Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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)

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

• (edit conflict) You were supposed to notify the editor using the template at the top of the page. I did it for you. That said, the speed in which he is moving articles does appear to be a problem, as I am betting most of those are contentious moves. I'm off for the evening, I will let others jump in and figure out what to do about it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you, I completely forgot about it. EmperorOfTheUS (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but most of the articles I renamed were articles about bridges that weren't notable without being merged with a similar one.

That guy who plays games (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Merges like this sound like the sort of page moving that warrants discussions to determine a variety of attributes: Is the bridge indeed not independently notable? Is there a notable topic to which to merge it? Which topic is that? These are the sorts of questions merger moves like this entail and that call for discussion, not unilateral action. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The article they were talking about was the old Cooper River Bridges, which I merged because the Silas N. Pearman bridge is historically unotable, while the John P. Grace Memorial Bridge was. He was also talking about how I renamed the article on the Rainbow Bridge because there is no generic term to describe it and the Veterans Memorial Bridge, which the article it also covers. That guy who plays games (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@That guy who plays games: Can you explain this? - FlightTime (open channel) 23:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

didn't know grammar fixes of others edits weren't allowed. The removal of that comment was a accident. That guy who plays games (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Not other's talk page comments. Articles are very different. Secretlondon (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• There is a real question if you are moving these to the WP:COMMONNAME or not. The pace of which you have made changes raises real questions as to whether or not each was thought out, and makes the moves contentious. If you know a move (or a series of moves) is contentious, then you shouldn't make the change without discussion. If you are going to make a lot of changes to bridges, for example, one place to consider is Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, which attracts editors with experience in these articles. At the very least, when you are going to make a several rapid changes, you need to explain it somewhere obvious, like the talk page of the articles. Looking at your logs [1] show you seldom even use an edit summary, which is a problem when you do mass editing, and frankly, not acceptable because it causes threads like this. And yes, it is best to NOT correct someone else's edit, unless it is obviously a serious error (ie: bad wikilink) AND you notify them or leave a very clear summary. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  No, not every one was thought out. But some were. That guy who plays games (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Also the common names for the John P. Grace and Silas N. Pearman Brides were from what I can see the Coper River Bridge. The old and new phrases added to the beginning were only there to distinguish them. That guy who plays games (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  This kind of proves my point. Moves are not the same as edits. Edits are easy to revert by anyone, moves are not. Before you move several articles in the future, I strongly suggest they be "thought out" to avoid this drama. If someone is likely to object, you instead put a notice on the talk page of the article, to the effect of "I'm going to move this from XXX to YYY in a week if no one objects." and allow them to pursued you otherwise. This was just a lot of moves in a rapid succession, and that is something you need to avoid unless you've made it clear why you are doing it, and if likely contentious, sought input. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  I would add that while I'm sure Dennis Brown meant no error, on the matter of allow them to persuade you otherwise I'd clarify that to something like, create an opportunity to find out what the consensus is. If That guy who plays games wants to move pages, the onus is on him to create a consensus, rather than move pages against consensus.

  I just remain a little concerned about whether this advice is sinking in. From earlier in the thread, it's not it hasn't become clear if That guy who plays games really recognizes the issue with making controversial moves en masse; instead he has defended the edits with explanations that should've been given on the talk pages before making moves. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  I do. I reverted the move that this compliant resulted from. My merger of the other articles and I'd say is constructive though considering they were already underscored, its not like I reduced their sources. That guy who plays games (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, I don't see it necessary to labor it further, I take it you get the concerns and understand to be a little more careful in the future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

That guy who plays games blocked for one week for continued disruptive editing. This is a regular admin action rather than any enforcement of a community sanction. --Yamla (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

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 [2], which I ended up closing after Afghan.Records got blocked for edit warring after getting reported by another user [3]).

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 [4]. And now they're continuing the source misrepresentation [5], pov pushing [6] and use of poor sources.

Afghan.Records has no issue with removing poorly sourced information that clashes with their opinion [7], but apparently it's okay for them to add poor sources themselves [8] (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, [9].

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

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

• Let's wait for the response from Afghan.Records. I am in support of a WP:NOTHERE block. Lorstaking (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Unfortunately it seems like Afghan.Records is going to ignore this ANI report too. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I came across this edit earlier while going through recent changes. I'm neither interested in nor knowledgeable enough regarding the subject to get into reverting edits adding sources there. Notwithstanding, their history of not responding to their own talk page messages, behavior at article talk pages (and this lovely topic), plus their lack of civility when interacting with other editors (not just HistoryofIran) are enough for me to say they're WP:NOTHERE at all. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 06:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

From looking at the entire summary of their edits:

• They've been blocked twice - once in 2023 for a battleground mentality (1 week), and a more recent AE block for edit warring (1 month)
• They've made two edits to the user talk namespace - EVER. Out of 172 edits, only 2 have been to edit their talk page (removing some notices), which tells me that they are aware their behavior is in some way problematic
• While ~25% of their edits are to the talk namespace, most of these have been to argue with other editors about how their sources are correct and any other source is incorrect (the truth of which I can't verify, but judging by the amount of pushback they've gotten from multiple editors, it's not looking fantastic). See this mess of a discussion.

It looks like they may reply, though, judging by this comment. They've been informed of the ANI thread on their talk page and now at the article's talk page. At this point it may be a case of WP:IDHT & WP:NOTHERE. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 22:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I normally would say "they're on mobile, everyone knows communication can be buggy", but the fact that they've removed messages on their talk page prior tells me that they know it's there, and they've definitely seen more than just those removed messages there. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 22:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

No, they're definitely aware of this thread. I've engaged with them at Talk:Khalji dynasty about it here. Note their responses when I challenged them about not responding here: Nothing more than accusation. I provided direct links for what I was accused of “miss representing” but they couldn’t defend their end. I did. and How do I reply to it? And what am I being accused of specifically? The gaps in knowledge between me and other editors make it look like I am wrong but they don’t know any better. It sounds like they've reckoned it's best for them not to engage. Looking at that and their edits, they seem to be clearly POV WP:NOTHERE. DeCausa (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Blocks, talk page messages, and even the ANI prior made no difference. Phönedinger's jellyfish II (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Its been 3 days, they are still editing and choose not to respond here. As an uninvolved editor- I have to wonder why? Nightenbelle (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Textbook WP:CIR, WP:NOTHERE, and nationalistic POV-pushing. His behavior proves he is not interested in collaboration. I support indef block. --Mann Mann (talk) 08:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, should be blocked as WP:NOTHERE.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Fred Zepelin edit warring

Fred Zepelin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaging in edit warring to reinsert "far right" into the opening sentence of the article despite there being clearly no consensus on the talk page to include this statement and is baselessly accusing me of doing this because "WP:IDONTLIKEIT [10]" [11] Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

There actually is consensus from 4 editors to include the descriptor, and the editors have cited the dozens of sources that use the term, while the editors opposed to it have not cited any sources, or policies, to justify their removal of the term. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I also note that Fred has previously accused editors who opposed him in another different discussion of being white-supremacist-apologists [12] Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a blatant lie. I said "I do have a problem with white-supremacist-apologists who show up at these articles periodically to attempt to market their favorite cause in a more positive way." I did not accuse any particular editor of being a white supremacist. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Is it worse to be called a white supremacist or a white-supremacist-apologist or a liar? How about following WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and not call editors any insulting names at all, and focus on content? This isn't the first time you've been admonished about this.[13] BBQboffin^{grill me} 06:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how this could be considered a consensus for inclusion. Another 4 editors (Springee, Peter Gulutzan, FirstPrimeOfApophis and me) don't agree with the inclusion. That's clearly no consensus for inclusion. You assert in this edit summary [14] that because you consider the opinions of opposing editors invalid, that this gives you a license to edit war. This is simply not how Wikipedia discussions and consensus works. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

No, it's actually very clear to me what the opinions of the opposing editors are. The problem lies in the fact that they offer no policy-based justification for the removal of the term "far-right", in the face of dozens of sources that describe the subject as such and/or describe his endorsement of political positions that are accepted as being "far-right". The editors that added those sources are describing their edits based on policy. The opposers are simply saying "so what, we don't like "far-right" in the lead" without any justification in policy. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that the concerns about adding "far right" are reasonable WP:BLP concerns, you may not agree with them, but that doesn't give you a right to edit war, and you've been here long enough that you should know that. If you want to gain consensus for the inclusion of "far right" in the opening sentence, I would suggest creating an RfC and letting the closer judge whether or not the arguments opposing inclusion are valid. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

FZ hasn't violated 3RR but I think it is clear they fail to understand NOCON as they argue that editors opposed to a change have the burden vs those wishing to make the change. Their terse/condescending tone on the talk page doesn't violate CIVIL but is not helpful in finding a consensus. I think a gentile reminder regarding consensus would be helpful here. Springee (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

What is a "gentile reminder"? Anyway, I started an RfC, and am eagerly awaiting some policy-based discussion. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

AzerbaijaniQizilbash

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

---

FYI

 – Removed distracting use of <big>...</big>, underlining, etc. from AzerbaijaniQizilbash's replies, leaving only boldface per WP:CAPSLOCK. Remsense诉 03:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Reporting them before they cause any further damage, because that's what inevitably going to happen (eg [15] [16].)

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 [17], well maybe except this one, where despite after being told countless times of WP:RS and WP:CITE, they state this [18]). They've already been blocked recently for edit warring. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

You say that Azerbaijani Turks have no ethnic origin and you say that I need to give sources to prove the contrary. Azerbaijanis descent from Oghuz Turks. It has established many states throughout history. I gave you reliable sources that Safavids were Azerbaijani, but you did not read them. AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Those reliable sources are on your talk page, still. AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Not what I said (despite both me and another user trying to tell you about it dozens of times, that is your conclusion...?), and you did no such thing. More evidence of WP:CIR issues, and why it's best to read the whole talk section. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

What I said matches WP:RS. AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Not what I said and you did no such thing.

↓

The native language of Ismail I, the founder of the Safavid empire, was Azerbaijani Turkic. He wrote poems in this language under the nickname "Khatai". In fact, the official language of the state was Azerbaijani Turkic, and the people of the palace, as well as the military and religious men of the state, spoke this language.

–

There is also interesting information about the place of Azerbaijani Turkic in the Safavid palace in the memoirs of the German traveler and diplomat Adam Oleari, who met with the Safavid ruler Shah Sefi I in Isfahan in 1637. A.Oleari in his work “Detailed description of the visit of the Qoldshin embassy to Moscow and Persia” writes:

“Especially, those in the service of the shah in Isfahan speak Turkic with greater enthusiasm, you rarely hear Persian words from them.”

–

French traveler Jean Sharden, who traveled to the East in the second half of the 17th century and lived in the Safavid lands as well as in Isfahan for a long time, wrote in his memoirs:

“Persian language is the language of poetry and literature of the people. Palace magnates, soldiers, influential men and wives of rich people all speak Turkic (Azerbaijani) at home. Because the sultan and the members of the dynasty are from Azerbaijan, where the entire population speaks Turkic. The Arabic language is considered respectable because it is the religious language of the community."

–

Stop ignoring the messages I wrote to you and the reliable sources I gave you. AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Sigh…. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

? AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The native language of Ismail I, the founder of the Safavid empire, was Azerbaijani Turkic. He wrote poems in this language under the nickname "Khatai". In fact, the official language of the state was Azerbaijani Turkic, and the people of the palace, as well as the military and religious men of the state, spoke this language.

–

There is also interesting information about the place of Azerbaijani Turkic in the Safavid palace in the memoirs of the German traveler and diplomat Adam Oleari, who met with the Safavid ruler Shah Sefi I in Isfahan in 1637. A.Oleari in his work “Detailed description of the visit of the Qoldshin embassy to Moscow and Persia” writes:

“Especially, those in the service of the shah in Isfahan speak Turkic with greater enthusiasm, you rarely hear Persian words from them.”

–

French traveler Jean Chardin, who traveled to the East in the second half of the 17th century and lived in the Safavid lands as well as in Isfahan for a long time, wrote in his memoirs:

“Persian language is the language of poetry and literature of the people. Palace magnates, soldiers, influential men and wives of rich people all speak Turkic (Azerbaijani) at home. Because the sultan and the members of the dynasty are from Azerbaijan, where the entire population speaks Turkic. The Arabic language is considered respectable because it is the religious language of the community."

–

How many times do I have to show you the reliable sources above? AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

However, during the 1930s, [the Turkic language]'s name was changed to "Azerbaijani".

It's odd how you keep needing to put "Azerbaijani" in brackets when quoting any pre-20th century source. This is the only thing we are really arguing about, the term "Azerbaijani" was not used in this way, and it is misleading to apply it to historical peoples in this way. Remsense诉 03:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I give you reliable sources and all you do is sigh. AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I GAVE YOU THOSE RELIABLE SOURCES. YOU CAN READ THE RELIABLE SOURCES I SHOWED YOU INSTEAD OF SIGHING. AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

That is a violation of WP:CAPSLOCK. Do not use all caps to make emphasis. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 18:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

If you continue not responding, I will report you. AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Sir, please: There is a debate here and you are the one who started it. You said I didn't give reliable sources. So I gave you reliable sources. But all you do is sigh. Please give a proper answer instead of making nonsense. AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@AzerbaijaniQizilbash: Sorry, but those are not what we consider reliable sources here on Wikipedia. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 17:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

From where? Things noted by Adam Olearius and Jean Chardin during their trips to Persia. Why is it not a reliable source? There is a lot of more reliable evidence that the Safavids were Turkish, I can send it if you want? AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSAGE. Remsense诉 03:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

mistake

From where = why AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Our guidelines on what constitute reliable sources are available here. If you would like to discuss the reliability of particular sources, there is a noticeboard here specifically for that purpose. --JBL (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@AzerbaijaniQizilbash, Are you aware on Wikipedia, you cite the book/website you got the information from via the <ref> functions? ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Like this: <ref> (link to book book or article, page number, publish date)</.ref> ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we've seen enough. Move to indef? 208.87.236.202 (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I hope so. I was unfortunately right, AzerbaijaniQizilbash would indeed cause further damage, once again removing sourced info [19]. I fail to see how AzerbaijaniQizilbash has a net positive on this site. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

If the text I wrote was unsourced, it would not be used on another Wikipedia page. AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not care anymore. AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

You're not fooling anyone. You removed sourced information about its Iranian aspects, and even the Turkish version of Safavid Iran (which is a translation of an older English version of Safavid Iran) which you claimed you copied from does not say what you added (you added "was one of the most important Turkic dynasties in Iranian history" while the Turkish version says "The most important dynasty in Iranian history"). You are WP:NOTHERE. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not WP:NOTHERE! I'm just trying to preserve and defend my History. Check your talk page for reliable sources. AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

That's enough. You do not understand what a reliable source is. That we would educate you about. Your POV pushing and communication style are so disruptive that a block however, is the best move for this project. Indeffed. Courcelles (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Good. I was about to say the same thing. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

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

•  Administrator note I went to go add a WP:ARBAA2 ban and designate the first year of the block as an AE action (in case of an appeal), but I found that this user hadn't actually been notified of the Contentious Topic designation. It seems like a moot point now, but in the future (and if there is a successful appeal here) this should probably be done first. That can make dealing with future disruptive editing simpler. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
• This surprised me too when I checked the filter, but given I had decided to indef block, adding the notice now felt unnecessary. I can't believe this account had a prior edit warring block without getting the CTOPS notice. That slipped through the cracks somewhere, for sure. Courcelles (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  I checked out the scope of AA2, and it seems a little confusing for me. The original scope was Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts, but the CTOP conversion altered it to Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts. This is probably a distinction without a difference, but it did trip me up when I was trying to make sure this dispute was within scope. Might be worth an ARCA to clarify. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

Yeah, that's a pretty blatant violation of the topic ban. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• I was concerned in the last discussion that UA0Volodymyr didn't understand their topic ban or what "broadly construed" entailed. None of the diffs above are problematic in themselves, but they are covered by UA0Volodymyr topic ban. Either UA0Volodymyr still doesn't understand their topic ban or they are trying to edit around it, either way that's a problem. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I can't disagree with either you or Daniel. The OUN is a hot button issue, but it doesn't matter at this point. These edits are in fact topic ban violations.

For the record, I don't believe I have ever encountered this editor, so I can't assess whether there is PoV pushing without a lot more digging than I can do right now. I *will* mention the the party of Regions that the politician is in conflict with is associated with the oligarchs who ran the country before the Revolution of Dignity, but I can't defend getting anyone arrested by the Russians. None of that is relevant to whether she should or should not have an article anyway or what should be in her infobox. I am not myself detecting any PoV pushing from these edits, is all I am saying. If that *were* going on after a topic ban, that would certainly be egregious enough for an indef, and I am not saying it's not, just that I don't right now see it.

I realized after I wrote the above that they got the topic ban as a condition of their unblock, so maybe they have used up their rope, I dunno. I am just asking the question. Also, there's also a war on in Ukraine that may be affecting people they know even if they are safe themself, so it's hard to say why they haven't responded yet. That's my best attempt at objectivity, and yes, for the record, I've been a vocal critic of the war, if that affects the weight to give this opinion. Elinruby (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I realized after I wrote the above that they got the topic ban as a condition of their unblock, so maybe they have used up their rope

That's my stance. Their block was revoked on the condition that they stayed away from this topic entirely. And they've violated that agreement multiple times, so an indef seems necessary. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I deliberately didn't mention what should happen now, only my disappointment that this seemed inevitable and have proven so. I don't know if this is a language issue, but UA0Volodymyr seems unable to understand the issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

i probably shouldn't opine on what should happen either if I can't take the time to review what happened. But in case it's useful context, anything involving the OUN is an extremely toxic topic. Elinruby (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the edits themselves aren't problematic, and most of them aren't immediately related, but "broadly construed" they're still a breach of the topic ban. Don't think an indef is anything useful here, but a reminder and clarification of the scope of their topic ban is definitely called for. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby The user was previously informed about their TBAN violations in early February, and the user was also blocked for one week on 26 January 2024 for a previous instance of TBAN violations, so honestly, I don't think a warning let alone a short block is going to work here. — AP 499D25 (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I was there for the last one, but didn't know about all the previous history. Yeah, a longer block seems like it makes sense here. I also feel like broadly construed is vague by nature, and that topic bans should be made more specific (i.e. clarifying that unrelated articles on related pages still count, and defining the scope more precisely if possible). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 00:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are even talking about. My edits neither were about the Russo-Ukrainian conflict or were problematic. The topic ban is on the Russo-Ukrainian conflicts, not on everything related to Russia or Ukraine. In the Iryna Farion article, I've just added a characteristic of her as a politician (and nothing related to the Russo-Ukrainian was); in the New People (political party), I've marked that the primary source is not a reliable one; in the Black Hundreds, I've just added some references and links (none of them weren't related to the Ukrainians in the Russian Empire or the Ukrainian 1917–1921 revolution); in Rosa Luxemburg, I've changed one punctuation symbol and one word; I didn't know anything about Bistra when I was editing it. I don't know what the purpose of your action is, but if you think that Wikipedia is a place where you can monitor every action of the User and to accuse him of what you think is an any violation of the standard rules, which is not what Wikipedia is. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

well yeah they can monitor you, anyone can. And you need to read then ask questions about the broadly construed part, because as someone who is if anything biased in your favor I have to agree that you violated that. Hopefully someone will oblige us with a link.Elinruby (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

check out the examples at Wikipedia:TBAN. That Romanian village does mention the war in Ukraine. I am not an admin so I will butt out now that you are here to speak for yourself but my advice is that you describe the problem yourself with these edits based on that link. Elinruby (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

[20]--Ymblanter (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Precisely. If UA0Volodymyr understood why these edits violated the broadly construed terms of the topic ban—if they, as Elinruby suggested, could describe the problem yourself with these edits based on WP:TBAN—I would be more open to Chaotic Enby's suggestion that this close with a reminder and clarification of the scope of their topic ban. But I lack optimism that UA0Volodymyr will do so. UA0Volodymyr didn't last time (except begrudgingly, and hedgingly) and hasn't this time. The last ANI thread closed with UA0Volodymyr apologizing (albeit seemingly begrudgingly) after being reminded of the scope of the topic ban, with no further action. In the absence of a prompt, overt, and demonstrably comprehending acknowledgment of the topic ban's violation, I think it would be shortsighted to end this thread the same way. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Well. They do need to be able to recognize a clue when it is dropped on their head from a great height. I was expecting questions about now. My thinking is still that we just don't know what's going on RL but the silence here is making me regret speaking up. Give it a little more time? If this starts to look more and more like WP:ANI flu like it does right now, then a warning should yes, be taken off the table and the length of the block should depend in how many other life preservers they have already ignored. Based on Ymblanter's link it looks like several. Elinruby (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm very confused by your comment, they have already replied and you have replied to them (before making this comment) so it's not a case of ANI flu. UA0Volodymyr reply of I don't understand what you are even talking about, shows as I feared that they do not understand the nature of their topic ban (and seems unable to get the point). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 03:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I see what Elinruby means about this looking "like" WP:ANI; there was some hope, on Elinruby's part, that UA0Volodymyr would read the WP:TBAN link provided further up in the thread and get it (or at least grapple with it). And UA0Volodymyr participated much more actively in the previous ANI thread (although just as un-generatively). Instead of facing the topic ban's terms, UA0Volodymyr is suddenly not posting at all.

In any case, we agree that UA0Volodymyr seems not to understand the terms of the topic ban. My own thinking is increasingly that we're well past the realm of warnings. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Yep. My attempt to explain it to them did not include a ping, granted, but they know this thread exists. I linked to what they need to understand and answer to so if they can't see the problem I have to agree that that's a problem.

Elinruby (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Given the combination of UA0Volodymyr's possible confusion about the extent of "broadly construed" related to disputes between the two countries, and the fact that there doesn't appear to be any secondary vandalism, how would people feel if, instead of an indefinite block, the topic ban was extended to Russia and Ukraine, broadly construed? This would remove a good bit of the ambiguity, and if they continued to violate the topic ban, there would be a great deal less uncertainty about whether the editor really understands the scope? Failing this, I would support an indefinite block rather than a warning. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Not inherently opposed. Just not going to argue myself for another chance for someone who isn't bothering to take it. There seems to be some attitude as a compounding factor so maybe escalation really is called for. If we go this route however, ok, that would be an escalation, but I suggest really clear and careful wording to enunciate that this means anything to do with Ukraine, at all, anything to do with Russia, at all, anything to do with Galicia, OUN, volunteer units, Cossacks, or any hetman, at all.Those are likely pitfalls. To be clear, it doesn't matter what they or I think of the original editing restriction, which I still have not found time to read. It existed, and they were responsible for asking questions if they had them. And they did, in fact, ask about a famine in the Soviet Union. At this point I can't imagine that other editors who have commented here would accept anything but an escalation, and I myself think they need to show they can color inside the lines,which their silence here is putting in doubt.Elinruby (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, UA0Volodymyr's contributions to topic-banned areas have been, for the most part, constructive and uncontroversial edits. But then, if we look back to the original post, it mentions WP:BMB and how good edits are still prohibited when an editor is banned.

Looking at the user's talk page, the top thread "Reply to your email" does seem to indicate awareness of their topic ban, or at least they were aware of it back then in 11th January – as they were asking questions about the scope of their topic ban. And now here we are, where the user is editing in these topic areas seemingly without regard for the topic ban. So I feel like ignorance is at play here rather than a difficulty of understanding.

So here's a timeline. User was unblocked on 10 Jan with TBAN and 1RR restrictions. On 11 Jan they sent an email to the unblocking admin asking for clarification about their TBAN, which the admin followed up on the user's talk page. On 26 Jan they were blocked 1-week for "abuse of email and violation of TBAN". On 7–11 Feb we had the previous ANI discussion about the user's TBAN violations.

It's as if they stopped caring about it from a certain time point onwards. If this editor was genuinely not understanding their topic ban areas and the meaning of "broadly construed", I would've expected them to ask the blocking admin (or other members of the community) another question, just like they did in 11 January.

As Elinruby has neatly put above, I'm not sure if it's going to be worth the time taking another chance here.

So overall, I oppose this alternate proposal and still stand by the original indef block restoration proposal here. This sounds like a good alternative and I wanted to give the editor one more shot here, but it's hard for me to support it when the user goes from asking questions about the ban when in doubt, to simply ignoring it. — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested seems troubled and I trust their judgment, so... I looked into the history here, not exhaustively, but pretty thoroughly, and, how to put this, there is some concerning stuff there. On several sides. This editor also uses revert more than I like but then I don't like revert at all. But as I already said, it doesn't matter. There is a bright line violation.

And yet, it is technical, and reported by an editor whose approach to the used is on display here so their concern about the disruptive power of punctuation looks rather disingenuous. Especially given the link in that diff.

I think that UA0Volodymyr does merit a sanction, but not an indef. I am trying to keep this short so I so I won't expand on that unless asked. The reporting editor also needs some careful scrutiny. This is warranted by the grave dancing alone but I'm unsure how involved they were themself in harassing this editor over a dispute about the meaning of a flag.

Everyone involved in these disputes needs to get a contentious topic alert if they don't already have one, because all of this is all about content and the Holocaust in Poland. It is a clash of nationalisms. But no matter what, we do still have a topic ban violation which UA0Volodymyr have said here did not happen. IDHT? I find it hard to believe they maliciously plotted to insert punctuation. A short block to get their attention. And give them time to grow a thicker skin. Elinruby (talk) 13:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

As I said at the last ANI, and I've said here, I don't think that will work. The topic ban was a condition on removing an indef block, and they seem unable or unwilling to understand the nature of that topic ban.
I too believe they could make useful contributions, and as I did in the last ANI thread I implore UA0Volodymyr to take part in this discussion and show that they understand the limits of their topic ban. Without that I don't see how the same issues aren't just going to keep happening. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Nobody listened to them about that flag. They probably think there is no point, come to think of it. Which is unfortunate, because unless UA0Volodymyr speaks up here, the fact that "the conflicts" seems to equal "the current war" in their mind just won't matter, because that's the issue here. Elinruby (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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 to 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)

@Petextrodon, in your edit today [21] you added a citation that said "a series of riots and discriminatory government policies led to the founding of the a number of militant Tamil groups" to justify the sentence The LTTE fought to create an independent Tamil state called Tamil Eelam in the northeast of the island in response to violent persecution and discriminatory policies against Sri Lankan Tamils by the Sinhalese-dominated Sri Lankan Government.. So please pardon me if I want to revalidate your citations. Cossde (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Cossde, even just based on your quote, that citation sounds like it does verify the content Petextrodon added. Also, citations aren't even generally supposed to be in leads, per MOS:LEAD. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on both points. The above case and many others have spilt over to an extent that event lead content is cited. However if you look at the history of the edits it had already been cited. Petextrodon added this citation and changed the wording to this from The LTTE fought to create an independent Tamil state called Tamil Eelam in the northeast of the island, which it claimed was due to the continuous discrimination and violent persecution against Sri Lankan Tamils by the Sinhalese-dominated Sri Lankan Government. Note the hyperlinks used. Petextrodon removed the link to Origins of the Sri Lankan civil war which covers the multiple reasons that lead to the formation of Tamil militancy as explained in the source, while his adds link to two articles Sinhala Only Act and the List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces. The former is only one policy (and not directly attributed to in the source) and the citations says there were many, while the latter covers broader incidents of government violence (much of which have been added by Petextrodon based on Pro-Rebel and Primary sources) while the source says that several riots triggered it. In fact List of riots in Sri Lanka would be more appropriate than the latter, per the source. Yet it was not used. This the point I want to get across. Cossde (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Arguing content is not going to fly here. We're only looking at behavior and, so far, the behavioral evidence is that you're adding inappropriate tags to the article & edit warring to keep them in. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: Users Oz346 and Petextrodon has been involved in a multi-page edit war with user Cossde across multiple pages for example and have been heated. They have also engaged in the forcible inclusion of content by edit warring such as the continuous WP:TAGTEAMING to continuously re-add content that has been disputed for example 1 2 3 4. They also have a engaged in WP:FORUMSHOPPING for example, when I got involved in the recent dispute on February 26 and on the same day less than 24 hours of me entering the talk page of the dispute, they made complaints in WP:ANI claiming I was not replying in the talkpage. They also threw personal attacks against me for example Oz346 called me a WP:LIAR claiming I made up a section I quoted from WP:BURDEN which I was simply copy-pasting from the page. Petextrodon also made accusations of me being a WP:SOCK of Cossde despite being warned not to make accusations of sockpuppetry against Cossde in a similar dispute in 2023. This is a long running multi-page dispute although some have been solved through DRNs for example: DRN - UtoD 18:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy link to last month's ANI report involving the same editors (archived, unresolved). Schazjmd (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

This is starting to look like a whole bunch of topic bans and/or interaction bans may be necessary. Everyone is running too hot right now and this is becoming a mess. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

+1 Look at my talk page. It's a shame that we don't yet include Sri Lanka under IPA; this is to me looking like the sort of thing that only ArbCom can resolve. Daniel Case (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Last time I filed a complaint, the topic was diverted and submerged with issues not directly related to the topic at hand. I hope admins don't get sidetracked this time. --- Petextrodon (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It appears DRN alone isn't enough for user UtoD since they are repeating the same accusations from here on another complaint that doesn't even involve them]

What do you even mean with this? -UtoD 21:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Good lord, I just said that people are being too hot under the collar, and you jump straight in to heat things up more? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Sri Lanka Disputes

This is a content dispute over Sri Lanka, and the modern history of Sri Lanka includes a long civil war in a country divided along ethnic lines, preceded by British colonialism, preceded by many of the same conflicts as the history of India. I am planning in the near future to build a list of these disputes to ask the Arbitration Committee to expand the scope of the India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan contentious topics designation. It is probably simpler to add another country (that sometimes has historically been part of an Indian Empire and sometimes has been independent) to the sanction than to create a new regimen. I will be noting this in future Sri Lanka disputes. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I've seen a bunch of small-scale disputes in the Sri Lanka topic area, but not much that would rise to the level of CTOP being needed. Not saying it doesn't exist, I just haven't seen it. If there is enough disruption in that topic area, then I agree that asking Arbcom to extend WP:ARBIPA to include Sri Lanka would be the simpler solution compared to having out own GS regime just for Sri Lanka. Historically, having GS areas that are closely related to Arbcom DS areas has caused unnecessary confusion. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Sharontoo7

Apparent legal threat. Also WP:NOTHERE by the looks of it. Kleuske (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

ALL I WAS DOING WAS EXPLAINING WHO WROTE IF I WERE A BOY , WHY ARE YOU HARRASSING ME AND TAKEN YOUR ANGER OUT ON ME , WHO IS YOUR MANAGER? THIS IS INSANE HOW YOUR TREATING ME . Sharontoo7 (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

DON'T WANNA WIFE
HENRY VIII^th
KEEP YOUR HEAD
ASSUME GOOD FAITH
Burma-shave

Also WP:CAPSLOCK violation. GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 19:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

ok Sharontoo7 (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

what's I don't wanna a wife , suppose to mean Sharontoo7 (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it's refrencing how most of Henry VIIIth's wifes didn't meet a good end. GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 19:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

And not just his wifes but his wives too. EEng 15:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

This one is more explicitly a threat to sue Wikipedia. 57.140.16.57 (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I've indeffed as NOTHERE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing on Portal:Current Events

Moved from User talk:ToBeFree

 – ToBeFree (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello @ToBeFree: - You previously issued a block to editor GWA88 for engaging in edit-warring. I recently come across GWA88 on Portal:Current Events, where it appears that they are engaging in similar disruptive behavior.

I removed an edit added by GWA88 citing WP:SENSATIONAL, which was restored without discussion, based on personal conjecture. I started a disccusion, with GWA88 responding by reiterating previous conjecture without basis in policy. When asked for a policy-based rationale, no further replies were made.

After almost a week, as no other editors had made any comments either, I removed the entry again. GWA88 replied to my notification, claiming I was "wikilawyering". GWA88 then canvassed editors through mass pinging, claiming that the talk page was obscure, despite being watched by over 6,000 other editors.

Concurrently, I removed a second entry, citing WP:ROUTINE. The entry was again restored by GWA88 without discussion. Upon being asked to follow WP:BRD and self-revert the restoration, their response seemed to miss the point of WP:BRD.

After reviewing GWA88's revert log, it becomes apparent that there is a recurring pattern of reversions without engaging in discussion. A significant portion of this activity involves contentious topics. As this conduct is clearly not in line with acceptable behavior, could you please look into this and take appropriate measures? 33ABGirl (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi 33ABGirl, I have moved this to the Incidents noticeboard because I see no immediate need for a quick page protection or block, but a discussion of the behavior here may help. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @ToBeFree. Firstly, let me start by saying I highly suspect 33ABGirl is a sockpuppet of the extremely disruptive user @Carter00000 who was indefinitely blocked by @Theleekycauldron last October for persistent abuse of process after reporting me and many others over content disputes just like this one. The WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour of 33ABGirl and Carter00000 is strikingly similar, from the wikilawyering to the blatant attempt at getting me blocked over a content dispute. Note the account was made before Carter00000 was blocked but the user only became active on the current events portal after Carter00000 had been suspended, also note the editing of Hong Kong related articles, again another topic where Carter00000 was active if you look through their contributions and this ANI thread. The user edits all of the topics where Carter00000 was active, from the WP:YEARS pages to the Current events portal, and Hong Kong related articles. The editing style and behaviour of both users is almost identical.

Also, with regards to disruptive editing on the current events portal, 33ABGirl was recently warned by @Cryptic over their reverting on Portal:Current events/2024 February 10.

I also reject the claim of canvassing as I only tagged in users who were active on that particular portal, the talk page is watched by over 6,000 editors but discussions are usually ignored. I will accept any consensus reached and they are free to oppose or support its inclusion. Again, assuming bad faith where there was none. Just more battleground behaviour. I note that 33ABGirl also recently left a final warning threatening a block on User talk:137.122.64.205 for what appears to just be a good faith edit on 2024. Again, more battleground behaviour from this user.

With regards to my own editing, I'm always open to advice from other editors on how I can improve, and I apologize for any wrongdoings. I always try to stay away from drama and stick to my own lane but obviously I'm here to defend myself from what appears to be a blatant attempt at landing me a block. I hope this issue can be resolved as I'm concerned this user will keep coming after me. In fact, this is exactly what I thought would happen. Thank you. GWA88 (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:SPI time to me, you seem to have a pretty well-built case. The Kip 02:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @The Kip. 33ABGirl has now been blocked for abusing multiple sockpuppet accounts, confirming my suspicions. Coincidentally enough, one of these accounts @Marwanaircalm also left me message on my talk page last December, same routine as seen here, has content dispute with me, leaves message on my talk page then reports to me ToBeFree, likely hoping to land a block. This user clearly has a strong personal grudge against me as they keep coming at me on different accounts. I'll keep an eye out for any more sockpuppets. GWA88 (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

6000 watchers? Do nonadmins not get the stat that says how many of those have actually looked at the page recently? (It's absurdly lower.) —Cryptic 03:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The watcher numbers at Special:Pageinfo/Portal talk:Current events are public, as can be confirmed through an incognito window or a different browser. Pages with fewer than 30 watchers behave differently to avoid encouraging vandalism where noone is watching. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Concern about disruptive editing by a user in a dispute on MP4 file format

User:Svnpenn has demonstrated some disruptive editing during an edit war with me and discussions spanning several days on MP4 file format, ISO base media file format and Open file format and during an attempt at dispute resolution:

• Unfounded accusations of vandalism ([22], [23] and [24]) and bad faith [25], which I initially assumed were because the user describes themselves as novice
• Tendentious editing after learning from me and another editor (VQuakr) about Wikipedia policies and guidelines:
  • WP:USERGENERATED: [26] after [27]
  • WP:SYNTH: [28] and [29] after [30]
• Disregard for WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS during the dispute resolution process towards VQuakr [31] after [32]

I acknowledge making a misstep here late into the discussion, which I promptly struck through and then fully removed upon request with an apology.

The dispute primarily revolves on the insistence that the MP4 file format and ISO base media file format are not open formats and that an Open file format must have an Open license. An attempt to resolve the dispute around MP4 at Talk:MP4 file format through a third opinion by VQuakr leaned towards my perspective on the verifiabily of the sources, but as the war continued, both VQuakr and I thought it was better to bring it to the DRN, which ended up failing. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The dispute resolution attempt just ended; suggest giving Svnpenn a chance to move on without drama. IMHO, admin action is only needed here if they start disrupting mainspace again over this issue. VQuakr (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I failed the mediation, and I agree with User:VQuakr. Svnpenn has not edited since I failed the mediation. Maybe I should have said that an RFC should be tried first, with WP:ANI only as an unpleasant option. I suggest that a neutral RFC should be used. If Svnpenn has a concern that the concept of open format is ill-defined, there are other forums to raise that concern, as well as discussing it in the Discussion section of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I just created one RfC for each of the three articles. I didn't do this earlier following guidelines, as the dispute only involved two editors. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

---

I would say the above is premature, especially considering updates I now have in private. since my attempts to find a compromise in this matter have failed, I have been in contact with all of the LOC, ISO and IEC. I have today received a response in my favor from the LOC. they have communicated privately to me that they currently DO NOT consider MP4 an "open format", and pending a follow up I plan to update the talk page and possibly make further edits to related pages pending the outcome of these talks.

to state the obvious, the above user Fernando Trebien has gone WAY beyond anything that could be construed as constructive here. I offered at least 5 different compromise solutions to the disagreement, all of which were rejected or ignored by other editors. further, neither offered anything in the way of compromise. thats not acting in good faith I feel. instead, the above editor Fernando Trebien seems intent on punishing me, even though as others have said I have made no edits since the end of moderated discussion. Wikipedia is not the place to hold or act on grudges, it should be a high quality repository of information, that is my goal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svnpenn (talk • contribs) 23:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Svnpenn: to manage your expectations here: personal communications with LOC, ISO, IEC, etc are not verifiable or published and won't move the needle on a discussion about article content. We're looking at published, reliable secondary sources in order to inform what goes into mainspace. VQuakr (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

you should REALLY stop assuming you know where my head is at. you dont. thanks for the feedback, but it doesn't apply to my situation at all. perhaps instead of continuing to ignore and reject my compromise offers, you could acknowledge them or offer your own. Svnpenn (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Simply put, editors are not required to compromise with you. If consensus is against your changes, you'll have to accept that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

there is no consensus. either within the editors in this discussion, nor Wikipedia broadly, nor even outside of Wikipedia, so it seems your comment doesn't apply here Svnpenn (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Well there's definitely a consensus within wikipedia that you have zero actual RS to support the changes you want to make, and a consensus that you need reliable sources to make any claim. So in that sense there's a definite consensus against your changes. Nil Einne (talk) 10:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Race-related edits by AppGoo0011

User:AppGoo0011 has been going around decapitalizing Black to black ([33]), while capitalizing White ([34]) and adding capital-W White to articles, as well as making a lot of other one-sided racially-charged edits that don't really confirm to the MOS or follow the sources, such as adding the race of white murder victims to pages about white victims killed by undocumented immigrants, in cases where the sources don't mention or focus on that at all, and sometimes even edit-warring over this or using misleading edit summaries - [35][36]; [37] (note misleading edit summary), [38] (note misleading edit summary.) Also see eg. [39] and [40]. This was discussed on ANI just a few weeks ago here, where people unanimously told them to knock it off and warned them of the possibility of a block, but they haven't listened; note that all the diffs provided here are from after that discussion. --Aquillion (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

So which is it? Do you want me to capitalize races or not? My goal is to bring consistency. If white is uncapitalized and Black is, I seek to bring consistency. If White is capitalized and black isn't, I seek to bring consistency. If there's already consensus for mixed use, I don't touch it, even though I disagree.

I do understand the issue with providing race when no sources stated it, though. I won't do that anymore. AppGoo0011 (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

"So which is it" You stop doing these types of edits. Period. End of story. Will never not be amazed by editors being told to stop doing edits that others find problematic, then after awhile doing them anyway. Stop doing these types of edits. Now. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 20:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked AppGoo0011 who clearly did not get the message of the February ANI discussion. Personally, I will oppose any unblock request that does not include a topic ban on race and ethnicity, broadly construed. Cullen328 (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Good block. The misleading edit summaries and baiting tone of the changed phrasing is quite galling. I think it would also be right to oppose any unblock request that doesn't include a broadly construed topic ban on race and ethnicity. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

AppGoo is now asking for an unblock to stay out of race/ethnicity and stick to mobile payment articles; I personally would also see that they stay out of any violent crime articles as that seems to be the broader hot point for them. Nate • (chatter) 23:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

What about articles about White-collar crime? Or Blackmail? EEng 14:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

With the reveal of transmisogynistic edits, I'd say we should just revoke TPA and forget about any potential unblocks. This person is WP:NOTHERE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, we're not letting them past GO, no support for an unblock whatsoever. Nate • (chatter) 19:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Iff this user is unblocked, they shouldn't just be topic-banned from race-related articles; it should be all race-related edits in general, broadly construed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse block and propose community ban this user is going to need an amount of handholding and eyes to avoid they don't oops, accidentally skirt the edges of t-ban since they seem so intent on arguing everything. They're a drain on the community and our resources. Star Mississippi 22:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support community ban proposed by Star Mississippi. I already supported the block, but my earlier comment had some openness to an unblock with a broadly construed topic ban on race and ethnicity. On seeing the additional evidence, I no longer think unblocking with a topic ban is tenable (though it's definitely the only condition on which unblocking would be tolerable), and I'd support a community ban. Measures like topic bans are preventative and are meant to spare the community from spending time and energy fixing policy violations and misbehavior. This user's attempted willingness to use misleading edit summaries is ample evidence they would try to skirt and sneak around a topic ban, whether for race and ethnicity related edits, crime related edits, etc.. Unblocking isn't worth our time. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 08:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

SPI report closed based on misunderstanding of my arguments

I would like to preface this by saying that I'm not here to cast aspersions on anyone, but I feel like this is pretty imperative to address this because it involves extremely extensive, disruptive LTA by a sock puppet. A few days ago I made an SPI against what I believed to be a sock account of HaughtonBrit, a user who has been hounding me non stop, particularly since his accounts Javerine and Ralx888 were blocked in April 2023. I laid out my evidence-[41] , however it was closed by The Wordsmith today. When I went to their t/p to inquire about the reasons why; it immediately became clear that there were fundamental misunderstandings about the arguments I laid forth, which I laid out here-[42]-[43].

For example, it seems that my argument that RangersRus made his first few edits on Wikipedia two hours after HB's blocked IP sock was editing it, with the exact same type of edits- [44] were misconstrued by TW as HB editing with that IP only on June 3, and the preceding and successive edits by the IP not being HB, hence the creation date of RangersRus being sufficiently detached from the IP.

It also seems that TW misunderstood my arguments about RangersRus' AFD votes as me claiming that RangersRus's first AFD vote was on my AFD nomination, and that his first AFD votes were on an unrelated topic.

My argument was that RangersRus' first AFD vote was 3 hours after my AFD nom despite being on Wikipedia for 3+ months and having almost 1000 edits, where hitherto I had made it clear that I would start AFD nominating poorly written and sourced articles that the sockmaster had an extremely long history of mainpulating to aggrandize his religion and embarking on campaigns to hound anyone who affronted his convictions; RangersRus first two AFD votes were concerning the Marathas (a topic area in which the sockmaster has an extremely extensive history of fixating on and which I detailed in my SPI), hence the topics were indeed related. Subsequent AFD votes were either made in close proximity to HB socks such as this one-[45] where HB made 14 edits on the t/p of the article and 4 VOTES logged out on the AFD. Another one lined up with the sockmaster's MO of tacitly messing with me in order to aggrandize his religion-[46] like he did in a previous AFD I nominated in 2023-[47].

I think it was unfair that the SPI was closed prematurely based on these misunderstandings. I've been dealing with the sockmaster virtually non stop since 2021, but they drastically ramped up their harassment since April 2023 after 2 of their accounts were blocked. Had there been more ambiguity or plausible deniability regarding RangersRus, I would have dropped this long ago, but I believe the red flags are quite glaring and to see an SPI closed like this doesn't seem right. Once again, I think The Wordsmith is an excellent admin, and I can't blame him for not being familiar with the sockmaster's history; I hope we can come to a peaceful resolution. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

You are required to notify users involved in this post, which I've done for RangersRus. Remsense诉 04:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I also want to state that Southasianhistorian8 has accused me of being a sockpuppet for the mentioned user [1]. However, I was subsequently cleared of these allegations by a check user. At the time of the investigation, I, like RangersRus, was a new user. Once I was cleared, Southasianhistorian8 went on to post a case on me on the Administrators' noticeboard, kind've like how they are doing now with RangersRus. Suthasianhistorian8 (or southasianhistorian8, as they use both for some reason) has a tendency to convict individuals who do not align with their narrative. They have a scorched earth mindset, particularly in their editing in contentious topics. Not only have they consistently bothered The Wordsmith, even after Wordsmith declared their decision would not change [2], but The Wordsmith also highlights how Suthasianhistorian8 bothers many other admins on the same topic, engaging in WP:FORUMSHOP. It's worth noting that this level of obsession is concerning and unhealthy, as is evident in their walls of text in the previous links (to be honest, it's a sight to behold). This is just a case of the boy who cried wolf. Personally, I believe The Wordsmith was correct in their judgment, and I wouldn't be surprised to see another investigation up on me in the near future. UnbiasedSN (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

From what I can make of the case Suthasianhistorian8 seems to have misunderstood The Wordsmith's reasons for closure, rather than The Wordsmith misunderstanding Suthasianhistorian8's arguments. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Pretty ironic how this user throws accusations against me when they're clearly here to troll me-

their 11th edit on Wikipedia is messing with me here-[48] where they tried to re-add figures into the infobox which aggrandized their religion on an erroneous basis. You can see the info-box where they tried to push a narrative that a battle occurred in which 1800 Sikhs were involved fighting a much larger contingent of 50,000-100,000 belligerents and ended up victorious. and killing~ 90% of the opponent army. Of course, none of the sources were reliable, one was a Raj era source which editors in this topic area are explicitly told not to use (Macaullife) and the other was a 17th/18th century primary (Gurblias Patshahi). It should also be noted that by the time UnbiasedSN came on this page, I had already discussed and resolved this very matter with another editor-[49]. See the subsequent, blatantly tendentious edits by this user after the fact-[50], [51]. [52]. You can see that he refused to go on the t/p and instead kept pushing this ridiculous narrative better suited for sites like Facebook, rather than an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. He then left a bogus warning on my t/p-[53].

This user followed me again to another article-[54] trying to mess with me. On a later ANI thread, this user used a LLM/ChatGPT to make a complaint against me, which was pointed out by other admins involved there-[55].

This user follows and harasses me here again-[56] trying to reinstate content that was blatantly aggrandizing their religion; the article was as clear as day displaying incorrect, inflated numbers and casualties that the Sikhs inflicted on their opponents, which is why an unrelated editor reverted him-[57]. Instead of having a respectful discussion with me on the t/p discussing the veracity of sources, this user left another bogus warning on my t/p saying that I am insecure or have an inferiority complex-[58] and unprovoked made a personal attack on the talk page, telling me to get a life-[59].

Shortly after, he made another random, personal attack against me on talk page where I was previously having a respectful conversation with another editor about source reliability-[60]

The user then followed me to my AFD-[61] which I didn't particularly mind since it was a fair question and so I responded accordingly-[62].

He then followed me to HB's SPI for no reason whatsoever, despite the fact that I never invoked him on there since October-[63], [64] and also partially reverted some of my BANREVERT edits after HB's socks were blocked on March 2.

Now once again, despite not being pinged or invoked in any whatsoever, this user is deciding to follow me here, casting aspersions when I never involved him whatsoever. This user is clear as day just following me around trying to frustrate me, most evident from his numerous personal attacks against me. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Also some previous HB socks were also cleared by CUs-[65] but were later blocked since they were undeniably, unquestionably socks with extremely strong technical and behavioural evidence to show that they were linked to HB-[66] & [67] like making the exact same edits as HB's proxies. HaughtonBrit has numerous IPs and proxies at his disposal and has tricked CUs before-[68]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

UnbiasedSN's targeted accusations against Southasianhistorian8 are definitely concerning. This does appear to be ethnic POV editing, followed by multiple accusations of anti-Sikh bias against Southasianhistorian8. Regardless of anything else, this is unacceptable per WP:NPA. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

So 3 incidents with the user is considered personal attacks? You also got to realize i'm a new user here and slowly started learning about proper references and what's an appropriate source. Southasianhistory8 wasn't wrong with reverting the edits, he just constantly targets sikh history and warping sources to his benefit. Like I said before, i'm new. UnbiasedSN (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

File another checkuser on me. By all means, don't let me stop you. UnbiasedSN (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

You also can't say I followed HB's SPI for no reason. I'm literally on it... You also flatter me with such long walls of texts. UnbiasedSN (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Noting here that I stand by my assessment that the behavioral evidence suggests that RangersRus is a different person from HB. Any other admin is welcome to give it a second look, SPI needs more patrolling admin eyes anyway (though I've cleared out much of the backlog it had). I've tried to be understanding with Suthasianhistorian8 because he has dealt with and correctly identified a bunch of likely sockpuppets, but I think he's mistaken here. That's fine, sometimes we miss one or think the evidence is stronger than it is. What isn't fine is the WP:OTHERPARENT tagging of your preferred admins when the first one doesn't give you the result you want, demanding that the case be reopened until one of your preferred admins reviews it, posting walls to text everywhere, and now the OTHEROTHEROTHERPARENT attempt by posting walls of text here repeating the same thin evidence to get it reviewed again. Especially calling the reviewing admin a "layman" as if I couldn't possibly understand the signs of sockpuppetry from reading all the evidence and the walls of text from previous cases. I didn't misunderstand the evidence, I just don't think the evidence is strong. A several-month-old user making their first !vote at an AFD three hours after Suthasianhistorian8 nominates a (completely different) page at AFD is too weak to even be called circumstantial evidence. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I still stand by initial assessment of RangersRus and believe that he very well may be a sock puppet of HaughtonBrit, or at the very least there's some glaring red flags involved. I also stand by my claims that some of my arguments were misrepresented/misunderstood, most notably, RangerRus' first AFD votes being unrelated, and an unfair dismissal of RangersRus' first edits having a 2 hour gap as the 24* blocked IP sock on the same article; I believe I made a fair case for both on your talk page.

The points I made about RangersRus were as follows:

1) RangersRus' first few edits were on the same page HB’s confirmed IP sock was editing, with just a 2 hour gap between the IP and RangersRus, and both made the exact same type of edits (inflating census numbers, population figures etc). Ranger's additional first few edits were also on the Marathas, which has been a fixation and anathema of HB’s for years

2) RangersRus' first AFD votes were 3 hours after my AFD nom, on pages related to Marathas, on the same day HB was on a major evasion spree, openly gaslighting admins, editing logged out on an SPI filed against him, and filing competing sock puppetry reports despite being a major block evader himself. If you know anything about HB, you’ll know he always tries to undermine my edits by either editing the same page or sometimes by making a parallel edit on a page related to the Marathas within hours.

3) RangersRus along with 4 of HaughtonBrit's IPs made the exact same delete vote/argument on an AFD; an article HB was fixated on previously, and not too long after HB’s IPs made 9 edits to the talk page of the article just days before. That was also his 3rd AFD vote overall. Someone brazenly voting on an AFD 4 times is a clear indication that they’re desperate to undermine AFDs that affront their convictions

4) RangersRus arguing to delete a battle in which the Sikhs were defeated citing insufficient coverage from sources while subsequently arguing to keep a battle in which the Sikhs were victorious despite the sources clearly having marginal coverage, which is why he didn’t respond to me pressing him on the Battle of Rohilla AFD (an article which HB has also edited multiple times in the past). He’s undermined my AFDs before with his sock account Elifanta23

5) RangersRus going on an voting spree (60+) from the very moment he made his first Maratha related AFDs when he had almost 1000 edits beforehand and not one AFD vote, which clearly looks like him covering his tracks

6) Him finding out about the SPI against him immediately despite not being pinged and trying to absolve himself which is what HaughtonBrit has done on 3 separate incidents, as recent as January of this year, and previously with his aforementioned sock account Elifanta23

Of course if only one of my points or arguments is cited-"A several-month-old user making their first !vote at an AFD three hours after Suthasianhistorian8 nominates a (completely different) page at AFD is too weak to even be called circumstantial evidence", it makes my case appear quite weak, but my suspicions are the sum total of all 6 of my points, on a standalone basis, they don't mean much admittedly, but when taken together, I believe they coalesce into a fairly compelling case.

Also to address the aforementioned quote above, my whole point about his AFD vote being 3 hours after my AFD nom is that a user whose entire editing history is based on overtly or tacitly making edits to retain and change articles to glorify their religion as much as possible and embarking on extensive, relentless campaigns against editors who go against those religious sentiments ( he’s also done this to other users such as Kansas Bear, Noorullah24, Joshua Jonathan, admin Utcursh, KamalAfghan, FDW etc, albeit to lesser extents), would be vexed enough at a user who nominated some of these articles for deletion; the same user they’ve extensively hounded hundreds of times over the span of years, both furtively and overtly, that they would start a parallel AFD campaign and use it to tacitly hinder them.

And to reiterate, the reason I'm here is because I believed my arguments were misunderstood and that the SPI was prematurely closed based on those misunderstandings, which is what I gathered from your previous statements:"Correct me if I'm wrong, but RangersRus's first edit was two and a half months after that confirmed sock you linked in your first set of diffs, not two hours. That IP was blocked on 3 June 2023, RangersRus was created on 21 August" as well as "His rationales seem pretty reasonable; the fact that his first (in an unrelated AFD) was 3 hours after you nominated a different one isn't solid evidence". The confirmed sock I linked was an IPv4 which was clearly assigned to HaughtonBrit exclusively, who made numerous, consecutive duck edits with it across many months, including on the page which RangersRus edited two hours later. I'm also confused as to what you mean by RangersRus' first AFD votes were unrelated, unrelated in what sense? Because the votes were related to the Marathas, which HB has edited hundreds of times (500+ at least). Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

This ANI case is a repeat from the SPI case where all the bogus charges were found inane. I do not want to re-enter long texts here. I voted Delete on editor's nomination of page Third Battle of Anandpur (1704) because it was poorly written with unreliable sources but this editor had no complaints and when I voted against on the other AFD of Battle of Rohilla, bogus SPI case was filed. Initial revenge SPI case has now turned into WP:BULLY with this ANI. RangersRus (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Nope, if anything I'm being bullied by an editor who called me things like a criminal-[69], who openly interferes in my affairs by instigating admins against me non stop-[70]. [71], who creates sock accounts repeatedly solely to troll me-[72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78]. Even after Dazzem was temporarily blocked, despite being an obvious duck/sock which is why he was blocked by The WordSmith himself, the very first thing Dazzem did after his unblock to revert my edits-[79]. Finmas who was a duck sock, making the exact same edits as his proxies calling me a sock of Prince of Roblox, tried making a bogus unblock talk page request on his t/p-[80] which was unfortunately almost taken seriously by an admin. Elifanta23 who was blocked as a duck sock by Abecedare, an admin whom HB was gas lighting before, also tried absolving himself in a similar manner-[81]. HaughtonBrit openly logged out edited his own SPI cases trying to dissuade admins for investigating him-[82], [83].

Once again, I thoroughly reiterate my stance on RangersRus and still maintain that my arguments were clearly misunderstood by The Wordsmith. I respect the latter and appreciate the work he does in SPIs but I'm sticking to my guns, once again if there was genuine ambiguity here, I would have dropped this long ago. I strongly believe that the dismissal of my point that RangersRus' first edits were on a page which HB's confirmed IP sock was editing, with just a 2 hour gap & with the exact same type of edits, the erroneous claim that RangersRus' first AFD votes were unrelated, and the pretermission of other elements in RangersRus AFD votes/voting patterns should be adequately addressed. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

More same duplicate long texts of bogus erroneous petition. Once is enough. RangersRus (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I only expect more straw mans and gotcha statements like that, instead of actual, substantive replies to my concerns and points. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

User:The Wordsmith

• I've to agree with Suthasianhistorian8, this was another sloppy close by The Wordsmith (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), like this, where they connected a bunch of IPs to a SPI which we never do or this, where they were asked to tag the accounts (which they didn't) and closed it just by saying that behavior is not obvious. Just to note that they have been desysopped several times due to inactivity and come back claiming they are caught up with the guidelines of Wikipedia which is certainly not the case. 74.12.246.12 (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Something is wrong with User:The Wordsmith as well. On February 14, 2024, they self-nominated themselves as an edit filter without any scruitny. Should we file a case with WP:ARBCOM against them? They are certainly not behaving just like another user who holds the mop. They are not special or priviliged. 74.12.246.12 (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Administrators may assign the edit filter manager userright to themselves. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Got it. 74.12.246.12 (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• It seems like they are blocking users for fun, describing all of them as "duck". On Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Denosio, they blocked 440 edits account, User:Suomi2023, just because they are interested in visa-related articles. There is hardly any evidence to justify such a block. It could be a good faith editor. Someone should review their recent SPI closure spree.74.12.246.12 (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Here they again connected an IP with SPI publicly. This is a clear violation of WP:PRIVACY and they should stop. 74.12.246.12 (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't really know much about the ins and outs of SPI reports, but if I recall correctly, CUs/clerks are allowed to call IPs socks of an account, they can't however claim that the suspected sockmaster was operating those IP addresses through an official check. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Usually, they shouldn't act on such requests if filed via SPI, but User:The Wordsmith is commenting SPI in block logs - it is a clearly violation of person's privacy/location. 74.12.246.12 (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  A lot of socks use IPs to block evade, this has to be addressed by admins/CUs somehow. Tbh, none of this looks like outing or abuse of admin powers to me, just standard operating procedures for Wikipedia. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  There is nothing stopping an IP address from being logged as a sock of an account purely because it was reported through SPI. It's only the CheckUser tool that shouldn't be used to connect accounts to IPs, but The Wordsmith is not a checkuser. Giraffer (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Here they connected 38.107.226.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoaeter. WP:OUTING applies? 74.12.246.12 (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  It is perfectly common for IPs to be linked to accounts at SPI through behavioral analysis. Giraffer (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  • Here they connected a stale account Chilmiy29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with Chusada25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) by just saying "Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me". How they can justify such sloppy blocks? 74.12.246.12 (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for this. Can you share any guideline or policy for me to read? 74.12.246.12 (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Here they connected a stale account Chilmiy29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with Chusada25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) by just saying "Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me". How they can justify such sloppy blocks? I will stop here. In my opinion, it is not a normal behavior from an admin. 74.12.246.12 (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

User:REETO25

REETO25 (talk · contribs · count)

User seems to be a net negative, I just reverted two edits for overlinking, 1, 2. After reverting I went to the user talk page to place a warning and noticed many warnings, mostly for overlinking (and other issues). - FlightTime (open channel) 23:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I’m sorry REETO25 (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Me too. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems like you've contributed four WP:OVERLINK warnings to this user of two-and-a-half years. There appears to be somewhat long-term disruption from this user too. Conyo14 (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Shirt58 has blocked them from editing articles and seems to be handling this on their talk page. I don't think anything else is needed from here for now. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I neglected to include the usual "unblock" template on their talkpage (Yay! Summer is finally over, the days are getting shorter, and I can look forward to bicycling into work in the morning while there are still stars in the sky!) but I blame that on the weather here. Seriously though: happy for any other admin to step in there. --Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Bluishebrye

• Bluishebrye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sarah Geronimo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user keeps disrupting the Sarah Geronimo article by adding "Guidicelli" and the {{Philippine name}} hatnote on the lead section, whereas I'm working on the article to have it listed for GAN/FAC. I've seen the Regine Velasquez article does not have "Alcasid" when the article's primary contributor worked on it. Recently, the user disturbed me twice to add the Guidicelli thing in the lead. ScarletViolet (talk • contribs) 02:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@ScarletViolet, the IP Special:Contributions/103.132.168.197 has edited the article saying they are her manager in the edit summary. Also, they’ve said the same on ScarletViolet’s user talk. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 03:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that the above IP, who said they were the "manager" for the article subject, was blocked for one month (by Ad Orientem). I've also informed them about WP:COI expectations (diff). El_C 06:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio revdel requested for Back in Black

This copyrighted book by Susan Masino was plagiarized today by new student user Augustkey who copied text straight from the book into the article Back in Black (song). Can we revdel the edits? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. Much of the rest of the article is inappropriate in tone. Acroterion (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I can't check that Guitar Player reference by the same editor, but it looks fishy too. Acroterion (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Acroterion: A Google search found nothing except our article "Back in Black" (song), and searches for "Gress" and "AC/DC" in the Guitar Player online archive turned up nothing. Very fishy. Narky Blert (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa - WP:Battleground behavior and WP:NOTHERE.

@Kaalakaa, whose either neutrality and/or cherry-picking of sources on Islam related articles have been questioned by several editors, including @Iskandar323 [84], and here [85] where he compared Muhammad with Hitler, and by @DeCausa [86], @Anachronist [87], and @Chxeese [88], as well as by @Neutralhappy on the ANI board [89], and who has also been accused of sockpuppetry by @NEDOCHAN (see SPI investigation), and is also used to making snarky personal attacks on much senior editors such as @Louis P. Boog, "It is very concerning that someone who has done over 42,000 edits since 23 December 2006 still doesn't quite grasp basic Wikipedia guidelines", and is now what looks like, Wiki:Hounding me on my old edit on a Muslim section in History of Hinduism.

@Kaalakaa first tried to report me regarding my discussion at Aisha article, but other editors did not found any violation and simply warned both of us to avoid causing timesink, after that he raised the current issue on the OR board about the edits on History of Hinduism saying that I misrepresented a source, I simply addressed them by removing the source whose reliability was questioned by others and provided alternative ones in accordance with the responses and editors like @Eucalyptusmint and @Joshua Jonathan and @Asteramellus were all fine with it. Done.

After that he kept pestering for the sources that I just gave in the talk page to merely demonstrate a point. And when I addressed that too, admitted a mistake, and then gave another source to support the statement, he then started questioning the sources. I warned him about "cherry-picking sources with the same bias to forcefully insert critique where it is not WP:Relevant, disregarding all others, and then WP:BLUDGEON the process to achieve it" after that I once again requested him to stop WP:ICANTHEARYOU and sheer time wasting of other editors; he then challenged me to report him[90], clearly treating Wikipedia as a WP:Battleground which he has been accused of by other editors[91] and he feels he has to WP:WINIT at any cost.

In summary: lack of neutrality by cherry-picking the sources, battleground behavior, challenging other editors to block him; clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia.

A full NOTHERE block must be implemented if not a recommended partial indef block on Islam related articles. StarkReport (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

You seem a little emotional about this. 208.87.236.202 (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Attention: Toini Ivanov

User @Toini Ivanov is reverting constructive edits and putting threatening vandalism notices left-and-right. See a small sample of good edits that this user has reverted:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_Jalil_Andrabi&diff=prev&oldid=1212749012
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cot%E2%80%93caught_merger&diff=prev&oldid=1212748265
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kochi_Metro&diff=prev&oldid=1212746684
• and many others

Most of his "reversions" are garbage. On top of that, this user adds a threatening vandalism notice to those who made constructive edits. 88.118.7.240 (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

This user made 100 mostly crap edits in half an hour and keeps going unhindered. 88.118.7.240 (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Moved from the Teahouse; endorsing report. Needs to be mass-reverted as well, as the editor appears to be targeting IP editors with no other consideration. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm currently working my way through their edits now to check which need to keep at least some notice and which need to be completely removed and reverted, so far I've only re-applied a notice to one user and that was nothing more than an editing test. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding to the weirdness is the account of registered in 2016, yet made no edits until today when a campaign of similar edits and messages started. Could it be a bot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.200.213 (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The strangest part of it for me is that some of the people they warned they didn't even revert? The edits just remain there, such as the edits on Vanchi Bhumi by this user (which has since had their warning removed). CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

On a side note, the number of reverts done by the user per minute and the usage of a warning template that I have never heard of before {{uw-vandalism4jew}}) seems somewhat fishy to me. EnIRtpf09b (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

This is  Confirmed to The local bishop. It's probably some other sockmaster in reality, but this is the one I saw earlier today. Blocked and tagged. I'm sure they'll be back. --Yamla (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully not for a while. I'll keep running through their edits to see which are actually warranted and which aren't, but I'm doubting that any are at this point. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind then. Thanks! CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

They certainly had the right idea about being effective at doing the most harm before they're stopped. Just look at their talk page. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

This is some sort of LTA, whose mission appears to be to game the EC permission on some old accounts to vandalise EC-protected pages. That's exactly what happened with the 'Timefordindins' account earlier today. Some earlier usernames I've come across are 'A really cool tour' and 'Big Whack'.

A key characteristic of this 'LTA' is they always, always use the edit summary "Your recent changes to [page]" when leaving warnings. Note: I'm not trying to give this user recognition here, just point out an easy to find piece of modus operandi of this LTA for easier identifications of future socks. Thanks all. — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

No, that was very helpful. Just looked at Timefordindins. Same thing. Again a 2016 account. Someone must have found their file with all the alts and passwords for 2016, but I have no idea who. Today is the first time I have seen this tactic. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

There are 30-some accounts related to this (including the ones mentioned above), all blocked already. I have to assume they'll log in to more, but I see no currently unblocked accounts at this time. --Yamla (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Yamla, and thanks CommissarDoggo for your quick move to damage control. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Yamla, please restore User talk:88.118.7.240. I think it had additional discussions, as they were the one who wrote up the nice report and posted to the teahouse. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

By your command. --Yamla (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again — Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Could this be this guy? Especially since it's an old account. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 00:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it's confirmed. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 00:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Yup, I think it was just me mentioning to Toini not to bite the newcomers, aside from that it was the 4im and the IP user's replies. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 13:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

If it weren't restored, I'd never have seen the heartwarming message they'd replied to me with — Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Toini Ivanov now indef blocked. Thank you. David notMD (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring over formatting

User @FeldmarschallGneisenau keeps changing the case of the title "Prime Minister" in Donald Tusk, which, per MOS:JOB, should be capitalized in the context in which it appears in the article. I brought the issue to User talk:FeldmarschallGneisenau, however, they keep on pushing the change without an established consensus. Max19582 (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

MoS isn't policy and the page-specific consensus ("prime minister of Poland") is established in pages for previous prime ministers and is long-standing when it comes to Donald Tusk as well. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

err MOS is standard you don't get to ignore MOS just because you disagree with it, plus I see no consensus for it on the talk page or archives. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

See another example - Olaf Scholz. "chancellor of Germany" with no needless capitalization. Titles chancellor, prime minister etc. aren't proper nouns, they are generic positions and do not to be capitalized and as you can see, aren't FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is, however. @FeldmarschallGneisenau links to prior discussions on the matter? Mackensen (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

By consensus I mean this is how prime ministers in Poland have been covered for years, and not just prime ministers in Poland, a quick example is Olaf Scholz described simply as "chancellor of Germany" and not "Chancellor of Germany." As I wrote below, these aren't proper nouns, they're generic positions. This is a long-standing format that everyone accepted and no one challenged. Now user Max comes along and tries to change it and thinks he's somehow the consensus and I am somehow the one who has to take it to Talk. That's not how it works. You take to Talk something that you are challenging, which was long-standing. Hence why I am authorized to undo his changes that are carried out without a prior discussion at Talk, while his undoings are the ones that eventually violate the 3RR rule, and he has to take it to Talk. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

"how prime ministers in Poland have been covered for years"

For almost all post-1989 prime ministers, the title is capitalized (see below).

"described simply as 'chancellor of Germany' and not 'Chancellor of Germany.'"

He is described as "the chancellor of Germany", which (per MOS:JOB) is different than just "Chancellor of Germany."

"he's somehow the consensus and I am somehow the one who has to take it to Talk"

Can you please say where the previous consensus was established? The current consensus is determined not by me, but by the Manual of Style (which is also the one that the article about Olaf Scholz and almost all articles about Polish prime ministers except for Morawiecki follow).

"Hence why I am authorized to undo his changes [...] while his undoings are the ones that eventually violate the 3RR rule, and he has to take it to Talk."

I think it is better if we both try to cooperate and fix the issue in a constructive manner, instead of silently hoping for the other party to be punished by the 3RR rule. I'm, once again, asking you to either provide links to discussions where the previous consensus was established, or seek a new one on the article's talk page. Contrary to what you are saying, articles about previous prime ministers do not spell the title in lowercase and all the other examples you provided follow MOS:JOB, the rule you are trying to create an exception to.

As for the article about Tusk, the article does not have a "long-standing" tradition either, since the title's formatting has changed many times throughout the years (2013 (capitalized), 2017 (capitalized), 2020 (capitalized, with "the"), 2021 (lowercase, with "the 14th"), 2023 (capitalized, with "the")), and my edit merely made it consistent with MOS and other articles. Max19582 (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Morawiecki had been the prime minister for years, which is why I said that's how it's been for years. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@FeldmarschallGneisenau: The title is capitalized for almost all post-1989 Polish prime ministers (Jarosław Kaczyński, Beata Szydło, Ewa Kopacz, Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz, Marek Belka, Jerzy Buzek, Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz, Józef Oleksy, Hanna Suchocka, Waldemar Pawlak, Jan Olszewski, Jan Krzysztof Bielecki), except for those where the title is indeed modified (Leszek Miller and Tadeusz Mazowiecki). The only exception for this rule is the article about Mateusz Morawiecki.

I see no discussions about this on the talk page for Tusk or Morawiecki either. Can you please provide relevant links where the consensus was established? Max19582 (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in changes when it comes to all the pages you listed, although perhaps they're simply wrongly written and the 4 pages you mentioned (including Donald Tusk's) are written correctly, because when you combine this query with pages for foreign leaders - see another example - Olaf Scholz, "chancellor of Germany" is written with no needless capitalization. Titles chancellor, prime minister etc. aren't proper nouns, they are generic positions and do not to be capitalized and as you can see, aren't FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@FeldmarschallGneisenau: Please read MOS:JOB once again. In the article about Olaf Scholz, his position is preceded by an article - who has been serving as the chancellor of Germany since 8 December 2021. In the article about Donald Tusk the title is unmodified (who has served as Prime Minister of Poland), hence, per MOS, the title should be capitalized.

If you don't agree with this, please take this to the talk page to try seek new consensus. The current consensus is determined by the Manual of Style, and the long-standing format for Polish prime ministers is, as you can see above, that the titles are indeed capitalized. Max19582 (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems like the long-standing format (used for years when Morawiecki was the prime minister and for months of Tusk's current tenure) required a correction indeed - with an article added in the front per MoS. That is a fine remark and I made now sure to include the article so everything is correct, even according to your revered MoS, and there is no need for a fight anymore. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@FeldmarschallGneisenau: Both the variants are correct per MOS, but I do agree the current one ("the" + lowercase) can stay. Max19582 (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Roll back the page move

Requesting an administrator to roll back the page move of War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War to Tamil Eelam Genocide. Move has been done without a move/article renaming disscussion on a personal POV. Cossde (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted the change, though if the user does so again without getting a consensus on the talk page, I will report their behaviour here. SinhalaLion (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - This is another WP:ANI request in a dispute about Sri Lanka. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Possible WP:OR in List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces

Requesting Administrator review of the list created in the article List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces for possible WP:OR. An extensive list has been created with incidents that are very controvical and have been added with only a single source that are either Qualified as Pro-Rebal (WP:BIAS/WP:QS), and non English sources (WP:NONENG/WP:RSUEQ).

Qualified as Pro-Rebal (WP:BIAS/WP:QS)

TamilNet - Accepted as a pro-rebel - Qualified source (A source that may be reliable in certain contexts, but always needs to be used with a qualification (also called “attribution”) such as “pro-rebel”, “state owned” or the name itself.) in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/Sources#List_of_sources

NESOHR - Accepted as a pro-rebel - Qualified source (A source that may be reliable in certain contexts, but always needs to be used with a qualification (also called “attribution”) such as “pro-rebel”, “state owned” or the name itself.) in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/Sources#List_of_sources

Non English sources (WP:NONENG/WP:RSUEQ)

Uthayan - Tamil language daily newspaper

Eelanadu - Tamil language daily newspaper

Cossde (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Tamilnet and NESOHR have already been vetted at Sri Lanka Reconciliation project with admin supervision, and can be cited with explicit attribution as they have been. This does not fall under category of OR, as the entries reflect their citations. It is not controversial that massacres of civilians have been committed by the Sri Lankan Armed forces, as this has been well documented by multiple reliable sources. Oz346 (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

and the sources are qualified sources, not questionable sources, two very different things. A search on the RS notice board regarding this subclass of sources can be found. Oz346 (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:QS states "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest". In the case of TamilNet and NESOHR, Sri Lanka Reconciliation project has confirmed these (though disscussion) that these are pro-rebel - Qualified source since these are "source that may be reliable in certain contexts" and they need to be used with "a qualification" due to the obvious conflict of interest. Cossde (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no evidence that these sources have a poor reputation for fact checking or lack meaningful editorial oversight. In fact, the opposite could be said. Like most sources in Sri Lanka, including the Sinhala owned national newspapers, they have their biases, but it is not sufficient to claim they are questionable sources.

In any case, discussions of these sources have already been done to death at the Sri Lanka Reconciliation project, and you are replicating these discussions here. Countless times you have attempted to remove mentions of Sri Lankan Army war crimes from multiple pages, including those cited with the highest level of reliable and scholarly sources, as you have done here recently: Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces#OHCHR report regarding sexual violence and Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces#Peacekeeping sex scandal. This would fit WP:NAT editing. Oz346 (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

On the contary, I have mentioned here that both these sources as Qualified (pro-rebel) sources, and that this has been done in the Sri Lanka Reconciliation project by disscussion and I do not challange it. If you read carefully what I have said this would be clear. As per the alligation of WP:NAT editing, one must only look at your edit history to find that your contributions are only limited to Tamil nationalist topics, where as mine is much broader. Therefore please be mindful of your continued personal attacks on me. Cossde (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The OP seems to have misread WP:NONENG/WP:RSUEQ. Sources that are not in English should be evaluated in exactly the same way that sources in English are. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. English sources are preferred if available and of the same quality. But if not English is not requirement. (A trans-title parameter in the references is extremely appreciated however as is a quote).

I have no opinion about these sources however, and no information on Sri Lanka. Elinruby (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Wait, isn't this directly related to the dispute in WP:ANI#User:Cossde flouting Wikipedia policies earlier on this page? Both involve Cossde and Sri Lanka articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Editor Lau737 "contributions."

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

---

Editor Lau737 has made several "contributions" into numerous articles using random pieces of wiki articles that they indiscriminately place into other articles.

Much of what Lau737 places into these articles does not frankly make sense or connect to whatever theme the passage seems to make.

Lau737 has been warned numerous times by several people - but does NOT seem to care to change or learn to do things right.

A list of Lau737's contributions show a laundry list of irrelevant and frivolous contributions. Please take a look at his editing and so-called irrational recycling of "contributions." Attached below is a brief view of his editing history.

Thank you. MRSawesome33 (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Add user links: Lau737 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Schazjmd (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I removed the list of contribution you copied here because we can just click on the contribs link and it's a giant wall of of 28 lines of text making it really hard to navigate. Northern Moonlight 20:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Lau737, this is not the way to write encyclopedia articles. Please stop doing that and write something yourself. If you must copy other people's work then a little more attribution should be given than "see page history for attribution". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, their summary is almost exactly what is recommended for attribution when translating content from other Wikis: Help:Translation#License_requirements

– 2804:F14:80C6:A301:243A:A254:1976:1CDD (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I worded that badly. I meant that more explanation is needed of why they felt the need to copy others' work, either in the edit summary or on the article talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I am glad that you brought attention to this user. He has made a bunch of eccentric edits and irritated many people—and he never learns from his mistakes. See his talk page for more information. Trakking (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Edits like this one demonstrate precisely why the pattern of mass rapid-fire copy-pasting is problematic; the material has absolutely no relevance to the article topic. Launching personal attacks and shouting at another editor in a highly contentious topic area are also major causes for concern. Left guide (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I reverted the edit on Acquaintance rape because it is fairly sexist considering it doesn't include statistics about males. That guy who plays games (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I haven't seen anti-male prejudice in any of the contributions. That paragraph copied from another Wikipedia article cited the academic journals Deviant Behavior and Behavioral Sciences, and those scholarly studies of sexual assault on university campuses were also studying the gendered dimensions of such. What's at issue is that the inserted paragraph was about sexual assault more generally and not specifically about acquaintance rape, the topic of the article, and also that Lau737 hasn't being responsive to feedback from other editors about why such edits amount to being frivolous. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

They don't specify it, which is inherently benevolent sexism. If they included soruced info on both genders I would call it lazy editing, but they didn't. Also, the articles which those are included on never specify male data because of course they don't. That guy who plays games (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

After further review, I've gone ahead and reverted six of these mass indiscriminate copy-pastings as they don't appear to address the topics of the respective articles: toxic masculinity, sexual predator, causes of mental disorders, gender inequality in the U.S., youth suicide, and gender empowerment. Additional input or assistance welcomed. Left guide (talk) 01:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Honestly all of those edits are trying to generate sympathy and don't have any encyclopedic value. That guy who plays games (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Reading over the talk page and just briefly looking at the other edits, I can't help but think WP:CIR is involved here. Even with the best intentions, if you don't have the competence to edit in areas, for whatever reason, and the ability to collaborate, then this is a real problem requiring a real solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm pinging SandyGeorgia because she has had some experience with the editor and I trust her objectivity and overall experience. This current problem seems to be part of a much larger trend, one that started as soon as this account was created. The combativeness and overall behavior, at first glance, seems to be a problem that is incompatible with editing here at all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

It just copy and pasting the same sentences from reports biased towards women. Unless the topic of the article is specifically about women, sources like that are overly due weight in my opinion. That guy who plays games (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Phil Bridger, Hi P-Makoto

Do not believe these people. They have been trying to smear me for months. All they do is harass me, make stuff up, and revert edits. I implore you not to believe anything that they say unless clear evidence is provided.`Dennis Brown, your mention of WP:CIR is a clear insult and adds nothing to this discussion. Every editor who comes in here saying something along the lines of "indiscriminate copy-pasting" does not deserve a comment from me. All of these texts and articles were carefully handpicked and on-topic.

Best regards Lau737 (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

That edit demonstrates the problem with that editor. They, uniquely, don't need to explain themselves or give evidence because they are always right. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

(uninvolved non-admin comment) The response by Lau above only solidifies my believe that the user needs blocking, if not for WP:CIR, for the battleground mentality displayed. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Lau appears to have attempted to WP:CANVASS two admins here; EvergreenFir and El C. I have no opinion on the broader report. BilledMammal (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Those edits may, strictly speaking, violate WP:CANVASS, but I don't think there's too much to worry about because I see no reason why either editor should be sympathetic or unsympathetic towards Lau737. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I would strongly encourage all attendants to be especially careful of any admin trying to hastily force a conclusion to this debacle. Trakking, BilledMammal, MRSawesome33, MartinPoulter, Grnrchst, and HaeB are all roughly on the same side of this issue and all guilty of taking great liberties with the truth. The stalking behavior is getting creepier too.

Best regards Lau737 (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

What issue? I don’t think we’ve ever interacted. BilledMammal (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Nobody here except you has taken any liberties with the truth and there has been no stalking behaviour. Has nobody ever in your life punctured your delusions by telling you that you are simply wrong? I suppose this isn't the place for me to go off on a diatribe about the way children are brought up these days. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Those are dangerous words, Phil Bridger. BilledMammal has just engaged in, yes, stalking my behavior and twisted the truth to its full extent to classify me talking to two admins as "canvassing." He wants me gone, he wants the edits gone for whatever reason he can come up with, that is his only agenda, do you want me gone too Phil Bridger? Lau737 (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I don’t even know who you are - I’m only here because El C’s talk page is on my watch list. BilledMammal (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

More delusional behaviour. How could anyone possibly know who you are? As I said in my previous edit, you are simply wrong. Or are you the one person in the world who is right when everyone else is wrong? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Your use of delusional is harassment under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment

Rather than list all the lies told to people here, I will simply refer you to my talk page, as well as the various talk pages that I commented on, and the various page histories where vicious editors have left plenty of comments, or no comments, they simply reverted things, hoping to get away with it. If you continue to hold that point of view, I will simply conclude that you did not bother to read those sources. I will not step into a flaming war with you and a small army of my personal opponents.

Best regards Lau737 (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Lau737 seems to have a seriously discrepant view of how Wikipedia works, as an encyclopedia and as an editing community.

• Massive expansion of See Also sections. They defended their addition of Brinkmanship to Tyrant as "because of the use of nuclear deterrents, WMDs, or threats of war by contemporary and historical tyrants."[92] Other expansions include adding Precarious work to the See Also of Occupational hazard,[93] Make-work job to Capitalist peace[94] and vice versa,[95] Shill, Bootstrapping, Optimism, and Gullibility to One weird trick, and many others. They sometimes provide explanations eg for adding Gaslighting to Sleep deprivation, Both brainwashing and gaslighting benefit from sleep deprivation. It's an important aspect of mind control exerted by certain cults.[96]; broadly speaking, their approach may be to insert See Also for anything that is in their view similarly immoral (or occasionally, moral).
• Major copy-pastes of content between articles as described above, if every article within a domain should include everything about that domain.
• Personal attacks and no WP:AGF in edit summaries, such as Liar!,[97], undoing MartinPoulter and his distorted notion of relevance,[98] You are making stuff up![99] Yes, it is. It is you who doesn't want this article to be of any use to people!,[100] Didn't even want to give a reason for these, did you?,[101]
• Minimal use of article talk pages (0.6% of edits)[102]
• In this very ANI discussion, characterising editors who seek to correct or revert them as "all roughly on the same side of this issue and all guilty of taking great liberties with the truth"; "Do not believe these people. They have been trying to smear me for months. All they do is harass me, make stuff up, and revert edits.; "stalking my behavior and twisted the truth to its full extent". NebY (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

One-sided and wrong. Morality has nothing to do with the inclusion of these terms, they're simply on-topic. Lau737 (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Weather these are on topic is debatable. These changes should be discussed on the respective articles talk page, and implemented after receiving WP:CONSENSUS. GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 17:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I've given them an WP:NOTHERE block. If someone want's to unblock them go ahead. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• I fully support the block, and I think we are ready to close this topic. Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse I was scrolling to see if it had been done, otherwise i was going to. Star Mississippi 22:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse block, although I think WP:CIR is the core issue making them WP:NOTHERE. Casting aspersions since this thread started is a good indication that they don't know how to collaborate, and they are a net-negative for the project. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Personal attack report

Hello, I would like to report the user @M.Bitton because of a personal attack. I brought up a topic in the Hamas talk about whether Algeria should be a "state alliance". Since Algeria is public for Hamas. They also deny Israel's right to exist. He then removed my entry and says that I'm doing propaganda. My second concern is that @M.Bitton gave me an edit warning because I removed a paragraph from Morocco. I mislabeled it as spam. But @M.bitton has now started a talk by saying he is willing to remove the paragraph. Does the edit warning still apply or no longer? I see that it has already been removed by another user. I thank you in advance. Vogelman29 (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

You didn't just mislabel it as spam, you said "I couldn't find the source or the person mentioned." despite both the source, Precarious Modernities, and the author, Cristiana Strava, being easy to find. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I just saw that he is the same person who suggested something like that to me. Even though I asked politely and nicely in the talk, he gave me an answer like this. Vogelman29 (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

You must notify the editor(s) involved when posting to ani, I will do this for you for this post, but please keep this in mind for the future. GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 22:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Okey thank you very much. Vogelman29 (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Vogelman29 where is the personal attack? Riad Salih (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Riad Salih In this edit he said to me: "disruptive single purpose account who's using wp a vehicle for propaganda" he specifically accuses me of carrying out propaganda. According to Wikipedia NPA, this is a personal attack. Vogelman29 (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

This is not intended as a personal attack in any way. It is more appropriate to discuss such matters on personal talk pages. By checking your edits, it is noticeable that the ideology you hold align closely with that of POV pushers. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes. So actually that's what happened now that I registered a topic with Hamas. He removed it and accused me of doing propaganda. He should have explained his point of view under my talk. But simply removing it... and accusing me of doing propaganda is definitely a personal attack. I never said anything bad or edited anything where one might suspect it.... I didn't say anything wrong either, it's common knowledge that Algeria supports Hamas. I've now looked at the Wikipedia history of Hamas and seen that Algeria was an "allied state" for a very long time until @M.Bitton removed it... but as I said, you can discuss it but you can't just remove my talk and say that I do propaganda. So why do I do propaganda? Or POV? Vogelman29 (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

You should read WP:ARBECR and WP:MAKINGEREQ and comply with them. Maybe have a look at section 3.3 – Content vandalism and abuse of the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct, specifically the part that prohibits "Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view" and bear that in mind when you work on your Draft:Polisario's connection to terrorist organizations, text that strongly resembles propaganda to me. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack and as noted below, your unsorced essay in the draft namespace is total propaganda. Whether or not you are here to seriously contribute is an open question. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Draft:Polisario's connection to terrorist organizations absolutely is a problem, and a likely WP:MfD candidate, as it is indistinguishable from propaganda. While drafts are allowed to be incomplete or lacking in many areas, if they are obviously coatracks, make wild and unsourced claims, or are simply political essays, they don't belong. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hello. Yes, it is actually still incomplete. I actually wanted to add sources for this. Unfortunately I don't always have time for that. I wanted to add links between the Polisario and terrorist groups as I believe they exist. Likewise between connections between Algeria and Hamas. That's not propaganda. I actually only have 2 important questions. Can I remove my edit warning on my talk without having any problems, since my edit was apparently carried out later by another user. And can I discuss in a talk whether Algeria has connections to Hamas without getting into problems. Vogelman29 (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  I mean this edit, which was later confirmed. Vogelman29 (talk) 10:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

This report is about M.Bitton, you filed it, there seems to be an indication that his comments were curt, but not a personal attack. I noticed your Draft, which someone has sent to MFD. You can't just make articles up that push a particular point of view, PARTICULARLY if you have no sources, whether they are a draft or article. Wikipedia is NOT the place you go to push your ideas. It is a neutral ground for documenting what the sources have said. I don't think you really understand that, and your time at Wikipedia is going to be short if you don't quickly learn this. As far as I'm concerned, the matter at hand is already handled. I'm not up for mentoring you, but you definitely need to pull back and learn a bit about what Wikipedia is before you jump in further. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

yes, but my article is incomplete. I wanted to change a lot of things and also provide sources; if I had more time I would do it faster. So if the draft means about Polisario. I find it a personal attack to accuse myself of propaganda. I've now looked at @M.Bitton Wikipedia history and it seems he was already banned but then unblocked. Because of this comment here. This is actually a similar one. He said:,,replying to the nationalist single purpose account". He was banned for that. Now he says:,, disruptive single purpose account who's using wp a vehicle for propaganda. That's actually the same statement, just worded differently. But if you say now that it wasn't a personal attack, then that's just how it is. Then the issue was settled. I would just like to remove my edit warning, can I do that? Vogelman29 (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

because removing this sentence apparently wasn't wrong. just the motives. I thought it was spam Vogelman29 (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

While the block you cited was at commons, not English Wikipedia, you certainly are able to remove warnings from your talk page, per WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Block pls

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

---

175.106.53.102.....as per this. ...Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HazaraHistorianMoxy🍁 08:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Using unreliable sources

dear admins the username @اَشکَش is using unreliable repetitive sources for example at noohani, and removing the sourced contents on many pages like jadgal, med and The Sindhis of Balochistan kindly look into it. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Respected admins, i have edited with many sources, you can check that for yourself. I even wrote on his talk page. He only has one source and that too in Sindhi language with no clear context, he is using it to edit Noohani Page,

He is using unreliable sources on other pages " Jadgal", "Med" and "The Sindhis of Balochistan" and at times he is using sources which donot even mention what he uses them for. You can have a loo at these pages. اَشکَش (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems like your canvasing. That guy who plays games (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion at Talk:Noohani or Talk:Jadgal (I haven't looked at others). This indicates that you have not attempted to address this content dispute, and should not have brought it to ANI at this point. Please read and understand WP:BRD and WP:DR. ColinFine (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

i wrote at his talk page but he removed it اَشکَش (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

1 this source only mentions a person named umar khan nuhani, 2 this source mentions a tribe that is extinct now. 3 4 mentions them to be nahmardis which are indeed origin tribe, and the 3rd source is used double times. While other sources are bare urls, which are difficult to verify.

And the username mostly uses the source which barely mentions the word only.

5 6, sources clearly mentions noohani to be a Sindhi tribe from Sindh. 7 in Sindhi mentions them to be Sammat. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

umer khan noohani in details is mentioned as baloch from noohani tribe, no they don't mention extinct tribes , the extinct one is a british colonial era supposition. Noohanis are clearly a Baloch tribe. The ones you are calling bare urls also mention it as a baloch tribe. Noohanis of Sindh especially Dadu are clearly a Baloch tribe and so do they identify, and this is what the sources say. اَشکَش (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

An individual can not be used for whole tribe, it does mention about a nuhani tribe which is disappeared. Read again, noohanis have Sindhi origins in your sources most of them call it noohani as Nohmardi plus mine sources also mention them to be Sindhi origins. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Your other bare urls sources mentions few jadgal tribes as baloch, how can those sources be reliable? AngelicDevil29 (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Possible Range Block for 92.40.*.*

There are two MFD's pending about unreferenced drafts about television shows featuring Alex Bickerton and Laura Blake:

• Draft:Golightly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:The Golightly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Alex Bickerton and Laura Blake are real actors, brother and sister, so that these drafts are BLP violations (in addition to anything else). There has been a history of questionable drafts that have been deleted. Checking the history of these drafts, they were submitted from IPv4 addresses in the 92.40.*.* range, which is already partially blocked by User:HJ Mitchell from certain non-editing actions. Should these Hutchinson UK mobile broadband addresses be blocked from editing by non-logged-in users? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

A /16 is pretty scary for a range block, even a partial. Remsense诉 02:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I went to Special:Contribs/92.40.0.0/16 and filtered the contribs page down to the draft namespace only, and saw that pretty much all the recent draft edits came from 92.40.200.* and 92.40.201.* IP addresses, which can be covered by a much smaller range: 92.40.200.195/23. Looking at the block log, it's been blocked four times from 2021-2022, though I'm not sure if it was the same user that was responsible for those blocks as here. But anyways, I think blocking 92.40.200.0/23 (or partially blocking it from draft namespace) will work here. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I've applied CSD:G3 and a generous portion of WP:SALT (a few had been created before). I will leave to a more experienced admin to do the block, but the /23 looks to be a good target. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• HJ Mitchell did a rather large 92.40.0.0/16 checkuser block that covers part of this range back in January (still in effect until July). Maybe he can take a look, please? Or another CU if he is busy. Most everything in the /23 range is either this trash I just deleted and salted [103] or other trash. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  The block is for account creations only. It might not have been a block that I'd place, but there's not much wrong with it. It can be justified per CU, and is unrelated to the current above-stated issues. In my experience, smaller blocks often work on this range, and it's not common that they need to be extended. That said, as well as one of the busiest ranges in the UK, it has its share of issues. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Long term disruption by IP range, mostly external links and see also sections

• 2600:8805:918B:9B00:C43B:4A2:BEAA:34F3 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Lately, inserting linkspam into funerary themed articles, removing and/or changing content without explanation. But the problems go back several months, with at least a few of the IPs already blocked for persistence,with the same arguments over and over, as at [104]. Is a range block possible? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Yup, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive360#Odd edits and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1132#Serial suspect changes. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you--I just found that, too. Evasion of a three-year long block [105]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

As a result, I'm requesting mass reversions of the range's edits, per WP:BANREVERT. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed solution: The IP may only edit under the following restrictions: they may either add or remove only one WP:EL per edit and they always have to use edit summaries for explaining what they do (their reasons). Also, they should not remove rotten links if those are still archived somewhere. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

That may be a proposal for a time when the range blocks that are now in place have expired. As it stands, this looks like a WP:LTA who has been evading a block at least since December. It makes more sense, if it's logistically practical, to add this range to the current blocks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I've been going through some of their hundreds of edits one-by-one, and many of them are sloppy or make no sense. Waiting for administrative help and mass reversion. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: The actual range here in question appears to be 2600:8805:918B:9B00:0:0:0:0/64. I went and searched through the larger /40 range surrounding it, and nearly all of the edits in question seem to be from that /64. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Ugh not this editor again. They've been doing this for the last five years or so, at least. This is the third time this has happened. I've gone and blocked their entire IP range, 2600:8805:8000::/33, this time. There'll be collateral damage but this is the price we'll have to pay. I hit mass-rollback on the /64 ... I have to go soon though and will try to clean up after this later. Also see this archived thread on my talk page from the last time this happened. Graham87 (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Ugh indeed. That's rather a long time to keep blowing through stop signs, insisting you're in the right. Thank you, Graham87. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 07:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding page Ken Ham to partial block

Hi, Due to disruption, would it be possible for an admin to add the page Ken Ham to this IP 2A02:C7C:D6EE:B500:588C:BDBC:40E5:FF52?

Thanks 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a single IP who has edited a single page 5 times in a little over 10 minutes. An indefinite /32 block is excessive. For future reference, less extreme actions include blocking the IP and semi-protection. Here I've applied a block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Persistent addition of copyrighted content, continued disruptive editing following previous block

User DutchHistoryNerdWW2 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has repeatedly added copyrighted content, most recently on Battle of Baarle Nassau. They have previously been warned, see:

• User talk:DutchHistoryNerdWW2 § Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Tiger tank 222
• User talk:DutchHistoryNerdWW2 § Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Battle of Breda
• User talk:DutchHistoryNerdWW2 § Speedy deletion nomination of Incident of Shusha (2023)

Further, they have a history of disruptive editing by moving draftspace drafts to the mainspace without properly cleaning up templates and ensuring proper citations, see:

• Special:Diff/1212984134
• Special:Diff/1212548992

And does not respond to clarification on their talk page regarding missing references, see:

• User talk:DutchHistoryNerdWW2 § Missing bibliography on Ten Crucial Days Campaign.

They were previously warned and then blocked for the same issue, see:

• User talk:DutchHistoryNerdWW2 § Referencing and block log.

Thanks for your attention to this matter. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 00:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked the user for persistently creating copyright violations. I do worry that a CCI may be warranted in this case, particularly since some of their creations appear to cite dead tree sources that would not be easily flagged for review by CopyPatrol. Don't have the time at the moment to do the paperwork on that, though I'm hopeful that a copyright clerk will be able to do that. Pinging Callitropsis in case he would be willing to look into this. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

24.104.174.3 Active vandalism

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

---

Multiple articles have been vandalized from an individual with the IP address of 24.104.174.3. I undid an edit on the article for Mark Burnett, but it appears there are more malicious edits. They also have a warning from 3/8/24 on their Talk page for previous vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.226.1 (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

24.104.174.3 is now blocked 3 months, and I have reverted their other unconstructive contribs. FYI, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV) is the place to go to for reporting obvious vandals. Thanks! — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

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

COI in Edcel Greco Lagman

Gabnaparato (talk · contribs) has been consistently making edits to nothing but Filipino politician Edcel Greco Lagman since they started editing in 2022, see [[106]]. In recent weeks, they have been censoring flagged issues with the page as well as legal complaints filed against the subject and restoring grammatically incoherent edits without justification, see [[107]], [[108]] and [[109]], and most recently this misleading edit summary [[110]] made in spite of WP:RAPPLER being a bona fide WP:RS. I have issued a stern warning on their talk page but I would like to ask for further advice as to what steps should be taken since I have a suspicion that their account only exists for COI and WP:SOAPBOX purposes. Borgenland (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Not sure what to say. Clearly, they are a WP:SPA, but that alone isn't against policy. The one instance of removing info and falsely claiming it wasn't sourced is a problem, but you warned them. Their edits remind me of Bmjc98 in some ways, who started the article, was a declared paid editor, and then was indef blocked for sockpuppetry. Not saying there is a link, it just reminds me of it. Only one overlapping edit, it's like one started exactly when the other stopped, but 6 months before the block for sockpuppetry. May not be more than an interesting note, but it is interesting. The question is: is it interesting enough for a Checkuser to get interested? I don't know. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Not here / vandalism

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

---

MiltonDooby (talk · contribs) Despite Talk page warnings, persistent vandalism and/or WP:NOTHERE behavior continues from this editor. See this, this, and this for the most recent examples. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 10:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

(ec) Already blocked. In the future, clear vandalism may be reported to WP:AIV. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Jaggu5239 making absurd edits to increase their edit count

I noticed that Jaggu5239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making absurd edits in order to increase their edit count. Majority of their edits are meaningless edits on their own talk page, as seen here

They are also attempting to vandalize Salaar: Part 1 – Ceasefire. Given the nature of the edits, and the extended confirmed protection put on the article, this could be an attempt to game the system in order to edit Salaar: Part 1 – Ceasefire.

(Wayfarer Pacifist (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC))

This is the most blatant example of gaming the system I think I've ever seen. I would support an indef block. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• They already had 500 edits before they started the obvious attempt to jack up their edit totals, plus they had already been here 30 days, so I'm not sure what the bizarre editing of their own user space gained them. Putting the artificial padding of their own edits aside, they do seem to be trying to edit war on Salaar: Part 1 – Ceasefire and other related articles, all over a disagreement as to whether BOI (boxofficeindia.com) is a reliable source for box office sales, to the point that it seems they are breaching WP:DE. It looks like an obsession, or mission, to remove that website, even if they have to edit war over it. Whether it is WP:RS or not, I don't know, but this isn't the way to challenge it. It is a good way to get blocked, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  They weren’t even close to 500 edits when they began manipulating their edit count. Better check again. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, I listed it wrong. You are correct, they used that spree to push themselves over the limit, and start this edit war. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• For what it is worth, I did go look at the RS noticeboard, WP:RSN, and the only discussion I saw about the website took place in 2008. [111]. While it was a contentious discussion (with lots of participation), it is an old discussion, and consensus can change, there wasn't any clear indication or close that says BOI isn't reliable. So I don't see the basis for making wholesale changes to multiple articles and making the claim, unless there was another discussion I didn't find. Short of that, I don't see any formal discussion that demonstrates a consensus that BOI is unreliable, making the claim opinion rather than consensus. They should have started a fresh discussion at WP:RSN if they felt it was unreliable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks to *194 for catching my error. I've indef blocked for a variety of reasons. Indef doesn't mean forever, but they will need to explain to another admin why they should be unblocked and convince them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Ironically, the filing editor with 683 edits appears to have engaged in similar behavior at their userpage and sandbox, so there may be an element of WP:BOOMERANG in play here. Left guide (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  They both have an interest in lists of Indian (and regions of India) films as well as the Salaar article linked above, but with the precise opposite opinions (see [112] for an example). Could it be good hand/band hand sockpuppetry to discredit the other side? It's trivial enough disruption that investigation isn't necessary since a boomerang is probably in order either way. Sincerely, Novo Tape^{My Talk Page} 15:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  I did run a comparison across both of them, but there wasn't enough of an overlap to draw a conclusion. Though yes I did think of that myself. Canterbury Tail talk 16:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

<insert Picard facepalm gif here> Canterbury Tail talk 15:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• This is a case of calling out another editor, rightfully so, for something you are, yourself, guilty of. --ARoseWolf 16:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Anonsfd37383321

Anonsfd37383321 (talk · contribs · count · logs)
The user is constantly involved in adding uncited/unreliable box office figures, even after multiple warnings (4im) and discussion. The incident is similar to Tusk001. The additon/updation of box office figures in Indian articles is under WP:ICTFSOURCES and the user has been made aware of that. But they continue to ignore the guidelines and edit protected articles, which were protected from disruptive uncited additions like these. They were given one last warning per WP:ROPE due to AGF but they aren't here for that. Thanks. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The last nail in their own coffin. (facepalm.jpg) — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Definitely, indefinitely blocked, Doug Weller talk 17:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)