Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Upd Edit - project sock?

Upd Edit (talk · contribs)

This account has no edits beyond the open letter talk page and offer nothing constructive. I think this is a project sock. I seek a block on the account as such. I would considered myself being WP:INVOLVED given my participation in related discussions. The account has been notified. – robertsky (talk) 09:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

This diff Sounds like something an admin with very specific skills may be able to deal with. @Smartse do you think you'd be able to help out? A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 09:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean. SmartSE (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

What leads you to the conclusion that this is a sock, rather than, for example, someone who has been editing unregistered but has decided to register in order to comment on that talk page? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a possibility that an unregistered editor registering an account to comment on the page, but the likelihood would be low in my opinion. The open letter is publicised mainly to registered editors via the the watchlist notice. The talk page isn't restricted in any manner so anyone can comment, even when unregistered. – robertsky (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

As an IP editor I can say I saw this the same day it was created, it was very attention grabbing with all the people editing, no watchlist needed. I see now that Phil Bridger announced the open letter at the village pump too, afterwards. That is to say, this is not some obscure thing (not that you claimed it was).

Here is a question: if this is the sock of someone, IP or not, would it not be a valid reason for creating a single sock(privacy)? – 2804:F1...F5:391A (::/32) (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

This strikes me as a valid type of sock account? -- asilvering (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

If it is unregistered editor trying to shield their IP addrees, sure. But if it is a registered editor? How so? WP:PROJSOCK only allow project sock accounts if the discussion affects their account directly. The issue, the court case, at hand affects only three editors. It may not be beneficial of them to participate in the discussions in any manner as we already have seen that the plaintiff's lawyers had tried to bring in last minute arguments such one of the three editors participating in the open letter and paint everyone here in unfavourable light. Any claims that this case will affect one's privacy of others in the future is WP:CRYSTAL as it is open ended at the moment. – robertsky (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I would say that responding to an open letter on a sensitive political subject would be a legit sock in the spirit of "privacy" (and maybe "security"), and the fact that the discussion has hundreds of participants means that the negative effects of a project sock are vastly reduced. I'd change my position on that if they were obviously tag-teaming with a regular account, or if they were trying to dominate the discussion in some way. -- asilvering (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Without knowing whose sock they are, there is not much to be done here unless a Checkuser drops by and decides they should investigate. But I don't see this editor's 5 edits as being disruptive and warranting a block. They might be an SPA and just be interested in this court case but but being an SPA doesn't violate any policies. Many of our current editors started off as SPAs and grew to be interested in other subjects as their skills improved.

But there is another case brought to ANI (see below) about suspicions of editors participating in this discussion about this WMF mess and what POV they might be pushing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

This may not be “dominating the conversation” but it does have some features in common. (On the other hand they haven’t edited in more than a day, so this is probably moot.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

This complaint seems related to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Users TracyVaghmare91 and Hemacho328wsa are NOTHERE right below this one. I was just reviewing the Open Letter talk page, to try to answer a question for ACE2024, and I noticed a number of brand new accounts stirring things up there. I'd say, let's see if this behavior continues into this week and then see if it still needs to be addressed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

As Liz already pointed out, there's a number of users like this. In addition to TracyVaghmare91 and Hemacho328wsa, this also includes Zubehamoreha and Dzień dobrry. Cortador (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikimicky1, Armenian genocide denial, personal attacks, disregard of Wiki policies, WP:BLOCKEVASION

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

---

Wikimicky1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wikimicky1 has not only engaged in several attacks despite being told no to, they have also disregarded our policies. This includes openly admitting that they don't care about this site and that they were blocked for being a sock of indeffed Armenian genocide denier User:Ungitow, while simultaneously denying the Armenian genocide.

They said this in one of their first edits on 7 May 2022: Hi, apparently I have been blocked along with user:Ungitow. Some donkeys (admins) thought I was associated with the editor. Hilarious. These admins are lowly cowards and they surely don’t care about justice or the truth. I don’t care about Wikipedia a bit anymore. They can block me as much as they like. They can’t silence me in the real world! No, I don’t believe in the so-called Armenian massacres also referred to as by another name. Call it denial. It never happened the way propagators say it did. The truth shall not be silenced. Peace.

Personal attacks:

• 14 July 2022: No dear, your answer is clear evidence you are ideologically biased. Who is Cambridge? Are they the final say on religious subjects? So a source is considered reliable le by you if it’s published by Oxford or Harvard. I see. Hmm, most of Wikipedia is garbage then, according to your flawed logic. Anyway, you probabablu don’t speak Turkish. Chances are you’re just a pro-Persian person living in the West. No I’m not personally attacking you. I’m just saying things as they are. Your profile is enough to show how partial you are.

• 11 November 2024 If some pro-Iranians want to push the agenda...

• 12 November 2024 But one of those I referred to is definitely you and your actions. Please apply the same standards to your own editing and stop being biased and your POV editing. Thank you. (the first line refers to the previous attack a day earlier)

Keeps disregarding (WP:IDHT, WP:TENDENTIOUS) the plethora of WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS based on it [1] regarding the ethnicity of al-Biruni, resorting to edit warring [2] and openly disregarding it in the articles talk page [3]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I am a bit surprised to see this on the verge of being auto-archived. Am I missing something here? I tried to make the report as reader friendly as possible. Wikimicky1 literally openly admitted to being blocked for socking as an Armenian genocide denialist, while simultaneously denying the Armenian genocide, i.e. WP:BLOCKEVASION. HistoryofIran (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I guess an admin didn't see it? 172.99.146.47 (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not associated with the other user/editor. The above allegations hold no truth. HistoryofIran is trying to frame me because he could not deal with my logical argument and the reliable sources I provided. See Talk:Al-Biruni. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimicky1 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment : Anybody who takes a look at the talk page of Wikimicky1 may see a wall of warnings, this editor is all but a net positive to this project, support indef as per WP:NOTHERE.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• This is a difficult situation. The behavior of the editor was clearly not exemplary, and they had a bunch of warnings at their talk page. However, in the Al Biruni episode, when they were pointed out to the RfC they stopped edit-warring. They have never been blocked, and imo in this situation blocking indef only makes sense per WP:NOTHERE - and while they clearly exhibit indications of NOTHERE, they are here not only to push pro-Turkic POV, but also to make positive contribution. (I can not comment on the statement that they are a sock of blocked user, the best is probably to open a SPI - if they are a sock they of course need to be blocked). More appropriately, one would start with short blocks and escalating them, eventually to an indefinite block - but blocking for the Al Biruni episode would look like punishment at this point. Every admin if welcome to disagree with me, but I think the only reasonable course of action is to wait whether this behavior comes back, and, if yes, block. I will add their talk page to my watchlist and see whether I can this myself (though I am generally busy these days in real life).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Ymblanter. Unfortunately the SPI will probably come out stale, since it was two years ago. I had already mentioned the RFC twice to Wikimicky1 [4] [5], only to be met with insults and edit warring, which wasn't the first time they've done that. Heck, even right now in this very thread they're saying that "above allegations hold no truth." and "he could not deal with my logical argument and the reliable sources I provided." showing that they haven't learned anything. This user is WP:NOTHERE imo. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe they had some few "positive contribution", but this editor is all but a net positive to this project. Another case of WP:NOTHERE.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

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

I was given an ultimatum for expired awareness notifications

This is about developments at User talk:Hotpine. Hotpine has given me an ultimatum for retracting awareness notifications which have expired for almost two years.

[6], [7], and [8]. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Hotpine: you edited in area of Wikipedia that are under discretionary sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee. tgeorgescu posted a standard contentious topic alert, which does not imply that your edits were improper. It appears that you take issue with the fact that the standard alert makes reference to the arbitration case that imposed those sanctions. I'm not sure why you take issue with that, but there's nothing improper about it. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, now that I got the point that such notifications do not expire, I have to say why I told them they're editing under WP:GENSEX discretionary sanctions: sex addiction therapy and porn addiction therapy have become a way of performing conversion therapy without calling it so. This is especially relevant since conversion therapy has been banned in several states. I don't know any WP:MEDRS to that extent, but it is a point which reputable experts made in mainstream media. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The above made me curious about WP:MEDRS to that extent and I found this: Neves, Silva (2023). "Chapter 11. MSM and compulsive sexual behaviours. "Sex addiction" and conversion practices". In Neves, Silva; Davies, Dominic (eds.). Erotically Queer: A Pink Therapy Guide for Practitioners. Taylor & Francis. p. unpaginated. doi:10.4324/9781003260608-12. ISBN 978-1-000-86221-8. Retrieved 17 November 2024. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

What I don't understand is that these notices were posted on their user talk page almost 3 years ago and the editor has edited since 2021. Why are they complaining about them now? I hope they will find their way here and offer an explanation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Now in the article Sexual addiction the link between sexual addiction therapy and conversion therapy is abundantly sourced. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Those templates say "discretionary sanctions" not CTOPs. So, I don't know if they're expired. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I was clear about what I expected:

• Proof that pages were categorized as such in a public proceeding
• Proof that I edited those pages
• Proof that those edits of those pages warrants the action(s) taken

If such proof does not exist, then I expect Tgeorgescu to undo his notices on my talk page and whatever flags/sanctions/changes that were applied to my account.

I still have no idea what this is about, the pages, the edits, the policies, etc., after pointedly asking Tgeorgescu several times for clarification. I'm still not entirely clear on whether something was done to my account to make it harder to edit those pages or other pages. It seemed like my account had been flagged in some way. Regardless, I didn't opt into any such notices on my talk page, which add noise, and the appearance of such notices has the appearance of wrongdoing, which I object to when there is no justification. Reverting the edits myself does not appear the same in the edit history as the author reverting them.

The clock is still ticking. Hotpine (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Hotpine: Your inability to notice that you have landed in hot water is telling of WP:CIR.

For a newbie with no explanations, that isn't that bad. For a newbie, after it got duly explained, it is bad. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@tgeorgescu Literally the third sentence in Wikipedia:CIR is:

One of our core Wikipedia guidelines that facilitates this is assume good faith

My first response to you was:

Tgeorgescu: I don't understand your edits. You linked to e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience, but my username isn't mentioned there, and I don't see reference to any other place in your edits where the determination was made that I have "shown interest" in "alternative medicine", "pseudoscience", or "gender-related disputes or controversies". Please clarify your position with objective evidence and public proceedings, or undo your edits.

It isn't clear why you posted the "Yes. We are biased." section. Please clarify this, or undo your edits.

It isn't clear why you posted the "Noticeboard" section. Please clarify this, or undo your edits.

So far, your behavior has been abrasive and unwelcome. After this matter is resolved, please do not interact with me to the furthest extent possible.

I assumed that you had your reasons for doing what you did, and I asked you to explain yourself. I've asked you several times to explain yourself now. All you have to do is explain your reasoning for why you think I've edited pages that are under those discretionary sanctions, which you should have had before posting the notices in the first place. That's all. And you can't even do that, or at least haven't done so up to this point. I need that information to know which pages I have edited (and might edit in the future) that fall under those sanctions, which is ostensibly the entire point of the notices. Your silence on this matter suggests to me that you had no such reasoning in the first place.

Indeed, competence is required. Hotpine (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Hotpine: The page was named above: Sexual addiction. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

We are assuming good faith: the point of that essay is that competence is also required to be a successful editor—unfortunately, we can only go by experience in judging competence.

You have been told repeatedly that these notifications are perfunctory do not presume any wrongdoing—they say that themselves. That you still do not seem to understand this point does bring your competence into question, I'm afraid.

Frankly, you are not entitled to further meticulous explanations for such benign interactions, and your reaction so far has been fairly disruptive, making an issue out of literally nothing. Remsense ‥ 论 01:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how we can get much clearer than, "this message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing", but many editors seem to miss that. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

We need to bring back the marquee tag. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

That sentence isn't true and everyone knows it, that's why. Levivich (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, probably more than 90% of the time it's given, the contentious topics warning actually means "I do think there's a problem with your editing so I'm making sure I can take you to AE if you step out of line again". More generally, I think WP:HNST is broadly correct about how inexperienced editors interpret all templates Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Even so, the message does what it says on the tin, one isn't justified in assuming someone thinks they're doing something wrong simply because they've received one. It is simply not unreasonable to expect newcomers to be able to take direct statements like these at face value. Remsense ‥ 论 01:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Repeated WP:PA Violations by IP 47.69.66.57 (and prior IP addresses)

The IP (and previous IP addresses operated by the same individual) has made repeated personal attacks targetting me.

They have alleged that I am not... mentally sound: "fake news by incapacity or intent or what?" [1]

They claimed that a B-Class article I edit often, SpaceX Super Heavy, is my "favorite playground" [2][3]

Multiple claims of attempting to mislead others: "And you still either don't understand or try to mislead" [4]

"Once more a certain editor wants to spam each and every space article with superfluous and redundant starship pseudofacts" [5]

"Once more, Redacted II makes "original research" and exaggerates vague facts to factuals" [6]

"neclected and more or less to a single editor who had put in original reseach and exaggerations while blocking others" [7]

They accuse everyone they disagree with of WP:OR, despite the disputed content often being well sourced. And anyone who confronts them is a WP:PA violator: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]

IMO, it is clear that they are not here to improve Wikipedia, and edits only to harrass more experienced editors.

I reported their behaviour before, but no action was taken.[15] Redacted II (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

A link to the archive of the previous report (with the responses): link. – 2804:F1...A2:6879 (::/32) (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Hopping in here as I've also seen this person repeatedly hounding Redacted II in several discussions. It's clear this user is not interested in constructive editing. Ergzay (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

They have continued, now as IP 47.69.68.17, and are now trying to, and I quote: "form a coalition" [16]

They aren't here to improve the encyclopedia. They're here to troll. Redacted II (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Now 47.69.168.221. Behaviour has continued. Redacted II (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown POV pushing editing pattern

SheriffIsInTown has been consistently POV pushing against Imran Khan and the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), figures in Pakistan’s political crisis. I reported them on this noticeboard recently, and I hoped that the issue would be resolved after my report, but I am reporting them again as their WP:CPUSH behavior has made it difficult to discuss and work with them on contentious topics since the report. My main concern is the POV pushing.

POV pushing on Imran Khan BLP
On the Imran Khan BLP, Sheriff has added exclusively negative criticism about Khan, including citing an opinion piece instead of reliable inline citations and following a one-sided narrative. In this discussion, they argued that one sexual harassment allegation should have an independent section, followed by accusing both me and the user who added the section (WikiEnthusiast1001) of POV pushing in favor of PTI because we advocated for a merge into another section to fit the article's structure.

Following a somewhat resolution to the dispute, they added a large section about Khan's comments on rape and allegations of victim-blaming but was entirely one-sided, failing to mention other viewpoints or any context, essentially only covering the negatives which forced me and another user to step in and add context [9] [10]. Even worse, Sheriff already knows that Khan's comments on rape were contested as out of context, as they edited on a page talking about the allegations but did not add the other viewpoint.

Previously, they put false information on Imran Khan’s BLP article that was not supported by any of the 3 citations they gave and citation bombed to make it seem like a proper piece of information. I asked them twice on why they did this in the talk page, but they only responded when Saqib intervened in this discussion.

Even more concerning, they cited an opinion piece for 2 paragraphs of information on Imran Khan's page without even mentioning it was an opinion piece. They also used that one opinion piece as a citation for two paragraphs about contentious information on an already contentious protected BLP, without inline citations or even a mention of the opinion piece or its authors which was discussed here. Sheriff further made bad faith accusations and was extremely reluctant to revoke the opinion piece. In response to the lengthy negative opinion piece Sheriff added, I balanced it with a short paragraph summarizing three positive opinion pieces [11]. However, even after this, instead of allowing for balance, Sheriff selectively extracted negative points from these generally positive pieces and showed further compulsion to add only negative content. [12] Sheriff has also added imbalanced criticism of Imran Khan's time in office, which other users including me have had to correct. Khan is a controversial figure in Pakistani politics and his BLP is a high-priority and a GA nomination which is why these editing patterns are even more concerning. Sheriff argues that I have added 'promotional content' and they are balancing that, but as seen, most of these changes on the Imran Khan BLP occur without me even adding any content and are unprovoked.

Talk Page Behavior
Discussions with them often result in WP:IDHT by them. Past aggressive remarks: [13] and [14]. They have accused me of bad faith and portraying Imran Khan as suffering because I used the word 'Campaigning', exhibiting IDHT in the discussion. Additionally, talk page discussions give an insight into Sheriff's POV as there are instances where Sheriff's comments on talk pages have veered into personal opinions. They stated that There was a legal issue about this because PTI failed to conduct intra-party elections properly. When you don’t follow the law, there are consequences. [15], which the "consequences" remark inserts their political opinion regarding PTI into a talk page. In this comment Claiming it was a false flag operation is a serious accusation. Simply stating that it wasn’t isn’t sufficient; it requires an explanation of why it wasn’t a false flag. [16], Sheriff challenges PTI's claim of a "false flag operation," which seems to stray into political bias, as it focuses on discrediting a political claim rather than representing the information in a factual manner. Additionally, another user pointed out that even after this report, Sheriff left remarks on an edit summary in the Imran Khan BLP [17]. The remark "One happy family, add a relevant photo of good time." is a further POV statement against Khan and is an insight into why they have added selectively imbalanced information and negative opinion pieces onto the Imran Khan BLP.

Edit Warring on Election Pages and 3RR
A major example of this behavior is that they reverted three times [18] [19] [20] on 2024 Pakistani general election, out of which 2 reverts were done within 24 hours, when already being told not to by multiple editors in this discussion, I decided to initiate a civil discussion first to avoid an edit war with Sheriff, though they still continued edit warring, continuing to quickly reduce the PTI's seats despite no consensus. Though this was solved, it is a repeated and worsening pattern of adding imbalanced content against Imran Khan and the PTI, exhibiting WP:IDHT in the talk page and then other users stepping in to resolve it.

Other Users Confirming This Behavior
Saqib - Saqib has raised concerns multiple times over SheriffIsInTown's POV pushing behavior patterns against PTI and Imran Khan on several pages including on Sheriff's talk page, primarily Sheriff removing PTI on election pages as well as in this discussion and here.

WikiEnthusiast1001 - WikiEnthusiast1001 has accused Sheriff of disruptive editing on the Imran Khan page and other pages recently. They also balanced out Sheriff's one-sided edits on Imran Khan and pointed out: This section is oddly worded and would be clearer if titled 'Controversies.' It presents a one-sided view without mentioning Imran's later clarifications. As Titan and I have noted, your strong involvement with this page suggests a potential bias. It might be best for you to take a break from editing and come back with fresh perspective. Take some time to unwind—there's more to life than just editing Wikipedia In their edit diff.

Saad Ali Khan Pakistan - Saad Ali Khan Pakistan has has accused SheriffIsInTown of bullying and constantly reverting his edits on election pages here and here. He recently urged admins to take action against Sheriff for said disruptive behavior.

I urge admins to take action for the POV pushing behavior, as multiple other users have taken notice of it, and the diffs on the Imran Khan BLP are clear. The resolution to this negative editing pattern which has to be constantly corrected for NPOV, would be a topic ban on pages related to Imran Khan for SheriffIsInTown. Titan2456 (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Most of the accusations mentioned here were addressed in a previous ANI, where the majority of uninvolved editors dismissed their report. After Drmies closed the discussion, they approached Drmies to reopen the discussion, but their request was denied, and they were instructed to present stronger evidence, which they have been attempting to gather since then. As I mentioned, most of these accusations were already discussed and dismissed in the previous ANI. If an admin highlights anything new, I will gladly address it. Most issues arise from OP adding promotional or biased content, which compels me to step in and balance the narrative. Their support for PTI and its leaders is clear from the user box displayed on their user page, as seen in this revision:

This user supports the
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf

They are not a neutral editor and are not here to contribute to building an encyclopedia but are instead driven by a political agenda. So far, I have only managed to address a fraction of their edits. In nearly every article related to a PTI figure that they have edited, they predominantly added promotional content, much of which still requires balancing—a task I intend to continue as time permits. I anticipate that they will return here repeatedly, as the promotional content they add can only be counterbalanced with material they may not favour, given their support for PTI and its leaders. They are upset with me because I am the only one standing in their way. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Titan2456, please post an ANI notification on the User talk page of every editor you mention in your opening comments, not just Sheriff. They should know that their comments might be discussed. No comment yet on the substance of your remarks. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Here, they express a clear intention to specifically expand the criticism and allegations section against Ishaq Dar, a political opponent of PTI—the party they have openly declared their support for. Can we trust an editor who has openly aligned themselves with a political party and then explicitly states their intent to add criticism and allegations to articles about leaders of the opposing party? Shouldn’t their edits be reviewed for neutrality? Furthermore, they repeatedly file ANI reports against me for merely attempting to balance their edits, which ultimately wastes everyone’s time. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

So much to unpack, so maybe I'll go section by section. The POV pushing appears to be neutrally balanced. The wording could be better, but that's why there's a talk page. Aggressive behavior? I mean yeah it's aggressive but it feels more like a slap on the wrist type of warning that could be given, nothing more. The 3RR was discussed last time. Two NOTFORUM remarks doesn't feel like enough and they aren't exactly forum-like comments anyways. So, what actually do you want accomplished? Do you need someone to wag their finger at Sheriff and tell them to calm down? From what I can tell aggression is not equal to disruption, but making constant ANI reports about one user is. Conyo14 (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Conyo14, my primary concern is the POV pushing, which as stated is about not including other viewpoints (only adding criticism) when already knowing of such information. The opinion piece citation, only adding extensive amounts of negative information as well as watering down positive language on the Imran Khan BLP is WP:CPUSH. The reason for filing 2 reports was that following the report, Sheriff continued the same behavior, hence I have reported them again, with new information. The information added by Sheriff itself is not neutral, as it is covering contentious topics and presenting only one-sided views and criticism, it is POV. I acknowledge that most of these were solved in talk pages but the discussions involved WP:IDHT, with Sheriff ignoring points. For the 3RR example, it was only resolved after Saqib stepped in and the Imran Khan BLP after WikiEnthusiast1001 did. Similarly, in a recent discussion regarding the PTI's seat count, they have claimed to refuted Al Jazeera, BBC and multiple other newspapers with these remarks, which provides no source and ignores multiple sources given, it also ignores past and repeated discussions. These are repeated editing patterns and not isolated incidents which is why I have brought it to ANI. Regarding actions, if a user continues to cite opinion pieces, misrepresent sources to favor negative information, and present one-sided views on a specific BLP, I believe a topic ban from that specific BLP is a reasonable solution if this behavior persists after the first ANI report. I hope this clarifies this. Thank you. Titan2456 (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems more like countering your POV. In case you did not hear it, Conyo14 stated, So much to unpack, so maybe I’ll go section by section. The POV pushing appears to be neutrally balanced. This means they took the time to review your over 8,000-byte report, examined your evidence, and concluded that what you called POV pushing was actually an effort to achieve neutral balance. As I have explained before, in case you didn’t hear it, most of my edits were made to counter the overly promotional and one-sided content you added. That’s why my contributions might seem more negative—they balance out the positive bias you had already introduced. You left no room for me to add anything positive because your edits were so overwhelmingly favourable. Why would you submit an 8,000-byte report? Do you think I don’t face challenges with other editors? Yet, I don’t file such extensive reports against anyone because I have no political affiliation. Filing such a lengthy report suggests more than just volunteerism—it points to a deeper affiliation. You might have a conflict of interest here. A topic ban is warranted—not for me, but for you. You should be restricted from editing any post-1970 Pakistani politics-related articles to prevent further use of Wikipedia for advancing PTI’s political agenda and for targeting living opponents of PTI. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

What promotional information did I add on the Imran Khan BLP which prompted you to cite a negative opinion piece for two paragraphs without mentioning it was an opinion piece? When you added a paragraph about one large negative opinion piece, I was forced to balance it with some short sentences on some positive opinions (which there were multiple), which you did not allow for by selectively extracting negative information from positive opinion pieces, why was this? What promotional content did I add for you to add one-sided claims about Imran Khan's comments on sexual violence? Also, which living opponents of PTI have I "targeted", are you talking about Ishaq Dar? I have added no information on his article, please follow up, as I want to know which opponents of PTI I have disproportionally represented. Titan2456 (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Sheriff, it is not wrong to express support for a political party. It becomes a COI if Titan were working with a campaign or for the political party's headquarters. However, it will be very good to keep in mind during the next ANI report, if there is one.

Titan, again, that statement isn't POV pushing, but it was worded very poorly. The wording is much more appropriate now. Conyo14 (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Expressing support for a political party is not inherently problematic, but when that support influences their editing and compromises neutrality, it becomes an issue. Based on my observations, the content they add to articles about PTI tends to lack neutral language and leans towards being promotional. For instance, the section titled "Education Sector Reforms" on PTI president's article focuses solely on achievements and could have been phrased in a more neutral manner. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

To Conyo14, Yes, the wording is better now following the balancing corrections added by me and other users. The situation is that these are repeated incidents that I cannot keep correcting. If it was just citing an opinion piece or adding extensive negative information to Imran Khan’s time in office, I would give Sheriff the benefit of the doubt, but continuing to add Khan’s controversial comments on rape without him and his government’s clarification, despite Sheriff knowing this and expanding negative content from positive opinion pieces is a bit too far to be good faith. If you believe that filing an ANI report again for this is not the right course of action then please advise me what would be if this pattern is repeating over and over on a contentious high priority BLP. Thank you Conyo14. Titan2456 (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The appropriate course of action for you would be to refrain from adding promotional content in the first place and instead ensure that the content is balanced, so I don’t need to intervene to correct it. Regarding content related to sexual misconduct, please note that there are standalone articles addressing such matters for other political figures, such as Andrew Cuomo sexual harassment allegations and Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. The content I added was fully sourced, so there is no basis for you to criticise me for including it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned in the above comment, they added promotional content to the article on PTI president Parvez Elahi, as shown in this diff. Upon closer inspection, I identified issues with the first part of the content, while the second part references a PDF that will take me some time to review thoroughly. The first part, as noted in my edit summaries, was sourced to the university’s website, claiming the university was built by Elahi. There were two sources cited: The first source was a message from the vice chancellor. I removed it, explaining in the edit summary that it was a “Primary source, sourced to Vice Chancellor’s message.” The second source did not mention Elahi at all, so I removed the content with the edit summary “And no mention of Elahi in this second source.” For now, as long as this ANI remains open, I will continue reporting my findings on their apparent bias in favour of PTI. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Spot on @Titan2456, I agree that a topic ban should be placed on Sheriff. Here, Sheriff makes a peculiar comment: "One happy family, add a relevant photo of good time." Similar to statements from Khan's opposition, this is highly unencyclopedic. Strangely, he placed the 2018 image in the Removal from office section, even though Khan was removed in 2022. Possibly biased? WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 05:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing inappropriate about the comment. In the picture, they are smiling and can reasonably be described as "happy." Additionally, the fact that the picture is from 2018 is irrelevant since the section discusses the Army's role in Khan's removal. This is the only picture I could find where Khan and Bajwa, the head of the Army during his tenure, are present together. Why is it that no pictures of Khan interacting with Army personnel are being included in articles about him? While he may have had conflicts with the Army, we, as volunteer Wikipedians, do not. Moreover, why does Titan appear to be adding the cropped version of the same picture with Pompeo that excludes Bajwa? They are even placing that cropped picture of Khan with Pompeo under the Domestic appointments section, which does not align with the section's content. In contrast, the version, showing Bajwa, would have been far more relevant to the Domestic appointments section since Bajwa's tenure was extended during Khan's time. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@WikiEnthusiast1001 Since you are already here, why not explain your action to remove the only criticism from the COVID-19 response section while filling it entirely with achievements and praise? The section is now heavily imbalanced and lacks a neutral perspective due to the removal of criticism. How about we hold you accountable for this action and consider a topic ban, given how readily you suggest such measure against me? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

You are unfairly accusing me of removing criticism when I only removed excessive detail. Readers could easily hover over the citation to see the criticism, which was unnecessary and overly detailed. As @Titan2456 and @Saad Ali Khan Pakistan have pointed out, you seem overly attached to this page, treating it as if you own it. You've harassed multiple contributors, including me, by falsely accusing me of removing sources simply because they were Indian during the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Cawthome (2nd nomination) discussion. Your stubborn refusal to admit your mistake there and in this second ANI shows that YOU are the problem. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 04:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

You did not remove excessive detail, as I highlighted in my earlier comment with the diff. You actually removed the only criticism in the COVID-19 response section, replacing it entirely with achievements. Should I paste here exactly what you added and removed in that edit? Accusing me of being overly attached to the article is baseless. Over your eleven months of account activity, your average monthly edits on this article surpass my own throughout my account’s lifespan—if we’re using that metric. Regarding the AfD, yes, I voted to keep and defended my stance with the sources I found. Ultimately, I was proven wrong, and you won the debate. However, that does not justify taunting me over and over and over again. I even approached your talk page to request that you drop the stick, yet you refuse to hear. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I agree too. Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC) (blocked sock of LanguageXpert) I have been editing in Wikipedia since 2017 and I tried to be as neural as possible while editing pages. I never involved in unnecessary changes or edits which are not related to that person. I mainly focused on constituency pages and electoral history related pages because they were not updated like electoral pages of India. I edited over 900 constituency pages of National Assembly and Provincial assemblies of Pakistan and didn't favor any party or went against any party or politician. I was editing daily until Sheriff came and started bullying by reverting edits I made before 2024 elections. I wanted to add election boxes in constituency pages so that during and after election results it would be easy for the editors to edit and write results. He came and reverted my edits and even after elections when majority of Media sources from Pakistan and the World were showing PTI backed Independents separate from other Independents having support of no parties. He started to argue with me and reverted my edits again. I stopped editing since March because I don't have spare time to waste on a person who likes to bully and argue with other editors like he owns Wikipedia. If a person writes information without credible source their edits should be reverted but if someone reverts edits for no reason than I consider this harassment and bullying and this needs to be stopped. An Institution like Wikipedia should not tolerate bullies like Sheriff which misuse their influence and bully other editors. I request Administration to take serious action against bullies like Sheriff. Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) (blocked sock of LanguageXpert)

User:SheriffIsInTown, I'm a bit surprised you made this edit. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• I don't have an opinion on the conduct of either party or on the content of the article. The filing editor had filed a request at DRN for moderated discussion, and then filed this case here. I have closed the DRN discussion because we do not discuss a dispute at DRN that is also being discussed in another content forum or a conduct forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  I support that decision, thank you Robert McClenon. Titan2456 (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies There was certainly scope for improvement, and I accepted the subsequent revisions made to that content. That being said, that diff was part of the previous ANI filed against me. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Sheriff, you did not accept subsequent revisions, that is false, and this proves it’s not a one-off mistake. First, you undid my edit of mentioning it is an opinion piece, then you argued that it was a reliable source which did not need a mention of the opinion piece status, then when addressed in talk, you accused me of Why do you consistently choose the most positive angles for PTI and Imran Khan and never balance it with contrary views to maintain neutrality? I am simply correcting the one-sided narrative, which came across as a chancellorship campaign, portraying him as suffering and still fighting and campaigning from jail. simply because I told you it was necessary to mention it is an opinion piece. Finally after you were convinced, I added a short few sentences about 3 positive opinion pieces, which as per WP:DUE would actually require more information than the 1 negative opinion piece. Regardless, you didn’t even allow for that and selectively extracted negative information from these mostly positive opinion pieces. Admins, I once again urge you to take notice of this behavior. Titan2456 (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The edit you claim I undid was actually the result of an edit conflict. I had been working on several other language changes in that section for a while and had the editor open. It seems I published my edit around the same time as you, which inadvertently resulted in reverting your changes. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

HATting discussion initiated by now blocked sockpuppet. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This shows how neutral he is. In election pages of 1988 and 2015 Senate Elections MQM and PMLN ran as independents but they are shown as party but he is only showing PTI candidates as Independents. How can he do these kinds of edits without any discussion or consensus. Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC) (blocked sock of LanguageXpert) I do not recall ever editing the two Senate election pages you mentioned. Can you provide diffs showing me listing independent candidates as belonging to PML-N or MQM, or even supporting such a claim? It’s interesting how you appear in every ANI filed against me—this is the third one where you’ve shown up, repeating the same unfounded allegations. The last time, after seven months of inactivity, you surfaced specifically for my ANI. Your contribution frequency speaks for itself. For the onlookers: Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), you are definitely not here to build encyclopedia but rather here to just target me. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC) I went inactive just because of you. You were keep reverting my edits without no reason. You are the reason why Pakistani pages of Wikipedia are not updated like Indian or other countries. I wanted to contribute as much as possible but I will get bullied by reverting my edits by you. I give my time and effort and you come from no where and revert my edits by just one click. You should be ashamed of your behavior. Wherever any case will be filed involving you I will raise my voice to show your reality. Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC) (blocked sock of LanguageXpert) So, you are accepting that you are not here to build an encyclopedia but your life's mission now is to target me. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC) I am here to show your reality of you that you are a bully. I don't consider bullies like you to be targeted or discussed. I am just here to give my opinion. My life has much important things to do instead of wasting my time and energy on a person like you who just likes to bully so that he gets discussed by other editors. I am not a supporter of any party and not a person like you targeting just one party and its leader and claims to be so-called "Neutral" which is a joke. Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC) (blocked sock of LanguageXpert) I don’t know the validity of Saad Ali Khan Pakistan’s claims but saying that he is not here to build an encyclopedia is absurd, when one takes a further notice at his contributions, he updated every single Pakistani Constituency with 2023 delimitations, a large set of neutral edits he would have nothing to gain out of. Additionally, Sheriff, if you think every user who says something against you is part of a “PTI cabal”, feel free to report them on ANI in a separate thread, as this thread is for your actions. To Administrators: So far, SheriffIsInTown has accused WikiEnthusiast1001, Myself and Saad Ali Khan Pakistan of being part of a “PTI cabal”, needing a topic ban and being not here to build an encycolpedia. Pardon my language but these claims are absurd, while SheriffIsInTown themselves has remained unanswerable for their POV pushing on the Imran Khan BLP, which is this threads topic. Titan2456 (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC) See constituency pages of NA-1 Chitral, PK-1 Chitral, PK-2 Chitral, PK-3 Swat which he reverted for no reason. I edited them before and he said it is against neutrality and when i tried editing again during and after election he reverted them again. I have seen Indian Lok Sabha pages which added candidates in election boxes before polls but he didnt let me add election boxes before election. every constituency of National Assembly is showing PTI backed Independents as regular independents which makes readers confusing. See 1988 elections MQM candidates an as independents but they are shown separate from other independents because they had support of MQM but he still showed PTI candidates as Independents. Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC) (blocked sock of LanguageXpert) Since you are speaking on their behalf, how do you explain their appearance in an ANI which you filed against me in October after being inactive since March? Did you approach them, and if so, how? Their actions—showing up in an ANI against me after seven months of inactivity and then appearing in this ANI again—clearly suggest they are not here to contribute to building an encyclopedia but are solely targeting me. Can you explain what else they have contributed to over the last eight months? Feel free to report them on ANI in a separate thread, as this thread is about your actions. However, when you accuse someone of wrongdoing in an ANI, your own behaviour can also be scrutinised. Separate ANIs are not necessary for that. Keep in mind that if you file an ANI against another editor, your actions will also be subject to evaluation. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC) Are you really asking that question? When someone is tagged/mentioned in an ANI report, you get a notification as I tagged Saad Ali Khan Pakistan in both reports. Titan2456 (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC) Even if I were away from Wikipedia for seven months, I wouldn’t return solely to participate in an ANI or constantly monitor my notifications to ensure I don’t miss appearing in one. It’s simply not practical—unless someone is so driven by a battleground mindset that they make a deliberate effort to check their notifications daily to seize every possible opportunity. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC) Moreover, how do you hear about ANI's against me? Are you part of some off-wiki PTI cabal that I have heard so much about? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC) This has been long due 👉🏽 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LanguageXpert. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Dispute at Redbox article

An IP hopper (range: 92.40.212.0/23 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))) has been attempting to add a user-generated wiki to the Redbox article by doing the following:

• Declaring that their source is "reliable" themselves
• Using my disability status as a way to downplay/personally attack me when I warned them
• Claiming to be "moderation"
• Claiming that their disruptive edits were "requested" by another user who simply cleaned up the article (and even stated that the IP's edits "did not seem encyclopedic")

Would like a path forward here.

wizzito | say hello! 02:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

That personal attack should be at minimum a block. non-admin comment Conyo14 (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The IP Is still at it [21] claiming the reverts are "vandalism" and "done for no reason". It appears the IP is Not listening thus A range block is necessary. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks like admin User:Pickersgill-Cunliffe has blocked the latest IP address in the range 92.40.213.139 for 31 hrs. A little earlier I've also started a talk page discussion here and invited the IP to it from their talk page, so hopefully the block gets the message across and that they will discuss the content dispute instead of continuing to edit war. — AP 499D25 (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocking the latest IP has proven to do nothing, the IP came back with another one in the range and reverted with claims of vandalism again [22]. @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: It might be easier to range block rather than whack a mole. Lavalizard101 (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not experienced with range blocks so I'll leave it to others, but a /23 block seems to be quite a wide net. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

A /23 is not that wide, especially if we just partially block them from the Redbox article. wizzito | say hello! 01:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Good idea. P-blocked the range from the article for one week. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

User now likely active as User:EncyclopediaFixer. --Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 16:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Wow, that talk page discussion turned wild. Maybe this is some sort of LTA? The Spanish writing on some of the user talk pages reminds me of VXFC, but doesn't look like a strong link to me. — AP 499D25 (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Highly suspect LTA as well considering the switch to proxies by the vandal wizzito | say hello! 00:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Nigerian name project

There seems to be some project to add all Nigerian names to Wikipedia, based on unreliable sources (maybe centered around the wiki yorubaname.com) and without much care about our standards. I haven't been able to find any central page or responsible person though, and the number of editors and pages is quite overwhelming. While this had lead to a fair number of useful disambiguation pages, it has also produced many problematic pages, many of which I turned into redirects or have nominated for deletion. The latest example I reverted was this, turning the page about the surname Wale into a page about the first name, "a distinctive and culturally rich choice for a baby boy"...

Any help in dealing with this never-ending influx is welcome. Editors I encountered (probably a non-exhaustive list) include User:GladysJombo, User:Emmanuella643, User:Bembety, User:Halima Waziri, User:Airypedia, User:Aderiqueza, User:Tunde Akangbe, User:Abike25, ... Fram (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

All Nigerian names? Sounds pretty big. Can you give some diffs or examples? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 15:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Just check the recent contributions of these users. Ymblanter (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, or similar creations by people not even named in my original list, like Ogundele or Dupe (name). Fram (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian looked into this, and from what she found it's likely from an editathon being organized in Nigeria. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Ridzaina (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your concerns about the addition of Nigerian names to Wikipedia. I appreciate the opportunity to provide clarification regarding the project's purpose and processes and to address the points you have raised.

The primary goal of this project is to document indigenous Nigerian names on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, addressing a significant gap in representation for culturally significant names.

To ensure compliance with Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, participants have been guided to use reliable sources, such as books. The intention is not to create promotional or problematic content but to contribute meaningful and culturally significant information. As part of this effort, links to notable individuals bearing these names have been included in the articles to add context and relevance.

For the issues identified in some of the pages, the team has taken the following corrective measures:

1. Pauses the Campaign: The campaign has been temporarily paused to allow for a thorough cleanup.

2. Tracking Contributions: We are systematically tracking all the contributions from the beginning of the campaign.

3. Identify non-notable names for potential drafting or deletion under the A7 criteria.

4. Documenting for SIA: Names associated with a significant number of notable individuals, whether as surnames or given names, will be documented as an WP:SIA and categorized appropriately under Category:African given names.

I welcome your feedback and suggestions on how we can better align with Wikipedia’s guidelines and improve the quality of our contributions. Thank you once again for your input and collaboration. Cheers! Ridzaina (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:A7 doesn't apply to names. Did you use an AI to write this? jlwoodwa (talk) 05:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Nigerian English sounds like AI, ey? LOL. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ridzaina: thanks for your answer (although we much prefer answers which don't look like they were written by an AI tool). Can you please have all discussions about this project somewhere on enwiki, so others can see e.g. the instructions and chime in if these are not policy-compliant? Problems with sourcing and so on can be much more easily solved if there is a central point of discussion, and it might have avoided an ANI discussion as well. Further, I see you started removing the yorubaname.com source as an unreliable source (good), but then for unclear reasons you selfreverted this[23][24][25][26]. Why? Fram (talk) 10:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Fram. I can assure you that the ideas in the message were not generated by AI. I am the project coordinator, and I apologize for not introducing myself earlier. The message above clearly reflects the actions and decisions we have taken to address the current challenges.

Upon discovering this mention, my team and I had swung into action to address the anomalies that were discovered, even though we ensure weekly review and are constantly monitoring and updating our article list.

To ensure this discussion takes place at enwiki in order maintain transparency and promote better communication as you have proposed, could you please direct me to where the discussion can be held?

I reverted those edits to have this conversation and to confirm that it is indeed the best course of action.

Also, the primary reason I suggested A7 is that most of the names were created as articles. A7 applies to articles that lack any indication of importance, making it a suitable option. However, if there are other speedy deletion criteria that better align with the current situation, please suggest them, and we can apply them after completing the massive drafting effort we are currently undertaking to identify the faulty articles, as you can see below:

Here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abidoye

Here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramide_(name)

Here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inioluwa

Here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abodunrin Ridzaina (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy would seem a logical place, crossposting to Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria to get input from and collaboration of Nigerian editors. The first project presumably knows the standards for such articles, the second has the knowledge of and interest in Nigerian topics. And editors with concerns about the results can then post there and smoothen things out before a lot of work is wasted. Fram (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ridzaina It might be more beneficial to create a list of Nigerian names in draft space as a group. References could be added to that page, and the team of editors could take time to get it ready. You can create it at Draft:List of Nigerian names. The issue with name pages on the English wikipedia is we typically use them as navigation pages, so if there are no people with those names that have articles on wikipedia it is usually not possible to have a page on that name unless the sourcing is excellent and can pass WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 05:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this and to @Fram for starting this conversation. I will definitely work on that. The major issue now is with the referencing because most of these names have a number of people with those names that have articles on Wikipedia but there is still a need for references. However, I think what we might do is what you have just suggested. We will keep on working on how to get reliable sources for referencing once we have drafted the affected articles. Thank you. Ridzaina (talk) 08:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

In addition to the idea of the articles being (re)created as set index articles, a sourced listicle would suffice. Also, I’d suggest we hold on with nominating articles for deletion and reach a consensus and perhaps bundle those problematic articles and nominate. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC) ping on reply

User:Erobran

This user continues to add new flight service at Jorge Chávez International Airport (Turkish Airlines will start Lima to Istanbul flights in June without providing an exact date as per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. Left messages regarding and left him a link to the discussion but continues to argue and be nasty about it. 2600:1700:8544:D000:58A7:9DD1:E885:7BD4 (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Dude.

Is it you who removes useful relevant information? In doing so, it is you who is vandalizing.

the wikiproject referred to is NOT the official wikipedia rules!

the rules for wikipedia are simply that there must be a source when something is published. NOT ALL THE ELSE!

I have as much right to write as I do as you do! In addition, it is vandalism when you and the other person constantly undo my edit around a legal edit with sources!

if you also read the project it is also there. "Are not official guidelines"! Erobran (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:DR has lots of suggestions for resolving disputes. I suggest both OP and Erobran look at those.

And, Erobran, while it is natural to get upset in this situation, putting your emotions into your replies does not help, and probably hurts, the process of coming to a satisfactory resolution of an online disagreement. Please focus on the facts of the disagreement. Thank you. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

the rules for wikipedia are simply that there must be a source when something is published. No, this is completely wrong. Wikipedia has a massive number of policies and guidelines regarding what should be included, of which WP:Verifiability is only one small part. That page explicitly states that Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion and The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content (WP:VNOT). You should also read up on what WP:Vandalism is, it has a specific definition on wikipedia and mislabelling good faith edits as vandalism is going to get you into trouble. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Erobran - while I don't think this needed to be brought here (it's a bit of an escalation of a content dispute), can I suggest you take a look at WP:EW? If a bunch of people are reverting you, you need to go to the talk page and discuss your changes and get consensus for them. Don't just keep reinstating them or you'll end up blocked. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Girth Summit: User reverting at Istanbul Airport [27]. 2600:1700:8544:D000:9D0E:3239:A3E:70F8 (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Just being clear their last revert at Istanbul Airport was prior to the submission of this incident so this is part of the original reported behaviour and not new behaviour after the report, right? Simonm223 (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Correct. 2600:1700:8544:D000:58A7:9DD1:E885:7BD4 (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• I've given Erobran some advice on why edit warring to force through their preferred version of these pages is problematic. I don't think that this needs any further action immediately; their editing seems to be somewhat sporadic, but if they continue in the same vein when they resume editing feel free to ping me from here if this hasn't been archived, or report at WP:ANEW. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • What I find problematic is his blatant disregard of community guidelines. The Banner talk 13:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

    Hi again "The Banner"

    Now I have read the elaboration. I am partially right in my claim that a WikiProject does NOT define when an edit is correct or incorrect. That would give me the right to edit as I had done WITHOUT specifying a start date. (If you read several other pages about airports, a start date is also not specified) That is why I took it as personal harassment!

    However, it must be said that I have NOT approached the matter sufficiently. What I should have done was to justify the decision instead of simply reversing an edit. I will do this in the future on the talk pages instead. Erobran (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

User:176.113.180.173

Persistent WP:NOTHERE. First time doing this so don't know if I need to provide specific diffs, but you can see the page history at History of Africa. I've tried to draw them into discussion at Talk:History of Africa#November 2024, and even compromise with the changes they keep trying to make. Their edits are substantially similar to the edits of User:NutmegCoffeeTea (notification of NCT) made a couple of days before, so it might be worth a check user, but I doubt it is her. The IP is clearly taking the piss and having fun, I templated them and they just templated me back. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

notification of IP Kowal2701 (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I've not been in this situation before, and haven't found access to all the different templates to use with newbies. I don't know what I could've done differently. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

General comment:Kowal2701, in a noticeboard complaint like this one, the OP is expected to supply diffs/edits that illustrate what the problem is with the editor's conduct. Otherwise, editors have to go looking for them which will lessen the chances that you'll get much feedback here. You want to make it obvious to others what the problem is but you haven't even stated what the issue is with this account's editing by identifying what guideline or policy they are violating. Assume your fellow editor is devoting 3-5 minutes to reviewing your complaint, can they easily see what's going on here? If not, they are likely to not offer you a response.

You don't need to apologize, no one expects an editor to make a full and comprehensive report the first time they open a complaint on ANI and, if you are lucky, an editor will tell you what your report is missing. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The IP is clearly WP:not here to build an encyclopedia and keeps WP:edit warring for their preferred changes (their edits: [28][29][30][31][32]) while resisting attempts from others for collaboration (see [33]). They've been reverted by four different people (including me) for a total of 5 times (others' reverts: [34][35][36] my reverts: [37][38]). They have been templated three times by three different people (including me) for unconstructive editing, vandalism, and edit warring (see User talk:176.113.180.173).

The edits are very similar to User:NutmegCoffeeTea's made two days before which I reverted (her edits: [39][40][41][42][43][44]). I want to clarify I'm not accusing NCT of anything, I just can't ignore the similarity of their edits, and wonder whether a check user might be warranted? Kowal2701 (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

This has been resolved with the page being protected, please feel free to archive this Kowal2701 (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the report – I hope semi-protection solves the disruption for now. Checkusers won't publicly connect IP addresses to accounts, so requesting a check wouldn't result in a different answer than " No comment". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay thank you. I'll apologise to the user. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

This is very kind, thank you! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The user's response to the edit war notice on the user's talk page was to retaliate with an edit war notice on the other user's talk page. 172.56.235.58 (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Ram112313 promoting Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha

Moved from User talk:ToBeFree

 – ToBeFree (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Original heading: November 2024

This user appears to be on Wikipedia to promote their organization, as can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ram112313 They have blanked out all their warnings and blocks on their talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ram112313 I just added a final warning to their talk page. Thank you. Ram1751 (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ram1751, thanks for the notification. Which organization exactly are they promoting? Can you provide multiple examples (diffs) where that organization was added to articles? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

They are promoting Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha - many WP:OR additions (some with an overtly promotional tone) and removal of sourced material not complimentary to the organization. See diffs here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Hindu_temples_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1255906861

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindu_denominations&diff=prev&oldid=1205761794

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shri_Radhika_Krishnashtaka&diff=prev&oldid=1255480033

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swaminarayan_Akshardham_(New_Jersey)&diff=prev&oldid=1254947172

- Ram1751 (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!

I'd now like to hear a statement from Ram112313 or block for disruptively ignoring community concerns in case the editing continues without a statement being provided. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The edits to the Shri Radhika-Krishnashtaka article, as reflected in the edit history, demonstrate that the previous version was heavily skewed with a non-neutral tone, failing to align with Wikipedia's standards for balanced and unbiased content. Similarly, the changes made to the List of Hindu temples article included an incorrect claim that the Shri Ranganathaswamy Temple is larger than Swaminarayan Akshardham, which is factually inaccurate. As stated within the article itself, Swaminarayan Akshardham is indeed larger in both single structure size and hectares. Regarding the Swaminarayan Akshardham (New Jersey) edits, discussions are ongoing on the article's talk page, and no further updates have been finalized yet. Additionally, my other contributions, such as the edits to the Shikshapatri article, do not reflect any bias toward BAPS and adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. The removal of sourced material in the Desh Lekh Vibhag edits was solely due to issues such as incorrect information, dead links, or non-verifiable sources, all of which are against Wikipedia's guidelines. These edits were made to ensure the article adheres to Wikipedia's standards for reliable and verifiable content. Ram112313 (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello ChatGPT, we'll need Ram112313's own words. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

These are my own words. All I used is grammarly lol. Ram112313 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Ram112313, are you connected to Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha in any way? Do you have a conflict of interest? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Isles of Scilly edit war

86.184.52.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and Uness232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are engaged in an edit war at Isles of Scilly about climate classification. There is ongoing discussion/argument on the talk page, but it hasn't stopped the constant reversions. DuncanHill (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Uness232 is adding claims that the Scilly Islands, Bordeaux and Istanbul are "sub tropical" without providing any sources or gaining consensus on the talk page first.

Trewartha's climate classification clearly states that marine locations have to be frost-free. I've provided sources for this.

None of Uness232's claimed 'subtropical' locations are frost-free. Suggesting Scilly Islands, Bordeaux and Istanbul are 'subtropical' also defies common sense - look at the climate data for these places in winter! They are not subtropical by any definition.

I'm happy to stop editing.

But please consider the article history and the nature of Uness232's claims carefully before you pass judgment.

Allowing unsourced claims that places are "subtropical" when they are clearly not makes Wikipedia look unreliable and untrustworthy. 86.184.52.46 (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Both editors have been partially blocked from the article for 31 hours for edit warring. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to chime in here to say that there are some serious bludgeoning issues as well in the discussion beneath the RFC, which doesn't seem to meet the neutrality requirements. I'm not really sure [45] this is productive discussion behavior, and the IP editor also seems to have strangely used ChatGPT to try and prove their point? [46]. I was browsing the RfCs in the history section, as I sometimes do, and I came upon the RFC and saw the strange discussion underneath. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 07:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your observations. I’d like to take this opportunity to refocus the discussion on the core issue at hand: the addition of contentious claims without reliable sources, particularly regarding the Isles of Scilly, Bordeaux, and Istanbul being "subtropical."

=== The Onus to Provide Reliable Sources ===

Per Wikipedia's Verifiability Policy (WP

), any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable, published source. The claim that these locations are subtropical clearly falls into this category, as it has been disputed and does not align with widely accepted climate classifications. Therefore, the onus is on Unes232 to provide reliable sources that explicitly support this assertion before adding or reinstating it into the article.

=== Adherence to Established Climate Definitions ===

The Trewartha climate classification, which appears to be the framework at issue, has specific criteria. If sources (like those already provided) indicate that frost-free conditions are a requirement for a subtropical marine classification, any proposed subtropical designation must align with this criterion. Otherwise, it constitutes original research, which is prohibited under Wikipedia's No Original Research Policy (WP

).

=== Consensus and Edit Warring ===

Unes232’s additions should have been discussed on the talk page prior to being added to the article, as required by WP

. This ensures that claims are properly evaluated by multiple editors before becoming part of the mainspace. Instead, repeated unsourced edits have led to edit warring, which disrupts collaboration.

=== Maintaining Wikipedia’s Credibility ===

Allowing poorly sourced or unsourced claims to remain damages Wikipedia’s reputation as a reliable reference. Per WP

, climate-related claims must be sourced from peer-reviewed literature, expert publications, or other authoritative sources. None of the disputed claims meet this standard, and relying on "common sense" or vague reasoning does not substitute for verifiable evidence.

=== Addressing the RFC and Discussion Tone ===

While I understand concerns about the RFC’s neutrality or discussion behaviour, these issues are secondary to ensuring that the article adheres to Wikipedia's core content policies. As editors, we are all responsible for improving articles, which includes removing unsourced or poorly sourced material and focusing discussions on the policies and evidence at hand.

I respectfully suggest that we redirect efforts toward sourcing robust, verifiable evidence for any disputed claims. If no reliable source can be found, the material cannot remain in the article. This is not about “winning” an argument but upholding Wikipedia's standards and credibility. 86.184.52.46 (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

This is ANI, which is about editor conduct, not content. Also considering the fact that you used ChatGPT as a source, I kinda heavily suspect this is AI Generated... Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. While I appreciate your input, I’d like to refocus on the actual issues here: proper sourcing, adherence to Wikipedia policies, and the conduct surrounding these edits.

=== The Core Issue: Unsourced Material and Policy Violations ===

The main concern is that Unes232 has repeatedly added unsourced material to the article, claiming the Isles of Scilly, Bordeaux, and Istanbul are subtropical under Trewartha classification. These additions:

• Lack reliable sources.
• Contradict existing sourced material, which defines subtropical regions under Trewartha as requiring frost-free conditions.
• Constitute original research if derived from editor interpretation rather than explicitly published material.

Furthermore, repeatedly re-adding contentious material without building consensus on the talk page violates WP policies.

. This pattern disrupts collaboration and undermines Wikipedia’s credibility.

=== Personal Attack and False Allegation ===

Your accusation of "using ChatGPT as a source" is both false and unsubstantiated. It is inappropriate to suggest that an editor’s arguments are invalid based on unfounded claims about how they were generated. This amounts to a personal attack, which detracts from constructive discussion and violates Wikipedia’s principles of respectful collaboration. Please focus on addressing the arguments and evidence presented rather than speculating about motives or methods.

=== Editor Conduct and ANI ===

This discussion is indeed about editor conduct. In this case, the conduct at issue is not the IP editor’s but rather Unes232’s repeated addition of unsourced material and removal of sourced content. These actions go against core content policies and have directly caused the edit war. My actions have been focused on enforcing Wikipedia’s guidelines by removing unsourced claims and ensuring that disputed content is backed by verifiable evidence.

=== Moving Forward ===

To resolve this, we must ensure that all claims about the Isles of Scilly's climate are:

1. Based on reliable, verifiable sources.
2. Added only after reaching consensus on the talk page.
3. Evaluated against established policies.

I invite all editors to focus on these principles and avoid personal attacks or unfounded accusations. Wikipedia thrives on collaborative, policy-driven discussions, and adhering to these standards will help us improve the article constructively. 86.184.52.46 (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Please stop writing essays with ChatGPT. qcne (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

86.184, please consider this an only warning: If you continue posting LLM boilerplate here (or at the article talk page [47][48], or in any other discussion venue) in lieu of actually engaging with your fellow editors, I will impose a sitewide block. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Blablubbs more LLM boilerplate posted here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, AirshipJungleman29. Blocked one week. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Ustadeditor2011

Ustadeditor2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is repeatedly disrupting content at All We Imagine as Light. Among other changes, they are continuously suppressing a limited theatrical release date that is supported by reliable sources and claiming the release never occurred, providing no sources to back their claim. I opened a talk page discussion for consensus-building and have repeatedly warned them against restoring their desired versions to the article. They have ignored all warnings and continued to edit the page back to their version. They initially reverted my reversion by claiming to be reverting vandalism when the edits are not vandalism. They were previously warned by Toddy1 about making such claims, as well as receiving many other warnings about disruptive behavior and attacking users. Their previous behavior prompted an AN discussion which resulted in a partial block.

I have warned them against edit warring on their talk page here, same here, here and here. I have also warned them against edit warring in my reversion here and repeatedly in discussion at Talk:All We Imagine as Light#Re: edits by Ustadeditor2011, to no avail. After a final user talk warning in which I very clearly appealed for them to utilise the talk page of the article to demonstrate that their claims are verifiable by way of being supported by reliable sources and I requested that they not change the article without getting consensus first, they balked and reinstated their preferred version for the fifth time. Jon698 once again reverted these edits. Οἶδα (talk) 06:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Οἶδα: If he/she is edit warring, it would be better to close this report and make a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Such a report would require diffs showing that they were repeatedly reverting other editor's edits. -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Toddy1: I did not report this user at the edit warring noticeboard because their four reverts were performed in a 1-day 19-hour period. I figured that it would not qualify as being "just outside" the 24-hour period as stated at WP:3RR. Οἶδα (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Both the above and Talk:All We Imagine as Light#Re: edits by Ustadeditor2011 suggested that your complaint was that he/she was edit-warring.

Ustadeditor2011 made an initial edit^[49] and four reverts^{[50][51][52][53]} on the issue of the Indian release date in the infobox between 16 and 19 November. Talk:All We Imagine as Light#India release date is clear evidence that in addition to making reverts, he/she has used the article talk page to discuss the issue with you and Jon698. My advice is that if he/she continues reverting over that issue, then go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. And if he/she does not, then the problem has solved itself.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Concerns Over Negative Content on Bunq Article and Potential Promotion of N26

"There seems to be an ongoing edit war on the Bunq page, with new autoconfirmed editors such as @Snarkyalyx, @Partydoos, and @Partylix making frequent changes. Despite reverting there changes and explaining other stuff exists. These editors doesn't seem concerned. Pridemanty (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Notices which Pridemanty overlooked have been placed, including to Partlyx whose username is misspelt above. Cabayi (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

As I've mentioned to an admin, for the record:

There's weird editing behaviour happening and me and other editors do believe there are users being paid for editing. I removed what I believe was puffery and re-introduced a removed controversy section. After I did that, a new user "Partlyx" was created to seemingly cause confusion; that user seems to be a combination of my name and the username of the person who first introduced a controversies section under "Partydoos". User Pridemarty keeps edit warring, committing changes to the page instead of properly discussing it with others.

Pridemanty responding "While highlighting achievements is important, it shouldn’t cross into promotional language or create unwarranted hype, as seen with terms like ‘landmark’ or ‘innovative’ without proper context." is extremely weird because I was there to remove that while they reverted my changes. They clearly don't read what I said, nor the contents of my edits. I believe there's COI.

Imo, there's a few giveaways that the article is written by Bunq themselves like citing where an info comes from in the body text.

Pridemanty has ignored many warnings and different editors asking for a proper discussion in the talk page.

It's also good to look at the talk page that points out other suspicious things about Pridemanty.to highlight: Snarkyalyx (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

to add, the whole N26 thing entirely came from the suspected sock puppet account of Pridemanty Snarkyalyx (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I would like to point out User talk:Partlyx where both Partlyx and Pridemanty wrote a comment in an unusual way, with "quotation marks" around the whole comment. I am completely unfamiliar with sockpuppet investigations and do not want to accuse anyone of sockpuppetry, but I wanted to mention this for others here. win8x (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I've noticed this as well a few hours ago upon taking a glance at their user talk page. This compounds with the suspiciously close edit/revert times between 1258369954 (Partlyx) and the following 1258369979 (Pridemanty), only 20 seconds apart. With the usual latencies in MediaWiki (incl. watched page notifications), this seems too short to be organic. ElementW (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Pridemanty, can you link to the article you are talking about? And what is N26? You have named editors but haven't provided any context of diffs for other editors to review. You're not going to get a lot of response if you don't better explain what the problem is and provide examples of problematic editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Liz The article is just Bunq. I'll leave the other questions to Pridemanty. win8x (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you, win8x, it looks like there has been a lot of edit-warring on this article today and now it is protected and editing is limited to extended-confirmed editors. This might serve to quiet things down for a while. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  One notable issue with this protection is that Pridemanty is an extended-confirmed user that has been engaging in continued warring, deleting a Talk-disputed "Controversies" section that was WP:QUO even after it was restored by another XC user on multiple occasions (1, 2-2). Considering their refusal to meaningfully engage in resolution on the talk page, this might not be sufficient. ElementW (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• I'm a bit confused as to the why the filer is stating that anyone here is directly promoting N26, which has had one revision (changing "Berlin, Germany" to "Berlin") since July. That feels like a bit of a stretch. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  I (and Snarkyalyx) highly suspect that now banned user Partlyx, who authored the only revision mentioning it, is a sockpuppet of Pridemanty, who would be trying to use the reference to N26 as a red herring to discredit the entire sequence of edits that led up to this. That seems like a reasonable explanation as to why they insist so much on it. ElementW (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  As I said above, I also believe this. I do not think Pridemanty was checked during Snarkyalyx's SPI investigation (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Snarkyalyx, filed by Pridemanty), which is why it was inconclusive. Pinging @Izno as the CheckUser who investigated. win8x (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  No, I did not check the filer. Izno (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  Alright that's what I thought. Thanks, the comments by other users confused me. win8x (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the precision. Could it be possible to check them as well as this, from my perspective, is a retaliatory SPI, and if I understand WP:BOOMERANG correctly you should have checked them too. ElementW (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  That's not how I think it works. SPI investigations are something else, evidence is needed, and there was no evidence of socking by them. WP:BOOMERANG doesn't apply (at least that's what I think). win8x (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  I strongly suspect that WikiFirm WikiBusiness, is involved in adding controversies using multiple accounts. While a recent SPI (Sockpuppet Investigation) didn't reveal technical similarities, it’s highly likely they are employing advanced technical measures to avoid detection.Pridemanty (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  The very fact that you are the one insisting on the removal of sourced controversies and the re-introduction of clear puffery under the virtue of "WP:ATTACK" - Puffery like "landmark court case" which is text that only ever comes up on bunq's websites press section here; where some of the comments you have written also show up as 100% ChatGPT generated in detectors (although they may be unrelated), and as an extended user engaging in an edit war instead of properly discussing this (when I asked you to multiple times!) - now accusing me of "meat-puppetry" even though my friend never touched the actual article - I doubt I am the one being paid. Your primary goal has constantly been removing negative press, even if sourced according to WP:RS Snarkyalyx (talk) 10:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  I feel like I'm getting to be a parrot but I will, once again, reiterate that I have no idea who these other editors are and I'm only involved in this because I don't like it when editors attempt to white wash pages. Also: we're also all still waiting for a proper explanation as to why Pridemanty wants the entire controversy section removed. Constablequackers (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Reid Kennedy and probably competence problem

Reid Kennedy (talk · contribs) created autobio on their userpage twice, however, their contested on their talk page seemed all a mess. And they have showed an attitude of WP:IDHT and possible inclining of didn't want to comply with the rules of Wikipedia:Autobiography, I tried to invite them to WP:TH for help, but they replied with

Actually, less of any kind of academic question whatsoever.
This is well-researched, boldly presented, and thorough in its revelation of this young man's life and work.

-Lemonaka 11:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

We appear to have edited in response to this at two different pages Lemonaka. I added a level 3 warning which reflects where we're at in my opinion. I have little doubt that Reid Kennedy (talk · contribs) is rapidly heading towards a WP:NOTHERE block but not just yet. He may yet show the wisdom of the supreme court justice he claims to be. Cabayi (talk) 11:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Mm, took a swing at it myself on his talk page. We'll see how it goes. (sighs) Someday I'll figure out the motivation of those who are perpetually astonished that (a) rules exist, and (b) applies to Them!. Ravenswing 13:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• I've indeffed the user. Ridiculous tripe and then combative about the propriety of the garbage he created.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes that was a spectacular load of garbage wasn't it. I just had to go and read it. Canterbury Tail talk 19:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks a little bit like Chat-gpt generated replies. Anyway, good block. -Lemonaka 05:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Would TPA revoking be warranted? The user's entire edit history, aside from the attempt to create that user page, was to try to argue one's way into making that page on the user's talk page. 172.56.235.58 (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@172.56.235.58 no further edits, no action needed. -Lemonaka 03:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Violating the five pillars of Wikipedia

Dear administrators, I was redirected here from Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring by DatGuy.

Using repeated words against me like "dumb user", "trolling", "Complete nonsense" and "rude user", violates the fourth rule of the five pillars of Wikipedia.

I explained the editing of the article with these words: "SD does not meet the criteria. Tagging Adolphus79 who explained it here. The user has already been blocked from editing Yarden Gerbi due to continuous edit wars. His request to delete a video in commons was also declined."

The right step was to avoid edit warring. User:זור987 has not had ownership upon any article nor any Wikipedia. I am eligible to write any article I wish, which meets the criteria of that WP. Blaming me writing articles of any kind is also against the five pillars.

Dovno, who was a bureaucrat in the He WP, has already warned זור987 from editing Alex Fridman and Disabled, Not Half a Human Being in Hebrew, as shown here. Here I add that זור987 proposed "Disabled, Not Half a Human Being" for deletion in the En WP.
זור987 also put a notability template upon "Disabled, Not Half a Human Being" in the He WP, but was declined.

Erez Da Drezner meets the WP:NMODEL #1 and #2 criteria. The article describes visits of Da Drezner in two different hospitals in Ukraine, and his other deeds. The article also was written in February 5, 2021 and has not to be speedy deleted in 2024.

Therefore, I ask to block זור987, or at least block him from editing this article and its talk page. Thank you, --DgwTalk 13:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Dorian Gray Wild, tracking, stalking and rude to me all over the Wiki. Every edit that I doing on his articles, resulting in his revertings and now, he treating me with blocking about legitimate things that I've done in the Hebrew Wikipedia.

I think that someone needs to ask in Wikimedia to globally block this user. זור987 (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

OK so this is *not* the appropriate venue to discuss edit conflicts on Hebrew Wikipedia. The only thing I'll note is that this AfD looks malformed. I'd suggest going and fixing it so that it's properly indexed. Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I have fixed the AfD nomination but have not investigated its merits. TSventon (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Simonm223, the words "a dumb user", "trolling", "Complete nonsense" and "This rude user" as well as "rude to me" were written by זור987 in the En WP, not in the He WP.

I was not rude to זור987, as I did not use any incorrect word.

I did not stalk anybody. FastilyBot notified me the speedy deletion, which was not legal as indicated here.

זור987's thought that "someone needs to ask in Wikimedia to globally block this user" is not legal neither, because he did not notify my talk page. DgwTalk 14:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

A 2-way i-ban might be a good remedy here. Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

User:זור987 needs to provide evidence (from enwiki) of his claims here to see if there is anything sanctionable in User:Dorian Gray Wild's edits. But the reverse is obvious, User:זור987 needs at the very least a strong warning, for things like this edit summary (they aren't supposed to reinstate a Prod tag either, but that's just something that needs explaining). And looking at the editor interactions on enwiki[54], there are only two articles where they have both edited, and in both cases the articles were created by Dorian Gray Wild and he was followed there by זור987. So it looks like זור987's claims that Dorian is "tracking, stalking and rude to me all over the Wiki." is (at least on enwiki) a rather blatant attempt to reverse reality. No two-way interaction ban is warranted here, the behaviour of only one participant is a real issue apparently. Fram (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Dorian Gray Wild have a history in the Hebrew Wikipedia of being rude, threatening, stalking and tracking users including me. Hence he is blocked permanently there, including his talk page. Matanya even globally blocked him.

After the user managed to dodge his global locking, he continued to stalk and track me even here, including Erez Da Drezner, where he tried to cancel the purposed deletion of it, by removing the template. Since he have no any administrator right to do so, I reverted his action. He generally have a tendency to write article about the disability in Israel, including persons and organizations which mostly don't have any encyclopedic importance outside the Hebrew Wikipedia. In the case of Erez Da Drezner, this person don't have an article in the Hebrew Wikipedia and have no important achievements, and because of this, I think Dorian should be globally blocked once again. Unfortunately, Matanya is no longer a dale in Wikimedia, and there are no other Hebrew speaking dales in Wikimedia, which can help me. זור987 (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

"he continued to stalk and track me even here, including Erez Da Drezner": you are quite liberal with the truth here. He created that article, and you are the one that "stalked and tracked" them on enwiki (in both articles where you both edited). Every editor has the right to remove a Proposed deletion, you don't need to be an admin to do so, and no one may normally reinstate it. We will not locally block anyone for writing a perfectly normal about a person who doesn't have a Hebrew Wikipedia article and may or may not be really notable, nor for being stalked and insulted by you, and not even for being blocked on Hebrew Wikipedia. Admins here may block you though, for stalking, insulting, and trying to place the blame for this on someone else even when this is pointed out to you. Fram (talk) 11:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

There are tons of things in the English Wikipedia which I don't know about them, because they are false in the Hebrew Wikipedia. זור987 (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Then you need to learn our policies here, or stick to Hebrew Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Fram for your words.

זור987 stalked me everywhere, and followed an AfD in the It WP. They claimed that "Disabled, Not Half a Human Being" was not exist in Italian. Afterwards, he changed "Disabled, Not Half a Human Being" into "נכה, לא חצי בן אדם" in the En WP. How could the English reader read the words "נכה, לא חצי בן אדם" in the middle of the En article? זור987 could put a ref, stating that it was not an official name in English. It really does not matter anyone. Let us read an article about a Brazilian organization whose name is Brazilian Association for Self-Defense. Is it the official name in English? No source supports it.

Furthermore, the article said clearly that it was a slogan. How could זור987 claim "No official names for Alex Fridman association in other languages" for a slogan? It is almost vandalism.

I ask the administrators to block זור987 from any interaction with articles which I created. If זור987 sees something which bothers him, he may consult another editor, and that editor will think about it. --DgwTalk 22:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Propose one-way Interaction Ban between זור987 and Dorian Gray Wild

It is clear that זור987 has been stalking Dorian Gray Wild on enwiki, and to make matters worse claims the eaxct opposite in the face of all the evidence. While only enwiki behaviour is really important for an enwiki sanction, it does look like they have been following Dorian Gray Wild to other sister projects as well[55]. Coupled with the blatant personal attacks, I see no reason to let זור987 continue to make any edits related to Dorian Gray Wild or the articles Dorian has edited. As Dorian Gray Wild has done nothing wrong towards זור987, there is no reason to make this a two-way ban, but obviously it would be best if they leave זור987 alone on enwiki. Fram (talk) 09:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support clearly disruptive behaviour supported with flimsy excuses. Not good enough. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Lingayat Vani

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

---

Report against: User:PerspicazHistorian article: Lingayat Vani

@Daniel Case, Bradv, Vanamonde93, Ekdalian, and Bobby Cohn:

The user created two article for same topic he is not a good faith editor please check below, how he manipulated Lingayat related article, he was blocked multiple times for his edit war, he is accusing other editors who removed his content as vandals,

• Draft:Lingayat Vani (caste) this article was created on 23 May 2024 by him, it was rejected by User:Bobby Cohn on 4 September 2024.

• The user created another article about same topic Lingayat Vani on 10 July 2024.

The Lingayat Vani is still not reviewed but it is indexed on search engine.

He created this article by adding some bullshit to his previous draft , from other unrelated article content, so that his Lingayat Vani article will become a well cited article, so he can promote his Hindutva agenda by calling other editors as Vandals .😂

I will give you some examples why the article is not related to Lingayat Vani

Infobox

• heraldic_title:Appa, Rao, Desai Both ref doesn't mentiones such titles
• population: 8.5 to 10 Million in Maharashtra the ref is about estimated total Lingayats in Maharashtra, if total Lingayats in Maharashtra is 8.5 to 10 Million than how can the subcaste also have same population ?

Lead

The Lingayat Vani community (marathi: लिंगायत वाणी) is an Indo-Aryan ethnolinguistic group who are native to Maharashtra in western India. They belong to Veershaiv sect of Hindu Shaivism and are also referred to as Veershaiv-Lingayat Vanik or Lingayat Balija or Vira Banajiga or Bir Vanigas. The name Vani is derived from the Sanskrit word 'Vanijya' which means trade.The Vira Banajigas were a trading caste. His own doctoral thesis WP:NOR

They rejected the custodial hold of Brahmins over Vedas and shastras but did not outright reject the Vedic knowledge. They worship all gods and believe them to be a form of Shiva only. The 13th-century Telugu Virashaiva poet Palkuriki Somanatha, the author of the scripture of Lingayatism, for example asserted, "Virashaivism fully conformed to the Vedas and the shastras." He copied this content from Lingayatism#Vedas and shastras without attribution, WP:ATTREQ

• Shiva article mentions history, mythology etc... can we copy Shiva article into every Temples articles of Shiva, does it make any sense?,
• Indian constitution is applicable to every place of India, can we copy Indian constitution into every state , district, city, villeges articles of India, because they follow same constitution. does it make any sense?
• The same logic applies here also no need this paragraph. It is not exclusive for Lingayat vani, Lingayat vani is just sub caste of Lingayatism

Origin

Starting in the thirteenth century, inscriptions referring to "Vira Balanjyas" (warrior merchants) started appearing in the Andhra country. The Vira Balanjyas represented long-distance trading networks that employed fighters to protect their warehouses and goods in transit.

These traders formed collectives called pekkandru and differentiated themselves from other collectives called nagaram, which probably represented Komati merchants. The pekkandru collectives also included members of other communities with status titles Reddy, Boya and Nayaka.

• The above content is copied from Balija#Origins,
• how it is related to Lingayat Vani, why he added it into lingayat vani.

The Five Hundred guild, known as Ayyavole in Kannada, Ayyavolu in Telugu, Aryarupa in Sanskrit operated in Southern India and Southeast Asia. They became more powerful under the Cholas. They were protectors of the Veera-Banaju-Dharma, that is, law of the heroic or noble merchants. The Bull was their symbol which they displayed on their flag; and they had a reputation for being daring and enterprising.

• The above content is copied from Five Hundred Lords of Ayyavolu lead section 2nd paragraph,
• how it is relevant to Lingayat Vani? Why he added random content to Lingayat Vani

A rock shaped like an axe on the Malaprabha river bank north of the Aihole village in karnataka is associated with the legend of Parashurama, the sixth Vishnu avatar, who is said to have washed his axe here after killing abusive Kshatriyas who were exploiting their military powers, giving the land its red colour. A 19th-century local tradition believed that rock footprints in the river were those of Parashurama.

• This above content is copy from Aihole#History second paragraph.
• how it is relevant to Lingayat Vani? Why he added random content to Lingayat Vani

Varna Status

The Vira Banajigas were a trading community. Historians like Velcheru Narayana Rao and Sanjay Subrahmanyam noted that the emergence of this right-hand caste as trader-warrior-kings in the Nayaka period is a consequence of conditions of new wealth produced by collapsing two varnas, Kshatriya and Vaishya into one.

• The above contact is copied from Balija#Varna status
• how it is relevant to Lingayat Vani? Why he added random content to Lingayat Vani

After being placed in the shudra category in the 1881 census, Veershaivas demanded a higher caste status. Lingayats persisted in their claims for decades. In 1926, the Bombay High Court ruled that "the Veerashaivas are not Shudras."

• copy from second paragraph of Lingayatism#Varna-status debates (19th–20th century)

RI ^talk 17:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Sources

What admin action are you looking for here? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, just want to clarify, are you saying that this editor is a sock-puppet of a blocked editor? Because most of this is just suggesting that Lingayat Vani should face and AfD for pervasive WP:SYNTH issues. Simonm223 (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Appears to be a sock, now blocked. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

1)The article clearly talks about Lingayat Vani community. I don't know how it is "hindutva agenda". I there is personal commentary going on then @RationalIndia is promoting his "communist" agenda.

2) If there is any error in the article, it should be discussed in the talk page and if necessary justifiably edited, rather than abruptly deleting the whole article.

3)If I stop a person from pushing his POV on a debatable topic, what's wrong in it.

4)The article contains many other information that do not exist on any wiki page and is pure research.

4)Those information copied from other wiki pages are just brief on that topic not the whole thing copy pasted.

5)"Lingayat Vani" is a legitimate topic that cannot be included in "lingayatism" article as they represent more than just "lingayats".

6) The user @RationalIndia has edited many articles relating to "lingayats" and pushing his POV everywhere despite the topic being still under debate in India. He also engaged in edit war by repeatedly deleting the whole Veerashaiva page and redirecting it to "lingayatism" despite it still being under debate between various scholars whether both are same or not. https://www.wionews.com/india-news/difference-between-veerashaivas-and-lingayats-36608

7)This is to clarify to all the administrators having their attention on the topic that I am a good faith editor, actively making Wikipedia a better experience. I look forward to coordinate in any manner to make the article Lingayat Vani better and useful for the readers.

8)Kindly also look into the issue of Veerashaiva redirects. The page needs to be brought back to avoid POV pushed by an editor by deleting an article which has been there since 2004.

Thank You to all respected Administrators. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@RationalIndiaThe paragraphs mentioned by you here are old version of the article. Every topic is well researched in the article. Most of the content were edited after discussion on the talk page of Lingayat Vani. They why putting it in noticeboard wasting time of administrators just to prove your point? PerspicazHistorian (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@PerspicazHistorian: Hi, RationalIndia cannot respond to you because they've been blocked by Ponyo as a sockpuppet. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Pickersgill-Cunliffe @Ponyo @Bradv , Wikipedia needs active administrators like you all. I appreciate that. Thank You ! PerspicazHistorian (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppets never seem to learn that they shouldn't post complaints on noticeboards. It's like putting your face on a billboard on a busy highway. You're going to be scrutinized. But it seems to happen over and over again on ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I seem to be getting unnecessary emails and pings. While I don't pretend to have an understanding of limiting talk page access and don't mind the pings as they're on-wiki, surely there's no need to be emailing me about this issue? Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk page abuse: User:DARealMrBeast

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

---

User:DARealMrBeast is abusing their talk page after block. See Special:Diff/1258455487 and Special:Diff/1258455951. --Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 21:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Floquenbeam (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

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

EX Centre from Star Avenue 2018

EX Centre from Star Avenue 2018 (talk · contribs · count) uploaded a number of low quality images on Commons. When a DR (Commons' version of FfD) was opened for those files, the user started replacing currently in use files on this and other projects with their [lower quality/less relevant] ones, then suggesting the files they just removed be deleted instead of their own uploads. We take a dim view of that on Commons and Yann, a fellow Commons admin, blocked them on that project for two weeks, but since a lot of the recent edits are here, I figured I'd let the admins here know and let y'all decide if it warrants a block here as well. Cheers, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Revoke talk page access for Clioos

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

---

Clioos (talk · contribs · count) has been making disruptived edits at their talk page, including insults and posting a fake approved unblock request. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done. PhilKnight (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Creation of (apparent) hoaxes about Indian politics

An SPI was opened into the conduct of RAGULVARMA PRABHU (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks), who was using several accounts to create hoaxes about Indian politicians, but it was closed with no action taken, since the accounts were used sequentially, and were not used for block evasion. I come here instead of SPI because no blocks have been issued toward any of the accounts, meaning that there still is technically no violation of the policy, despite the continuing use of even more accounts (see Special:Contributions/RMD1999) to create more hoax articles and drafts. JJP_Master (she/they) 02:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, JJP, can you link to any of these "hoax articles"? You haven't provided much here to investigate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: Sorry for the oversight, here are some examples:

• Draft:P.RAGULVARMA
• Rmr. Ragulvarma (currently at AfD)
• Draft:RAGULVARMA PRABHU (G3'd)
• Draft:RAGULVARMA PMK
• User:RMR2004/sandbox (G3'd)
• DEEPA RAGULVARMA (A7'd)
• PMK RAGULVARMA (A10'd)

One recurring theme is that the articles usually transclude a section from Gummidipoondi Assembly constituency showing real election results, that do not include the people the articles are about as candidates. JJP_Master (she/they) 03:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, JJP, this helps a lot. When I get time tonight, I'll look through the deleted ones. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: RMD1999 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) has now begun to rapidly submit drafts that are copy-pastes of articles about real Indian politicians. JJP_Master (she/they) 04:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

As the original SPI filer I would not say these are clear and not just apparent hoaxes. The content is has based on other actual politicians, they keep claiming to be part of the fictitious "DIRACTOR OF MINISTRY" and the images are AI hoaxes. File:RAGULVARMA PRABHU.png and File:RAGULVARMA PRABHU.jpg have been flagged as obvious fakes over on commons (edit:just been deleted). Lastly not a single source in any of the hoaxes I've reviewed has even mentioned the subject. KylieTastic (talk) 12:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Other example hoaxes: Draft:P RAGULVARMA, Draft:RMR RAGULVARMA, Draft:PMK RAGULVARMA, User:RMD1999/sandbox KylieTastic (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

They have just created yet another hoax article Ragulvarma Prabhu M.K. KylieTastic (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I've just tagged RAGULVARMA P M as db-hoax, editor from same SPI. Wikishovel (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

So RAGULVARMA, Draft:RAGULVARMA PRABHU MK and Draft:Deepa Ragulvarma all created today by RMR2004 active 15th-21st so now overlapping with RMD1999 active 19th-20th so definitely socking, as well as getting away with creating endless hoaxes and wasting lots of editors time. KylieTastic (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked @RMR2004 as NOT HERE and @RMD1999 as a sockpuppet of RMR2004. If another admin disagrees feel free to unblock/take other actions. Sohom (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Sohom — Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure about closing this yet as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RAGULVARMA PRABHU/Archive has yet to be resolved. But it looks like all of the contributions from this sockfarm have been deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Gwillhickers spouting COVID vaccine conspiracism

Gwillhickers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making disruptive conspiratorial arguments against COVID vaccines at Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.#Substituting one conspiracy theory for another?. They either need to agree to respect WP:IDHT and desist, or otherwise be topic banned from the topic of COVID vaccines. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

They have previously been warned about incivility at ANI, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1131#Incivility from Gwillhickers Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I have been distinctly reminded of something similar happening with another long-term editor way in the past. I annoyingly can't remember the name, something like wikiencyclopediaman? But they went full conspiracy as well and doubled down in the ANI thread about it. Silverseren^C 04:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Silver seren, perhaps you are thinking of User:Wikid77, an editor who took advantage for years of the open door policy at User talk:Jimbo Wales, where they made over 2000 posts that descended deeper and deeper into overt racism with little if any pushback from Jimbo Wales. It finally reached a breaking point and I indefinitely blocked that racist troll in 2018. Cullen328 (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Gwillhickers often pushes fringe views but I've never seen them not back down once it becomes clear that consensus is against them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

An administrator has left a contentious subject notice on the editor's talk page. I suggest we close this thread and if it becomes a problem to take it directly to AE. TFD (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

AI-generated articles by Tatar Russian

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

---

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

Tatar Russian has created eight drafts that were accepted and moved to mainspace:

• Mongol Conquest of the Caucasus
• Mongol invasion of the lands of the Abaza and Circassians
• Arab invasion of Abasgia
• Timur's invasion of Circassia and Abazgia
• Battle of Kyzburun
• Circassian feudal wars
• Circassian expeditions in Astrakhan
• Military campaigns of Temryuk Idar

They have also created ten pages that are still in draftspace:

• Draft:Battle of Pecherniki Oak Forests
• Draft:Crimean-Circassian War (1558–1561)
• Draft:Great War against the Crimean Expansion
• Draft:Timur's campaign against the Abaza and Circassians
• Draft:Northern Caucasus Policy of the Crimean Khanate
• Draft:Battle of Farce (1841)
• Draft:Dagestani campaign against Kabardia
• Draft:Circassian-Kumyk Wars
• Draft:Karcha's Movement
• Draft:Circassian raids on Karachai and Balkars

These all appear to have been AI-generated, and beyond the tone issues, I think they may be factually incorrect. The citations are mostly in Cyrillic, which makes them hard to verify, but the few non-Cyrillic citations seem to be mostly hallucinated. For example, Mongol Conquest of the Caucasus cites:

• Ibragimov, I.G. (2011). "Aguls' Struggle with Tatar-Mongol Invaders in the First Half of the XIII Century". North Caucasus Regional Studies. 3: 35–36. I couldn't find any indication online that either the author or the journal exists.
• Gutnov, F.Kh. (2010). Mongolian Campaigns to the North Caucasus. Vol. 6. Кавказский сборник. p. 32. At least the author does seem to exist, but the article does not, and Кавказский сборник was published from 1876 to 1912.
• Rubruk, William of (1957). "Journey to the Eastern Countries". Publications of the Academy of Sciences. Moscow: 88–95. This is just impossible – William of Rubruk died several centuries ago.

Given this, I think we should presume that the harder-to-verify parts are also hallucinated. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

These should all just be deleted, and the creator blocked for AI abuse. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

This remind me of a previous banned user. PlanespotterA320 (talk · contribs), and their username alerted me. Is there anyone who want to done a check? -Lemonaka 05:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Blablubbs@Tamzin Since who may be familiar with the banned one. -Lemonaka 05:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we should ping the AFC reviewers who okayed these articles and get their opinions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Good idea. @Robert McClenon, Memer15151, and Ratnahastin: Please see above. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for the misunderstanding, I accidentally brought the wrong literature. It won't happen again Tatar Russian (talk) 09:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Genuinely curious about what you mean by "wrong literature" – do these works actually exist somewhere? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, in the Russian archives Tatar Russian (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a link to any of the three sources mentioned above? Not necessarily the full text, just a mention of the publications in the relevant journals would be enough to confirm that they exist. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

see what the joke is, I have reliable sources, why should my articles be deleted and then block me? I follow the rules of Wikipedia and I didn't break anything Tatar Russian (talk) 12:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Vandalism at Battle of Yultong

Request block of IPs and page protection due to persistent vandalism: [56], [57] and [58]. thanks Mztourist (talk) 07:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Since it was rotating IP accounts, I've semi-protected this article for two weeks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Mztourist (talk) 10:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Ethiopian Epic Refusal to Discuss Edits

I posted a thread earlier about @user:Ethiopian Epic [59]. It was then decided that nothing wrong was done yet. Now EE has started an edit war and refuses to use the talk page, despite being requested multiple times by myself. Ethiopian Epic claims their edits were explained in the edit summaries. However, the summaries are vague[60], or don't apply[61]. Parts of the revert was part of an earlier dispute with another user, and goes against the sources. Most of the reverts I just don't understand. I have been researching the topic and there are different views expressed by different sources, and I am still trying to figure out which the current scholarship is.

I posted a warning about edit warring on EE's talk page[62]. EE responded with a warning on my page.[63] EE also received a warning from @user:Hemiauchenia [64]. EE's edits on Samurai continue to be much larger than any other edit EE has made. Most of EE's other edits were reverted by other users.[65] Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't help thinking this is connected to our latest CTOP area although their edits so far have been disconnected enough I'm not comfortable giving them an alert. Nil Einne (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I suspect there might be a connection, but without better evidence, I suggest handling it as if Ethiopian Epic is a new user who doesn't understand how things work. I don't know how to collaborate with an editor who refuses to use the talk page and thinks two word edit summaries are enough explanation for large reverts. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I have invited them to come discuss their edits on ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to let you know, Epic responded on my talk page.[66] Is this usual behaviour for new editors? Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Why are you moving the goalposts? You said I refused to discuss edits but that's not true I made a section. I just want to improve the article. Ethiopian Epic (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not moving goalposts. You made a large revert and I have asked you to discuss it on Talk:Samurai, which you still haven't done, despite you posting a message on my talk page asking me to discuss this issue there. Granted, once you post there, I might have more questions. That really isn't what is meant by "moving the goalposts." It should be clear that an explanation of your revert is the first step. Please read wp:communicate. Thank you. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I am trying a new approach. I removed just the line that has already been disputed and linked to the discussion. I have already linked to this discussion area on EE's talk page, so I am not sure it will work. I have also added more sources to support my position. I have already had to deal with one editor on this page, where I had the feeling that I was putting a lot more work into answering his challenges, then he was in making them. The article needs a lot of work and it is frustrating when one doesn't know why things are being reverted. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Promotional editing and IDHT

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

---

I would like to bring the behavior of User:Sarim Wani to the attention of administrators for review. This user, who has been editing for only three months, has been repeatedly disregarding community advice and attempting to apply his monopoly over several topics. Despite advice from numerous editors, including administrators, he continues to stick on certain subjects, and tries to give a justification. Notably, the article about "Mission Swaraj," a term popularised by YouTuber Dhruv Rathee.

• Key Concerns:

1. Disregard for Advice: Despite receiving detailed and valuable advice from experienced editors, including DoubleGrazing, who took significant time to guide him about notability criteria and proper article creation, he continues to disregard him. For example: WP:Teahouse participants advised him to create a subsection on Dhruv Rathee's page instead of creating a standalone article, as the topic lacks independent reliable sources (infact the subject doesn't have even one reliable source). Despite thanking DoubleGrazing for their guidance, he continues trying creating standalone content on "Mission Swaraj" (which literally doesn't have even one independent, reliable source). Here's the link to the Teahouse discussion where this was addressed, it is with the Topic named "Promotional Material in Mission Swaraj" at the bottom.

2. Promotional Content: The user's drafts and articles frequently contain promotional material, which violates Wikipedia's policy against promotional editing and he has been told about this several times but continues to do so and that is why is suspected of using Chat Bots for article creation. This can be seen here and in his userpage and talk page, the use of non-independent sources like YouTube videos (from the same channel), Twitter, and other unreliable platforms. A complete absence of independent, reliable sources as required by notability guidelines of Wikipedia.

3. Behavioral Patterns: The user has repeatedly shown attempts to bypass the advice of senior editors and AfC reviewers. Reluctance to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sourcing and content neutrality.

It is to be noted that his account is only 3 months old. I request administrators to review his account, edits and drafts thoroughly and evaluate the user's behavior, including the suspected misuse of chatbots. Take appropriate action, including blocking the account (if necessary) to prevent further disruption. I believe this step is necessary to give him a lesson on Wikipedia's standards of neutrality and reliability and listening to the considerations of experienced editors seriously. Thank you Regards AstuteFlicker (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

His user page is terrible! Secretlondon (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Watching on from a distance, I found their communication at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 November 17 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 November 19 to be both poorly constructed and disruptive to reaching a consensus, in that it was veering into bludgeoning territory. There's a lot of very good advice on their user talk page from experienced editors ("How deletion discussions work", "Your User page", "Advice on article creation"), but I'm not sure it's being taken on board and put into action. Daniel (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @AstuteFlicker deeply sorry for the trouble caused I will keep going to the deletion review pannel if I think my article was not judged properly I will clarify that I do use chat bots (i.e chat gpt and stuff) but that is to not have word mistakes as I am diagnosed with Dysgraphia I would further like to say id my account is 3 months old you're is only barley 1 while I have contributed to wiki a lot (it is mainly on controversial topic because I like "debates" i.e improves my debating skills) and as regards to my "Promotional Content" thing I have gone to "Teahouse" to go and get advice and also try to fix it ( some helpful editors are also helping me in my talk page)

to try and fix it it is also to say I have been regarded as using an "promotional tone" not "Promotional Content" both are very different as one user said "Overturn G11, send to AfD. Definitely promotional in tone (and non-encyclopedic) but I don’t think it could be described as unambiguous advertising." I rest my case (and I have used YouTube and x not as "sources" but as proofs that the user said that thing) Sarim Wani (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

please note the following user was blocked for "Repeated promotional editing, likely UPE" (and likely holds a grudge to me for following the rules) Main public logs - Wikipedia Sarim Wani (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

and upon pasting his "query" on quillbot.com comes with 68% of text is likely AI-generated (don't believe be see for you're self!) Sarim Wani (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I instantly thought it was LLM-generated too, however when I looked into it, their complaint has some merit — which is the most important thing. Further, I'd rather it be AI-generated than similar to the garbled comments you're currently putting forward at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 November 17. Rather than deflecting onto the reporting editor (leave that for others to do), please reflect on your own conduct. Daniel (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I just scanned the initial complaint. ZeroGPT and Quillbot both said zero percent AI. IMO while there's passages that look suspicious, it also includes a bunch of idiosyncratic errors, and details that an LLM would not have been able to quickly infer from being asked to concoct a case against someone, so I'm inclined to trust the 0% results. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for that. Similar to Departure– below, the structure was what made me instantly think of it. But, regardless, per my last reply, I don't really care either way — there is substance to their complaint and it should be handled on that basis, not dismissed as Sarim Wani was attempting to do so on that basis. Daniel (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I've got no comment on the substance of this ANI report, but I will state from a glance this is blatantly in line with the AI structure, especially the bolded "Key Concerns" and the bulleted but improperly indented examples. The bold requests for administrators to review and then the generic list of administrator actions did it for me. Anyway, it may be time to get a formal LLM-in-talkspace policy because this is the second time this week on ANI. Departure– (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• The failure to take on board concerns from the prior ANI complaint and Liz's notice on their talk page makes me concerned that we may have reached the end of the available rope here. Sarim Wani, unless you make a serious effort to hear and address the concerns that editors have raised, starting with removing WP:BATTLEGROUND content from your user page, you are heading towards being blocked. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed "any man is not perfect" ~ unknown I will see to it right away Sarim Wani (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Rosguill please re-review my talk page Sarim Wani (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  It's clear that you are responding very quickly right now and have not understood what has been asked of you. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  I meant user page* Sarim Wani (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Rosguill (as I said prevously I am dignosed with Dysgraphia ) I mean to say smt else and type smt else (this is only sometimes) but still enough times to be anyoying (sorry :) ) Sarim Wani (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  The issue here isn't dysgraphia, it's that your user page still reads like a screed against other editors. You've addressed some of it, which is a step in the right direction, but it's not evident that you actually understand what the problem is beyond just reflexively doing what you think I'm telling you to do. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Thats the point... (edited)

  Sarim Wani (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Clarify I intend to document every debate I will have that's why I add it in my user page I have still added a waring for it

  Sarim Wani (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe it's just me, and maybe it's none of my business, but I find it oddly unsettling that you keep on your user page a running log of every fight debate you're engaged in, especially when that involves naming specific individuals. I don't know if that's against any particular policy, but I don't think it's exactly collegial, either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• I would contend that extensive use of Chat GPT - potentially for article copy - meets WP:NOTHERE on its own. Enough rope has probably been extended. Simonm223 (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Clarify I only use chat gpt for word mistake (like Grammarly but fast and free)

  Sarim Wani (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  "Despite thanking DoubleGrazing for their guidance, he continues trying creating standalone.... @AstuteFlicker I will further clarify that I am not extended conformed user and I will consider doing that when I am extended conformed (that is why I disregared the advise) Sarim Wani (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  Are you referring to the filer when you describe extensive use of Chat GPT, or to the respondent? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  no I meant @AstuteFlicker statement Sarim Wani (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm referring to the respondent - who has admitted to using ChatGPT. While the filer's reporting structure seems somewhat artificial I don't personally have any certainty that it isn't human-generated. That being said I concur with @Departure– that we need a formal policy controlling the use of "AI" text generation tools. Preferably with significant restriction. Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Simonm223

  • Clarifying again I only use chat gpt for word mistake (like Grammarly but fast and free)

  (please note if you think I am bulldozing sorry I am not I am just answering and clarifying) Sarim Wani (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@AstuteFlicker: Your entire post reeks of AI, something you've admitted to using in the past. WP:POTKETTLE much? OXYLYPSE (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Question Can I file an reverse complaint?

Sarim Wani (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

well this uno reversed very quick Sarim Wani (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The term used on Wikipedia is "boomerang". Departure– (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

can I "technically" create an article on uno reverse? Sarim Wani (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

It probably doesn't need an article, but might be worthy of mention on Uno (card game). Let's not derail this ANI any further. Departure– (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Departure– You are not an administrator to decide this. If the issue has been escalated to WP:ANI then there must be some reason. Let the administrators do their job and you do yours.. AstuteFlicker (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator and don't claim to be one. I'm just participating in clue building and making an effort to stay on topic, but if you'd rather I disengage from this ANI, I will. Cheers! Departure– (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Thanks.. AstuteFlicker (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to clear out things as the user Sarim Wani is trying to divert admin's attention from the main issue to me using Chat Bot to write this appeal. Let me clear it Loudly, I haven't used any Chat Bot to write this appeal the appeal is written entirely by my self. OXYLYPSE Yes, I have admitted that I used to use ChatBot to write in talk pages but never in the Article Space like this user does and I have clearly mentioned it there and would like you to read it also. I don't want to play a blame game here. I would like you to read all the conversation when I was blocked it's available intact in my talk page. Additionally, I would like you to read the section November 2024 on my talk page and match the grammar I have used their and I have used here in this appeal. An admin whom I am very thankful and who really helped me then was Valereee you can read the conversation in the same section where I had promised him/her that I won't use it anymore even though I was using it only in talk pages conversation. I would respectfully like to request you that if you are referring to those conversations then please read the full conversation and also match the grammar used.

Once Again, I would like to respectfully request the administrators to not to get diverted and review his account and take necessary action (if necessary). It's not that I have to take some personal vengeance from him, I don't even knew him before. Hopefully, after this I don't have to give any justifications as I believe the admins are much more knowledgeable and will do what will be necessary.

Sincerely Thanking You

Regards AstuteFlicker (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The main issue escalated to the WP:ANI wasn't just the use of ChatBots by this user. I would like to request the administrators to review my concern again. AstuteFlicker (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I would like to reply to @AstuteFlicker by fist stating that no I am not trying to divert but mention and all the problems he mentioned I have fixed/Struk down. Sarim Wani (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sarim Wani I ain't someone to decide this. There are much more experienced editors and this is a forum of such editors. So, they are the one to decide that what's necessary to do and they are doing it without any doubt. I have done my Job on my part and now they will be handling their part. I had to clear out my side of the story that's why I jumped in or else I hadn't even wrote anything after writing the concern. AstuteFlicker (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Please note if anyone has some more doubts about me (I consider all pervious doubts cleared) please mention them and ping me in the next 24 hours if no doubts are there in the next 24 hours I request for an indepent actor to end debate. I ask to rename this debate title as it is very inappropriate and also ask the user who raised this complaint to be banned for blantant use of AI tools like chat gpt

thankyou. Best regards--> Sarim Wani (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Section renamed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - This editor has already been partially blocked from one AFD for bludgeoning. They currently have two Deletion Reviews open. The first one is for an article that was deleted after another AFD which they also bludgeoned, and they are now bludgeoning the DRV. The second DRV is for a puff piece on a non-notable organization, which was deleted as G11. They say that it was deleted without discussion; that's how speedy deletion works. The debate at that DRV is whether to restore it and send it to AFD, where it will be deleted, or whether to endorse the G11 as Ignore All Rules because it will never make it through AFD. Unfortunately, I think that this is an editor who wastes the time of the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, this diff seals it. The combination of confrontational behavior and CIR is clearly not improving. Blocking. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  This may have been in reference to the header, that was changed in this edit. Regardless, I think it's a good block overall given the general disruption going on literally everywhere this editor goes. Daniel (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I was familiar with the original title and wasn't so much outraged by that as by the mere fact that they still thought it would be appropriated to note this dispute and name other participants on their user page while this discussion was underway (and the general trail of chaos without remediating qualities that you describe as well). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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

• Note repeated unblock requests: [[67]]. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

User:GAMERBOY102 is trying to game Today's Featured Article Process

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

---

• GAMERBOY102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am not familiar with the Today's Featured Article process, but it should be a matter of common sense that an editor should not try to game the process after they have already received a warning about gaming the process. Common sense would also indicate that only Featured Articles are eligible for this display. On 10 November 2024, GAMERBOY102 made an entry in the TFA queue to display Gateway Mall (Quezon City) as the featured article on 1 January 2025. That was nominated for MFD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 1, 2025. Other editors cautioned them not to game the process. The MFD was closed as Delete on 17 November 2024, and should have been a warning.

A review of their user talk page shows that they have been repeatedly warned by User:Ohnoitsjamie for adding vertical headers. A review of their talk page also shows that they asked why they were blocked on Commons, which was for out-of-scope editing. I cautioned them that further experimentation or testing on the English Wikipedia might result in an indefinite block.

GAMERBOY102 has now created Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Gateway Mall (Quezon City). The article still is not a featured article, so this seems to be an editor who is not learning from their mistake and not using common sense. User:SchroCat has (in my view, reasonably) nominated it for deletion.

Is a partial block from project space in order? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, as well as template space.  Done OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• If they are not understanding the fact that Today's Featured Article actually needs to be a Featured Article, then there's an element of WP:CIR here. However, I can't see where they have been empirically told that, especially given that their grasp of English appears to be a bit shaky. Black Kite (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I left them a message this morning (which was after they posted at WP:TFAR), so there is no excuse in the future for this to happen once the PB ends. - SchroCat (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked as a sock. All the nonsense they created is G5'able (unless useful and/or edited by others).-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Fictitious references introduced by User:XXzoonamiXX around 2014

I don't know whether this editor has turned over a new leaf since, because this is about events over ten years ago, but the offending edits are still present in a number of articles so I'd like some help to review and remove them. This relates to a number of edits the user made on articles relating to war crimes or chemical/biological weapons. Example edits are:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_biological_warfare&diff=599166333&oldid=598601119 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chemical_weapons_in_World_War_I&diff=prev&oldid=596378942 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geneva_Protocol&diff=prev&oldid=596400711

A number of references are used by the editor:

Max Boot (August 16, 2007). War Made New: Weapons, Warriors, and the Making of the Modern World. Gotham. pp. 245–250. ISBN 1-59240-315-8. ---- This is a chapter about Pearl Harbor. Randomly used to justify edits made in a range of random places. Proof: https://catalog.sbplibrary.org/Record/113641?searchId=4240028&recordIndex=3&page=

D. Hank Ellison (August 24, 2007). Handbook of Chemical and Biological Warfare Agents, Second Edition. CRC Press. pp. 87–100. ISBN 0-8493-1434-8. ---- This book is about advice for first responders. The cited pages seem chosen at random, for example this page ref is used in an article about smallpox but actually relates to nerve agents. https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Handbook_of_Chemical_and_Biological_Warf/E58GAKMgcR4C?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=RA1-PA3&printsec=frontcover

Joel A. Vilensky (1986). Dew of Death: The Story of Lewisite, America's World War I Weapon of Mass. Indiana University Press. pp. 78–80. ISBN 0-2533-4612-6. ---- This book is mainly about later developments in Lewisite, the page ref relates to WWII development in anti-Lewisite treatment. https://archive.org/details/dewofdeathstoryo0000vile/page/78/mode/2up?view=theater

L. F. Haber (1986). The Poisonous Cloud: Chemical Warfare in the First World War. Clarendon Press. pp. 106–108. ISBN 0-1985-8142-4. ---- This book is actually potentially relevant to the topic, but the page reference is incorrectly chosen for a article section on civilian casualties of WWI. In this case editor's edit grossly misrepresents book. https://www.fulcrum.org/epubs/bn999951q?locale=en#page=120

"Crawford, Native Americans of the Pontiac's War" ---- Book does not exist. Google search only turns up wikipedia articles. Closest is Michael H. Crawford's books on the genetic origins of Native americans, which is clearly irrelevant.

These are not innocent errors. Editor appears to for example, manufacture quotes out of thin air (see Haig quote in the chemical weapons example) or manufacture numbers (up to 260k civilian casualties) that directly contradict values given in Haber (when Haber actually discusses casualty figures, on pages 239-253)

In addition to the editor's contributions, other editors have copied and pasted the offending sections to other articles (which is what drew my attention). So it's really getting to be quite a substantial issue. I've fixed some of it (the ones relating to chemical weapons in WWI) but I need help - these are just the instances I've looked at and there are likely others. I also haven't verified whether the editor has continued to use fictitious references in their edits since. There is an erroneous page ref in a recent article but that might just be a simple error. -Fangz (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Also note that the editor is surely aware that they did this and has not corrected the articles since, despite being still active (at least until October 2024). Fangz (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

USER:CleoSpar

This looks like someone's burner account that they're just using for trolling would-be admins (firstly giving Marcgarver this rather facetious cookie after the AELECT, then deleting Grahm87's admin flair after his RRFA). Asides from some cosmetic user-page edits no other edits. Appears to be WP:NOTHERE. I did think about simply blocking this account myself but it would be my first block and I'm not even sure how to do it, nor do I want to get a reputation for trigger-happiness if it wouldn't actually be a kosher block. FOARP (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

They also gamed autoconfirmed with several trivial edits to their userpage in order to edit Graham87's userpage. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for trolling.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Also note that account creation is currently blocked on their range, so they're hauling out sleepers. In my experience, they probably have a bunch of other accounts in the wings if they're willing to sacrifice sleepers from 2021.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, probably next time I see an account like that I should just straight block? FOARP (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, or you could always kick it here for a sanity check if you want. Or drop me a note, I'll be happy to give you a second opinion on anything admin related while you get used to the buttons!-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Or the discord server. I just had a nice discussion there that answered my questions about IP blocks and open proxies. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@FOARP, if you haven't found WP:ADMINGUIDE yet, now you have. If you use Twinkle, it'll also drop the talk page notices. -- asilvering (talk) 08:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Requests for unblock under sustained attack by MidAtlanticBaby

See Category:Requests for unblock and examples at User talk:5.167.250.250, User talk:80.85.151.106, User talk:90.5.100.140, User talk:126.15.241.147, and User talk:201.170.89.89. This is the WP:LTA known as MidAtlanticBaby. I've handled about 25 of these in the past hour or so. In general, my approach is to block the IP address (it's always a VPNgate proxy) for a year without TPA, delete the page and salt it. Anything less, anything less, doesn't work. Anyway, it's too much. This has been going on in various forms for months. I give up and will no longer patrol Category:Requests for unblock until we figure out a way to better handle MidAtlanticBaby, ideally automatically. This isn't me taking my ball and going home, not at all. I simply can't keep up and can't be productive with this garbage sucking all my time and energy. --Yamla (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry you've had so much of your time wasted on that nonsense. You are too valuable an administrator and community member to have to continue with that. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Bgsu98. Arguably, this discussion should be merged into Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Seeking_opinions:_protection_of_the_help_desk_and_teahouse. If anyone thinks that's accurate, feel free to do so. For me, it's time to go cook supper. :) --Yamla (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

We need to get better at dealing with determined bad actors who have the resources or sophistication to keep switching proxies/VPNs like this. And yes, that has include the WMF going after them in meatspace. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Its incessant. If the Foundation doesn't clamp down on it forthwith, I'll be following suit with Yamla. Maybe they can cook me dinner.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Has ArbCom raised this with the WMF at all? -- asilvering (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'll ask a question to the admins as I truly want to help; do you guys want us to revert the weird edits before the IP is blocked, where it kind of goes back and fourth in reverts, or just leave it there? Considering MAB will read this, feel free to not answer. win8x (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

As long at it isn't hugely obscene, leave it and report the IP. Mass mutual reversions do nothing but fill the page history. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 23:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Got it. This could be useful to tell people, because right now this fills up the edit filter log, and as you said, page histories. win8x (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): Doesn't ptwiki require a login now? We should see how that's working and seriously consider doing the same. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 01:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

This is pretty drastic. Besides, MAB as recently as today, used logged-in accounts to do the usual. Clearing your cookies is easy, so I don't think this would even change anything. win8x (talk) 01:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Per HJ Mitchell above, given the particulars here situation it seems clearly preferable for WMF to take them to court if their identity is known. I know WMF has been questioned recently as regards the personal information of users, but there is no reason that seeking legal remedy against one of the most disruptive serial bad-faith actors in site history should be seen as a violation of trust or principles. Remsense ‥ 论 03:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you really expect WMF to be able to track down someone using an anonymous peer to peer VPN service designed to evade nation state surveillance and censorship? It's probably better to let Bbb23 (talk · contribs) and other moderators who enjoy routinely blocking people handle it. 2602:FE43:1:46DD:A8D1:430:2300:D52F (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not preferable. I meant exactly what I said: if the WMF has that information, they should pursue legal action. If they don't, then obviously that's not an option. Remsense ‥ 论 03:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

They don't have that information. At most, WMF has a few IP addresses that the providing ISPs can possibly track to a relatively small number out of thousands of innocent third parties. 2602:FE43:1:46DD:A8D1:430:2300:D52F (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Neither you nor I know what the WMF knows or does not know. When people play with fire for months or years on end, sometimes they make a mistake. Remsense ‥ 论 03:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

They knew exactly who JarlaxleArtemis was and couldn't do shit for decades about him because his ISP and the VPN providers he used refused to play ball. It took him threatening Merriam-Webster to get rid of him via unrelated legal action. I imagine WMF Legal is similarly constrained with MidAtlanticBaby. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 08:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano didn't he threaten a senator? I thought that was his downfall. Not that I wish prison on these people, we just want them to go away. Anyway, the climate is changing and ISPs, governments, etc ate increasingly willong to act on online abuse that wouldn't be tolerated in meatspace. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the WMF could do that. As others said, the LTA is using VPNGate, which has an anti-abuse policy here. VPNGate sounds like they would disclose information, provided the WMF's lawyers do something. win8x (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to start a discussion over on the WP:AN thread about this. Remsense ‥ 论 03:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

VPNGate doesn't really have that info either. They have the IP address the client connects from. However, if MAB is smart, they are using multiple levels of VPN, anonymous proxies and/or open WiFi access in countries without cooperating legal agreements with the US and other entities where WMF has legal standing. 2602:FE43:1:46DD:A8D1:430:2300:D52F (talk) 03:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if MAB is that smart. From what I know, MAB is *probably* from the US. Besides, MAB was blocked by a CheckUser. Yes, it was 5 months ago, but that tells me that he wasn't using a VPN at the time. The WMF themselves could have that information. (Just want to say I have 0 expertise in this and I am maybe saying some bullshit) win8x (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

It's clearly worth investigating. Remsense ‥ 论 04:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

CheckUser isn't a magic bullet as CheckUser blocks are often based on behavioral "evidence". It all comes down to luck and how much time and money WMF wants to spend on a fairly benign troll and if they want to repeat that process for each of the minor vandals out there doing something similar. Or WMF could just force people to login with an account tied to a confirmed email address in order to be able to edit which is the more likely outcome of the community pushing them to take action in cases like this. 2602:FE43:1:46DD:A8D1:430:2300:D52F (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't calll MAB "benign". They are more than a troll, they are a vandal and actively try to get extended confirmed so that they can harras an editor they think, wrongly, is responsible for them being blocked. They regularly make death threats against editors and admins who revert their vandalism. They suck up a lot of editor time and are incredibly persistent, easily making dozens and dozens of edits over the course of an hour or two. They are one of the worst sockmasters I've come across in my time here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

If that's your concern, I will say I would not be interested in pursuing this if I thought account-only was a remotely possible outcome. It would almost surely be a greater fiasco if you want to think purely cynically about it. Remsense ‥ 论 04:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Yamla, you've checkuser blocked this IP's /64 before, is that still relevant? – 2804:F1...28:4E68 (::/32) (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

If you look at the comment that started this discussion, it was Yamla saying that they were done dealing with this persistent pest. Can't say I blame them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The IPv6 above is talking about the previous IPv6 commenter. I assume the answer is "not relevant", since the checkuser block on that range predates MAB. -- asilvering (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

It probably isn't directly relevant to MAB, but, assuming the range is static, it may be relevant as to whether their comments in this thread should be taken seriously, especially given that the IP was first blocked for a month as a "self-declared troll" before being re-blocked for six months as a CU block. Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think they should be taken seriously. See for example, Special:Diff/1169582215. This is a self-declared WP:ANI troll once again returning to WP:ANI. I suggest my previous 6 month block of the /64 wasn't long enough. I have no reason to believe this is MAB operating from this IP address but haven't looked. --Yamla (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Well, banning him is just adding salt into the wounds, and not solving the current problem itself. I'm so late into this but I feel like my input is the only way that can stop and unban him (and you guys too from doing the ongoing work), and I think by looking through his contributions I can see patterns as to what triggered MAB from what "events" he must've seen, and it was clear that his behaviour was affected by what he'd seen afterwards. Had that "event" not happened he would've otherwise edited productively like a normal editor, but what we don't know yet is what that "event" was, and this is the sort of thing we should ask him about. I think the best way is to follow a similar process I did on Pbritti's Admin election and go through certain links to reverts and comments by other editors (maybe even positive ones too) that may have lead him to doing something unwanted afterwards, and ask him how he felt after he'd seen that "event", and what he'll do differently next time he sees it. Obviously, nobody likes their work being reverted, but a simple undo or something in the comment can be doubly dangerous depending on the person they're reverting or commenting against, as it can lead to undesirable behaviour leading to unwanted sanctions. We just need editors to be more aware of who they're reverting and try and go easy on these editors, and maybe follow a 0-Revert-Rule philosophy if it's an editor that known to cause issues after seeing their work undone; and I believe MAB's case is no exception. If anybody wants to unblock talk page access and try that idea, be my guest, but to also to be aware that certain words may cause him to get upset. A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 09:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Abminor: This has already been attempted and failed by multiple users and administrators. MAB isn't interested in dialogue anymore, if ever he was. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 09:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Your conception of this situation is deeply troubling. Anyone who makes a single death threat on here is rightfully gone, in all likelihood for good save the remote possibility of seriously compelling contrition on their part. That you are taking MAB's statements at face value and privileging whatever grievances are contained within as if they actually exist in proportion to the damage they're gleefully causing everyone around them is already either totally uninformed or otherwise naïve to the point of negligence. That you think anyone should ever have to be in a community with them again on top of that is delusional. Remsense ‥ 论 10:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

That's really sad. Maybe it's dependent on what was in the dialogue that cause him to cancel that out?

As for the death threat, he probably did that because he got instantly stressed by something, and didn't mean to in truth. But OK then, if nobody is brave enough to unblock him then expect to see more threads like these in the future, and more unwanted problems. I'm sorry if I caused anybody stress and made things worse, which wasn't my intention. A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 10:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

My core point is simply that there is no plausible reading of their behavior as being in good faith or wanting to do anything but damage the project. That they would somehow revert to what we would consider within the bounds of acceptable conduct is inconceivable. Remsense ‥ 论 10:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Unblocking someone because they have caused serious disruption up to the extent of issuing death threats would set an absolutely terrible precedent and would be a green light for other blocked users to cause the same disruption knowing it could get them what they want. We have occasionally unblocked people who have initially thrown a tantrum but later cooled down and shown some contrition but in this case the user is too far beyond the pale and has exhausted users' time and patience so much that there is no good will towards them. Valenciano (talk) 11:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Abminor, I assure you that this has been tried and was counterproductive. I don't think there's any way to logic this one, I'm afraid. -- asilvering (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

In their more recent messages they have stated outright that they believe they're entitled to threaten to kill people if they feel like it, and they have left death threats for anyone who has tried to talk to them (at all) for most of this year. So no, trying to understand their point of view is not a workable approach here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

His "work" for the better part of a year has been spending multiple hours a day trying to spam literally every part of the site into submission while making lurid death threats towards everyone on the site who had the misfortune of interacting with him. Anybody who does this for a single day is worthless to have around as a contributor, anybody who does this for multiple months is actively dangerous to everyone else trying to contribute. jp×g🗯️ 19:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

this is an LTA. what we absolutely should not do is give MAB what they want. they have made countless death threats and spammed dozens and dozens of pages on-wiki, as well as discord, IRC, and UTRS, with their screeds for months upon months now. this is not someone we want on any of our projects, point blank. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

That sounds very frustrating, @Yamla, and I'm sorry we don't have better tools available to manage this.

I am trying to move T354599: Provide IP reputation variables in AbuseFilter forward. That would allow for AbuseFilter variables that could target specifically edits from VPNgate. We just recently got approval from Legal for implementing this work. There's another task, T360195: Analyze IP reputation data and how it maps to on-wiki editing and account creation activity, which would help us craft more relevant IP reputation variables in AbuseFilter, but we could probably get started with some easy ones (like the proxy name) as that analysis work won't get done until early 2025. If you have any input on what types of IP reputation variables would be useful in AbuseFilters for mitigating this type of abuse, please let me know here or in T354599: Provide IP reputation variables in AbuseFilter . KHarlan (WMF) (talk) 10:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

KHarlan, a sincere thanks for trying to tackle issues in this area. I'll give it some thought and comment there. --Yamla (talk) 10:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

It's good to hear that WMF is aware of this general problem and is working on solutions. It's unfortunate that it won't be implemented until next year but, hey, it's better than what we currently have so I wish them luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Hanson Wu

Hanson Wu (talk · contribs) refuses to communicate about their repeated edits to biography leads, many against clear consensus—except to say "don't you dare revert this" in edit summaries, unfortunately. Remsense ‥ 论 00:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

This editor has made 51 edits over 5 years and has never posted on their User talk page or other Talk pages. That doesn't translate to me as "refuses to communicate" and more that "they don't realize that they have a talk page they should use". Although they did make an edit today, they look like an infrequent editor. I don't think we can expect them to join this discussion. I'm not sure this is an urgent, intractible dispute. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The majority of their edits have been made since October, and it does not seem acceptable for them to continue as they have in this period. They have been made aware of discussions on both their talk page and article talk pages. Remsense ‥ 论 02:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: WP:Communicate would apply even if it is due to lack of awareness instead of deliberate refusal. In the case of not realizing it, blocking is a useful provisional measure because, either the block stays and the problematic edits stop, or the block can get the user's attention in a way talk page comments that the user did not see would not. In the latter case hopefully this would prompt the user to communicate. 2600:1012:A023:7497:39DE:43A4:B302:B09C (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, 2600:1012:A023:7497:39DE:43A4:B302:B09C, I understand the concept. I was just also trying to note that they are an infrequent editor and could go weeks or months before seeing a notice to come to ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

And I tried to make clear earlier that this isn't really the case: their recent rate is a change that needs reversion once every other day. I don't understand why this would be deemed hasty if it's agreed they show no indication of acknowledging attempts to communicate or stopping their disruption. Remsense ‥ 论 06:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Edits are continuing as of today and there have been signs of edit warring this month and last month. Supporting some kind of block measure. 172.56.232.212 (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Ezra Ben Yosef

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

---

I copied the complaint from WP:AIV, and will notify both parties. --Altenmann >talk 19:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Ezra Ben Yosef (talk · contribs) My name is Hellenyck, and I would like to clarify from the outset that I am only somewhat familiar with the conventions of the English Wikipedia, as I am predominantly active on the German Wikipedia. I have encountered an account that repeatedly introduces misinformation and historical distortions into the "Beta Israel" topic. Most of these edits have been reverted. Initially, I was inclined to attribute this user’s actions to a lack of understanding of the academic discourse (the academic discourse on "Beta Israel" fundamentally differs from the popular discourse in the media, and there is even a scholarly study by Kaplan on this). However, upon reviewing the edits, I noticed that the user is indeed familiar with the standard works on the topic but distorts and misrepresents their content beyond recognition. It is difficult to imagine that, despite extensive reading of these works, the core of recent academic discourse since the 1990s has escaped understanding (it is academic consensus that the Beta Israel are an autochthonous group that developed from Ethiopian Christianity from the 15th century onward; see, for example, Kay Kaufman Shelemay: Music, Ritual and Falasha History, East Lansing, Mich., 1986; Steven Kaplan: The Beta Israel (Falasha) in Ethiopia: From Earliest Times to the Twentieth Century, New York, 1992; Steven Kaplan: "Betä Ǝsraᵓel." In: Encyclopaedia Aethiopica, Volume 1, A–C, Wiesbaden, 2003, pp. 552–559). This user appears to deliberately spread misinformation, likely to express an apologetic worldview, which constitutes outright vandalism. Almost every one of his edits is a falsification of history. The user has previously been warned on the user page for apologetic edits in the Beta Israel article but has not ceased. Now, the individual has even invented a new term, "Judeo-Ge'ez". --Hellenyck (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• @Hellenyck: In order for your complaint to be considered, you have to present user's edits which you say are misinformation, preferably in the form of diffs, with comments. --Altenmann >talk 20:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
• From my side, I reviewed the page Judeo-Ge'ez, supposedly a dialect of Ethiopian Jews, and can confirm that all references cited by Ezra Ben Yosef are invalid: they do not speak about Judeo-Ge'ez. It is plausible that Jews in Ethiopia spoke their dialect, cf. Judeo-Tajik etc., but, e.g., the book The Languages of the Jews: A Sociolinguistic History (btw, which lists Judeo-Tajik) says that they spoke Ge'ez, rather than Judeo-Ge'ez. --Altenmann >talk 20:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  I myself will be busy this weekend and will therefore not be able to comment on the topic until Sunday evening at the earliest.

  For anyone deeply familiar with the subject, it's relatively straightforward to identify what the user is attempting here, where he is being dishonest, where he is fabricating sources, and where he is simply incorrect. I would, therefore, appreciate if another user with expertise in the field could review his contributions.

  However, I would like to make a few basic comments here.

  Fundamentally, the Beta Israel are an indigenous group that distanced themselves from Orthodoxy amidst turbulent historical events, rejecting the New Testament and adopting certain Old Testament customs (see Kaplan, Steven: The Beta Israel (Falasha) in Ethiopia. From Earliest Times to the Twentieth Century, New York 1992). Following their "defection," Christians labeled them with the term Ayhud—a term that indeed derives from yehudim but, in the Ethiopian context, means "heretic" (or "god-killer") and was applied to various heretical Christian groups (Kaplan, Steven: Ayhud, in: Encyclopaedia Aethiopica, I, A–C, Wiesbaden 2003, pp. 408–10). This term was rarely, if ever, used to refer to Jews, given that there were no actual Jews in Ethiopia. Ethiopian Christians viewed the Beta Israel as heretics, not as Jews, and likewise, the Beta Israel saw themselves not as Jews but as "Hebrews," a title associated with the royal dynasty. The original beliefs of the Beta Israel had no relation to Judaism.

  Later, from the 16th century onward, Europeans began arriving in Ethiopia, observing the customs of the Beta Israel. Due to superficial similarities (though there are substantial differences between the original faith of the Beta Israel and Judaism) and the Ethiopian designation Ayhud, these visitors mistakenly associated the Beta Israel with Jews. In the early 20th century, Beta Israel customs, especially due to the efforts of Faitlovitch, became increasingly aligned with Jewish practices, leading eventually to their migration to Israel. From the 1980s onward, scholarship—through careful analysis of sources—began to emphasize that nothing in the Beta Israel's original religion was inherently Jewish. This viewpoint is now the consensus in academic circles. Notably, however, this academic perspective has had little to no impact on political decisions. Discussions surrounding the "authentic Judaism of Ethiopians" are framed in fundamentally different terms from those in academic discourse.

  The user denies these facts and suggests (through genetic studies that are completely unsuitable for this question) that the Beta Israel represent a branch of ancient Judaism. Furthermore, he constructs a linguistic connection between “Judaeo-Geez” and Hebrew and a historical connection between Beta Israel and Judaism, deliberately misinterpreting and repurposing evidence in order to achieve his desired result. In doing so, he completely ignores the scientific consensus. Hellenyck (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, wall-of-text glazes eyes and makes this harder to understand. Multiple users have warned this user about problems. Please post three or four diffs that show those problems and explain in one or two sentences for each why those diffs represent a problem. Thanks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  This diff appears problematic. The citation to Chiaroni says Hammer, which could be just an innocent mistake. However, the study, appears to have been misrepresented. The word "Jew" or "Jewish" isn't in the study, so the conclusion about Ethiopian Jews appears to have been mis-stated. Andre🚐 01:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I know rsjaffe is asking for differences, but the issues here are more about content not matching the cited materials from the article's inception. These problems date to the article's creation. Would this be more appropriately handled at the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard? Essentially this is an WP:OR problem involving content... although repeatedly misrepresenting sources (ie citing material that doesn't verify the text) might be seen as a behavioral issue that needs addressing an ANI.

What is required is reading the cited sources and comparing them to the text in the article. In fact checking, the Kaplan source is used repeatedly and it never mentions "Judeo-Ge'ez" anywhere. It does address dialect in Beta Israel literature begins on page 103, but the author calls it an "Agaw dialect" (which we already cover as a people group and at Agaw languages). Kaplan as a whole argues that the Beta Israel texts were transcribed not from Jewish sources but Christian one, which is pretty antithetical to the point of view in this article which is working hard to connect the Beta Israel texts directly to Jewish literature. Clearly, there is no way anyone who has read the Kaplan article could come to the conclusions being made in the Judeo-Ge'ez article. They are clearly false citations that have existed from moment of article creation.4meter4 (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

4meter4, it sounds like, at the very least, a rewrite is called for if these mistakes have existed since the article's creation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz I think you are fundamentally missing the point that the term "Judeo-Ge'ez" itself is made up. None of the sources use that term. As a concept it is completely original, and there are no sources to support a re-write. It's rightly at WP:AFD. The question is what to do with the editor who created an article on a term not mentioned in sources being cited who essentially falsified references and was purposefully deceptive. For example, the Hebrew language that supposedly means Judeo-Ge'ez given in the article ( יהודי אתיופי ) is actually the Hebrew name for Ethiopian Jew. The whole thing is an odd original treatise not supported by anything that has ever been published. One could even call it WP:HOAX but I think the author is more of a sincere original thinker with a pet WP:FRINGE theory that has never been published.4meter4 (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

That's why I said "at the very least". You can also send this to AFD if you believe it is not fixable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

As 4meter4 said, the article is already at AfD (roughly 14 hours before your comment). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Liz, you are missing the point of the complaint of Hellenyck: a single OR article would be not a big deal, but this person apparently disrupts other articles with their theories. --Altenmann >talk 17:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about that. His edit history will need to be checked as he appears to have edited heavily in articles related to both Ethiopia and Jewish history. Given the false referencing in one article, we may need to investigate whether this has occurred in other locations as well. If he's introduced false referencing elsewhere, I would support either a topic ban or a block. That said, I don't know if that has happened as I personally have not looked. It might just be the one incident/article.4meter4 (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Show us the diffs. We are not experts in this field yet we may have to take significant action. Give us several examples of disruption, point to the online reference the user relied on and explain why the edit is a problem. I am inclined to believe you, but to take significant action requires confirmation. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• One thing is for sure: the editor was replacing Ge'ez with Judeo-Ge'ez (reverted everywhere already), e.g., [68] or [69].
• He uploaded and used an image with false caption, see edit summary [70] and I verified and placed correct data taken from reliable source.
• removed valid info claiming it is "misleading"
• Here he inserted a texh (maybe even valid) in front of a footnote, which I am 100% sure he did not read (BTW this footnote of suspicious provenance was added by an anon).
• False edit summary "Fixed minor grammatical errors" - no.

--Altenmann >talk 21:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, that's enough for a temporary block for disruptive editing. I have blocked from article space for 31 hours and invited the editor here to discuss. Other administrators feel free to extend this block if I have been too conservative or otherwise alter/remove it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Factoring into this decision was the observation that 1/3rd of the user's edits have been reverted. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Redux

Unarchiving this, as User:Ezra Ben Yosef's conduct remains completely unacceptable. I see no indication they care about establishing consensus or refraining from slandering other users.[71] Remsense ‥ 论 11:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked for two weeks for OR, unsourced content, and personal attacks/aspersions., among other issues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Liz is wheel warring

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

---

Liz is wheel warring, and it's the third instance in the past six months. She deleted [REDACTED - Oshwah] citing WP:CSD#U2. It may seem that way, but as I noted in my edit summary when restoring it, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 195#User not registered, but has contributions and is blocked is a similar case. Accounts with certain levels of suppression appear to be unregistered, but are not. This is can be confirmed by going through Special:Block, which shows Special:Block/সেক্সি রসিক সেক্সি as being both locally blocked and globally locked. The same is true for [REDACTED - Oshwah]. That makes the userpage ineligible for speedy deletion under U2. Without acquiring consensus first, as WP:WHEELWAR requires save a few exceptions, Liz decided to delete the page again.

The first two previous instances were outlined at User talk:Liz#You are wheel warring, where she reverted my deletions and deletions made by Pppery, the latter of which violates Wikipedia's licensing terms to this day. Up to what point can violations of wheel warring be tolerated by policy, exactly? ✗plicit 08:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Well, Explicit, it is always a pleasure when you decide to complain about me at ANI. As for [REDACTED - Oshwah], if you look at this page, it says that it is "a nonexistent username". Not that it is a blocked editor but that it is a nonexistent account. And I deleted it as such. Where would I have gone to find consensus for what looked like an obvious CSD U2? What forum would handle this disagreement?

Besides this account repeatedly appeared on my Quarry query that catches unregistered user pages and I've found Quarry to be very reliable.

But, even if you are correct, are you arguing that there is value in retaining a user page for an editor whose every edit had to be suppressed, is blocked and has no contribution history? I could be persuaded that you are right on this narrow policy ruling (you are a stickler for the rule of law, not the spirit of the law) but I don't think the intent of the rule is to argue there is any purpose for retaining a unregistered user page for an account blocked under these circumstances. But I since you have decided this disagreement is worthy of ANI, I will abide by consensus here.

And regarding your own behavior, I'll just mention that on several occasions where I have deleted a category of files to be deleted under CSD guidelines, you undeleted all of those pages for no reason other than so you could delete them yourself a minute later. Seriously, who does that? But I guess it's by pulling these stunts that you reached the 1M+ mark in deleted pages. You are the King. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Since this is dealing with admin issues, WP:AN is probably a better noticeboard for this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Did you even bother reading the linked VPT thread at all? A suppressed account is still a registered account, regardless of what shows up on Quarry. Account deletions are impossible. Are you arguing that three different contributors posted notices on the talk page of a non-existent user? That Draft:Carter Treener and Draft:Fireman Sam (Seasons 1-4 were created with magic? That the signature by the account on its own talk page is witchcraft?

You need consensus to revert a reverted admin action. (Personal attack removed)

You are completely misrepresenting the situation, or you simply don't understand it. The account was suppressed, not all of its edits. I laid that out in the OP and I still feel like I'm responding to a brick wall. If there is no other valid policy-based reason to delete the userpage, then yes, it should be retained. Your deletion is not backed by policy otherwise, it's not pass for you to say "oh, well, whatever".

I find it interesting that you always feel the need to bring up my admin stats despite it not being part of the conversation. Every. Single. Time. You even mention me and your weird titles like "King" and "Czar" in a different administrator's recall. Why are you the source for me being updated on my stats? You've been wikihounding me for years, combing through my contributions and subpages, and keeping tabs nonstop. (Personal attack removed) ✗plicit 12:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

⭐ Awarded for best use of Respectfully
Folly Mox (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Explicit My finger actually hovered over the block button for a second there. Instead, I have deleted those personal attacks (the first one was a silly taunt, the second one was not acceptable) and will say "do anything like that again and you're blocked." If any other admin thinks I was too lenient here, please feel free to block. Black Kite (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Since the second PA has now been caught up in an oversighting, but was not on its own something revdellable, would it make sense to restore it in a hidden comment and then immediately re-remove, just so there's a log of what was said? Otherwise anyone who wasn't present (and isn't an OS) can't judge whether it was an ADMINCOND violation. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 13:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I saw it before it was removed and I think if I had said that about an editor I would have caught a swift and lengthy block. So in my opinion it's definitely relevant to people examining this. Magisch ^{talk to me} 13:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I am so tired of this goofy cloak-and-dagger shit where, specifically in the venue for debating what disciplinary action should be taken about a comment somebody made, nobody is allowed to know what the comment was. This is like a Monty Python sketch. jp×g🗯️ 18:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thank God, someone actually said what the hell it was. Must we do this silly rigamarole all the time? jp×g🗯️ 18:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

In this case @JPxG, that happened kind of as an unintended side effect of needing to redact other stuff in this thread. Other stuff that is now... back in this thread again? If anyone can link me to an explanation of how account suppression works and why, I'd appreciate it. It seems that very few of us know the rules on this one. -- asilvering (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering account suppression is rare so it's not well documented. Oversighters can block and hide an account (we have an extra tickbox on Special:Block) and doing so suppresses all edits (including the username, so their contributions will appear empty) and removes the username from special pages list Special:ListUsers. It leaves some trace but for all intents and purposes the account ceases to exist. Stewards can do the same globally but their version also locks the account. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

something regard to genitals. -Lemonaka 13:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Tamzin, sexual offensive, by all perspect. -Lemonaka 13:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Lemonaka, I saw the comment before it was removed. That's not what I'm asking. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 14:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

If you hadn't given an only warning I would have blocked for a week for a first offense of sexualized attacks on another editor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think the question is. If you saw this in the wild somewhere, made by a normal editor, would anything stop you from issuing a lengthy block based on that alone? If not, why is it only a warning when it's an admin saying it, a position ostensibly held to a higher standard of professionalism? Magisch ^{talk to me} 13:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying I would have blocked them, but given that another admin settled on an only warning I'm not going to override their judgement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I specifically said I would be happy for anyone else to override it. Black Kite (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

So it seems like everything is pretty much settled except for the personal attacks made by Explicit. From what little I can glean from the comments, it sounds like something I'd be willing to block Explicit over, for a week or two depending on actual horribleness. I'm not going to do that if I don't know exactly what was said, tho. SFR is not usually over the top; so based on BK's comment here, I'd encourage them to issue a block if they actually saw the attack, thought it was blockable, and only didn't because of BK's warning. Then we can put this thread to bed. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Well if we're just quoting it now, yes, it was "Respectfully hop of my dick". You can probably get an OS to confirm that, but I'm just about certain that was the words, down to the "of". No objection to this being redacted later once all is said and done, although personally I think that's often counter-productive in threads like this. (And just to be ultra-clear for anyone playing catchup here: The bit I've quoted was not what was oversighted, nor was it revdelled, just removed.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 15:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

There was a bit more off the end that gave it a bit more punch than just that phrase, iirc. fwiw, I found it pretty grossly inappropriate, doubly so given it was directed at a face-out female admin. But I'm not generally of the opinion that people should get blocked for saying something rude, if it's the first time. -- asilvering (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Tamzin for the context, that's not quite as bad as I'd imagined, but still unacceptable and skeezy. If I had seen this when it was fresh, from an admin or a non-admin, I'm honestly not sure if I'd have blocked or given a BK-like warning (probably thw warning, I suppose, if I'm honest?). If that warning stands and nobody blocks, I won't think it's egregious. If somebody blocks, even after the time that's elapsed, I won't bat an eye. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Didn't see the personal attack(s), and they're now suppressed, it seems, so just wanted to say the idea that a personal attack is so beyond the pale that it needed to be suppressed, but that absolutely no other admin action was called for, does not compute. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

AFAICT from the other comments, the suppression was only targetting the username. The personal attack was redacted due to being a personal attack and for that reason can't be seen but likely isn't suppressible. I'm not sure if it's even rev-deletable. You can see discussion above about restoring it then removing it so people know what's being referred to. Nil Einne (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

AFAICT from the other comments, the suppression was only targetting the username. The personal attack was redacted due to being a personal attack and given that the username was only removed after it was redacted, is affected by the suppression so can't be seen, but it doesn't sound like it's eligible for suppression. I'm not sure if it's eligible for rev-deletion. You can see discussion above about restoring it then removing it so people know what's being referred to. Nil Einne (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that discussed above, but the outcome was unclear. So I will presume, then, that it was not such a beyond-the-pale sexualized comment that others seem to be speculating it to be. Happy to defer to admins' judgment, then. Sympathetic to Tamzin's suggestion of having it restored, but also to the idea that it probably wouldn't be a constructive move to unsuppress an attack just because it wasn't bad enough to be suppressed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Rhododendrites Black Kite issued a final warning and ScottishFinnishRadish expressed they would have blocked for a week if they saw it first. I assume any normal editor that says something remotely similar would receive a lengthy block. Magisch ^{talk to me} 14:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Magischzwei Can we not make this another venue to complain about admins? The fact that Explicit is an admin was irrelevant here, I would have done to the same with the comments of any non-admin with 300,000+ edits and a 17-year clean block log. Others wouldn't. Be boring if we were all the same, wouldn't it? Black Kite (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Just a note regarding the exchange that started this: Regarding Quarry, you should be able to modify the query to also cross-reference the blocklog to remove false positives (assuming there's consensus to consider them false positive),. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The block log does not have show the user mentioned when opening this report; it can only be found when viewing the suppression log (limited to OS). Barkeep49 (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Or via the normal Search function because there are still talk page comments from the user on other editors’ talk pages. ThatGuyOnline (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not the only way. Of course I wouldn't expect an initial database query to provide this information, but I can think of at least three ways to discover if a hidden user exists (given the username). I can see how it might bypass an admin on first deletion, but getting into a wheel war deserves a bit more scrutiny, which is available. I also wonder if WP:CSD#U2 isn't entirely clear on the matter, as I've seen this type of thing before. Does a hidden user exist? That's pretty deep, init. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Maybe the best venue would be WT:CSD? I looked into the "first instance": the redeletion under C1 of several "Lighthouses completed in 16XX" categories before they had been reempty for a second week. Maybe this should have been G4? All subcats were upmerged into Category:Lighthouses completed in the 17th century (17) following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 5 § 17th-century lighthouses. No reason I'm able to see for restoring them, but I do get that reverting a revert of an admin action does describe WHEELWAR.

The level of disruption generated by this manifestation of wheel warring approaches the level of considering whether to throw a dead battery in the garbage or retain it for later with the intent to dispose of it properly in the hazardous waste stream, knowing in your heart that this will never happen, and all the dead batteries will be thrown in the garbage next time you move.

For an illuminating (😒) journey through the recent restructuring of Category:Lighthouses by century of completion (6), see also April, August, (related), September, and even more September. There might be more. Folly Mox (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The categories were tagged as C1 for being empty. G4 does not apply as they were not specifically discussed. Once the categories were repopulated, I removed the tag, but were emptied again after a few days. The clock reset, and Liz deleted them early anyway. For someone who lectures others not to delete pages hours earlier than scheduled, it's something she does regularly. ✗plicit 13:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Come on, that was hardly a lecture. And, as I admitted, it was trout-worthy on my part. -- asilvering (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I was the user who requested Oversight on the supressed user account last night. Utterly agog that this was brought to ANI, outing the supressed username, thus negating the entire purpose of the suppression. It suggests an utter lack of judgement. qcne (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be an instance of a busy admin not having noticed the prior history, rather than consciously choosing to disregard it; and whether that userpage should exist strikes me as a question of complete unimportance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: The deletion log and her response to this thread prove otherwise. Pretty sure the deletion policy has strict criteria and none were met to justify deleting this userpage. No policy was violated and no discussion had taken place to result in deletion, and it is out of process. ✗plicit 12:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe this may possible calling for an Arbcase. Since if @Explicit you said that Liz are hounding you for years and seemed nothing changed. -Lemonaka 13:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Liz, Explicit, Newyorkbrad (and any other users I missed): I've restored this discussion with the proper information redacted. Please do not add or restore it. Other than that, this discussion may proceed as usual. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

So, I guess my question to Explicit is: if you knew a username had been suppressed, what made you think it was a good idea to undelete the user page and then plaster it all over ANI? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: I was under the assumption that the account was suppressed, not that the username was suppressed. This distinction was not made clear to me until I was emailed about it after the thread was already under way. ✗plicit 13:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Why were you assuming anything about something suppressed? It seems to me when it comes to suppression it's a mistake to be making assumptions. If unsure check beforehand. If you're right, then little is lost from checking and waiting. If you're wrong but you've posted it all over, especially on one of the most watches pages, you've seriously undermined the suppression. Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The PA that is being speculated on was (IIRC) "get of my dick", which somehow[72] is only an insult if uttered by a heterosexual, according to Explicit. Worthy of a block indeed, and I still don't understand why Explicit is complaining about being stalked by Liz, while starting an ANI discussion about a page Liz deleted and Explicit undeleted without having as far as I can see any previous interaction with that editor? If you believe you are being stalked, then perhaps don't undo their deletions of pages you have nothing to do with and which serve absolutely no purpose at all? Fram (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• I don't know what the sexualised personal attack on Liz was, but it's really not acceptable and admins must be held to the same standard as regular editors, if not higher. Liz and Explicit are some of our most valuable editors in the administrative area and honestly it's incredibly disappointing to see this whole thread. AusLondonder (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Are they? Or are they two people addicted to deleting pages? Both might be true. I know it's not polite to say these things, but as I read this kerfuffle about U2s, and the recent hubbub over U5s, I can't help but think nobody gives a damn if user pages are deleted or not, so how can they cause so much trouble amongst the few all-time top userpage deleters? Wikipedia is a place where people do pointless things for 20 years, get in endless arguments over it, and this is called "valuable." Liz, Explicit: aren't you two embarrassed to be making such a big deal about whether a web page that nobody ever read is visible or hidden? Levivich (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  They're both highly experienced XfD patrollers so yes I'd say both are highly valuable contributors. Regardless of the merits of the dispute, the PA from Explicit was unbecoming so coming out of this I only think one party should be embarrassed and it's not Liz. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  I agree the focus on the exact minutiae of policy on userpages and the warring about who deletes what first and whether something was deleted hours or minutes before the correct time is pretty childish. But I have seen the good work they do in areas like categorisation, redirects and actioning PRODs. We'd be worse off without their work. AusLondonder (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  You're right, they are both valuable contributors in other areas. Levivich (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  I've spent a lot of time looking at AfDs, PRODs and CSDs. Liz is just about the most tactful, careful admin I've seen. She also takes the time to explain things to problematic editors. I'm patient but she's very patient. It's hard to imagine dragging her to WP:ANI. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Fully agreed. GiantSnowman 19:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  I concur. TheWikiToby (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Close as something that never should have been brought here to begin with for a multitude of seasons. Explicit, who I believe should have been blocked for that comment, you know that ANI isn't going to result in sanctions against an admin. Please raise this elsewhere if you believe this is actionable conduct. Star Mississippi 16:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• On the substance of such things, I agree with xplicit that there was wheel warring here on the now redacted userpage (which I can see as an oversighter). The material that was left on the userpage, is not, itself, suppressible in my opinion (and indeed was not suppressed by an OS after other material was removed). So after it was restored it became wheel warring to delete it again, with wheel warring being the third action (1-delete 2-undelete 3-redelete). However, this feels as clear of a time as any for IAR to apply. And so I'd have supported Liz, or someone else, deleting on those grounds rather than a mistaken belief that U2 applied. However, Levivich is also correct - getting into a wheel war about something that is unlikely to ever be seen (except by someone savvy enough to do something like run a quarry) and if anyone seems to be following anyone else, at least in this instance, it would be xplicit following Liz. There is clearly enough bad blood between these two that I am wondering if the right outcome here is an iBan between Liz and xplicit rather than just a close. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49 I believe the IBan would be almost literally impossible with their areas of administration. If neither could patrol, I think the project would be much worse and that would hurt more than help. Maybe a talk page/discussion iBan if something is really needed? Star Mississippi 16:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think it's impossible. They could each delete pages no problem if there was an iBan. They just couldn't reverse the deletion of each other if there was an iBan. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  There is clearly enough bad blood Agreed. Explicit has been rightly chastised over his language this afternoon, but the original point still stands: whether rightly or wrongly, wheel-warring took place and was presumably a symptom. SerialNumber54129 17:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed. Liz hardly helped things by starting with Well, Explicit, it is always a pleasure when you decide to complain about me at ANI. after having previously ignored explicit when leaving a message on her user talk. I think they can each work deletion without interacting with each other which seems like the best for each of them as people and for the project as a whole. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  You say "hardly helped," but given how quickly this escalated, I'm curious if that's a reference to something else that hasn't been brought to our attention here. SportingFlyer T·C 18:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  I feel like there may be ways to de-escalate here before an IBan is needed—and IBans here should be a last resort. For example, Explicit could apologize for the profane comments, and both could commit towards trying to work more civilly together.

  We are all adults here: even if we do not all like each other, I do think we can still come together around our shared mission of building a free and open encyclopedia and agree to cooperate more smoothly going forward. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 18:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• This whole thread, especially the PAs, is just a massive face-palm. FOARP (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose IBan. These are the two most prolific XfD/CSD/PROD handlers on en-wiki. They have to work with each other. We need them to continue checking each other's work, and--politely!--correcting each other's mistakes, rare as those may be. That said, the foul language was grossly offensive, and while Liz may have a thicker skin than I do, I'd like to see a prompt and full retraction from Explicit before we close this. No one gets a free pass on toxic masculinity just by virtue of not being heterosexual. Owen× ☎ 18:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• I'm trying to get worked up about the "wheel warring", but it isn't taking. Speaking not about Policy but about reasonable behavior, the undeletion seems dumber than the re-deletion. Meh. I would normally suspect a couple of trouts are in order, along with a recommendation to stay away from each other where possible. What would change my mind is if there's strong evidence Explicit is following Liz around. There's a hint of that here, but I just don't know. There certainly seems to be a history between them. What does seem relatively clear, at least so far based on what's been presented, is that Liz is not following Explicit around. Maybe something short of an i-ban to start, like "don't undo each other's deletions or un-deletions"? I'm not sure, OwenX, that it really is necessary for them to correct each other's mistakes. But I do agree a full i-ban would be difficult. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps catching each other's mistakes would be a better term than "correcting". I doubt Liz follows anyone around; she's way too busy for that. But she does review deletions by other admins, and rightly so. She caught a couple of my own suboptimal AfD closes and advised me on how to handle such cases better, for which I'm thankful. I love having another pair of experienced eyes review my work here. I guess Explicit doesn't share my taste for peer review. Owen× ☎ 19:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  As I implied above I'm also not bothered by the wheel warring in the instance around OS. It is for me an IAR situation, though I am slightly bothered by the fact that Liz didn't realize why it was a time for IAR - as far as I can tell she redeleted it because she thought she was right and explicit was wrong and that is precisely what WHEEL is designed to stop. And this wasn't a one off; I am bothered that she has ignored explicit in the past around other instances of potential wheel warring. To Owen's point, in this case it's not Explicit but Liz who has the deletion policy wrong, so that is who should be open to peer review about deletion, including the kinds of helpful comments left by Cryptic below. And I'm also bothered by the language explicit choose to use against Liz, and have commented separately about that. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Liz, if you're relying on a query that identifies সেক্সি রসিক সেক্সি as unregistered, you need to either fix it, let someone who knows how to fix it fix it (assistance available here), or actually look at what you're deleting so you stop deleting edge cases similar to it. A faulty query isn't an excuse for faulty deletions. —Cryptic 18:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly I'm still pretty confused about the whole thing, since I hadn't seen an account be suppressed before. When I visit that linked page it shows a banner that says "... is not registered on this wiki." It also doesn't show the typical notice at the top that I'd expect, indicating the page had been deleted in the past. I'd love to learn more if there's a relevant informational page anywhere because I think I'm at risk of making that same mistake some day based on what I'm seeing now and I'd like to avoid that. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Hey man im josh if you find a user page of a seemingly unregistered user where it was created by someone with a suppressed username, my recommendation would be to quietly reach out to a favorite oversighter and ask rather than deleting as U2. I would also check if there is a user talk page that would indicate that this was once a registered user. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'll keep that in mind, thank you! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  I wonder if it would be worth a Phab task to hide the "is not registered" message in cases like this to avoid further confusion. Or is that too likely to reveal that the account exists, when the intention is it should be hidden? Sam Walton (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  The latter. The interface is lying here, and it's doing it deliberately, because that's the least worst thing to do. —Cryptic 21:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  I... think?... this is a result of WP:Oversight#Actions #4. Except the notes there say that the username is also removed from Special:Listusers, and the example I used is visible there, as is the one still visible on the VPT thread Explicit linked. —Cryptic 19:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Gotcha. I received some helpful clarifications from a couple folks after I made this comment. I was mildly concerned I could make the same mistake because I used the same quarry queries as both Liz and Explicit and I think I'm now prepared to not make that mistake. Very much appreciate the help from the kind helpful folks! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• This thread has unfortunately mushroomed since I originally posted to it early this morning (my time). It'll take a while for me to digest it all and see if there are any questions I need to respond to. I have since learned that it was incorrect to post the page title of the user page that I deleted and for that, I'm sorry. I saw that the username was oversighted in the user page history but I didn't make the coneected to the title of the user page itself. At the time, I thought it was important for editors to see from the page that it was marked as a unregistered user account. That was my mistake. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for admitting your mistake and apology. Now, if Explicit would do the same for the personal attack, that apparently several editors and admins found block worthy, that would be great. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

This whole thread is simply ridiculous. Liz is one of a handful of admins that I can question without getting my head bitten off. If (and I emphasize if) she made a mistake here then it was simply that, a mistake, rather than something that shoud be reported here. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• My knowledge of both Explicit and Liz is that they are quite competent administrators who handle a great deal of unpleasant difficult work. Liz, in particular, I know as someone who is very receptive to even stupid questions, and who in the past has been quite kind in the course of pointing out that I've done very dumb things that broke a bunch of stuff. This whole thread seems confusing and sad. jp×g🗯️ 21:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• Liz and Explicit don't get along, and haven't for years. I can give the stack of diffs ([73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81]), but really it's obvious to anyone who watches the PROD report, where one will delete a page before it's eligible just so the other can't. I've long since given up on trying to figure out who was originally at fault, though Explicit is usually the one escalating things, as the vulgar remark in this thread suggests. I so very much wish that these two very good administrators would find a way to sit down like adults and resolve their differences. But if that's impossible, the community needs to find a resolution for them, even if it's something suboptimal like an interaction ban. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• (ec)The issue between us is that we both work in the same areas (handling CSD G13s, C1s, PRODs, AFDs, etc.), have different approaches to the work and how we interact with editors and regularly step on each other's toes for going on years now (at least since 2020). For the most part, we keep our distance from each other but, occasionally, we cross paths and complaints like this can arise. I apologize if our personal disagreements have spilled over to public noticeboards. While I disagree on some aspects of the work they do here, I'm grateful for Explicit's contributions to the project. I just wish the respect went both ways. Noticeboards can lead to behavioral changes, but can't mandate changes in attitude.

My opinion is that this is not really about different policy interpretations but about friction between different personalities and, in our cases, I don't think an IBan would be successful considering how much our work overlaps. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Extraordinary Writ, I agree that the "delete a page slightly early" approach is childish and should stop on both of our parts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Margaret Sanger & User:Anotherperson123

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

---

As you should know the article Margaret Sanger is a contentious article. Despite the restrictions, User:Anotherperson123 is making strange edits on this article. I stop short of calling it POV-pushing and editwarring. I have the user advised to start a discussion on that talk page of the article to make clear what he/she is disputing and based on what. No discussion is started yet but the contested phrase is removed again (and restored by another user). Something has to be done here. The Banner talk 14:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Repeatedly removing the connection between clandestine abortions and illegality of abortions is POV pushing and edit warring. It is not actually controversial that illegality of abortion contributes to a higher percentage of abortions carried out in secret, and that those abortions are, on the whole, less safe. Not sure we need an ANI thread at this point, though, unless there's a pattern of fringe POV pushing elsewhere, too. Anotherperson123, heads up to use the talk page on these articles if someone reverts your edit, rather than reinstate it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

It might seem harsh to go to AN/I but I have no idea where to go for help at a contentious topic. The Banner talk 16:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The normal procedure is to warn the editor a couple times before taking them to the administrators noticeboard. This is an extreme measure. As for it being a contentious topic, I didn't think of checking. Your claim that I haven't opened a discussion is false, as I have opened a discussion. Anotherperson123 (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion is at Talk:Margaret Sanger#Reverted edit. Peaceray (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you could, instead of going for help, avoid claiming that no talk page discussion has been started when it was actually started many hours before you started this discussion? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no clue how I missed that sentence. But to be true, no answers on the follow-up questions as of yet. The Banner talk 14:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Fakolyabuoz's persistent unreferenced edits

The user was warned through their talkpage to post references several times, yet they continue to make edits like these-[82][83][84][85] The reported editor doesn't respond to any of the messages in their talkpage, and doesn't fill out the edit summary. The reported editor was also blocked twice this year - first for unreferenced edits, second for disruptive edits. Hotwiki (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, another editor who hasn't made any posts on any talk pages that I can see. Two blocks hasn't changed this, we keep running into this issue with some editors and unfortunately, I don't see a resolution besides another block at some point unless they start participating in discussions about their editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

There's also this suspicious behavior of moving draft pages to User page. Borgenland (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Nothing to say about me really vandal

Please delete the user page of DianaDemaine94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), block them and consider following the instructions at the bottom of Meta: NTSAMR. Thank you! 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:4493:E642:C10F:CD4A (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked, deleted, reported on Meta. For future reference, this can go to WP:AIV + m:SRG. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 16:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Alas, I've been turned down on AIV a couple of times ("this page is for obvious vandals only" as most[?] admins are unfamiliar with the NTSAMRbot) and m:SRG is often protected against IP and new account editing. That leaves AN/I as far as I can tell. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:4493:E642:C10F:CD4A (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@2A00:23...0F:CD4A: At meta you can usually make edit requests, if a patroller agrees with your request they make it for you. – 2804:F1...BF:89C5 (::/32) (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that, but posting to AIV and getting turned down by an admin unfamiliar with the spambot and also making a Meta edit request and getting turned down by a patroller unfamiliar with the spambot vs posting once to AN/I… well, I know what the sane choice would be. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:4493:E642:C10F:CD4A (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I've spent a lot of time around edit filter 499, which does a good job of catching spambots like this. You might want to specifically flag it as tripping 499 to help those unfamiliar with the pattern. It's easy to spot. Most names are camelcase, often incongruously randomized, with a number appended, what passes for text often doesn't even use the same name and is usually on three lines, the bot is trying to learn the xylophone or Polish or something, and we are invited to "surf" (was this bot programmed in 1996?) to the target website, which is invariably spammy or phishy. Acroterion (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

User talk: Gino March

time-wasting nonsense from a block-evading user. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Gino March (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) A high-threat vandal user named Gino March has been disruptively damaging all the Wiki articles removing the acquired programming aired by Philippine television and the all years of Philippine Television articles, and also with Movie Blocks in all years of Philippine Television articles -209.35.169.114 (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC) Note: I have removed the collapse top/bottom template because it doesn't make sense. This report is also very lacking in evidence, all I see is a few IP and account complaints at Gino's talk page history that Gino removed, please provide diffs/pages where the policy breaking behaviour happened so that users reading can decide on the appropriate response. Additionally, 'high-threat vandal' is a strong accusation that requires strong evidence, accusing someone that does not meet Wikipedia's definition of a vandal of being a high-threat vandal is considered a personal attack. – 2804:F1...BF:89C5 (::/32) (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC) I can't instantly revert of several edit contributions of Gino March, when Gino's talk page history that Gino removed is warning 209.35.169.114 (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC) No action is going to be taken here unless diffs or other compelling evendence are supplied by those asking for administrative intervention in this matter. You can't just make an accusation and expect others to do the research to find out if there is any merit to it. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC) Ah, this report's format (and a lot of the words) WAS copied from somewhere as I guessed when I removed the collapse top/bottom, it was copied from this 2021 report: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1078#Moved from my talk page Even 209.35.169.114's reply to me is very similar to what that initial report said... @209.35.169.114 please clarify what the violation is, are you accusing Gino of socking? What pages have they vandalised? – 2804:F1...BF:89C5 (::/32) (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

S201050066

User:S201050066 messaged me on my talk page asking about the prospect of him being subject to a Wikimedia Foundation ban due to disruptive editing. To cut a long story short, S201050066 was banned in May 2022 for edit warring on COVID-19 issues. He has since sought to circumvent the ban by creating numerous sockpuppet accounts and using IP addresses to edit Wikipedia. S201050066 also posted a YouTube video blaming Wikipedia users including @Tenryuu: for reputational damage and alleged offline harassment including an incident in which he and a fellow shop assistant got assault. I personally don't believe his claims and think that S201050066 is only seeking attention. He wants to be unblocked but he hasn't apologise or expressed remorse for the behaviour that got him banned in 2022. Andykatib 22:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure on what basis you assume the IP on your talk page is S201050066. I know LTA people can resort to weird behavior though. Is this one of those attention trolls who post about themselves or something? It's not clear from an outside perspective.

The off-wiki harassment accusations, even from a banned user, should be forwarded to both ArbCom and Trust and Safety, if there is any actual evidence. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Just Step Sideways:, thanks for getting in touch. I have been in contact with S201050066 via Facebook Messenger. He has a form of Autism. As someone with Asperger's Syndrome, I have empathy for him and have been advising him about the need to move on from Wikipedia. I don't think he is a threat to Wikipedia but I don't think that he is in the right state of mind to edit or collaborate with other users. I think Wikipedia has sufficient safeguards against such disruptive editing. Let me know what you think. Andykatib (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I guess what is not clear to me is what sort of administrative intervention you are looking for. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I just wasn't sure whether just to ignore him or whether I should report the matter. He's a small fish in the scheme of things. Andykatib (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Just Step Sideways:, this is the IP range S201050066 has been operating from. That range has been blocked by Admins for a year. Andykatib (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Just an update. S201050066 has posted a YouTube video apologising for their behaviour on Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia doesn't allow us to post links from YouTube, is there a way to share the link? Andykatib (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Andykatib, are you talking about User:173.239.131.234? They posted on Nov. 1st and ordinarily I'd issue a brief block for ban evasion but they used it 3 weeks ago and I'm sure they have moved on to another IP account if they are going to evade their block.

After seeing this report, I spent over an hour getting familiar with S201050066's case, reading why they were blocked and noting all of their sockpuppets (which, given the toolforge link you have shared, number over 500 at this point). If this was a registered account, I'd suggest making a new report at their SPI but as an IP editor, I would go to the admin who did the range block and update them about this new IP in a different range. However, since this is from Nov. 1st, it's considered stale at this point.

But I hope that this advice is useful when they contact you in the future. They are persistent, you are seen as a friendly editor to them and, unfortunately, I think they will be reaching out to you again at some point in the future. If their attention becomes really annoying, we can always semi-protect your User talk page for a brief period of time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Andykatib, I just reread your latest message. Where was this YouTube link posted because I don't see any recent activity on your User talk page. Are they contacting you off-Wikipedia? I can't help you with that but you might block or unfriend them if they are bothering you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Liz:, I have been in touch with S201050066 via Facebook Messenger. That's how he posted the two videos with the apology one being the most reason. I am not troubled by him. I think he is just a young man with intellectual disabilities who needs some grace with boundaries. I hope he ends his disruptive editing on Wikipedia after the apology video. If he doesn't, then I'll let you and the other admins know. Thanks. Andykatib (talk) 03:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Andykatib, that is very understanding of you. That's not common in ANI discussions. After reading all about him, I hope that they will move on. Contact us if this activity returns to Wikipedia from Facebook. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Just Step Sideways: If you want more background information, here are the (by my count) previous eight discussions that have been held about this user:

• [86]
• [87]
• [88]
• [89]
• [90]
• [91]
• [92]
• [93]

I don't see the need for any particular admin attention, save for blocking whatever sock account or IP he's editing from if he decides to post nonsensical content on anyone's talk page or touch any of the COVID-19 pages. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Adding images without discussion to important articles / edit war

User:LivinAWestLife This user adds random photos to city articles at will. These photos do not represent these cities and do not make sense at all! This user has engaged in an edit war with me and other users. See his edits on Tehran and Bratislava for example. Edard Socceryg (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Edard Socceryg, can you provide some diffs/edits of the disruption you are claiming rather than asking editors to look through articles' page histories? You'll get a more prompt response if you provide the evidence yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz Tehran article:

Special:Diff/1257545010, Special:Diff/1258722226, Special:Diff/1258701757, Special:Diff/1258560517, Special:Diff/1258151058, Special:Diff/1258150919, Special:Diff/1258041387. Edard Socceryg (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Not an admin, but take note that there is already a talk page discussion at Talk:Tehran § Lead image over the disputed content (images in the article), with the other editor being aware and in it. Both editors have engaged in edit war, but are one revert away from breaking the three-revert rule. — AP 499D25 (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Edard Socceryg, an article talk page is where this discussion should be happening. If an editor is edit-warring, I think you'll get a faster response if you a) notify them that they are edit-warring and b) then file a complaint at WP:ANEW. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

This does seem to be entirely a content conflict. But, glancing over Tehran, the conflict is over LivinAWestLife preferring that the top representative image is of the skyline of the city in question instead of a singular monument in said city (Azadi Tower)? If I had to weigh in here, LivinAWestLife seems to be the one that's right. Also, you're both edit warring. Silverseren^C 04:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I agree with Silver seren's points here about the image and edit warring. While I don't claim to fully understand Iranian politics, calling this "propaganda" ostensibly only because of the monument's association with the White Revolution seems extremely and unduly harsh. I will be commenting on the talk page too elaborating of course. (I was here for my own reasons but happened to see LivinAWestLife, who I've interacted with recently over the article San Francisco. Haha!) TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 11:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Marino13 and WP:CIVIL, WP:BATTLEGROUND

Marino13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi guys, I just stumbled upon the above user's repeated violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA in talk page replies and edit summaries, despite numerous warnings, and hence am making a report here. This is a rough timeline that is incomplete, just to give an idea. The user:

• 6 May 2024: makes edit with summary A meddler and still not giving users a break, following edit by User:Sbaio
• 8 May 2024: given level 2 edit summary warning by User:Sbaio for the above
• 15 June 2024: makes an edit with summary I won't be surprised if he comes out of hiding just to do a revert 🤦‍♂️
• 16 June 2024: given level 4im personal attack warning by User:Magical Golden Whip for the above
• 24 June 2024: responds to that PA warning with a message stating ... I don't enjoy being harassed by editors like yourself, and it's not a ship I want to board. Your history says a lot more about you than it does for me.
• 24 June 2024: declares a break from Wikipedia, reason: Tired of being treated like a lunatic!
• 4 July 2024: makes this edit with summary When you pull a move like that, now you're harassing me. That is NOT funny Sbaio! this time you are reallly getting on my nerves. ..., following an edit by User:Sbaio
• 4 July 2024: makes this comment on their own talk page, You just love messing me with me don't you Sbaio? Smart mouth me again, and I will report you if you continue this nonsense further, obviously you're calling for it. ... Bonus: check out the summary of that edit
• 20 July 2024: adds to that comment on their talk page, calling out User:Sbaio with words like coward, blindsided, narcissistic hypocrite
• 20 July 2024: 'retires' from Wikipedia editing
• 15 August 2024: returns to remove a comment from User:Sbaio on User talk:Busesobama, writing Harassment free zone bub in the summary
• 15 August 2024: removes a warning by User:Sbaio on their own talk page with an edit summary so derogatory that I'm not even going to paste it here
• 31 October 2024: makes an edit following an edit from User:Sbaio from several days earlier, with summary I wonder how Snoopy keeps getting away with harassing users? 😒 Today is Halloween, don't rain on others' parade.
• 8 November 2024: given another level 4im personal attack warning from User:Sbaio, for the above edit from 31st Oct.
• 9 November 2024: removes said warning above, with summary Stay out of my business meddler, ...
• 21 September 2024: makes edit with edit summary already having second thoughts about you too busesobama
• 21 November 2024: removes MfD template from User:Sbaio placed the previous day with summary You don't scare me Sbaio. Now you crossed the line bum!

To add to that, I found this previous AN/I report on the user from November 2023, also for personal attacks, which didn't result in admin action. A timeline of events from 2023 can be found in that archived thread. I even came across this archived thread on User talk:Geraldo Perez from June 2024, concerning User:Marino13's behaviour.

I've noticed that the vast majority of these insulting comments are directed towards User:Sbaio, and that they often follow User:Sbaio reverting or revising an edit from User:Marino13. So my first thought is maybe we should do an interaction ban between these two users. But then after finding that one comment directed towards User:Busesobama (from 21st Sep), I'm not completely sure a simple IBAN is going to work. The user makes constructive contributions to Wikipedia overall, but there clearly seems to be something persistently going on between this user and User:Sbaio, causing them to get upset. Note that I have not been personally involved with any of these editors and am just making a report here from an outside observation. Anyhow, this toxic WP:BATTLEGROUND rivalry just needs to end. Any thoughts? — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Marino13 has responded with this message on their talk page apparently putting User:Sbaio at fault. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

In my experience, AP 499D25, interaction bans only work if the two editors agree to the ban. If it must be enforced, it's likely to fail. An interaction ban is not something that can be enforced using admin tools. Since this involves User:Sbaio as much as it does User:Marino13, please notify editor Sbaio about this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes I have also notified User:Sbaio along with several other editors that had also been involved with User:Marino13. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Per Liz, I seriously doubt an IBan could work in practice since both consistently edit the same articles. Do Marino13's edits constitute as disruptive at this point (not rhetorical, actually asking)? Conyo14 (talk) 05:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

While Sbaio can certainly be abrasive at times, from past experience Marino has crossed the line and then some towards him on multiple occasions. Agree that an IBAN wouldn't really work; maybe some sort of temporary sanction/topic ban is warranted. The Kip ^(contribs) 06:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

As I said, do what you must to put this matter to rest. Just as much as the users here have commented, I think it would satisfy us all if we can find a way to move on from the negativity and the backlash. Seriously, it would really help. Marino13 (talk) 07:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Why does your user page say you're retired? OXYLYPSE (talk) 07:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I am planning to retire from Wikipedia eventually. It is strenuous to keep up with adding and editing content, and, in light of the recent events above, I hope to get a few things done before I finally pack up for good.Marino13 (talk) 07:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)

We all plan on retiring eventually. But that's not what the template is for.

Also, it would be in your best interest to retract your statement that User:Sbaio is an ass[94]. The originator of this complaint was too nice to repeat it. But it can get lost in the weeds. Closhund/talk/ 08:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Sbaio

I am creating separate section since I have been notified of this discussion. I will go to beginning of editor's attitude:

• 2 March 2023 – it all started at Vladislav Gavrikov page with this edit in March 2023. I tried to explain Marino13 not to change date formats and left a message on editor's talk page on 2 March 2023, but editor decided to use battleground attitude right from the start. The editor then created a petition to change the whole date policy as can be seen at WT:MOS discussion about dates and numbers (involved editors quite clearly indicated that it was a silly proposal).
• 16 April 2023 – I then again reminded Marino13 about date formats on 16 April 2023 (section heading was originally "April 2023" until Marino changed it to "Date Format Ludicrousism" and then completely removed whole discussion on 28 March 2024), which this time was at Adrian Kempe page, but the editor continued its attitude. Marino13 also changed some text at MOS:DATERET, which was reverted by another editor.
• 12 November 2023 – another editor, which was blocked for sockpuppetry at that time (used various IPs, while being blocked) left a message on Marino13's talk page. Marino13 replied with this. P.S., on 26 March 2024, the then unblocked editor (the mentioned SPI) removed whole section from Marino13's talk page, and also removed my notification to the already mentioned ANI discussion.
• 13 November 2023 – after that I did not communicate with this editor and just left warnings on its talk page from time to time. I tried starting an ANI report, which @AP 499D25: has already mentioned above. I left a message about it on Marino13's talk page on 12 November 2023
• 27 June 2023 – a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings–Golden Knights rivalry was created by another editor, but I was not involved in this deletion discussion. Marino13's attitude towards editors in this discussion is also troublesome.

Forwarding to more recent problems:

• 16 June 2024 – Marino13 makes a personal attack at User:Magical Golden Whip on his personal page.
• 4 July 2024 – AP 499D25 already mentioned problems at Braden Holtby. After being reverted, Marino13 wrote at Talk:Braden Holtby#Former goaltender status with continued hostilities towards me.
• 20 November 2024 – this is most recent. I created a Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:List of NHL players with the most games played by franchise for Marino13's draft, which was completely abandoned (reasons stated in deletion discussion). Marino13 left two messages in this discussion (first comment and second comment), and then left a message at User talk:Llammakey once again making accusations. P.S., other editors wrote to Marino13 about this draft at User talk:Marino13#List of NHL players with the most games played by franchise moved to draftspace and User talk:Marino13#Concern regarding Draft:List of NHL players with the most games played by franchise2.

Marino13 indicated in three different messages on his page that he is taking a break and is taking an indefinite break (both edit summaries are evidently directed at me). In last message Marino13 is retired and has placed a {{Retired}} template on its page, but that is clearly a violation of that tag since Marino13 continues to make edits from time to time, while that template's documentation clearly says to remove it if you are not retired.

To sum it all up, Marino13 has shown more than once that there are issues with WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND, which strongly shows a WP:NOTHERE case. If he really wanted to edit then he should not be doing a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or WP:POINTY actions, but should instead just WP:DROPTHESTICK and listen to other editors (this involves every editor that would get into contact with Marino13). – sbaio 08:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

sbaio, I haven't reviewed your evidence yet but it is definitely not a violation to have a "Retired" template on a User page and continue to make edits. The retired template reflects an intention, not a vow or promise. I know some active editors who have been "retired" for months if not years. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not a violation but it almost always comes off as game-y behaviour and deflecting responsibility. I think many editors who go to someone's talk page to discuss concerns and see a "retired" template will just not bother to leave a message because they believe the person is leaving the project. And I think, in some instances, that that's why the person put the retired template there. It's misleading at best, deceptive when done to put a lid on discussion and potential criticism. Bu that's just my opinion, and I imagine many disagree. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Magical Golden Whip

I did have issues with this user back in June while reverting edits on the Thundermans here [95] and [96]. He did then go to his personal user page and write a hidden attacking message towards me where I did bring up the issue to User:Geraldo Perez [97]. This appearded to be brough on by the edits from Alexa Nikolas's page.[98],[99],[100],[101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108][109] [110] There were no attacks to me on that page, but did appear to get into edit warring after edits were reverted by several users including possibly editing while logged out [111], [112], [113]. Other than what was already mentioned I do not have much to add. Ip believed to be used is 2601:84:8880:5E80:6D9F:88CF:D9D0:2034 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Magical Golden Whip (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:SQS, WP:HOUNDing from Hotwiki

I have been in a dispute with User:Hotwiki for a while now, with the dispute being discussed on ANI before. My minor edits at Kylie Minogue have been consistently suppressed by Hotwiki, with edit summaries and/or replies such as "not needed", [114]. "keep it as is" [115], "let it go" [116] and "no one has an issue but you." [117] After the natural conclusion of the first ANI thread, I took a break from the article to cool off.

Today, I made some minor copy-edits on the article, making the last section more readable to the user. [118] After 3 weeks of not editing the article, within the same hour that I published my copyedit, Hotwiki reverts all of my copyedits with the edit summary "let's not go for Round 3". [119] I messaged them on their talk page [120] bringing up previous comments from the first ANI Thread regarding this dispute, where WP:SQS was particularly mentioned by an uninvolved editor.

Furthermore, shortly after the mass revert, they started appearing on Charli XCX, an article topic that I was editing at the same time as Minogue's and an article Hotwiki had previously not edited. I was having a completely different content dispute with on the talk page (that has been resolved now through discussion) and they admitted to looking at my contributions page [121] shortly after their revert of my copyedits at Kylie Minogue. They accused me of edit-warring which I feel may be an aspersion, given that there was no edit warring going on, and described themself "as an outsider looking in." Am I being WP:HOUNDED?

Paging previous commenters User:Asilvering, User:BarntToust, and User:Floquenbeam who previously commented on the last ANI thread. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I stepped back in that article. You made two edits, that I didn't have an issue[122] with and I didn't revert anyone's edit - until you made changes, that I clearly had an issue in the past which I discussed throughly in the talkpage.[123] I reported you to ANI, last month and a month later, you went back into that article and made edits that I clearly disagreed with the past. I said "lets not go for Round 3" in my edit summary, as you clearly have a habit of not letting things go, and stubbornly doing your own way, when other editors clearly had a problem with your contribution. When I checked your contribution page, you were having tension in Talk:Charli XCX, with odd edits like these[124][125], which made me comment more on the talk page, of that talkpage. You also changed the picture, of that article Charli XCX three times in less than 24 hours, which I found disruptive[126] and people commented that you shouldn't be changing the lead picture without consensus and so frequently.[127][128] Hotwiki (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

When I tried to actually discuss with you regarding that 2022/2023 split, you said "There's no need to include" and "The year 2022 has been covered since last year. No one has an issue but you." which is still WP:SQS, you are arguing to keep a particular version of the article because per your words, "just because it has always been like that." [129] Furthermore, checking my contribution page and commenting on those other content disputes confrontationally in unrelated article topics seems to be WP:HOUND behavior. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I have used the Wikipedia:Editor Interaction Analyzer to look at our interactions on the page Kylie Minogue. [130], the results consistently show that it only takes you between 30 seconds to 45 minutes to consistently revert my copy-editing.

I have attached a local copy here off-wiki because the EIA threw a server exception error at me before, seems that this tool may have a bug or it may just be my Internet. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Me commenting on the Talk:Charli XCX talkpage which directly involved you, was the first time I interacted with you, outside Kylie Minogue, Talk:Kylie Minogue and ANI - if I am not mistaken. The talk page of Charlie XCX is also an open space and anyone could comment there if they want to, which I did. Its also normal to check the contribution page and edits of editors we interacted with and saw editing these Wikipedia pages. Hotwiki (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

So just to confirm, you decided to stalk my contributions on another article and join an unrelated content dispute shortly after you reverted all my copyedits on the Kylie Minogue article? PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Look, Hotwiki doesn't seem like the sort of editor open to change, and Shanghai loves that, clearly. Shanghai changing up an infobox image for a singer might be a tad questionable, but I'm more concerned that we've got a conflicting dynamic: the unstoppable force of @PHShanghai's change meets the immovable object that is @Hotwiki's need for things to stay just as they are.

I wouldn't go as far to suggest that an interaction ban looks like the next step if this tiresome antagonising of one another's edits pops up on the dramaboard again, but... fellas, it's annoying, all of it. BarntToust 14:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

But the wiki has to change and it will change Hotwiki has to understand that. The hounding yes i see that hot wiki was warning shanghai in the article talk page which is improper Special:PermanentLink/1258789213#2022 i would also like to bring up the comment hotwiki made Special:PermanentLink/1258938798#New lead image which is very ominous feels almost like a attempt to discredit a editor. Hotwiki also instead of talking with ph on their talk page put ph basically on a pole on the article talk Special:PermanentLink/1258789213#Tension tour which is weird, I personally never have seen this type of article talk page use, and it struck me as “look at this user they did (so and so) and their wrong (reason)” it seems disrespectful to me as shanghai(or anyone) shouldn’t be put on a pole in the article talk, and have hotwiki (again, or anyone else) place gas around them and hope a spark will ignite the gas… •Cyberwolf•talk? 15:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

BarntToust has a point that there is ultimately a force / object dynamic. I'll be bringing up Wikipedia:BRD_misuse#Filibusterers as a relevant essay here, as if you read the talk page archives of Kylie Minogue, most if not all edits I've made have had lengthy talkpage discussions with Hotwiki still using the usual arguments of "it's not needed, it's been like this for years, you're the only one changing it, no one else had an issue, do not make changes without discussing with me first"... etc etc. It feels like a test to drag out the discussion as long as possible. Quite the opposite, I do not "love" editors who are not open to articles changing. I'm not familiar with IBANS that much, but if that's the way it is, well... PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Also a user doesnt have to discuss with him to change stuff •Cyberwolf•talk? 15:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to quote what @Asilvering: said directly to PHShanghai. "I would suggest avoiding any changes to the lead for now. I do think Hotwiki needs to give a little, but you're not making it easy for them. Start with the less-contentious parts and work up from there".[131] PHShanghai did the opposite. The edits they made in the lead section, which I didn't react to, was me doing my part of "giving a little" to PHShanghai. I also didn't revert any of the edits from anyone, in that article for a month, after discussing things in ANI, regarding the issue with that article. But then with Phshanghai's third edit in that article in over a month, they went ahead reverting a contentious part - which was an issue already brought up in the talk page last month, and its becoming an issue again, simply because PHShanghai just simply do what they want to do, and we are back at this issue again. They simply cannot let go. While looking at Talk:Charli XCX, they exhibit the same "my way is the right and only way" and I simply couldn't ignore it, hence why I commented in Talk:Charli XCX as well. Hotwiki (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It also seems you also have “my way is the right and only way”
Also having 3 edits in a month isn’t even bad •Cyberwolf•talk? 15:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I did listen to Asilvering's advice and didn't make any changes in that article (even if I wanted to), until PHShanghai went ahead with a "contentious part" for their 3rd edit in almost a month. Also I've tried to discuss this again, in the talk page of that article with no answer. Obviously, if PHShanghai listened and tried to compromise - they wouldn't have reverted a contentious part that would lead to another issue. Hotwiki (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Again bringing up 3rd edit in the month is not a valid contribution to your claim can you please explain why said part is contentious and the use of”” when you mentioned it a bit ago •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Please define what a contentious part is. A vague revert saying "This is not needed because this is how the article has always been" is not a proper response to any major article-changing edits, let alone minor copyediting. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

This is the contentious part which was discussed directly in the talk page last month and yesterday.[132] Hotwiki (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Explain here that comment is vague •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I will also quote what asilvering said to you, Hotwiki
as gently as I can: those are really quite minor edits. Meanwhile, you have made over 1000 edits to the article.
•Cyberwolf•talk? 16:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

What does 1,000 edits have to do with this? I've edited the article since the 2000s and I don't recall PHShanghai having an issue with my edit count in that article. Hotwiki (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

They didn’t but it was a qoute my issue is your blowing up of a minor edit •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Its not an minor edit, if me and PHShanghai have discussed about it in the past via talkpage, then PHShanghai going back at it, a month later - which is why we are both here in Ani again. Hotwiki (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Are we looking at different edits? •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

This is not a minor edit.[133] It was discussed in the talk page in October by the two of us. By November, PHShanghai went back to moving the "year 2022" paragraph in another section. A minor edit wouldn't lead to this discussion. Hotwiki (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It is
A good rule of thumb is that only edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of the content may be flagged as minor edits.
•Cyberwolf•talk? 16:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It’s a formatting change •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Moving a paragraph which covers an entire year of activities, into another section changes the flow of the entire life and career section. I simply disagree. Hotwiki (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Disagree with community consensus then •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

There wasn't really a discussion, because your ideological standpoint was just "This is not needed because the article has always been like this before." How do you reach a compromise from that? You can't claim that I am avoiding compromise when that's your position that you will not budge on.

Furthermore, since you revert every time I make an edit after a break; you are quite literally reverting to your preferred version of the article, which has been noted as WP:SQS. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

In the lede, I made two minor edits removing stuff that was placed there without a source.

Your reverting and SQS was in a completely different part of the article, (Tension 2022) in which you gave no policy-based argument for reverting my copyedits other than "it's been like this for years, it's not needed". It isn't contentious if you're opposing it on no other grounds other than "it's not needed." PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I was only involved peripherally in the previous thread, and didn't get involved in the underlying dispute then, but since I've been pinged:

• PHShanghai, don't re-add stuff you know is disputed. Not even after a month. It doesn't have to be you two arguing, you can always ask for more eyes. A 3rd opinion request. A neutral wikiproject talk page request. etc. etc. see WP:DR. Your opponent is not allowed to single-handedly prevent your edits, but that does not mean you are allowed to make whatever changes you want over their objections.
• Hotwiki, don't follow an editor you're in a dispute with to an unrelated talk page. In particular, don't do so if what you're mostly doing is snarking at them. That's really bad form, and pisses off people who have to deal with two editors sniping at each other due to an unrelated dispute on another page altogether.
• ANI is not the place to get more eyes on a content dispute. It is only a place to deal with behavioral issues. I see behavioral issues from both of you. It is quite possible, even likely, that the ANI community's solutions will make both of you unhappy. So I suggest you don't come here for piddly stuff.
• As BarntToust says, you are both dragging others into bad blood between the two of you. The way the community often deals with that, if it seems like both editors are partially in the wrong and they get fed up, is an "a pox on both their houses" solution of an interaction ban. I-bans are annoying, you both want to be doing whatever you can to avoid it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand the principle of asking for more eyes and I'll move forward with that in the future. Do note- I have gone through both DR and RFC, and when it unfortunately closed due to lack of/empty responses, Hotwiki then responded with personal attacks like: "I don't like your unnecessary changes, you never even give up, nobody agreed, edit another article, this is how it's always been", etc etc. This was pretty demeaning. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

"No one wanted your edits, you should give up" This is false. I never said those words to PHShanghai. Hotwiki (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I will listen to what you said, about following an editor (that I'm currently in dispute with) to an unrelated talk page. That won't happen again. My apologies. Hotwiki (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Hotwiki, may I take this as a proper apology from you for WP:HOUNDing me on Charli XCX? I really didn't appreciate being followed around an unrelated article because of a dispute somwhere else. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Geez, just take the win on that portion. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any of the ANI slap-fighting as a "win", seeing as this dispute of Hotwiki reverting my edits on this specific article has been happening since October 2023. 13. whole. months. Quite an unlucky number. Anyway, I just wanted to make the implications of Hotwiki's reply crystal clear. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to make the implications of Hotwiki's reply crystal clear.

Which comes across to everyone reading this as you trying to drag this out further so you can get another jab in. As Floq said, just take the win and let it go. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I was apologizing to Floquenbeam, as they informed about me about such doing. I was unware. That being said, I'm using this opportunity to extend the apology to you. Though I did read the entire interaction in that talk page hence why I commented and it wasn't my intention to "hound" you. Hotwiki (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Also pinged, and endorsing all of the above. -- asilvering (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by GyoergyGajdos on Feynman sprinkler

New editor GyoergyGajdos on 19 November published two edits (1, 2) (their first ever edits) to the article Feynman sprinkler. Respectively, these added an inappropriate, disruptive, and superfluous use of an external link to the lead and added a GIF to the article (the former they've since dropped; the latter they've decided to re-insert five times and counting (3, 4, 5, 6, 7) after removal). I came across these by complete accident on the same day and reverted them just from casually viewing the page and recognizing glaring problems with them. The external link was to a YouTube short from the channel 'gyorgygajdos1657' featuring the same content as the GIF. The video shows a homemade sprinkler experiment (but this categorically fails WP:UGC and is therefore not verifiably accurate). However, we already have one in 'External links' where it belongs from a much more descriptive, authoritative source, thus obviating it entirely. The GIF is simply the YouTube short, with the exceptions that it's lower-quality and that, in addition to the InShot watermark, there's a transluscent 'Gajdos' watermark across the entire vertical center and a pale orange watermark reading "youtube: Mach-Feynman sprinkler".

The UGC, redundancy to (and much worse quality than) the linked UMD experiment, self-promotional and highly distracting watermarks, disorienting cinematography, extreme amount of extraneous footage (the experiment proper when the motor is running seems to take up 2 seconds at most compared to a 21-second, 5.6 MB GIF), and the fact that it's distracting to the reader with almost zero educational value all stand on their own as reasons not to include this GIF. Taken together, they make this completely obvious. Finally, the GIF is then accompanied by the words "A simple, replicable Mach-Feynman sprinkler experiment is shown here:" in the lead prose – disrupting article flow and indicating a lack of understanding of image layout. Instead of discussing on the talk page or even acknowledging the reversions in their edit summaries, they've kept reinstating this. When discussing this on their talk page and pointing them to the policy on consensus, they made a completely nonsensical rebuttal about "inspirational value", claiming to have a physics degree (even if they do, this is irrelevant; I have a degree, but I can't just insert whatever I want about my field) and referencing low-quality Q&A site Quora. They then proceeded to reinstate the GIF with no acknowledgement of the discussion in the summary. While I initially assumed good faith that they simply did not understand reversions or consensus as a newcomer, when provided ample opportunity to discuss the matter and to read about policy on consensus, they made it abundantly clear they only care about pushing this edit through – at worst, I suspect, potentially wanting to use this as a vector to self-promote their YouTube channel.

I would post this to Dispute Resolution, except that this is a matter of Gajdos' immediate, intractable inability to work cooperatively on this project. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 12:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Now that was a collection of characterizations for an educational content 185.237.102.121 (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Point of clarification 185.237.102.121 is who responded on the talk page, not Gajdos, but the immediacy of the reply and the way they address themselves as though they are Gajdos make it entirely obvious these are one in the same, potentially a simple mistake on Gajdos' part. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 12:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP for one month as a proxy, and I've reverted the named user's last insertion of the YouTube with a final warning to the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• The user reinserted the YouTube into the article, so I've indeffed them for disruption. I think I'm within my rights to revert the edit, but in an abundance of caution I have not.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Evangelical WP:LTA

I have for a long time suspected that disposable accounts engage in vandalism and trolling, especially upon articles which concern the Bible. Now I have evidence for my claim: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Valen2929/Archive.

These are pro-evangelical WP:SOCKS which perform hit-and-run vandalisms. They're all disposable accounts, there is no intention of collaborating constructively to Wikipedia.

Their purpose is removing inconvenient truths from Wikipedia. That is, hiding the garbage under the carpet, because mainstream Bible scholars made such points since long ago. So, the theologically learned already know such points, but the not learned masses don't.

It is a vandalism campaign which has been going on for months, if not years. I only reported the tip of the iceberg. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a filter i think that could be implemented for this user •Cyberwolf•talk? 15:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I would check for socks all those IPs, in a /16 or /48 range. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The usernames follow patterns •Cyberwolf•talk? 15:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

They are Bible thumpers who seek to WP:CENSOR Wikipedia because it gives the lie to their theology. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Please retract your "Bible thumpers" comment. We don't insult people for their religious beliefs, even if we vehemently disagree with them. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Someone intentionally switched the party names in this article

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

---

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_presidential_party

Yesterday this article was about how economic performance tends to be better under Democrats, and this morning it says it tends to be better under Republicans. The entire article has changed, and the party names have been switched. (E.g. 10 of the last 11 recessions started under Republican leadership, not democrat). I can see that someone edited it 4 hours ago so I'm guessing they changed the article to spread misinformation. It looks like they didn't bother to change the whole article and subheadings, just the intro summary paragraphs. Please correct it to the previous version.

Below is another Wikipedia article with correct information about this topic (if someone hasn't changed that by now too).

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_under_Democratic_and_Republican_presidents 2601:1C0:4D83:340:5B24:3983:9F02:1D6A (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes. PhilKnight (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

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