Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 143.208.239.226 (talk) at 03:24, 22 April 2024 (→‎User:Nirva20: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    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

    पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)

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

    I'm not going to go into the other conducts by Pataliputra (which includes WP:OR and WP:SYNTH) this time. This report will be solely about their edits related to images, since that's one huge issue in its own right.

    For literally years and years on end Pataliputra has had a complete disregard for how much space there is in articles and the logic/reason behind adding their images, often resorting to shoehorning often irrelevant images which often look more or less the same as the other placed image(s), and generally bring no extra value to the readers other than making them read a mess. I don't want to engage in speculations, but when Pataliputra is randomly placing their uploaded images into other images [1] (which is incredibly strange and not something I've ever seen in Commons), it makes me suspect a reason for their constant shoehorning and addition of often irrelevant/non-helpful images is to simply promote the stuff they have uploaded.

    These are just the diffs I remember from the top of my head, I dare not even to imagine how many diffs I would possess if I saved every one of them I noticed throughout the years as well as the opposition by other users, because this has been ongoing for too long. I've frankly had enough;

    1. [2]
    2. [3]
    3. [4]
    4. [5]
    5. [6]
    6. [7]
    7. [8]
    8. [9]
    9. [10]
    10. [11]
    11. [12]
    12. [13]
    13. [14]
    14. [15]
    15. [16]
    16. [17]
    17. [18]
    18. [19]
    19. [20]
    20. [21]
    21. [22]
    22. [23]
    23. [24]
    24. [25]
    25. [26]

    Recently, a user voiced their concern [27] against the excessively added images by Pataliputra at Badr al-Din Lu'lu'. What did Pataliputra do right after that? Respond to the criticism? No, ignore it and add more images (eg [28]). Did Pataliputra bother to take in the criticism even remotely by the other user and me at Talk:Badr al-Din Lu'lu' afterwards? They did not. In fact, they added even more image after that [29]. Other recent examples are these [30] [31] [32] [33]. I also found a thread from 2019 also showing disaffection to their edits related to images [34].

    Their constructive edits should not negate non-constructive ones like these. This really needs to stop. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As already explained [35] the most relevant information is not always in the form of text. I can create an article about Central Asian art with 135 images in it, and receive a barnstar for it [36], or create articles with no images at all. The article about Badr al-Din Lu'lu' is in between: there is little textual information about this ruler, but on the contrary a lot of very interesting information in visual form (works of art, manuscripts, which have reached us in astounding quality and quantities). These objects are what makes Badr al-Din Lu'lu' remarkable as a ruler. There are no fixed rules, and it depends on the subject matter, the key point being relevance. In general, the images I am adding are not "random gallery" at all: they are properly commented upon in captions, and usually sourced, and are very valuable in their own right. Of course, we can discuss about the relevance of any given image, that's what Talk pages are for... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But you are indeed adding images that are not relevant, and often shoehorning it a that, something you were criticized for at Talk:Badr al-Din Lu'lu' and which the numerous diffs demonstrate. That is what this whole report is about - when you have been doing this for literal years, that's when the talk page is no longer of use and ANI is the place to go. And Central Asian art is a poor example, it's an article about art.. of course images are more relevant there, and this is ultimately about your bad edits, not good ones - so please address those. I'm glad you got a barnstar, but this is not what's being discussed here. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These objects are what makes Badr al-Din Lu'lu' remarkable as a ruler.
    Unless you have citations to back that up, this is WP:OR. Simply put, we don't need this many images on an article, especially an article that has little textual information about this ruler (which might be an argument for deletion or merge). — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Artistic creation was indeed a central part of Badr al-Din Lu'lu''s rule, see: "Another notable figure is Badr al-Din Lu'lu (d. 1259), a ruler of Mosul who was recognized for his patronage of the arts." in Evans, Helen C. (22 September 2018). Armenia: Art, Religion, and Trade in the Middle Ages. Metropolitan Museum of Art. p. 122. ISBN 978-1-58839-660-0. or "Badr al - Din Lulu ( 1210-59 ), first as vizier of the last Zengids and then as an independent ruler, brought stability to the city, and the arts flourished. Badr al-Din Lulu himself actively supported the inlaid metalwork industry in his capital." in Ward, Rachel (1993). Islamic Metalwork. British Museum Press. p. 90. ISBN 978-0-7141-1458-3. To be complete, an article about Badr al-Din Lu'lu' indeed has to be in great part about art, except if you want to create an article such as "Art of Mosul under Badr al-Din Lu'lu', but I would tend to think this is unnecessary, as long as we can describe his artistic contributions in sufficient detail in the main article. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not uncommon for a ruler to be a patron of arts, doesn't mean that their article have to become a Commons article. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have some recent diffs to add to HistoryofIran's list. Pataliputra is adding original research on several Armenian churches articles, claiming that they contain "muqarnas" and Seljuk/Islamic influence without a reliable source verifying that.
    [37] used the website "VirtualAni" as a source, which the user themselves claims is unreliable And this entire section the user added is not even supported by VirtualAni, it's entirely original research.
    [38] adding "muqarnas" to an image without citation.
    [39] Created this article and the first image is not even an image of the church itself (see the Russian wiki image for comparison), it's just one of the halls (incorrently called "entrance" so more original research), again called seljuk "muqarnas". He also separated sections to "old Armenian church" and "Seljuk gavir" as if all of it isn't part of the church itself. The church was never converted or anything to have a separate "seljuk gavit" and "old Armenian church" section, and the lead has POV undue claim as last sentence.
    [40] Created another Armenian church article where most of the content is not about the church and mostly consists of a large paragraph copied from Muqarnas article. None of the sources even mention the Astvatsankal Monastery, it is entirely original research.
    [41] Again adding "muqarnas" to an image with "VirtualAni" as the source
    [42] Another new section entirely copied from the Muqarnas article that doesn't even mention the church in question
    [43] Another created article with original research added to images and "VirtualAni" added as a source KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Like it or not, and I'm sorry if I hurt some Armenian sensitivities, the presence of Islamic decorative elements in Armenian architecture is a well-known and ubiquitous phenomenon, including, yes the famous muqarnas (an Arabic term by the way...). You could start by reading for example:
    Despite the numerous articles on Armenian churches in general, I was surprised that there were no articles on such major and significant sites as Church of the Holy Apostles (Ani), or St Gregory of Tigran Honents, so I tried to bring them out of oblivion. I am sure there are things to improve, and you are welcome to help. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 07:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What does this have to do with KhndzorUtoghs diffs? If you have WP:RS, by all means, use them. But you didn't do it in those diffs, which is a problem. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been trying to bring forward some information about some interesting but little known Armenian churches such as the Bagnayr Monastery, the Church of the Holy Apostles (Ani) or Astvatsankal Monastery. At first, it seemed that Virtual ANI was about the only source on some aspects of these churches. Although it is not strictly RS, Virtual ANI turned out to be a fairly good source of information, and is also used as a source by institutions such as UCLA's Promise Armenian Institute. I agree it's not ideal though, it was more a way to start up these articles as I was researching them in the first few days, which I should probably have done in a Sandbox instead. I have since replaced the references with proper WP:RS sources, which, to be fair, have all confirmed the information initially obtained from Virtual ANI. In general, the existence of Seljuk influences on Armenian art is a well-known fact, including muqarnas etc... and is referenced per the above, among a multitude of other sources. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You should have started out with something like this comment, rather than ignoring KhndzorUtogh diffs and attacking them, not until after you've been criticized further. Moreover, Virtual ANI is still being used in some of the articles [44] [45]. Whether it's a well known fact or not is irrelevant, we still need to cite WP:RS, you should know this by now, you've been here for years. HistoryofIran (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I have not added a single "Virtual ANI" reference to the Ani article since the time I first started editing this article 3 months ago: the dozens of Virtual Ani references in the article have been there for years (including when you yourself edited the article) and were added by different users. As for Church of the Holy Apostles (Ani), I removed the two remaining references I had added [46]. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's my bad regarding Ani then, should have checked it more properly (see? I immediately apologized for my mistake. I didn't ignore it, double down or started attacking you). And thanks for removing the last Virtual Ani citations. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for bringing this up. I'm afraid Pataliputra has probably made tons of these type of edits and got away with them, since there are not that many people who are well-versed in the articles they edit or look fully into their additions since they initially appear ok. Now that you've brought this up, I might as well talk about the other disruptive conducts by Pataliputra, especially since they're ignoring this report and their conduct.
    I have encountered a lot of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and even WP:NPOV, WP:NPOV and WP:CIR issues from Pataliputra. For example at Saka in 2023, Pataliputra engaged in WP:SYNTH/WP:OR/WP:TENDENTIOUS, completely disregarding the academic consensus on the ethnicity of the Saka and the differing results on their genetics, bizarrely attempting to push the POV that DNA equals ethnicity and trying to override the article with the DNA info they considered to be "mainstream" without any proof [47] [48]. Or at Talk:Sultanate of Rum, where they engaged in pure WP:SYNTH/WP:OR, and initially didn't even bother to look into what the main subject "Turco-Persian" meant, mainly basing their argument on a flawed interpretation of its meaning (for more info, see my comment at [49]) until they finally read its meaning but continued to engage in WP:SYNTH/WP:OR to push their POV. Another veteran used also mentioned that they engaged in WP:SYNTH here recently [50]. There's also this comment where they again were called out for WP:OR by yet another veteran user in 2023 [51]. There's also this ANI thread from 2022, Pataliputra "has a long history of 1. original research, spamming both image and text across hundreds of Wikipedia articles..". Mind you, these are not new users or IPs calling Pataliputra out, but users who have been consistently active for years. I'm sure I can dig out even more diffs if need be. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no personal attack intended. I am quite a fan of Armenian culture (I recently built up Zakarid Armenia from a 15k to a 90k article, created Proshyan dynasty, and revamped several of the Armenian Monasteries articles, which for the most part were completely unreferenced). But your comments above seemed to reflect a strong antipathy towards any suggestion of Seljuk/Islamic influences on Armenian art (the ubiquitous muqarnas etc...). I know this is a sensitive matter, but it shouldn't be: in my view this is more a proof that cultures can collaborate and exchange in peaceful and beautiful ways. I think I have also improved significantly the sourcing since you made your last comments. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It definitely reads like a personal attack and I encourage you to retract that comment. Northern Moonlight 00:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment retracted, and apologies if anyone felt offended. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pataliputra replied about their casting WP:ASPERSIONS personal attack with casting aspersions yet again ("your comments above seemed to reflect a strong antipathy towards any suggestion of Seljuk/Islamic influences"). This user seems to have a history of making xenophobic comments and pestering and harassing other users, having been warned previously. Some past examples:
    • "An actual Indian"
    • "The 'Society' paragraph is illustrated by a Muslim in prayer in an old mosque in Srinagar... is this really emblematic of today's Indian society?"
    • "Why has the unique photograph in the religion paragraph have to be a photograph of a Christian church??... is this really representative of religion in India? Again, this is highly WP:Undue and border provocative for a majority Hindu country"
    Pataliputra was also warned by an admin to drop this argument because the images weren't undue. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect any user like me with 7 years and about 70,000 edits on this site will encounter some conflictual situation at some point... your so-called "history of ... pestering and harassing other users" refers to a single event back from 2017, and was a defensive statement by a notoriously difficult user who has long left the site... My request for an "An actual Indian" for an illustration on the India page dated back to 2020 and was in reaction to an underage American kid wearing an Indian garment being used as an illustration in that article. In the end, that image was removed from the article by the very same Admin you mention, so I guess I was not all that wrong. And yes, I'm suspicious of users who seem to deny the existence of foreign influences in their art or culture, and will tend to denounce this as bigotted behaviour. And if I think an image is undue in the context of a specific article or paragraph, I will also call that out, as most of us should. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And if I think an image is undue in the context of a specific article or paragraph, I will also call that out, as most of us should.
    ...Except when it's an image uploaded by you per the diffs. I just had to do more clean up [54].
    And yes, I'm suspicious of users who seem to deny the existence of foreign influences in their art or culture, and will tend to denounce this as bigotted behaviour.
    Which you just attempted here against KhndzorUtogh (who merely called you out for obvious WP:OR) and it backfired. Be mindful of WP:GF and WP:ASPERSIONS. HistoryofIran (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid I'll have to call into question what you call "clean up"... [55]: you are replacing contemporary images of actual Seljuk rulers by an image of a tomb, which would better fit in the page of an individual ruler, and worse, an anachronistic (15th century) French miniature with not an ounce of verisimilitude to the actual Seljuks. These are not improvements. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Beggars can't be choosers, you very well know that contemporary images for specific events are hard to find for this period. At least they're related to the topic, which is what matters. You (amongst other things) added the image of the last Seljuk ruler to the section of the first Seljuk ruler for crying out loud (which I replaced with the tomb of the first Seljuk ruler, be my guest if you can find a better and actual relevant image). And all those images I removed were conveniently uploaded by you. Your reply further proves that your edits in terms of image adding are not constructive. You should read MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE; "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals. However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting." HistoryofIran (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would certainly support a restriction on any image-adding; the apparent aspersions being cast freely and OR (or at least uncited) edits lead me to come very close to supporting a stronger restriction, but if i AFG i hope/guess/think that a smaller restiction will help him realise the inappropriateness of some of his actions and edit more appropriately. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 14:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Pataliputra better be topic-banned from Central Asian, Iranic, and Turkic topics. Or even more topics based on provided diffs; e.g. Armenian and Caucasus. There are similar edits to his edits on Saka. For example, on Kushan Empire, Puduḫepa removed Pataliputra's addition,[56] then Pataliputra restored his edit with a simple edit summary;[57] ignoring Puduḫepa's concern and the content of article. Pataliputra's edits led to Talk:Kushan Empire/Archive 2#UNDUE and speculative content. If you read the discussion, you see there were more questionable edits by him. Another example is Ghurid dynasty. Original research and unsourced edit[58] which was reverted[59] by HistoryofIran. Pataliputra has good edits for sure, but in this case he needs 6-month to 1-year vacation. --Mann Mann (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • You will note that I have long been one of the main contributors to the Kushan Empire article. When an unknown user comes around and deletes referenced material, we usually immediately restore the material. If disagreements persist, we naturally continue on the Talk Page. In this case, we agreed to leave aside the Turkic hypothesis (mainly stemming from the Rajatarangini account describing the Kushans as Turushka (तुरुष्क)) since the modern sources were weak.
    • The fact that the Turkic language was in use in the Ghurid dynasty and the succeeding Delhi Sultanate is neither original research nor unsourced (you will find more references in the body of the article). We removed it from the infobox because, arguably, it was mainly a military phenomenon, but it was in extensive use nonetheless. Please see Eaton, Richard M. (2019). India in the Persianate Age: 1000-1765. Allen Lane. pp. 48-49. ISBN 978-0713995824.:

    "What did the contours of the Delhi sultanate’s society in the thirteenth century look like? Contemporary Persian chronicles present a simple picture of a monolithic ruling class of ‘Muslims’ superimposed over an equally monolithic subject class of ‘Hindus’. But a closer reading of these same sources, together with Sanskrit ones and material culture, suggests a more textured picture. First, the ruling class was far from monolithic. The ethnicity of Turkish slaves, the earliest generation of whom dated to the Ghurid invasions of India, survived well into the thirteenth century. For a time, even Persian-speaking secretaries had to master Turkish in order to function. There persisted, moreover, deep cultural tensions between native Persian-speakers – whether from Iran, Khurasan or Central Asia – and ethnic Turks. (...) Such animosities were amplified by the asymmetrical power relations between ethnic Turks and Persians, often depicted in the literature as ‘men of the sword’ and ‘men of the pen’ respectively."

    पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 07:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a rather distorted version of what truly happened at Talk:Kushan Empire. Just checked that discussion - you were using poor sources, just like how you are doing today. You only agreed to not keep it only after you were called by several users several times. As for the Ghurids; that quote does still not justify that you added unsourced information back then (it's honestly quite baffling you can't see this, we've LITERALLY just been through this in regards to the diffs posted by KhndzorUtogh, just don't add unsourced info, it's really simple). And I'm not sure what you're trying to demonstrate by that quote, this still doesn't prove that Turkic had an administrative role military wise, it merely demonstrates that Persian secretaries had to learn Turkic to cooperate with the Turkic slaves, who also formed a ruling class. In other words, you are engaging in WP:OR/WP:SYNTH again - I also support a topic-ban from Central Asian, Iranic, and Turkic topics. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is again a mis-representation: this fact about the usage of the Turkish language in India was actually already sourced from Eaton in the Ghurid dynasty article ("Culture" paragraph [60]), and per Wikipedia:Manual of Style "References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere" [61]. As for the role of the Turkish language in the Ghurid dynasty and the Delhi Sultanate, this was more I believe a matter of Persian secretaries having to learn Turkish in order to communicate better with their Turkic rulers. For example:

    "Fakhr-i Mudabbir's remarks draw our attention to the linguistic and cultural distance between the lords and the members of the realm they governed, so much so that Persian-speaking secretaries -"the grandees of the highest pedigree"- had to master a "foreign" language to function as their subordinates. (...) So remarks like those of Madabbir refer to the advantages that knowledge of the Turkish language conferred upon a Persian subordinate in the service of the Delhi Sultanate."

    — Chatterjee, Indrani; Eaton, Richard M. (12 October 2006). Slavery and South Asian History. Indiana University Press. pp. 86–87. ISBN 978-0-253-11671-0.
    पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Except Turkic being an administrative language military wise is not sourced in the culture section, so the one doing the misrepresentation is still you. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I'm not mistaken, "Turkic being an administrative language military wise" is your own expression, and is a bit too specific. My only claim (if my memory serves me) was that Turkic was one of the current languages of the Ghurids, especially among the military [62] ("men of the sword", and later among the ruling elite of the Delhi Sultanate), which is exactly what Eaton says throughout (the two sources above, among many others available). On the contrary your blanking and edit summary [63] seems to deny any role for Turkic, and misrepresents Persian as being the only language around, which goes against academic sources. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's literally what I said even back then along with more; "While the military was seemingly mostly Turkic by the late Ghurid period, that doesn't seem to have been the case in the early and if not mid Ghurid times. Regardless, that doesn't mean that Turkic had any role/status military wise.". So where is the part where I'm denying any role for Turkic and saying Persian is the only language? More WP:ASPERSIONS, you clearly didn't learn from your experience just with KhndzorUtogh (also, this is not the first time you have made WP:ASPERSIONS against me, eg [64]). Turkic slave soldiers speaking Turkic (shock!) means that that the language had a status in the Ghurid system? With your WP:SYNTH logic, we should starting adding "Turkic" to the infobox of about every medieval Middle Eastern dynasty (including the Abbasid Caliphate) due to the popularity and power of Turkic slaves, perhaps "North Germanic" to the Byzantine Empire due to the Varangian Guard, Persian to the Abbasid Caliphate due to their Persian bureaucracy and so on. I'll try to avoid to responding too much to your comments, I feel like there is more than enough evidence to warrant a topic ban. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I am evading a block, sorry, block me and kindly go through my request

    There is a clear consensus to unblock ExclusiveEditor. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! (User:Adishere) - I was blocked as a not so matured editor, who created this account to do some small constructive edits and today has edit count of little less than 4000. (User:ExclusiveEditor/Unblock Request,Confession) - User:ExclusiveEditor(talk) 21:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @ExclusiveEditor Why did you evade your block and decide to perform sockpuppetry? That's just going to bring you more consequences. On your old account, you should have taken the standard offer and waited out your block for six months, then had an unblock request. Now this won't be good for you. Let's see what the admins will say. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's been a significant time from the block and socking to now as far as I can tell. I'm not immediately inclined to hold a procedural error against them. Acroterion (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. I'm not sure, but this is just my opinion. It's fine to hear the others say their thoughts. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. If they aren't using accounts to make disruptive edits anymore, than there's no need for a block. Noah, AATalk 13:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note that I cannot reply for next six hours due to some reason. ExclusiveEditor [[ User talk:ExclusiveEditor|Notify Me!]] 22:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblock request: ExclusiveEditor

    I'm adding a separate subheader to draw more attention to this unblock request. While I doubt it'll gather consensus in EE's favor, there seems to be enough disagreement that I'd at least like to hear a few additional voices chiming in before this discussion is archived automatically. Kurtis (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Support unblocking for the reasons given in the preceding section: it's been three years, they've made a reasonable unblock request (albeit not procedurally perfect, but who cares), so far no evidence of any disruption with the socking, and preventative-not-punitive. I think we wouldn't be here if that 2020 unblock request was accepted. I'm not a fan of the "you must demonstrate your understanding of what you did wrong" rule for unblocks -- which always seems like a demand for kowtowing. If someone says they won't do it again, that's really all that should be necessary for a first-block unblock (different tho if it's a repeat offender). Levivich (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support unblock, although they did sock, blocks are preventive and EE has been editing constructively. This was good-faith socking imo. 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 22:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    To be honest, my feelings fall somewhere in the middle here. As someone who admired ExclusiveEditor's anti-vandalism contributions, the fact that they were evading a previous block and willfully violating WP:SOCK (this wasn't the first time they evaded their block, the master account has an SPI report that can be seen here) seriously disappoints me, and I believe that User:Bbb23's block of the user (as well as User:Yamla's decline of their appeal) is entirely justified. But I also think about admin-penned essays like this, as well as these two, which, despite not being anywhere close to policies or guidelines, make interesting points with regards to this kind of behavior potentially skirting the WP:Ignore all rules and WP:NOTPUNITIVE policies. I don't know, maybe I sound foolish right now -- I've deliberately stayed out of this thread up to this point, because I feel that this is a very complex matter that is hard for me to respond to in a concrete "yes" or "no" way, given my appreciation of ExclusiveEditor's edits here. I think this could go either way, and frankly, I'm not opposed to consensus going one way or another. If they remain blocked, the standard offer is available to them, assuming they stay off here for six months. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There is nothing about block evasion in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Adishere/Archive; the investigation was because the editor was using the two accounts to edit the same articles, the accounts had not been blocked when the report was made. Peter James (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, admittedly I was incorrect in that one facet. I don't think this overshadows the fact that they knew block evasion was against the rules, given that they had been previously blocked for abusing multiple accounts. That is the point Yamla was getting at on the user's talk page, and I have their back in that regard, considering this was not their first time using another account to circumvent policy. To quote their words on that page directly: "This wasn't an accidental mistake. This user knew about WP:SOCK, having been caught violating that in the past. This was a deliberate decision to continue violating Wikipedia's policy, a decision they took days after being caught violating exactly that policy the previous time." JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Just in case my block doesn't make it clear. Unblocking would set a dangerous precedent. We block people, not accounts. Many socks justify creating their latest account because "my edits have not been disruptive". It simply doesn't - and shouldn't - work that way. There are consequences for socking, and one of them is to be unblocked, you must request an unblock, not create another account. As for the standard offer being an essay, there are many essays that have more power than formal guidelines and even policies, e.g., WP:BRD. Is six months arbitrary? Sure, almost all time durations are somewhat arbitrary, but we don't always make it six months. Sometimes it's longer, and sometimes it's shorter. It depends on the circumstances, but it's the default starting point. It's also not a get-out-of-jail-free card, meaning the extension of the standard offer doesn't mean we will grant an unblock request after six months, but that we won't consider one before then.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Honestly, this all just feels like a roundabout way of using the block button as a means of punishing an editor for their past transgressions. Aren't blocks explicitly supposed to be preventative, rather than punitive? Kurtis (talk) 05:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As someone who has been previously blocked for socking myself, including the "quiet return" type socking, I can see both sides of the argument. However, socking in and of itself is disruptive as it involves deception and disregard for the rules. Lavalizard101 (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I've expressed this sentiment many times in the past, but it bears repeating: we have absolutely no idea just how many sanctioned editors have abandoned their old accounts, registered new ones, and became integral Wikipedians without anyone being any the wiser. I could list countless examples from throughout Wikipedia's history that eventually came to light—just imagine all of the ones that didn't. I would hazard a guess that if we somehow had the magical ability to expose and indef every single editor who created a sock account to circumvent a sanction without ever being found out, we'd lose many of our most productive article writers, a sizable chunk of our most active administrators, and I'd even wager a few arbitrators past and (potentially) present.

      And just to be clear, none of the above should be construed as accusing any specific editor of ban evasion. My assertion is merely that it's a lot more common than we will ever realize or care to admit. Kurtis (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      And as someone who was once indeffed by Bbb23 for editing with a different account while this one was under a self-requested block (which was very stupid of me), I think that some admins have a stubborn fixation with the letter of the rule even when the best interests of the encyclopedia might be better served by a more nuanced approach. Also, what Kurtis said is very valid. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's for a ban, which is WP:3X, not WP:1X. Peter James (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose: per my comment above. Lavalizard101 (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the block is not being evaded and the accounts are linked it isn't socking. Peter James (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The block Was being evaded though, the creation of the account after an indef block on the master IS block evasion. Plain and simple. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Opposing the unblock. The user clearly admitted to socking, and even though they may have had good intentions to improve, socking is still a bad thing to do on Wikipedia. I'd support going for a standard offer, just like Bbb23, but the user needs to acknowledge that what they did was truly wrong and how they will not do it again. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that he willingly confessed to his prior history is, in my view, evidence enough that he wants to be transparent from this point on. He could have just kept quiet and carried on as he had been for the past couple of years. He chose instead to fess up, completely of his own volition, and make a formal unblock appeal to the community. Out of process? Yes. In violation of WP:SOCK? Also yes. But I'm convinced of his current good faith. Kurtis (talk) 05:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock. Tell me then, is there any other way that you could prove to others that people will not sock again? They have apologized for their behavior and demonstrated understanding of why socking is bad. In fact, I would say that blocking them again would set a precedent that the Wikipedia community is a big elitist gatekeeper which does not value second chances. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The opposes make me feel concerned a lot. This community assumes that a sock person's behavior is unchanged for years and they are deposed to socking again and again and again. "Once a drug user, always a drug user", as they say. However, I genuinely believe that most people are not like that and have a capacity to improve on their behavior once they fully understand as to why they are indeffed. There are drug users that are clean for the rest of their lives. Too often though, our community demanded the impossible from the indeffed users, by hyperanalyzing their unblock response and deluding themselves into understanding their true intent from a bunch of words on the screen, and thus perfectly good editors who did exactly what we say get their unblock for their indef still need to wait for years, sometimes even decades. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      But they literally continued to sock away as if nothing happened. Using your "drug user" analogy, this user showed up to rehab professing they stopped using drugs, all the while still having cocaine residue left on his nose. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      And all else being equal—this metaphor breaks down a bit—they've showed up to rehab because they would like to stop now. Remsense诉 23:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock. They seem to understand the problems and have an understanding of how they should and should not act in the future. If for some reason this turns out not to be the case, they can be blocked again. Blocks should be preventative, not punitive. Kk.urban (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock per CactiStaccingCrane, who provides a good analysis of the situation and reasoning supporting an unblock. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock per CactiStaccingCrane. I am not satisfied by the arguments for keeping the editor blocked. Preventative, not punitive. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock as I stated above. The arguments made by some are akin to "They broke the law and must serve a certain amount of time before we would even consider parole". That is punitive when the person has made a sincere request for an unblock, understanding what they did was wrong. Noah, AATalk 19:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock. I always have found the song and dance of unblocking quite degrading to our editors. It seems that those with written articles can get away with nearly everything save for Arbcom (and sometimes, even then). But then we do not extend any rope on newer editors, tripping them up for every possible technicality. Unlike some very experienced editors' behaviors, this is voluntary, not even a "Someone dragged them to ANI/Arbcom to make them reveal this". The intent of Standard offer is of a clear second chance, aka "Do we think they'll be more likely to be a net positive than not". I do not appreciate the humiliation and punishments sometimes doled out instead of empathy.
    As for the precedent it would set... I welcome it. The precedent it sets to me is "We care about preventative blocks more than blocks for the sake of punishment". I am happy to discuss and unblock good faith users in the same bucket. Did they understand their mistake? Would our initial punishment already have lapsed by now? Have they shown they can edit productively? Do we think they'll probably be a net positive? If the answer to all of these is yes, then yes, we should set a precedent for unblocking such editors. Soni (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Closure of discussion

    No new comments past 1/2 days, can we get someone to review this discussion possibly? Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Thank you everyone involved in the discussion, from supporters to opposers and others, for getting involved.🙏 -ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 16:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Frenchprotector29

    Frenchprotector29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user has done nothing but non-stop disruption, vast majority of their edits have been reverted, been at this since they started editing on 19 December 2023. Talk page is full of warnings (see also this old ANI report which unfortunately got auto-archived [66]). Mainly changes sourced information in a infobox, some examples [67] [68] [69] [70] (notice they tried the same thing twice at Turkoman invasions of Georgia). --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think they deserve maybe a 1 week block or something. It seems like warnings aren’t enough for this user.CycoMa1 (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I genuinely‬ think they should get indeffed, as they have shown zero care to the warnings they have received, engaged in personal attacks (seen in the previous ANI link) as well as disruptive pov pushing. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They have continued disruptively editing as can be seen with this edit. I think a block is warranted if they don't heed any warnings and repeat the same mistakes. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, and recently here too, removing sourced info [71]. They are WP:NOTHERE. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are also misusing WP:RS [72], and have made long term edit warring at Siege of Krujë (1467) [73] [74] [75] [76]. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're still edit warring.. [77]. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now they're also creating copyvio articles [78] [79], and even despite that they still look poor. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an obvious WP:SPA here solely to push an agenda. Blocking is certainly warranted in this case.--LadybugStardust (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another day, another WP:NOTHERE. Too busy with their SP quest, so they have no time to respond to this ANI report. Should be indef-blocked already. --Mann Mann (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ElijahPepe New York Times issues

    This is a continuation of behavioural issues first raised at ANI in 11 February 2024. ElijahPepe is continuing to be disruptive on The New York Times and its various sub-articles. Since the start of this year, he has exhibited the following issues on this set of articles:

    Warned multiple for editing without using edit summaries
    WP:OWN issues
    • I'm looking to take this article to featured article status. I don't need help in taking it there [80]
    • I'm not looking for help at the moment. [81]
    • I didn't expect anyone to discuss any of these changes. [82]
    • Whoever nominates this article to good article can take all of the credit for the work that I did, because the work is irrelevant here regardless. [83]
    • I presume that you will nominate this for featured article, even though a majority of authorship attribution is my own. [84]
    • I'm done with this conversation if your response begins and ends with what you're going to say, not building off of what I say. [85]
    • I have determined the following events to be notable to the Times [86]
    • Warned about ownership by me on 8 February 2024
    • Warned about ownership by Drmies on 8 February 2024
    • Warned about ownership by Soni on 10 March 2024
    Editing against consensus
    Unable to edit collaboratively with other editors
    • I am done trying to argue this. It is patently obvious reducing content over time is not an option. [87]
    • Right, because there aren't problems already with editors stealing my content without attribution. [88]
    • The critical reception section is incomplete, as is much of the article, but I have been driven out of the article and thus cannot add what I want to [89]
    • I'm done with this conversation if your response begins and ends with what you're going to say, not building off of what I say. [90]

    Dealing with Elijah on this set of articles is utterly exhausting. I know that he has explicitly driven at least one editor off editing the article and it's talk page; Premeditated Chaos on 27 February 2024. During the last ANI about this behavioural issue, Elijah apologised for his issues, yet here we are two months later with the exact same set of problems. The underlying behavioural issues with editing collaboratively with other editors however may not be unique to this series of articles. On 27 March 2024 Elijah displayed similar issues on his user talk page in a discussion with ZLEA about the scope of the Boeing manufacturing issues article, though I haven't dug any deeper to see if there are more widespread issues on other articles and talk pages.

    I'm not entirely sure what type of sanction is appropriate here. Either a TBAN from the NY Times, broadly construed, or a series of PBLOCKs from all of the articles on the topic would prevent this disruption. I am sure though that a voluntary arrangement to not edit this series of articles will not work, as Elijah has claimed multiple times since February that he was done editing the articles (27 February, 2 March, 2 March, 14 April, 14 April). However there are elements of WP:NOTHERE behaviour though, in discussions on the NY Times talk page he has implied that he's only in this for the GA credit ([91]. Driving away productive editors, asserting ownership of article content, and being unable to collaborate with others are textbook examples of NOTHERE, so perhaps a stronger sanction is needed.

    I hate to have to bring this case though, because despite his behavioural issues Elijah can write good content, and his original goal of getting the NY Times series of articles to GA and eventually FA is a laudable goal. However the largest barrier to achieving this goal throughout the entire process has been his behaviour. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Diff of ANI notice. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I no longer edit the articles in question and I have removed them from my watchlist. In my absence in the last month, nothing has prevented neither Sideswipe9th nor Soni from engaging in any of the articles. Arguably, nothing has prevented them from overruling anything that I agree or disagree with. I returned today to remove references that were retained before the articles were split, which I believe is the least contentious edit that can be made, particularly considering I included those references and know which ones to retain. I'm not sure how doing that has resulted in an ANI thread and a reversion of my edits. I don't see how Boeing manufacturing and design issues is relevant here. The page title inherently assumes that there are manufacturing and design issues in general, not within a specific year. ZLEA assumed that the page would only cover Alaska Airlines Flight 1282, but that is erroneous because the scope was laid out early on. Creating an article with a specific scope is not ownership, and it was ZLEA who refused to listen to what I was saying.
    To correct the record: I did not spend the time that I did to include the article in my user page assuming it receives good or featured article. I don't include any of my good articles in my user page and I have intentionally kept it that way. I prefer to get credit for the work that I do, and the impression I received was that I would not be credited whatsoever.
    I'll accept the consequences, assuming those should occur. Again, my intentions were not to disrupt the article, but it has been my responsibility and I assume that I have done so. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ElijahPepe When you are making non-trivial edits, an edit summary is very important. In the case of major edits, such as your recent redactions on the NY Times pages, I would hold that they are obligatory. Unexplained deletions of that magnitude are going to naturally be seen as a red flag by other experienced editors and those who are on the alert for vandalism. Really, you have been around long enough that you should know this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see how my edits could have been seen as vandalism, but I take issue with the insistence on requiring me to use edit summaries for all of my edits to the point of reverting them. That has not been an issue in my time editing. I interpreted my prior issues with it to arbitrary barriers; that was not the case here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That has not been an issue in my time editing. That is demonstrably not true. You have been warned by six editors for this (diffs above), and you were page blocked from the NY Times article for a week in part because of this (diff above). Explaining your edits by edit summary or talk page discussion is required by policy, and that is something you have consistently failed to do. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am referring to edits I have made to other articles. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ElijahPepe This is turning into an unnecessary time sink. As noted above, the matter has been raised with you on multiple occasions. I dislike having to address experienced editors sharply, but this has reached a point where it is becoming disruptive. You are required to use edit summaries on all non-trivial edits. That's it. This should be regarded as a Formal Caution. Thank you for your contributions to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Understandable. I will cease all, in the strongest terms possible, edits relating to the Times, its history, or its online platforms. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is your choice. However, the requirement to use edit summaries applies throughout the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • information Administrator note Per a request and discussion on my talk page, I am reopening this discussion as the OP feels there are unresolved issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Courtesy ping @ElijahPepe -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for reopening. The caution may help with the edit summary issue, if Elijah can stick to it, and to assist with that he may wish to enable the prompt to always include one as was suggested by Softlavender back in February. However that still leaves the ownership, editing against consensus, and the inability to edit collaboratively with others unaddressed. Given how long this has been going on for, and how it's driven at least one editor away from the topic (PMC) I think these need to be addressed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of what you have brought up is prior to the previous ANI thread. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No actually. While the issues may have come up, the last comment in the prior ANI was on 12 February, and most of the diffs are from after that date. The four diffs prior to that date are there to establish that this is a pattern that has been ongoing for you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sideswipe9th, since you asked for this discussion to be reopened even after Ad Orientem's "Formal caution", I was just wondering what kind of resolution are you looking for here? You are the primary editor keeping this dispute alive, unfortunately we haven't heard from other editors about this behavior so this kind of rests with you: What are you expecting here? I'm not saying it will happen but I'm not sure what you are aiming for here...a page block? A warning? Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have lurked instead of speaking up much. This is quite draining and I'm a bit burnt out here. I have already discussed many of these concerns privately with Sideswipe, and generally every discussion on this spans 1000s of words without any proper resolution.
    I have no problems with him editing the article even if he says he will walk away. But the OWN-ership and ignoring consensus has persisted constantly. As has dismissing other editors who disagreed (and repeated "I am being driven out of this page" comments against others). And potentially gaming the GA system (Making a unilateral page split only to nominate both halves of it immediately for GA). Not all of these are actionable already, but they are indicative of why Elijah's caused constant problems for others.
    As for what resolution I'd like, I would like anything clearly actionable. The edit summaries are the most obvious example, but the lack of discussions/going against consensus/OWNership are more problematic. I would like most/all of those to be covered under any warnings, so we have a clear path forward (Say, If ignore consensus again -> Block). I would like to not return to ANI a third time just to address the the same problems. The current warning just covers edit summaries. Soni (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you expecting here? I don't know, I'm too close to the situation to be fully objective about this. I brought this issue here for community review by primarily uninvolved editors, because discussing it with Elijah doesn't work. He seems fundamentally unable to collaborate effectively with other editors. If you check the back and forth in the New lead is not an improvement discussion, PMC tried to get Elijah to collaborate on a better summary for the article lead and she ended up describing it as the pulling teeth version of collaborating. I have tried repeatedly to get him to collaborate, to treat Wikipedia as the group project that it is, and have the same opinion. For example, I did a review of the first history of sub-article looking for issues that would come up during the GA and FA process. I came up with an extensive list of questions and issues, and Elijah's response to all of the questions on vagueness and clarity was I included what was relevant, alongside a snipe about article authorship at GA/FA; I presume that you will nominate this for featured article, even though a majority of authorship attribution is my own. Neither of those comments are helpful to actually addressing underlying issues with that sub-article.
    Maybe a warning about the above issues is appropriate. But the problem with a warning is, we were here in February with the same types of behavioural issues. Elijah apologised for them at the time with the implication that he'd do better, and that just hasn't happened. If he's issued a warning on the other three issues listed above, are we just kicking the can further down the road for another couple of months?
    He's already driven one editor away from editing the article, and in this very discussion another is saying his behaviour as burnt him out, neither of which is behaviour we should be treating lightly as it goes against the WP:DE guideline. WP:OWN is policy, WP:CON is policy, and being able to collaborate with other editors underpins almost every policy and guideline we have. Violating all of those, and continuing to do so after the original report on 11/12 February is the underlying issue here and is what needs addressing in some way. I just don't know what the solution is. I would love it if Elijah would fully collaborate on these articles, he knows this sourcing better than any of us right now, and the process would go so much smoother and faster if he would collaborate and cooperate with other editors. But he seems utterly unable to work with other editors. Multiple of us have tried, and we all get the same lack of response. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that I have been pinged here. After reading through the above discussion, I see that I have nothing to say that has not already been said. However, I am quite disappointed to see ElijahPepe claim that I refused to listen to what they were saying, which anyone who reads that discussion will see is far from the truth. - ZLEA T\C 14:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I was also pinged here. I became involved in this article peripherally, mainly in an attempt to help Elijah. I'm active on the Discord and while he was drafting his overhaul, Elijah frequently posted about it there soliciting feedback, and I was one of the people who commented occasionally. After Elijah moved the article into main and ran into some pushback, he asked for my advice offwiki. I did my best to provide advice and steer him toward engaging with other editors on the talk page. Unfortunately I found these conversations - like the onwiki one - to be exercises in frustration, and I eventually bowed out of trying to engage further, just as I did onwiki. For what it's worth, I was not an active editor of the article(s) outside of trying to assist with this, so I wouldn't go so far as to say I was driven away from the article, but I did exhaust my interest in assisting Elijah any further.
      It's obvious that Elijah has done an incredible amount of work on the NYT topic, and I don't want him or anyone else to think I'm dismissing his effort. The problem is that he has paired his incredible devotion to the topic with a sense of ownership over the articles that has resulted in some really poor behavior on his part. At every step, he has stonewalled or outright rejected reasonable suggestions for change. He has repeatedly said he doesn't need help or input from other editors. When asked to concretely explain his thinking or suggest compromises, he frequently provides useless comments along the lines of "I don't know" and then refuses to elaborate. Even getting him to use accurate edit summaries was an unbelievable slog, as noted above.
      What's more concerning is that he seems to assume that other editors are out to somehow supplant him or steal his work. In addition to the repeated comments about people "stealing" his GA/FA credit, there are comments like this is going in the direction where most of my work will be disregarded and editors [are] stealing my content without attribution (this last in regards to a good-faith but poorly-attributed split, quickly fixed). This ABF behavior continues into the present, with this lengthy comment yesterday where he accuses everyone of trying to take credit so that they can add a link to their user page and once again complains that he is being asked to use edit summaries. This mentality is a recipe for disaster.
      Elijah has repeatedly expressed frustration and a desire to quit the topic area, but seems unable to do so. In February he expressed at least once that he was going to unwatch and step back, but continued editing the articles. Yesterday he said much the same in this discussion at 14:20 my time: Understandable. I will cease all, in the strongest terms possible, edits relating to the Times, its history, or its online platforms. (Can't link to the diff as it's been OS'd due to unrelated edits). Literally less than one hour later, he's back on the talk page: [92] and has made several edits to the main and the sub-articles since. His behavior makes it impossible for any of the other good-faith editors who want to work with him to actually make any improvements to the article. As much as I would prefer not to, I am beginning to think it might be better for Elijah to be blocked from the topic area, because he is clearly unable to work collaboratively with others within it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed my mind on ignoring the topic. Ceasing edits is how the article remained in its state for a month, and it was not just to leave it as such. There are several sections remaining that need to be expanded. I'm willing to accept help there, I only ask that shortened footnotes be retained and reliable sources are used. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm willing to accept help there The unwritten subtext here is "This is my article but I'm going to be generous and let you help me". Trainsandotherthings (talk) Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ElijahPepe also did the frustrating cycle of asking for feedback and then ignoring it in my case as well (I told him, repeatedly, in increasing levels of bluntness, that the original 33k work he moved into the mainspace from draft was a massive violation of WP:SIZE, but he did it anyway and then acted defensive after people predictably complained on the talk page. Who could have seen this coming.). You've done a core of good work, but if other people say that there are problems, you need to believe them. The other editors are acting in good faith and trying to help. Sometimes helping means modifying the text you've written. That's okay.
    I don't want to get too much into the broader issue, but re the linked diff above where Elijah writes I'm not sure why my opinions are getting disregarded, I'm not sure why there's some unique rule for using edit summaries that I have not once experience at any point in the last two-and-a-half years editing, and I'm not sure why making decisions and being bold has to involve weeks of discussions. Since being subtle apparently doesn't work... Elijah, edit summaries have always been required. Even if your next project is a single-digit page views topic with no other editors to collaborate with, you STILL need to write informative edit summaries. They don't have to be an essay, but they do need to be there. The reason it didn't come up is that most people have better things to do than hassle other editors over it, and it's a lesser problem than most of the other things that are happening on Wikipedia... but that doesn't mean that lack of edit summaries aren't a problem. Use them. SnowFire (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple issues with Researcher1988 at Zoroastrianism

    I have some significant concerns regarding Researcher1988's behaviour at the Zoroastrianism page and its associated talk page. I've been slow coming to AN:I because they're a new user and I hoped that with a bit of guidance they might calm down a bit. Unfortunately it seems things have escalated over the weekend.

    These issues have included: Edit warring: [93] [94] [95] [96] Refactoring other users comments at talk: [97] (also a bit of a WP:OWN issue instructing a user at article talk not to reply to a talk comment. Copyvio issues: [98] [99] Calling out individual editors at article talk to debate: [100] And just so much WP:IDHT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT at article talk that I honestly don't even know where to begin with diffs. The user has been warned of many of these issues at user talk: [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] but it seems like every time they are asked to stop one behaviour a new one crops up. It seems like the user has a serious POV issue regarding any source that might interfere with a straightforward monotheistic reading of Zoroastrianism. I will say, to their credit, that the user has a good eye for finding sources and I have sincerely enjoyed reading some of the refs they've found, although they need a bit more development identifying appropriate academic sources. However with that being said I think continued participation in pages related to Zoroastrianism is probably detrimental to their development as a Wikipedia editor. I'd suggest a limited duration topic ban while they learn the ropes might help them develop as a constructive editor. Simonm223 (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I just tried to protect the page From vandals. I have provided various Materials to the page and made positive and constructive edits.
    the problem is with one particular user who is relatively new, has little knowledge of Zoroastrianism and yet, wants to edit the article according to his personal interpretations.
    this debate is ongoing for 4 months now. the user doesn't accept the sources we provided, and persistently wants to edit the page in a way that fits his own personal views. Researcher1988 (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should note that the "vandal" in question is a third party they are involved in an edit conflict with and has categorically not vandalized the page in any way. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    with all respect, what they did is called "Subtle Vandalism."
    the user tried to add misinformation and materials not supported by sources to the page in order to change the materials to his own liking.
    It is 4 months now that this conflict continues. I just wanted to prevent this from happening and protect the page. Researcher1988 (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No consensus so I'd just let it go, especially since this argument has been going on for four months. Suggesting a close and a move back to Talk:Zoroastrianism. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you. Researcher1988 (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone close this? I would, but I don't know how. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You should not considering we now can add canvassing to this issue. [108] [109] Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's... Not good. And here I was thinking this would end quickly. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sincerely I don't lightly take edit conflicts to AN/I. This is rather a user who is becoming a constant time sink with antics like this while describing specific other good-faith editors as vandals. If it were merely a heated edit conflict I would not bring it here. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just seeking help from other editors, so we can end the dispute sooner. is it not allowed on Wikipedia? Researcher1988 (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CANVAS is clear that you cannot go to other specific editors and ask them to resolve a content dispute in your favour - doing that while someone has an open AN/I thread about you is also just rather ill-advised. Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I never wanted them to vote in favor of me. it is not about me, it is about a discussion which involves many. I just thought the dispute would end sooner, by calling other users attention. I didn't know It would make a problem. Researcher1988 (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This diff [110] is precisely what you should not do. And this is the problem - you are taking up a lot of time for us explaining, at length, don't do this, don't do that, and your clear strident POV on the topic is exacerbating this. I have suggested before you take time away from this topic and develop your skills elsewhere. This is still what I think you need to do as this is becoming disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we seek a way to solve the problem in the talk page? I don't think the problem is complicated. as I said, It is not about me. I'm just concerned about the misinformation in the page. Researcher1988 (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As you've said, the debate has lasted for four months already, and has resulted in an ANI discussion, so I doubt it. WADroughtOfVowelsP 18:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, those are newbie mistakes, how about Skyerise, a veteran user with 100+K edits who reverts a stable version of the article on shaky grounds while there was no consensus for that version ?---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 17:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, there is a clear consensus on the talk page that we should not (yet) commit to calling Zoroastrian monotheistic. However, the so-called "stable" version does just that, so it violates that consensus. Which I've explained on the talk page with summary counts, etc. Skyerise (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The diffs you are providing can also apply to other editors at that talk page, I underlined several times personal attacks towards me and WP:POINT, WP:ONUS, WP:CON issues there.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In my mind, the consensus is that the page should be neutral on the matter of monotheism. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment As an involved editor in this issue, I must say that there are multiple problems there, while Researcher1988 might have made some mistakes as a newbie, more experienced editors have baffling behaviour there, refusing to ackowledge WP:BRD, WP:RS, WP:ONUS and so on. I tried myself to reinstate a stable version of the article in order to achieve a consensus first before inclusion, but have been reverted by said experienced editors on the ground that they agree with the version of the article that had no consensus. I think admins eyes would be welcome and a full protection of the article should prevail to avoid further edit warring.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 17:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    [111] At this point should we just notify any other involved editors at Zoroastrianism? Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoever is the subjective of what they did is called "Subtle Vandalism." should probably be notified of the discussion, since they've been accused of vandalism. I would, but I'm not keen on who is who in this pronoun game. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, that might be a few of us by this point. I think. He's certainly aimed it at me a fair few times. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Uninvolved Comment At time of writing this thread is so far dominated by the filer and the subject of the thread. I'd ask Simonm223 and Researcher1988 to put the back-and-forth on hold and have other eyes look at this before it balloons to a size nobody will want to pick through.
    Researcher1988, regarding It is not about me, this thread should not be about the content dispute, but rather was made to discuss your behavior. Removing comments of other users that are not unquestionably and obvious vandalism is something you should not be doing. Short of specific sanctions applied to users for past behavior, article talk spaces do not exclude any editors, anyone is free to join any conversation there. If you would like a discussion to only include you and one other editor, you will have to rely on your talk page or email, and neither of those can establish consensus. Short of evidence otherwise, only you know why you picked the editors you did to request they join the discussion, and while that in and of itself is not against policy, editors are very suspicious of anything that looks vaguely like canvassing. Messages like this are almost guaranteed to be seen as canvassing, since you are trying to dictate how the recipient views the conflict before they even read the discussion. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Gladly, if I comment further on this it will only be in the context of presenting new diffs. I would prefer not to engage in more back-and-forth. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    well, I believe that User (which I accuse of Vandalism), has turned the dispute into a personal one. whenever I post some Information on the talk page, he shows up and posts something irrelevant and repeats his older opinions.
    In this case, I created a Topic for discussing a matter with another user. but he showed up and posted some irrelevant comment. I decided to delete his comment, since my post was meant for someone else.
    I believe these experienced editors are taking sides and their behavior is unfair. what is interesting for me is that they never blamed the other side, who is deliberately continuing this dispute for 4 month (despite various sources presented to refute him,) and his behavior is in my opinion some kind of trolling. Researcher1988 (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Researcher1988 If you would explain your reasoning (on the page) instead of telling me your beliefs, it would be a lot easier for us to discuss things & reach some sort of middle ground. As it is; I have been trying to engage with you about your sources, and the ways in which they contradict you, but you haven't really been willing to engage back. This makes it very hard to see your point of view, as you will state a thing as true (or quote someone stating it) but not explain why it is true. Without knowing the 'why', there is no possibility of agreement because the 'why' is the part I need to hear in order to agree. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Problems with Reasercher1988: I never wanted to launch an admin complaint like this, but I will list the issues I've had with Reasercher1988 since I am one of the affected parties. To date; Reasercher1988 has made editing the article & talk page a deeply frustrating and borderline impossible experience, particularly through frequent WP:EDITWARing and spamming. I believe that is an intentional tactic to make people give up. Some of the things they have done:

    • Attempting to start an WP:EDITWAR with every other editor on the page. Including yesterday, with Simonm223, Skyerise, and myself. Tactics include: !) straight-up undoing, 2) dumping the other person's edits into a section far deeper down the page, 3) Simply editing their edits out of existence while making their own edits. In functional terms: Every single edit we make to the article, no matter how minor, is either reverted or buried by Researcher1988. This includes purely aesthetic aesthetic edits - such as adding titles to various sections in the Theology section, which Researcher1988 quickly and silently removed. And did so twice, if I recall. Researcher1988 seems to feel they WP:OWN the page in question, and that only their own WP:POV and vision should be allowed. I have been 'Told Off' and reverted by Researcher1988 for even attempting to correct the grammar of a section they have edited, which is essentially the entire article. Meanwhile they freely edit my content, and shuffle it about the page at will. Usually burying it in a far deeper section than I intended.
    • Even attempting to add a direct quote from one of Researcher1988's own list of approved sources into the page will be instantly reverted if the quote happens to Researcher1988's own beliefs. This is clear WP:CHERRYPICKING. Typically their excuse it that there is "no consensus" & that I am "misinterpreting" the source. For example, my edit on 07:47, 15 April 2024 added a very direct quote from Mary Boyce - who is on their personal approved list. This was was swiftly reverted at 07:47, 15 April 2024 saying "Undid the edit; first we should reach a consensus; besides the sources doesn't support the claim.". I was, in fact, acting on the recent talk page vote - which came down very hard on the side of neutrality on the issue. When I undid the undo, explaining it was a direct quote, they undid it again. I then ceased in order to avoid an WP:EDITWAR - something Researcher1988 has been warned about in the past. This is typically how Researcher1988 gets their way on the page - by simply forcing the other person to break a rule in order to fight back. I feel this is another version of WP:STONEWALL.
    • Almost as soon as I began trying to edit the page, Researcher1988 started their regular accusations of vandalism against me and other members. Not to mention insults and combative (rather than constructive) behaviour. One of his primary complaints being that we are editing the text that is 'already there' - by which he means his own. Which he regards as 'perfect'. You can see a prime example here. I think this goes against WP:BITE.
    • This is part of Reasercher1988's ongoing and massive campaign of spam & disruption the Talk page, under the guise of 'correcting' or 'calling out' other members about rule breaches. This behaviour has destroyed multiple votes created by Reasercher1988 themselves. Typically by derailing them the instant someone posts a vote they don't like. You can see this in action here, where Reasercher1988 launches a consensus and then tries to debate me the second I vote. That debate looks small now, but it was originally so large I had to split it off into this section here, which is itself huge, in order to try and preserve the vote. They then launched another vote where they did it again. Firstly by making the intro to the vote a massive list of their own personally approved sources, in an effort to sway the voters, then immediately debating with everyone who objected. This got so bad I was forced to create a parred down copy-paste of the vote - minus the debate - purely in order to keep track of it & make it readable. Reasercher1988 saw this only as an opportunity to start yet another copy of the same exact debate, even though I purposefully removed all the reasoning posted with each vote in order to avoid provoking him. As you might imagine, this kind of behaviour makes it very difficult to use the talk page at all. I believe this to be WP:STONEWALL in order to enforce WP:POV, at the very least. Reasercher1988 may demand 'consensus', but they operate entirely without it and disrupt all attempts to achieve it.
    • Multiple times Reasercher1988 has posted copies of that same massive list of personally approved sources on the page - which is itself spamming. Both here and also here. They seem to do this as form of stonewalling. This tactic, combined with their endless arguing against everything, makes it incredibly frustrating to engage with anyone on the page. The clutter is getting so bad, I would like to archive most of the page.
    • Overall Researcher1988 refuses to engage in proper discussion, and will simply state and restate their opinion without addressing any of the problems raised. This makes speaking to them, itself, very infuriating.

    There is actually way more I could say, but I feel these are the main points. Regardless of the above, I don't really bear Researcher1988 any ill will or think they should be banned - but I do think that they need to be reigned in in some way to prevent them dominating the page. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I had reason for Every edit and revert that I made. why you continued this debate for 4 months? why you don't get the point and refuse to accept various reliable sources who refute your claims? Researcher1988 (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Researcher1988 Your own sources conflict with your views, and mine are reliable. If you would like to discuss why, please send me a talk page message. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is bordering being a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT considering this has been going on for 4 months without resolution. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope I'm not guilty of that, but I admit it's possible. I do feel it's happening the other way, however. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the above, I'd Support a topic ban on Researcher1988 from Zoroastrianism, broadly construed, with the standard offer available once they've edited elsewhere to demonstrate they can edit without WP:OWNership issues. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Throwing a Support behind that as well. Maybe also take a look through the article and the Talk page and see what can be done there to make the article better. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 17:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keeping in mind I'm someone who has engaged in this content dispute a considerable amount, I would also support a topic ban per HandThatFeeds's formulation. Remsense诉 17:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support for banning the user for multiple reasons.
    Not only did the user misgendered me three times with several Users pointing out that this is impolite, they also violated several guidlines and trust.
    The user started an edit war with multiple users stating that they have been putting undue weight to their position, just for their own source to turn out barely to not support their view at all. Furthermore, it has become clear from the talkpage (I cannot find the exact version difference in this chaos anymore but it is possible to find by the search function) that there was probably religious motivation (maybe a form of neo-Zorastrianism comprable to Neo Tengrism insisting on being monotheistic) behind their edits, as they said that

    "I insist on calling it Monotheism, because it is a Monotheistic religion. Zoroastrians consider themselves monotheistic, they never saw themselves as Dualistic or anything other than monotheistic."

    Except for their own understanding of Zorastrianism, there is no evidence for that it was called "Monotheistic" by Zorastrians (especially since the term did not exist back then). There is reason not to apply good faith given how often the user attacked several users pesonally and refused to adress any concern brought to the talkpage. Instead, they just opened a new poll or a new discussion whenever they felt cornered.
    Thus, there is little to no evidence for remorse, and accordingly, little hope the user will improve their behaviour. Their behaviour is unbearable for other Users, frustrating and time-consueming for no good reasons or benefits. On the long-term Wikipedia profites more from banning the user entirely. Furthermore, it seems imperative to make clear that Wikipedia Users are not the playball for frustrated indidivuals who just want to see their opinions, here. Not deleting them could encourage bad behaviour in near future on other article talkpages as well, causing talkpages to deteriorate to the level of a WP:FORUM. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @VenusFeuerFalle
    Zoroastrianism is called "Mazdayasna" "Mazda Worshiper" by Zoroastrians. Zoroastrians believe in one god. modern Zoroastrians consider themselves Monotheistic. there is a scholarly consensus that Zoroastrianism is Monotheistic and Religious Dualism is a variation of monotheism too.
    this user completely ignores all reliable sources which clearly state Zoroastrianism is monotheistic, and insists on his personal opinions which are not supported by any of the academic sources:
    "In Zoroastrianism Ahura Mazda, the ‘Lord of Wisdom’ is considered a superior, all-encompassing deity, the only existing one, who may be venerated in all other god-manifestations. This certainly is a monotheistic concept."
    https://www.academia.edu/27409859/Zoroastrianism_and_the_Bible_Monotheism_by_Coincidence Researcher1988 (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    and insists on his personal opinions

    oopsie VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That deserves emphasis as an ancillary point. I usually think it's best to be patient with people on this particular point—but we have been. Researcher has been directly asked several times not to refer to VFF as 'he'. That they continue to do so without even acknowledging the requests is getting to be a sanctionable problem in itself, I would argue. Remsense诉 01:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    INCLUSIVENESSWE REALLY DIG ITSO PLEASE DON'T BEAN EFFING BIGOTBurma-shave I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am usually a User avoiding conflict, but if you keep on this attitude, you find yourself here again for WP:HARASS and WP:PA for spreading lies about me constantly and intentional misgendering, in case you will not be deleted entirely, which would be the (appropriate decission). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Researcher1988 You have been shown evidence that is not correct, and that the status of the religion is highly debated, but you have ignored it so far. Including evidence from your own sources that say it changed & evolved. If you would like to talk about it, I will be on the article's talk page. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support a topic ban for all the above reasons which add up to WP:NOTHERE. I've been waiting to see if the editor would listen to others, but we also have a WP:ICANTHEARYOU problem with this editor as well. Disclosure: I am involved, but this is not one of my usual topic areas. Skyerise (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Researcher1988 continues to refuse to assume good faith and makes personal attacks accusing other editors of "hating" his religion, views Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND using terms like "infiltrated" and is engaged in canvassing: [112]. Can't something please be done about this? Skyerise (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skyerise I don't even know what his religion is tbh. But isn't he in the middle of trying to attack multiple other religions, right from the first part of the lead of the article? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TiggyTheTerrible: well, I'm assuming from behavior that its some small modern sect of Zoroastrianism which considers itself monotheisitic and teaches its members that Zoroastrianism "has always been monotheistic". Skyerise (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skyerise That could well be the case. I've been reading and comparing a few different versions of the Avesta, and there's something very odd going on with the translations. I get the sense that they're trying very hard to make it look like other religions. It's really strange. 09:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are also seeing a continuation of the POV pushing behaviour. These edits are not supported by the sources presented. [113] [114]. Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Starting to think we need a full block to make this user understand that we have rules blocking this kind of stuff. I'd support a block for at least a couple months, if not longer. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 13:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Honestly, despite multiple editors encouraging them to edit elsewhere, Researcher1988 has not shown any indication of having any interest of editing on any other topic. I'm not sure if there would be any functional difference between a t-ban and a block at this point so, despite my initial advocacy for a t-ban I'm pretty much neutral on this. The misgendering issue is certainly alarming. Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Also I don't believe this personal attack has been brought to attention yet. This is an escalating situation. Simonm223 (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't entirely see how this fit as a personal attack, but it does show that this is escalating. My bones are sensing there's gonna be threats, and soon. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Whoops, more canvassing (at least it seems like it to me, trout me if I'm wrong) [115] I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That was identified by Skyerise earlier today up-thread. Also the editor in question is an involved editor who they see as an ally. This editor is perfectly aware of the situation and was one of the first to comment at AN/I when I opened this thread and has rather publicly announced taking a break from that article space. I don't think it really constitutes canvassing although it speaks toward as WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Simonm223 (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on various talk page discussions I read, Researcher1988 seems to be firmly convinced that Zoroastrianism is monotheistic, often dismissing alternative scholarly interpretations that suggest dualistic or polytheistic elements. His approach in discussions appears to be quite inflexible, hindering collaborative editing. A one month topic ban should encourage the correct conduct. FailedMusician (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin review requested

    Would an admin be willing to have a look at the clear consensus here and formalize it please? Those of us editing the page would like to move on with the cleanup work on the article. Simonm223 (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Surprising attack out of nowhere

    User:Dahn came to my talk page to call me "frankly moronic", "inane", and "destructive". Baffled by this, I took a look at the edit they had a problem with, where I discovered this edit summary, where they called me an "ignoramous". Faced with an attack like this, I don't know where else to turn but here. It's extremely disheartening. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • For what it is worth, I apologize. Though most of those things are not in any way personal attacks, but references to the result of the action I commented on (not "called me", but "called the things I did" this and that). As for what those things are: the random removal of sourced content, without any semblance of a discussion, on the pretext that the sources "do not exist"; when it was absolutely clear that the sources have a print version (the name of the paper magazine is immediately apparent in the reference), and when not even a perfunctory effort was made to actually check if the html version was ever archived. At the time of writing, I was on a mobile device, which makes it near impossible to fix this uncollegial type of problematic editing (which I continue to see as bordering on vandalism) beyond a sheer revert; going to search for the archive myself, on said mobile device, was too much of a practical hurdle, and it was especially annoying to have to do so based on an editor's whimsical claim/apparent unwillingness to check a source/assumption of bad faith from other editors. I would like ANI to instruct Fred Zepelin regarding the scope of such behavior, which may have occurred over several articles. Dahn (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      this uncollegial type of problematic editing (which I continue to see as bordering on vandalism) The only uncollegial behavior I see is from you. Fred Zepelin was obviously incorrect (though that wasn't vandalism), and you could have justifiably reinstated the removed source, gone to his talkpage, and explained what he did in a collegial manner. You chose not to, instead showing up at his talkpage with guns blazing and assuming bad faith; your behavior is not justified post hoc because Fred was in the wrong about content. Grandpallama (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps so. But at what point is a user expected to already know that theyre not to remove sourced info? And why should I be the only one expected to police pages against such disruptive edits by supposedly experienced users? (Thats assuming you really do not see the removal of others' work under a bogus claim as uncollegial.) Dahn (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Dahn: What of "[..] also restored originall spelling removed by another ignoramous"(summary)? Is that not an insult on the IP who changed the spelling and the OP ("another")? – 143.208.236.191 (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure who I'm answering to and how a raw IP was able to locate this discussion and contribute to this piling on, but: is the point here that I should be apologizing to a(nother) raw IP who changed the spelling of the alternative title because they couldn't manifestly figure out that the spelling rules of Romanian were once different (and that the original title was therefore spelled slightly different -- an encyclopedic and sourced info), or did not want the info present in the article for some obscure reason? Just to clarify: is this what is being asked of me? That I apologize to raw IPs committing hit-and-run vandalism? Dahn (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The point is civility. I get that it can be very irritating to have content you wrote be removed with a bad explanation (I'm assuming you wrote it), or even to have it vandalized, but the base level of interacting with civility is expected even when interacting with actual vandals. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, being able to collaborate without escalating things is extremely important. Acknowledging that is what I would expect at least, which your initial response evaded a bit by starting at saying that you were commenting on actions (though I'm just commenting, and am no admin, obviously). – 143.208.236.191 (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The very first words of my very first comment here: For what it is worth, I apologize. As for the rest: the behavior I was commenting on, as unjustified as those comments may be, is itself disruptive, in both cases you bring up. (Yes, I did write that content. But it's mostly the fact that I sourced it transparently, that I have painstakingly referenced it, and I'm expected to protect it against users who either claim that "the source does not exist", based on quite baffling rationales, or, as is the case with the raw IP, just don't want it in there. Lets also take a moment to ponder the implications of accusing editors that they have fabricated sources.) Dahn (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not good enough when the rest of your comment mostly consists of justifications for that WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct. Fred Zepelin encountered a dead link, so they removed the content it attributed. Not the best course of action, obviously, as at the very least {{Dead link}} exists. But your aggressive note to them on their talk page (permalink) was disproportionate when compared to the gravity of their error. So please take this as a warning to dial it down when presented with similar issues. Thanks. El_C 02:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks a bit like Im already being hounded by this point, especially with personal takes about what I did that wasnt good enough as an apology. Fair enough. But allow me to note: Im not "justifying my actions", Im asking that, whatever comes out of this case, Fred Zepelin is also instructed regarding the disruptive nature of that sort of editing. Because disruptive it is, even if the link were dead -- since the reference was not even link-dependent, let alone that the link was archived; since no discussion about the reference was opened anywhere by him; and since the near-explicit accusation in both of his edit summaries (note his first one as well) was that the source had been fabricated by editors. That kind of editing is not just "not the best course of action"; editors acting like this create gaps in content, and impose themselves, and their range of competence, as a filter on what can go in the articles. They need to be educated not to do that. Dahn (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is just "not the best course of action." By all means, educate away, but without all the added aggression baggage. Because that approach to education is folly and is not welcomed here. El_C 03:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am referring to how ANI, or anyone engaged in this discussion, should educate an experience user not to engage in that sort of editing, which is (once we dont sugarcoat it) disruptive. As for myself: I create content, and would rather spend more time on creating it, rather than micromanaging sensitivities of users who delete sourced content without ever engaging in a discussion (doing so would effectively double my time spent here, absorbing me in thankless tasks). I accept scolding for whatever I did wrong; but please at least make sure Fred doesnt end up doing this over other articles I cant even be bothered to check. Or is that something I am expected to keep an eye on? And does Fred even acknowledge that there was something wrong with his edits, including from a civility point? Dahn (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm not gonna do that. No, you are not expected to, either, but are free to do so if you are able to do so civilly. El_C 03:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not being hounded; you're hearing a consensus in the reactions of other editors. If you're committed to not dropping the stick, though, I think there is a conversation to be had about the fact that incivility seems to be a normal pattern, not an exception, in your edit summaries: [116][117][118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126]. You're doing quite well to get off with an informal warning from an admin. Grandpallama (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am being hounded by being asked to engage in this conversation, with users who do not ultimately decide what sanctions I supposedly deserve. As for the "stick", I have dropped it even before you came in searching through my months-long edit history. The only think I asked, and I believe anyone will be able to pick it up, is that Fred's removal of sourced content be analyzed for what it was. Are we done here, or do you guys still need my input? Dahn (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I do decide on the sanctions here, so please keep my warning and additional comments in mind. Thank you. El_C 03:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    searching through my months-long edit history To be clear, that's just from the last 30 days. Grandpallama (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dahn I know you were just blocked, but I was typing this and still think it applies, though I won't rephrase it:
    RE "[..] do you guys still need my input?": We need your assurance that you will avoid being aggressive like this on future instances where people do things that you consider disruptive. --- I will now comment on the rest of your concerns, but that's all I feel we need for now.
    As to if Fred has done this on multiple articles, we don't know that, and we can't assume that, and you shouldn't assume it either. If Fred did continue doing it multiple times or to multiple articles, or if someone brought up a concern to them in the future and found out that their page talk history has had multiple of those before with no change, or someone really does see a pattern of disruption in their edits and comes with evidence, then we can do something official about it.
    So far their work in this instance was sloppy, which ultimately resulted in them removing existing references and content, but to us it's just one instance, ideally you telling them about it civilly after you corrected it, or in the summary, would have been all there was to it, unless they had repeated it. It likely wouldn't have ever reached this board. – 143.208.236.191 (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) You keep adding to your comment after having submitted it, Dahn. Anyway, you write about a purported near-explicit accusation in both of his edit summaries [...] that the source had been fabricated — and you link to an edit summary that reads: nothing at that link, cannot find any reference to that quote anywhere. That is not a "near-explicit accusation" of "the source [having] been fabricated," that is you assuming bad faith. Because maybe they thought it was a simple (or complex) error, and you can't read minds. El_C 03:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the examples Grandpallama provided above — that's a problem. A problem far more extensive that I initially realized. You cannot continue like this, Dahn. You need to not do that anymore. El_C 03:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    El_C: The content was sourced and had been removed. The source existed and had been published (in a paper edition, the link was already superfluous); the fact that one needs to "see" a paper source to "allow" its content to be used as a reference is assuming bad faith from the editor. A paper source, lest we forget, can simply be used without any link, so not being able to check the link does not invalidate the source.
    As for my past uncivility picked out from in months of productive editing, I accept whatever critique and ruling (even when I was exasperated by evident vandalism, I was arguably out of line; and I was evidently out of line in other edit summaries, that did not refer to such editing -- some of the diffs provided are just snide, not truly insulting to anyone). They can be weighed against my productive editing, or not -- either way, I don't suppose you want me to have to sit around for the rest of the day having to perform self-criticism. Give me my punishment, if any, and let's all get on with our lives. Dahn (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours: User talk:Dahn#Block. El_C 03:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since this thread is still open, and since I just saw it, I’ll weigh in after the fact: the block was a serious overreaction. Dahn apologized from the start and pledged to be more cautious. That is all that should be expected, not a ritual abasement. There was no STICK or BATTLEGROUND, just a refusal to engage in self-humiliation. And the AGF was on the other side, by assuming Dahn had added invalid content. It’s striking how this project treats productive editors, expecting them to expend valuable time explaining and accounting for their valid choices. A sad moment, not so much for Dahn but for the rest of us. — Biruitorul Talk 05:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My sense is that you've not read this thread in full. They could have stepped away with my original warning and that would have been that. No, that level of incivility (repeated, 30 days, not months) is not acceptable, and you are doing him and the project a dis-service by stating otherwise. So, no, performing self-criticism was never sought. El_C 05:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just compared, at a glance, Biruitorul's user talk page (200+ sections) with Dahn's (400+ sections), so the above comment makes more sense to me now. It's fine to stand up for friends or colleagues, but that defense needs to be evidence-based, not reflexive. El_C 06:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dahn's apology was essentially "I apologize, but don't think I did anything wrong". That's not an apology, that's just deflecting so he can continue doing what he's been doing. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. It's a "sad moment" whenever someone shows a pattern of incivility and someone tries to brush it aside or say it's no big deal. This is damaging to the project and makes the problem more difficult to solve down the line. Also, see User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned; defending another editor's incivility does them more harm than good. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with the consensus here: this was an appropriate block, and arguably an inevitable one, considering the consistently WP:IDHT reflex and cavalier attitude towards WP:CIV in every post of Dahn's chain of responses here. The original comments on the OP's talk page were unambiguous WP:PAs (irrespective of whether the descriptors were directed at the OP or their behavior), and Dahn could easily have been blocked for those alone. But having initially dodged that outcome, they couldn't seem to find the wherewithal to not talk themselves into trouble--so committed were they to trying to rationalize and justify their nakedly aggressive, unproductive, and basically caustic rhetoric, which was paired with near-complete ABF and a fundamental failure to understand the most basic tenants of acceptable discussion on this project. Even as one editor/community member after another weighed in to tell them they were taking things way over the line in tone, and on very undeserving grounds, they continued to resist all community feedback and assert that they were in fact the ones being 'hounded'.
    Frankly, it had hit a point of raising a WP:CIR concern, and El_C's decision to ultimately act, where they had first exercised discretion not to, was entirely appropriate in the circumstances, and indeed almost certainly saved some trouble for other future targets of such needlessly combative and disruptive language, the project generally, and (honestly) probably Dahn themselves. Dahn seems relatively intelligent, aside from their inability to read the room in this instance, and hopefully putting the breaks on them when it comes to such behavior here increases the chances that they can be a solid net positive to the project for the longterm. It's unfortunate that it needed to happen as such, but looking over the discussion, I think it's very clear that it did. SnowRise let's rap 07:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Preventative nut punative
    I too endorse the block. It's important to remember that blocks are preventative nut punitive, but it's clear from the discussion above that Dahn requires some enforced time-out to reflect. Because so far they're either missing or refusing to get the point. Incivility drives good editors away and no amount of constructive editing is an excuse for it. WaggersTALK 08:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you everyone for weighing in, and for educating me; I also accept the punishment, and apologize again. As long as this discussion is still open for some reason after my ban has expired, and hoping that me commenting here while others continued to comment on my person shant be seen as my flogging a dead horse: should the reference to me as "relatively intelligent", just above, be viewed as a breach of civility? Thanks. Dahn (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, can we call up the gender enforcers regarding the insistent (and absurd) use of the singular they, or is it only “misgendering” for the other way round? — Biruitorul Talk 12:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Can you point out where @Dahn clearly mentions their preferred pronouns? I don't think it's absurd to not assume. It is matter of respecting other human beings. SnowRise is one of the most thoughtful and respectful editors I've had the privilege to encounter. --ARoseWolf 12:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        The latter. Using a neutral term is not misgendering, in the same way as referring to someone who identifies with a particular gender as a person isn't misgendering. If you'd like to educate yourself we have an article about the singular they.
        @ARoseWolf If you have popups enabled, you can see a user's preferred pronouns when you hover over their username. I now know that Dahn's are he/him. WaggersTALK 12:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Biruitorul, it has long been my policy on this project to refer to an unfamiliar community member as "they" unless and until I see a clear identification of their gender. This preference goes back well before the culture war battles around gender hit their present zenith over recent years, and is not a consequence of concerns over misgendering as the term is typically invoked these days--though I do believe it is consistent with those concerns as well. Rather, when I began contributing here, I found it presumptuous that individuals would often tend to assume that the party they were talking to was a man. Not that this was a phenomena exclusive to Wikipedia by any means; it was a pronounced feature of the early internet and continues to be with us to lesser or greater extents in most spaces where contributors are largely anonymous and names gender-ambiguous.
        As such, I consider it not just acceptable, but in fact obviously best practice to use a gender neutral pronoun until I know an individual's preference, at which point I switch immediately to that preference. And to the best of my observations, most veteran editors have landed on a similar approach. It's not so much that this approach gives one the best odds of respecting the identity of trans individuals (though that is a nice collateral benefit), but that it reduces the odds of stepping on anyone's toes regarding their gender or otherwise causing confusion as to who was being referred to. And as Waggers notes above, singular they actually has a very long tradition in the English language of serving this grammatical role. Large projects based around largely anonymous users merely give that utility enhanced value. SnowRise let's rap 08:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If someone called me "relatively intelligent" I'd take that as a compliment, albeit perhaps a somewhat backhanded one depending on the context. I don't think it's uncivil.
      More to the point, this discussion is about you and your behaviour. Continuing to deflect that with whataboutery is not a good look. WaggersTALK 12:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am not deflecting,though I would expect it to have a forseeable ending -- instead of having to catch glimpse of new commentary after the matter of my behavior will have already presumably been brought up (unless it is to prepare the ground for me receiving more sanctions, in which case I would hope you guys to speed that along to where we get to that junction). I mean, the only way in which I would be deflecting from the topic is if it were still a topic -- is it? and for how much longer? what more is expected of me?
    What I am asking if the standard of the discussion is such that I receive "backhanded compliments" about my intelligence. Is this part of the sanctions? Or are we just piling on to match or surpass my transgressions? Dahn (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point it is still a topic as long as you continue to make it one by posting here and doing things such as accusing others of piling on. It would be beneficial to keep the Law of holes in mind. MrOllie (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great. I will stop posting now, and it wont be a topic any longer -- unlike throughout the period when I was blocked, and yet it continued being a topic. Lets see if that ends this. Cheers, Dahn (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider that some of the diffs cited against me above had annoyed comments against clearly disuptive users (such as one who keeps creating sockpuppets and adding a flag of his own creation in Banat Republic -- a matter brought up as disruptive by several users, as you will note from that artcles talk page). Yet in this discussion a peer who I dont think I have ever interacted with comments on how I am "relatively intelligent", which is semantically on par with calling an admin "relatively competent". I am not asking that action be taken or anything of that nature; I am merely suggesting that perhaps this discussion has veered off course. At which point in this degradation can I ask that we move on? Dahn (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dahn: You need to appreciate that there are many ways in which English is not a standard language. It may be considered an insult where you live but, as @Waggers has already told you, being described as "relatively intelligent" can (where I live, for example) be a compliment; in the context it was used above I would accept it as such if used to describe me. I'd take being described as a "quite good editor", or "not bad Wikipedian", in the same way. Bazza 7 (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, and thanks for the clarification about what I need to appreciate. Overall, yours is a relatively intelligent comment. That said, I shant take up more space here. You guys make sure to ping me when there is something else that requires my input in this discussion about me, my motives, my competence, and my intelligence. See yous around! Dahn (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    El_C, I don't know if you've been continuing to keep an eye on this discussion, but in addition to the borderline trolling Dahn is doing here, this edit to the talkpage for Luceafărul (poem) is about as snide as one can get, and a clear continuation of the WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIVIL problems that led to your block in the first place. Similar behavior is occurring, post-block, here, again in regard to one of the diffs (now outright edit warring) that prompted your block. A longer enforced wikibreak may be in order. Grandpallama (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As a practical point: how am I supposed to address the fact that a portion of the article was modified based on the claim that a source, which I was originally told did not exist at all, has a wording which seems to validate precisely the reading that was modified? I was clearly mistaken to go so tough on the editor in the original interaction (for which I alreafy received a block), but how do I realistically deal with this edit and the problems that I see with it? Note how I did not even bring up WP:COMPETENCE, for edits by someone who apparently cannot read the foreign language they are correcting; even though that very same objection was raised against me above, for reasons unfathomable. Also, I was told that this string of allegations will pause once I stop commenting, yet here are more accusations against me (brought up immediately after I announce my intention to stop commenting, a propos WP:STICK), this time for the vague claim that I am being "snide". Is there any other resolution to this other than me saying "whatever you say is right"? Dahn (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There also is no "edit-warring" (and certainly no breach of WP:CIV, namely the behavioral guidline previously invoked here) in Ludovic Antal; there is one revert, endorsed by other editors, and me raising the issue of inconsistency on the article talk page (to which the other party never responded). In all honesty, what else is expected of me, that I just stop editing? Dahn (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, in what way is this a WP:BATTLEGROUND issue? I do not object to the edits on a personal level, and I have left most of what was edited into Luceafarul in there (except for the part where I await clarification on how I supposedly misread the Romanian clause). In the Antal article, I brought up the issue on the talk page, where a fellow wikipedian also pointed out the stylistic discrepancy that was being pushed. So please detail,if youre going to accuse me of this. Dahn (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, you've clearly failed the law of holes here. That entire diatribe on Talk:Luceafărul (poem) comes across as "I can't be directly insulting, so I'll do it the roundabout way." You're not collegially disagreeing, you're intentionally finding ways to pretend you're being polite while still talking down to others. The harping on "relatively intelligent" is a dead giveaway that you're pissed off about this whole thing and taking it out on whomever you can.
    So no, this isn't going to get dropped as long as you keep behaving like this. You need to do some serious self-reflection, or you're going to find yourself subject to sanctions. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that I have said clearly that I do take an issue with this thread being used as means to comment on with "backhanded compliments" (as defined above) regarding my "relative" intelligence, and I do regard that comment as unwarranted. Then again, my talkpage comment about intelligence is, if anything, self-effacing -- I am insulting myself (disregarding the fact that I was told it is not an insult at all). I believe I have also said that I cannot understand what to make of edits which suggest that I invent and then that I misread sources which were previously said to have been invented by me. But overall, the comments you are referring to are about a content dispute: of all the edits made by Fred Zepelin, I reverted one, because it apparently contradict the quoted text, which I have rendered in full in Romanian. Of course I am pissed off by "this whole thing" (not by the block, not by the edits, but by the fact that I have to defend content against this sort of editing, and have to debate the Romanian language with some who may not speak it at all); and of course the frustration may out in my edits (I can express my frustration, can I not?); but to suggest that I am engaging in anything other than a content dispute, and asking the (largely unresponsive) editor to explain his edit on the talk page, is wrong -- my comments, however frustrated by what I perceive to be unjust, are largely, perhaps entirely, within the legitimate means of advancing this project. In my latest comments there, I try to reduce the frustrated part of the comment and address the content dispute exclusively -- do you have something to object to regarding those comments, HandThatFeeds? Dahn (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a side note: I am not even asking that this be "dropped". I am suggesting that it is equally questionable behavior to comment on my person when I cannot respond, with the suggestion that, if I do respond, I am only digging myself deeper. I was told above that the matter would reach an end if I stop commenting on what others (particularly those with no administrative functions) have commented about me, then, as I stop commenting, I get more comments, with newer, more or less accurate, allegations -- and if I comment in my defense, I am the one prolonging this. This puts me in an objectively impossible situation. Dahn (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Announcing that you are going to stop commenting does not mean that you will get to have the last word, just as a flame doesn't immediately go out when one stops adding fuel. But stop feeding the fire and it will go out sooner or later. Or keep throwing logs on there and see what happens, it is your choice. MrOllie (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a fellow content writer, I understand the feelings of frustration Dahn is expressing regarding unhelpful and cosmetic edits on the articles they write. Indeed, these [127] [128] were simply wrong edits. But I'd like to remind Dahn that acknowledgement of this frustration, which is I believe, sorry if I am wrong, something that they are seeking following certain comments, is not to be expected here in ANI, frequented by editors seldom engaged in content writing, and who have been seeing cases like this one every week for years.
    By the way Dahn, it is clear you are alienating editors ultimately uninterested in the dispute regarding the content with text walls. Know, from content writer to content writer, that I am at your disposition for dealing with disputes arising from the edits of this user, who I will be watching for some time, of course while acting with reason and as much impartiality as I can. As for other editors, I ask them to realise they are not getting to the depth of the problem and that clearly nothing good is coming from further comments. They are just making the hole bigger, independently of whose comments are the biggest contributor in this.
    Please close this useless thread already, and everybody stop talking. I do not wish to see more sanctions being enforced. Super Ψ Dro 19:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reverted your close as premature, since new concerns were raised just a few hours ago, and as the closing comments do not reflect the general consensus being expressed by other editors. Dahn was blocked for incivility and battleground behavior; apart from their conduct in this thread, they have unapologetically and actively continued that behavior immediately following their unblocking at Talk:Luceafărul (poem), and there has been a request (by me) for more admin attention. Grandpallama (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks but I very much insist, given that my closing has been thanked by both Dahn, AND Fred Zepelin. I will attempt to act as an intermediary if necessary to end the disputes and deal with the short-term problem. Regarding the possible long-term one, I have two things to say: to Dahn, that the reopening of the thread by Grandpallama should serve as the best possible warning that the discussion was about to turn badly and that they need to change aspects of their behaviour; and to other editors, that Dahn had gone since 2017 without a block, and that this has been an episodic exception, which I know because I've watched their contributions regularly for some time now. Super Ψ Dro 19:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, please do not close a discussion in opposition to other editors, especially one in which your comments do not reflect the consensus of the discussion. Grandpallama (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the most patethic and sad edit war, even if a short one, I've ever had in over eight years of editing Wikipedia. Very well, let's continue the discussion, which I am actually quite sure nobody has will to continue for much longer. Super Ψ Dro 19:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Part of Fred's comment on your userpage: I do not feel comfortable engaging with them, for reasons that will be obvious if you read their latest comments, and am hoping that an admin can look at that behavior and facilitate a situation where I can edit that article without fear of seeing the same kind of thing from Dahn again. This is why the thread should not be closed--because we have one recently unblocked editor behaving uncivilly toward the other, to the degree that the other feels uncomfortable. That requires admin attention, not an early close that suggests Dahn's behavior is understandable. Grandpallama (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'll add that no, Dahn has not gone since 2017 without a block;Dahn has gone less than 24 without a block and is actively continuing the behavior that led to that block. Grandpallama (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I said had gone. Super Ψ Dro 19:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you did. Struck. Grandpallama (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Grandpallama, thank you for noticing. I did thank Super for the close as I had initially thought the issue was resolved, but I immediately followed up that thought with a link to what is an obvious "read-between-the-lines" sarcastic new attack. I do not feel comfortable engaging in a discussion about the edits on that article with an editor so vigorously battling to revert whatever I do there. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging Thebiguglyalien (talk), SnowRise let's rap, WaggersTALK, and El_C to alert them to the aforementioned incivility at Talk:Luceafărul_(poem). Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, this is absolutely not true. The extent of my edits to Constantin S. Nicolăescu-Plopșor was removing redlinks, which was prompted by this edit by Dahn in which he said "actually read WP:REDLINK, then get yourself another hobby", which was linked in this very discussion by Grandpallama (talk). The accusations by Dahn are completely baseless. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the unproductive nature of Fred Zepelin’s mainspace edits on these articles, and his increasingly odd behavior toward Dahn, I propose a one-way interaction ban applied to Fred Zepelin. This will hopefully solve the issue and allow this pointless conflict to subside. Biruitorul Talk 20:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your opinion on my editing, although I suspect that in this case, you might not be completely impartial. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither are you impartial here, for that matter. I’ve already had this insinuation made twice against me on this thread, and I’m getting tired of it already. I cannot speak highly enough of Dahn, that is true. Having said that, he apologized for whatever wrongdoing he did from the very first. Can we now stop wasting his time and let him continue to do productive work, or must we continue to hound and badger him, continually shifting the goalposts and throwing more accusations at an excellent fellow who does amazing work? For my part, the answer is clear, which is why my proposal was made with all seriousness and in all good faith as a way of moving past this desultory episode. Biruitorul Talk 20:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ANI really does bring out the worst in everyone, doesn't it? I have an opinion on who is more at fault here (like, 70/30, not like 51/49 nor 99/1), but it's unimportant, because this thread is giving serious "a pox on both their houses". I'd be inclined to issue a one-week cooling off two-way interaction ban, followed by a warning that re-escalation after the ban would be looked on really, really unfavorably. Smug passive-aggressive snark, and going after someone else's DYK articles, would both cause future sanctions, as would poking at the edges of the iban. Oh, and I think Biruitorul's comments here harm more than they help. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would definitely Support this as a good first step to de-escalate the situation. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tempers run hot at ANI, which is why I am generally less concerned about the comments that have been made here. Dahn's incivility wasn't Fred-centric; he was blocked for a pattern of edits going back over a 30-day period (and, ultimately, for not dropping the stick during the initial discussion). Setting up an IBAN might defuse the immediate conflict, but it doesn't really address the underlying behavioral issue from Dahn, which is broader. The fact that this was Dahn's first edit after his block expired is problematic regardless of whether it was directed at Fred or someone else. I understand Floquenbeam's observation that the 70/30 responsibility split doesn't feel entirely important, but while there might be a Dahn-centric issue for Fred that is resolved by an interaction ban, there is a behavioral issue with Dahn that extends beyond Fred and won't be solved with an interaction ban. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, as we see restated all the time on ANI; Dahn's post-block behavior was to immediately resume incivility, which suggests to me that a second, longer block is necessary in order to prevent it. Floq reasonably says future behavior would cause future sanctions, but Dahn already crossed that line about an hour after being unblocked. Grandpallama (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again I am compelled to discuss myself, while being told that discussing myself only makes it "harder" on me. When reviewing my supposedly damning history of incivility, I would argue that those cherrypicked examples should be taken in context: other than that some are lashing out at guidelines which I view as incoherent (and not any person in particular), some, such as the one asking an IP range which kept stalking me and tagging my articles to "get another hobby" are not doing anything harmful, such as keep productive editors away (an incarnation of that stalking is here, where, you will note, it was reverted by another user, not me, because the programmatic removal of redlinks is destructive -- the IP was since blocked, but probably not for this edit). In Banat Republic, the cited diff with a rude comment was my exasperation with a user who keeps creating himself socks to promote a flag that he has designed, and that only he endorses, in an article that is largely about something else entirely, and who adds faux citations to hopefully bamboozle us into believing that the content is legit (for instance, the edit I reverted cites sources which do not in any way back what is attributed to them, one of which only shows his flag as an illustration, because it was planted on some street, and has not one word of commentary on what it is and why it matters). For (some of) the history of this ever-returning disruptive editor, who has various banned socks by now, plus an indefinite ban on PetrusdictusA, see the input by editors in Talk:Banat Republic#Disruptive removal of flag.
    That said, considering that some of my comments are aimed at disruptive, banned users, who have contributed absolutely nothing to this project, their being conflated by Grandpallama and Fred Zepelin into a supposed history of abuse on my part is beginning to look to me like a game of tipping the scales. In what I can only read as an attempt to malign me.
    I trust the facts above will be taken into account by whoever looks into this, and I am again hoping to end my involvement in this litigation. Dahn (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ↑ This "here is why my incivility is/was justified" screed, even after being told it wasn't justified and after receiving a block, is why the 70/30 split is relevant. Grandpallama (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying it was justified (though Im sure admins can make their own heuristics about whether banned disruptive users will be "driven away" and not allowed to contribute their fine work by my rudeness); what I am saying is that it is not manifestly what you claim it is (as in: proof of an "underlying behavioral issue"), and that your persistent misrepresentation of it could perhaps raise questions. Also, allow me to understand: does WP:STICK only apply to me? Dahn (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grandpallama:, at what point are we allowed to say that a sockpupeteer has a personal obsession with the flag of the Banat Republic? Or must we indulge this individual for years and years, never faltering in our effulgent politeness by even an iota? Must we keep up a hypocritical charade indefinitely? Is there no limit beyond which one may proclaim that a personal obsession is, well, a personal obsession? Biruitorul Talk 23:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Rv sock" as an edit summary demonstrates neither effulgent politeness nor unnecessary rudeness. Stop defending incivility as if it is an unavoidable part of editing. Grandpallama (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I rather like curmudgeons: I think they’re charming in an offbeat way, and their forthrightness is refreshing. They’re non-conformists in this ever-more-standardized world, and they have the supreme virtue of not being boring. So, thank you very much, but I absolutely will defend pointing out that a random sockpuppeteer has a personal obsession as being not only not uncivil by any reasonable definition, but indeed just the thing that might drive said gadfly away for good. (Come to think of it, I do find it rather odd that you’re sticking up for a random vandal and against a sterling 18-year editor, but it’s par for the course, I suppose.) Biruitorul Talk 23:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with your reasoning is that the opening paragraph of WP:PA does not read "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia, unless you feel they are justified and you are of a higher caliber of contributor, and you even have buddies who assure you that you are. Comment on content, not on the contributor, unless you are certain they are the source of a problem. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collaborative atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia, unless they are directed at the right person at the right time. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans, provided you cannot prove you were in the right on the underlying content issue or that the target of those attacks really had it coming."
    We get it: you don't think that Dahn should have been taken to task for saying what he said in light of being, as you see it, a stellar contributor trapped in a vexing situation. But the policy (that is, community consensus) says what it says. You and Dahn don't have to agree that it is a sound guideline, but he does have to abide by it, and you aren't doing your friend any favours by diverting him from taking that lesson on board. None of the numerous commentators above are "sticking up for a random vandal and against a sterling 18-year editor"; they are "sticking up" for the most basic of adherence to a pillar policy (WP:CIV) that is a cornerstone of the editorial process and without which every talk page on this project would grind to a screeching halt of acrimony, spitefulness, and petty pissiness every time someone got upset enough. SnowRise let's rap 09:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Grandpallama: It is perfectly avoidable, which is why I avoid in so very many of my edits, including the vast near-totality of my interactions with other users. The point here is that it is certainly not inexcusable, let alone proof of an "underlying behavioral issue", to tell people who are on their 300th sock and engage in disruptive editing to advance an absolutely ridiculous agenda that you're reverting not just a sock, but an obsession. The point of WP:CIV, as Im sure we're all reasonably aware, is that we are not to drive good editors away -- I have acknowledged that I have transgressed this rule in some instances; however, you are conflating into the case "against me" various instances in which I was (mildly) rude with sockpuppets, stalkers, disruptive single-purpose editors, all of them banned for good. You are apparently doing this so as to present a supposed "history" of incivility, knowing full well that some cases are not at all as indefensible as you make it seem, and at the same time advising me not to comment on this fact (or risk "digging a deeper hole for me"). And again: you are an editor of equal standing to me, and currently filibustering to advance claims made in that capacity; you are certainly not a Crown Prosecutor presenting evidence from the bench. Therefore: does WP:STICK not apply to you as well? Something to consider. Dahn (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's try to put a tie on this

    Dahn, I think you have wildly misconstrued the tone and intended message of my post. "Relatively intelligent" was most certainly intended to carry a positive connotation in that sentence. That phrasing is a quasi-idiomatic but fairly ubiquitous construction in English that carries a sentiment that I think could be best expressed explicitly as "This person, of whom I am speaking, strikes me as not a fool. I don't have enough information to speculate where on the continuum of normal intelligence to super genius that their mental capacities lay, but I am at least confident they are not a gibbering nitwit. Yes, I suspect they generally get on quite well in life with their brain bits."

    If that is not a syntactic/semantic convention on the use of "fairly" that you are familiar with, I genuinely find that slightly fascinating. And I mean that sincerely, not facetiously: I have a formal background in comparative linguistics, and have lived in multiple regions in each of the three most populous anglophone nations, and I've never encountered someone not being familiar with that construction, that I can recall. I very much AGF that you are being on the level about that (because why on Earth would anyone lie about it?), but as others have noted (and I am grateful they filled in for me until I saw your reaction), I think it should have been pretty obvious from the content of the rest of the sentence and the overall context of this discussion that my phrasing of that particular adjectival phrase was not meant to be demeaning. Regardless, I hope you will now re-contextualize my thoughts in light of these clarifications.

    Indeed, my overall intent (and I believe the more or less plain meaning of my actual wording) was to imply that you should be a net asset, all things being equal, to this project, but that the issues being discussed here need immediate intervention to preserve any such potential, because much of the conduct that has been raised and discussed here in terms of your reactions to editorial events and perspectives you don't particularly like is thoroughly inappropriate behaviour for the volunteer work environment of this project. You must learn to focus your responses in editorial discussions on the issues, the sources, and content policies, not your opinion of the negative qualities of your rhetorical opposition.

    In a content dispute (or any context on this project, actually) if you find yourself appraising any other member of this community, under any circumstances, as an "ignoramus", "illiterate", "moronic", "unfathomably stupid", "obviously inept", "absolutely cretinous", or any of this family of obviously unacceptable commentary, you need to backspace back over that crap, and enforce a cooldown on yourself before contributing your thoughts. That is never going to be acceptable here, and if you can't accept that, you need to find another place to contribute your passion to. These aren't even borderline cases: these are brightline violations of our most basic behavioural policies. And "absolutely cretinous" was elicited by your taking exception to the spelling of a proper noun/toponym in it's non-native language. Are you really going to die on this hill, trying to tell us that was an appropriate and in-proportion reaction to another editor's provocation?

    In general, follow the maxim of "comment on the issues, not the user". In rare instances of actual disruption, you may have to at least address the conduct of another user, but even when that is the case, you should take the matter to an appropriate forum and present the actions in question in terms of editorial and/or behavioural policy violations, not observations about the intellectual and character shortcomings of other community members. Bluntly speaking, much of the behavior presented here was juvenile, inflammatory and far below the baseline standard that you will have to adopt to avoid future sanctions, and I'm frankly floundering for an explanation of how you could have been on this project since 2005 without having previously become aware of the basic standards of WP:PA.

    As for your frustration that this discussion continued after you were blocked, I'm afraid my opinion is that, other than yourself, the person you most have to attribute that too is Biruitorul. It is plainly obvious that they are making every effort to be in your corner here, but I agree with the opinion already expressed in this thread that their chosen mode for that advocacy has not been in your best interests. You're right, this discussion should have petered out as soon as you were blocked. Unfortunately, Biruitorul elected to come out swinging in your defense, expressing that El_C had made a bad block on unjustified grounds and ill-advised community feedback. As soon as an implication of administrative abuse was made, it was a foregone conclusion that the community was going to weigh in to some degree, though it probably would have been limited to three to five comments if not for the fact that you decided to immediately wade back in to defend yourself.

    Unfortunately, the community commentary endorsing El_C's action did in turn pull you back into the cycle the block was meant to (at least temporarily) resolve. That said, the responses to Biruitorul's ill-timed (and to the eye of most of us commenting here, poorly argued) commentary don't obviate you from learning the lesson that was, I would presume (putting myself in El_C's place), half the point of the block: not letting go of matters, and interpreting valid and necessary community input as "harassment". There is a problem here, but it's not with El_C's exercise of his administrative discretion and it's not with the consensus of the feedback here. That said, I agree that it's time to put a close to this discussion and give you the space to take that feedback on board and adjust your approach to conflict resolution, rather than giving you immediate tests of that restraint. Happy editing and good luck moving forward. SnowRise let's rap 07:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a brief addendum: Dahn came to my talk page and, without objecting to the majority of my observations above, made a very polite appeal that I make one small amendment/correction to my above comments. Specifically, he wishes it memorialized for the record here that he didn't lose his cool in this edit summary simply because he objected to the spelling change, but because the changes could lead to broken links and other potential knock-on effects.
    While that distinction doesn't really change my analysis above as to whether the edit summary was appropriate, I do understand Dahn's desire to have his motivations accurately presented here, even when it comes to small details. So I hope this addition serves to assuage his concerns. Further, I want to say I found his comments very cordial: they did not give me the impression that he was trying to prolong the dispute about the appropriateness of his response, but merely that he wanted an acknowledgment that his frustration arose out of more than a disagreement about spelling. I have no problem saying that I believe him about that. SnowRise let's rap 06:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    FeldmarschallGneisenau

    Hi. Can an administrator please take a look at the discussion going on at User talk:FeldmarschallGneisenau? It has became quite heated and turned from a policy debate to personal attacks. Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 03:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the real issue is the building evidence this user is a sockpuppet: User talk:Bbb23#Potential sock... Zenomonoz (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Maybe a SPI could be opened after an admin responds. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 05:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FeldmarschallGneisenau has been temporarily blocked, and accepted the block. No opinion about a SPI. Lectonar (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've opened an SPI investigation here NicolausPrime (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    Thank you. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 00:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AirshipJungleman29

    Could you please take appropriate administrative action against the user User:AirshipJungleman29 for violation of Civility policy of Wikipedia.

    There are the principles of discussion on talk pages of Wikipedia, such as Communicate (WP:TALK#COMMUNICATE), Stay on topic (WP:TALK#TOPIC), Be positive (WP:TALK#POSITIVE), Be polite, Make proposals (WP:TALK#PROPOSE), etc., that the user User:AirshipJungleman29 did not follow.

    I am not competent in interpreting Wikipedia rules, therefore I ask for help. Let me describe the situation so that you could make a fair conclusion. The discussion was at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AGood_article_nominations&diff=1219457528&oldid=1219300767 (diff), or see [129].

    Generally, User:AirshipJungleman29 engages in a discussion by making an argument but then declines to discuss the argument they made, switching the topic or using subjective terms such as "tedious" to characterize my arguments. If they find my arguments inappropriate or not worth discussing, they should not engage me in a discussion. But if they presented their opinion, they should have respect to my arguments in favour or against their opinion. They should not expect their opinion to be final and indiscussable. They should have respect to the other editors this way.

    Specifically, in a Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Major usability issue in the user interface of the Good Article nominations list - proposal to fix I made a proposal to present data in a GA nominees in a user-friendlier manner and gave arguments on what I thought a usability (design) error in presenting the information on counters. Instead of discussing on substance, such as whether the current counters are correctly displayed or they are not, or whether the proposal of me or another user is a correct way do display data; or whether the change the way of displaying data is worth implementing. Instead of discussing the substance, User:AirshipJungleman29 first objected on form, quote: ("Please take your concerns about accessibility and apply them to your own comments, which are probably second to none in sheer tediousness on this site"). When I asked User:AirshipJungleman29 to provide an example of this proposal in a form they find proper, they ignored and instead didn't stay on topic but raised a new topic that I and a user which was later blocked violate GA review rules. When I argued against this claim of User:AirshipJungleman29, they again avoided the discussion on substance but threatened me with ANI: "And if you do not cease your constant tediousness, I will be opening a thread at ANI". This is not a constructive way of discussing. If they didn't want any argument from me, they should not engage me in a discussion, but if they did, they should treat my reply with respect - this is in accordance of the "dot not fuel" principle (WP:DENY). By fuelling the discussion in that they do not intend to duly participate, moreover, ANI treats for "tediousness" is an intentionally toxic behaviour that should not be tolerated on Wikipedia talk.

    User:AirshipJungleman29 violates the essence of a healthy discussion, which is the willingness to engage in constructive dialogue and be open to different perspectives and respecting the arguments of others, even if they differ from one's own.

    When User:AirshipJungleman29 chooses to characterize my arguments as "tedious" rather than addressing them on their merits, it undermines the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. Everyone's contributions or opinions are valuable and deserve to be treated with respect.

    Moreover, the use of threats, such as the threat to open a thread at ANI, can create a hostile environment that discourages open discussion. Disagreements should be addressed in a respectful and constructive manner, rather than resorting to threats or intimidation. I am welcoming the ANI that User:AirshipJungleman29 threatened because I wanted to know whether my way of discussing things is generally OK, or it should be changed - I am always willing to learn and improve to behave better on Wikipedia, therefore, I would like to have an official position on whether the observations of User:AirshipJungleman29 or their ANI threats are substantiated or simply a threat with a purpose of intimidation.

    The principle of WP:DENY, or "do not fuel", emphasizes the importance of not engaging in unproductive discussions. If User:AirshipJungleman29 does not intend to participate constructively in the discussion, it may be best to disengage and focus on contributing positively to Wikipedia in other ways.

    Thank you! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you have diffs that aren't 50 diffs in a trench coat? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Special:Diff/1219306898
    2. Special:Diff/1219320957
    3. Special:Diff/1219383414
    4. Special:Diff/1219457019
    Maxim Masiutin (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    lord love a duck, this is seven hundred and sixteen words long. -- asilvering (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost 13 tweets. Levivich (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Quoting statements with diffs: In this discussion, AirshipJungleman29's comments to Maxim Masiutin:

    • [130] Please take your concerns about accessibility and apply them to your own comments, which are probably second to none in sheer tediousness on this site. You have been told such before, on this very page—if you can't remember, you will find it in the archives; no need for miffling about with "maybes".
    • [131] Yes, you and BeingObjective did not bother with the GA instructions, which clearly explain the GA process. If you look at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 30, you can find the sections relevant to you, through a process I believe nerds call "reading"—I don't know if you're as unfamiliar with it as you are with "clicking".
    • [132] No, the "usability error" affects only those who can't be bothered to read the instructions, such as the now-blocked BeingObjective and yourself. Everyone else has managed to get their heads around this, presumably because they spend their time reading instead of making assumptions.
    • [133] And if you do not cease your constant tediousness, I will be opening a thread at ANI to achieve the same result for you. You may take that as a final warning.

    Other editors also disagreed with Maxim's proposal but not with such contempt exasperation. edited to repair my initial word choice which I thought about overnight and decided was overly judgemental. Schazjmd (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you very much for the friendly presentation of diffs. Your way of presenting situation simply as "other editors also disagreed" is misleading because it was at least one editor who agreed. However, this is not relevant to the ANI since agreements or disagreements are normal process of discussion. My point is that discussions should be made in a proper, friendly and respectful way, on substance, without personal threats and intimidation and and should stay on topic - all the attributes of fruitful communications of Wikipedia violated by User:AirshipJungleman29. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I think Maxim Masiutin has made my point quite well for me. Interacting with them tends to leave everyone perpetually irritated and exasperated because of their constant WP:SEALIONing, WP:WALLOFTEXTs, and battleground behaviour. For example:
    Examples
      • from RoySmith: "You are causing a lot of trouble and wasting a lot of people's time. If you don't [walk away] you will surely end up being blocked." (incidentally, MM took this as a personal attack and demanded an apology)
      • also from Roy: "This guy is a menace. Either he's trolling us or this is the worst case of WP:CIR I've seen in a long time. Either way, he can't be allowed to continue to wreak havok on GA. I'm way too WP:INVOLVED so I can't block them. Could some non-involved admin please deal with this?
      • from Trainsandotherthings: "You ought to be blocked for the amount of bloviating you've done to date all based on your inability to follow simple instructions."
      • From Premeditated Chaos: "your behavior has now verged into the tendentious and downright cruel. If you persist, I will escalate this to ANI ... Your behavior is the cause of this. You are the one acting disruptive here. You chose to bludgeon that discussion to within an inch of its life, against half a dozen different editors telling you you were wrong. It is ironic to the point of painful that you harp about violating the rules and spirit of Wikipedia when you have been doing so"
      • also from PMC: "Fucking hell, man, take a step back and realize that every single person who has responded to you here has disagreed in one way or another with your interpretation of the criteria. You are the one who's in the wrong. You have been the entire time, and all the walls of text in the world are not going to change that."
      • From Firefangledfeathers: "Most of the kbs are yours, and it would help if you could provide briefer responses" (MM subsequently accused FFF of "cherry-picking sources")
      • From Serial Number 54129: "Please consider apologizing for wasting several editors' time."
    • If you do, for some reason, want to put yourself through the torturous process of reading MM's comments, a good example can be found at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 30#Understanding of p. 1b of the GA criteria (from which some of the above messages were taken), and the sections underneath it, along with WT:GAN at the moment, where they have contributed over 2,250 words in a day and three hours, EDIT: or their below conversation with asilvering.
    • Looking back on it, I should have brought this to ANI a lot sooner, and spent less time thinking that yelling at him on talk pages would somehow work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with you that I did omissions in the review process, as demonstrated by the link you gave, but you could address them in a constructive manner without personal attacks. I since that improved and the lasted GA drive demonstrated proper quality of my reviews: Wikipedia:Good_articles/GAN_Backlog_Drives/March_2024#Maxim_Masiutin. We should not put shame to people who can demonstrate that they can learn. Anyway, please stay focused on your behaviour as it is the essence of this ANI. Even if you think that other editors are wrong (and your position can be indeed justified), please present your position in a respectful way, without violating Wikipedia rules, as you show bad example to the other editors. Please cease and desist of your violations and show good example (which you did not in the link that you gave and the diffs that I gave). Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • And once again, you miss the point. I was not demonstrating the poor quality of your reviewing, I was demonstrating the effect you have on other editors. Have you ever heard of a WP:BOOMERANG? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with you that the effect was inappropriate. Still my mistakes can not serve as an excuse for your bad behaviour, please respect the cooperative spirit even if you think somebody is wrong, there are civilized ways to address somebody's wrongness. You show bad example for other editors. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As for WP:BOOMERANG, you probably mean that there is no "immunity" for reporters. I don't want to seek immunity, if I made something wrong I would like to hear it in a constructive way and/or take proportional punishment if needed to make lessons -- it should come from competent, calm and uninvolved person. You used of the term "yell" to describe your behaviour as a hint that you were not that person. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Maxim Masiutin, I am one such uninvolved person, and I cannot for the life of me understand what you hope to achieve with this. I was astonished by the responses to you on the GAN talk page here, [134], and wondered what on earth prompted multiple people to respond to you so curtly and rudely about something so minor. Then I found this ANI thread, and now I perfectly understand. @AirshipJungleman29 wasn't very kind when they said Well, I think Maxim Masiutin has made my point quite well for me, but I have to admit that I agree. More than 700 words to complain that someone was mean to you on the internet! Sealioning indeed. You say if I made something wrong I would like to hear it in a constructive way, but is that really true? I look at all of the exasperated responses AJ29 brought to this thread. Have they changed your behaviour? Do you know why people are annoyed with you? -- asilvering (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You raised a good point. Let us try to reconsider the old good rule of not fueling the discussion in which you don't like to participate. If you give an argument, be respectful for a counter-argument. If you don't have stamina to take a counter-argument with respect, simply avoid the discussion. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Seriously, does anyone else have any idea what he's on about? I have no clue. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]
      Could you please answer my questions? -- asilvering (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I cannot answer your questions in this thread because I think they are not relevant to my ANI for User:AirshipJungleman29, still, you may create a different topic instead. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, let no one say I didn't try. -- asilvering (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • AirshipJungleman used some rather blunt language that I would have suggested rewording, but it was not unwarranted. Maxim's accusations about failing to properly engage are unfounded, and these drawn out sealioning arguments that say nothing of substance are standard for Maxim. This is not the first time that he has been a timesink at WT:GAN, as Airship's examples show. Particularly telling is this post in which he blames others for his own misunderstanding of process before criticizing the block of a wikifriend over similar behavior, comparing the block to a wrongful execution by hanging that occurred in 1882. At a minimum, there needs to be a ban from the Good Article process for Maxim Masiutin, though I would not fault anyone for saying that there are broader CIR issues present. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I found working with User:Maneesh and User:BeingObjective immensely beneficial, until their unexpected for me but indefinite ban/block. I view this action as unjust because of disproportionality, likening it to an irreversible mistake, as their absence is permanent and we can no longer seek their input. While I found our collaboration to be positive and effective, other editors strongly disagreed, resulting in indefinite sanctions. The starkly contrasting opinions on User:Maneesh and User:BeingObjective reveal the critical role of compatibility among Wikipedia editors, a puzzle I am yet to decipher. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sealioning is absolutely out of control with this guy. If he's a troll, he's one of the most dedicated I've ever seen. But I think it's more likely he is just really like this, and if that's the case he's not compatible with the project. Block him. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • AirshipJungleman29 was uncivil, and should probably take that on board, along the lines of "less time thinking that yelling at him on talk pages would somehow work". However, I presume these reactions emerged not from this one post but from long-term frustration with similar behaviour. I would not disagree with Thebiguglyalien's assertion that "it was not unwarranted". Maxim Masiutin should wind back on their lengthy posts and examine their discussion style. CMD (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I will practice in Wikipedia:TLDR to get better. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I cannot answer your questions in this thread because I think they are not relevant to my ANI for User:AirshipJungleman29, still, you may create a different topic instead. Wow--talk about shooting oneself in the foot when claiming others are the problem. Clearly needs a break from GAN (or it needs a break from them), at the very least. Grandpallama (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      We have to follow the rules including WP:DENY and WP:TALK#TOPIC. The topic is ANI AirshipJungleman29. Let us keep in topic here, don't let the topic drift away. We can also discuss in an appropriate topic, and we have to be watchful. Therefore your analogy of shooting oneself in the foot is inappropriate as it encourages to change the topic in a current discussion rather than creating a new one in violation of WP:TALK#TOPIC - a rule which in my understanding applies to the current discussion as well. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Maxim, your understanding is incorrect. Anyone who brings another editor to ANI can expect to have their own conduct scrutinized. You should read WP:OUCH before trying to moderate this discussion any further. You presumably don't mean to come off like this, but I assure you that everyone else is reading your replies as condescending and out-of-touch. -- asilvering (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Is there a moderator here who will tell me which questions should I reply? Without the moderator I think that this question is irrelevant to my ANI as they relate to a distant case in the past, not the case I brought up for ANI. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Wikipedia:ANI advice may be helpful, especially points 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, and 17. I would also recommend reading WP:BOOMERANG, if you did not do so when I linked it above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You mentioned ANI against me in the GA talk page, now I don't understand why you mentioned the essay on boomerang. As for the ANI advice, it tells "don't assume that everyone who comments or gets involved with the matter is an administrator". Maxim Masiutin (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You have not tried to understand. I rest my case. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I can propose a friendly amicable settlement: if you seem that your objections can be settled by my commitment of not participating at all in Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations for at least a year, I can do so easily. I don't want to escalate conflict, and this page is of no vital importance for me. I want to make as productive environment for writing Wikipedia as possible. If you think that my proposal will serve the goal, please let me know. Still, I am interested on whether your behaviour that I indicated in this ANI was appropriate as an example for the other users to behave the same way. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maxim Masiutin's behaviour is pure sealioning and I think this thread should be closed. As a couple of others above have commented, AirshipJungleman29's language was harsher than needed at times, though I sympathize as Maxim's behaviour is very annoying. (As one's parents used to say, controlling your language when you haven't lost your temper doesn't get you any good behaviour point.). But there's nothing to be gained by extending this thread. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban proposal for Maxim Masiutin

    Everyone on Wikipedia is a volunteer, and editor time is our most valuable resource. The diffs provided by Schazjmd show that Maxim Masiutin has been a major timesink and has already exhausted the patience of numerous editors at WP:GAN. In this thread, even those editors who have been somewhat sympathetic to Maxim Masiutin have still acknowledged that AirshipJungleman29's frustration is both understandable and justified; that feeling of exasperation has expanded to include uninvolved editors participating in this discussion. I propose a 6-month topic ban for Maxim Masiutin from WP:GAN and its talkpage. Grandpallama (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In composing...

    In composing, as a general rule, run your pen through every other word you have written; you have no idea what vigour it will give your style.

    — Sydney Smith

    Maxim Masiutin, You ask how you can improve. Use the "show preview" next time you write something and delete at least 90% of what you have written. You simply write far too much, which is what nearly everyone has been telling you. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the best advice I ever received to resolve my issue (apart from stopping contributing). Thank you! I will follow it. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't feel like the particular interactions I had with you were problematic. However, this was the first or second GA review I participated in, so I don't know if the feedback was excessively detailed or long-winded, which seems to be one of the problems other editors have. I don't have much to say in this matter because I'm not really involved in the dispute. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The walls of text and sealioning are pernicious and egregious. In a case like this, where an editor can write content—there seems to be a consensus that they can, and after all that's court bottom line, so great—but not get on with colleagues so well, it makes sense to give them the opportunity to focus on what they can do without bogging everyone down in trivia. However, this is a collegiate project, and collegiate behavior should be a given, so a TB should be without prejudice to addressing the interaction issues if they don't change. (And as we speak they appear to be trying to negotiate the terms of their sanction?) ——Serial Number 54129 11:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I admit that my way of communication is inefficient to put it mildly and I have to improve my collaboration skills as suggested by User:Grandpallama. Still, I would like to hear an official position on whether the behavior of User:AirshipJungleman29 I mentioned in diffs in this ANI is appropriate, did User:AirshipJungleman29 commit violations of rules I mentioned? It will help me know the interpretation of the rules. My understanding of the rules is that they clearly violate rules. I don't understand why you avoid the topic I raised in this ANI. If there was no violation by User:AirshipJungleman29, please explain. If it was a violation, please admit it. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You could probably read the discussion yourself, but I can summarise if you want Maxim Masiutin: while some of my comments were harsh, they were perfectly understandable in the context of your sub-par behaviour, which has been detrimental enough to Wikipedia that your fellow editors think you need to be sanctioned. In this case, the sanction applies just to the GA process; in the future, the sanction may be a project-wide block, so I would recommend changing your behaviour ASAP. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I first ran into MM back in November and it took a lot of effort to stay my hand from an indef block for some combination of CIR, TROLL, and/or NOTHERE. I can't believe he's still at it. GA is a critical project function and can't function with problem editors like MM sucking up everybody's time. RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You wrote about me (see [[135]]) "Personally, I think he's being an ass". I considered it a personal attack. You wrote that you were an admin, but admins should not be awarded to people who commit personal attacks. Or maybe my interpretation of the term "personal attack" is wrong. It was my first GA review and I was incompetent, but when I read the rule on don't bite newcomers it did not definitely apply. I don't understand why you were enraged on a newcomer. You know how to avoid troubles. Long text - you don't have to read. Don't feed discussion you don't like. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      People who know me will recognize that I generally wave the WP:CIVIL flag more vigorously than most. That may give some insight into what it takes to goad me into using such language. RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Still people who don't know you see that you use "ass" and may think that it is a welcome behaviour on Wikipedia, especially considering your various administrative statuses. They may not have same merit as you still they will think that if RoySmith behaves this way why shouldn't I? Please avoid personal attacks at all and do not seek any excuse. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If you will apply to admin in the future, please ping me so I could bring the argument I mentioned about personal attack, or simply attach this link to you the application as a disclosure of your past behavior so the people who will decide on your application could make a weighed judgment. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      While I probably wouldn't use the phrase myself because of the possibility of it being misconstrued, FWIW I would not consider saying that someone is 'being an ass' is a personal attack. If I say that you are an ass, I am insulting you directly; if I say that you're being an ass, I am saying that your behaviour is unacceptable and that you need stop being an ass; to change your behaviour, in other words.
      If an experienced editor in good standing (which Roy undoubtedly is) told me that they thought I was being an ass, my first instinct would not be to wave around the personal attack rulebook, it would be to try to get my head around what their perception of my behaviour was, and what the problem with it was, and whether there's anything I need to change about the way I go about my editing here. (Feel free to hold me to this, all editors in good standing, if you ever think I'm acting like an ass.) Using the terms in which an argument is expressed as a reason to disregard the argument feels like some sort of logical fallacy to me; it's probably got a Latin name that I ought to know. Girth Summit (blether) 17:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think Tone policing covers it. Schazjmd (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with the arguments that Roy gave on my behavior on substance, but the form (using word "ass") was what I didn't like. I didn't know it is not insulting in some native language speakers (but I guess it was impolite anyway); still, Wikipedia is used by people with different language skill, so better to be careful. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      (after edit conflict) I admire RoySmith's restraint. I have read the discussion in question, and I'm sure I would have called your behaviour ass-like or something stronger much sooner. The same goes for your original complaint about AirshipJungleman29. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for the explanation, English is not my mothers tongue, so I might understand incorrectly. @RoySmith please forgive me for the wrong interpretation of your phrase. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as the bare minimum at this point. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I don't expect things will have improved in six months so this may just be kicking the can down the road but as Trainsandotherthings says this seems like the minimum. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from WP:GAN and to be clear, all parts of the GA process broadly construed. The process isn't compatible with sealioning or such an unrestrained sense of one's own importance that could produce, just now in this very thread, addressing RoySmith, "If you will apply to admin in the future, please ping me so I could bring the argument I mentioned about personal attack, or simply attach this link to you the application as a disclosure of your past behavior so the people who will decide on your application could make a weighed judgment." NebY (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, with the understanding that if MM brings similar behaviour to other areas of Wikipedia, they should expect to face not a topic ban, but a project wide one. —Kusma (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      exactly what I came here to say. This is the minimum. The behavior is inappropriate @Maxim Masiutin and if it doesn't change you will be blocked further. I was hovering over doing so before this subthread. So Support TB+ Star Mississippi 17:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Having read through several of the GA archive discussions involving Maxim, it's clear that his participation is sometimes more of a hindrance than a help to those processes. @Maxim Masiutin, I don't know if your approach to discussions is something you can change; I get the impression that you really don't grasp why so many other editors have become so frustrated. But I hope I'm wrong and that you can find a new approach. Schazjmd (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. He just doesn't get it. I've said this before but it bears repeating: editor time is the most precious commodity we have. People who waste it continually as MM has need to be shown the door sooner rather than later. Hopefully MM can stick to writing content without causing similar issues. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I initially did not want to touch this with a ten foot pole, but after getting randomly pung I feel that I ought to look it over and... yeah, this is a clear cut case. Maxim, the more walls of text you write trying to explain this, the worse it gets. I agree with PMC; wasting other editors' time in this respect is one of the most unhelpful things you can do, and Maxim seems dead-set on eating up as much of other editors' time as possible. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (I was not aware of this ANI thread until the earlier ping.) Maxim is a good writer who makes commendable biology articles, but this thread and my experience with the KET review have unfortunately shown that he lacks communication skills. I regretfully have to support the topic ban proposal. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support if I'd gotten to this thread earlier, I might have proposed an indef. Maxim Masiutin should consider this tban to be a final chance. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems to me that the issues could be resolved with a narrower block/ban from all GAN-related talk pages. "Blocks are preventative not punitive" and it's not clear to me why it is necessary to prevent MM from doing GAN reviews or nominations, if he doesn't interact with the talk pages. (t · c) buidhe 02:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It would not be a good idea for a user to be conducting GAN reviews while being barred from the GAN talk pages. Further, many of the root issues here stem from misunderstandings of the GACR, which would directly affect reviews. Nominations may be another matter that would require looking at some of their past GANs (I have not done so), but a ban from GAN talkpages should include a ban on reviewing. (Although it may be a good idea to grandfather in any ongoing nominations/reviews, simply to ease the flow of things.) CMD (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm torn about allowing submissions while banning reviews. Although there is no quid-pro-quo at GA, there is a general expectation that participants in GA (or any area of the wiki) will give back to the community by helping to keep it running. Allowing submissions while banning them from reviewing would subvert that. On the other hand, allowing them to continue to make submissions and get them reviewed will expose them to how a review is supposed to work, which may be educational. RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I may abstain from reviewing GA articles for as long as needed and only handle review process for the articles I already nominated (four at WP:GAN#BIO) without any new nominations. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: MM has proven the case within this discussion alone. Toughpigs (talk) 02:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - other editors shouldn't have to deal with this, it's too much to ask of volunteers. Levivich (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: I recognize that good intentions may be at the heart of this complaint, but the complaint is, frankly, unfounded. This has been a time sink for all those involved and I hope MM takes the time to reflect and better understand how their interactions are coming across. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support MM has good intentions, but good god, half their replies here read like an AI chatbot whose only instruction was beating around the bush while completely refusing to engage with any actual points made in the course of the discussion. AryKun (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It is true that I sometimes not understand what the Wikipedia editors mean. For example, on my usability proposal in GAN talk, AirshipJungleman29 replied with an ANI threat which I was not sure to materialize, so I was proactive and filed an ANI request where I explicitly asked to check my behaviour (Disagreements should be addressed in a respectful and constructive manner, rather than resorting to threats or intimidation. I am welcoming the ANI that User:AirshipJungleman29 threatened because I wanted to know whether my way of discussing things is generally OK, or it should be changed - I am always willing to learn and improve to behave better on Wikipedia, therefore, I would like to have an official position on whether the observations of User:AirshipJungleman29 or their ANI threats are substantiated or simply a threat with a purpose of intimidation). After uninvolved editors explained me when I am wrong, I thanked and proposed to abstain for at least a year from GAN talk, which is a kind of topic ban volunteerly accepted. Therefore, I don't understand some points: (1) why editors need discuss a topic ban for a lesser period (6 months), it is for the proportionality of punishment principe to put a lower punishment instead; (2) isn't letting the discussion go the waste of people time when it could be concluded a few days ago already on my proposal to abstain from GAN talk; (3) why people spend time adding and removing boomerang shop picture whereas boomerang is a projectile designed on target miss to return to caster to be reused against the target when I don't intend to file another ANI threat, and checking my actions and punishing them if needed was my initial intent of this ANI complaint, isn't a waste of people time to cyclically add and remove such a boomerang shop picture? Wikipedia is still a big puzzle for me. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Maxim, this very reply illustrates part of the problem. Your replies are overly long to the point of exhaustion and you post way too many of them; I get that you might want clarification sometimes, but everyone here is a volunteer and it can get annoying trying to address every paragraph long reply. WP:BOOMERANG is referring to how ANI reports can sometimes end up in the one who filed it getting sanctioned if their own behaviour has been less than ideal, analogously to an actual boomerang coming back to hit its thrower.
      Honestly, my only tip to you would be learning how to say what you want in a lot fewer words and realizing that some things about Wikipedia can only be learned by yourself; everyone here is a volunteer and not everyone has the patience to spend significant amounts of time teaching other experienced editors what they should be doing. AryKun (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You could have just said "I can't be bothered to apply what people are saying in this very discussion, so here's another tedious comment demanding that others tell me yet again what I've been told dozens of times" Maxim Masiutin. You could have followed Phil's advice to delete 90% of your comments before posting, as you said you would above. But no, we had to have another 300 words of tiresome prattle. You have 29,300 edits—you're not a newcomer—get a grip on yourself. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Please don't use AI to respond @Maxim Masiutin. That does not help your case. Star Mississippi 00:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Refusal to discuss addition of non-official Tamil scripts in articles about industrial zones

    Bringing to attention the chronic refusal by Visnu92 to discuss his persistent addition of Tamil scripts in articles about industrial zones in Malaysia ([136] and [137]). Discussion had been opened in WikiProject Malaysia as there had been no guidelines on Chinese and Tamil scripts in infrastructure-related articles, but said user has repeatedly ignored discussions eventhough he was tagged, a clear-cut refusal to seek consensus. hundenvonPG (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I left a warning on their talk page, in very clear terms and linked them to WP:Communication is required. I told them that the next block for disruptive editing may be for an indefinite period. They have already been warned, and blocked, before for refusing to communicate while reverting others in controversial ways. If they don't respond now to this ANI report, it is likely that some admin will indef block them until they DO communicate. An editor isn't required to ever talk to someone, unless they keep reverting or making controversial edits, which disrupts the normal editing process for everyone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. In fact, here was the case that resulted in him (a male, going by his own page) being blocked previously. Evidently, said user has persisted with similar behaviour after the block. hundenvonPG (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Courtesy ping for Dennis Brown. Just to note that it's been 2 days and from his edit history the past few hours, apparently he can't be bothered to communicate or justify himself here at all. hundenvonPG (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I can't block him for not coming here, no one is required to respond to ANI. He IS required to respond to the concerns, but his latest edit wasn't related to the reasons for the concern. Patience is recommended. He's only edited once, which was reverted, although I'm not sure why it was reverted as no one seems to use edit summaries. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Tendentious editing by Abhirup2441139

    Sock block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Abhirup2441139 has in the space of c 24 hrs created five copies of Draft:Arup Das under different titles as well as on their user page and sandbox, most with significant copyvios. I believe there is also a COI issue, which the user has not responded to (they also implied as much, by saying that they got the permission to use "all the materials" from the family of the person in question). Finally, there is now a new account Ad1959 joining the fray (and offering to report me to "authorities"), which I suspect is a puppet of some variety. Could we please apply some brakes here? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    hello, it is noteworthy to mention here that -DoubleGrazing has deliberately denied publishing of an article regarding a sports personality for some unknown bias and instead of shedding some advice on how such article should be published as it is a biography of a sports personality, this person has gone to lengths to deny publishing such article, I urge you to kindly go through the article and kindly let the article be cross checked by some other person as this person has clearly violated his powers to deny such with reasons being absurd kindly request you to take appropriate action against -DoubleGrazing and re review the article by an unbiased and helpful person Ad1959 (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Should we be concerned about this edit in the context of the one made immediately after? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 16:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Badly-written edits, WP:CIR issues and WP:OR by Baratiiman

    One month AE block was issued by ScottishFinnishRadish. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Baratiiman (talk · contribs) has made multiple instances of mistranslated statements, incoherent grammar raising serious questions about their WP:CIR and WP:OR that had been flagged by editors over a period of time but has refused to address the issue despite several warnings on their talk page. Their latest target has been 2024 Iranian strikes on Israel, where they have added material that is not supported by sources and falsely accuse me of censorship in the talk page. See

    For further reference, I am also showing multiple complaints that they had from me and other users over their editing, which they have never addressed, as well as other examples of questionable editing. I have already raised this in ANI early this year but no action was taken:

    For WP:CIR, a check of their contributions would find that a majority of their edits are badly written.

    Borgenland (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Zarah Abdurrahman

    Single-purpose account promoting Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi, ignoring past discussion at Talk:Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi#Content written like an advertisement * Pppery * it has begun... 14:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Does any admin intend to do something here? * Pppery * it has begun... 22:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what the best solution is here, to be honest. Their only edit since this started was to remove a little puffery in the lede. What really needs doing is gutting that article down to what actually is noteworthy, which I don't feel up to. For example, I don't see why the awards section even exists for non-notable awards, which is the padding that is propping up the puffery elsewhere. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page-blocked. Several users have made large edits to remove and tone down the promotional material, see here and here, but Zarah Abdurrahman immediately started building it up again. In September 2023, they removed the advert tag. This looks very much like an undisclosed paid editor, but whether or not, they are bad for the article. Even if they've done no harm since this started, Dennis (i.e., not in the past three days), they are a promotional SPA who has been working on the article since June 2023. We don't have to put up with that, and so I've blocked them from the article. They can still edit the talkpage. As for gutting the article, I agree, but I'm not going to do it, since I've taken admin action. Bishonen | tålk 15:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    LTA user created an account impersonating a religious institution, username promotion, and fringe theory promotion

    For the past 2 years, an incredibly disruptive user has been vandalizing pages related to South Asian topics; with their primary MO to inflate census numbers in favour of their religion, write general statements which aggrandize their language, Punjabi ethnicity, and religion, and to include the Ravidassia religion as part of Sikhism (Ravidassias were formerly a schismatic faction within Sikhism, after an attack on one of their temples and religious leaders, they split off from the Sikh religion and compiled their own religious book)

    They primarily use various 93*IPs which geolocate to Italy; some of their ranges include: 93.33.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), 93.32.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), 93.36.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), 93.45.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) etc. Hundreds of individual IPs within these ranges have been blocked (often for a short duration of time) for repeated vandalism + disruption.

    They recently created an account called DeraBallanOfficial, pretending to be the official representative of an apex Ravidas institution. Their user page promotes a fringe theory about the aforementioned attack on the Ravidas temple, which they've incorporated into their edits as well-[157], [158], [159]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If Ravidassias were part of officially part of Sikhism until 2009 that's only 15 years ago. How do you know that this account is the IP? Secretlondon (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said I've been dealing with and reporting these 93 IPs for a very long time: you can see all my reports on ARV-[160] which are almost exclusively about this editor. They're pretty dedicated to this narrative surrounding Ravidassias. You can also see the same type of edits from the 93 IPs: [161], [162], [163], [164], [165]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "DeraBallanOfficial" sounds like it is a straight up WP:UPOL violation whether they were legitimately an official representative of Dela Ballan or not. -- D'n'B-t -- 19:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Southasianhistorian8: It took me longer than I hoped to get back to looking more thoroughly into this, but I have done so now. The range of IP addresses used is far too large to consider blocking all of them, and even totally blocking a lot of subranges covering all the editing would be problematic too. However, I have blocked the IP ranges 93.32.0.0/16, 93.36.0.0/16, 93.45.0.0/16, and 93.55.0.0/16 from the articles Amritbani Guru Ravidass Ji, Dera (organization), Dera Sach Khand, Guru Ravidass Jayanti, Ramanand Dass, Ravidas Temple, and Sects of Sikhism for two years. It would be possible to add up to three more pages to that partial block (ten pages is the most that can be included in a partial block) but I have not done that yet, because I have not seen any other pages with substantial amounts of editing from this person, but you may well know of more, as you evidently have much more experience of this issue than I have. Other articles that I have seen, but with very small numbers of edits by this person, are Bihar, Gaddi Nashin, Religion in Bihar, Religion in the United Kingdom, and Satnampanth. It would also be possible to include more than ten pages by using smaller IP ranges for some of them. The range 93.33.0.0/16 is already totally blocked until 24 December 2024. Unfortunately, partial blocks in this situation are quite likely to just result in the person moving to other IP ranges, other articles, or both, so it's likely to be just a matter of damage limitation, rather than a cure. If you know of other IP ranges involved, or other articles significantly affected, please feel welcome to let me know, and I will consider extending the blocks. JBW (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks @JBW for looking into this, a partial block is great because it reduces collateral damage and at the same time it will at least significantly hamper this user's disruption who primarily uses logged out editing. Thank you very much for this. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Anonymous IP vandalism

    Recently I have come across anonymous multiple IP Vandalism on a series of articles. The series of articles are under this category: en:Category:Assembly constituencies of Andhra Pradesh. These articles are part of the election that is being conducted in India this may and these anonymous IPs are replacing the contesting candidate names and previously won candidates or contesting candidate names with derogatory terms in the local language. I have already requested for protection for 3 of the articles from the list and left notices for a few articles on one of the IP talk page. But still I don't think this is going to stop since these are multiple IPs and being vandalising idol time to time. One IP vandals and the other corrects it immediately. Not sure if both are related or different.

    Presenting the IPs that are contributing to the vandalism:

    I am of the opinion that all these are of the same user. 456legendtalk 00:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    And I am not sure if I am supposed to send a investigation notice to these IPs or not. Please advice me about my duties. 456legendtalk 00:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your comments on User talk:152.58.198.24. I think it is a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or something User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 00:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked one of the IP's contribs. They were editing a template. User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 00:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hamterous1 Please look into their contributions: [[166]]
    [[167]]
    [[168]]
    [[169]]
    [[170]]
    [[171]]
    [[172]]
    They are actually editing the names of the candidates with derogatory terms like whore, gay, ass and other terms that are nearest to the candidate name in the election boxes of the local language on these articles. 456legendtalk 00:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, ok User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 00:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you mean. User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 00:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked 152.58.198.0/23, which was low-hanging. An edit filter should be able to help with the rest. Take a look through these contributions and tell me if you see anything you haven't already stated (also please sort out any vandalism you come across). It would also be good if you could give specific examples, using diffs and translations, as this is hard work for non-local language speakers.
    For example, this edit is apparently in Maharashtra and Yanam Assembly constituency is somewhere else. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but since I am in a different time zone and may be a bit busy, I may not be able to look through these at certain times. User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 02:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought I'd provide an update. I've set up filter 1303 (hist · log) to provide some log-only tracking. At this time I haven't made the filter public, but that may change depending on a few factors. I've also blocked 2409:40F4:1110::/45 and 152.58.198.0/23 for two weeks. Both those ranges appear to be larger, perhaps anywhere up to /29 and /16 respectively, but balancing collateral I think that should take out the worst of it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unbanning user User:Dušan Kreheľ (bot)

    On 2022-10-29, while still having the bot flag and performing the task Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Dušan Kreheľ (bot), he was banned. Today, the bot no longer has a bot flag.

    I hereby request that you remove this ban as it is:

    • a longer time since the ban was granted,
    • neither the bot nor the bot manager performs any "malicious" task,
    • bot does not have bot rights, so if it wants to perform any activity, it must go through the approval process for the task,
    • the user has my bot on several wikipedias, so User:Dušan Kreheľ can learn from that one mistake.

    I, as the admin of bot user Dušan Kreheľ (bot). Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 07:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC) to --Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think your explanation as to why the bot was blocked is incredibly disingenuous. You were not blocked randomly while performing the bot task you had approval for, you were blocked for making thousands of edits deleting external links that you did not have permission or consensus for and which left many articles in a mess.
    I can't support an unblock here because this request doesn't actually address the issue that led to the bot being blocked in the first place. Additionally I think you are doing this process back to front - get approval to run a task first (which I think you are really going to struggle with given your history), then the bot can be unblocked. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 08:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The bot was blocked for editing outside of its mandate. If a new BRFA for this bot is successful, the bot will in due course be unblocked to allow it to edit again. I agree with the IP that this post is attempting to do things backwards - even if we did unblock the bot, it would not be able to edit until a BRFA is approved. Primefac (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dušan Kreheľ: I'm confused, in the new sentence you added(diff) "the user has my bot on several wikipedias, so he can learn from that one mistake.", who is "he"? – 143.208.238.208 (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Updated: Special:Diff/1219702739 --Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC), --Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 09:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. That makes more sense. – 143.208.238.208 (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I object to you playing this off as "one mistake". I think it would be far more accurate to say that making those edits was the "straw that broke the camel's back". You have had issues as a bot operator throughout your time here - you have been unwilling to follow proper process to get approval for automated editing, you have failed to get consensus for your edits (or you don't understand what consensus entails), and there are general WP:CIR issues regarding your English language skills and understanding of policy that make your suitability to be a bot operator questionable.
    You made those 2000 edits removing those links in a poor manner, in many cases deleting the only source those articles had, and leaving broken articles with empty external links sections e.g. [173]. The policy you quote in the edit summary, WP:LINKFARM does not support deleting official statistics websites from settlement articles. When asked to point to where consensus for this change was you left this link [174], where two bot operators on meta explained that mass deleting dead links would need consensus and is out of scope for an archiving bot, but you took that discussion as consensus for mass deletion? You added hundreds of misspelled sections to articles requiring someone else to clean up after you [175]. You used some kind of semi-automated script to add links to your own website [176] [177]. You have filed a number of vague, unactionable bot requests which basically boil down to "let me do whatever I want" and where you appear to have issues understanding or responding to concerns or questions that other editors raised [178] [179]. Even though your bot was blocked and it's permission to run revoked it looks like you've been running it from your normal account [180]?
    If you want to run a bot again you are going to have an uphill battle. You should pick a small, well defined task, get other editors to help you work out the exact details of it (including checking small details, like date formats, spelling, article/wikitext layout...) get consensus at a relevant wikiproject and/or village pump and follow the bot approval process to the letter (no running hundreds of "test edits" without permission, explain the task clearly, respond to questions appropriately...). The English wikipedia is quite strict when it comes to running bots, and "make edits first, ask for permission later" is not the way to go about it - you need to take a lot of care and make sure other editors agree with the edits. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    as @Xaosflux said When it is ready to be used again, just file a new Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, unblocking will be done when a trial is approved. — xaosflux Talk 16:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC) There is no reason to be unblocked now, and no indication in your recent edits that you understand the issues raised and won't repeat them. You seem to lack the competence to operate a bot here (as do I - but I'm not trying). Change BAG's minds with a successful BRFA and then you can be unblocked. Consider a block on the main account if IP 86's diffs are an ongoing issue. Star Mississippi 16:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, Star Mississippi. We seem to have a flood of CIR issues this year, at one level or another. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Crusading movement

    Administrators may well remember that I raised this recently, particularly regarding the behavior of @Borsoka. Having experienced his ways of working before it was obvious the was on a mission to attack this article as he has done others before. It is a MO of raising huge numbers of changes/tags/comments until all other editors lose the will to live. While accepting he has commendable commitment and energy for WP, he appears to have a blind spot when it comes to working in a consensual way. Especially, on topics that are more ambiguous, like this one.

    Additionally, it must be admitted that the article had issues of close paraphrasing from the sources. I was working my way through these, where identified to remediate the issues. In fact I think this is an important article that I would work with anyone to improve.

    However, he has listed this article at GAR, flooded the nomination with his comments and actually delisted the article himself. This does not seem to be due process.

    JohnbodJenhawk777—FYI. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrongly templated Borsoka Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTHERE may be applicable. Norfolkbigfish is obviously unable to edit without close paraphrasing. I gave them a chance to clean the article from plagiarism more than a week ago, but he could not. My detailed comments and reasoning can be read on the GAR page. I suggested them that they should review "his" other articles, such as House of Plantagenet from copyvio perspective as well. Borsoka (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not strictly accurate, I was working through this article as fast as real life would allow, rewriting section by section. A neutral review would have been welcome, as can be seen by the original GAN, 2 x peer reviews and extensive MILHIST ACR. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And at the end of those it still wasn't a good article. Remsense诉 10:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It passed both GAN and ACR Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only because the reviewers didn't notice it failed the criteria due to being plagiarized. Remsense诉 10:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not quite as simple as it seems at first glance. Yes, there is a pretty long and acrimonious discussion (from both sides), but the fundamental issue is that Borsoka has made a number of credible claims of copyvio/CLOP—supported by numerous examples—which NBF seems unable (or unwilling) to grasp. It is good that OP is slowly making their way through the article and rewriting it; but copyvio should be removed at the first opportunity. Also noting that close paraphrasing/OR concerns were previously raised at the article's previous iteration, where NBF was a major contributor to. This may test the premise that NBF is as capable of recognising CLOP as might be expected.
    For GAR due process, see WP:GA/R. And why has NBF pinged two other editors above. ——Serial Number 54129 10:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we call copy-pasting CLIP and close paraphrasing CLOP, then we could have WP:CLIPCLOP. EEng 14:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think my 29 replies in 8 days to the GAR, with associated edits to the article, demonstrates good faith in this matter Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As also stated on WP:GA (I recommend against forum shopping on this), good articles simply cannot contain any plagiarism, which was present in this article as described. If someone was willing to be patient as you describe while this was dealt with, it would be going above and beyond what is expected of them. 'twas not a consensual process with the writers you've plagiarized either. Remsense诉 10:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My principal problem was that even after his edits during the GAR, a whole section remained filled with closely paraphrased texts. By now, Norfolkbigfish has twice reverted my closing of the GAR. Although they could have started the review of "their" other articles to detect plagiarism. I am not sure whether Norfolkbigfish wants to build an encyclopedia or only wants to receive WP credentials for texts copied from historians' works at any rate. Borsoka (talk) 10:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All issues raised have been cleared. Mistakes have been made, but have been rectified when raised. This won't be repeated by me. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, even after your edits during GAR a whole section contains plagiarism. You have filled articles with copied texts for years. Examples can be read on the FAC review page. I could have delisted the article soon after opening its GAR. Instead I gave you a chance for 10 days. I draw your attention to the dangers of plagiarism years ago but you continued to copy texts from copyrighted material. Borsoka (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WHY is this at ANI again??? As mentioned at WT:GAN, Borsoka should obviously revert the GAR closure as an INVOLVED action which contravenes the GAR instructions, and Norfolkbigfish really needs to get a handle on when escalating a dispute here is a good idea, especially when it looks very much like WP:FORUMSHOPPING. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Plagiarism is too serious an issue. I gave Norfolkbigfish a last chance. Borsoka (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the whole point here @Borsoka, you didn't give me a chance. Or not least a reasonable one. In 8 days I responded 29 times to your points and made the associated changes to the article. You knew full well I was working my way through the article section by section, you could have been patient. You were not. Instead you prematurely closed a review that you should have recused yourself from as WP:INVOLVED. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AirshipJungleman29, the simple answer is that I was looking for help. All feedback is welcome, even that which is challenging, as yours has been on occasions. As you write Borsoka should revert his GAR closure as involved, but no one was likely to suggest that without some form of escalation. If this is the wrong channel please suggest a more suitable one. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would also be wrong to give equal weight to two dissimilar behaviors: wrongly closing a discussion =/= copyright violation, which may have legal considerations, or plagiarism. ——Serial Number 54129 11:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a key difference @Serial Number 54129, I am attempting to resolve my behaviour. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I wonder if this could have been prevented if the IBAN proposed here was implemented. Either way I'd expect someome with over 10 years on here and who had copying trouble in the past to be more careful than this when adding content. Nobody (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you think that I should not have reviewed Norfolkbigfish's article? Blatant and constant plagiarism would have remained a problem. Borsoka (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you see plagiarism you shoud obviously point it out. But with the history between you two, I'm not sure you are the right person to review their nominations. Nobody (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have expicitly pointed it out several times for years. During the FAC review, other reviewers opposed on the same ground. Yes, I have been suspecting for years that Norfolkbigfish should not edit not only because of persistent plagiarism. Borsoka (talk) 12:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point @1AmNobody24, acknowledged and accepted. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Norfolkbigfish: your above remarks show that you still do not understand that plagiarism is a serious issue. You are still struggling for your GA badge and accusing me of misconduct instead of reviewing your many articles. Let's forget that both myself and an other editor detected your plagiarism years ago ([183], [184]), and let's begin with the FAC review. During the FAC review I detected many cases of plagiarism (these are listed here), and some of my finds were confirmed by an other reviewer ([185]), thus the FAC failed. On 8 April 2024, I opened a GAR and explicitly draw your attention to the dangers of plagiarism, suggesting that "the article should be cleaned of copyright violations and plagiarism as soon as possible, because copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues" in the last sentence of the opening paragraph ([186]). Remember that a more experienced editor warned me, that the article should have been delisted [187], and you told me "I appreciate, as you say, the chance to clear the article, thank you for that." ([188]) During the review, I repeated this advice, stating that "this is an extremly urgent task ... I cannot exclude that the whole article will be deleted for plagiarism" ([189]). Later, experiencing that you do not take this issue seriously, and your are discussing other (in comparison minor) issues, I also noted that "Clearing the article from plagiarism would be a progress. All other issues are less relevant for the time being." ([190]). In the meantime, I was reviewing your edits. During this review, I realised that you failed to address close paraphrasing in several sentences in a section that you rewrote ([191]). You have been warned several times and by multiple editors during the last years, but you have not learnt. You received a last chance, but you failed to clean the article. Instead, you entered into petty discussions about petty issues on the reassessment page, although I repeatedly warned you the importance of the issue. After I closed the GAR and delisted the article, you did not begin to clean it, but you began a struggle for your undeserved GA badge: you took me to ANI and tried to diss me on Diannaa's Talk page ([192]). (I sought Dianna's assistance to solve this serious issue.) Are you sure that you are here to build an encyclopedia? For me, your persistent and blatant plagiarism indicates "General pattern of disruptive behavior", and your struggle for your GA badge suggests that you want "to gain as many awards as possible". I suggest you should drop the stick and try to help other editors to clean your articles from your plagiarism. Borsoka (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As has been explained to you by @AirshipJungleman29, @Borsoka it was not for you to nominate the article at GAR, flood the review with comments and then fail and delist without the involvement of anyone else. You were wp:involved. You should revert this and allow an uninvolved reviewer consider it. I happily admit my mistakes and am/was working towards rectifying them. As far as I am aware this has progressed far enough that all the copyright issues you have raised have been resolved. If you have any outstanding please feel free to add them to the articles talk page and I would be happy to rectify them. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • You still do not understand the problem: you are struggling for your undeserved GA badge. If I were you I would stop editing other pages than Crusading movement, House of Lancaster, House of Plantagenet. Borsoka (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reverted the close as out of process—individual reassessments were last year deprecated to avoid this sort of situation. I suggest, to avoid Borsoka getting stuck in a WP:FIXLOOP he does not deserve to be in, that you attempt to fix all plagiarism concerns in the article, and then ping Borsoka; if he spots any more issues, he can simply !vote to delist, and an uninvolved closer will take that into account when closing the discussion. I suggest that you also moderate your tone Norfolkbigfish; your conduct has been substantially inferior to Borsoka's. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think WP:CRD for blatant plagiarism is to be applied here, and the article should be reduced to the redirect page it used to be before Norfolkbigfish started to fill the page with texts copied from copyrighted material. Borsoka (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Star Mississippi. NBF's comment above—'I am attempting to resolve my behaviour'—is troubling to say the least. They've been here 16 years,but it's okay to still be learning not to plagiarise?! In fact, not even learning, just attempting to?! No way. ——Serial Number 54129 10:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Legal threats at Talk:Shiva_Ayyadurai

    Diff: There is obvious slander and even legal libel that I’ve recorded and sent in that him and other editors have been consistently returning to the page to keep up.

    They also have a lot to say about me personally, so I'd rather not respond myself any further. - MrOllie (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked by EvergreenFir as a WP:SOCK of Fung4022. --Yamla (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of whom appear to be HERE, but I have stock in WP:ROPE companies so I like to drive up its consumption. I've left Fung4022 unblocked for now. I doubt that it's the original account though. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    EvergreenFir, so you're going long on ROPE...?  ;) ——Serial Number 54129 13:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Spam-only account

    UPE/Spam. INDEFFed either way Star Mississippi 13:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Zimidar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) enough rope given, seems to be here just to promote their clients. 95.107.255.234 (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition, their files on Wikimedia Commons have all been deleted, and they seem to be spamming on Urdu Wiki as well. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the timing and edits (the first 500 in particular), it does look like gaming to get extended confirm status. Plus I noticed MMW removed the AFC tag on their page (good move), after they moved a draft to Bilal Talib, which itself, DOES look like pure undisclosed paid editing, and its a dumpster fire of an article. I will let someone else send to AFD (it needs it), but it seems obvious from the sources and prose. I will credit to the patience they displayed getting to this point, which is rare, but it is still a problem that needs to be dealt with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found this response to be a bit bizarre. [193] Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the deleted contribs (admin only link), it seems kind of obvious this is undeclared paid editing, particularly when I compare the English skills on the talk page versus the articles themselves, ie: they might not have written the prose themselves, a common paid editing style. I would like another admin or two to opine before I do anything, as non-admin can't see the deleted contribs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Diskyboy and Philadelphia IPs combining in edit wars

    To me it appears that Diskyboy is violating WP:MULTIPLE by using several IPs from Philadelphia along with his registered username. The IPs are Special:Contributions/2601:40:C580:11B0:497B:1768:D7D0:9E03, Special:Contributions/2601:40:C580:11B0:8B:899E:6861:95B3 and Special:Contributions/73.30.109.234. The edit-warring is taking place at Solitude (Black Sabbath song) and Black Sabbath (album). Binksternet (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Opened a SPI as well.@Binksternet Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Me Da Wikipedian, please see Tamzin's essay User:Tamzin/SPI is expensive. I don't think opening an SPI is necessary as ANI is a much faster-acting noticeboard and that could be considered forum shopping. Also, Checkusers cannot publicly connect registered accounts to IPs. Thanks! —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 22:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's forum shopping at all. The part about CUs is true. I've indeffed the named account at the SPI, and blocked the IPs for a couple of days each.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sexist comment by Chris Troutman

    Blocked one week by Ingenuity. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I was pretty shocked by this comment to LDickinson by Chris troutman, where he suggests that women are biologically "more interested in people than things", and not "predisposed to accept confrontation and answer those questions directly" or "managing confrontation". I see from these comments by Firefly and Novem Linguae that I was not the only person to read these comments as Troutman complaining that he would rather be talking to a man, or — my interpretation — that the WMF should only hire men for such roles.

    Such comments are wildly inappropriate for an encyclopedia where, last time I checked, we are operating in the 21st century. Regardless of what Jordan Peterson has to say about it, suggesting to a woman's face that she is biologically inferior and should be replaced with a man who is "biologically predisposed" to "manage confrontation" seems pretty beyond the pale from an experienced editor (or an inexperienced one). Confrontationally yours, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    His comments are already repulsive on their own, but him calling Jordan Peterson "insightful" really made me mad. In 2024, people who push those opinions onwiki should be promptly indeffed, no ifs or buts about it. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "If I were asking questions about accountability, I might prefer to ask someone who is biologically predisposed to accept confrontation and answer those questions directly." what on earth. Secretlondon (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What the hell. I've blocked them for a week for that completely unacceptable comment. Not opposed to further sanctions. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 22:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good block by Ingenuity. Some people with psychology degrees (not me) might also conclude that replying to questions about accountability with a statement that one feels attacked or uncomfortable are typical of those who are more interested in people than things.—In addition to uncivilly averring that WMF ought to have hired a man, Chris Troutman seems to have neglected Wikipedia's policy on civility and that policy's recommendation to attempt to be open with a user when emotions are hurt and one is made to feel unsafe. LDickinson followed that recommendation in the reply that Chris Troutman regarded so dismissively (and no amount of couching that dismissal it in saying that some people would say it but not me—for those people were not the ones who posted it via Chris Troutman's account—exculpates the comment; it's the very same talking-around-it approach that discomfitted LDickinson to begin with. Civility is a policy and a core pillar of the project and layers of abstraction aren't a defense). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The comment in question was a response to my previous criticism of LDickinson for making a claim about WMF finances then refusing to discuss whether the claim was factual despite multiple people questioning it. For the record, I was unaware of LDickinson's gender until just now and reject the idea that the all-too-common practice of WMF employees refusing to engage the community in discussion is in any way gender based. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that a worthy discussion on the questions here would still be fruitful Tonymetz 💬 05:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great block. Mr. Troutman has been on an incivility spree for many years with no action or response from the community until now. I would invite interested parties to review his talk page history of warnings from just the beginning of this year until now as just one small example. It's one thing to get overheated in a discussion; it happens to the best of us. But Mr. Troutman appears to relish going out of his way to be as cruel as possible, and it's wonderful to see someone finally put a stop to it. His citing of Jordan Peterson, a deeply disturbed individual who is at the forefront of the modern culture wars funded by right-wing billionaires, is even more unusual. The timing with the right-wing attacks on Katherine Maher at NPR makes me think it's just a coincidence, but there is something in the air at the moment. Viriditas (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great block. Comments like that are unacceptable anywhere. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 01:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm often skeptical of the necessity of blocks of experienced editors, but I think this one was warranted. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the preliminary assessment by Viriditas, and have myself observed low level incivility and personal attacks by troutman going back many years. Chris's general demeanor is often unnecessarily unfriendly and confrontational any time a disagreement arises. I have been coughing and running a fever in the last 48 hours although I just tested negative for COVID-19, and so I do not have the energy for a detailed investigation. I encourage other capable editors to do a deeper dive. Cullen328 (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @Cullen328: hope you're feeling better. I did do a small dive and found some issues with civility: [194] (although he apologized later), [195], his response in [196], [197], [198], you give the impression you've ignored what I wrote due to your single-minded obsession. [199], and [200]. Again, this is just from a quick check. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 03:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And this is not a new problem. [201] ‍Relativity ⚡️ 03:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also did a quick search. A 2018 discussion ended with a civility reminder, about a year after he was warned that admins could sanction him for any further infractions in the link you provided. I also saw some transphobic comments at Athaenara's siteban discussion a year and a half ago to which several transgender and non-binary editors expressed discomfort, but everyone just dropped the issue after the discussion closed. It's an open secret that Chris has always ignored basic expectations around incivility and bigotry that—until today—no one has ever done anything about beyond finger wag. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Going through their talk history I was reminded of [202] which sort of seems ironic considering what resulted in this thread since I guess we should only have male admins anyway because females cannot handle confrontation or something. (Or maybe we should only have female admins because the males are only interested in things and not people?) Anyway while the earlier comment is not sanctionable, I do think their latest comment proves that they were right back in 2022. The writing is indeed on the wall, and Chris troutman isn't someone suited for editing wikipedia which has nothing to do with their biology but all because of their willingness to say fundamentally unacceptable things to others here. Given their defence of another editor who similarly personally attacked someone with highly offensive commentary, it's perhaps not surprising they have now done the same. Nil Einne (talk) 04:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a disinterested third party. Swift action seems to have been taken on the subject. It's poor behavior to continue piling onto the subject especially since they've been blocked and are unable to defend themselves.
    I would like to see a better deliberation process where the subject can present a defense through a third party. Regardless, I don't see anything of value being added here now that action has already been taken. Tonymetz 💬 05:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tonymetz, please be aware that Chris troutman can edit their own talk page and can make constructive comments there and ask that those comments be copied over here. Although I assume that your unable to defend themselves remark was in good faith, it is incorrect factually. Please check into things before commenting. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's hardly a viable way to have a discussion. The pile-on is out of line. What good is being contributed here? The user has been blocked. Tonymetz 💬 05:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User talk:Narek48thunderchicken26

    Narek48thunderchicken26's TPA revoked --Lenticel (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please remove TPA, there are WP:CIR issues and general misuse of TPA. Courtesy ping @ToBeFree. v/r - Seawolf35 T--C 02:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for requesting this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Raid on Tendra Spit infobox

    Recently, I conducted a review of the subject article in which the infobox was ultimately removed because it contained false, dubious or misleading information, some of which falls to WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Once such material was removed, there was no reasonable justification to retain the infobox. A TP discussion was created at Talk:Raid on Tendra Spit#Review of article and Talk:Raid on Tendra Spit#Revert in which the issues relating to the infobox have been clearly articulated. Salfanto readded the infobox here with the view that an infobox was somehow mandatory for such an article. They have readded another version of the infobox here, which retains some (but not all) of the material identified in the TP discussion as being inappropriate. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Cinderella157, the issue of whether or not an article ought to have an infobox is entirely unrelated to the question of the accuracy of the content in the infobox. If there are inaccuracies, correct them. If you want to remove the infobox, then make a policy based argument at Talk: Raid_on_Tendra_Spit. Cullen328 (talk) 06:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is the reinstatement of the dubious information that was identified and corrected. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:M.Bitton and WP:CPP

    I would like to call attention to M.Bitton and what seems to be an intractable pattern of WP:OWNership and civil POV-pushing. I considered the edit warring noticeboard or DR (3O has already failed), but decided to come to ANI because this appears to be a longstanding pattern.

    We have been talking for some time and his responses have been increasingly indefensible as he continues to wholesale revert any change to shakshouka. The article came to my attention because one of my randomly-assigned wiki-mentees asked for help. At first I thought M.Bitton was just a bit impatient and bitey with this newbie (I expressed that concern here), but I am now concerned that there is a much larger problematic pattern of behaviour. In this content dispute, M.Bitton has ignored this 3O and repeatedly reverted full-article edits over a single word in the lead: [203] [204] [205], refusing to engage constructively on the talk page: [206] [207] [208] [209]. I particularly want to highlight their response after that last revert, where they tell me I must base my edits on the three sources I had in fact just used: [210] [211] They appear to address my suggested edits here (apparently reading my contribution for the first time after reverting it) but not in a constructive spirit.

    Their talk page history suggests that they have a pattern of obstructionism: [212][213][214] [215][216] [217] Especially worrisome to me are the edit summaries, where M.Bitton responds to these requests for more constructive editing by calling them insults. I got curious about whether this was a pattern; in addition to their block log, searching M.Bitton's name at ANI suggests that the Maghreb topic area has led them into conflict before: 2023 2023 2021 2021 2015

    All of this suggests that there are major problems that have been going on for a long time. I truly do not care about shakshuka and am only trying to resolve, using academic sources, the content issue that my mentee was struggling with; nevertheless, I have been accused of POV-pushing and have found the article impossible to edit. Could an admin please investigate? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    We have been talking for some time no we haven't. While I have been making proposals on how to improve the article, your only input has been in response to the POV that you've been trying to impose through an edit war. Your first so-called bold edit involved a revert of Skitash's edit that sidelined my proposal and ignored everything that was said on the TP.
    M.Bitton has ignored this 3O that's a lie! see my response them.
    they tell me I must base my edits on the three sources that's another lie. Here's what suggested (inviting others to provide the needed RS).
    They appear to address my suggested edits... not in a constructive spirit. the serious concerns that I raised with regard to your misrepresentation of the sources speak for themselves (there are others that I will highlight once you start responding). Understandably, it's a lot easier to run to ANI than to justify the unjustifiable. M.Bitton (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, I meant that you ignored the advice of the 3O, which was against your POV. For the rest, I honestly think the shakshuka talk page speaks for itself. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The quotes and diffs that prove that you lied talk for themselves. M.Bitton (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe I have misrepresented the diffs here or the sources I attempted to use in the article. I am happy to provide any additional context or explanation requested by an admin looking into this matter. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what WP:OWN is. M.Bitton was simply restoring the article back to its longstanding version that has been in place for ages. I suggest you read WP:STATUSQUO, which advises against reverting away from the longstanding version amidst a dispute discussion to avoid an edit war. The talk page discussion doesn't show a clear consensus, and I don't find the arguments from Raturous and you compelling. Removing "Maghrebi" from the lead isn't justified, especially when the only source from a food historian in the article confirms it as a Maghrebi dish. Skitash (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a consensus to rewrite: the thing to do would be to rewrite that section using the highest quality RS we can find[218] before my first rewrite and As for the body (specifically, the origin section), I can go ahead and rewrite it now using the only source that is written by a food historian (everything else will go)[219] before my second rewrite. Why should M.Bitton be allowed to (theoretically) do a full rewrite and not me? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your out of context quoting has to stop. I only suggested a full rewrite of the origin section and I was looking for and sharing what I found on the talk page, while asking others to share any RS that could be used. What you did (misrepresenting the sources that I found, obliterating the etymology section and changing the lead section to push your POV) is simply unacceptable. M.Bitton (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur your arguments and those of Raturous are not especially compelling. I also don't see that the WP:OWN claims are particularly valid, nor do I think the claim that M.Bitton has failed to engage constructively at the talkpage is accurate. A cursory examination of the talkpage shows that this specific issue has been a flashpoint in the article's history over which there has been significant discussion and consensus, and M.Bitton has clearly laid out concerns with the changes and the need for high quality sources. Separately, some of the other evidence presented here is pretty poor: there is nothing wrong with the edit summaries M.Bitton has used on his talkpage; the contextless links and claim that M.Bitton has been to ANI about this issue multiple times ignore the outcomes of those discussions, at least two of which involved the other editor blocked, and the other three more or less exonerating M.Bitton. Strongly suggest this report, which seems disruptive, be withdrawn by the filer. Grandpallama (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    disruptive article creation

    Ya YouLe began their editing by hijacking Irfan Haider and writing about Irfan Hyder Laghari [220], after taking a hiatus of two years they returned today and created 4 articles about the members of the non notable Laghari family ( see [221]) ,I've tagged their recently created article Niaz Ali Laghari for deletion, I think admin intervention is necessary to prevent disruptive article creation.Ratnahastin (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Four CSD in a day. If they continue, they may find themselves blocked for disruption to the project. The primary issue is WP:webhost, and I imagine they don't understand they can't just make articles on all their family members, but this discussion should hopefully clear that up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Issues with User:晓谷

    Now globally locked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:晓谷 is already blocked indefinitely on the Chinese Mandarin Wikipedia. The majority of their edits here are reverted. Every 2–3 months, they remove content from List of languages by total number of speakers and List of languages by number of native speakers to change "Cantonese" for "Yue" (but by doing so, they also tend to revert all other edits made in between):

    I warned them on their talk page to no avail:

    Not sure what else I can do. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    They were confirmed to be a sock of some user on zhwiki. Hence I've requested a glock on meta:Steward requests/Global. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 13:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User talk:Countscarter

    Since registration, @Countscarter has been adding unsourced content along with providing little to no communication with other editors, including the near-total lack of edit summaries. They were also in a brief edit war over the article for Fixed (such as here), providing no references for justification and insisted on their edits through word of mouth. They have been warned for their actions about eight times (mostly for this month), including by me. After recent unsourced contributions on The Ark and the Aardvark (here) and Universal Pictures Home Entertainment (here), I decided I can no longer assume good faith in this user.

    I've been tracking and mostly reverting Countscarter's edits for about a couple of weeks now since finding one of their contributions suspicious, although I have forgotten the initial article that grabbed my attention. I initially made a report on the Teahouse before moving to here out of suggestion by @Tenryuu and then deciding to wait afterwards to give another chance. Unfortunately, in the eight days since the Teahouse report, I found little to no improvements in Countscarter's editing, with only about a couple of edits (such as with here, albeit reverted) using sources. Lastly to note they've made dozens of such edits on Scene It?; I suggest someone review the article's quality since there's too many edits to focus on briefly. If I have done anything unintentionally out of malice, please let me know. Carlinal (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked them for 48 hours as a means to get them to engage and left them a talk page message explaining this - I recommend that any further discussion continues there. firefly ( t · c ) 15:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ayush219

    The account Ayush219 (talk · contribs · count) was registered earlier this week and started editing today, and immediately went on to mass replace Bhumihar (which is a caste in India) with Bhumihar Brahmin, i.e., claiming a specific social status for that caste (despite a lack of consensus for that status in multiple discussions at Talk:Bhumihar). The user did not stop their mass changes despite multiple reverts and several warnings posted to their Talk. When finally stopped, their responses were far from collaborative; while their response to a routine CT notice was essentially a PA. Is it only me that feel they are here only to promote their own caste and not to build an encylopaedia? — kashmīrī TALK 21:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    kashmīrī tried to identify me from a particular caste and promoted casteism, which is derogatory in India. I don't come from that particular caste. Ayush219 (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Caste is a sensitive topic in India, so demeaning them is same as raceism. I request Admin to take necessary action against this user. Ayush219 (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what you are writing about. Your words about the Bhumihar caste: But there should be people belonging to that community also. Its a small community. Outsiders shouldn't dictate the terms which is very personal make it appear that you consider the Bhumihar caste "very personal", and so I responded politely pointing you to our policies about the conflict of interest. I don't think your aggressive tone is warranted, and I don't feel you understand what Wikipedia is about. — kashmīrī TALK 21:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said I don't belong to this caste, but you seem to be against this particular caste. Trying to demean it and implement some kind of superiority above them. I didn't like your this behavior towards a particular caste. Its a clear case of casteism here. Your tone represent racial supremacy. Ayush219 (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand Wikipedia. It should post only authentic information. As I said some parts of the article is giving half information and misleading people. I requested that only but you started judging me from a caste point of view. I expect admin to consider this. Ayush219 (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ayush219, Kashmiri has given you links to previous discussions on the subject and explained that you should get consensus before making these mass changes, but I can't find anywhere that he's written anything demeaning toward Bhumihar caste nor toward you. If you're going to accuse another editor of such things, you should provide diffs as evidence. Schazjmd (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I will. As I am doing some research about different communities, I found lots of misinformation in the The current article Bhumihar. I raised a few questions in the talk also. From few discussions What I understood that Kasmiri is a bit aggressive and trying to show a particular part of the information. Using Census reference to show some half information and using another source to counter the census information in some part.
    I expect authenticity of the article for the above mentioned reasons. Ayush219 (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ayush219 I'm still waiting for diffs. Also, this is about your behaviour and your groundless accusations. Are you planning to walk them back? Do you have anything to say about your mass edits against consensus? — kashmīrī TALK 01:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ayush219, please be aware that accusing another editor of racial supremacy and saying that the editor is against this particular caste. Trying to demean it and implement some kind of superiority above them is a very grave matter here on Wikipedia. You are expected to immediately provide convincing evidence in the form of diffs showing quite clearly that the other editor is misbehaving that way. You have thusfar failed to do so. Unsubstantiated accusations like this consitite personal attacks and failure to Assume good faith, both of which are blockable offenses. Please be aware that Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups imposes heightened responsibilities on editors contributing to all caste, Jāti and Varna (Hinduism) related articles. You must now do one of two things: Either provide convincing evidence of actual misconduct by Kashmiri, or unambiguously withdraw your accusations. Caste warriors are simply not welcome on the Engish Wikipedia. The choice between those two options is yours. Cullen328 (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Before you reply, Ayush219, please also consider these facts which are not dispositive but are certainly worth pondering: Kashmiri has been editing for almost 16 years, has made over 40,000 edits, and has no valid blocks. You, on the other hand, have been editing for one day, have 79 edits, and are at immediate risk of being blocked. Which among you is most likely to better understand Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines? Cullen328 (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:John Foxe

    On three separate occasions[222][223][224], User:John Foxe has removed maintenance tags while a discussion is ongoing on the talk page. In the third instance, the editor was reminded of the policy and did it anyway[225]. The editor is highly experienced, having been on Wikipedia since 2006 and should know better than to engage in disruptive editing.--User:Namiba 22:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have thrice prompted User:Namiba to provide sourced evidence that maintenance tags were necessary for this Good Article, listed as such since 2009. He has not provided any, apparently believing his POV trumps the considerable number of secondary sources cited. Otherwise, there's no ongoing discussion on the talk page. (Interestingly, Namiba is also highly experienced and has been on Wikipedia since 2006.) John Foxe (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [involved] @Namiba, If your goal is to collaboratively rewrite the article with neutral language, it doesn't really matter whether the article has a tag at the top during that rewrite or not. In fact, you'll probably get more cooperation from the regulars if you forget the tag at the top of the article and focus on the individual sentences you feel are too peacocky. Just my 2¢ ~Awilley (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that once someone tags an article, it is up to you to start the discussion on the talk page if you get reverted while removing it. Someone has to start. If the tag is truly superfluous, it shouldn't take long to get a few others to say as much. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is both parties' job to start a discussion on the talk page. I have sympathy with John Foxe's position, but the article talk page is the place to discuss it. One thing that seems to have taken hold on Wikipedia is that you are somehow losing face by starting a talk page discussion rather than saying that the other party should start it. You are not. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand what you mean. I started a discussion about this on April 15. While the discussion has been ongoing, the tags were repeatedly removed. The tags are meant to encourage participation so removing them is an attempt to stifle a discussion.--User:Namiba 12:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see now. I made the mistake of believing this user when he said, "there's no ongoing discussion on the talk page". Phil Bridger (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for review of partial block from CopyPatrol

    The place to start discussion is User talk:JJMC89 before coming here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello,

    I recently got "partially blocked" from CopyPatrol by JJMC89. I am writing to ask for someone to please review this block.

    I am not here to "play games", or mess around with Wikipedia. All I wanted to do was help. I want to make it clear that I want to be a good contributor to the encyclopedia and I am happy to learn from my mistakes.

    I understand that I have made some mistakes when using it, such as not following up on the copyright violations, and I am very willing to learn from this. However, I did not expect to be blocked completely and have a black mark on my record. I feel that this block is disproportionate given my actions. Particularly, I tried my best to use the tool properly. I know that this tool is not a toy. I think that it would be a lot better if I were informed of my mistakes, prior to such a block being imposed against me. I am more than happy to do more reading to further understand the tool prior to using it again.

    Thank you in advance for reviewing my block and I look forward to a response regarding this. WizardGamer775 (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Why didn't you first discuss this with the admin who blocked you? This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. What exactly is urgent about this or what is the behavioral issue, other than your own, which resulted in your pblock? Isaidnoway (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, this is not urgent. I think I posted it to the wrong place. Nevertheless, I will discuss this with the admin who blocked me. WizardGamer775 (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Cfls

    I would like to report user Cfls for their poor editing behavior, including large-scale deletions, bias, and lack of good faith in discussions. Cfls has been involved in numerous disputes on talk pages regarding editing decisions on Chinese academic institutions, university classifications, and content deletions. Their editing behavior has resulted in the loss of valuable content.

    Some specific issues are:

    1. Large-scale deletions: Cfls has repeatedly removed large amounts of content from articles like Fudan University, Shanghai University, and Huazhong University of Science and Technology. They have deleted well-sourced historical information and replaced it with minimal introductory paragraphs, significantly impacting the quality and comprehensiveness of these articles.

    2. Misinterpretation and Misapplication of Policies: The user often justifies these deletions by citing WP:NOTADVERT, WP:RS, WP:NOT, and WP:BOOSTER, but fails to provide concrete explanations for why specific content violates these policies. They have removed references to reputable sources like Times Higher Education and Shanghai Ranking, claiming they don't meet Wikipedia's reliability standards, which contradicts established consensus on these sources. They appears to misinterpret policies like WP:BOOSTER and WP:NPOV to justify removing factual information and descriptive language.

    3. Lack of good faith: Cfls often replies to criticism with long, passive-aggressive paragraphs (possibly generated by ChatGPT) and dismissive comments. Instead of engaging in constructive discussions, Cfls avoids addressing specific concerns and accuses others of bias or not understanding Wikipedia policies.

    4. Talk Page Misuse: Cfls is now frequently emptying their talk page by marking discussions as "archived," even though these disputes are clearly not settled, which seems to be an attempt to avoid criticism. This behavior raises doubts about their good faith.

    I kindly request that administrators review the editing history and talk page discussions of Cfls, and take appropriate actions (such as warnings, topic bans, or blocks) based on their findings. 61.224.112.80 (talk) 05:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • We aren't going to go on a fishing expedition here. Unless you provide specific links and say what policy it violates, you are wasting your time and ours. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Apology for not providing specific links earlier. I'm not an experienced editor. I would like to present the following examples of Cfls' behavior to demonstrate their mass deletions and lack of constructive engagement in discussions:
      Fudan University: Cfls eliminated a significant portion of the content in the "History" section, including well-sourced historical information, and replaced it with a minimal introductory paragraph. They also removed a paragraph explaining the meaning of the university's name, despite it being well-sourced.[226]
      Shanghai University: A large portion of the "History" section was deleted, with Cfls citing only WP:NPOV and WP:BOOSTER as justification, without providing any specific issues with the content.[227]
      Similar situation happened to Huazhong University of Science and Technology [228], Zhejiang University [229], and other smaller universities like Beijing City University [230].
      In each case, Cfls did not attempt to improve the existing content, find better sources, or engage in constructive discussions on the talk pages. Instead, they consistently chose mass deletion as their primary editing strategy.
      Additionally, Cfls has been deleting criticism and ongoing disputes on their talk page by archiving discussions prematurely:
      Archived without resolution: A discussion about Cfls' edits on Chinese academic institutions was twice archived, despite the issue remaining unresolved. [231][232]
      Criticism deleted: Criticism regarding Cfls' unilateral archive was again twice deleted in another archived discussion. [233][234]
      I hope these specific examples provide enough evidence to warrant a review of Cfls' editing behavior. Thank you for your understanding and attention to this matter. 61.224.112.80 (talk) 08:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Most of those are content, not behavioural, issues. You say that Cfls did not attempt to engage in constructive discussions on the talk pages. Did you? I mean on article, not user, talk pages, which are where content issues potentially of interest to more than one editor are discussed. The claimed issues with their user talk page are non-issues. Anyone can delete almost anything from their user talk page, per WP:OWNTALK. The most serious issue that you raised initially was with the potential use of ChatGPT. I note that you provided no diffs for that. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for the guidance. Sorry for not distinguishing between content and behavioural issues properly. I will use article talk pages to discuss content-related concerns in the future.
      As for the use of ChatGPT, it is challenging to prove with absolute certainty. However, I have strong reasons to believe that Cfls has been using it based on the distinctive language patterns and structure in their replies, as shown in the examples provided below. These replies are unusually long, overly formal, and contain complex sentence structures that are not typical of casual human writing. When put through zerogpt.com, the first response received a 57% GPT rating, which means a high likelihood of being generated by a language model.
      Here are first example (from Cfls' talk page):
      "I would like to emphasize that my edits were made in strict compliance with Wikipedia's mandatory policies, including WP:BOOSTER, WP:NOT, and WP:NOTADVERT. I encourage you to review these guidelines thoroughly before forming an opinion on this matter.
      Your observation regarding my edits on the pages of Chinese academic institutions is noted. However, it's important to clarify that these edits were not made irresponsibly or indiscriminately. My intention was to streamline the content to ensure it adheres to Wikipedia's standards for neutrality and verifiability. The substantial reduction in content, though seemingly drastic, was an effort to eliminate promotional material and unverified claims, which is a common challenge in Wikipedia entries about academic institutions.
      It's crucial to understand that Wikipedia is not a repository for exhaustive histories or detailed profiles but rather a platform for concise, reliable, and verifiable information. The decision to condense the content was based on the need to align these articles with similar standards applied globally to academic institutions on Wikipedia. It was not a move to undermine the importance or reputation of these institutions.
      Regarding your concern about the elimination of contributions from other users, it's worth noting that Wikipedia encourages continuous editing and improvement of its content. My edits were not intended to diminish the value of previous contributions but to refine the content for accuracy and compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines.
      In light of your feedback, I am open to constructive dialogue and collaboration. If there are specific concerns about the sources used or the content removed, I welcome a discussion on the respective talk pages of these institutions. This collaborative approach would ensure that the content remains robust, credible, and reflective of the collective knowledge of the Wikipedia community." [235]
      The second one (While this one not as obviously generated by ChatGPT, it shows structural and linguistic similarities to the first example. The use of certain phrases and the overall structure suggest that it was influenced by, if not entirely written by, ChatGPT.):
      "I appreciate your engagement and the opportunity to further clarify my position and actions on Wikipedia. It's essential to address some misconceptions and provide a broader context for my edits.
      Firstly, the assertion that I have removed 'adjective words' and relevant links indiscriminately overlooks the core of Wikipedia's editing philosophy. My focus has been on ensuring that every piece of content adheres to Wikipedia's standards for neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), no advertising (WP:NOTADVERT), verifiability (WP:VERIFY), and no original research (WP:ORIGINAL). For educational institution entries, the anti-academic boosterism policy (WP:BOOSTER) is also in force. In many cases, 'adjective words' are laden with promotional or subjective tones not suitable for an encyclopedia, which demands objectivity. When links and references were removed, it was because they did not meet the reliability criteria essential for Wikipedia (WP:RS), not because of an oversight or disregard for the institutions' history, reputation, and impact.
      Your comments suggest a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies on neutrality and the inclusion of verifiable information. It's imperative to recognize that Wikipedia is not a platform for unmoderated praise or promotional content, but rather for balanced, fact-based information supported by reliable sources. My editing approach has been consistent across various articles, aiming to uphold these standards universally, not just for specific institutions or geographies.
      Accusations of targeting certain institutions or applying rules inconsistently are serious and warrant reflection. However, these claims are unfounded in this context. My edits across diverse subjects strive for consistency with Wikipedia's global standards, contributing to an unbiased and informative encyclopedia. This approach is in no way arbitrary but grounded in established guidelines.
      Concerning the allegations of a condescending attitude, it is not my intention to demean or belittle any institution or individual. My objective is to contribute positively to Wikipedia, fostering a respectful and collaborative editing environment. I encourage open dialogue and constructive criticism, which are foundational to our collective endeavor on Wikipedia.
      On the point of suspected sock puppetry, it was not an accusation but a precautionary measure advised by Wikipedia's policies (WP:SOCK). The integrity of the editing process is paramount, and adherence to these guidelines ensures a fair and transparent contribution environment for all users.
      In light of your feedback, if there are specific content that is intended to be added, please open a discussion on the respective talk pages of the institution and gain community consensus before adding the contested content. This collaborative approach would ensure that the content remains robust, credible, and reflective of the collective knowledge of the Wikipedia community." [236] 61.224.112.80 (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This doesn't look like ChatGPT to me. GPT Zero is really inaccurate, and 57% isn't that high of a score. I don't understand what is passive-aggressive about this - if anything, it is the opposite, as the text is very informative and links to several policies and is also open to other views. As Dennis Brown pointed out, your best bet would be to go to the talk page of all the articles and come to a compromise. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 09:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think GPT Zero tends to flag anything that is written in a formal register. To avoid it flagging you it is best to write things in 1990s textspeak (as some users think they should on Wikipedia), complete with "u" for "you" etc. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      All good points above and below. I'd note that if we go back to older comments from Cfls like [237] [238] I'm not seeing a significant difference between what the IP highlighted and how they talked then. But that was in February 2022 so before ChatGPT existed. Nil Einne (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because something has a source, that doesn't guarantee it will be included. Otherwise, all articles would be a collection of trivia. As for the other edits he made, referencing WP:BOOSTER/WP:OR, that is what most people would call "good editing". He stripped out whole sections that were not sourced, and/or that simply were promotional or "booster-ism" in nature. This is a desired activity. I just glanced at a few of the edits and didn't see any problem with the edits, so many there is some middle ground on these, but there is no obvious policy violation going on with his editing. Again, just because something has a citation, that doesn't guarantee it will be included.
    If you disagree, well okay, then go to the talk page of each article and present your case and let a consensus of editors decide what should and shouldn't be included. The end result might be your version, his version, or something in between. These are editorial decisions, made by editors, not admins. But his removal of content seems perfectly in line with editing policy. As for ChatGPT, that is simply conjecture on your part and you provide no evidence, or even a link to any specific edit that you feel was generated by ChatGPT, so I see no need to investigate that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Points 2, 3, and 4 are largely vacuous: Cfls's communication is fine. It's a bit much to have an issue with the brief citation of guidelines, but then baselessly accuse them of using ChatGPT when they do decide to explain their rationale in detail. Whatever legitimate content disputes per point 1 that may exist should be discussed on the relevant talk page, per suggestions above. Remsense诉 01:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Danteishere

    Continuously uploading undesirable posters of Vijay films. I believe the poster used should be the original release poster, but he uses re-release and teaser ones. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    that recent one was a old original poster 😨 I uploaded I found it on pinterest.com since recent Vijay old film posters are bad shape I was trying to use a hd poster what's wrong with that is it a crime? Danteishere (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In this article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghilli#/media/File%3AGhilli_poster.jpg Danteishere (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hold on. "I found it on pinterest.com"? So you are unaware of the copyright status of these and you're just uploading images you find on the internet without updating the copyright status and free use justification criteria? Canterbury Tail talk 17:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The movie was released on 17 April. When there's a poster advertising that date, best to use it, right? Alright, this user's most recent upload wasn't so bad quality, but the pic shouldn't be less than 220px. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The important thing is that its copyright is compatible or that we can use it under the "fair use" provision of copyright law. Quality and resolution are only relevant when those hurdles have been passed. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Its just 200px and hd good quality so I thought it comes under fair use sorry admin hereafter I won't upload without taking proper concern have a nice day🙏 Danteishere (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    IP & Editor1249339333 adding nonsense to BLP article as an attempt to tarnish reputation/attack the person

    The following IP as well as user has been adding nonsensical/opinionated text to the Tarek Loubani article. You can see their additions in the lede as well as later in the article regarding Loubani being shot in the leg.

    Looking at the article history, you can see that Editor1249339333's initial additions were reverted by an IP and were added again. After I went ahead and reverted it myself, the IP 142.198.108.139 would once again add everything back, even after being warned by myself in both their talk page and in my edit comment.

    Given the fact that their only edits are on the article about him, it's clear that the sole purpose of this IP & account is to attack Tarek Loubani. I'm requesting somebody with the authority to either lock the article, block the account/IP, or anything else that would be suitable for this. Thanks, B3251 (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The edit in question was about a minor charge, not a conviction, based on a primary source. It definitely falls foul of WP:UNDUE, WP:BLPCRIME and probably other policies. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. I have indeffed the account as NOTHERE and pblocked the IP from the article (with logged-in editors from that IP included). Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Should the edits in question then be RD2'd? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Block lengths

    Hi there! This is for @Smalljim: your talk page is semi-protected so I have no other way of contacting you.

    You recently blocked Kiss.immak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and WelshDragoon19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – both are obvious vandalism-only accounts: Kiss is an anti-Israel edit warrior, Dragoon is an sockpuppeting LTA and harasser.

    I am at a loss as to why both only got 31 hours off. In 31 hours, both will clearly be back doing the same edits again. This, to me, seems insane. 92.17.14.64 (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked them quickly to stop the edit warring. Being unfamiliar with either account, I was looking at the position when you pinged me. Expect amended blocks shortly. Incidentally I didn't choose to semi- my talk page and if Yamla were to choose to undo that protection, I wouldn't complain.  —Smalljim  20:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a pretty extreme WP:LTA who was targeting Smalljim's talk page. Really nasty, deeply disturbing garbage. Smalljim, you are more than welcome to unprotect your talk page. 92.17.14.64, I'm sorry this affected your ability to reach out to Smalljim. --Yamla (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologise to both of you if I sounded angry/upset for not being able to reach Jim directly – the opening para of my post was to explain why I didn't go directly to Jim, as I wanted to do, and came here instead. It was emphatically not meant as a criticism of the semi-projection. 92.17.14.64 (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ghosting consensus & constantly reverting

    • I really ask you to familiarize yourself with this issue, and it is worth considering that the dispute is only about the edits of the user Auzandil, I did not make my own changes, but only returned the article to the original version. The user tries in every possible way to hide, to make insignificant the main version of the origin of the people. Bringing under-recognized theories to the forefront in the process. Apparently, the member does not want to seek consensus, and he just rolls back edits to the version he likes for more than the third time in a day, apparently violating Wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artem Petrov CHV (talk • contribs) 20:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)<diff>[reply]
      You should both continue the discussion at Talk:Chuvash_people#Recent_changes, and if you're unable to work through your differences, follow the steps at dispute resolution. @Artem Petrov CHV:, I did notice in that talk page discussion that Auzandil is providing sources for their suggestions and you haven't. It would probably help that discussion along if you cited your sources. Schazjmd (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm telling you, I'm not adding information from myself, I'm just returning the version of the article to the one that was before the user Auzandil. There is no contribution on my part so that I give them sources, I return an article written from the attached sources, which was consensual for a long time and satisfied everyone until an expert in the field of all languages appeared Auzandil Artem Petrov CHV (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This was a dead article, poorly documented and changed a bit from month to month. No one including you bother to look at references and read them. Once again, no one says that Chuvash are definitely not Bulgars. But scholars are split into two/three on this matter. They are not sure whether Chuvash is Sabir, Bolgar or another distinct Oghur language. Readers will see the discussion in the article body on this matter. Both of our personal opinion does not matter. We cannot force article into one side. Be neutral.
      Why even the version old version you protected say "Since surviving literary records for the non-Chuvash members of Oghuric are scant, exact position of Chuvash within the Oghuric family cannot be determined." What does this mean, my friend? Tell me. We discussed once again in talk page. In etymology there is a reference you protected even it says it is debated whether Chuvash are direct descendant of Bulgars or Sabirs. Auzandil (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Schazjmd I was waited him for a month to answer me. He keep reverted weeks to weeks without saying anything until now. Please find a volunteer moderator who will look at our discussion and create a latest version for the page. Auzandil (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You are both well past Wp:3RR on your edits. There's no obvious vandalism so any accusations of such, and valid reversion are invalid. And if you're reverting an article to a previous version, you're indeed endorsing that version especially when you do it multiple times. Canterbury Tail talk 21:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I personally endorsing my version. A third mouth about this matter is needed for our discussion because consensus is impossible. I explained what and why I did in my version. If endorsement is clear, when the "hoax" and "copy-pastes" will come out in old version, he might get blocked for this. Auzandil (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Gaming by Justin L. 1230

    Last year, Justin L. 1230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made hundreds of minor edits that are an obvious attempt at WP:GAMING EC, such as editing articles by adding a single letter at a time (e.g. [239] [240]). They are now making contentious edits in the Israel-Palestine topic area [241]. Can their EC status be revoked? Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've revoked EC. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 00:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nirva20

    This account appeared out of nowhere and was EXTREMELY active with page moves, racking up more than 19,000 edits in just 3 months, many of them article page moves. Most of the article page moves that occurred were abbreviations of the article subjects name, either dropping middle names or middle initials or other changes that served to shorten the article subject's proper name. I had some great suspicions about this account and brought them up on User talk:Nirva20 several times. I even mentioned my doubts to other editors/admins but without going through the article references myself, I couldn't easily verify that these page titles were improper and I didn't have the time to investigate the dozens of article page moves they did on a daily basis. I watch the Move log and they were a high volume page mover, I'd say many of their large edit count were page moves, all of them biographies.

    They've now been identified as a sockpuppet of User:Rms125a@hotmail.com and I'm just wondering if there should be a review of their page moves. I'm not familiar with Rms125a@hotmail.com so I don't know if they were basically a competent editor and we can rely on these being valid page moves or not. I understand that this would be a big project to undertake but maybe there are editors who like projects like this. If on the other hand, Rms125a@hotmail.com was a good editor blocked for behavioral reasons, perhaps this is unnecessary so I'm calling on longtimers who have a good memory for your opinion on this. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    They have done 1754 page moves, according to their move logs. – 143.208.239.226 (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1220152526"