Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Daniel (talk | contribs) at 11:37, 8 March 2024 (→Question regarding a user with prior restrictions for bludgeoning and edit warring: close, topic ban enacted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    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


    NmWTfs85lXusaybq

    NmWTfs85lXusaybq, now renamed to 'Renamed user g5s6n3yi8z7g08cs', is prohibited from mass editing indefinitely. This includes, but is not limited to, using semi-automated tools and operating in a bot-like manner without approval. Note that this sanction applies to the person, not the account, and therefore any return by this user will need to comply with this restriction. Daniel (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I posted to this editor's talk page earlier today, raising concerns about their JWB-powered mass-removal of {{talk header}}, as well of the removal of the |living= parameter from WikiProject banners, on talk pages of redirects (permalink). As I was going to continue this discussion on their talk page, I noticed that - since I posted there (and they responded) - they continued making these changes via JWB (at a fast pace); which I believe was in violation of AWB rule 3 (which states that it should not be used to make controversial edits, and that [i]f challenged, the onus is on the AWB operator to demonstrate or achieve consensus for changes they wish to make on a large scale). I then re-posted to their talk page asking them to stop making these JWB edits for this reason, to which they responded OK, I will do it manually (diff).

    I'd like to discuss my objections to these changes in the normal manner, but that's made difficult when they're being mass-made before such a discussion has occurred (and after NmWTfs85lXusaybq's been made aware of my objection to them). Since my request that they halted the JWB edits, they have continued to make the same edits in a WP:MEATBOT-like fashion (but without using JWB); which I'm finding hard to see as something other than a 'workaround' to my request that they stop these JWB edits, in addition to continued mass-editing without consensus.

    If there are any queries, please let me know. I apologise if anything is worded poorly. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 05:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I will keep an eye on this thread. So, please leave comments here if there's any further concern from other editors. Thanks, NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Primefac: I noticed that you removed their AWB perms - thank you for doing that. However, NmWTfs85lXusaybq has continued to make these problematic mass-changes without consensus - only, doing it manually now, rather than using a semi-automated tool. Please can an admin ask them to stop? (On a side note, I'm happy to expand on my reasons for objecting to these changes; I just haven't yet, as I didn't know if it would be appropriate/helpful to do so in a discussion about editor conduct.) All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 07:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    information Note: The task has already been completed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NmWTfs85lXusaybq, this is what, the second time you've been at ANI in addition to WP:BOTN for this sort of mass editing? You say that this task is done, but what about the next time? Will you simply ignore any complaints and just power through until it's done, and then say "well, you can't complain any more, as I am done"? In other words, I am looking for a reason not to block or partially block you for continually refusing to acknowledge others. Primefac (talk) 07:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of my edits have ever been reverted regarding these threads. I haven't received any objection from editors other than a smart kitten. And I haven't got any response from them after I replied to all their concerns. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't reply further on your talk, because you continued making the edits (without giving me time to respond) after I objected twice; leading to me starting this ANI thread. As I said above, I would have liked to discuss my objections to these changes in the normal manner. That I started this thread rather than responding further at your talk doesn't mean that my concerns were alleviated - the contrary is true. ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 08:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't reverted any edit of these tasks and you only asked me not to use those tools to make edits. I did exactly what you asked. You can't just claim to object all my edits because I just don't like it. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that I've unarchived this thread, as the proposals have not yet been closed. All the best. ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 05:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass rollback proposal

    I would like to propose that the (around 1,300) mass-edits by NmWTfs85lXusaybq that (a) removed {{talk header}} from redirect talk pages, and (b) removed the |living= WikiProject banner parameter from redirect talk pages, be rolled back; due to being mass-made without obtaining consensus (and after receiving an objection), and for the following reasons:

    • Regarding the edits removing |living=yes from WikiProject banners - NmWTfs85lXusaybq stated at their talk page that they believe the {{BLP}} banner obviously doesn't apply to redirects (diff). I disagree with this - redirects (as with all pages) are subject to WP:BLP; and redirects can still have BLP implications (e.g. a redirect from a living person's name could be validly added to categories within the scope of WP:BLPCAT).
      Furthermore, even if {{BLP}} didn't apply to redirects, that would (in my opinion) be an issue better brought up at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell and/or Template talk:WikiProject Biography; where the banner could be set to not display on talk pages of redirects, if that's what the consensus was for - rather than the living parameter being unilateraly removed en masse to achieve this outcome.
    • Regarding the edits removing {{talkheader}} - NmWTfs85lXusaybq stated that they believe it to be helpless and...in conflict with {{tpr}} on redirect talk pages (diff). I can't see why it's helpless, and - if it's contradictory to {{tpr}} - that's more of an argument to modify {{talkheader}} so that it isn't, rather than mass-remove it from redirect talk pages.
      Furthermore, on redirect talk pages with archives, these edits also removed what may well have been the only link to said archives from the talk page itself - e.g., after Special:Diff/1210736966, there's no link from Talk:Autism to that page's archives. In response to this concern, NmWTfs85lXusaybq stated that {{Archives}} can be added to those pages - however, my point is that it shouldn't be necessary for a third editor to perform this sort of manual 'clean-up' after the mass-removal of a template that (in my opinion) doesn't even need to be removed. (I, for one, don't feel up to going through all of the edits removing this banner to check which talk pages have archives and which ones don't.)

    Per WP:FAITACCOMPLI, the fact that these edits have already been made should not be a reason to justify them. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 08:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    All my edits of these tasks are made on the talk pages of redirects only when there's a {{tpr}} banner on them.
    • Regarding the removal of {{BLP}} and {{BLPO}} on the talk pages of redirects, it has been stated clearly in their template documentation that This template is intended for article talk pages.
    • Regarding the removal of {{talkheader}} on the talk pages of redirects, it has also been stated clearly in its template documentation on when it should be added to the talk page. Besides, {{tpr}} is already the banner for talk pages of redirects and its introduction that Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at xxx completely contradicts the introduction on {{talkheader}} that This is the talk page for discussing improvements to xxx and Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. If there's any need to show archive links, add this feature directly to {{tpr}} instead.
    NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reserving judgement for now. Oppose mass rollback, support other sanction given WP:IDHT, wikilawyering, or WP:CIR below. @NmWTfs85lXusaybq Do you have a link to where you got consensus for these changes? The reasons you gave would be a good way of establishing consensus, but my understanding is that mass changes need approval prior to implementing them. That goes double when there has been an objection voiced. @A smart kitten While Fait Accompli does state that "it's already done" is a poor justification to keep edits, perhaps we should develop consensus for or against these edits before rolling them back. After all, if it's decided they're good, there's no point in duplicating work. However, even if they're good, I agree that the reported editor should NOT have continued in the face of objections, and if they don't acknowledge this, their access to semi-automated tools may need to be restricted. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC) EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Although there's no consensus about how to deal with these talk pages of redirects, I made these edits based on previous discussions. The conditions of misuse of {{talkheader}} have been stated in its documentation, which is based on consensus. In addition, a TfD for merging {{Auto archiving notice}} into {{Talk header}} suggests the replacement by {{archives}} for this-is-only-for-archives functionality. As a convenient way, there's an alternative option to bring the functionality of archive box directly into the {{tpr}} banner. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That might be true, but nothing you have linked shows a consensus for this change. After all, WP:MEATBOT is also based in consensus, and WP:ASSISTED (which may apply more cleanly) also makes it clear: get consensus for your proposed changes first. If you did, I think it'd be useful to link to that specific discussion; hand-waving at templates is not convincing. Again, your edits do seem to me to be good, so I'd like to hear that you understand why this was a bad way to go about it, so I can just say "I trust you", be reassured that this problem won't recur, and let you get back to editing. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @EducatedRedneck: Apologies if you're already aware of this, but this is at least the second time a problem like this has occurred - see WP:BOTN § Fully automated edits without BRFA - Request for assistance for further context. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 20:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not, though I should've been; I missed Primefac's link to it above. Thank you for directing me to it! That link shows that it is even more important that NmWTfs85lXusaybq shows their understanding here, and pledges to get consensus (ideally via seeking WP:BOTAPPROVAL) before undertaking mass changes. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @EducatedRedneck: I'm relieved that my edits seem good to you. And I clearly understand I won't use automatic tool or semi-automatic tool to do a task without consensus. But WP:MEATBOT also states it clearly that For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. As long as I'm not editing against a consensus or causing errors, I can do it manually. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The very next sentence in the passage you quoted is No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked. I think I've stopped reserving judgement. That policy says the opposite of your conclusion that you can do it manually. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @EducatedRedneck: And the very next sentence after the one you quoted is However, merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time, is not by itself disruptive. Additionally,
    as you stated above, my edits do seem good to you. If that's still disruptive to you, then disruptive editing looks good to you. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not "merely quickly editing" though, you're making bot-like rapid fire edits. Trying to wikilawyer around this is a bad look. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support mass rollback proposal. Doing so is in line with WP:BRD. Additionally, the loss of archives on redirect talk pages is an issue. Instead of obliging someone else to go through the mass of edits to find which pages have lost archive links and clean things up, a rollback is appropriate. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Behavioral Sanctions

    I believe NmWTfs85lXusaybq needs to be restricted from making mass edits to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia.

    • They have used semi-automated tools and operated in a bot-like manner without approval.
    • When objections were raised, they refused to stop the mass editing.
    • As pointed out above, this is at least the second time this has happened.
    • When confronted, they first pointed to template instructions on their use, as if that overrode policies and guidelines.
    • When the P&G were referenced, they then cherrypicked passages, misrepresenting them to justify their actions.
    • This shows they either didn't actually read the policies, couldn't understand them, or are deliberately misinterpreting them.
    • Therefore, I propose that NmWTfs85lXusaybq is prohibited from mass editing indefinitely. Until such a time that they show they understand and will abide by policies, in the judgement of any administrator, they should be prevented from further disruption.

    Reviewing their talk page has also shown that they seem to have trouble collaborating with others. To quote User:Chris troutman to NmWTfs85lXusaybq, I'm becoming increasingly concerned that when a variety of Wikipedians address problems with your editing, you either ignore their issue, explain away as if it was not your fault, or change the subject. N.b.: This message was responded to by removing it with the edit summary: "Harassment or Personal attack". I'd also like to propose a 31 h block for disruptive editing, with the understanding that continuing to edit disruptively and failing to respond to other editors will lead to increasing blocks. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    information Note: Chris troutman have made personal attacks on me in Talk:Trenkwalder#advertising? and leave a comment to a thread on my user page which he has never got involved in. I have to call this WP:Harassment. And pinging an editor who is clearly against me could also be WP:Canvassing. You should have also pinged all the other participants who have got involved that thread, including @Liz and Formyparty:. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Chris Troutman made a comment about your behaviour, not a personal attack. Calling that harassment and canvassing is at least not helpful. The Banner talk 13:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no difference between Chris Troutman's comment in Talk:Trenkwalder#advertising? and Arminden's comment in Talk:Horon#Horon_is_a_term_with_many_meanings_in_several_cultures about the behavioural issue. And Amakuru's comment in the latter thread may be helpful: If you have specific behavioural issues with that editor that you want to discuss then you can continue to post those at the WP:AN/I thread, but they don't belong here. And WP:harassment is about Chris Troutman's comment in a thread on my talk page they didn't participate, but WP:canvassing is about EducatedRedneck's behaviour as they only pinged the one who is clearly against me in that thread. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 13:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While this to me feels like a WP:BATTLEGROUND-style Tu quoque, upon reflection I can see how my actions fit the bill for canvassing. My thinking was that it's only polite to ping the person I quoted, so if I misunderstood or misrepresented them, they could set the record straight. Given the context, however, I agree that it was for all practical purposes canvassing. I apologize for that, and thank you for pinging a broader base of editors. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the second proposal, I have to cite WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE for you. And if you haven't realized what personal attack I have experienced, Arminden's comment in Talk:Horon#Horon_is_a_term_with_many_meanings_in_several_cultures is such a case and is similar to Talk:Trenkwalder#advertising? I cited before. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My feeling is that, even in this very thread, you remain unresponsive to other editor's concern. As such, the block would indeed be preventative, not punitive. If other editors disagree on one or both proposals, that's also okay. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the original filer, Support editing restriction (with the caveat that - as a community-imposed restriction - the community, not a single administrator, should be the body with the power to remove it). I would also be supportive of a block for disruptive editing, but I wouldn't want to dictate the length of such a block to an admin that decides to place it. Block or no block, though, I believe that such an editing restriction is clearly necessary; given (among other things) the disruptive mass-editing without consensus, the refusal to stop following objection, and the apparent wikilawyering both during this thread and on their talk page.
      To be clear, I still support my rollback proposal above, per WP:BRD if nothing else: short of mass-rollback, I don't know how I'm supposed to undo these edits that I strongly disagree with; and I don't believe that ANI is the ideal forum to be deciding whether or not the edits were an improvement from a content perspective. However, whether or not the rollback proposal is passed, I believe the proposed restriction is also needed.
      All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 04:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No objection to stricter sanctions. My thinking was that it's better to have it be an agile editing restriction, so it can be removed easily if no longer needed, and can easily be strengthened if circumstances merit. Similarly, I was thinking of starting with a short block. However, if others believe the weaker sanction would waste community time, I have no objection to a stronger one. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support both. On reading the evidence presented, and seeing NmWTfs85lXusaybq's ongoing WP:IDHT behavior, the mass editing restriction is warranted, and the block would be preventative. I also agree with a smark kitten that if this editing restriction is community-imposed, it falls to the community to be the body to determine its removal. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • information Administrator note This user has apparently retired. Primefac (talk) 07:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • They have also changed names and are deleting their pages. I'm not sure that complete deletion of talk pages is allowed when other editors have left any comments. This should not be allowed. They can blank it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I deleted the page earlier today and I only noticed this discussion now. I will not be available for most of the day today, but if consensus is that the deletion was not appropriate (which it might very well be, I have not even read this thread fully) every administrator is welcome to restore. I will check later in the (European) evening. Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, I see, it has already been restored. Perfectly fine with me, and my apologies, I apparently did not check the history of the page well enough.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose block as moot, but Support an editing restriction against mass edits, whether automated or manual. The above comments demonstrate a complete disregard for the concerns of other editors, and no indication that they understand why people were upset about a mass-edit without consensus.
    — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Both The editor in question has almost certainly already created a CLEANSTART account or will do so soon. I want it on the record that the community does not allow these heedless mass edits. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Renamer note: Vanishing is not a means to evade scrutiny or sanctions. It does not offer a fresh start or guarantee anonymity. If the user returns with a new account, the “vanishing” will likely be fully reversed, linking the old and new accounts, and any outstanding sanctions or restrictions will be resumed. – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Question regarding a user with prior restrictions for bludgeoning and edit warring

    XMcan (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, broadly construed. Daniel (talk) 11:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    A user with tban and anti-bludgeoning restrictions believes that "edits in Article space have nothing to do" with their restrictions. I would appreciate clarification on whether this is accurate because they appear to use edit summaries to make statements and express opinions that cannot be challenged without risking edit wars. It's worth noting that they have not previously edited this BLP before, and as of this writing, they have yet to engage with the BLP Talk even though they been politely asked to. List of User’s edits with summaries. User’s posts in Talk (empty). XMcan (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at that BLP, the clear aversion from every participant to any form of discussion is so noticeable that I hardly think Newimpartial alone can be blamed for it. That said, that comment shows that their battleground tendencies are alive and well... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who voted in favour of NewImpartial's bludgeoning restriction (and has perhaps even been on the receving end of said bludgeon!) I can say I don't think this is a violation of the restriction. I agree with AirshipJungleman29 that all users could do with participating on the talk page more, but that's about it. — Czello (music) 16:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1) well no, bludgeon refers specifically to overinvolvement in discussions and belaboring the process, you really cannot apply that to edits and edit summaries.
    2) speaking of wp:bludgeon tho, one should note that XMcan has been on the same tangent for almost 2 months now at that article talk page but their position has not gained consensus.
    3) XMcan's rationale for their latest edit war is lots of IPs are saying it so they must have a point.
    3) also note that XMcan has been indeffed from the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory page, and the subject matter that the user is involved in at the blp is Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. wp:boomerangs may be in play. ValarianB (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A tban from the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory broadly construed maybe in order. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not okay with how much XMcan has been edit warring at James A. Lindsay, which I agree is an article that is related to Cultural Marxism. Edit warring was part of the disruption that led to their page block from the Cultural Marxism article and its talk page. The opening statement here suggests that some edit summaries "cannot be challenged without risking edit wars", which doesn't make sense, and leads me to think the edit warring will continue. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant it per WP:REVTALK: Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors! Sorry, if I didn't make it clear. XMcan (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The OP seems confused about WP:BLUDGEON, as they demonstrated in this accusation shortly after their block from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Valereee tried to clarify XMcan's understanding of my restriction here, but that doesn't seem to have changed their impression that I must have some done something wrong when our perceptions of a topic differ.
    In the present instance, what I see on Talk:James A. Lindsay is essentially a WP:1AM situation where they are the "1"; I generally agree with the other editors in that discussion (which I have been reading in installments long before editing the page), but I haven't felt compelled to add anything to that conversation - quite the opposite of BLUDGEON, I should think.
    I would also point out that XMCan's convictions animating their participation on the Lindsay page appear to be precisely the same convictions that animated their disruption of the Cultural Marxism page. Newimpartial (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    but I haven't felt compelled to add anything to that conversation - quite the opposite of BLUDGEON, I should think. Agree completely. The talk page seems to indicate 1am as you have said, so perhaps some level of WP:BOOMERANG is in order. I'd endorse ActivelyDisinterested's tban suggestion. — Czello (music) 20:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this attempt by XMcan to make this an issue in an unrelated thread is indicative of a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, and I would support a topic ban on them as proposed above. Hatman31 (talk) 05:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Since we are cherry picking, we should pick this cherry, too. 🍒 XMcan (talk) 10:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:BATTLEGROUND might also be indicated by XMcan's contributions to an XfD discussion - contributions that include obvious ASPERSIONS about my motives in this vote. Once again, the avowed topic of their behaviour is related (by editing history of the author of the page up for deletion) to the Cultural Marxism topic (and, in this case, to other conspiracy theories as well). Newimpartial (talk) 12:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Editors who read my brief comment to NI in context will notice that the user who initiated that exchange appears determined to have the last word. Such tendency could explain a preference for making dismissive comments in edit summaries rather than participating in Talk. XMcan (talk) 15:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Given that you did cast aspersions in your reply, I don't think this is last-wordism from NewImpartial. If I received such a comment, I'd probably want to reply and say what they said.
      I can't really see any wrongdoing from NI in any of the comments you've linked; I'd suggest it's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK because this could boomerang. — Czello (music) 16:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      NI and the author, whose two articles are up for deletion, have a lengthy and contentious history that involves at least a couple of AE cases that I know of. I'm unclear on why NI is introducing the XfDs or involving that author in this discussion. The purpose of this ANI is to seek clarification on whether the existing anti-bludgeoning limits (two comments per discussion per day) extend to edit summaries, not to revisit past disputes involving other parties. I encourage NI to moderate their behavior, but I'm not advocating for their ban or punishment. If it's determined that they've inadvertently violated limits, a simple warning or clarification would be satisfactory from my perspective. If it’s determined that they are an upstanding wiki-citizen and no longer need anti-bludgeoning restrictions, that’s fine with me too. XMcan (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      To be clear, XMcan, I mentioned your XfD interventions (not anyone else's) as "similar fact" evidence (of ASPERSION-casting and IDHT) that might help editors to understand your filing here.
      Namely, you exhibit a pattern of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, centered in the topic of Cultural Marxism, and have repeatedly made unsubstantiated assertions about my editing - most recently, that I have a lengthy and contentious history with Sennalen and that I appear determined to have the last word in my MfD participation. Both statements are half-truths at best, and your constant misinterpretations about what my BLUDGEON ban is supposed to address strike me as BATTLEGROUND tactics as well.
      Incidentally, for the record, I am not asking for my BLUDGEON restriction to be lifted at this time; it would be welcome for it to be modified so that my own editor Talk page is excluded, but I understand if the community would like to ask and answer that question through a more formal process than this one. Newimpartial (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As others have said, editing articles isn't really bludgeoning. Of course edit summaries aren't the place for details discussions over changes, and if an editor with a bludgeoning restriction moves on from bludgeoning to edit warring to force their version in, without bothering to discuss their changes, they might quickly find themselves blocked for reasons that have nothing to do with bludgeoning but I see no evidence this has happened here. Nil Einne (talk) 10:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban proposal

    (univnolved non-admin comment) Given the background and previous reports, I propose that User:XMcan be topic banned from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, this would prevent him from bringing it up tangentially in discussions and other pages regarding the issue such as James A. Lindsay etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support, though I would word it as "broadly construed", as otherwise I believe XMcan will move to other related articles and continue this disruptive, battleground behavior.
    — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, broadly construed. The continued disruptive behaviour on the same subject but in a different article leaves no room for anything less. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Burma moves

    MM abc.xyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Making a mess doing undiscussed moves and renames against consensus, such that Burmese language is currently sitting at Template:Myanmar language because they couldn't delete the redirect. Help! Remsense诉 17:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we can safely assume this is a new account for MmRebot (talk · contribs). However, that account was soft-blocked, so it's not block evasion. I moved the page back to article space under its previous title since there's been an objection here. A requested move seems like the most useful next step if MM abc.xyz still wants to move the page. It looks like the process has been explained on User talk:MM abc.xyz. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much. Remsense诉 18:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is soft-blocking? Zanahary (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SOFTBLOCK. – 2804:F14:80C2:4F01:854E:D615:43E6:D3ED (talk) 03:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:O recomeço and WP:CIR 2: Electric Boogaloo

    Follow-up from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#User:O recomeço and WP:CIR, which was closed with (unfortunately) no action taken.

    O recomeço continues to make edits with grammatical errors, such as improper capitalization and spelling mistakes, and has shown no improvement, if any, in their mastery of the English language since the original discussion ended:

    It very much seems like the user in question blatantly ignored Darth Mike's suggestion to only edit versions of Wikipedia where they have a full grasp of the language. I say it's time to end this. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 01:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • CIR block We have many editors fixing typos and grammar errors but if the amount we see comes from one editor and the matter comes to ANI, then its time to cut bait. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose block If they are willing to edit topics about Brazil. Tres Fronteras has been languishing for example. Mathglot and I frequently need help from a Portuguese speaker, which the name indicates they may well be. Maybe they are just not in a welcoming topic area? 2023 Brazilian Congress attack urgently needs help.
      In any event I ask that we not move too fast on a CIR while we discuss a collaboration if he/she is willing such as has been taking place at Regency of Algiers. Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose For starters, blocking on the basis of an essay about a guideline seems a stretch. Where are the diffs showing a persistent pattern of vandalism, of adding phony information with real or phony references, endless edit-warring at contentious topics, brow-beating other editors, deleting sourced content, or continually adding their own opinion to articles despite warnings to stop? Let's look at your diffs:
    1. three capitalization errors, and one relative pronoun error; totally comprehensible.
    2. one wrong verb form, one typo; totally comprehensible. (I was going to label Equatoguinean here as some kind of weird demonym error, but turns out they are right, and I was wrong (or ignorant).
    3. one typo, one particle error, one preposition, one cap error; totally comprehensible.
    4. three typos, one def. article problem; totally comprehensible.
    5. two typos; totally comprehensible.
    6. five typos in this paragraph; one cap error; totally comprehensible.
    So you want to block them for capitalization and typos? Really? This editor is doing their best to improve the English Wikipedia in fully comprehensible, if faulty English. So what? Just send them a thank you note, and fix the problems. Tell them that months and demonyms are capitalized in English, like September and Cuban, even though they aren't in most Romance language—that should fix about half the issues. The typos and most grammar issues can be fixed by a grammar checker, or just suggest they use ChatGPT to fix all the problems at once. There are so many editors seeking to damage the encyclopedia in so many ways that are clearly contrary to policy, I find it an utter waste of time to discuss good editors improving the encyclopedia whose English is not up to native level, when the problem is so easily fixed by others with native competence in English or by tools. I hope they ignore suggestions to edit only in their native language, and stay here and continue to improve the encyclopedia. Não desanime; você é muito bem-vindo aqui. Isso vai passar. (canvassed); (Non-administrator comment) Mathglot (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    CIR in a nutshell: "Sometimes editors have good intentions, but are not competent enough to edit in a net positive manner. They create work that others have to clean up." The editor in question has created work that other editors have had to clean up, myself included. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 06:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mmmm sometimes editors have good intentions but fail to leave an edit summary or a section header, and other editors have to redo their ANI notifications for them. To be completely fair to you (which I do not think you are being this user, really) I also expected the ANI notification template to create a sectipn header the way that the 3RR template does. But still. I went back and fixed mine. Elinruby (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Block until they respond. Everyone makes mistakes, but not everyone ignores 5 warnings and one ANI notice and pretends nothing has happened. If they showed up here or on their talk page to acknowledge the problem and promise to improve, I’m sure everyone is happy to welcome their contribution. Until then it’s just creating unnecessary works for other editors. NM 04:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not seeing any notification of this ANI thread. Or any formal warnings for that matter. I think it's a bit unreasonable to expect them to Intuit the existence of this thread. Elinruby (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elinruby: You replied(diff) to the notice? Or do you mean something else? – 2804:F14:80E5:6B01:B594:C013:3E0E:888D (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, was expecting a section header or an edit summary mentioning ANI is all. Since I was fooled I will do ahead and fix that. But if they were looking at the edit summary they could easily have missed it as well. Elinruby (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS @Northern Moonlight: in your comment above you should
    • works->work,
    • contribution->contributions,
    • it's->they are
    if you want go discuss the dust in someone's else's eye. I realized as I was typing this that I didn't check the talk page history. Doing that now (later) nope not even... Elinruby (talk) 10:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not seeing any notification of this ANI thread

    Hope this helps. Northern Moonlight 17:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    yes yes, that's the notification that was buried in a thread with no edit summary. Discussed above. I missed it and I was looking for it. I have redone the notification in a more visible manner. They should see that one when they log on. Elinruby (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Northern Moonlight: You want to "Block until they respond", and that would be based on what part of WP:Blocking policy? As far as responsiveness: they don't edit every day—this thread started 01:26, 4 March and their last edit was three days prior. Also: you are aware, are you not, that once you join the fray here about another editor, your own behavior is subject to scrutiny, right? I wonder if the fact that the sole userbox on your user page states "I do not grant permission for the Wikimedia Foundation to relicense any of my contributions" makes you liable for a block for violating Wikipedia's Terms of Use. Mathglot (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Northern Moonlight: Your signature (above) does not meet the requirements of WP:CUSTOMSIG/P, in particular A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username. Please fix it. Bazza 7 (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for bring it to my attention. Done. Northern Moonlight 17:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (squint) your signature is still longer than most of your comments. I don't usually concern myself with such things, but it is making it hard to navigate this highly threaded discussion. Elinruby (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mathglot "Block until they respond" is described at WP:LISTENTOUS. Nobody (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to their original ANI thread which I mistakenly thought they didn’t respond. My apologies.
    The userbox is a verbatim copy of {{WikimediaNoLicensing}} with a different CSS and doesn’t negate any licensing rights Wikipedia requested when I submitted my edits. It’d be quite a thing if I get blocked for using a template that has been on this website since 2004. Northern Moonlight 17:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now at Templates for discussion Elinruby (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    So... I really truly hate to be That Editor, but as someone who was just bemoaning the paucity of Portuguese speakers on this board, I am rather concerned by this pile-on. WP:LISTENTOUS is an essay usually invoked when a new mobile editor hasn't yet discovered their talk page, is it not?

    I am finding it hard to see what damage this editor could possibly do to an obscure gee-whiz article while logged out. Especially since the cited concern is rather trivial and the way it's been handled so far falls so far short of ideal. Rather than telling them to stop contributing, has anyone politely asked them to make edit requests on the talk page? "Sloppy work" is not exactly constructive criticism, and more effort has been put into this lolsuit than would have been needed for a page watcher (because clearly there are page watchers) to simply fix the problem.

    Beyond all that, am I now understanding that whoops, we were talking about the *previous* attempt to criminalize their contributions and it was a mistake even then? I need coffee. Clearly I must have misunderstood that. smh Elinruby (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The previous ANI discussion was pertaining to the myriad grammatical errors present in the user's contributions, and months later, I brought up the issue again because they have shown little to no improvement in that field, and continue to edit a version of Wikipedia where they are not proficient in the language's capitalization and spelling. Also, why are we bemoaning the lack of Portuguese speakers here? If they are more proficient in Portuguese than English, then they should stick to editing the Portuguese Wikipedia. And furthermore, I fail to understand how a Portuguese speaker who stumbles in the English language could be of help in Brazil-related topics on English Wikipedia. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 01:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That would represent a failure to see on your part, sir. I gave two examples further up the thread, wikilinked for convenience. There are quite a few others that he or she could work on, without having to deal with you.
    I am not going to debate this with you any further, since you fail to see. The notification wasn't even properly made until what, not quite 24 hours ago? Smh. Elinruby (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elinruby: Neither of the articles you linked to above have maintenance templates on them, so I'm not sure what problems you think the non-fluent user in question can help with. Perhaps if you took responsibility for the situation and prevented them from causing the rest of us problems, we'd be fine having you corral them into editing you find useful. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (scrolling through another immense signature) @Chris troutman: Why would there be maintenance templates? You were expecting some? Because it was produced by Portuguese speakers? Congratulations btw on posting a complaint about someone else's English in good English. It's refreshing given the rest of this thread.
    I think that you and the others who have been trying to make this editor go away need to re-read the guidelines on civility and collaboration. It seems to me that the editor's main transgression has been to persistently try to contribute in the face of ethnocentrism. I invite them to help out in other areas where their language skills could be invaluable. And yes, I can make some suggestions in addition to the above, which you don't seem to have examined in much detail.
    "Sloppy work" indeed. 2023 Brazilian Congress attack, as discussed on its talk page, needs to be updated with the legal proceedings against Bolsonaro and the various military co-conspirators. Tres Fronteras is important in terms of the immense damage cartels are doing to the Amazon. None of that is in these articles really, and almost all of the sources are in Portuguese.
    Lest you retort that that is not what we do here, I will mention that somebody disagreed and gave me an editor of the week award for coaxing a bunch of Portuguese speakers into producing Operation Car Wash, which also needs updating, btw, but I am dealing with a dumpster fire elsewhere. Elinruby (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elinruby: Yes, if articles need improvement we often tag them. Many so-so articles like the two you point out aren't visibly deficient to those of us not knowledgeable in that field. There are perhaps hundreds of articles which could benefit from the contributions of Lusophones. O recomeço, however, is not editing with the degree of language proficiency required, hence my request for a CIR block. I have nothing but respect for your longevity, your edit count, and your ability to teach, coach, and mentor. I exhort you to do your best to redirect O recomeço's efforts lest the community collectively lose patience. Surely we share the same goals in this regard. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This has nothing to do with ethnocentrism. It has everything to do with their grasp of the English language not being up to the standards expected of contributors. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 22:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Good grief. This thread is unnecessarily difficult to follow, and probably a nightmare for anyone with accessibility issues. Those commenting should review WP:COLAS and be mindful of their formatting. Grandpallama (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Tempted to hat this as having devolved into pointless bickering that isn't going to result in anything productive at the board for urgent action by administrators, but I'm involved, so I can't. Mathglot (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I know right? I wanted to ask for a close in my last comment, but the person this is about apparently hasn't even found out about it yet. It's clearly unfounded IMHO but obviously I am involved as well.Elinruby (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfounded? The user in question is leaving grammatical errors that other editors had to clean up. A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 22:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this thread is a mess starting with your attempt to notify the user. Now stop, please. Everyone knows what both of us think Elinruby (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to remove the starting with your attempt to notify the user part. Northern Moonlight 03:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? I questioned whether the editor would ever have seen it and redid it, even as you were characterizing the editor's silence as blockable. All that looks pretty messy to me. Elinruby (talk) 03:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait and see I've been following this discussion for a while (as my gripe about formatting probably suggests). O recomeço hasn't edited WP since before the ANI notification was posted on their talkpage. The last time they received an ANI notification, they responded by coming to ANI and discussing their edits, and they did so in good faith. I see no evidence that they are trying to be deliberately disruptive, so it's not clear that a block is needed at this time to get their attention. Yes, we block people based on competence, as any experienced editor surely knows, and I'm concerned this editor doesn't demonstrate the necessary level, but they deserve a chance to respond.
    Mathglot deserves a trouting for knowingly (per their inclusion of "canvassed" in this edit) responding to an instance of canvassing, and proceeding not just with joining the discussion, but actually voting on the block. Grandpallama (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Elinruby's conduct

    Throughout their bludgeoning of this discussion (they've commented fifteen times as of this edit), Elinruby's behavior has frequently crossed the line into unacceptable, and they have been unnecessarily belligerent and hostile.

    • This is a textbook example of explicit bad-faith canvassing, which alone merits a formal warning.o
    • This particularly bad-faith aspersion I think that you and the others who have been trying to make this editor go away need to re-read the guidelines on civility and collaboration. It seems to me that the editor's main transgression has been to persistently try to contribute in the face of ethnocentrism. makes a groundless insinuation about the motivation of OP and others who disagree with Elinruby. I've seen other editors blocked for making this sort of insinuation, a cousin of a racism accusation, especially when it is so blatantly false.
    • Claiming the ANI notification wasn't placed, despite having responded to it, then falsely claiming an additional five times that it hadn't been done. This is even without getting into the WP:TPO violation of removing The Grand Delusion's notification in order to replace it with their own.
    • Repeated sniping about others' usernames: (squint) your signature is still longer than most of your comments; (scrolling through another immense signature)
    • This initially sensible claim that there are relevant articles O recomeço could work on, followed by a fairly rude attack on Christ Troutman (Why would there be maintenance templates? You were expecting some? Because it was produced by Portuguese speakers?) when he quite reasonably asked how O recomeço would know about those articles in the absence of maintenance tags.
    • This confrontational, pointy grammar nitpicking.
    • And just overall ongoing needling and assumptions of bad faith, even as others responded courteously, of which this is pretty emblematic: That would represent a failure to see on your part, sir. I gave two examples further up the thread, wikilinked for convenience. There are quite a few others that he or she could work on, without having to deal with you. I am not going to debate this with you any further, since you fail to see.

    I've seen editors pick up a block just for problematic canvassing or casting serious aspersions alone, but there's a lot more than just that going on here. Given their clean history, though, I propose that Elinruby's behavior here merits a formal warning from admins about both conduct and canvassing. Grandpallama (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Answering again only because yet again discussed:
    • I was not suggesting, nor do I think Chris troutman understood me to be suggesting, that the editor should have found these articles themself. I seem to recall presenting them as examples of my own projects that could use the editor's help, in response to a suggestion that they were unable to contribute.
    • It's amusing to be accused of nitpicking grammar. Yes, nitpicking grammar is nitpicky and that is exactly what I am saying. If you are going to nitpick about grammar, run a grammar checker on your complaint. Or just heed the underlining the wiki editor provides.
    • As for Mathglot, yes I notified them of this thread! They were mentioned and are a concerned party as co-author of two of the three articles I mentioned that need help. I did not not tell them what to do about it.
    • I think the encyclopedia that anyone should edit should discourage editors being told to leave, is all, and yes, I did make the point that graver errors have in my view been committed in this thread than by the editor in question, whose contributions appear to have been in good faith and on-topic.
    • The Grand Delusion said they failed to see; I agreed with them. AGF does not require me to continue arguing with a brick wall, nor to repeatedly point out my prior responses. I did do this a couple of times but have tried to disengage since then, only answering remarks about me.
    • Yes, I have answered (repeated) posts about my own behavior in the past day or so. This is ANI where I do get to do that.
    • I agree with Grandpallama that we should wait and see, despite my disagreement with their ABF characterization of me.
    • I have already told The Grand Delusion that we have both made our point. As for the suggestion that I too be blocked made by that clean start account -- I am giving that the silence it deserves. Elinruby (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see I pinged The Grand Delusion twice. I apologize for that. I meant to remove the second one when I added one above it, and forgot. Elinruby (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only say that I think it's unfortunate, when provided with these diffs and examples, that every one of your responses is a justification, doubling down on what you said and did. I think my post does speak for itself, so I'll just rebut two things and leave future comments for other editors. You invited Mathglot because of articles you invoked, not because Mathglot had participated in a previous discussion about this editor or on the article in question; you, in essence, created the pretext by which Mathglot could be post hoc justified as involved. Did you approach other editors--ones with whom you don't have a close working relationship? Do you think your notice to Mathglot was neutral in the way WP:CANVASS requires it to be? Your post on Mathglot's page could be used as a classic example of WP:CAMPAIGNING.
    Secondly, I had hoped that my proposal would jar you a bit, and make you realize that you should probably strike a couple of your earlier comments and reconsider some of your interactions in this thread; your "brick wall" comment here feels more reflective of your behavior than of The Grand Delusion's. I do not, as a genuinely uninvolved editor weighing in, think Chris or Northern Moonlight or The Grand Delusion merited the hostility you directed toward them, nor do I think Chris (or any reader) would look at your response to him and think it was the type of interaction you are now describing it as. And I think it falls beneath the expectations of our civility guidelines. Grandpallama (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grandpallama: Regarding Elinruby's "suggesting, that the editor should have found these articles themself", I agree; I understood Elinruby to be interested in re-purposing O recomeço's efforts, which I welcome. As for Elinruby's conduct here, I'll give a pass though I do not think you were inaccurate in your thrust. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, although that phrasing is some real revisionism from what was initially said to you, quoted in my proposal, though I think we both agree on Elinruby's interest. Grandpallama (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I really didn't want to get involved again, and when "problematic canvassing" was mentioned previously (@17:46), rather than extend a conversation that I hoped would quiesce by replying here, I responded at your UTP instead. But as it's a bullet point in an argument about possible sanctions on an editor, I feel I have no choice but to link that discussion to give a fuller picture, as imho, per the guideline no canvassing occurred. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since nobody else can answer this probably
    1. Lourdes indeffed themself shortly thereafter
    2. El C had a point, kinda, but this is ancient.
    Now I really do have stuff to do. Elinruby (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose the proposal as a bridge further than fit and necessary. Perhaps a wet trout is called for with some articulations. But Elinruby's interest in repurposing an editor's efforts where they can be helpful seems like something our project's guidelines favor when it's possible, and coolly disengaging is common advice for what to do when interactions become un-generative. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure a formal warning is necessary at this stage, but I encourage Elinruby to tone it down a notch. While they may not intend to be aggressive, some of their comments come across that way. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Jadidjw

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

    Hi again ANI. This has been ongoing for too long, the WP:GF and WP:ROPE has run out for me. Jadidjw has been doing this type of stuff since 2021 (the same year they first started editing), as seen in this ANI report where they got blocked for 72 hours [7].

    In July 2023, I made a SPI [8] of Jadidjw because their conduct was extremely similar to that of a sock, which includes WP:CIR and attempts to minimize the (sourced) Mongol aspect of the Hazara.

    A half year later, they are still doing the same, removing sourced information at Hazaras [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. Apparently the reason behind some of these edits (probably all of them tbh) is because it clashes with their opinion, as they literally demonstrated in this recent talk section [15].

    Right now, they are currently edit warring to have their way at Hazaras [16] [17] [18], which is not the first time. They already got blocked for a month for violating 3RR in that article during their attempts to minimize the Mongol aspect [19]. They are also being dishonest (not the first time, see the SPI), claiming that there was some previous consensus for this massive removal of sourced info [20] - which there wasn't.

    At Sheikh Ali (Hazara tribe), they randomly manually reverted me to restored an unsourced edit of a sock [21], pretty strange. Based on this, I don't think they are networth to this site, at least not in Hazara related articles, but that's where all their edits are. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What I see is an editor who has been disruptive for yours, and has received a 72 hour block, a two week block and a one month block. And yet their disruption continues. I have indefinitely blocked Jadidjw. Cullen328 (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Cullen! HistoryofIran (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Nycarchitecture212 is deleting mainstream scholarship about Judaism

    Nycarchitecture212 has been warned about deleting information from the articles ([22], [23], and [24]). Then they removed again mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP about Judaism at Ahab ([25], [26], and [27]). I get a feeling that they are only here in order to delete mainstream academic knowledge which they find offensive to their own religion. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I was warned by the person who posted this here. Look what he wrote here describing his ax to grind with Jews on a thread where I was having an academic discussion with zero extraordinary claims: "The POV of Orthodox Jews upon early Judaism is to a large extent void currency... Despite your protestations, it is clear that both these groups promote cult pseudohistory. I do have an ax to grind against pseudohistory, especially against fundamentalist pseudohistory."
    I am here to write articles about architecture in New York City and Judaism, as I've had in my bio as always, including articles such as Vilna Goan, etc. Having a focus on Jewish articles is not incriminating or inappropriate by any means. I think my contributions to those articles are valid and I did not do the things he is accusing me of.
    There is no edit warring going on on any of my active articles. My edits had detailed comments for context, made sense and were in good faith, and I'm currently on a few talk pages making progress with other users on contributions to articles. If I make mistakes, I own up to them and learn, as a new editor learning conventions on Wikipedia. I didn't think making edits with comments was worthy of a warning before from him, and I don't think starting a talk page discussion about the section on Judaism warrents being warned here by him either. You can read the post yourself he is complaining about here in Talk:Abrahamic religions which he responded to by coming here a minute after to complain about it instead of discussing on the talk page.
    I have a strong background in Jewish scholarship and I've been always willing to talk things out on talk pages, of which this user is involved in a few articles I am contributing to. Of course if I come accross blatant Jew hatred online I will update it. For example, I removed some nasty thing about pigs and blood Ahab#DeathofAhab from the Ahab page and he reverted it back. Can an admin please help me out?
    I think this man works for a Christian missionary organization and I don't know his motives but I notice a pattern that he and another user named VenusFeuerFall seem to be involved with a lot of the same pages doing the same things. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "his ax to grind with Jews"—if you do provide evidence that I'm antisemitic, then I should get banned. But if you fail to do so, you should get banned for WP:ASPERSIONS. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't reduce my argument to something that simplistic. Let admins read what I wrote without you contextualizing it. Stop talking to me please. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, it sounds highly implausible that a Christian missionary would write something like Except for the bytdwd inscription, there is no attestation for David, independent of the Bible. Instead, there is a lot of evidence that David did not really had a kingdom worthy of the name kingdom. If you mean that he ruled over a loose confederation of tribes, then I might agree. ([28]). tgeorgescu (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And VenusFeuerFalle is doing the same things, namely spreading mainstream academic knowledge through Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, I have no ax to grind against the civil and political rights of Orthodox Jews. It is just that their views upon early Judaism have been debunked by mainstream history and mainstream archaeology. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm sorry, that wasn't a deeply subtle remark. You were calling him antisemitic. Remsense诉 07:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Jewish scholarship and I've been always willing to talk things out on talk pages"
    Okay, and why did you not went to the talkpage before deleting mainstream scientific consensus? You should be aware that the consensus is in history then. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Their previous deletion of WP:SCHOLARSHIP about Judaism was [29]. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I already said that was a mistake, and am a new user learning Wikipedia conventions; I thought writing a comment with explanation on the edit was enough, and didn't realize I need to go to the talk page to make longer edits like that. As a result, I am more involved on the talk pages now and haven't done that since. I will not repeat my points I made. I should be able to defend myself without you injecting a response to everything I say. I don't want to talk to you anymore.
    Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, before you got warned, it was a honest mistake. But after you got warned, it wasn't. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What you wrote doesn't even make sense. Just stop writing to me please and replying to everything I write. I should be able to defend myself without you contextualizing every single thing I write. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your demands that I should not reply here are void by default. This is not your own talk page, it is a public noticeboard. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "new user learning Wikipedia conventions" did you not say that you have always been willing to talk on the user-page? A claim which implies some experience with Wikipedia. How do these two things can be reconciled? Please do not track me into this awful accusations any further. and make yourself familiar with the Wikipedia policies. However, if your goal is promoting religious views, I recommand to write a blog or something. Alternatively, there are experienced Users always willing to help when they have time. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My opinion as an uninvolved observer:
    I agree that their first deletion of content was problematic, but I'm less convinced about those others, because the sourcing for them is really not great. I also think that the "In Rabbinic literature" section of the same page is a total mess and that this dispute feels very much like bikeshedding given that. Loki (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, agree upon what are now links 62 and 63. But I disagree about 61. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Solution: I suggest that they receive a warning from an admin that they are not allowed to remove WP:SCHOLARSHIP because they think that mainstream history and mainstream Bible scholarship are Christian plots against Judaism. Why else would they say that I seek to convert Jews to Christianity? They think that I talk like a Christian professor from a theological seminary. Priests or pastors would not talk like that, but professors would. Priests or pastors usually abide by "What's learned at seminary stays at seminary." tgeorgescu (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Nycarchitecture212 received a page block from User:Bishonen for Long-term edit warring, violations of neutral point of view, filibustering, and generally wasting other editors' time. See also [30] after a report by User:ScottishFinnishRadish Doug Weller talk 08:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not anti-Jewish, I'm anti-pseudohistory. But asking them to understand this difference could shatter their worldview. So, their natural reaction is to fight against understanding it. Or, as Bart Ehrman has put it, "On one level I suppose for the same reason that most hobbits who have never left the Shire tend to think that everyone in the world is about three feet tall. They don’t have a wider experience of the world, for example by taking a trip to Gondor or Mordor." Hint: he does not literally mean geography, it's just a metaphor. Source: [31]. Nycarchitecture212 finds that the findings of mainstream Bible scholars are alien to their worldview. And, I do confess, for someone who has never read a book of mainstream Bible scholarship in their life, such views do come across as very odd (probably crazy, or just blasphemy for the sake of blasphemy). E.g. the view that the Earth rotates around the Sun is still a crazy view for many. For me the Bible is about a bunch of facts which could be historically true or historically false (usually a mixed bag); I have no strong feelings about whether mainstream archaeology finds certain facts true or false. For Nycarchitecture212, it is a matter of demolishing their personality. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tgeorgescu, this paragraph is focused way too much on what you think Nycarchitecture212 thinks/believes. You need to stop speculating on other editor's beliefs. Focus on how they edit, not what they believe. Frankly, this post reads very battlegroundy and really should be struck. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As Doug Weller has said, this is not Nycarchitecture212's first rodeo. I am seeing that same pit-one-editor-against-another talk page tactic rearing its head again at Talk:David § Historical sources for the lead of the article (see an example here). See an example of filibustering, poor understanding of WP:BURDEN and baiting here, the exact same behaviour for which they were already partially blocked. The statement I am here to write articles about architecture in New York City rings very hollow when a grand total of 9 edits out of a total of 157 (6%) have had anything at all to do with New York City or its architecture. Instead, they continue to give the impression that they are WP:NOTHERE to build and collaborate on a general interest encyclopedia (as they said here before they were blocked If there is a desire to raise a third question about whether editors are allowed to add their opinions, the answer remains 'no.') Rather, they appear to be in relentless pursuit of a rabbinic agenda in theological areas, and to 'prove' the historicity of Biblical figures by bludgeoning other editors into agreeing to accept their questionable sourcing. I would recommend an escalating block to deter any further disruption. Havradim leaf a message 06:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a brief interaction with NYArc on their talk page. As others have mentioned, the problems tend to arise in topics that are Judaism and Judaism-adjacent. While NYArc did not take my strong advice to avoid the topic, they did cease the immediate problematic behavior (on Abrahamic religions) and seemed to onboard the advice on how Wikipedia works. (WP:BRD) They did respond poorly to tgeorgescu's earlier attempts, however.
    This seems like a good reason to aim for a topic ban from Judaism, broadly construed. It seems like this could still be a productive editor so long as they don't edit in a place where they have such a strong connection. They will have to watch out for a tendency to respond to criticism with hostility, but blocks are cheap, and I suspect that a less emotionally fraught subject would better enable them to be a productive and civil editor than escalating site blocks. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Dilemma

    Current sock blocked, SPI open. DNFTT Star Mississippi 12:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    I recently shared a blog post I had written to a relevant subreddit. I've posted to this subreddit a few times and got good responses.My most recent post had a response on it when I checked it in the morning (I usually post just before I go to sleep) that insinuated I had engaged in some kind of vote manipulation due to how well the post had been performing in terms of upvotes and the lack of any other comments at the time of their comment.The post has since received more comments that are responses to the actual blog post. However, the accusatory comment has received some amount of support and is the second most upvoted comment (which means it will feature fairly prominently when people view the reddit comments), beating out relevant comments.I found it unfortunate that this comment would be waiting there for all the other people who came to comment on the post so I wanted to respond to it .The problem I had was that I can't prove that I didn't engage in vote manipulation. It would benefit me to do so as it would get more people looking at my post and aware of who I am (or so the hypothetical reasoning could go). Additionally, if I tried to defend myself against the claim I would only make myself seem more suspicious. I also don't want to leave the comment unanswered as I believe it gives the wrong idea about not only my character, but also the quality of the blog post I shared (since I didn't do any vote manipulation it would appear that it is doing well on its own merits!). So how could I respond to such an unfalsifiable claim without seeming suspiciously defensive and maintaining a good face?Note that there aren't any ads on my blog site and the content is all free. I was also surprised at how well the post performed, most of my other posts didn't do quite so well so I can understand it looking like a suspicious outlier. Holland trip (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello there, Holland trip. Can you please explain, concisely if possible, why you are discussing Reddit and blogs at this Wikipedia noticeboard? Neither Reddit nor 99% of blogs are reliable sources on Wikipedia, and administrators care nothing about the massive amounts of foolishness that crawl across the internet like a fungal infection. We are writing an encyclopedia here instead. Cullen328 (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328, If you look through the edit log, this is another probable LTA account ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 07:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That the 4/5th account that has vandalised this page over the past hour. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indefinitely blocked Holland trip as obviously not here to build this encyclopedia. If any sockpuppet detectives want to work on this, please feel free. Cullen328 (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 07:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) And they've all been created back in 2016-2017. I've lodged a sock puppet investigation under the name of the oldest of them. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a long sleep, Daveosaurus. Approaching 1/3 of Rip Van Winkle's nap. Cullen328 (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sock investigation is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Home-made goodiness if anyone wants to add names of any more sleepers overnight (it's getting late in my time zone). Daveosaurus (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    More auto-confirmed socks have disrupted ANI. They have been blocked. In worst case, if it keeps up, ANI would have to ECP to stop auto-confirmed socks, but it would prevent good-faith auto-confirmed users from defending themselves. --Stylez995 (talk) 10:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Erbmjha2 NOTHERE

    Erbmjha2 (talk · contribs · count) has been editing since last November, making a total of 24 edits. In that short time, they've managed to amass several warnings, including three level-4 warnings, and a block. Today they repeated[32] an edit of theirs that was reverted with a level-4 warning 12 days ago[33]. With only one of their 24 edits possibly regarded as constructive, the user is now wasting too much of other editors' time. May I suggest a sanction per NOTHERE? — kashmīrī TALK 11:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    what are u saying,almost all my edits are constructive.You seem not to know any sanskrit and is commenting.ask any person how is kumari कुमारी written in devnaagri and what it means in sanskrit.I added meaning of names in vishnu sahastranam and you are saying it non constructive.
    Harivarasanam is in pure sanskrit,ask any sanskrit knower
    You are multipletime reverting mine without proper explaination Erbmjha2 (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Erbmjha2 is someone who has made 27 edits to Wikipedia and 2 to Commons. He/she got a three-day block in December for persistent removal of sourced article content, with no explanation apart from the fact that you don't like it, and no attempt to respond to messages from other editors beyond telling them that you know best.[34] He/she has had quite a few warnings on his/her talk page since then.
    I suspect that the problem is one of competence.
    • In this edit on 3 March he/she deleted a big chunk of cited text from the article on Varanasi. He/she never thought to provide an edit summary. It got reverted, and the editor who reverted it (1) explained why it was reverted in the edit summary, and (2) left some guidance and a warning on User talk:Erbmjha2.
    • In this edit on 5 March he/she deleted cited text in some places, and added a thousand-line long table, some cited text, and some uncited text. He did leave an edit summary: better; that gave no clue as to what the edit was, or why it had been made. The editor who reverted this edit left a more useful edit summary, saying that the edit Deleted a lot of useful info.
    I do not understand why Erbmjha2 is complaining that people revert his/her edits without explanation. It would be more truthful to say that Erbmjha2 makes his edits without explanation, but they get deleted by people who say why they reverted Erbmjha2's edit.
    Suggest a two-week block.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Erbmjha2 By saying that they should ask any "Sanskrit knower", that's essentially considered original research. You need reliable, independent sources from websites that can be trusted. Also, based on my check of your edit, you also seemed to write "List of 1,000 names of Lord Vishnu" in the short description. While that may seem like a good idea on paper, the Vishnu Sahasranama is a hymn and not some guide of how people can chant. Finally, you also removed sourced content without proper explanation. @Kashmiri and @Toddy1, I can certainly agree with your decision. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    why block,its too harsh
    I want to do constructive edits only Erbmjha2 (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Erbmjha2 Then you need to seek out a mentor to guide you. You wouldn't be at this discussion board if your edits to this point were all constructive. —C.Fred (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That might be what you want to do, but it's not what you are doing. The fact that you don't recognize that is why I have now blocked you: to prevent your continued disruptive effect regardless of your motivation. DMacks (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Revdel request

    This edit, although reverted, qualifies as a death threat, or at a minimum a death wish, against a certain group of editors and their families. A revdel is requested, and a temporary block of the IP would also be appropriate. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @JoJo Anthrax Ouch. That is actually pretty scary. Yeah. I think it should be deleted because this is pretty serious for a death threat. I support the block. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (I think it's been recommended to email Oversight about revdels when possible, especially when they're particularly sensitive, to avoid potential Streisand effect.) Remsense诉 13:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both done. For future reference, @Remsense is correct, please do not bring these type of things to a high profile noticeboard! Courcelles (talk) 13:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, and I now know to email Oversight if similar trash removal is needed again. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    IF PUBLIC VIEW
    WOULD BRING DISGRACE
    A NOTICE-BOARD
    IS NOT THE PLACE
    Burma-shave

    —Odysseus1479 02:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I wasn't sure if people still used these. Something something, Burma Shave. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 18:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    LordRockall/HOUNDING/NOTHERE

    I had the temerity to query the reliability/independence/accuracy of some of the sources used, by LordRockall, at Talk:Baron of Tirawley. And tag some of the other sources as failing verification. And, the issues not being addressed, to open a related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron of Tirawley. The editor appears to have taken offence - to the extent of trawling through a range of my edits (including to my user page, user Talk archives, sandbox and other User namespace pages) to tendentiously revert a volume of changes. See (just as an example): [35][36][37]. Note, in particular, the "threat" in this EDSUM [38]. I might please ask if someone could review (and take action as needed). Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Special:Contributions/LordRockall shows explicit WP:HARASSMENT of Guliolopez. LordRockall needs to be stopped. Schazjmd (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is plain an editor on the attack against Guliolopez. The Banner talk 17:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what games they are playing, but they sent a wikilove of a pie to Guliolopez with a message that seems to be WP:PA. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 17:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bullshit like this is textbook harassment. From a 100 edit account, the introduction to the door was the only real choice for me. Indeffed. Courcelles (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This gets stranger... I found their sockpuppets BaronOfIrrus (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and TirawleyHistory (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). That last account made this edit. Blocked the socks. Courcelles (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Courcelles. In honesty, the user behind those profiles was likely just seeking a block in the end. I had anticipated, if/when LordRockall was blocked, that the user would shift to the other connected profiles. Including those you mention. Which QUAKEDed away from the start. While I was steeled for that eventuality, and prepared to move to SPI in that event, I appreciate that it has now been preempted. A bridge further than I'd hoped. Much appreciated Courcelles. (And thanks also to the other non-admin contributors for their support/input/etc). Thanks again. Guliolopez (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guliolopez Just for (hopefully unnecessary) future reference, if you know someone is using multiple accounts and are filing an issue like this, please bring up all the sockpuppets to begin with. Makes it a lot easier to get the full picture. Courcelles (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Will do. A very fair point/comment. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem

    CONTENT DISPUTE
    (non-admin closure) Wholly a content dispute, with remedying discussion already having started at Talk:Seven Years' War. Talk about conduct and swooping antipodean objects should likely start on its own heading. Remsense诉 07:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    User Robinvp11 on the page of The Seven Years War has removed lots of belligerents who he claims are not involved, but does not cite any sources. Á lot of important material has been removed, for example, how it is called the first world war, and a quote by Winston Churchill has been removed because he claims he is a “bad historian” and resulting in lots of opiantented editing. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't understand why this has been raised as an ANI, given Blackmamba simply reversed all my edits. What's the issue? However...
    (1) Having a go at me when I'm not the person who introduced major changes to a stable article without discussion seems odd.
    (2) Infobox; the basic problem here (which has been discussed in enormous detail elsewhere) is lack of understanding as to what constitutes a Belligerent. It is formal, legal, phrase which Wikipedia helpfully defines.
    The Infobox was relatively stable until recent additions. If you look at the TP, various other editors have expressed concern - so far, Blackmamba's response has been to tell us we're wrong.
    (3) I removed the Churchill quote because the original wording says "Churchill argued it was the first "World War", but no one else agrees and there are other candidates. So how it that useful to the general reader?
    I have invited a couple of other editors to comment. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I will happily abide by the consensus, and I assume Blackmamba will do the same.
    @Johnbod: @DavidDijkgraaf: @호로조: @Remsense: Please feel free to comment, and/or invite others to do so. This is a major article which needs considerable work. Robinvp11 (talk) 06:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, all I'm really seeing on the talk page (permanent link) is Blackmamba31248 introducing material against the advice of other editors. I don't think what's happened here really rises to the level of urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. I suppose Blackmamba31248 may be due a WP:BOOMERANG for a misuse of ANI (seemingly to stifle other editors' behavior)? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 07:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing on Heiner Rindermann

    I have made repeated requests on Talk:Heiner_Rindermann and WP:BLPN, and engaged in voluminous correspondence on these pages, to try to reach a consensus edit on Heiner_Rindermann. The current edit contains innuendo suggesting that Rindermann is racist and that his academic output is pseudoscience. The references provided do not substantiate these statements. I consider the content to violate the conventions of WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH and have tried on several occasions to edit the page, and to add quality tags. The Rindermann bio touches on the Race and intelligence controversy, and as such is potentially contentious.

    In spite of attempts at dialog on Talk:Heiner_Rindermann and User_talk:Generalrelative, my edits have been repeatedly reverted[39][40][41][42] without further discussion by User:Generalrelative. This behaviour is in itself suggestive of WP:OWNership, but User:Generalrelative has also made repeated references to a 'consensus'[43][44] that does not exist, and happens to align with the editor's own view. In the last of these reversions, User:Generalrelative named me as an WP:SPA. This is an WP:ASPERSION, and factually incorrect: I have 5000 edits over the last four years on a variety of topics. (See Special:Contributions/Nangaf)

    User:Generalrelative is also accusing me of WP:PROXYING for a banned user.[45] It is true that I was canvassed to edit Heiner Rindermann, but I don't see why this means that all of my edits should be rejected out of hand by someone who is not themself an admin. Perhaps User:Generalrelative is right and I am wrong: I will accept a third party judgment on that. But it strikes me as high-handed behaviour, and an assumption of bad faith.

    In any case I don't think it will be possible to reach a consensus edit on Heiner_Rindermann until User:Generalrelative desists from what appears to me an impolite and unconstructive pattern of behaviour, and would like some kind of intervention to assist in reaching that goal.

    I have also raised the issue on WP:DRN, but don't see much hope that mediation can resolve the issue while this particular individual apparently refuses to participate in any kind of constructive editing. Nangaf (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This appears to be originating from at least one banned editor. The IP which prompted this by starting User talk:Nangaf#Original synthesis is topic-banned from race and intelligence, specifically because of past behavior like this. The IP has, yet again, politely contacted a sympathetic editor and encouraged them to make edits based on misinformation or outright lies. The IP user was previously evasive about their identity and reasons for editing with an IP, and gave contradictory information. The IP's denial on Nangaf's talk page is utterly implausible. There is no doubt, based on these comments, that the IP editor is the same as topic banned one. They write in the same florid style, they specifically discuss Rindermann, they post to user talk pages and not articles or article talk pages, and they edit from the same range which was was previously blocked from editing Talk:Race_and_intelligence due to the exact same brand of disruption.
    The end result of this request, just like past requests, is to sanitize the reputation of an individual member of a walled garden of fringe race scientists associated with Mankind Quarterly.
    The most recent discussion of this IP's behavior I could easily find was here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1069#Another t-ban violation by IP 2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 from 2021. I suspect there are more recent ones. Grayfell (talk) 07:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Grayfell is entirely correct about the t-banned /40. Johnuniq recently blocked a /44 within that range for precisely these interactions with Nangaf we're discussing here (see this comment). A more recent ANI discussion of this IP user (from June 2022) is here. It was followed up here (in December 2022) resulting in the IP's first long rangeblock. Generalrelative (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From reviewing the the article and the talk page, I think both bear out Grayfell's and Generalrelative's assessments. WP:BLP certainly calls for careful consideration of content, but the main problem I see is an IP editor trying to project through someone else to suppress information about Rindermann's activities. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) Just a bit of context for now. This dispute began when I pointed out to Nangaf that they'd been enlisted by a topic-banned IP user (here). I was honestly surprised when they reacted so harshly (here). They continued to ratchet up the hostility (here) when the banned IP user was again reverted by Johnuniq. And when Johnuniq responded with a very even-handed reply, they WP:POINTedly did this, for which they received a warning from ScottishFinnishRadish. Nangaf's reply to that warning was this. Against that backdrop, four experienced users (including me) have explained on the article talk page why Nangaf's interpretation of policy is incorrect. This user appeared to be ready to drop the stick until an SPA called Mr_Butterbur showed up at BLPN to voice support for them. A quick glance through this Mr_Butterbur's contribs shows all the signs of a serial meatpuppet. That's the SPA I was referring to in my edit summary, not Nangaf, though I see now that I could have made that clearer. Generalrelative (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You're not an admin, you don't get to decide who is a sock. I don't accept your explanation. Nangaf (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At first glance, the controversial section appears to be sourced, and isn't directly calling him racist. It is a short paragraph that notes his affiliation with groups that are considered racist by other sources. That doesn't guarantee it gets included, but it does provide a reasonable rationale for inclusion, which might be why it has been the status quo for some time. Whether or not the sources are adequate isn't an issue for ANI. As the other editors involved appear to be acting in good faith, I don't yet see a behavior issue.
    The problem here is that you have already shopped this at WP:BLPN and WP:DRN and now here, and the discussion on the talk page seems to have been tainted by canvassing [46] by an IP, which is suspicious in itself. You keep taking bites of this apple rather than continue the discussion at the other venues, which raises more issue with your behavior than anyone else's. The best thing you can do is continue the discussion at BLPN, as at the core, this is a content issue more than behavior, and BLPN is the right venue. So far, ONE editor there has agreed with you, best to let the discussion continue to develop. Best to leave the article with the status quo and develop a consensus (or not) at BLPN before changing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is exactly what I have been trying to do, but it is plain to see that User:Generalrelative is intent on wikilawyering to disqualify me out of hand, rather than discussing the detail of any particular edit. As for shopping it around, I have been fairly patient -- this has been going on for weeks already, and I honestly don't think I had much alternative to escalation in this instance. Every time I have tried to engage Generalrelative to discuss the actual content of the article, I get an accusation of bad faith editing in response, so ANI seems to be about the only place to adjudicate this. Nangaf (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you are wasting time, since ANI doesn't decide content. And by the way, what is with the bizarre behavior on Johnuniq's talk page? Demanding he doesn't do his job for deleting a LTA's comments on your page, then you go and delete HIS calm reply on his very own talk page? That kind of behavior doesn't give me faith you are rationally trying to cooperate in a collegiate way here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That was pointy, I'll admit.
    I give up on Heiner Rindermann. I think it's a bad page and smears him by association, but if admins don't see it, I guess it stays and Wikipedia is the worse for it. Nangaf (talk) 07:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My suggestion would be to let some time pass before continuing. There are two issues: the article and encouragement of a topic-banned IP. You won't get much support on the former while the latter is fresh. If you do take it further, please do not talk about other editors. Follow WP:DR although a dispute-resolution discussion will not achieve anything in a contentious topic so I would skip that. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought this was a pretty obvious BLP violation, I'm honestly surprised at the pushback. I guess that's the way with contentious topics.
    Sorry about the pointy edit on your page, I was pretty frustrated at that point. Nangaf (talk) 07:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why I said BLPN is the right venue. Keep it there, be patient. Don't reply to everything the moment someone comments, just let the consensus form naturally. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is being patient, and there is participating in a war of attrition. This is feels like the latter, so I am out. Nangaf (talk) 07:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Rights removal request (Queen of Hearts)

    Please take away all my hats (incl. IPBE, excl. extended confirmed). Life has "hit the fan", so to speak, recently, and I need a break. Thanks, Queen of Hearts talk
    she/they
    stalk     06:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Queen of Hearts: I removed most but kept extended confirmed and rollback. If you want rollback removed, please say so here and someone will oblige. Johnuniq (talk) 07:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnuniq, thank you. Could you (or someone else) please take rollback too? Queen of Hearts talk
    she/they
    stalk     20:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Johnuniq (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

    I have fully protected the article [47]. Though marked as indefinite, I will reduce the protection back to the prior existing indefinite ECP in three days. I've logged the protection as this is a contentious topic, per WP:ARBIPA [48]. I have placed a general warning on the article's talk page, pinging all potentially involved editors. See Talk:Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh#Article_fully_protected. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hammersoft, you effected the full protection immediately after an editor reverted the article to reintroduce recent, contested changes that do not have consensus, an edit which removes a WP:STABLE section of the article that has been in the lead, in one form or another, for at least half a decade. I have no qualms with the edit protection and in fact think it is eminently helpful, but don't the WP:STABLE guidelines suggest that you should protect the, well, stable version? Full disclosure: I initially personally effected a number of reverts to this article, but completely desisted from continuing to do so, regardless of the activity of other editors, a couple days ago. Brusquedandelion (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't for me to decide what is and is not valid content in this dispute. The point was to stop the disruption, which has been stopped (at least for now). If you disagree with the content of the article as it now stands, discussion is that way ->. The article will be reduced in protection in three days. If some administrator wants to reinstate an earlier version through the protection, they are welcome to do so as far as I'm concerned. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Re Sandhill dunnart

    Hello,

    I've just spent the day adding my research to the sandhill dunnart page (Sandhill dunnart).

    Someone has just deleted it all.

    There are obviously some issues with this person as my research has been peer reviewed and published. I uploaded the references. They were also deleted.

    In the interest of publishing current science can you please revert it to my version.

    Warm regards,

    Dr Joanna Riley Dr Joanna Riley (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Dr Riley, this is a content dispute which should be discussed at Talk:Sandhill dunnart. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We do not accept self-promotion. Your edits were to add information from papers that you wrote; that falls under the self-promotion banner. If your papers are sound, then otheres will find them and add the information to the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I recommend continuing discussion at Talk:Sandhill dunnart where I have initiated a discussion. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Suspicious username

    Account blocked as representing a group, which is a violation of WP:UPOL. Thanks for raising this issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Not to be a heartless cynic, but is it allowed to have a username purportedly representing the victims of a major disaster? This newly-created account [[49]]'s first edit appears to be inserting their name into a section of 2024 Valencia residential complex fire involving the Grenfell Tower fire to which their account is named. See this edit [[50]] Borgenland (talk) 12:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    HotArticlesBot stopped running

    HotArticlesBot, which builds lists of the most edited articles in each wikiproject, normally runs at 2:45am ET every night but last night did not run. I reported it to an operator very early this morning, but there hasn't been a response yet. This isn't a very critical bot, but wikiprojects use the results. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 18:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I know the template says to report malfunctioning bots to ANI, but I think that's intended for if the bot is making bad edits (because then admins can block it).
    I'm not sure if anyone except the operator can even restart it, the "emergency bot shutoff button" is just a quick link for an admin to block it.
    Perhaps ask at WP:VPT? – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:D4DC:46FF:5933:EF85 (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Silly me for following instructions. :) OK, I guess you're right. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 18:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, ANI can handle bots making actively bad edits, and likely a good place to let admins know if a critical maintenance bot is down like an anti-vandal bot. But for this, yeah, nothing an administrator can do to help this situation, or needs to do differently because of it. Courcelles (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Long-term, persistent vandalism from same IP

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

    Bringing this IP to further admin attention: recently blocked for 30+ hours by Joyous!, but I think a much longer-lasting block is probably needed. They already have a long history (since 2022) of persistent vandalism continuing after multiple blocks and level-4 warnings, with no constructive edits coming from this IP as far as I can tell. This latest talk page reply implies that they intend to continue vandalizing or trolling, and there's a series of hidden talk page edits that I'm guessing were not gracious either. R Prazeres (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Note also this latest. R Prazeres (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#IP_address_blocks applies. I'm not really interested in granting this troll's wish. It's just run-of-the-mill vandalism. Nothing special. If they return to vandalizing after this block expires, we can apply a longer block than the current two days. Not a big deal. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ongoing violations of MOS after warnings, failure to engage on talk page

    User Williamstonhead has been making edits violating MOS formatting, specifically MOS:GEOLINK (like this [51]) for months and has been warned repeatedly by myself and @Magnolia677. They have not responded to a message on their talk page since July 2023, yet continue to disrupt Wikipedia by making these edits en masse. glman (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    More examples from today (3/7/24) of this continued disruptive editing: [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]. glman (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a brief block is the best option. They've been told four times to not do this, and continue to do so even after the AN/I thread was added. Clearly warnings aren't working, so hopefully a block will get the message through. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ignoring Talk discussions on Zoroastrianism in Iran

    Boomerang hit a SOCK. No merit to complaint. Star Mississippi 17:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Started talk discussion on the merits of a previous edit to a page. Was ignored, edit warred against, and the editor claimed that "consensus" had been established when there was zero discussion on talk and I had posted a talk discussion. Seeking arbitration on this issue, as the editor has a friend in administrating and clearly refused to debate normally. KanzazKyote (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If multiple editors revert you, the onus is on you to try to justify your edit. I'd suggest closing this filing, which is full of unsubstantiated aspersions and returning to the talk page before it becomes a WP:BOOMERANG situation. Zaathras (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One editor has reverted me. I edited that page exactly one time. I can't return to the talk page when the discussion that I started has not been responded to at all and the merits of my statement have been ignored in favor of a claim of "consensus." KanzazKyote (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You should be clear: are you accusing me of socking?  // Timothy :: talk  23:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    KanzazKyote: Firstly, as noted below, you've been edit warring as an IP before using this account. Secondly, you've been told that the change a year ago has WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Thirdly, you've failed to explain, despite being asked, why you want to revert an article about the Zoroastrian religion to the Christian Anno Domini format despite it being the article's format for the last year. DeCausa (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Boomerang

    These issues should be reviewed:

    Full discussions: Talk:Zoroastrianism in Iran#Dating, Talk:Zoroastrianism in Iran#Unbiased Dating.  // Timothy :: talk  23:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    To add it's not really a smart thing to post this on multiple messageboards: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Ignoring Talk discussions on Zoroastrianism in Iran. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually told them to post here instead of WP:AN, so that is my fault.[71] I thought they would move the OP. Sorry.  // Timothy :: talk  23:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A further point: an IP has been edit warring exactly the same point at this article. 15 minutes after that IP was blocked for edit warring (per this) the user appeared at the article arguing the same point and edit warring. Seems to be WP:DUCK. I don't think they've notified anyone of this thread, AFAIK.DeCausa (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A further point: you appeared at exactly the same point at this article after TimothyBlue started a debate. Seems to be WP:DUCK. KanzazKyote (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked for the obvious block evasion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ScottishFinnishRadish, who was the editor evading a block? Is there a sockmaster? Liz Read! Talk! 01:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    KanzazKyote was evading the block of 173.244.8.254 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    A few indefinitely confirmed users

    Seen here, there are multiple additions of the confirmed right to two members of edit-a-thon staff (?) and the event coordinator themselves, as well as multiple indefinite grants to attendees as well. Notified event coordinator on their talk page as this concerns them. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe this is what event coordinators do. You might have asked the admin who granted them this user right, User:Femke. Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there are instructions(link) in their talk page by the admin who gave them the right, instructions which say "You should not grant this for more than 10 days" about the confirmed right. – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:D4DC:46FF:5933:EF85 (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how this works as I don't spend time at PERM but this editor no longer is an event coordinator so they don't have the ability to remove this right. Liz Read! Talk! 01:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mostly just posting to have someone fix the confirmed status, not necessarily to propose anything specific regarding the event coordinator, especially given that their rights have indeed expired as of the end of February. EggRoll97 (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mistakes happen, no biggie. I've removed confirmed from all the accounts: they'll be autoconfirmed if they hit the 10 edits (none of them have come that far yet). This is not the first time I've seen this happen, so I'd like to improve the message that people get when they are granted the perm. Can't find where it's stored though. I don't think the 'account creator' bit is relevant, better to highlight the basics. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Femke: Looking into the JavaScript, it seems that it substitutes using this template: {{Event coordinator granted}}. – 2804:F1...33:EF85 (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks :). The standard text is hopefully clearer now. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Femke: By chance, any opinion on also bolding the text: "You should not grant this for more than 10 days." in the granting template? Would that come off as hostile to the grantee? EggRoll97 (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Augmented Seventh

    I am here to report User:Augmented Seventh for constantly reverting my edits to Wikipedia claiming them to be "vandalism" and "unconstructive". My edits only serve to align existing articles to current conventions in Wikipedia and to eliminate unnecessary embellishments in terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.189.116.236 (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    howdy
    the editor in question is removing the word Roman from every link to Roman Catholic Church.
    claims it isn't necessary. asked them to stop and discuss, dismisses out of hand. Augmented Seventh (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:NOTBROKEN, "Roman Catholic Church" is a perfectly acceptable way to refer to the Church, so it's tons of edits for no benefit. Q T C 02:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @203.189.116.236: What is your reasoning for edits like <this>, which swap the order of Indonesia and Philippine in the entire article, including moving entire sections around? – 2804:F1...33:EF85 (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @2804:F14:80C6:A301:D4DC:46FF:5933:EF85:, the IP comes from the Philippines so there may be some bias there. Q T C 02:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The usage of the term "Roman Catholic" to describe the entire church is inaccurate considering that the Eastern Catholic Churches exist within the Catholic Church. He is also reverting my link simplifications returning them to the absurd long form of [[Catholic Church|Roman Catholic Church]] when simply typing [[Catholic Church]] would suffice. The user also insists on reverting links named Catholic Church in Country X to Roman Catholicism in Country X despite the former being more accurate and being the actual name of the article in the links.
    In one of his other reversions, he reverted my correction of a mistake in the article page of Caliraya lake that states that Laguna de Bay is a bay and not a lake. 203.189.116.236 (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The argument that "Roman Catholic" isn't sufficiently descriptive enough to disambiguate the Eastern Catholic Churches might hold more water if you weren't actively vandalizing explicitly Roman Catholic articles with these edits such as this one. Sorry, but Augmented Seventh isn't the one in the wrong here, IP. It's you. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 02:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    your changes, at a minimum, should be discussed on the talk page, as you're changing long accepted content to reflect your own pov.
    there's a reason why the links point to the Roman Catholic Church.
    you're lake edit could be a mistake. when i was reverting your contentious edits, it may have become swept up in the mess.
    have a wikipedia day, Augmented Seventh (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Augmented Seventh: I'll say though, the IP's changes, albeit likely disruptive, are not obvious vandalism and therefore are not exempt from the the 3-revert rule, please proceed with care. – 2804:F1...33:EF85 (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    noted, and thank you for the heads up. this is a topic with which i am unfamiliar, i stumbled upon the mass changes while engaged in other tasks.
    I'll check back. Augmented Seventh (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Trying to bail @Augmented Seventh out here. I myself reverted several of the Roman removals. I did this because of no response or explanation in the edit summary. If I did such a thing, I would expect someone to revert what I was doing also. A message from the IP to A. Seventh, instead of blanking, then responding almost an hour later to @JayCubby made no sense. Bringingthewood (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm learning a lot from this discussion. thanks for your help . Augmented Seventh (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, the way I was looking at it I was considering the reverting of multiple of the same change from multiple articles, in this case, as a single "revert". Clearly, unless there is a [[MOS:]] or some other such consensus that defines one or the other as the preferred way then there is nothing policy based supporting the IP's mass changes, which makes it disruptive from them to continue doing it despite objections - but I'm of the opinion that reverting them "once" is said objection.
    That said, IP, IS there a policy or consensus based reason for your changes? – 2804:F1...33:EF85 (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I made this last post too conclusory. I second Bringingthewood's points on the IP's lack of communication. Edit summaries and actually responding to people's concerns rather than just bulldozing through them would have been a much better way of handling this situation. – 2804:F1...33:EF85 (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    comment on the issue. This is a rehash of endless edit wars over the decades:
    • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Catholic_Church - is a good start, see the requested moves, and more recently This article should be called Roman Catholic as the term 'catholic' is not unique to the Roman Church conversation. Regardless of the current argument, maybe someone needs to look very carefully at what is pointed out at that talk page about the many thousand words at that page about this issue... JarrahTree 05:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I really wouldn't bother; this has been going on endlessly for years. Many articles will have had references in text changed back and forth several times over the years. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Dispute over editing of incorrect information

    Hello.

    I'm accuse this to User:Passportrack7 because he continues to correct incorrect information.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_Paraguayan_citizens

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Visa_requirements_for_Paraguayan_citizens&action=history

    https://www.henleyglobal.com/passport-index/ranking

    If you look at the "HISTORY" page... I entered the information through the website source, but User:Passportrack7 keeps correcting the incorrect information.

    So i accuse this. Lades2222 (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Lades2222, I have fixed the username, moved the report to WP:ANI and notified the user for you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so there are two issues here: Passportrack7 has added information without providing a source, and Lades2222 has reverted their contributions to the point of edit warring without attempting to talk to the user on their talk page once.
    In the future, please try placing {{welcome-unsourced}} or {{uw-unsourced1}}, then {{uw-unsourced2}}, {{uw-unsourced3}} and {{uw-unsourced4}} on the user's talk page before reporting. You can skip "unsourced2" if the issue is significant. See WP:UWARN for more of these templates.
    Administrators will rarely block users who haven't been informed about the issue, unless the issue is so obvious/significant that a prior warning wouldn't have made a difference either. If the issue persists after warnings, please re-report. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:That guy who plays games

    I would like to make other editors aware that That guy who plays games has been moving pages related to bridges without permission or discussion. I have no authority to block, but I think this issue should be dealt with. EmperorOfTheUS (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    you haven't notified the user, so i did it cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skyeskyns

    (non-admin closure) Semi-protected 1 week by Star Mississippi. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skyeskyns could use a going over and a semiprotect, seeing a lot of sock activity and IP editing from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kavex98162 / Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Steal qatar. MrOllie (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It probably does, the IPs are blatant socks The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 17:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Plus, one IP even had the audacity to strike every delete vote [72]. I have reverted the edit. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 17:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    GOOD LORD! Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly! Out of the one year I've been here, this is the most absurd and horrendous thing I have ever seen! The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 17:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In a whole year you haven't seen anything more absurd and horrendous? You must be living a very sheltered life. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi'ed for a week. I don't have time to look into the sourcing/article to determine whether there's unseasonable weather in the forecast. Star Mississippi 17:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the semi! Babysharkboss2 was here!! King Crimson 18:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Afghan.Records

    Afghan.Records (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This is the second time I'm reporting Afghan.Records here (the last being this one with lots of diffs [73], which I ended up closing after Afghan.Records got blocked for edit warring after getting reported by another user [74]).

    This is the short version of the previous report; Afghan.Records engages in source misrepresentation, pov pushing and using poor sources.

    The first edit in an article after their block for edit warring expired was literally another revert which changed a lot more than their edit summary indicated [75]. And now they're continuing the source misrepresentation [76], pov pushing [77] and use of poor sources.

    Afghan.Records has no issue with removing poorly sourced information that clashes with their opinion [78], but apparently it's okay for them to add poor sources themselves [79] (citations from 1873 and 1747.. not the first time they've done this with the same poor sources, see the afromentioned ANI report). And despite all this, they still seem to believe that their edits were right all along, as seen in this comment they just made where they also randomly accused me of "propaganda" and "false information" without even pinging me, [80].

    Also, their talk page is full of warnings by me and other users. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I'd say Afghan.Records is WP:NOTHERE. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nomoskedasticity and Douglas Murray

    User:Nomoskedasticity has repeatedly restored contentious material to the lede of the BLP article Douglas Murray without discussion, despite being reminded to seek consensus by multiple editors.

    On 5th February 2024, User:ShanGuy37 added to the lede that the subject of the article is "widely described as far-right": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&oldid=1203825036

    On 7th February 2024, User:Leftistman reverted this edit with the edit summary "Weak sources based predominantly off Humza Yousafs own opinion. Seek consensus." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&oldid=1204620153

    22 minutes later, Nomoskedasticity restored the material without discussion, with the edit summary "You can seek consensus for an edit that removes a bunch of reliable sources." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&oldid=1204624154

    On 13th February 2024, I looked at the sources and confirmed that they did indeed not support the text used, so removed the material with the edit summary "Leftistman is correct, these sources do not support the statement "widely described as far-right". Seek consensus before restoring per WP:BLPRESTORE." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&oldid=1207060141

    The next day Nomoskedasticity restored the material for a second time without discussion, this time without leaving an edit summary. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&oldid=1207162880

    The material was removed a third time by User:Hemiauchenia roughly 15 minutes later, who left the edit summary "The WP:ONUS is on those who wish to include disputed content. Needs discussion on talkpage." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&oldid=1207166021

    Later that day, I left a message on Nomoskedasticity's talk page, reminding them of the need to follow WP:BLP policies when editing BLP articles. Nomoskedasticity has made no reply to this in the intervening time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nomoskedasticity#Douglas_Murray

    Today (7th March 2024), Nomoskedasticity restored this material for a third time, again without discussion, leaving the edit summary "your edit summary didn't reflect this substantive change to the article -- so, I'm reverting that portion of it". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&oldid=1212354126

    Since Nomoskedasticity has ignored three different editors asking them to edit properly, it might be beneficial at this point if an admin could intervene. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @FirstPrimeOfApophis: Per the instructions at the top of this page, you must notify anyone you report here. You haven't notified anyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bbb23:I have added a section to Nomoskedasticity's user talk page using the ANI template. Did I use it incorrectly? FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but I would post the same notice to every editor you mention above, even if your principal complaint is against Nomoskedasticity. As an aside, I'm not convinced this is the proper venue for your complaint, but I don't have time to get into that now.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I will do that. Thanks. I am more than happy to move this to a different venue if another is more appropriate, I just want to see it resolved. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    AzerbaijaniQizilbash

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

    Reporting them before they cause any further damage, because that's what inevitably going to happen (eg [81] [82].)

    Severe WP:CIR issues; inability/refusal to even remotely listen to what they're being told, including the rules of this site and what WP:RS states (a long read, sorry, but can't really link diffs for this one [83], well maybe except this one, where despite after being told countless times of WP:RS and WP:CITE, they state this [84]). They've already been blocked recently for edit warring. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    UA0Volodymyr continuing to disregard topic ban

    On the behavior of @UA0Volodymyr: This user's behavior was discussed at this noticeboard last month. UA0Volodymyr is topic banned from making edits—on any page—that are related to Disputes between the countries Russia and Ukraine, both present and historical, broadly construed and Disputes involving the ethnic identity of particular individuals where it is disputed whether their ethnicity is Ukrainian, broadly construed. Last month, at issue were edits to the Rosa Luxemburg article to add material about claims about the existence of a Ukraininan nation in relation to Luxemburg's work The Russian Revolution.

    Despite UA0Volodymyr writing in the previous ANI thread that these actions may have constituted a violation of the topic ban (though the hedging of "may" was troubling) and making a promise to not do such actions anymore as well as professing having lost all interest to the Rosa Luxemburg article, UA0Volodymyr has since resumed editing pages that fall under the broadly construed topic bans:

    • Edit at Iryna Farion, an article about a scholar whose notability per the page has a lot to do with her views of whether certain Russian-speaking units are really Ukrainian.
    • Edit at New People (political party), an article about a party that has proclaimed its support for the invasion by Russia of Ukraine.
    • Multiple edits (another) at Black Hundreds, an article about a Russian movement notable for anti-Ukrainian sentiment
    • Edit at Bistra, Maramureș, a location whose economy (specifically train use) has explicitly in the article been affected/precipitated by the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.
    • Edit to Rosa Luxemburg, the article UA0Volodymyr claimed to have lost interest in.

    I was informed of the contributions to the Luxemburg article by Pitsarotta, who described the Luxemburg contribution as being innocuous but was worried it could be a prelude to further disruptive edits. Because UA0Volodymyr is under a broadly construed topic ban, I thought it wise to double check and discovered these other edits. The terms of the topic ban are to avoid editing any pages that related to the broadly construed topics, whatever of the content of UA0Volodymyr's edits. And per WP:BMB, the measure of a ban is that even if the editor were to make good or good-faith edits, permitting them to edit in those areas is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, to the page or to the project, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good.

    UA0Volodymyr has once again demonstrated they will not abide by the topic ban. The indefinite block that was lifted on the condition of abiding the topic bans should be reimposed.

    Pinging remaining users involved in the previous noticeboard discussion: @LegalSmeagolian:, @JBL:, @Seawolf35:, @Daniel:, @ActivelyDisinterested:, @HandThatFeeds:, @Chaotic Enby:, @Nil Einne:, @Lavalizard101:, @Ymblanter: P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, that's a pretty blatant violation of the topic ban. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At first I was like "oh some of these topics seem only tangentially related" but then like yeah, I remembered the ban is one that is broadly construed. I support @P-Makoto's proposal as it seems that the user cannot comprehend what broadly construed means. I would say I don't find the Bistra, Maramureș edit to be in violation of the topic ban (I think even if broadly construed, preventing users from editing ANY European city/town/village that has in someway been impacted by the war is not fair as all of Europe has been impacted, and this was just one line in the article) but yeah the rest are pretty blatant. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support indef ban, because obviously. Considering they've already been blocked for a TBAN violation, and their ongoing behaviour, there's no reasonable options other than an indef ban. I find it very unlikely there will be any real opposition to this, so the should be blocked ideally sooner than later. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Worth noting, looking at the block log of the user:
    1. they were initially indeffed by HJ Mitchell on 27 October 2023,
    2. then unblocked by Red-tailed hawk on 10 January 2024 under the conditions of a 1RR restriction and two topic bans,
    3. and then on 26 January 2024 they were blocked 1 week by Maxim (a Checkuser) for email abuse and topic ban violations.
    So yeah, they have been blocked once for TBAN violations before. I support the indef block proposal here, given this previous 1-week block which has failed to get this user's attention regarding their unblock condition violations. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I remember seeing his name at several noticeboards at the same time a few months ago. That he was indeffed but somehow managed to have that replaced with a topic ban, only for him to violate it repeatedly and send abuse privately to other users, should be a sign that he is plainly incapable of abiding by the rules. I think he's been given enough rope to hang himself, and he has, many times over. Support reinstating the indefinite block. Ostalgia (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: For full transparency, while rereading the topic ban and my OP, I wondered a bit at why I tried to concisely quote in a way that was... basically the same length as the original quote. I have edited my OP on this thread to more straightforwardly quote the topic ban without breaking up the quote as much. I continue to support the indefinite block I proposed, because I think the broad construal of the topic bans holds (perhaps not for Bistra; fair enough on LegalSmeagolian's point). A broadly construed topic ban is not an invitation to see how nearly one can dance on the line. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 07:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This saddens me since the edits look like constructive gnoming, and I felt an enormous sense of fatigue on seeing that the previous ANI discussion was about the OUN trope. I don't have the bandwidth to dig into PoV at the moment, and really, it doesn't matter. Nor does it matter that the Romanian railway edit is tangential. Sanctions are not suggestions, and this one said "broadly construed". I say this as someone who's been called a Ukrainian nationalist (hehe). May I suggest however that perhaps the leap from topic ban to indef is a bit harsh for constructive edits? If someone has evidence that they were actually *promoting* that politician, or any harm to Russian speakers, on the other hand, then I will support an indef with the rest of you. Right now I am thinking that a three to six month block would be fairer, escalating to an indef if necessary. But perhaps my opinion is skewed by recently seeing long-term egregious behavior of other editors get completely dismissed elsewhere. I really don't know, but those are my thoughts.Elinruby (talk) 07:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clearly the message from the last ANI, which was slow to sink in then, has been forgotten. Like I did back then, I support a block for persistent topic ban violations. If it isn't indefinite, it has to be long enough to make clear that the next one will be. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cossde flouting Wikipedia policies

    User Cossde added the verification needed tags to my reliable sources on Sri Lanka Civil Security Force simply because they are personally unable to access the sources. I explained to them in the talk page that Wiki policy advises against such action. They then replied that they do not trust me with the implication that I fabricated the entire content, against the Wiki policy that encourages users to WP:Assume good faith. After I removed those unnecessary tags with an explanation citing Wiki policy, Cossde once again re-added those tags stating they are unable to verify. After another user Oz346 reverted it after verifying the sources, Cossde once again reverted it stating they cannot trust this user as well. User Cossde violated several Wiki policies here and undermines the very basis that Wikipedia collaborative effort relies on. --- Petextrodon (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The subject in question is highly controversial. Both users Petextrodon and Oz346 appear to be engaged in WP:NAT editing with their contributions to Wikipedia proving to be limited to Tamil Elam related topics. Hence, citations provided by both need independent verification. Both are known to use either bias and primary sources. Cossde (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NAT refers to "promoting ideas, without reliable sources and due weight". This is nothing but a baseless accusation. The sources and information used here are reliable and of due weight. On the contrary, the above user Cossde is guilty of WP:NAT editing and has been repeatedly removing reliably sourced content relating to the crimes of the Sri Lankan government. See Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces#OHCHR report regarding sexual violence and Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces#Peacekeeping sex scandal for recent examples. Without providing reliable sources to the contrary, his editing history fits the WP:NAT criteria of promoting the idea that a "Nation did not commit war crimes, massacres, crimes against humanity, genocide or other forms of violent actions" without reliable sources to back it up. Oz346 (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oz346, for one who claims baseless accusations, you seem to be putting out a few against me. My concern is the excessive use of what appears to be WP:PRIMARY sources and unverified WP:RS on very controversial topics. Given the controversial nature of these topics, these are highly sensitive. Your refusal to give due weight have been highlighted in DRN. Furthermore on the charge of WP:NAT review of edit histories by an independent party may set the matter to reset. Cossde (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cossde You have no reasonable ground to suspect me of deliberately fabricating content from cited sources since you will not be able to provide one example from my edit history where I've done this. In contrast, you have a history of falsely accusing me of "nationalist editing" and "original research" simply for paraphrasing what's stated in the reliable source even without reading the source as you have done repeatedly here. I can also show that you in fact have deliberately distorted cited source as you have done here regarding UN report on "human shields", which you continued to re-add despite me and @Oz346 explaining you repeatedly here, here and here that the cited source states just the opposite. I will let neutral observers decide who here is the untrustworthy one. --- Petextrodon (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    2601:205:4300:54F0*

    IPv6 user 2601:205:4300:54F0* (IP alias 67.166.136.47) has engaged in repeated addition of unsourced, disruptive, and non-WP:RS content. User has received two previous bans for the same, and has continued disruptive editing without any acknowledgement of the repeated messages left on talk pages and edit summaries. Diffs for this most recent round—that is, after his latest ban—here: [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90]. User is clearly WP:NOTLISTENING. Rift (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Muhammad Jalal al-Din

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

    Got a ANI hattrick here. Unfortunately the previous report of Muhammad Jalal al-Din by User:TimothyBlue got auto-archived [91]. Muhammad Jalal al-Din is still at it (eg [92] [93] [94] [95]). I recall seeing another editor referring them as a "sock" some days ago, but now I can't find the diff so I can ask for more info about it. Wouldn't be surprised be if this was indeed a sock. They still haven't used the edit summary let alone a talk page. --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have indefinitely partially blocked the reported user to prevent edits to articles. I accidentally did a full block initially and had to change it to my intended partial. Johnuniq (talk) 04:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ongoing vandalism to Asian TV articles coming from IP range

    Vandal(s) coming from an IP range (Special:Contributions/2405:4802:1800:0:0:0:0:0/37) have been conducting ongoing large amounts of subtle vandalism and adding correct information (including changing dates, times, number of episodes, etc.) on a number of television shows originating in Asia (especially those from India, Korea, and Vietnam). This range is currently blocked from editing List of flags of Vietnam. One IP will get blocked when reported to AIV [96], but as soon as that is blocked, they are onto the next one. Examples of articles that are being vandalized include, but are not limited to: Arjun (TV series), Achanak 37 Saal Baad, Veer Shivaji, Gangaa, Angel's Choice, Forever Young (2014 TV series), Krishna (TV series), ect. From a quick look, this activity appears to have started around February 5 [97] and has been going on up to edits just today [98]. I have been cleaning up some of the vandalism, but it is a going project to ensure I do revert any possible good edits mixed in; there is still more work to be done. I have also posted about this on the Wikiproject television talk page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Help with the clean-up of subtle vandalism on Asian TV shows coming from an IP range). Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 03:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Wikipedialuva: - I presume you mean incorrect information? Narky Blert (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Narky Blert: Yes, I meant incorrect information, not correct. Thank you for catching that; I wrote this in haste and apologize for not doing a better job identifying my errors. Wikipedialuva (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    See [99]: The word you've chosen in some of your public comments are not only misaligned with the respectful and inclusive tone Wikipedia promotes but also potentially cross ethical boundaries and legal standards in India. For background, User:MaithilDil has confined all their editing history, beyond a couple of initial edits to another article, to promotional content concerning Sangram Singh, an Indian wrestler and actor. The Singh biography has unfortunately in the past been the focus of considerable amounts of questionable editing, with unsourced and/or badly-sourced content being added by a succession of single-purpose accounts. Given this history, and MaithilDil's singular focus, I originally enquired on their talk page as to whether there might be a conflict of interest. It took two efforts to get a response (a denial), and I noted that (along with other comments made by MaithilDil on their talk page: see the response to the earlier thread on edit-warring) the responses given were written in a manner that seemed to me to be very much in the style of ChatGPT output: repetitive, formulaic, and full of abstract evocations of good intentions toward Wikipedia that failed to adequately address the points I'd been making. My tolerance for such apparent stonewalling not being indefinite, I then enquired as to whether the posts were indeed being written by ChatGPT, resulting in the response above. If it isn't actually a legal threat, it gives every appearance of an attempt to intimidate, and incidentally once again entirely fails to answer the question I'd asked. I assume that WP:NLT policy applies to chatbot-generated posts as much as any other, and regardless of whether a bot wrote it, it clearly merits some form of admin response. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have indefinitely blocked MaithilDil for the legal intimidation, exacerbated by the reality that they are using ChatGPT or some other AI technology to mass produce evasive bullshit instead of engaging in genuine human communication. Competence is required. Cullen328 (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1212546503"