by Velella (talk · contribs), to which they just ignored. Their talk page is enough evidence, it's an absurd amount of CSD and (BL)PROD nomination notices. Maybe it's WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU? Either way, it's disruptive. SirMemeGod  15:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I strongly support this report. So much time and effort has been expended dealing with articles put into Mainspace and the speedily deleted or Draftified. Worse is the habit of simply creating a new Mainspace article when the original has been draftified as at Anna Grigoryan (actress) and Draft:Anna Grigoryan and Draft:Anna Grigoryan (actress). It reeks of paid editing and a total lack of consideration for other editors' time and effort. If there could be a block on creating new articles, that would be of enormous help.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I've indef blocked the user from creating new articles as well as moving existing articles. BorgQueen (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

They now appear to be CU blocked as a sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Гриша Андреасян. QwertyForest (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Unconstructive editing, potentially libelous by 2603:8080:13F0:0:0:0:0:0/48

2603:8080:13F0:0:0:0:0:0/48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) is adding unsourced derogatory and potentially libelous content to a number of articles.

• 19:41 10 Oct 24 Alexandr Wang
• 20:13 10 Oct 24 Theranos
• 19:04 10 Oct 24 Alexandr Wang

IP changes fairly quickly. Range block needed? Adakiko (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing at Metropolitan College of New York

For nearly four years, Tgeorgiou has exclusively edited either Metropolitan College of New York or material related to the college in other articles. Their editing history and the briefest of searches of their username will show that it's highly probable that they work for the college in public relations. They have been warned on their User Talk page by multiple editors that this project's Terms of Service require that they disclose a paid relationship with the college. A discussion was previously held at WP:COIN.

They have ignored all of these warnings and persisted for years in editing what is almost certainly their employer's article without disclosing their paid editing relationship. I'm afraid that blocking them is the only way to prevent their continued violations of our Terms of Service and community expectations. ElKevbo (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Tgeorgiou for undisclosed paid editing. I did not just fall off a turnip truck and neither did the other editors who have observed this person's behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) User seems to be disposed of. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

AlphaBetaGamma, please remember that there is a human being with feelings behind any account that ends up getting blocked. It is important to be matter-of-fact and informative about the reasons for a block, without "disposed of" comments. There are several paths (admittedly difficult) for this person to return to editing, and therefore we should avoid comments that seem to foreclose those opportunities. Cullen328 (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

This reminds me of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000 who did edit that article in the past ([373]) EvergreenFir (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by 2409:250:3B20:3700::/64

2409:250:3B20:3700::/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Just resumed from a 1 month block for disruptive editing doing the same type of edits. Edits appear to be mechanical and not considered in general and there have been a large number in a short period of time. Most of the edits are minor markup changes mostly changing <br> tags to <br /> tags, a minor but somewhat pointless exercise that could be considered slight improvements to the articles effected. Hidden among the mass of tag updates are multiple cases of adding unsourced information, and more significantly changing the pipes in {{ubl}} templates to <br /> tags. The IP is highly dynamic in the range. Messages have been left and ignored as likely never seen. Checking the edits has become a major task, the minor improvements don't outweigh the significant number of errors being made. See unsourced addition to credits, corrupted ubl template and MOS:BOLD violation for examples. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for 6 months EvergreenFir (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Persistent MOS:RETAIN violations from 2607:FEA8:22A0:38F0::/64

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

---

Hi, this IP has been blocked twice now for MOS:RETAIN violations: the most recent block expired a day or two ago and they have once again resumed. Pinging Izno given that they placed both previous blocks. Tollens (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 03:40, 11 October 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.

2603:8080:13F0:7C90:CC2A:BC1E:2322:A3B6: WP:BLP & MOS:MOS violations & removing cited material & citations without explanation

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:AIV

 – as per HJ Mitchell & Daniel Case. See this diff Peaceray (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• 2603:8080:13F0:7C90:CC2A:BC1E:2322:A3B6 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On Alexandr Wang (diff): vandalism after final warning. This user has been violating WP:BLP as well as removing cited material & putting bulleted wikilinks in sections other than in the See also section. Peaceray (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• This editor is now doing similar uncited allegations here on Scale AI. Peaceray (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Also disruptive editing on Theranos: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theranos&action=history, Peaceray (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• 2603:8080:13F0:7C90:E15D:5847:B017:CFD9 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On Scale AI: Same Person as 2603:8080:13F0:7C90:CC2A:BC1E:2322:A3B6. Untamed1910 (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  This is the same IP range as the one above (if I'm reading IPv6 address correctly) I like Astatine (Talk to me) 22:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Is there a way to query on contributions at the higher level, specifically 2603:8080:13F0:7C90? Peaceray (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, you can click on the "/64" links or go directly to Special:Contributions/2603:8080:13F0:7C90::/64. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 00:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Resolved

 – An admin blocked the /64 range for one week. See WP:AN3#User:2603:8080:13F0:7C90:CC2A:BC1E:2322:A3B6 reported by User:Peaceray (Result: /64 range blocked one week). Please archive this discussion. Peaceray (talk) 03:15, 11 October 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:JustAPoliticsNerd violating WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS

threatening death penalty on this diff [374]

14 minutes later, reverts to saying "whoever titled this page this way needs to be seriously investigated" [375]

as of current revision [376] simply is calling editor "morally despicable" and is linking to some wordpress blog (?) to suggest a politician is editing the article (?) Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely by Izno EvergreenFir (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Did someone forget to revoke his TPA? Ahri Boy (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't that second diff be oversighted? Looks like outing to me. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Oversight also required at User talk:JustAPoliticsNerd where the outing and accusations were repeated after the user was blocked. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Please go directly to Wikipedia:Oversight rather than bringing this up on a popular noticeboard. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Request sent. Ahri Boy (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Bizarre edits

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's a series of bizarre edits occurring at The Babylon Bee. An editor has nominated the article for AfD, speedy deletion and added multiple irrelevant tags. This was after multiple false and misleading edits by the same editor. Could someone take a look? AusLondonder (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Just as I posted this it was addressed by Extraordinary Writ. AusLondonder (talk) 09:17, 11 October 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.

Doczilla

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 believe Doczilla (talk · contribs) misused admin rights. in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imaginary voyage. There was a clear consensus to delete, so Doczilla deleted it and closed the AfD. But them on a whim they reopened kit. I pointed out that if the page is deleted then to restore it one has to ask for undeletion. But Doczilla igtored my reminde3r. Please see the history.

• curprev 16:15, October 10, 2024 Altenmann talk contribs 12,721 bytes +1,010‎ Reverted 1 edit by Doczilla (talk): Please follow the procedure, OK? undo Tags: Twinkle Undo
• curprev 16:07, October 10, 2024 Doczilla talk contribs 11,711 bytes −1,010‎ I closed it. Based on user request and reasoning, I unclosed it. undothank Tags: Manual revert Reverted

October 9, 2024

• curprev 11:03, October 9, 2024 Altenmann talk contribs 12,721 bytes +1,010‎ the page was deleted, so you cannoit relist, but request WP:UNDELETE undo Tags: Manual revert Reverted
• curprev 10:01, October 9, 2024 Doczilla talk contribs 11,711 bytes +705‎ Relisting discussion (XFDcloser) undothank Tag: Reverted
• curprev 10:01, October 9, 2024 Doczilla talk contribs 11,006 bytes −1,715‎ Undid revision 1250046732 by Doczilla (talk) undothank Tags: Undo Reverted

October 7, 2024

• curprev 22:28, October 7, 2024 Doczilla talk contribs 12,721 bytes +1,715‎ →Imaginary voyage: Closed as delete (XFDcloser) undothank Tag: Reverted

This is unbecoming of an admin to violate our rules. In fact, admins are supposed to upheld our rules. At theast that's what I was taught 15 years ago. --Altenmann >talk 23:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

A closer of an AfD can undo their close within a reasonable time period, should they wish to. You are incorrect to revert them. Daniel (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

(a) What is the policy? I am not aware of one, hence my protest. (b) What is "reasonable time"? It was closed on october 7 and reopened on october 9. --Altenmann >talk 23:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:DELPRO specifically says that a deletion discussion can be re-opened by the closing administrator. Two days is a perfectly reasonable time. Daniel (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It only says that in WP:Deletion process § Non-administrators closing discussions (unless I'm missing it somewhere else?), and the context - particularly the next clause, which says "any uninvolved admin" - is crystal clear it's meant only to apply to those. —Cryptic 01:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

If a non-admin can reopen their own close, why wouldn't an administrator be able to do the same? Daniel (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, if any uninvolved admin can reopen a non-admin's close, why wouldn't they be able to do the same to an admin's? It's in the same sentence.

You're the one who said policy allows this, and it's clear that (that part of) policy doesn't. I don't know why it doesn't. If forced to guess, I'd say it's to let someone back out of a bad NAC after they've been convinced on their talk page that an admin should've closed it, so as to discourage other non-admins from reopening it themselves. AFAIK policy's silent on the issue, except in this one circumstance. —Cryptic 01:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I pretty much understand relisting the discussion when consensus is unclear. But reopening the deleted article with clear consensus to delete, and without bothering to write an explanation for the actions, smacks arm-twisting by an admin to favor a certain outcome. --Altenmann >talk 23:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Listen up, I don't see a clear consensus on that deletion discussion. votes counts: one weak del, 3 comments, two deletes; but the numbers don't matter for the sake of their masses. What does is; not enough discussion occurred there to come to a conclusion. Admin doing delete, then undelete? Who knows. Not "abuse of power", just maybe a realization that consensus wasn't formed? if that's any explanation. Not and Admin, occasionally pop in here BarntToust^(Talk) 00:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

also, on Doczilla's talk, you should've added your ANI notification in a new sub-section. BarntToust^(Talk) 00:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

If I may, perhaps it could be relisted another week just to make sure what the consensus is? I'll do so if no one objects. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisting would probably just result in the same outcome, though I see nothing wrong with it. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 00:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I had already relisted it when persuaded to reconsider my original close of the AfD. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 00:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Even if it may result in the same outcome, I don't see an inherent harm in giving it more time to play out. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Admins can undo their own use of the tools, reverting to a state that is basically the same as if they never used the tools, assuming it is in a reasonable time frame, which this is. This is not an abuse of the tools. In fact, it is using the tools to UNuse the tools, to allow someone else to examine. You should never revert an admin who is restoring the status quo before he took action, particularly when it would have required using the tools, which you don't have. Since the status quo was restored, any action on the AFD should be considered a new action, not a revert, and a NAC isn't generally allowed for article deletion. As such, I have reverted you, on your 2nd revert. If you continue to edit war over the closure, another admin is likely to consider this edit warring and may sanction you accordingly. Editors should simply treat this like any other AFD that hasn't been closed yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• Daranios asked me to reconsider the close, and I came to agree that consensus was perhaps not so clearcut after all, so I did what I'm supposed to do. Altenmann, I would suggest contacting admins and other users directly on their talk pages to ask about such things in case that might clarify things. I might have been able to provide the answers that could have spared other people this trouble here and saved you time, too. I value their time and effort, as well as yours. If escalation does seem necessary (because sometimes it is), please follow procedure and provide proper notice and include a talk page heading. There is no "whim" involved. In 18 years as an admin, there have only been a couple of times when anyone has successfully persuaded me to reconsider my view on consensus, revert a deletion, and relist for further discussion. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 00:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• This is neither unbecoming nor an abuse of admin tools and does not need to be at ANI (or even AN). It's firmly within discretion. If this had been brought to DRV by someone who argued for retention, it would likely have been undeleted for the purposes of DRV anyway per process. (Uninvolved, non participant in that AfD) Star Mississippi 01:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• What Dennis Brown said. For a closed afd, I agree a day and a half is a reasonable time frame, though it's maybe starting to push it. (I'm put in mind of this disaster from 2019, which fell well on the other side of the line.) —Cryptic 01:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• It's not common but it is also not unusual for a closer to revert a closure and relist an AFD discussion after being presented with a persuasive argument. This closure wasn't an obvious Delete to me when I briefly looked it over. I know I've reverted closures before. My personal rule is that if I've closed an AFD and then reverted the closure, I then become uninvolved with the discussion and do not close it again. But I don't think that is written in policy anywhere. I would just prefer that the discussion is reviewed by a different admin. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• @Altenmann and Cryptic: With regard to AFAIK policy's silent on the issue, except in this one circumstance: WP:Deletion policy says If you believe that a page was wrongly deleted, ... you should discuss this with the person who performed the deletion, or closed the debate, on their talk page. If this fails to resolve the issue, you may be able to request review of the closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review. This suggestion to contact the deleting closer makes little sense to me if the closer were not allowed by policy to undo the deletion. So aside from other arguments above, policy at least seems to imply that this is a possible course of action. Daranios (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• This is not unbecoming of an administrator, I'd argue it's the opposite because they're acknowledging their close may not have been perfect and they're reversing said close in a reasonable timeframe. I don't see an issue with Doczilla's actions here. The only issue I see in this matter is Alternmann reverting Doczilla twice to try to force the AfD closed again, which does come off as edit warring from my POV. Hey man im josh (talk)
• As others have said there's nothing abusive about this nor is it a misuse of tools. In fact as Daranios mentioned it makes no sense that we tell editors to talk to the closer first before bringing it to DRV (as we ask people to talk to the editor first for virtually anything) if admins cannot unilaterally reverse or otherwise change their close. Further in a case like this where all that happened is they undid their close and relisted, so anyone else could close in the future with this alleged clear consensus very little explanation is needed. Perhaps it would have been useful to say something like "I closed this as delete but relisted based on a request and reasonable rationale I received" but really that's about it. Nil Einne (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  As a matter of fact, my comment when relisting it was very close to that: "I closed it. Based on user request and reasoning, I unclosed it." Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 15:43, 11 October 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.

WinterSummer11 non-collegial behavior and not heeding NPA warnings

• WinterSummer11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I nicely asked this user here and here to read and regard the Manual of Style and other guidelines with the respect they deserve. They have also been admonished about NPA here and again here by me and others. Their response has been to claim that others editing is "fixing ridiculous things" and "ruining the page"; revert me; and to argue to another editor "why do you think you are right"? I think they need someone else to tell them that consensus editing is a thing. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• don't worry keep ruining that page i'm quit. You deserved that treatment. Can't not even answer my question. I only went back to wikipedia after 2 months to check and your behaviors still haven't been changed. Ok go on keep ruining i rest my case now ! Good jobs ! No need to report i will not use wikipedia again. Farewell ! WinterSummer11 (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• Warning: Yet another beauty pageant flag dispute. EEng 20:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Based on his/her statements, it is more likely that he/she would engage in misbehavior and ruin Wikipedia pages as an act of revenge due to stubbornness and a desire to be right, even when wrong. I strongly agree with permanently banning this user, along with all IP addresses they have used or will use in the future. They have caused a lot of trouble with other users, including harassment. 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 04:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Rc ramz, we don't pro-actively block editors for what they might do in the future or connect registered accounts with IP addresses. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Aisxulos

Aisxulos (talk · contribs) keeps adding the same piece of unsourced content to Interpretatio Graeca without explanation.[377][378][379][380][381][382] I've warned them with templates on their talk page reaching level 4, adding an explanation to one, started an article talk page section[383] and tried to provide clear edit summaries when reverting, trying different phrasing,(e.g.[384][385]) but they've persisted without responding. Is it time for a block, one that's long enough to get their attention given there can be days between edits? NebY (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

User constantly re-editing the same page while not participating in talk page discussions and ignoring the user's own talk page. Supporting block for edit war and failure to communicate. 172.56.234.76 (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

They are a very new editor with only 11 edits to their account. They might not even know that they have User pages. I'm not saying that nothing should be done about their disruptive edits but it's important to keep their limited editing experience into account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, maybe WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Those particular edits also look very hard to justify; I'm guessing they say the two gods are equivalent because they both have ram's horns (one has two, the other has eight). NebY (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Sock attack

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.

---

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

Vanilla Cone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Yet another democrat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) , Yet another painter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) , Salisbury Spire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Soapboxing in contentious topics. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• I blocked the two unblocked accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Bbb23, did you mean to also block User:Salisbury Spire? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: Um, the account was globally locked back in July, so there was no need to locally block it, and I don't understand what you mean by "blocked now" because you didn't locally block it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't block the account but they showed up as blocked when I viewed this page (as a crossed-out username). They don't appear that way now so I'm not sure what happened there. Sorry I didn't check to see if they were globally blocked before posting my comment. My mistake. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 12 October 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, personal attack, user space vandalism by user: Jorkdkskakaksjjsk

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 just reverted user Jorkdkskakaksjjsk's vandalism of user Number 57 personal user page. The vandal has been engaged in non-helpful editing/editing war with WP:UNCIVIL edit summaries and WP:V/ATTACK on pages like 2021 Bulgarian general election. Without commenting on the disputed content, I will argue that the vandal is WP:NOTHERE. Lklundin (talk) 08:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Lklundin has prsented very little evidence for calling the editor a "vandal" or requesting a NOTHERE block, but the evidence of personal attacks directed at Number 57 is substantial, so I've blocked the user for one week for that.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The user has declared intent to edit war "all day long". 172.56.234.76 (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Meh. WP:RBI. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It is possible that the person behind this currently suspended account is now attempting to rather conspicuously evade the block with Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry via Number57s nightmare: [386]. It could be helpful if someone with ability to execute Wikipedia:Blocking policy could look into this. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC) PS. Edit summary added..

Confirmed that Number57s nightmare is a sock of Jorkdkskakaksjjsk, have indeffed both. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:06, 11 October 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:Hoffmand002

Hoffmand002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Serial remover of maintenance templates after many warnings [387], [388], [389], [390] and other, similar disruptive edits at Kidz Bop (original U.S. album), Kidz Bop (Album) and Kidz Bop 2. Previously blocked for 31 hrs in August for this. Wikishovel (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

 Blocked x 1 week. If this resumes after the block expires, the next stop will likely be an indefinite block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

(AntiDionysius)

Keeps deleting my edits saying they are unsourced or poorly sourced even though I gave him the link to the sources. I don't know how to cite he does but refuses to cite them. Just seems like extremely troll like reductive behavior and only adding a negative impact to the information provided on here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_tank_battalion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:164.47.225.1

-unsigned comment by 164.47.225.1 (talk · contribs)

I provided this user with a link to WP:REFB (several times) and explained WP:BURDEN and that I was unable to do the work of footnoting for them as I did not know where the footnotes would need to be inserted in the large block of text. Their response was to engage in a personal attack and continually re-add their edit without sources. --AntiDionysius (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

It's your responsibility to cite the sources in the article itself. All of your work is preserved in the page history which can be easily restored, so there's no point in opening this thread and calling AntiDionysius a troll multiple times; you should assume good faith and calm down. I recommend apologizing to AD now, peacefully opening up a thread on the related article's talk page, and asking someone how to create a citation. TheWikiToby (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a Wikipedia veteran like you I don't even have an account I just thought it would be a fun little project today to add historical information to the Separate tank battalion page.... But I guess I was wrong instead of being helpful you came and trolled me all afternoon EVEN after I gave you the relevant sources. You are clearly only adding negativity and less information to Wikipedia congrats!

And what I said was not a personally attack it was a factually statement of what you are doing on here, "So you just sit around and edit information off of Wikipedia that you have the sources too loool what a life......lol NOT" 164.47.225.1 (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

He has the sources he can cite it but refuses.... I'm done here. Congrats Wikipedia has less information. there is no reason for you to empower these trolls 164.47.225.1 (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, you, not them, are the one to know which source supports which claim. You told them here is all the sources, you sift though it all and cite it I'm done, which is not a reasonable thing to ask of someone else's time. Even if you don't know how to "properly" add citations, you can simply add the relevant source's url after each claim, and from there it would be much easier to convert them into proper citation templates. But, if we don't know what each source supports, you cannot expect us to go through all of them individually first (especially since you probably already did that). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

you can simply add the relevant source's url after each claim, and from there it would be much easier to convert them into proper citation templates.

Ok I will do that 164.47.225.1 (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! The references (and, hopefully, the underlying dispute) have been fixed.

Random protip: you can quote other people with {{tq}} so the quoted portion shows up better! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Second tip while I'm at it: There are guides on how to add references cleanly, here if you use VisualEditor and here if you use the source editor. Good luck! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)