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 77.103.193.166 (talk) at 11:02, 8 May 2024 (→None of you are here to build an encyclopedia: new section). 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]
    • I don't have much time, so I will just note that while I have previously thought Pataliputra needs to cool it with the images, they are—let's be honest—about as biased as any of us in the minefield of Central/West/South Asian topics. I would oppose any sanction that goes further than restrictions on image-adding. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A restriction for image-adding was what I initially would support too. However, with Pataliputra's evasion of the evidence presented here, I support harsher restrictions. Otherwise, they will no doubt continue with their conduct, as they have already done for years. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I honestly don't see much evidence presented. Diffs like [52] and [53] are nothingburgers, not worth escalating to demanding a broad topic ban. The brouhaha about Talk:India has no relevance to the proposed ban on Central Asian/Turkic topics. Pataliputra and I often don't get along, but this is too far. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      AirshipJungleman29, the reason I put a DNAU in several days is to avoid the thread getting suddenly archived by either lack of comments or the DNAU suddenly expiring. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @AirshipJungleman29 Can you please show what supports this claim? [54] The proposal is ongoing, and current agreement seems to be a least an image restriction. Pataliputra shouldn't just be able to get away with whatever they want. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      HistoryofIran at the top of this page it says "Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III." It is not your responsibility to clerk this page on behalf of the administrators by altering this intended feature of how ANI functions, whether or not you feel Pataliputra is "getting away with what they want". Although this discussion has been open for over a month now and is the oldest discussion at this page by a margin of two weeks, the proposal has only attracted five !votes in a week, and none for three days. I request that if you feel a DNAU is needed, you ask an administrator to add it for you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is not convincing. I can name you countless threads which have led to the block (often indef) of someone thanks to a DNAU. If not for that, they would still be roaming around, doing their disruptive editing, and thus hurting this project. Some threads take longer than others to reach a conclusion, especially if they are longer. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A good example is this recent case. First report auto-archived [55], which led to more disruption, which made me file a second report [56], which would have gotten auto-archived too if not for the DNAU. The user ended up getting indeffed. I fail to see how Pataliputra's case should be treated differently, especially when we have proof that they have been doing this for years. Also, only a few months ago you yourself mentioned that Pataliputra had engaged in WP:OR [57] HistoryofIran (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, there is evidence of years of WP:OR and image spamming, as well as repeated WP:ASPERSIONS in this thread. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does Pataliputra's personal attack ("hurt some Armenian sensitivities") merit a sanction on its own? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:31, 9 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 [58].
    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"... [59]: 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'm suspicious of users who seem to deny the existence of foreign influences in their art or culture" It is amazing how you continue casting aspersions in every new comment explaining/apologizing for the former incident of casting aspersions. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:25, 22 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,[60] then Pataliputra restored his edit with a simple edit summary;[61] 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[62] which was reverted[63] 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 [64]), 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" [65]. 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 [66] ("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 [67] 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 [68]). 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]

    Topic ban proposal for पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)

    The diffs provided above show that Pataliputra has repeatedly made original research and synthesis edits, and made personal attacks and casting aspersions even after being told to stop doing so. Multiple users have acknowledged the need for a topic ban and/or other sanctions. I propose a 6-month to 1-year topic ban for पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) from Central Asian, Iranic, Turkic, Armenian, and Caucasus articles and a restriction on any image-adding. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose TBAN, support restriction on adding images to articles, trout for WP:OR issues. As someone uninvolved who doesn't edit in this topic area, I see a relatively prolific editor with bad habits. If they don't stop adding OR to articles about churches further action should be taken, but I don't think there's enough here to merit a complete TBAN. There is more than enough evidence to show that they do not have good judgement on adding images though. BrigadierG (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per my above comment and provided evidences. Pataliputra was blocked for sockpuppetry in December 2017 and unblocked in June 2018.[69] Now they have a clean record and they just use their main account. So again, 6-month or 1-year topic ban could be helpful. Another point is their comments prove they think their edits were 100% OK. When a user refuses to accept his/her mistakes, then it is time for topic ban or block. Final warning or ultimatum does not work for cases like this especially since Pataliputra doing such stuff for years. They can edit other topics/articles and then appeal for unban after 6-month or 1-year. As for images, a strict restriction is necessary. --Mann Mann (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a topic ban as the first solution, or the image-adding restriction if the topic ban fails to get enough traction. This has gone on long enough & Pataliputra needs to start taking criticism of their edits on board. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonharojjashi, part 2

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

    TLDR: These past months Jonharojjashi has been making disruptive off-Wiki coordinations to disrupt Wikipedia together with other users, many being socks/indeffed due to their disruption.

    Since I had a screenshot of Jonharojjashi trying to recruit someone into their Discord group for Wikipedia coordination (which they outright denied [70], not the best choice when I have a literal picture, makes you look even more suspicious) I took it to ArbCom per WP:OUTING. They recommended me to come back here to ANI. I believe all these actions were done through the Discord.

    These past months there have been a surge of "new" users making the same WP:TENDENTIOUS edits, making use of the same (poor/misused) sources, all in India-related (generally war/battle) articles, many of them being the exact same topic, including poorly written *insert Indian victory here* articles. Because of this, I initially made two SPIs against Jonharojjashi's and co. [71] [72], but they were mostly fruitless.

    Jonharojjashi and the indeffed user Mr Anonymous 699

    1. Both accounts created roughly three months between each other. Their EIU [73] shows some quite suspicious stuff, including them edit warring together at Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent and kinda repeating each other [74]. Another user who was edit warring with them in that article was Indo12122, a brand new user who is now indeffed (I'll get to that next sub-section).
    2. Mr Anonymous 699 and Jonharojjashi also edit warred together at Kambojas in a WP:TENDENTIOUS manner [75]
    3. At Kanishka's war with Parthia, Mr Anonymous 699 restored [76] the pov addition of Jonharojjashi.

    Jonharojjashi and the sock Indo12122

    1. As mentioned above, Indo12122 was also part of the edit warring efforts of Jonharojjashi and the now indeffed user Mr Anonymous 699 at Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent [77] [78] [79] [80]
    2. After I reverted one of Indo12122's socks, Mr Anonymous 699 randomly reverted me at Chola invasion of Kedah [81]
    3. Jonharojjashi made a WP:POVFORK variant of Kingdom of Khotan [82], trying to push a legendary story obviously not supported by WP:RS to Indianize the Kingdom of Khotan. Just coincidentally not long ago one of the socks of Indo12122 also attempted to Indianize the topic in the article itself [83]. More proof that this can't all be a coincidence.
    4. When multiple concerns were made over the article at Talk:Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh (created by Shakib ul hassan), Indo12122's sock Magadhan3933 suddenly appeared and started defending it. Whats even more suspicious, Magadhan3933 (Indo12122) also created literally the same article Draft:Campaigns of Chandragupta II Vikramaditya two days after Shakib ul hassan, which was even randomly edited by Jonharojjashi [84] [85]

    Jonharojjashi and the sock Shakib ul hassan

    1. Jonharojjashi has a history of making poorly made/sourced POV battle/war articles which conveniently result in the (often decisive) victory for an Indian entity. They initially made such a poor article Vikramaditya's west Oxus valley campaign, which not only use similar citations (Muzaffar and Fodor who are not even WP:RS) as Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh by brand new user Shakib ul hassan, but even another user noted that they were quite similar in the comment of the former article; "This seems quite similar to Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh, is it the same campaign?".
    2. Like Jonharojjashi, Shakib ul hassan also misuses sources, only using the part that satisfies their POV and omitting the rest of what it says as noted by me here [86] [87]. They also both randomly requiested the protection of Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh [88] [89] under the false reason of "vandalism" (I'm not sure they understand what the word means).
    3. Brand new and now indeffed user HistoricPilled, is a sock of User:Thewikiuser1999, and has a very similar EIA [90] to all these users. As seen in the edit history of Maratha–Sikh Clashes, HistoricPilled and Shakib ul hassan build on each others edits for example. At Bajirao I, they edit warred together [91] [92].

    Jonharojjashi and the sock Melechha and indeffed user Aryan330

    1. Melechha created a wikitable in Ahom–Mughal conflicts [93], which was some days after promptly edited by Jonharojjashi [94]
    2. Same here; Melechha creates a Wikitable at Luso–Maratha War (1729–1732) [95], then its heavily edited by Jonharojjashi [96]
    3. And the same here again, Melechha creates a Wikitable at Dogra–Tibetan war [97], then heavily edited by Jonharojjashi [98]
    4. Indeffed user Aryan330 and Melechha's sock EditorPandit edited warred at Maratha–Portuguese War (1683–1684) [99] [100]. Guess who joined them later? That is right, Jonharojjashi [101]
    5. Melechha's sock Msangharak trying to save the then POV infested Kanishka's war with Parthia by Jonharojjashi after it got nominated for deletion [102] [103] [104] [105] [106]

    Jonharojjashi and the sock Rowlatt11

    Jonharojjashi more or less restored [107] the unsourced edit [108] by Rowlatt11's sock Daayush.

    Closing remark

    In made response to my previous ANI [109], Jonharojjashi made a ridiculous SPI [110] of me and many other users who had called them out for their disruption. Instead of addressing the points, they simply dismissed the whole report as "WP:HOUNDING" and "biting newcomers", so I'm not going to reply to their incoming comments here unless an admin wants me to.

    There is no way that these all coincidences, how many indeffed users/socks have Jonharojjashi interacted with in such a short time? Especially when I have a literally picture of Jonharojjashi trying to recruit members and denying it. These indeffed users/socks are no doubt members of the Discord. Jonharojjashi and the Discord they lead should not be allowed to edit here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    So this is the third time HistoryofIran has distressed me with his unfruitful SPIs and ANIs, these several attempts made by them to indef me, shows how much they are craved. If they can't prove me doing On-wiki canvassing then they are trying to get me blocked for doing alleged off wiki canvassing. Nevertheless I'll again refute all the points made by historyofIran for me doing any kind of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry.
    "I believe all these actions were done through the Discord. Yes, you believe, I don't know what you have got to prove me doing Off-wiki canvassing but feel free to show all of those unsubstantiated evidence to ArbCom. And they will just shut your case just like your other cases were closed as those were nothing but unrelated call and two different users.
    Anyone can claim that they have got some literal pictures and screenshots of tagging/meatpuppetry even the nom can furnish such pictures because as we know you and ImperialAficionado have been trying to indef me and don't know how many newcomers have been indeffed because of your teamwork (not defending the guilty but have seen them tagging on multiple occasions). Note that HistoryofIran has got some personal issues with me in the past so it's obvious that he'd form a prejudice towards me even though he has been proven wrong and caught of lying just to demean me. According to them, every article made by me is poorly written/sourced but he has been proven wrong multiple times and as I said even caught of lying.
    Now coming to the HistoryofIran's attempt to link me with these indeffed accounts and previously these accounts were proven to be unrelated with me.
    1. HistoryofIran himself yelled that the difference between the creation of my account and Mr. Anonymous 699's account is more than 3 months, considering such a huge gap doesn't even call for a suspicion that this account is somewhat related to me moreover a check user will confirm this. Anyone can spy and can see others' activity so it's no surprise that they have been following me and indulged in any edit warring. And what is pov addition of Johnrajjoshi? It's clearly a sourced addition which is still present in the article body of
    Kanishka's war with Parthia Why are you still lying?
    1. 2 Indo12122 and Mr. Anonymous 699 could be a pair of sock but to say that just because a sock account is related to another suspect doesn't mean that they could be related to me. In fact I was the victim of unattributed usage of my contents in Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkha the creator of this page Shakib ul hassan copied my content without giving any attributions. This proves that these suspected users were spying on my works and even published their own article after copying mine without my consent and instead of grouping me with them, historyofiran should group these suspected users with themselves.
    2. The wikitables created by Melechha were on the hot articles which means those articles are watched by hundred thousands per month so it'd be obvious that my and other wiki editor's attention would get there but to say that we are connected to each other through sockpuppetry is a baseless allegation and perhaps historyofIran has forgot about their tagging with ImperialAficionado and DeepstoneV and how they were tagging with each other on various occasions [111]. If I had done such coordinated taggings with these alleged suspected users then I'm sure historyofIran would have found more ways to get me indeffed. I had made a SPI on ImperialAficionado by showing how these users are tagging/allying with each other and have made a sect and group against newcomers.
    3. more or less? Just stop suspecting me with some random sock users. There is a bold difference in these edits, in mine [112] I have edited it on the basis of Rabatak inscription whereas Rowlatt11 had cited a secondary source [113] I don't see any relation in it and besides Kanishka's religion is a hot topic of discussion so it'd be obvious that many user will do edits in it but that doesn't mean you'll now relate all of them with me, amusing enough that HistoryofIran is trying to relate me with any far distant user.
    Jonharojjashi (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A poor, cherrypicked response which barely addressed half the stuff I said. As I expected. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And what's so cheery picked in it? Jonharojjashi (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Editing issues of Jonharojjashi

    I'm not getting involved in the discussion of sock/meat issues or behavioral problems, but I've encountered issues with two of their articles I attempted to verify with sources. One article I submitted for AFD and it was deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extermination of Nagadhatta. )Today, I examined another article created by Jonharojjashi, Gauda–Gupta War, and found significant issues within it. While I addressed some of these concerns during the AFD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gauda–Gupta War), the problems extend beyond a few isolated ones. While I've found several issues just within two of their articles, I'm concerned that other pages created by them may follow a similar pattern. I recommend a review of their articles.--Imperial[AFCND] 17:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I was not sure why Jonharojjashi restricted the timeframe of the Gupta–Hunnic Wars to 534, especially when there are sources (now cited by me) indicating that the conflicts extended until the fall of the Guptas in 550, largely due to White Hunnic invasions (with the result parameter likely favoring the Huns). It appears there may have been an effort to portray a "Gupta victory" by limiting the duration of the war, allowing the Guptas to appear successful in their final campaign up to 534. I have made a small major copyedit in the infobox section, by extending the duration to all the way upto the end of the war, and limiting the big list of the territorial changes to the final outcome of the territory. Issues have been addressed by tagging. Imperial[AFCND] 18:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A random user appeared at Gupa-Hunnic Wars, and reverted my edits; and replaced it with Gupta victory again [114], similar to Jonharojjashi, the user justified the reason by highlighting the upper hand of Guptas during an intermediate stage of the War [115]. Editor used poor sources; and ofcourse limited time period of the War, so it wasn't a heavy task to find a reason to revert. BUT! since then the user left, Jonharojjashi appeared the scene and reverted to his version (indeed time period limited to a definite time in such a way that could be counted as a victory for Guptas), and surprisingly made a request for protection of the page, accusing me and the above user being edit warred [116]. Made a comment on the talk section requesting us ro stop a non existing edit warring and didn't even give proper reasons for reverting to the version;nor said anything about the result parameter.[117]. --Imperial[AFCND] 18:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another brand new user appearing out of nowhere and doing the exact same as Jonharojjashi? Must be another random coincidence, and not anything to do with the Discord /s. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Owning a page

    Hello. While I’m aware my own behavior on that page isn’t the best, it seems @Taksen: isn’t respecting Wp:Ownership of content. From the talk page archives of Maximilian Robespierre, he seems to want to make the article a paper about the opinion on Robespierre he made himself over the years. Currently I’m trying to start to edit the Legacy section, but he’s reverting small bits of the text nonstop without discussing any of it. A few months ago he didn’t want to accept that the article was too long, so he used the occasion and "reintroduced" a few deleted paragraphs, which @Nikkimaria: just removed again. He has the bad habit of going through every user’s contributions when someone starts a discussion on the Talk Page of the article, and he pretty much leaves at lest one message on every section of Talk. He contributed to the Robespierre article since 2019, most of his work is great, but he likes to disrespect some key rules. When I added some bits to the Legacy section, he didn’t like that, and removed content added without any bad intent mentioning French political parties (translated from fr.wiki), initially because it was "out of focus", then for "propaganda", and then he added an entire paragraph for one Chinese historian (with a link for the Peoples Republic of China, of course) with a source, deleted the source for the other problematic paragraph (old link) and a few hours later he removed it. (I added it again with a working link for the ref)

    He continually wants to represent the pro-Robespierrist School as "Marxist" exclusively, a claim explicitly made the opposing Neo-liberal and revisionist School of the 1960s. The revisionist historian Furet gets an entire quote. My problem with this, and this is clear from previous interactions the user has had on the Talk Page of that article, he’s been editing it since 2019 and he doesn’t let anyone do it after him. If he’d just let go, and discuss, but no. Encyclopédisme (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm just passing by, but edit summaries like this are not doing any favors for you. I suggest taking a real hard look at WP:NPA and WP:BOOMERANG. Now that said, diffs like this and this followed by WP:STONEWALLING by @Taksen are even further over the line and show clear OWN issues. Intervention definitely needed here, Taksen is far over the line. BrigadierG (talk) 12:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Turning articles into rambling messes has been Taksen's specialty for years and years. Here's [118] what the Rasputin article looked like after years of Taksen-bloat, before others took the hatchet to it; and here (that section and several following) are the hit-head-against-brick wall attempts to get Taksen to understand. The conclusion (in that 2017 discussion) was to revert the article to a version from FOUR YEARS EARLIER, before Taksen got involved. Taksen's reaction here was characteristic. EEng 18:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Wow this is just a horrible way to interact with other editors. If he's been doing this for 7 years, I would honestly strongly consider an all-out WP:CBAN. BrigadierG (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Not for nothing, over at https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Taksen we've got Deze gebruiker is momenteel geblokkeerd. De laatste regel uit het blokkeerlogboek wordt hieronder ter referentie weergegeven: 23:54, november 2, 2018 Natuur12 overleg bijdragen heeft Taksen overleg bijdragen geblokkeerd voor de duur van onbepaald (aanmaken accounts uitgeschakeld) (Privacyschending). I need not translate. EEng 23:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Nikkimaria: Now he’s literally "saving" (edit summaries) his content from Robespierre to Reign of Terror, Accusateur public and Legal history of France. Encyclopédisme (talk) 07:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Against my better judgement, I looked into this thread. My conclusion: Taksen is a menace and impossible to reason with. He is of the believe that any article he's edited significantly is owned by him. Something needs to be done, be it a partial block or a straight up indef. This is a behavioral problem going back the better part of a decade, clearly he isn't about to change. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      don’t know how ANI works, but the other threads seem to be moving forward wayyyy faster than this one (they’re probably just more important anyway), and I wouldn’t like this thread getting archived without anything happening about it. Usually it takes around five days for stuff to get archived, Don’t know if this is completely unfounded or not, but I’m guessing it’s a bot doing the archival work here, too. Encyclopédisme (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You are correct that archiving is normally done by a bot. The way forward here would be to propose some form of sanction. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • If he wants to own up to "mak[ing] the article a paper about the opinion on Robespierre he made himself", he's not doing himself a service. 15K words on one of/the most important figures in modern European history, and that's all we've got? A Bourbon wouldn't want to be associated with it. Your best bet, Encyclopédisme is to collect several knowledgable and collaborative editors, work on it in one of your sandboxes, take the finished, polished article to WP:FAC, let it receive a dissective review, get it promoted to Featured Article status, and then—finally—you'll have an actual, real Wikipedia policy behind you for purposes of future-proofing. À la lanterne, aristos!! ——Serial Number 54129 18:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I really just wanted to translate some bits of the French article in the Legacy section to en.wiki. It was decided the article was too long, by consensus, I didn’t participate in the discussion, I only read it on the Talk Page. Taksen doesn’t even allow that. If I had to rewrite the entire article, oh, that would be a drama. But I’m not doing that. (And from reading that section of the general policy, I don’t get why I’d need to). Encyclopédisme (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Then read it—again—but this time a view of shepherding an article. Which you seem to feel needs to occur to proect the page from Taksen. ——Serial Number 54129 11:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mainspace Ban for Taksen

    • Hi, WP:UNINVOLVED editor here. It's clear that Taksen, is at best, not hearing the concerns of the community (heck, he hasn't even participated in this ANI), and at worst, failing WP:CIR. I think the best thing we can do for this is prevent him from editing any edits to mainspace articles. I feel he should still be allowed to suggest changes (and probably participate in talk pages, but not sure if that would overcomplicate restrictions), or edit possible drafts if he wants (so long as they get cleared by other editors before becoming public). Hopefully this will get him to hear the concerns. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm uninvolved in the article which triggered this thread, but I've had plenty of experience with Taksen elsewhere. Separating him from actual article editing, so that he can't continue his relentless stuffing of endless, numbing detail into article after article, would be a start, and might provide just the filter he needs. EEng 16:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      P.S. In case anyone has any doubts about whether Taksen should continue to run loose in article space, according to his user page this [119] is his idea of what the ideal Rasputin article should look like (as hosted on his personal website). EEng 17:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      P.P.S. For the record, since this thread will no doubt be consulted should Taksen ask for his mainspace block to be lifted, on his personal website [120] we find Mijn belangstelling ging het meest uit naar de periode voorafgaande aan de Russische Februari Revolutie, niet die van Lenin en zijn makkers. Daarvoor heb ik Grigori Rasputin als kapstok gebruikt (My interest was most in the period leading up to Russia's February Revolution, not that of Lenin and his cronies. For this I used Grigori Rasputin as a coat rack). EEng 21:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      He’s clearly not willing to do anything about this, rather he’s trying to save his work before it’s too late. Seriously, this is getting frustrating, really frustrating, it would be nice for him to participate in this discussion (if someone would talk to him on his talk page, that would be great). He readded content on Robespierre, again again again, and is stuffing Girondins and Reign of terror with deleted content from Robespierre… Legit, he’s doing that, right now, behind our backs, without discussing it. Encyclopédisme (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Is that a support for the mainspace ban? EEng 17:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I spent five years on the article as nobody else cared in those days. The article relied on English sources which is not such a good idea. It was decided the article was too long, but not by consensus, someone just dumped a template! She deleted a lot of referenced information, something I try to avoid. I prefer to save or hide it with the idea to add it somewhere else. Some people like to read what they already know, not me. I liked to work on the revolutionaries, looking for answers. I could not have written or improved articles on revolutionaries as Danton, Dumouriez and Chevalier de Saint-Georges which had 450,000 pageviews in April 2023 before the movie Le Chevalier came out.Taksen (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Um, OK, but is there anything you want to tell us about why you shouldn't be banned from editing articles directly? EEng 17:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Your talk page is still way longer than the article on Grigory Rasputin, which repeats what everybody knows or likes to hear. Many people add to the articles I started many years ago on Russian politicians, before the February Revolution. The reviewers on accusateur public really liked what I did, unfortunately I cannot find it back. Taksen (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Taksen, that doesn't answer the question. Encyclopedisme, while also exhibiting some problematic behavior, has a reasonable point here which is being echoed by multiple other editors. I am taking it seriously. Valereee (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Let us stick to facts. Encyclopédisme wrote "When I added some bits to the Legacy section, he didn’t like that, and removed content added without any bad intent mentioning French political parties (translated from fr.wiki), initially because it was "out of focus", then for "propaganda". In my point of view, Encyclopédisme added three lf's without a reference to the information, ten hand written letters or concepts by Robespierre. For me the French Communist Party, etc. was totally irrelevant as it is not about Robespierre. Later I added a more information ref and a lf to the French Ministry of Culture which he did not. Taksen (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Wait. No… You, Taksen, literally removed my ref, (adding another ref on another part of the text in the mean while) the content was sourced, it was an just old link. Then you readded old content claiming that "it is not allowed to remove details with refs", then you removed my content (without a ref after your removal of the dead link) hours later, then I readded it with a working link, you reverted me (literally claiming it is "propaganda", that’s worse than "totally irrelevant"), I reverted you, and then you let it go and started "reintroducing" old deleted content, I told Nikkimaria, the content was condensed, you started "saving" (edit summaries) the content to other pages, then you ignored this ANI thread for days, now you just started "reintroducing" content to the Robespierre page again, and now you come here and ignore all of the rest. Seriously. Encyclopédisme (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      We really don't care about content here at ANI. We care about behavior. The complaints here are about behavior. I'm interested, Taksen, in things like refusal to discuss edits you're making or reverting. What I'd like to see from you is a commitment to discussing changes before you make them on the talk pages of any article where you've been reverted. Valereee (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A block from article space works make that happen without further fuss. EEng 19:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I know. Valereee (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      + 1 for a mainspace ban. Encyclopédisme (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The page "Main page ban" does not exist. You can create a draft and submit it for review, or you may create the page "Main page ban" directly, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered. Taksen (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      And that, dear reader, epitomizes every interaction with Taksen for years and years and years. EEng 20:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Would you care to explain what your referring to, please? Encyclopédisme (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. EEng 20:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • p-blocked from article space for refusal to communicate in any reasonable way. Valereee (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Truth be told, it's an inability to communicate. EEng 20:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am impressed with your archive. I see I can go on talk pages, which some people really like, not me. I have been here for eighteen years. I learned a lot from the English Wikipedia, which seem to be more tolerant than the Dutch, German, or Russian, but it is as most of the social media, addictive.Taksen (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You can appeal to unblock on your talk page. It’s not like your contributions aren’t valuable, but come on, understanding that things are discussed on this site isn’t too difficult of a principle (if you could use your personal judgment exclusively for content, the quality and control of Wikipedia would be absolutely miserable). Most people come back after 6 months or so, from what I’ve read. See you in that time, if you wish to come back. Encyclopédisme (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Very important in this case, after studying his life intensively, I stopped seeing Robespierre as a hero; civil armament was a bad thing to promote.Taksen (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Taksen, in all honesty, this has come to the point of… err, I mean I’m literally laughing my ass off in this very moment, I mean what should I say, I mean, uggghhhhhh… Taksen, please, if this is on purpose, then… err…….
      It’s ironic you mention that, Taksen.Encyclopédisme (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Anyway, you could consider coming back in a couple of months. Encyclopédisme (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      He's not blocked from the site. He can participate on talk pages, and his mainspace block should remain until he's demonstrated the ability to collaborate that way. Mainspace privileges should not be restored just because he lies low for six months. EEng 20:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      To be honest, his obvious lack of collaborative intent and incompetence to understand the point tells me he shouldn't be editing anywhere on the English Wikipedia at all. It's obvious he has a lousy combination of obstinance and poor English comprehension which makes him unsuitable for doing work here. oknazevad (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      To be honest, I agree, but (a) you never know, people do sometimes smarten up, and (b) if not, a mainspace block is an easy way to allow him to show us for himself that he can't operate here. It would require lots of people to waste endless amounts of time to get us to a full block right now, to little additional benefit. EEng
      @Encyclopédisme, that is not okay. Valereee (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Is it violating good faith? I can say that I'm laughing my ass off, right? Without correlation to the other's comments? I didn't assume anything bad of Taksen, really. Anyway, noted. Encyclopédisme (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Begone! Before somebody drops a house on you, too! EEng 21:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes yes yes, quickly I begone, forget about my very existence, I’m an impertinent nobody, I’m none of your business, I’m not worth it, I’m gone forever, you’ll never hear of me again, … Encyclopédisme (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      When you've gotten what you're asking for, there's no need to hang about smirking at the person you got in trouble. Just quietly disappear. EEng, someone once told me watching me edit a certain article was like watching a tornado pick up debris and set down a house. Probably the greatest compliment I've ever had on WP. Valereee (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking over this thread and some of Taksen's edits including their bizarre responses here, I don't really understand why there isn't a straightforward indef proposal. I'm not sure where it exactly sits: NOTHERE, uncollaborative, communication CIR. disruption, all of the above. One way or another they shouldn't be here. DeCausa (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah. Forget that. they've have been indeffed!! DeCausa (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeffed from mainspace only, as far as I can see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      They are really valuable, and they seem to actually know their stuff. He deserves a chance, to a certain extent. Encyclopédisme (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Bravehm

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

    WP:TENDENTIOUS user that keeps attempting to remove/decrease the Mongol aspect of the Hazara (they even somewhat openly admitted it here if you ask me [121]), likely a sock [122], though the SPI might not come with conclusive results again.

    1. At Talk:Hazaras, Bravehm blatantly lied that User:KoizumiBS removed sourced information [123], when they literally did the opposite, restoring sourced info (mainly about the Mongol aspect of the Hazara) removed by indeffed User:Jadidjw, whom I still believe to this day was a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad, who has a long history of attempting to remove the Mongol aspects mentioned at Hazaras. Notice that Jadidjw didnt even protest against their indef block despite editing since 2021. They no doubt jumped to another account.
    2. After clearly trying to ramp up 500 edits as fast as possible to get access to Hazaras, they immediately started removing sourced information and edit warring [124] [125]
    3. Bravehm also blatantly lied here to justify their removal of sourced info about the Mongol aspect [126]
    4. Removed sourced info about the Mongol aspect again [127] ("According other sources, the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words.")
    5. Same here [128]
    6. And here [129]
    7. And here [130]
    8. And here [131]
    9. And here [132]

    --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've left a CT notice on the user's talk page, noting that we still haven't heard back from them here yet. I also glanced through contribution history; they did hit 500 pretty quick, however most of the edits appear to have come in good faith insofar as they weren't adding or subtracting one or two syllables consistently to get to 500, however that doesn't per se rule out revoking the EC rights or alternatively page blocking them from the Hazaras article. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Another removal of information about the Mongolian component - diff. KoizumiBS (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Because Babur never said those words in his Baburnama, but the translator added it and it should not be taken as a source. please see [1] Bravehm (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:CIR issues too. You've already been asked several times why the translators don't count as WP:RS, but you've been unable to, even changing your arguments as you please [133]. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Another attempt to minimize the Mongol aspect [134]. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I restored some of those changes that KoizumiBS brought. Hazares also have Turkic and Iranic aspects, why KoizumiBS attempt to minimize the non-Mongol and Turkic aspect of Hazaras.[135] Bravehm (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "HistoryofIran" wrongly and falsely considers my account to belong to "Iampharzad" while I only have this account and Iampharzad's account is not related to me in any way. Bravehm (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to Encyclopaedia of Islam, Hazaragi is a Persian dialect, which is infused with many Turkic and a few Mongolic words or loanwords.
      • According to Encyclopædia Britannica, the Hazara speak an eastern variety of Persian called Hazaragi with many Mongolian and Turkic words.
      • According to Encyclopaedia Iranica, the Hazaras speak a Persian dialect with many Turkic and some Mongolic words.
      • According other sources, the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words.
      I only rm the last one due to repetition, incompleteness, and it only mentioned the Mongolian aspect. Bravehm (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This (According other sources, the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words.) removal was due to the duplication of info about Hazaragi, and its sources were not reliable as Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Britannica, and Encyclopaedia Iranica. Bravehm (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My discussion with KoizumiBS on the Talk page of article caused him to correct the erroneous info he had added in the article about the Mongol aspect of the Hazaras. See [136] Bravehm (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @HistoryofIran: [137], [138]
    They are not removal but restoration.
    I don't know why you have taken a hard position against me and consider my every edit as something bad. As a user, I have the right to edit as you edit. Bravehm (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Bravehm once again being dishonest, removing sourced info while saying it is "unsourced" [139]. WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "More unsourced" not "unsourced"
    I explained the reason: "No reliable census has been conducted in Afghanistan so far".
    And there were no mentions of Aimaqs and Hazaras, which constitute the majority of Ghor residents but the majority of its inhabitants were almost Tajiks plaese see: [140] Bravehm (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still not unsourced though... And your explanation is worthless, we follow WP:RS, not your personal opinion - you've already been told this. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So "www.biorxiv.org" and "journals.plos.org" are also not WP:RS for this content "the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words." Bravehm (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Zahīr ud-Dīn Muhammad Babur (1921)."Memoirs Of Zehir-Ed-Din Muhammed Babur. Volume 1.". Oxford University Press. Pages 44, 243, 279."

    Request for closure

    Can an admin please take a look at this case? Bravehm is disrupting more and more articles as we speak [141]. They are WP:TENDENTIOUS and have clear WP:CIR issues, exactly like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad and co., they even all have the same English skills! --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This (Iampharzad) account does not and does not belong to me.
    User: HistoryofIran has taken a tough stance against me and wants to deny me the right to edit on Wikipedia. He reverses my edits and wants us to reach a consensus on the Talk page of the article, but when I am ready to discuss because of the consensus, he does not give me an answer on the page. Bravehm (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're still being disruptive as we speak, such as here where they manually reverted KoizumiBS and once again blatantly lied, accusing KoizumiBS of once again removing info but in reality due it themselves to decrease the Mongol aspect [142]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    INDEF
    FlapjackRulez blocked indefinitely by MER-C. CCI has been requested. (non-admin closure) GabberFlasted (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    user:FlapjackRulez At copy patrol, I saw [this] edit which added the plot summary, apparently from the movie's own promotional material. When I went to warn them, I saw they'd been warned multiple times for copyright-related issues, including multiple G12'ed articles. Given the fact they have never responded, or apparently stopped inserting copyrighted material, this is an issue which an admin needs to address. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @GreenLipstickLesbian: Which edit? – 2804:F14:80C8:4701:9C49:A8E6:A25E:3091 (talk) 04:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for pointing out that I forgot to link the edit. It's this one], which I have edited the above post to include a link to. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please show the source that's allegedly plagiarized? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @EvergreenFir: Sure! It appears to have been taken from the movie's promotional material- you can see the plot summary is the same as these commercial listings. [[143]] or [[144]]. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @GreenLipstickLesbian: indeffed. Please request a WP:CCI. MER-C 19:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @MER-C Done! Thanks for dealing with it. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User Gilberatalessandro054 edit warring copyrighted material into article

    Gilberatalessandro054 (talk · contribs). For the past hour or so, this user has been repeated inserting copyrighted material, seemingly from here, into the Pattimura article. I and another user have been reverting them, and asking for a revdel, but they keep doing it. Oh, as I write this, they've done it again. A page protection or a block may be in order. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Their tendentious style and edit summaries at this and related articles are strongly reminiscent of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Earth6282/Archive. Wikishovel (talk) 08:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor has also resumed tagging their major edits as minor, again despite warnings at their user talk: [145], [146], [147], [148]. Wikishovel (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikishovel, I guess I don't see what you see--I looked at a bunch of edit summaries from that account and a couple of the socks, and I don't see the similarity. Do you have specifics? Drmies (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that was probably a knee-jerk reaction from me. Tendentious editing, surly summaries and edit-warring on all of the favourite articles of User:Earth6282 and their socks doesn't equal evidence of sockpuppetry. Wikishovel (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not even considering repeated creation of 'battles' inside Indonesian articles where there are no known sources for the level of detail of specific battles. The language being used in response to notifications is quite confusing also. I am not sure whether there is a distinct problem of misunderstanding some of the instructions or whether the replies are adequately coherent... JarrahTree 11:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that the continued edit war https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pattimura&action=history and ignoring warnings constitutes admin action ASAP JarrahTree 11:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Feeling generous, I indef partially blocked them from that article. Any further copyvios will result in a full indef. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 13:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Bit busy right now, but there has been a significant rise in very odd edits to Indonesian-related war articles in the past 24 hours, some of which I have reverted (e.g blanking sections, changing participants lists). Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As at least one checkuser has come to this particular incident, the editing pattern of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Based_history4668 should be of concern. JarrahTree 01:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This should be an indefinite. Their posting behavior is atrocious and goes well beyond the original page block and even when they're making a rudimentary attempt to discuss [149] it's generally unhelpful and barely comprehensible. I think this a clear-cut WP:CIR example and as such, even a topic ban is probably not sufficient. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There are ongoing problems with this editor. Their user talk is full of recent warnings over their edit warring and related WP:BATTLEGROUND editing. They bounce from one Indonesian military history article to the next, get warned for edit warring, say that it's not their fault and they're sure they're right, then move on to the next article. Spotting copyrighted additions is easy with this editor, since their English is utterly unreadable. Their single-article block above, with a warning of an indef for further copyrighted additions, has only pushed them back to plain old edit warring. They were warned over WP:3RR for Java War on 29 April by User:JarrahTree [150], then by me on 1 May for 3RR at Pattimura: [151]. Now they're at it again at Battle of Bau, reverting User:Eastfarthingan three times (first, second, third), and me twice (first, second) within 24 hours. Can I suggest a short block, since talk page warnings clearly aren't getting through to them. Wikishovel (talk) 06:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wouldn't have bothered commenting again, but I went through to check their older contributions for copyvios the other day. In this edit I removed material that was closely paraphrasing this source.
    For comparasion, their edit said
    On June 30 1859, kiai Demang Leman attacked the Dutch post at the Martapura palace. In August 1859 together with Sheikh Buya Yasin and Kiai Langlang, Kiai Demang Lehman succeeded in capturing the Dutch fort in Tabanio.
    While the source said (machine translation):
    Together with Haji Nasrun, Demang Lehman also carried out a large-scale raid on the Dutch troops' post in Martpure. In August 1859, assisted by Haji Bajasin and Kiai Langlang, Demang Lehman succeeded in capturing the Dutch fort in Tabaniau.
    (Note that the date "June 30" does not appear anywhere in the cited source as far as I can see)
    While the original edit was made before their warning, they just reverted my removal of the close paraphrasing with no edit summary. Either they're not bothering to read the edit summaries before reverting, or they still don't understand copyright.
    They also tried to start a content dispute with the disambiguation link alert bot on their talk page. I think that speaks for itself. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This has dragged on long enough, there is a need for an admin to implement a block for the behaviour - the editors who have commented here have been so patient and civil, the behaviour deserves a definite no edit block, with some haste, before more damage is done. JarrahTree 06:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Still at it: [152][153], this time reverting User:Fantastic Mr. Fox. Wikishovel (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep: clear WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR issue. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying that - one hopes for some action soon... JarrahTree 11:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fantastic Mr. Fox Edits such as [154] and [155] are not entirely helpful. You also need to go to the talk page and start a conversation.
    Also, for any admins who haven't gotten completely bored of this thread, the Battle of Bau article has been in a lovely state of constantly being reverted for the past week. Haven't checked if anybody's gone over the 3RR, but I wouldn't be surprised. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean they (my comments on why edit warring is a no no) are a bit more helpful than 'why should I stop' [156] from Gilbert (as well as responding to editor complaints with..... cat emojis). I admit, me and two other editors went to 3RR reverting this editor (who isn't listening), and I then stopped, hoping this ANI would shut soon. Gilberatalessandro054 is in fact not at 3RR, despite me and other's complaints - he is at a proud 8 reverts. Discussion opened though I don't expect them to reach out given there behaviour pattern. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 06:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked indefinitely. The persistent disruption and edit-warring doesn't appear to be stopping, so they can argue their case via an unblock template and everyone can get on without wasting their time on this. Black Kite (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a connection with the blocked ip range 2A02:85F:F000:0:0:0:0:0/40. Apart from the nationality related editing they make their presence obvious by returning to the same article in el.wiki to perform a reversion (see el:Doja Cat, history). Ah3kal (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    new IP, again confirmed the connection by reverting Doja Cat in el.wiki (ping Bbb23 as blocking admin of the original account) Ah3kal (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Dealer07's edits are incredibly obvious. Just revert and block on sight. They jump around IPs regularly, but they're still obvious. Canterbury Tail talk 17:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Foxviktorfox (talk · contribs), created 30 April 2024, has engaged in multiple problematic behaviors without response to multiple warnings. All edits have been in article space or draft space; none in talk.

    Copyright violations: created Draft:Royal Wessex twice. Both times it was a direct copy from another source ([157]).

    Edit warring: British Rail Class 465, e.g., Special:Diff/1222044488, China Airlines, e.g., Special:Diff/1221744378, Special:Diff/1221743640.

    Removing references (all of which have been reverted: e.g., Special:Diff/1221744378, Special:Diff/1221751823, Special:Diff/1221940965.

    Every mainspace edit has been reverted by another editor.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    INDEFfed for DE. CV, almost certainly not new. Take your pick. Star Mississippi 18:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    information Note: I don't think Draft:Royal Wessex was a copyright violation, and in fact I had declined a G12 tag on the draft prior to this ANI report. The source website seems to release the text into the public domain, and I had added an PD attribution template to the draft. (See also this related discussion). This doesn't affect the disruptive-editing block, but I just wanted to note this here in case of a future unblock request. DanCherek (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "EmpowerHer" campaign?

    Any idea what this is supposed to be? If there is an actual editathon behind this, then someone got ahold of the entirely wrong end of the horse here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Elmidae Please notify the user as per the instructions at the top of the page. Qcne (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this might be the exception that proves the rule, they are spamming this message to numerous users, asking for their personal information. I'm not waiting for them to explain that, I've already issued an indef block. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One of their edit summaries leads here on wikimedia. Schazjmd (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Just Step Sideways:, my instinct here is that this was a good-faith, but poorly-executed, plan. Could you unblock them so they can participate here, on the condition that they don't make those requests again until and unless this is all sorted? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that does seem well-intentioned. But the approach is certainly indistinguishable from a particularly hamfisted fishing attempt. The organizers might want to rethink that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I'm comfortable unblocking without some sort of commitment to like, never ever do that again. Why did they need to ask where people work? Why was it sent to users who seemingly did not even know they were particpating in it? These are pretty serious concerns if you ask me. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    well, practically speaking, I suspect "don't make those requests again until and unless this is all sorted" is probably going to be indistinguishable from "never ever do that again". I certainly agree this was kind of dumb, but I'm not convinced a block is needed. Also, if you have a link handy for "Why was it sent to users who seemingly did not even know they were participating in it" it would save me some hunting. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing the conversation happening on Bukky658's talk page, I share the sense that while the misstep was serious and the initial intervention not inappropriate, leaving the indefinite block in place would be an error, as it wouldn't be preventing misbehavior (the behavior is unlikely to repeat). Leaving such a block in place risks a chilling effect that discourages editors from on-Wikipedia underrepresented regions (like Africa) and demographics (like women) and discourages efforts to improve and diversify participation. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sufficiently convinced that this was not in bad faith, but I am not yet convinced that it is understood by Bukky or the other people commenting on her talk page how incredibly out of line this was. They seem to think the main issue is that they asked on talk pages instead of by email. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the block isn't preventing them from sending emails, which I feel they might have already sent. – 2804:F14:80EE:5A01:F151:38D2:AA6E:399F (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah-hah! This is where all the badly sourced essays being added to Women in government are coming from! I assumed that it was just student editing season, but a cash prize edit-a-thon will apparently do the same. MrOllie (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, it relates to meta:Event:EmpowerHer Editathon 2024. If this is resulting in badly-sourced essays, then that editathon was likely not well planned or executed. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this block is a good example of the "preventative not punitive" mantra that gets repeated so often on our noticeboards. The block prevented Bukky658 from asking anyone else for personal details. Whether the original action was in good faith or not is immaterial. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's exactly where I'm at with it, per my last reply above. I still feel like the organizers are not getting it. Perhaps it is a cultural difference, I don't know. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think you should change your block reason though, as this does not appear to be a bad-faith phishing attempt. – 2804:F14:80EE:5A01:F151:38D2:AA6E:399F (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair enough, I've done that and also disabled email, although you are probably right that that ship has already sailed. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll also note that I have stuff to do and am probably done here for today. So if it seems best to everyone here to unblock, please go ahead. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    SPI নবাব

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

    Filed this SPI case for user:নবাব back on April 11, 2024. I understand the SPI is backlogged, but hoping to get a set of eyes from an admin on the behavioral evidence in the meantime since user is still creating pages, categories, etc. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is better at AN Maestrofin (talk) 07:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple issues relating to Liverpool and Liverpool City Region

    Blocked indefinitely: as noted in my block notice (diff), retirement cannot be used to evade scrutiny. That only works once. El_C 04:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Extended content
    I recently nominated an article for deletion - due to formatting problems it was closed and resubmitted by another editor . The article tried to argue that the word 'Liverpolitan' was the accepted demonym for people from Liverpool or the Liverpool City Region. I immediately knew this to be untrue, and so it was no surprise to see that the article (though well written and formatted) was completely unsupported by its many references, contradicted even. The consensus in the AfD agreed with this, with many editors taking time to dissect each reference thoroughly. The admin's decision was to redirect the term Liverpolitan to Liverpool#Demonyms_and_identity.

    Throughout the discussion, the editor of the article, Liverpolitan1980 continued making edits to the article (though these did not address the issues) and they were very resistant to any criticism. While or before the article was blanked and redirected, they moved much of the content to Liverpool and Liverpool City Region and it still contains many of the same problems (mostly WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE) that had been brought up in the AfD discussions.

    They also reported me during and after the process to WP:ANI and WP:AN, simply because they disagreed with my contributions - no action was taken against me. In the AN report they said they were deleting their account and so the matter was closed. They then made another report against me for posting their personal information. While I did not explicitly do this, I did make an allusion to a WP:COI I had become aware of because I had seen forum posts where a person had announced they had created the Liverpolitan Wikipedia article and were also the subject of at least three of the references used to support their arguments. It seems that for many years a person has been trying (unsuccessfully) to get the word into common use, this has been reported on in the media, and they are now using Wikipedia in a way which I believe contravenes the policies WP:PROMO and WP:FORUM, as well as the WP:COI guidelines.

    As this user is apparently no longer active, I have not tried to resolve this dispute on their talk page. However, today two not logged in users have been trying to get some of Liverpolitan1980's content reinstated on the Talk:Liverpool page for the protected Liverpool article. They deny being the same person despite having the same combative style. I suspect this is WP:SOCK.

    I think there is both an issue of WP:NOT and also poor conduct/WP:HARRASS towards me relating to the vexatious reports and incessant replies to my posts with increasingly strange ad hominem attacks. While I enjoy friendly debate, this is having a very detrimental and time consuming effect on my Wikipedia experience.

    Orange sticker (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Full disclosure - I am Liverpolitan1980's friend and have followed the debate from the very beginning. He has now left the platform through feeling utterly harrassed by you in particular Orange sticker. He was made aware that you attempted to out his real life identity in talk pages - which is usually an instant block according to Wiki guidance. You were lucky just to get a warning. He made the article you mentioned in good faith and made arguments to keep that article in the best way he could. Some of the feedback acknowledged the merits of expanding on the demonym. When the information was being disputed - he made good faith efforts to incorporate some information in to the Liverpool and city region articles as was encouraged in the AfD discussion. You encouraged that yourself. There has been no attempt to harrass you but to challenge your relentless efforts to disaparage anyone that might choose to adopt the Liverpolitan demonym - both on and off wiki - and to disparage his efforts to contribute to the encyclopedia. You have made this whole thing very very personal and would simply not let things go. This is not sock puppetry and nor is meat puppetry. I am free to contribute to this platform as a separate individual. Amd that is why I am fully disclosing so you are not able to yet again - cause drama to disparage a former contributor. The criticism I have made to you on the Liverpool talk page can either be taken or not taken. I feel it is completely valid. 94.14.184.212 (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm obviously involved in the discussions that have taken place so far and have been constantly, repeatably, civil in all cases. I have re-iterated wikipedia policies, and stressed that they are what is important to deciding the content of any article. I am happy to extend to Liverpolitan1980 that he made his original Liverpolitan Identity article in good faith. Utimately, following the AFD this article was rejected and it was made clear that Liverpolitan as a term was FRINGE, and that the content as written was OR / SYNTH. I gave the editor over a week after they added the content to the Liverpool and Liverpool City Region and following the closure of the AFD to handle the issues as mentioned on the AFD by other editors, but they instead chose to start another argument with Orange Sticker on the talk page that culminated in them "Leaving". The two new IP's have subsequently picked up the stick, with 94.14.184.212 all but admitting as a friend of Liverpolitan that they are a Meatpuppet. 94.14.184.212 has had the sources explained at length but instead of presenting sources to support the inclusion of the wording has resorted to casting aspersions about what I would or wouldn't do on articles X, Y, Z and instructing me how to edit, all while berating me for my "bias". I can't even work out what they are on about in some cases, but basic competency appears to be an issue along with the general uncivility. There are obvious potential sock issues at play, and Liverpolitan1980 is not this users first account. Koncorde (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, Liverpolitan1980 has a prior account and has never tried to hide that. That account has been retired and is labelled as such on the profile - and has never been used since its retirement. Wiki contributors are free to do that - again that is yet another attempt to damage a person's reputation. No intention to hide anything there on his part or my part. As regards my comments about your bias on the Liverpool talk page. You are obviously both intelligent people. I am sure by now that you know the difference between the Liverpool city region combined authority, the city region and Merseyside. What I have found curious is Orange sticker's encouragement for Liverpolitan1980 to incorporate some of his content in to the Liverpool city region account only for then to advocate for its merger with another - completely separate article. That makes absolutely no sense other than to make it increasingly difficult for someone to contribute in good faith. It simply makes no sense other than to cause confusion and tension between editors. And you have been actively involved with that as well as also joining in on the speculation of my friend's indentity - again you have been warned. You can call it what you like - no one is deceiving anyone here. I have fully disclosed myself as a friend. What is important are of course the policies. But we are not discussing content here - unless you want to. My input here is obviously concerned with my friend's former account being tagged. Brought in to drama again when he has left the site. 94.14.184.212 (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "but instead of presenting sources to support the inclusion of the wording"
      You were presented with sources and then complained that they were a laundry list that you didn't want in the first place. In other words, when presented with evidence you spat them out and complained that you didn't even want them in the first place. I am not being uncivil to you but this is obviously a very difficult position to put someone in and is not cohesive to a meaningful discussion. 94.14.184.212 (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I tried to intercede on the LCR page as a disinterested party and made some minor revisions, cleaning up the demonym section to exclude much of the cruft. But it does honestly seem like these two editors have some form of off-wiki personal animosity that is driving this continued dispute. An SPI might be warranted for the IP associated with Liverpolitan1980 - and if it is, in fact, a different editor's account they should be cautioned regarding WP:MEATPUPPETRY - otherwise we're faced with the challenge of how to establish a mutual Iban when one party has loudly quit Wikipedia but is still not fully gone. Simonm223 (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This could very very easily just go away. I have asked for minor edits to be made which I feel are fair. I have done this through observation of the debate. There is no need to involve my friend - he has left the site through feeling utterly harrassed. Let me stress again - minor edits are being requested - not an opening to old grudged on or off wiki. I have no interest in them and have no full knowledge of that in any case. I am not interested. I am here because this report has been filed. 94.14.184.212 (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Simonm223 From what I can see, you made a good edit to the LCR page. I don't think this dispute really concerns you. 94.14.184.212 (talk) 01:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Coming to Wikipedia to pick up for a friend upset about an edit conflict is WP:MEATPUPPETRY and ultimately just stirs up petty drama. An edit conflict over a nickname has led to all this silliness. I decided to become involved explicitly because I am entirely neutral to the conflict and figured I could reasonably assess sources. Yet here we are. Again. I would encourage all parties to seriously calm down self-reflect a bit. And I would suggest that SPIs who are only interested in one very niche topic and in stirring up extensive, loud, drama should ask whether they should really be editing Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There are many things which are frowned upon on the encyclopedia I believe. I know your edit was good faith. I have seen it. It is also not appreciated to see my friend's reputation dragged through the mud or his identity speculated on or his contributions - old and new - accused as anything other than the best of faith. Those that do that must expect their own contributions to be called in to question. You are absolutely right, I think the whole situation is just an awful situation of people not seeing eye to eye and maybe some very deep seated differences in viewpoints which seem intractable. I have certainly not come here to violate a policy. I came here to make my own mind up. My friend is in no way encouraged me to do so. I find the whole situation tragic to be honest. I certainly do not advocate for everything he did to come back either but I have questioned one or two edits on the Liverpool page. That is all. 94.14.184.212 (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And you have been told what the issue is, in detail, as was Liverpolitan - and have chose instead to attack and harass other users. Koncorde (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am deeply sorry if this is affecting you negatively. However, it is a voluntary platform and nobody is obliged to enter discussions they aren't comfortable with. I asked for two small edits on the Liverpool article. I can't stress enough how small they were. My request was forwarded to the Liverpool talk page and you were the first to reply there. It can be read at that page. You ignored sources there and even suggested I make the change myself which I cannot do unregistered. You have also undone some work by another user on 1st April there. You didn't have to do that. Liverpolitan1980 left because of how uncomfortable this environment was becoming. This whole page tells me that this platform is not always a nice place to be and I can see why. You also entered this ANI discussion voluntarily. You were given an admin warning to not conceal contributor's real life identity against their wishes because it puts them in potential difficult situations. Everyone has the right to post anonymously so you were told. You have ignored that and continue to engage in this discussion. Instead of sticking to criticism of the article and your part in the edits. 2A02:C7C:D7E6:2F00:241A:48A:DBC8:2095 (talk) 08:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to assume some of this is directed at Orange Sticker, however as it is also clearly referencing things that I have said I have no idea. However just for clarification:
    • This isn't affecting me negatively.
    • The IP that requested information to be added to the Liverpool article was 94.14.184.212 (comments moved in this edit by Liu1126). So are you also that IP?
    • I, Koncorde, was the first to respond and I explained the issue with every single source being either an issue of them not even mentioning the word at all, or mentioning it while dismissing it, and a big old dose of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. I've been entirely on topic DESPITE repeated personal attacks on myself and other editors and general harassing behaviour both before, during and after this debacle.
    • I did suggest 94.14.184.212 edit the page, I wasn't aware it was semi protected at the time. In which case refer back to prior point ^^ and requests for clear sourcing that supports the claims made.
    • Serial Number 54129 is free to edit the page, reinstitute his changes etc per April 1st, but I have explained the issues in detail in both the Edit Summary and in detail on the talk page.
    • As the editor attacked me, and subsequently the IP have attacked me - casting aspersions about me personally, and my editing, I'm here to make it clear that there is an issue that needs responding to.
    • And finally, regarding the persons identity: Streisand effect.
    I'm done on this page, I think the original editor and two IP's have sufficiently demonstrated the unwelcome uncivil behaviour, meatpuppetry, and if any Admin is so interested they can contact me by talk page or email about the relative difficulty of the "Anonymity" situation given the niche like WP:ADVOCACY and WP:SOAPBOX-for-one. Koncorde (talk) 09:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a COI here in my view – Liverpolitan1980 has been involved in real-life campaign trying to promote the use of this term. A glance at the track record of their former account (which was "retired" a day before creating the current one, following a block and several appearances at ANI) suggests they don't play particularly well with others. Number 57 17:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I feel I should point out that the above is basically all I have said publicly on Wikipedia and it resulted in the editor reporting me for posting personal information.
    Orange sticker (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-archiving this post as User:Liverpolitan1980 has returned to editing the Liverpool article despite declaring he was leaving Wikipedia. He has already returned to WP:BLUDGEONING in his dispute of one of my edits. This has previously created unnecessary timesinks for several editors and frankly feels to me like harassment. Not to mention the issues relating to WP:MEATPUPPETRY and WP:COI have never been resolved due to his supposed departure. Orange sticker (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:CANVASSING also, and in bad faith - not comparing like with like (official v unofficial figures and areas) Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/History_and_geography. Diffs: [158] [159] [160] Orange sticker (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was previous mention of a Built Up Area in the Liverpool lead section. Someone took it down. The Built Up Area is an official measure but they still took it down. The 2 million figure in Liverpool's lead was there for many years as a result of ESPON metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom. Since we left the EU, it was a compromise to quote the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority who still acknowledge the 2 million urban region. The region still exists although no longer officially counted. You have chosen to remove this reference from the lead so I started an RfC. This isn't harrassment, it's a basic question of geography and consistency - something that I am interested in. Many city articles mention their urban or metro areas in the lead, this is not unusual. However, I am disappointed that you have taken a content dispute to ANI with a long list of accusations against me. I have been in correspondence with The English Wikipedia Oversight team, the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team and the Arbitration committee for advice on some of the things you have unfortunately brought up (again). In the spirit of good faith. If there is an issue of harrassment on Wikipedia - it isn't coming from me. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is untrue, here's the diff, I removed mention of a larger urban region of over 2 million people which extends into the neighbouring counties of Cheshire and Lancashire which is not an official area, passing mention only in the referenced reports.
    This isn't the place for content discussion, but it does demonstrate how you continue to fabricate facts in both articles and interactions with editors. Orange sticker (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With no comment to the rest of the report, I would like clarification from experienced editors on Liverpolitan's previous account issue brought up in the original thread above. Liverpolitan stated in the diff, I have contributed over 97,000 bytes to [the Liverpool] article. Also from an old username that I retired some time ago.
    WP:CLEANSTART allows for creating a new account, but specifically cautions against returning to previous articles and topics, noting that it can result in arguments, further loss of reputation, and blocks or bans, even if your behavior while using the new account was entirely proper. Is this a statement of policy (that returning to old topics is forbidden) or only a warning of what tends to happen? Given that Liverpolitan's first edits were to Liverpool, it seems that they have indeed returned to previous articles. Does this constitute sockpuppeting to evade WP:SCRUTINY, or a valid WP:CLEANSTART? EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I was evading scrutiny, why would I mention that fact of my previous user account. That makes absolutely no sense. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you not read my comment. I have been in correspondence with the English Wikipedia Oversight team, the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team and the Arbitration committee - some of that relating to my old account. I couldn't be more scrutinised if I tried.Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was also no such cautions against returning to any articles or topics on the old account. I retired that account for my own personal reasons. Are you suggesting that people are not welcome to Wikipedia if their interest is in their own city based articles? If that is the case, I am happy to say goodbye. But the Liverpool articles will be poorer for it as they are in need of improvement and stewardship. They were at one time the subject of constant vandalism, that's why some of them are protected. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand what you mean. WP:CLEANSTART applies to all accounts on the English Wikipedia and has said for a very long that if you return to editing articles you were editing before, and especially if you get involved in similar disputes, you cannot expect editors to not link the two. Since we understand there reasonable reasons why you don't want them to be linked, I don't think we're likely to explicitly do it. But if you didn't want editors not to make the link you really should not have started to edit the same sort of articles and get into similar disputes that's a key point CLEANSTART is making that you seem to have missed. Also, the fact that you made it seem like you were leaving Wikipedia for good on your old account, then the very next day came back with a new account and immediately started to edit articles related to what your old account was editing, calls into question any claims you might make now about leaving. Even if we WP:AGF that you were really planning to leave when you made those edits with your old account, you changed your mind very fast so what's to say you won't do it again? Nil Einne (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne Thank you for your response! What I'm hearing is that, in general, returning to former topics does not nullify the clean start (i.e., one doesn't automatically consider them a sockpuppet) but that it is inadvisable because it tends to defeat the point of the clean start. It's kind of like licking a 9V battery: there are no rules against it, but it's just a bad idea. That clears up what I was confused about; thank you again! EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    How is it fabricating facts? The larger urban region of over 2 million people is supported by an independent report commissioned by gov.uk, Wirral Council and the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority. These are high quality sources. If there is an official protocol only to mention 'official areas' in the lead, then of course we should go with that. But that is precisely why I have asked the question. I am not aware of one though, happy to be corrected, it seems to be down to editor discretion and consensus hence the inconsistency across articles. Nevertheless, I do think it's useful to convey Liverpool's full geography in the lead but that's just my opinion. That it isn't bad faith, it's a simple explanation of Liverpool's full geography. I can only offer you an olive branch Orange because you have clearly not healed from something we discussed many weeks ago as you are bringing it up again. People are volunteering their time here and I don't see how this is helping anyone. On the question of bad faith and places having an appropriate forum, how do you explain the fact you brought up an ANI discussion in an RfC and the question of why I contribute to wiki at all? Who is harrassing who here? You will notice that I previously wanted to leave the site precisely because I felt completely harassed by you. But that's just how I felt, it makes no difference to anyone else. The interaction here today is not instilling hope for our future interactions. See the diff: [161] Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have held it true, for some time now, that Liverpolitan1980's default response to criticism is to personalise the discussion (e.g. ou have clearly not healed, above: WTF?), gaslighting, walls of text, bludgeon and frankly ignore criticism and the input of others. The AfD I link to demonstrates, to differing degrees, most of those behaviours. They are in breach of the clean start process by returning to areas of previous editing. They are, in fact, a net negative to the project. ——Serial Number 54129 15:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a routine victim of this behaviour under the prior username (including the usual threats to take me to ANI), and having witnessed the behaviour towards other users both under the prior username (including actually taking people to ANI repeatedly) - I purposely tried to engage as civilly and neutrally as possible with the new username despite the obvious correlation of name, focus of attention on particular subject matter, and almost immediate aggressive and antagonistic behaviour (one again including threats of ANI to myself and others, and actually repeatedly following through with it in the case of Orange Sticker). Their prior username had built up a reputation when they opted to retire, and have simply done exactly the same thing within 6 months on the new account. Koncorde (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a matter of record - I have been in correspondence about you both. Nobody else - just you anf Orange Sticker. Let it be known that you seem to enjoy making my experience here unpleasant. You Koncorde has a history at ANI that predates mine for stalking. I am happuy to share all your poor expriences at ANI. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clearly my time is being wasted on this project. This really is the final time I will ever bother here again. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Before this post is closed, I just want to point out he has said this before on 1 April 2024 and continued editing and an IP user also arrived to continue his argument. Orange sticker (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I have absolutely no interest in ever coming here again. I came back on with the hope that I would not come across you again Orange Sticker. You are clearly a very very bitter person and I simply have no interest in dealing with people like that. Yet again, you have brought me here again to ANI with an obvious agenda to make my experience here as unpleasant as possble. It wasn't enough that you harrassed me on Twitter. Let me make this absolutely clear for the avoidance of all doubt. I am leaving because of you. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It is absolutely your perogative to leave, Liverpolitan1980; the question must be, under what sanction will you leave under? You see, you have left a number of times now. You clean started (no.1). You left on 1 April (no.2), although that seems to have been solely with the intention of continuing to campaign for your edits while logged out, in breach of WP:LOGOUT. Now you are leaving for a third time. This time, it would seem there's a preventative necessity to stop you from returning, either logged in or out. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 15:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I would support a one account restriction for Liverpolitan1980 which includes no logged out editing. I think it's fine for this to be the current account without any specific linkage to the old account although they're free to chose either provided they tell us which one they're choosing. I don't know if we need any further sanction at this time although they should be aware if they return even without violating the one account restriction, they're running out of rope. Nil Einne (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict)Note: Since retiring, Liverpolitan1980 has fired out 2 (3 now while typing) aggressive statements and is still spectating this thread for 'reasons'. Consider simply there latest statements, I think this retirement may need to be enforced, unless they decide to come back, at which point it can be discussed what sanctions will be placed before Liverpolitan can return to editting. Otherwise, I see them causing further distruption. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not such an innocent contributor are you Koncorde? A past history of toxic behaviour including being reported for stalking. Not nice when people truy and discredit your reputation is it. You and Orange Sticker are clearly welcome to each other. I see you went on a campaign to delete the Liverpool city region article. Quite clearly politically motivated the pair of you. Goodby and good riddance. Permanently. Here is your history - hardly uncivil... {https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Koncorde&page=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&server=enwiki&max=] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liverpolitan1980 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) If you want to leave, I strongly suggest you just do it. I said above I didn't see a need to link your old account and your new account at this time. But if you're starting to attack editors you were in dispute with under your old account, it may become reasonable that they are clearly linked so editors can properly scrutinise your previous edits and interactions with the editors you are attacking. Nil Einne (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the continued sniping following the "retirement" and the generally poor behaviour prior to it, I seriously considered indefinitely blocking a moment ago. However, it's 1:30am here so I'm going to leave this to others to handle. I would support some kind of technical enforcement of their most recent (timely) retirement, as they - like last time - can't seem to let go and are devolving into poorer and poorer behaviour. Daniel (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    George Ho and non-free audio samples

    George Ho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Last week, I noticed that George Ho nominated a non-free audio sample for deletion. After seeing rather weak rationale ("skeptical about the sample's contextual significance" despite the article having sourced commentary suggested by the guideline, "album cover art already tells readers what to expect"), I decided to check the nominator's contribution and realized that over the past few years they nominated dozens upon dozens of non-free audio samples.

    In early 2022, they organized an RfC regarding the use of audio samples in song articles, where the majority agreed that the use of non-free audio samples "significantly increase[s] readers' understanding of the article topic" (FWIW, even without sourced commentary). Nevertheless, George continued nominating audio samples for deletion, with a rather unique interpretation of "contextual significance". A few examples:

    In November 2022, when George nominated files from a featured article, Ceoil confronted them about this issue (saying that George "seem[s] to be making up policy on the fly"; looking at the examples above I can agree with that assessment), to which George unexpectedly withdrew the nomination with comments "I didn't wanna admit being anti-samples" (emphasis is mine) and "I don't want my supposed conduct to be evaluated further". After looking at their nominations which resulted in deletion, I think I know why: a lot of them were files uploaded by blocked or otherwise inactive users (even in the examples above, one file is from a vanished user, one from an inactive user, and one from a blocked user), so they had no other comments and were subsequently deleted. Recently George told another editor to "avoid classic rock songs and Madonna songs. And maybe avoid songs or genres that certain users have been specializing in" to have better chances of deleting non-free covers, and to try renominating again in a few years if they fail. When confronted by Elli, George explained that they are doing this over "fears of misinforming and misleading general public" and that readers will see a cover art/listen to a short sample and won't research the topic further (if I understood correctly). And while their intentions might be good, achieving that through mass deletion of non-free media against the community's consensus, carefully choosing which files they nominate to avoid resistance, to me looks like tendentious editing, if not outright disruptive. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 18:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately, my attempt to get this editor to gain a true consensus for their edits has been unsuccessful. They seem devoted to this cause, both with removing audio samples and with removing non-free covers, regardless of what the broader community has to say. While some of their edits may be justifiable, their overall pattern of editing is not; trying to sneak deletions past editors they expect would be interested is not editing in good-faith.
    Their argument when challenged on this is that the files they sent to FFD haven't been contested in all cases, but this is because they pick files they expect few people care about, and don't notify all interested parties (for example, after I challenged their CSD on a file, they then brought that file to FFD without notifying me... or anyone else). This is not a true consensus for their edits, it's an attempted end-run around the broader community. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, comments like "if you're not that passionate, then try to stay out of my hair please, including areas that I'm interested in" (a violation of WP:OWN policy) clearly show that the user is not interested in any kind of consensus building. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 22:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That comment is definitely suboptimal, and is in the same neighbourhood of the sort of comment that tends to indicate low-level ownership issues. That said, regarding much of the rest of the complaints raised here by yourself and Elli (and following my own limited follow-up on the involved discussions), I have to say that the majority of this looks to concern a content dispute (or better put, a series of content disputes). I just do not see the argument for disruption or other violations of policy that would suggest the need for a report on conduct in a behavioural forum like this. NFCP adherence is a pretty important principle, and arguably the consequences and potential knock-on effects of a laissez-faire approach are more pronounced with regard to content that touches upon the intellectual property of the music recording industry than they are for any other media industry. As such, I don't think it's surprising that some editors are going to adopt a more conservative view of such questions.
    WP:NFC#CS is currently very vaguely worded, and when combined with the overall subjectivity of the question of what degree of empirical knowledge a sample brings to the readers understanding of the stylistic/aesthetic qualities of an album, I think we can fairly describe this as a "reasonable minds may vary" area. Further, examining the discussions you cite, the RFC in question is a bit of a confused mess as to who is advocating for an inclusion criteria that permits inclusion of samples only with significant supporting textual discussion (with an open question as to what would constitute 'significant' in that context), who supports such content irrespective of a supporting textual framework, and who is advocating for a general proscription of such content. Nor does the RfC, despite a formal close, seem to have resulted in an actual amendment to the policy itself. Regarding the three discussions you reference with selected quotes in the middle of your OP, all three involved a 1:1 !vote--George proposing a deletion and one other editor !voting keep. I'm sorry, but to my eye, labeling George's input, which simply happens to move in a direction contrary to your read on the situation as "IDHT" is rather a stretch.
    Finally, the last two comments of George's which you reference, far from being examples of "tendentiousness" are clear examples of him telling other editors essentially that "I don't agree with the prevailing view, but rather than continue to double-down in these cases, I suggest letting the matter go, and revisiting them only after some significant amount of time has passed, if there is a change in consensus, or if they are cases with unique circumstances". In other words, these seem to be pretty clear cut examples of the very opposite of tendentiousness/not letting go of the WP:STICK.
    Yeah, I'm sorry, but I followed every link in your opening report, and a number of intersecting discussions, and I don't see very much support for your belief that George is approaching the underlying content question here with anything other than a good faith intent, a relatively open mind, or with anything but the project's best interests in mind. I certainly don't see widespread disruption needing the community's intervention. I'd want to see a lot more than you've presented here before I for one felt comfortable endorsing even a warning in this area: we should not be chilling speech which argues for an abundance of caution when it comes to non-free content on the free encyclopedia, unless the feedback is in some way truly disruptive and abusive. And bluntly, to bring it back around to where I started my analysis, what I see here is a legitimate difference of opinion on how to apply an extremely subjective standard, on a very controversial editorial question, with very significant potential impacts for the project.
    But yes, all of that said, the "if you're stating your dispassion for this area, maybe you should just not have such a strong opinion on this policy issue." is an irrational argument, and I'd advise George to avoid that one at least. SnowRise let's rap 22:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Snow Rise, AstonishingTunesAdmirer, and Elli: I thought about striking that comment out, but I was awaiting admin response. That was wrong of me to say what I wrote, and I shouldn't have implied ownership, regardless of whether it is part or full. I was frustrated by Elli's unwillingness to use a DRV process, and I was uncertain whether I'll accept Elli's unawareness of FFD discussions (like one I made recently) as a good excuse to not participate in those discussions. Still, no excuse for what I said directly to Elli. Elli is welcome to participate in FFD and DRV processes, but I'm unsure whether I should invite those involved and those who contributed to a file (other than its uploader). —George Ho (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your reply! I, too, saw it as a content dispute, until they started telling another editor to avoid specific genres and artists. I'm sorry, but I really don't see that being in good faith. If they have strong, proper arguments, why not challenge files in those areas too? I then went through every audio sample George nominated for deletion this year (so far) and I made a list of uploaders. Here are my findings:
    List of uploaders of non-free audio samples George Ho nominated for deletion this year (so far)
    Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 January 10
    Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 January 29
    Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 February 22
    Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 March 13
    Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 March 14
    • 4× User:Rm w a vu – 2 edits this year, 14 edits in the last 5 years
    Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 March 24
    Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 March 25
    Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 April 1
    Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 April 16
    Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 April 22
    Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 April 27
    So they admit they're carefully choosing which files they nominate and then the majority of uploaders (this year) happens to be inactive or indefinitely blocked? AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 00:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, personally, I don't believe any choice to avoid genres and artists that they suspect would be more likely to lead to contentious discussions can be properly viewed as a bad faith activity. There's an element of WP:VOLUNTEER here, afterall: if an editor genuinely believes they are applying policy appropriately, I wouldn't consider it gamesmanship if they nevertheless elected not to try to force the issue on certain articles they believe are more likely to lead to disputes--especially if they genuinely believe (correctly or incorrectly) that there is gatekeeping going on with respect to some of those genres or artists. If they want to instead make nominations on what we might call the low hanging fruit first with their limited editing time, that is their prerogative as I see it. Afterall, each of these nominations is still handled through the normal (and highly visible) process, and there is equally as much open opportunity for the community feedback, irrespective of the genre or artist.
    Now, as to whether George is curating their selections to lean towards the submissions of now-inactive editors, I'm not sure how much that would change my opinion of the matter. But putting that question to the side for the moment, I don't think you've really provided a particularly statistically compelling argument that this is what George is doing, anyway. Taking out your descriptors, basically what I see in your compiled data set is that, out of 17 editors who contributed files that George has nominated for deletion in the last 4 months, 11 have since become inactive or blocked. Honestly, considering that currently active editors represent only a small fraction of the project's historically active editors, and that the majority of all media files uploaded are many years old, that split doesn't sound particularly suspicious to me. It could also very easily be an artifact of the the particular articles/files that George happened to be working with, for any number of legitimate reasons relating to how he ended up in those particular spaces.
    So, given the sample size and multitude of explanations here for what appears to be a pattern to you, as an intuitive and impressionistic matter, I still don't see very compelling evidence of bad faith. Is it outside the realm of possibility that George is making these selections strategically? No, not at all--your intuition may be correct. But is there very strong affirmative evidence of gamesmanship in this data set? No, I don't see that in the evidence presented so far, I'm afraid. SnowRise let's rap 01:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe my intuition is particularly strong. I just asked myself: how did they manage to delete so many files? Is Wikipedia really full of illegitimate audio files? And the answer was: FfD defaults to "delete" if nobody challenges them. Then I asked myself: how come (almost) nobody challenges them? Did everyone just accept that the files they uploaded were against the guidelines? And why many of the kept files were kept only because this one editor challenged them, rather than the uploaders? I wanted to go through every nomination, as previously seeing many of them I believe the results would be similar, but I'd rather not waste time in case that's not big enough sample size. As to whether or not that's a problem... Well, I don't know what to tell you. I guess we need to update Special:Upload to say that your files will be deleted the moment you stop editing? AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 03:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrong dates in music from Cincinnati IP range

    Someone in Greater Cincinnati has been putting wrong information into the wiki for the past 18 months, starting with TV episodes[162] but continuing with music article vandalism,[163] especially incorrect date changes.[164][165] Can we get some relief from this vandal? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the range and edits I agree. I've given them 1 month off for now. Lets see if they get bored in that time. Canterbury Tail talk 20:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fab, thanks. Binksternet (talk) 08:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User keeps assuming I'm a vandal and refuses to communicate to clarify

    The user SchroCat is constantly making baseless assumptions that I am vandal by virtue of being an IP. I've tried communicating and clarifying with them on their talk page in a cordial manner but I'm instead simply reverted and ignored. I had also tried replying to them on WP:RPPI but was also reverted by them again. This relates to the article Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick, which is constantly being edited by known WP:UPE accounts and sockpuppets. The revision history of that said article speaks for itself. 114.18.93.166 (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see you attempting to discuss this on the article talk page where it would be appropriate. Canterbury Tail talk 20:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the discussion the IP referred to in their edit summary is this one Talk:Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick#Edit warring. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Specifically it appears to be a slow edit war over content originally added by Jbroer.[166] -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are removing material cited to reliable sources. You’re a vandal and you need to stop.
    Page protection has been applied for to stop the ongoing disruption from the vandal. - SchroCat (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A, as you said to the account doing the exact same revert, slow-burn edit war over content is not considered vandalism? – 2804:F14:80F7:2601:F09A:298C:95D6:7FAF (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) That's not the definition of a vandal. They gave you a reason for their edit here on your talk page. They might be wrong, or what they say may be ill founded (I've no idea one way or another), but I fail to see how it's vandalism. Can you explain? DeCausa (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bollocks. Deleting valid encyclopaedic information cited to reliable sources is vandalism, end of. If this little vandal thinks it’s a UPE, then there’s a pathway for dealing with that, and ongoing mindless vandalism isn’t it. - SchroCat (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing content is not WP:VANDALISM, only if their was a malicious intent would it be vandalism and I don't see that this is malicious. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    nonsense. See above. Aside from the fact the vandal didn’t explain their edits, they are reverting my edits. (Given I have reverted them before, the responsibility for the content falls on to me, so they are deleting my valid edit without a good cause. I don’t give a crap how you think you define it, this is vandalism. I’ll do it again and again and I’ll be justified in doing so. - SchroCat (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not how I define it, how it's defined in policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely agree with ActivelyDisinterested. SchroCat, someone of your experience throwing around nonsense "vandal" accusations like a new clueless user and responding when challenged with "bollocks" is heading for a sanction. Cut it out. DeCausa (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was completely pointless before it started, and you’re making it even less constructive. See you all later - there’s a reason I don’t bother with this cesspit, and this is about standard. I’ll continue reverting the vandalism (“editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge”) as long as it continues. - 21:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SchroCat (talk • contribs)
      Given this response stating the intention to continue edit warring what they are erroneously categorizing as vandalism, as well as the fact that this is being done using rollback with no summary or further explanation, some admin action should definitely be considered. That is, if they're not going to listen to words and aren't going to read the policy pages, then what other option is left?
      – 2804:F14:80F7:2601:F09A:298C:95D6:7FAF (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Though the OP/IP was, of course, also edit warring(unless it turns out that change was added by a socking UPE, which I can't tell at a glance). – 2804:F14:80F7:2601:F09A:298C:95D6:7FAF (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The page-in-question should be protected, until a consensus is reached for the proposed changes. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • SchroCat's rollback rights have been removed here as a result of their apparent inability to understand what "vandalism" means. They're on 3 reverts on the article in question. If they cross the bright line with a 4th revert with the bogus "vandalism" rationale no doubt they'll be blocked at WP:AN3 in the normal course. I think we're done here. DeCausa (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You’re talking rubbish. I have reverted twice in the last 24 hours, not three times. The IP has been disruptive twice there too, but I’m sure you’re happily ignoring such disruption. - SchroCat (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally the OP/IP was blocked by the same admin who removed the rollback as a p2p proxy (along with the other IP in the article). – 2804:F14:80F7:2601:F09A:298C:95D6:7FAF (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    May I point out that the edit war is still pretty much under way on that page? Another user just reverted SchroCat's edits. I don't want to necessarily endorse SchroCat's decision to revert continuously but the opposing side has not provided a reasonable rationale for reverting their edits either. To me that is disruptive editing, even if it's not overt vandalism. Keivan.fTalk 02:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also posted a comment on the talk page to see what the issue is. Keivan.fTalk 03:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This reverting editor has only 26 edits, but has magically joined in reverting while giving no rationale. It’s more vandalism, nothing else. I had previously asked on the talk page why such deletions of valid information were taking place, but no-one has given any response, or any reason. Ongoing deletion of valid information without rationale is vandalism (“editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge”) because it sure as hell isn’t constructive editing. We now have a BLP that is misleading and inaccurate because of the disruptive editors, while the page protection I requested was inexplicably denied. I’m delighted so many will have got a cheap thrill playing gotcha over having my rollback removed, but the result is damage to the encyclopaedia and ongoing disruption. Brilliant work all round. I wish the peanut gallery would engage their collective brains sometimes, rather than play such stupid games. - SchroCat (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with SchroCat in that once he reverted the edits, he took responsibility for the material, and any further reverts from other editors can not claim UPE or sock accounts, as SchroCat is an established editor that took responsibility for the material being restored. There is a discussion open on the talk page where editors should explain themselves. Personally, I don't see the reverts of SchroCat as being an improvement to the article, and in my view are disruptive. I also think removing his rollback was an overreaction and that should be restored. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As far as I can tell, the proxy IPs, and the account before them, were reverting another account's edits, presumably because of what is said in the section #Edit warring of the talk page - that is, in that section about the previous war caused by COI/undisclosed paid editors, in December, the editors were all trying to add a version with information about a travel agency to the article, something which the 'another account' has also done with different words.
      I hope that helps you all have your discussion on what merits being in the article or not, because this is all I'm doing here - this ANI was, as ANIs usually are, about conduct issues.
      Calling that last IP a vandal while they were trying to discuss why they were doing it(which was reverting what they think is paid editing, presumably to protect the article) and misusing rollback (or even reverting with no reason provided) to stonewall them while refusing to discuss with them (including rolling back their attempt at defending themselves at RfPP) are the conduct issues that were discussed here and resulted in what it did, after SchroCat, who is still calling it vandalism, refused to accept it isn't.
      -
      That said, that new account is out of order, I know for a fact they're not even related to anyone in there, that they went there after seeing this ANI thread and decided to revert with no explanation, that's pretty disruptive, though we don't know why they did that, so I won't assume it's vandalism or trolling, but good warning. – 2804:F1...65:F77F (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      IP, I’m interested in hearing why you “know for a fact” that King Lobclaw is “not even related to anyone in there”. You know this with such certainty how? - SchroCat (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Because King Lobclaw, who's account used to be named Ohio Rizzler 1, is a new account who was posting on random ANI threads just 5+ days ago and were told it was dangerous to do so on their user talk page. It would take a cosmic coincidence for them to have any history with that article, but they do have history with ANI so, I'm certain this is where they came from. *edit: removed part where I addressed a part of the comment that was removed before I finished replying.
      – 2804:F14:80F7:2601:51B1:3B13:AB65:F77F (talk) 07:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC) *edited 07:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) x 2 So you don’t know a damned thing, then. You’re making assumptions and guessing based on zero knowledge of whether (or how much) socking, logged out editing and use of proxies is going on. You “don’t know for a fact” at all. In fact you know less than that, if you can’t see from the edit history it’s not just proxy IPs involved in the disruption. Good work knowing nothing while you defend vandalism in the ever-pointless peanut gallery. I’ll leave you to it while I go do busy work. - SchroCat (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I mean, it doesn't take a lot of guesswork to know it's extremely unlikely for an account who never edited the topic before, who was active at ANI and almost nowhere else, happening to also have any history with the editors reverting perceived UPE in an article that on most days averages 400 views [167] – 2804:F14:80F7:2601:51B1:3B13:AB65:F77F (talk) 07:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well done for confirming you “don’t know for a fact” at all. - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. As Isaidnoway correctly notes, SchroCat took responsibility for the material, and any further reverts from other editors can not claim UPE or sock accounts. And it might not be vandalism but it is disruptive editing (which vandalism is a subset of). Anyway, moving on (hopefully). El_C 07:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks El_C, that’s great. It will stop the proxies at least, but we’ll see if the named accounts continue here. I suspect activity around the article will end up back here at some point in the future. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    IP blocked as proxy, account blocked as troll. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks Euryalus; I suspect I'll be back with further problems with this one, but hopefully not. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I feel unwelcomed and worried

    Warned (logged). See also my note to the user on their talk page (here). If this close is premature, any admin is welcome to reverse it, though the logged warning stands regardless. El_C 05:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I writing here because recent events left me feel unwelcomed and even worried.

    I'm not trying to make anyone feel the same by posting this, but after few days, I still feel that I have to write this out. I hope we can come to mutual understanding without boomeranging it back to me or even making any trouble for the editors I'm reporting (one has even apologized immediately after realizing a misunderstanding ). I realize that one can also complain about my past behavior. Although, I have never been edit warring, I have never been reprimanded nor even reported for misbehavior (as I recall), I have learned more about Wikipedia and I have worked hard to correct everything mentioned by more experienced editors. I don't feel that was recognized enough in this case.

    The recent events are related to page Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity [168]. I realize that this page is frowned upon by many, but please try to understand that it exist, and that it has a reason to exist. It's normal that some people will post there.

    First event started with this post of mine. [169]. I have complained about the rule Doug Weller had mentioned and in the second section I have given some advices to another editor which included phrases "emotional comments" , "all the clutter you posted". I realize that maybe I was too harsh to this other editor, but I really felt that I'm giving him an advice. Not to prolong, this comment I have to the other user isn't the problem here. The thing is, that, Doug Weller had misunderstood that I have been addressing him, which triggered a boomerang back to me and comments like this [170], containing phrases like "SPA" and other things. I couldn't understand why all that, and all the thing from the past are being brought up. It really made me feel worried and unwelcomed. But please, this isn't even my complain here, as we have found later in this discussion [171] that it all was misunderstanding. Chetvorno had confirmed that my objection about the rule that I mentioned in my initial comment is founded and had removed the rule. Doug Weller had apologized. Doug Weller, I really feel that you have been objective here, because when noticing your mistake, you have apologized and the matter seemed to be resolved. Apart from my feeling being hurt in the meantime, after this was resolved I had no residual bad feelings. If this was the end of it, I wouldn't even write this. It isn't even a complaint about you, Doug Weller. But, let me describe what happened next. Few hours later after the matter seemed resolved I came back and saw that your initial comment with the apology had disappeared. I can't even reference it here, because it has been deleted from the history. Instead of that comment I can see this one [172]. This one has changed in tone. You had started again digging over my past. I noticed that you have sent this 3 mails [173], [174] , [175]. Doug Weller, for this that I will say, I have no proof, but I think that you are objective and have self integrity to be honest. That is why I feel that you haven't answered on your talk page. I will ask you again , if you please can answer. I strongly believe someone, and for the purpose of not making wild accusations, I will not name who (although I believe I can deduce such a thing), had contacted you and make you change your opinion. Only this makes sense for the actions of deleting the apology from history, undropping the matter and sending 3 mails to other admins to pursue further actions. Doug Weller, please, don't feel that I have anything against you. I find you objective and fair. It even seems that you have even dropped the matter again. But if you could answer, yes, or no, instead of just ignoring the question, I feel you would be honest. I would even feel better if I'm wrong with all this and if you say that I'm wrong, I will believe. But not answering on your talk page, made me feel right. And if I'm right, can you then understand why such a thing would make me feel unwelcomed and worried?

    Second event started with this comment [176]. Note that Chetvorno had not participated in talk page discussions much. All of the sudden, after Doug Weller had apologized to me on the talk page. Chetvorno starting this comment with "Since you brought up blocks on the Talk page". This coming after the apology is very strange to me. I also don't remember Doug Weller mentioning blocks. Here I'm maybe mistaken, but I can't see it on talk page. I'm sorry, Chetvorno. I cannot understand what made you call for a block after you saw that Doug Weller and I only had a misunderstanding and that he had even apologized. This really makes me feel bad, because I don't remember you ever calling for my ban before, and you and I have been present in that discussion for a long time. Chetvorno, I don't even remember you ever reporting me for misbehavior. Yes, maybe in the past there was grounds to do so, but you haven't done so. And since then I haven improved which is even noted by you in this post by saying "Since then, he has been polite". Chetvorno, then you are suggesting that I have a "record of WP:TENDENTIOUS pushing his nationalist agenda". I'm sorry, but you yourself, not anyone else had ever reported me for such behavior. Implying that I have a record would have to be backed up by ANI reports, or edit warring edits or anything other. Chetvorno, I really feel hurt that you think that I have a record, we have participated in this discussion for a long time and I don't remember you had such an opinion of me, and even if you did, you noted that I have improved and become more polite. Also, as I answered on the talk page, implying that SYNTH is against wiki guidelines in not correct at all. Chetvorno, I feel that even in your reply , you have conceded that usage of SYNTH is allowed on talk pages per Wiki guidelines. You also in your answer are stating a lack of objectivity. But again, a lack of objectivity can pointed out and discussed on the talk page. Chetvorno, You haven't done so, but instead you have asked this admin for such actions. After all this you went and called my answer to you WP:NOTHERE [177]. Chetvorno, Is it really needed this what you have suggested after I have showed the will to improve? My recent comments are on the topic, polite and you yourself haven't noted anything wrong with them. Chetvorno, please, if we had problems in the past, can we please set them aside?

    Third event is related to this 2 discussions [178], [179] and some other comments Joy and I have exchanged. I really feel those have been purely topic related discussions about the sources. However, Joy had suggested several times that I have been violating WP:ARBMAC also noting "I might no longer be uninvolved here, but I would advise to treat this message as a final warning". I really hope that, from my comments is obvious that I have not been violating ARBMAC which would warrant the final warning. I have contacted Joy on his talk page [180]. I really feel that we have agreed that there is no violation ARBMAC. But Joy, I have asked you directly if we can find common ground [181], but you haven't answered. Also, in the topic discussions, you had some problems with my sources which made me spend time researching for new sources. I agreed we can't use purely historical sources, nor have I been advocating.Joy, You asked for Tesla sources and I have provided those as well. I really feel that I have done much to address your remarks and I really feel unwelcomed that you simply ignored them.

    Please don't be offended by this what I will say, but I feel that you Joy and Chetvorno have over the years, by participating in content related discussions on that talk page, built a point of view. This is only natural. As I said in the beginning. No one needs to be offended, but I will make this suggestion, I hope it won't offend you. All of you have done much by moderating that page, but if you have built your point of view and you do participate in the discussions, is it possible that the moderation is taken over by someone uninvolved in topic related discussions? You can still participate in topic related discussions, but let's leave the moderation to someone uninvolved (without contacts via private channels, etc). I really hope you would accept my suggestion without being offended or unsatisfied.

    Bilseric (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For some perspective, the United States Declaration of Independence has 1,458 words and is estimated to take approximately ten minutes to read. Your statement above has 1,520 words. Is it fair to expect people to spend ten minutes reading this? Please consider editing it down to a much smaller size and pointing people to a larger version in your user space out of consideration. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it's very confusing. Who is the "you" that you address throughout? Schazjmd (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:TLDR. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bilseric, you might feel more welcome if you didn't spend most of your time here at Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity and in connection with that. Do you realise that of your 337 edits on this wiki, 161 were on that talk page, and if we add in the WP:AN and WP:ANI edits in connection, the request for a closure followed by objecting to the closure at Wikipedia:Closure requests, your talk page, Doug Weller's and Joy's, over 70% of your edits here have been spent arguing about one thing, for nearly seven years? With most of the rest being on the Srebrenica massacre and Operation Storm, it's no wonder you don't feel good! NebY (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bilseric is a Croatian nationalist WP:SPA who since he began editing in 2018 has conducted a WP:TENDENTIOUS campaign on Nikola Tesla to try to insert into the article a sentence that Tesla was born in Croatia. To that end he proposed an RfC 12 December 2018 which he lost 7 editors against 1 on grounds of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:CHERRYPICKING. Then he challenged its closure. Since then he has periodically continued his campaign on the Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Nationality_and_ethnicity page, [182], [183], [184], [185] many advancing OR arguments SYNTHESIZED from sources which have nothing to do with Tesla. [186], [187], [188], [189], and WP:REHASHing different versions of his offtopic, unsourced arguments in an effort to WP:EXHAUST. He has become very slick at avoiding overt behavior that might get him sanctions, but all his edits are WP:POV WP:ICANTHEARYOU and it seems clear he is not going to stop voluntarily.
    When administrator Doug Weller discussed his editing with him, I suggested he might merit a block under the WP:Contentious topic rules. --ChetvornoTALK 00:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But you have done so after we resolved the misunderstanding and after he apologized. This made me think that you have contacted him via private channels and told him pretty much what you wrote above and when he didn't answer, this felt really unsettling. Bilseric (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NebY, I'll just point this out [190]. Please note that this is a disputed topic and very heavy to discuss. When a discussion happens , people post a lot, and if you look carefully, sometimes one posts with all corrections comes up to 10 edits. However, thank you, I'll try to "diversify". Bilseric (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you notified the Arbitration Committee in accordance with Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Alternative account notification, as among Editors who heavily edit controversial material, those who maintain single purpose accounts? NebY (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please , understand, I don't want to talk about this anymore. If you notice public IPs, do not reveal them, even if I have revealed those belonged to me (that was a mistake that I cannot correct anymore). Bilseric (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not talking about IPs. You told me here "I'll just point this out",[191] linking to the section on the legitimate uses of alternative accounts. Do you have an alternative account, and have you notified the Arbitration Committee of it? NebY (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NebY, Just to be more precise about the number of articles and talk pages I've been involved on, apart from Tesla. The full list is: Operation Storm, Star Trek: Discovery, Jewish people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Triune Kingdom, Slobodan Praljak, Rade Šerbedžija, Donald Trump, Presidency of Donald Trump, Matthew Whitaker, Skanderbeg, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Croatian War of Independence, Doug Weller, Srebrenica massacre, Military Frontier, Graham Hancock. With Tesla that's all together 17. Again, thanks for the suggestion. I'll try to increase this to 25-30 by 2025 and if you feel I post too much to Tesla discussion, I won't post there until 2025. Bilseric (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This from Joy is probably pertinent to reviewing this editor's conduct, also. The subsequent discussion here doesn't inspire heaps of confidence either. Daniel (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have alternate accounts been used, by you? GoodDay (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Personal attacks by Bortak42

    Bortak42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reinstated material here and here with the edit summaries: Corrections after the vandal Cinderella157.
    • In a subsequent edit here, they made the edit summary: Fuck vandal Cinderella157.
      They made this edit after being warned by Alexiscoutinho here.
    • They made this last edit after receiving a GS alert (User talk:Bortak42#GS alert) in which they were explicitly advised that a non-ECP editor may not edit articles in the scope of the general sanctions.
      Ironically, their last edit reverted an edit by SaintPaulOfTarsus here. WP:CIR - even when one is making a personal attack.

    Cinderella157 (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm probably one of the more tolerant admins when it comes to moderate back and forth incivility, but I don't see any back and forth, just Bortak42 being unnecessarily aggressive to the point of it clearly being a personal attack. Blocked 72 hours. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support block which is pretty clearly justified. If they come back and continue, or breach the GS restrictions as a non-ECP editor, the next one should be indefinite in my opinion. Daniel (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I put as much in a personal note on their talk page. This block was more of a shot across the bow, as it was their first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem, though, is that you gave them the impression that they are allowed to edit articles belonging to this (WP:GS/RUSUKR) topic area — but they are not. Not until they meet the WP:XC requirements. They are good on the time, but +400 more edits to go. So I tried to get that across on that user's talk page (here). El_C 04:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand corrected, and explained further on their talk page. I was too focused on the personal attacks and overlooked the obvious EC issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It saddens me a bit that that user never really engaged in dialogue, which made it harder to conciliate the parties. I even tried to force a draw with the comment Cinderella linked by creating a scenario where he wouldn't come out defeated or in an embarrassed state. He gave me nothing to work with. Almost as if he asked for a block... Alexis Coutinho (talk) [ping me] 05:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive reverting by IP 2604:2DC0:101:200:0:0:0:1B1D

    BLOCKED
    OP blocked by Bbb23 indefinitely as a sock of User:Rayanmou07. (non-admin closure) NoobThreePointOh (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    This IP has reverted edits without citing reliable sources; claiming that under Sharia homosexuality is punishable by death in the UAE, although the constitution removed Sharia punishments after 2020. This IP also reverted other ‘bad’ edits, claiming that they apply to the whole source. This user might also be a sock account of Jacobkennedy. ElephantMario (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    OP blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    AndyFielding's birth date removal on biographies and lack of communication

    AndyFielding (talk · contribs) has a habit of removing dates of birth from early life sections. He calls these "redundant" (ctrl F the term in his edits, he uses it quite often). From what is mine understanding, WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY; the lead is the summation of the article body. Any information there should be present in the article. He has been contacted and warned by FMSky about their editing behaviour, to no avail. I similarly left a warning. FMSky started an ANI a little over a month ago, with no results. During that discussion, SnowFire left another message to remind AndyFielding WP:COMMUNICATION is required. No response. During that discussion, he went on through with removing dates of birth from early life sections. Their behaviour continues still.

    That alone is worrisome enough, but there is zero communication coming from AndyFielding regarding this matter. His most recent edit to his own talk page was on November 2019. He has however stated on his talk page (User talk:AndyFielding#Attention to reversals, feedback, etc.) that he is "reasonably confident my contributions benefit WP's readers". Perhaps it's a case of WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT. Maybe he doesn't use talk pages, I hear you think. Well, he did so April 28. Or on April 26, three edits to Joaquin Phoenix's talk page. Or requesting a photo, also April 26. Matter of fact, he uses talk pages quite often. So why does he ignore talk page messages? The notification of the previous ANI? The many, many notifications he must get from being reverted on those edits?

    I would very much like to see this stopped. Also notifying Alalch E., Hydrangeans, Johnuniq and El C, who were also part of the previous discussion. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like WP:RADAR behavior. I've partially blocked them from article space and told them they need to respond here. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Uncivil user across multiple articles with history of harassment and/or personal attacks

    Hi, I posted this at WP:ANB mistakenly a few days ago. Sorry.

    I tried to make an edit at 2024 Women's Six Nations Championship on 21 April 2024‎ and was reverted by User:Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel. I requested on the article talk page that they discuss the matter with me, 2024 Women's Six Nations Championship#Request for discussion, and left a talkback to that request on their user talk page here. When I hadn't heard from them in 7 days, I left another talkback. When they still had not responded in 3 days, I tried the edit again and they only responded after I said i would have to report them here if they kept being disruptive. The user left these edit's but began bullying other users in the edit summaries (here). The user has also been like this on other pages and in deleted revisions on their talk page. I admit I probably could have handled the situation better but I am now wondering what I can do as I feel the other user is bullying others away from articles and claiming ownership (here). In my post at WP:ANB, another user pointed out that Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel was warned for personal attacks, blocked, and then unblocked with cautioning Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel to carefully avoid repeating the kind of behavior that led to the initial block. They suggested WP:5P4 being something that can't be ignored and pointed out this on a another talk page (here)

    Once again sorry for posting in (what I think) was the wrong place. LouisOrr27 (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Further examples of behaviour across various pages.
    [192], [193], [194], [195], [196], [197], [198], [199] - LouisOrr27 (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are now edit-waring with another user at 2024 Women's Six Nations Championship. LouisOrr27 (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the prior block, repeated instances of incivility and personal attacks, and the edit-warring, I have blocked the account indefinitely. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This probably isn't the best place to deal with this. Filer agrees to move it to editor's talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Blaze The Movie Fan seems done with it all after decades here, and they seem vocal about it. Their misery has apparently led to them retiring from the site for good two days ago, per their user page. Now, they have seemingly threatened legal action threatened to force their retirement and blanking of contributions from the site if demands aren't met in five days—which I don't quite understand, timeline-wise. But their legal threat and doubling-down seems clear in any case. Remsense诉 08:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The L word was accidental I never meant to use it in the first place. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 08:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm very confused, where have you been threatened with a block or ban for asking for advice? If you are here to read and not edit, then do so- nothing is preventing this. Once you click "publish changes", the edit belongs to Wikipedia and will not be removed just because you want it to be. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this user may be in distress for the moment. What I think he is asking for here is for his revisions to be redacted (which I don't think is possible) and for him to be renamed and his talk page deleted. I think it might be worth explaining what a digital footprint is here. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Redaction is probably not possible, but WP:VANISH is an option as far as I know. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd note though that the RTV is generally more difficult if an editor is blocked or banned so I strongly suggest Blaze cut out on posting random complaints and comments all over the place. Nil Einne (talk) 09:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've taken their explanation in good faith and struck the characterization of a legal threat. Remsense诉 09:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It could also, on another thought I just had, mean someone else has lockpicked his account and wants to cause as much damage as possible by making it WP:VANISH Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 09:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also this implies the account has been compromised before. Edit: Actually was not, as was confirmed here Nobody (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) No it was never compromised. It's just that the edit that lead to the block [200] was so surprising people incorrectly thought it was [201] Nil Einne (talk) 09:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading this edit. To me it looks like they just don't like the current state of Wikipedia. Nobody (talk) 09:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This edit might give a little insight. Nobody (talk) 09:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blaze was told their use of the helpme template wasn't right here [202] and here [203]. None of the replies came even close to threatening a block or ban although it is technically true if an editor keeps using the helpme inappropriately, and especially if they are not otherwise contributing productively, they're likely to be blocked the same with any other persistent inappropriate behaviour. Notably, persistently trying to overturn a 12 year old block of some other editor [204], is likely to be disruptive wherever on wikipedia you do it. (What an editor does on Youtube of course, is unlikely to be our concern.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I'm not suggesting a block anytime soon, I'm just pointing out it was reasonable enough for other editors to tell Blaze to not use the help template like that. Blaze seems to have read into people telling them not to use the template in that way as threats of blocks which is sort of true since a block may eventually result, but it's likely to be far off. Perhaps the editor is particularly sensitive to blocks, given their history, but there is a big difference to vandalising one of our most high profile BLPs with offensive commentary [205] and their recent behaviour. The vandalism was well worth an instant block, their recent behaviour should stop but isn't likely to lead to a block that quickly. Nil Einne (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am convinced there is more than meets the eye here. Is it possible for someone to request a check user here? Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 09:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, I don't think there's anything that is implausible to attribute to a particular individual's particular personality. 'twould be fishing imo. Remsense诉 09:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I haven't done it personally, I may just have cold feet from this [206] incident Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes going by comments like [207] and [208],it seems clear Blaze hasn't been happy with our content and I think our behavioural policies and guidelines for a long time and has wanted to stay away but as with a number of editors, is having trouble doing so and keeps coming back then being reminded that they don't like it here. I don't think there's much we can do to help them. 10:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Request for Investigation of User:Saqib

    Hey there, I submitted my articles for publication Hook (2022 TV series) and Wonderland (Pakistani TV series) and were accepted for publication by the reviewer User:ToadetteEdit but he reverted the drafts despite accepting that article cites reliable sources as expressed here [User:Saqib]] has misused the rights as reviewer and is biased in his judgments as expressed in User_talk:Liz#Request_for_Investigation_of_User:Saqib. He also added multiple articles for deletion without giving proper rationale. He accused me as a logged out User:BeauSuzanne and discourages me to edit. I requested administrators but I feel so demotivated. Kindly look into his actions and do something. In hope for a just outcome. Thank you! 182.182.97.3 (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    First off, none of the BLPs created by this IP have been nominated for deletion, so I'm not sure why they're getting worked up over those deletion nominations? Were they socking? I brought up the issue of both these articles to User_talk:ToadetteEdit#Hook_(2022_TV_series) and when others agreed with me that the sources being used on these two pages are not reliable at all. After that, I thought it would be better to move them back to the draft NS instead of nominating them for deletion. I don't know what all the fuss is about. Also, I have a hunch this BeauSuzanne is the same as these IPs. @Drmies: warned @BeauSuzanne not to edit while logged out, but this IP range keeps doing that and even participating in AfDs to WP:GAME. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Who others agreed? The reviewer doesn't agree with moving them back to the draft. Plus you accepted that articles does contain reliable sources then why ignoring them while reviewing? And as far as IP issue is concerned, it's explicit that I have nothing to do with BeauSuzanne. And I can vote if I'm editing on Wikipedia.182.182.97.3 (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am involved in this case so I will tell the following.
    • A few weeks ago or so I reviewed the Wonderland article as part of the AfC. The ip later approached me saying that it was tagged for notability, so I went to it and to much of my surprise it was reviewed by an editor and left the tag. I told them to find sources that could establish notability and thats it.
    • A few days ago I reviewed the Hooks article seein that the spurces listed are reliable enough to warrant the draft an article. Not so long, yesterday Saqib approached me telling about my reviews of the two accosiated with reliable sources and sock farms regarding Pakistani media. I questioned them and they gave me an answer that most of the sources are unreliable. S0091 also approached and explained some of these sources. Today that same ip came to me on Saqib's bold draftifications and nominating some articles for deletion. They also came to Liz's talk and later here. I've asked for clarification and I havent yet explained.
    For the sake of this, I won't be reviewing those two drafts due to problems arising on me. ToadetteEdit! 16:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for sharing your thoughts! Just a friendly heads-up, when reviewing drafts in the future, if you ever come across an article with source you're not too sure about, it might be a good idea to hold off on giving it the green light. It just so happened that I stumbled upon these two pages by chance; otherwise, they might have gone unnoticed like hundred others. These IPs have a bit of a reputation for churning out pages and even BLPs on non-notable actors with questionable sources through AfC and then someone (probably unintentionally) moves them to the main NS. Moving forward, I'll be keeping an eye on them through WP:NPP. We can't undo what's already been done but we can definitely make sure we're not letting any more questionable articles slip through the cracks. Regards! —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're reviewing the whole situation as you have done nothing. There has been a biasedness exercised by you, if the articles were not notable, you could've tagged them but you chose to move them back. I can add more sources to both the articles and let another reviewer review it cause you have some sort of agenda against Beausuzanne and you targeted me because of it. 182.182.97.3 (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ip, you should not be saying this, and I am advising you to stop accusing editors as it is often unkind and may be a personal attack. ToadetteEdit! 16:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, I've never really patrolled WP:NPP before, but after giving it a go, I was surprised to see just how many unwarranted pages are being created. Indeed, I'm firmly against anyone who violates policies for monetary gain. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And what about his accusations? 182.182.97.3 (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have started a discussion with the IP and anyone else who wishes to join at Draft talk:Hook (2022 TV series) to identify sources that establish notability and will do the same for Draft:Wonderland (Pakistani TV series). S0091 (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This SPI was just closed but I have asked the CU to open it back up for behavioral evaluation. I have not seen so many DUCKS coming from LOUTSOCKing until now. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not here user

    glocked by EPIC (non-admin closure) —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 20:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    NOTHERE. See [209]].  // Timothy :: talk  19:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    They've been locked by @EPIC NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 19:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Epic rv the problem, but isn't an admin. User hasn't been blocked. I realized I posted here instead of and not AiV, sorry about that.  // Timothy :: talk  19:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Globally locked so the point is moot. 92.11.18.157 (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)EPIC is a steward. This means that they have the power to lock accounts and prevent them from loging in. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 19:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks all :)  // Timothy :: talk  19:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Dustfreeworld using comments inappropriately during content dispute

    Recently there was (a now-seemingly-resolved) content dispute on the page Suicide methods over whether or not an image should be placed in the lede to provide access to a suicide prevention hotline. During this, the user Dustfreeworld (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added variations of the following in the source for the page to deter other editors from changing their preferred version of the lede: 

    <!-- This image was added because [[WP:NOTHOWTO]]. Wikipedia is “not an instruction manual or guidebook”. We are not here teaching people how to kill themselves. Please don't remove. Thanks. -->

    I have been twice accused of edit warring by a tag team of the aforementioned user and WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) for removing these comments. I'm not sure what should be done, but using comments -- repeatedly, I might add -- in this manner is incredibly inappropriate. wound theology◈ 20:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    How is this anything more than a content dispute? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Specifically, the HTML comments implying it would be against policy to change the page. I'm not referring to the actual image which I think is fine in its proper place, but the addition of HTML comments that purport to reflect sanctions or consensus or something else that would prevent other editors from modifying the page. wound theology◈ 21:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words it is a dispute about the appropriateness of hidden text in an article. I'd call that a content dispute, if a rather odd one. Neither 'urgent' nor an 'intractable behavioral problem'. Try dispute resolution if you can't agree amongst yourselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AndyTheGrump, behaviorally, we might be able to sustain charges that the OP is edit warring, but not yet at the 3RR level. [210][211][212][213]
    See also User talk:Wound theology#Edit warring exceptions (which was just removed), in which the OP appears to claim that he is "reverting to enforce certain overriding policies" and therefore should be exempt from the edit warring rules. (No specific "overriding policy" has been named.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How about trying dispute resolution, rather than looking for 'charges' to 'sustain'? Regardless of who is right over the note, it seems a daft thing to get in a tizzy over. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A hidden comment does seem like a strange thing to be edit-warring over, much less to start an ANI thread over, but perhaps the OP thought that ANI would be a more agreeable audience. The OP didn't request my advice on whether this would be a pointful exercise or have their desired outcome. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Notgain repeatedly violating WP:REFVAR

    Notgain (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly violating WP:REFVAR, ineptly trying to change all the <ref> tags in Neuro-linguistic programming to {{sfn}} templates. Whenever they do it, they break multiple citations (34 one time, 13 the next) and leave the article in a broken state. I've pointed them to WP:REFVAR, which says they must get consensus before changing the referencing style, but apparently they can't hear that. Could someone please talk to them or give them a short block so they understand they need to listen and follow WP:REFVAR? Skyerise (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As I have explained numerous times to Skyerise, the existing referencing was a complete mess. A block is unnecessary. I have reviews WP:REFVAR. The page in question had many issues - it had quotes and text that was clearly paraphrased or pasted from sources without page numbers or proper attribution. References were defined in multiple locations. There was a mixture of referencing styles. The source was incredible difficult to follow. To make it easier to fact check and verify, I started what I thought was fixing referencing. When i first did it, I tried to do section by section but was reverted midstream which caused more errors because of edit conflict. I now have a tool to check referencing syntax before publishing. Skyerise just needed to nessage me to discuss, not escalate to accusations of deliberately disruptive editing and then threatening to block me for some citation syntax errors that I was trying to correct. —-Notgain (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not true. The article used all <ref> tags, here is the version of the article from 23:27, 26 April 2024. It has no {{sfn}} templates at all. No broken citations, nothing wrong with it at all. The sfn templates were all first introduced by Notgain after they began editing the article on 03:26, 28 April 2024. Again, I quote WP:REFVAR: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style, merely on the grounds of personal preference or to make it match other articles, without first seeking consensus for the change." Point me to the consensus that resulted from seeking it on the talk page first, or seek it on the talk page now; but right now, since I don't agree that the referencing style should be changed, you don't have the consensus required to do it. Skyerise (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As you are well aware I posted on the relevant article talk page and discussed any controversies content edits at length seeking consensus. I posted specifically about the referencing style on relevant talk page. I also explained to you what happened when you reverting midstream and used edits comments. I corrected the majority of syntax. I read the Wikipedia referencing policy again - thank you. —Notgain (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously, I am opposed, and you have no other support on the talk page. When two editors disagree, the article remains at the status quo. You have no consensus: it's not sufficient just to seek it, you must obtain it. Skyerise (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, as someone who has been monitoring Neuro-linguistic programming for a while, I don't quite think this citation syntax dispute rises to the level of being a "urgent incident or a chronic, intractable behavioral problem" which is what ANI is for. This probably should've been settled on a talk page somewhere. 〜 Askarion ✉ 23:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That was tried first: User_talk:Notgain#WP:REFVAR. Skyerise (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe there has been an unintentional mischaracterisation of my intentions and editing style. Skyerise claims there was no issues with the references and claim no {{sfn}} prior to my edits. However if you examine the diff before I started editing, there was a mixture of citing styles. For example, there were forteen instances of {{efn|...}}, and five instances of {{r|.... It was also a mess and very difficult to read and verify the references. There were quotes mixed in with {{cite|...}} instances. Pages numbers were missing for quotes and for obvious paragraphing without pages numbers (wikipedia should summarise, not paraphrase). Other references were unsupportive or only vaguely of the statements attributed. The biggest problem was that there were multiples of the same citation defined in multiple locations. Also, I had raised the issue of references on the associated talk page which was before Skyerise escalated the issue to asking ANI to block me and requested higher page protection. I believe this was unreasonable on Skyerise's part. The editor also posted warnings on my talk page that I was going to be blocked without warning if I continued to "editing disruptively". In all communications with Skyerise, I have been polite and tried to explain my reasons. I have sought consensus on the talk relevant page for nontrivial edits. I didn't realise copyediting or fixing references would be so controversial However, I think you need to understand it has been a hostile environment on the talk age, recently some of edit suggestions were remove, they were restored by a neutral third party, but then removed again. I'm not saying that Skyerise was a party to this, or even aware of this but ask you to take this into account when evaluate my editing behaviours and why I was just trying to sort the references so we could verify sources and have a reasoned debate in line with WP:OR. --Notgain (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if everything you are saying here is true, you still need to secure consensus agreement from other editors before proceeding. Creating a discussion on the talk page was a step in the right direction - but you need to continue that discussion and find agreement with others. That you opened a discussion does not mean that you can then do whatever you like with the article even if others object. This got to ANI because your replies on your user talk read as if you do not understand what the problem actually is - you kept talking about citation errors, but that is not the issue at hand. MrOllie (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a principle on wikipedia called Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. This is where you make a change, then you discuss. I thought my edits were trivial and didn't need consensus. If it needs to be reverted then fine - but don't revert them when you know the person is sorting the references into alphabetical order. It took me hours. Anyone looking at my discussions in the associated talk page would have been that I engaged in an intense debate seeking consensus on the inclusion of a number of new critical reviews, meta analyses and systematic reviews. Going through the article, checking sources, adding page numbers, marking sources as missing page numbers or noting that a source does not meet WP:V. --Notgain (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also - I wasn't just changing the ref format, I was accessing each listed source and checking they supported the attributed statement. Some of the reference failed that. --Notgain (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "This is where you make a change, then you discuss" as a summary skips somewhat over the middle part of that linked page. As for "I wasn't just changing the ref format", then perhaps the course of action should be to make the other changes without changing the ref format. CMD (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had already opened a discussion on the related talk page and had explained the situation to Skyerise on my own talk page[214][215] before this ANI and request for page protect was raised. In addition, I had already given the reasons in a talk page message to Skyerise explaining that I was in the middle of an edit when I was reverted and need to save what I had done so I wouldn't lose hours of work and to correct the noted syntax errors. I was trying to follow Skyerise' example as I was reordering all the references in alphabetical order to make it easier for other editors and to address the concerns that Skyerise had raised in edit comments. This should have been uncontroversial. This was in line with referencing best practises as used on good article and featured article candidates. --Notgain (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Featured articles do not have to use the {{sfn}} template. The point of WP:REFVAR is that different styles are equally acceptable and unilaterally changing between them can be unduly disruptive. Remsense诉 04:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the complexity of the referencing situation in the article under discussion. I accept that I should I sought consensus on the talk page earlier. However, I believe it's important we acknowledge the unique challenge presented by its multi-disciplinary nature. The article covers topics within psychotherapy, linguistics, psychological assessment, legal issues, scientific skepticism of mental health claims, and critical reviews from sociological and anthropological perspectives - fields that may have their own preferred citation styles. There are also primary sources that have been discussed in reliable third party sources which have been quoted regarding historical context and to substantiate various statements. I agree that simply choosing a single style risks neglecting the nuances of each discipline represented in the article. I'll see if I can engage in a collaborative discussion on the Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming, involving editors knowledgeable about these different fields. Our goal should be to find a solution that maximizes consistency and WP:V the article's diverse subject areas, while address the issue of WP:OR that has plagued the article for more than a decade. Perhaps we could investigate how well-regarded Wikipedia articles with a similar multi-disciplinary scope manage their referencing. --Notgain (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this seem to be AI generated to anyone else? Consider this post retracted if someone disagrees with my statement. 115.188.127.196 (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does read this way to me too. 's an exciting new way for disruptive people to tell on themselves and possibly shorten their own honeymoon period in my experience. Remsense诉 09:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    https://gptzero.me/ is highly confident that it is. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is absolutely insane. Never did I think Turing tests would have daily, practical application like this. wound theology◈ 12:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what you mean by that. I am certainly not an AI. --Notgain (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gptzero.me is confident that a lot of text written before the advent of LLMs are written by chatgpt. It's not a useful tool to determine whether someone used chatgpt. Give it some samples of your own writing and be prepared to be called a bot. Joey Dickinson the Game of Thrones Ultrafan (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)strike sock-- Ponyobons mots 16:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is not that you chose a single style. The issue is that you chose a single style that another editor disagreed with, and then you did not stop to reach a consensus with them before ploughing on. Remsense诉 09:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I genuinely thought that I was following the lead of Skyerise's earlier work on implmenting {{sfn}} ([216]). As I said I thought the main issue was the syntax errors. From my perspective I was not ploughing ahead without consensus, I was rushing to fix to syntax errors and not waste the hours of work I had already put into it such as ordering the citations alphabetical order. You can see evidence of my efforts to fix citation errors here: [217] and [218]. Also if you look at the current and previous versions of the article dating back some time, there was pre-existing use of {{efn}} and {{r}} before I was edited that page. I still have not seen a valid argument against {{sfn}}. I'll wait and see what the other editors have to say on the matter. But I will now experiment (in the sandpit) with {{Cite Q}} as a potential interim solution to solve the clutter issue. I'll have that discussion the relevant talk page. --Notgain (talk) 11:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to say it, but "I spent a lot of time on something" is not an argument with a lot of mileage. You will not be using {{Cite Q}} like I told you on the talk page, because it is also a different reference format that is disruptive for other editors to unilaterally change to. No one wants to suddenly have to learn how to wrangle Wikidata to edit an article where they didn't have to before. Remsense诉 11:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They don't need to wrangle wikidata. In fact its easier then the current system. You know full well that I suggested it as a compromise in seeking consensus. That something for the talk page discussion, not ANI. --Notgain (talk) 11:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have go to Wikidata and look up Qvalues to use it. Remsense诉 11:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You only need to put in the Q ID rather than all of the reference details like author, year, etc. The old system continues to work. And the more experienced users can help the newbies. --Notgain (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And other editors should not have to suddenly start doing that when they didn't have to before on an article, this is the entire point of the guideline. I have completed my attempts to articulate that. Remsense诉 11:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear what you are saying, I just don't agree with you. If you are already using {{Cite journal|...}} already, as we are on the understand under consideration then there is no consequence to using {{Cite Q|...}}. The onus is on the editor who makes that change to ensure that it works. --Notgain (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Individual agreement here does not matter, the cite format should not be changed unilaterally per WP:CITEVAR. CMD (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, I think you may have misunderstood the spirit of WP:CITEVAR. Using {{Cite Q}} when {{Cite Journal...}} or {{Cite Book...}} etc. Can you please quote the relevant policy that you are relying on? --Notgain (talk) 12:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, I have not. Note how the entire third paragraph of CITEVAR is impossible to action while editing en.wiki if Q citations are used. Wikidata has not managed to gain traction for use on en.wiki, so such citations are probably not an example that will help convince others of your position. CMD (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a point of clarification, when the page is unprotected, do you want me to revert all the {{sfn}} references including the ones that meticulously added by Skyerise, to get back to how it was before those changes? That is unless I can gain consensus on the talk page otherwise? Or are you saying I need consensus in order to convert any others? Also, would I need consensus to change <ref> to {{r}} or to add a page number with {{pn}}? --Notgain (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The best course of action is probably to see where you and Skyerise (and any other editors who participate) agree on changes and make those ones. I would not change <ref> to {{r}} without consensus. Whether to use {{pn}} would depend on what the current citation format is and existing practice on the page, although this can also be discussed on the talkpage. CMD (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also when I asked WP:AGF, Skyerise wrote that I was "inept" or "not good at" - this was not necessary, especially when I had already corrected the syntax errors and had already opened multiple discussions including the Skyerise. This is not the way to treat a volunteer --Notgain (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is true. However, they are also a volunteer, and review, potential cleanup, and pursuance after others also takes time. It seems you should have stopped changing the format after the first objection, while still able to engage in other cleanup. Remsense诉 03:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing citation styles can often be contentious, it's usually helpful to start a discussion first and following WP:BRD if anyone objects. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) I agree User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 16:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack by Dheeraj1012

    Dheeraj1012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Is a new editor that has made a around two dozen edits since beginning editing in April. Most of their additions have been unsourced. Recently, this user has insisted on edit warring regarding the (highly contentious in India) now demolished Babri Masjid mosque. After trying to have a conversation with them and letting them known of the contentious topics designation for India, in a recent edit summary, they have called me an idoit [sic]. [219]. I really don't think they have the temprament to edit about such a contentious issue, and think some kind of intervention is necessary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    They definitely seem to be WP:NOTHERE based on the comments left on Hemiauchenia and I's respective talk pages. wound theology◈ 11:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An inability (or unwillingness) to understand Wikipedia policies on sourcing etc (or even what Wikipedia is for, see this absurd draft [220]) combined with an eagerness to jump head first into a contentious topic is never a good look. And a poor grasp of English doesn't help either. Dheeraj1012 would be well advised to spend less time editing articles, and more time reading up on how to do it properly. Which requires taking notice of what experienced contributors have to say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ali00200 started editing last week, 12 out of their edits have been cut-and-paste copyright violations and they've been warned three times on their talk page. (Twice by me, once by another user). Their only non-copy vio edits have been to their user page, one change of a number, one addition of a word, and one new Wikipedia article about an author that got immediately draftified due to a lack of citations. A block might be wise at this point. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disagreement about blocking of 2601:646:201:57F0::/64

    This highly prolific editor has a ... rather unusual editing pattern of refbombing articles and talk pages with tangentially related references and quite often adding messages to talk pages just containing bare links. Both characteristics are demonstrated by the talk page contributions of this IP of theirs and this over-referencing edit to Ivory (soap). After I noticed an edit of theirs on my watchlist, I mass-reverted their edits and discovered this message on their talk page, which I felt indicated a severe attitude problem, so I blocked them for a year. They submitted an unblock request at User talk:2601:646:201:57F0:246:89EB:87C0:F4D4, which Yamla declined and bradv queried (and then reversed the block ... see my response there). If I re-block at this point, this would clearly be wheel-warring, but as I said at the discussion there I honestly don't believe we're dealing with a newbie here and allowing this person to edit would achieve little besides wasting the community's time with edits that are tedious to patrol and check and require much cleanup; for example, in response to this series of edits, I wrote that "I just checked the New York Times source (cited several times); it does not agree with any of the text it was put beside (or when it does, it does so in such a tenuous way as to be useless". Any other opinions on this situation would be appreciated. Also, I'll be in the air for a long time tomorrow so I probably won't be able to respond much between 14:00 (UTC) today and at least 18:00 (UTC) tomorrow. I'll notify all the involved editors (as much as I can for a /64) in due course. Graham87 (talk) 08:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Make that 12:30 (UTC) ... I have an early flight tomorrow. Graham87 (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore there's this edit, which shows far-above-average knowledge of Wikipedia for a newbie. Graham87 (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would they even be a newbie? Sorry if i missed them saying so somewhere. But how on earth is being able to use square brackets to creat a link any sort of advanced knowldge. There are countless examples of that on every page, signature etc. Just replicate, preview it and... Come on, its square brackets. There is nothing special about being able to do that. 85.16.37.129 (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, just got this. It's their knowledge of (a) what a redirect is and (b) that they can't create one because they've chosen not to have an account. bradv assumed they were a newcomer, hence the unblock. Graham87 (talk) 11:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok cheers. Isn't that something that is practically the first thing you pick up when editing? In the end it just is so obvious how it works. When i started editing over 10 years ago now, which i overall rarely do i have to say, i always looked for examples of what i wanted to do and simply replicated it. The square brackets are very noticable around everything when in the edit interface. So you fiddle around with it for a minute, when the preview looks fine you will just know how to do it. Not like it is complicated.
    I don't even feel like i want to defend the other editor overall. But knowing what redirects are, linking things etc are so simple that they surely should not be used as indicators of advanced skills. At least in my rather worthless opinion. 85.16.37.129 (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They likely tried to make a redirect and got an error message. Wikipedia isn't as complex as what most editors do for their day jobs. The simple markdown used here is also used on lots of websites and platforms. It seems like bad faith to assume anyone who knows about redirects but doesn't have an account is suspicious. Joey Dickinson the Game of Thrones Ultrafan (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)strike sock-- Ponyobons mots 16:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A year-long block seems quite excessive for eccentricity and a "bad attitude" (of which I've seen much worse from much more experienced users, and I'm sure I've had worse myself.) I will say however that it's unlikely they will improve based on the edits they've made so far. wound theology◈ 11:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ref: https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/11/movies/robert-altman-sells-studio-for-2.3-million.html
    always for altman's studio
    https://www.thewrap.com/obit-laugh-ins-henry-gibson-dies-73-7251/
    never mentions altman's malibu home 2601:646:201:57F0:E42C:A128:7D6:6F73 (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "redirect" shows up in page displays and search results 2601:646:201:57F0:E42C:A128:7D6:6F73 (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    multiple refs after a person's name (who has no article) specifies who they are: "Lane Sarasohn" The Groove Tube 2601:646:201:57F0:E42C:A128:7D6:6F73 (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    wound Theology: Explain:
    • eccentricity
    • "bad attitude"
    2601:646:201:57F0:E42C:A128:7D6:6F73 (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't make head nor tail of the above. Is this coherent to anyone else? --Yamla (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (this is just what I understood they said, not comments)
    I think the first one is responding to the "I just checked the New York Times source [..]" diff, saying that the ref was for the studio and that the other source, which they hid with an HTML comment and Graham reverted in that diff, did not support the Malibu home.
    The second one is explaining their intention in asking for a redirect, Graham uses that request to say the IP has "[..]far-above-average knowledge of Wikipedia for a newbie"?
    The third one I'm not sure what they are responding to as they have not edited The Groove Tube.
    And the fourth one they are asking @Wound theology what they meant with eccentricity and "bad attitude".
    --- now for comments:
    It is unreasonably challenging to understand what the reported range is saying, I'm not saying they need to be blocked just for that, but they need to improve. It will be impossible to work with them if they don't, because while it's good that they are here discussing instead of continuing, even that is not going to work if we can't understand what they are saying. – 2804:F14:80B2:ED01:4435:1C06:57EF:81CA (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, maybe a year-long block isn't as excessive as I thought it was... wound theology◈ 06:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    refers to Robert Altman and The Wilton North Report 2601:646:201:57F0:E42C:A128:7D6:6F73 (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    it seems Graham87 deleted everything I did, even on talk pages. what is that about? I cannot do more than raw urls. nevertheless they are well sourced. 2601:646:201:57F0:E42C:A128:7D6:6F73 (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    statements in initial post are misleading exaggerations with anger at being reverted 2601:646:201:57F0:E42C:A128:7D6:6F73 (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ekdalian

    hello. This @Ekdalian user is removing reliable sources content from the Yaduvanshi Aheer article and vandalizing in the article. Please check the article and improve it as per the sources. And please take action against @Ekdalian who are suppressing new Wikipedia users. Hcsrctu (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I would be glad if someone reviews my edits. I have been fighting against caste promotion and POV pushing by SPAs and caste warriors for more than 10 years here. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If information has been added as per reliable sources, so what is the reason for removing it? Hcsrctu (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hcsrctu you should be very careful about accusing someone of vandalism - that can be interpreted as a personal attack, which is not permitted and your account may end up being blocked it it's repeated. That said, calling someone a cast warrior without presenting evidence to that effect is not exactly civil either. The article's talk page is at Talk:Yaduvanshi Aheer: that is the place to discuss content and sourcing. Girth Summit (blether) 12:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit: this user @Ekdalian Belongs to Kayastha caste and he only promotes his own caste and hates other Indian castes especially the backward castes. Please check the article Yaduvanshi Aheer. he removed reliable/sources information. Hcsrctu (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are on thin ice here. Please explain what evidence you have to support the notion that Ekdalian hates other Indian castes. All I see is someone removing content that they do not think belongs in the article. Girth Summit (blether) 12:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Assumption of my caste and another personal attack may result in block! Anyone can check my edits and the article talk page comments! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, if it isn't clear enough on the top of the page, When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 12:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The user has edited the article talk page, but couldn't respond here; accusing me without any evidence and personal attacks are not acceptable at all! I would like to request Girth Summit / other admins active here to take appropriate action (could be a warning as well) against this user. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    106.184.133.94: insults

    BLOCKED
    IP blocked by RickinBaltimore for 72 hours and the edits they made have been rev'deled.(non-admin closure) NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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



    See here. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit revdel'd and IP blocked for 72 hours. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Edit war

    This editor @Bob08 is constantly removing "Algeria" from the Regency of Algiers article's Wikidata [221], claiming that Algeria "did not exist as a country before 1962", which is clearly a transgression against WP:Neutral, assuming they have bothered to read the article. I undid their edit twice but they seem focused on their WP:Editwar.

    Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring should be reported to WP:ANEW. 331dot (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted the "report" filed by the user. Unlike here, reports at ANEW must be structured. The user's report was malformed beyond even marking as malformed.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These changes are being made on Wikidata not Wikipedia, does any board here have any right to hear this complaint? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor making wild accusations and extreme personal attacks on talk page

    Sapedder has a pattern of being incredibly rude and condescending towards his fellow editors and frequently makes sly or overt passes against people he dislikes. He seems to be completely and utterly incapable of collaborating in a productive manner and seems heavily predisposed to a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. This isn't a new development, this has been going on for years.

    After a 2 year break from Wikipedia, and a disagreement on the page Khalsa, this user left a vile message on the talk page-[222], right off the bat, he accused me of "deranged socking, and stalking", slyly making threats against me, accusing me of "inappropriate behaviour" on Reddit saying that I bash his co-religionists on there and make repulsive forums, which by the way is completely unfounded nonsense and as you'll see a little later, hilariously ironic, and insinuating that he would be emailing these supposed Reddit posts to admins to get me in trouble.

    Here are some earlier examples of wildly inappropriate behaviour from this user:

    Slyly calling another editor incompetent which he was warned for by an admin in August 2020-[223].

    "I am increasingly disinclined to take you seriously as someone I can work with in any capacity. You clearly just want the article to preserve its POV and keep it as the low-quality, poorly-written attack page Dbigxray turned it into without cooperating with anyone for two years....I'm quite curious to know why you never held him to account, with his poor English, bottom-tier "Indian news channel" sources, unabashed POV, and low-value content, and no one being quoted except Congress stooges. In any case, I acted as advised by Abecedare, your interactions with me have been marginal at best and mostly unpleasant.

    Ignoring admins and other editors' reservations about the sources he inundated the Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale article with, solely because those sources satisfied his POV

    Sapedder also had a serious issue of pinging/canvassing only editors who agreed with him during discussions Elephanthunter/SnowyMeadows was also active on the t/p discussion alongside Sapedder; both users were in agreement with one another, and it seems the latter was trying to exploit the situation by selectively pinging them when engaged in a disagreement

    [224] + [225] Selectively messaging editors who were in agreement with him to achieve "consensus"

    Deciding to involve himself in an edit war report, throwing accusations and personal attacks against GSS, seemingly out of disdain for GSS disagreeing with his edits to the Bhindranwale page, once again pinging an editor (JoyceGW1) whom he had rapport with to try to stack complaints against GSS

    You contributed nothing of value

    [226] +[227]: More canvassing

    Rudeness and unnecessary condescension in this reply + Beyond the pale rude comment + edit summary: re lol 3 + Bludgeoning the requested move discussion which other editors complained about as well + blatant canvassing/attempt at vote stacking

    More canvassing/selective pinging from this user even in 2022-[228] + Edit warring; Daniel Case: Reviewing the most recent history of the article, while Sapedder did revert three times within 24 hours, that has happened only once so far + Want to take that up with the admins and embarrass yourself at (edit war report) again? And the Amarinder source disagrees with you too lmao, you just destroyed your own case with your own source, what an own-goal. + Deceptive edit summary since many editors reverted and disagreed with Sapedder as well and then Rude dismissal of misleading edit summary warning on his t/p + [229] + once again canvassing editors that agree with him to support him in a dispute resolution noticeboard

    This user talk page thread aptly summarizes how Sapedder conducts himself in discussions, put together by another editor Srijanx22

    There is a clear pattern of incivility and intimidation from this user. Regarding his accusations against me on the t/p of Khalsa, the crux of which appears to be behaviour on Reddit; I haven't had a Reddit account for years though I do lurk there sometimes anonymously, not that it's any of his business. The irony in this whole situation is that there are numerous posts on Reddit complaining about my edits on Wikipedia, with one particular reddit user instigating others against me and making disparaging posts about me, they even created an entire subreddit with some posts explicitly rebuking my edits, and all sorts of comments both from within that sub and related ones making personal attacks against me; saying that I should be doxxed, that they pray that I get banned, that I bring 5 editors with me to get my way on Wikipedia, that I'm a terrorist etc. One of those Reddit users who was particularly vitrolic against me is a regular Wikipedia editor. I also alerted ArbCom in October 2023 through email about possible meat puppetry arising from these types of posts after another Wikipedia editor notified me about what was happening, so any admin can confirm with them. Their response was "Meatpuppetry is defined by changes being made onwiki by coordination offwiki. The coordination on reddit is obvious, but the edits coming from that coordination are not in this email. Do you have specific diffs that you believe were made due to that coordination?". ArbCom did not get back to me after my response however. I could have confronted that Wikipedia user who made those reddit posts/comments about me, publicly trying to humiliate him and his takes, but I didn't because that's completely out of line and at the very least reserved for more discrete communication, but it appears Sapedder thinks differently. And even I if was guilty of what he is saying, that I make repulsive reddit posts "bashing Sikhs", why is that any of his business, and why should that have any impact on Wikipedia discourse? He accuses me of "stalking" yet he inadvertently admitted to stalking reddit accounts he presumes are mine (!). It's clear he's just trying to tarnish my reputation and humiliate me. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not too sure what the rules are for off-wiki interactions, especially for anything stated in a Reddit post. Obviously cyberstalking is a huge accusation to make, so perhaps an admin can speak to that. Conyo14 (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins, this user is doubling down on personal attacks, accusing me of being some sort of Internet mastermind and using socks-[230]. This behaviour warrants an incivility and battleground block, at the very, very least.
    By the way, Sapedder, if you have any suspicions that I'm using socks, please don't hesitate to file a report against me, or better yet, email some sassy hyperbole interspersed with personal attacks, as you indicate you often do, to admins. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack by User:Hongkongpenang

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

    • This user uses inappropriate words during discussions [231]
    • When this user failed in the discussion, he made personal attack by using nationality [232]

    I hope the administrator can follow up on this action. Thank You.. Stvbastian (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems to happen an awful lot with this editor. [233], [234], [235], [236], etc. Looks like WP:NOTHERE to me. Simonm223 (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After reverting a racist personal attack here, I have blocked the account indefinitely. I'm pretty sure this is an LTA but I can't remember which one. Either way, we don't tolerate that sort of racism here. I expect I'll be reverting TPA shortly. --Yamla (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    181.216.91.244 & 141.161.209.126

    Same as usual, I guess from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ireneirenegoncalves: Here, there and there. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User needs TPA revoked

    See TOJI FUSHIGUROmegumithenigga. Nothin' good goin' on there. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done – Muboshgu (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeswhynot1234567890

    Yeswhynot1234567890 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    SPA creating attack page [237], personal attack at WP:AFC/HD [238]. Requesting block and RevDel. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That personal attack is definitely indef worthy imo but I actually think the page they created is about themself. Not that it matters. wound theology◈ 06:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC) Nevermind, absolutely an attack page. wound theology◈ 06:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeffed and draft deleted (attack/lol page). Johnuniq (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism-only account, WP:NOTHERE

    INDEFFED
    Blocked indefinitely by Johnuniq. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Nikey05 is pretty much exclusively here for vandalism purposes. They've managed to only log in to vandalise every few weeks so as not be applicable for AIV (to the best of my knowledge), but their edits have included:

    It's pretty clear to me the user is WP:NOTHERE. — ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 08:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup clearly a WP:NOTHERE vandal. Give them a block.CycoMa1 (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeffed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks John. Many thanks for the speedy response. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 10:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    None of you are here to build an encyclopedia

    I've observed Wikipedia for over 21 years, you're all infighting over trivial things, while making inconsistent rulings over notability and fighting over junk. Plus using blue locks to keep anti Palestine propaganda on wiki unchallenged. I don't want to be associated with Wikipedia anymore, and declare that all my edits are false, over hundreds of ip addresses and sockpuppets over the years. Good luck cleaning it up, and you do it for free while Jimbo rolls in donation money. I no longer make the distinction between admins and vandals, you both are ruining human knowledge. Enjoy being replaced by GPT. 77.103.193.166 (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1222862110"