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 Ravpapa (talk | contribs) at 11:39, 15 May 2024 (→Tendentious editing at String Quartets, Op. 20 (Haydn)~~~~~~~~: 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)

    CLOSED
    There is a consensus for पाटलिपुत्र (talk · contribs) to be topic-banned from adding any images as well as editing any Central Asian, Iranic, Turkic, Armenian, and Caucasus articles for a period of one year. --qedk (t 愛 c) 13:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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]
    • Comment I guess the image restriction could be not to add more than 2 image per article? And that they have to be actually relevant and not shoehorned? (which goes without saying). HistoryofIran (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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]
    Responding to relevant points in @ImperialAficionado's first comment:-
    Responding to relevant points in @ImperialAficionado's second comment:-
    Instead of sticking to the topic, historyofIran and ImperialAficionado seem to be enjoying more in off-topic discussions. As we see ImperialAficionado first pinging historyofIran just to tell them see how funny he posted this on my talk page and disregarding sources provided by me. What is ridiculous is that one of the sources cited by ImperialAficionado (Dictionary of Wars) is now considered as unreliable by historyofIran but as per RSN it is reliable, I wonder why HistoryofIran then didn't oppose ImperialAficionado for adding this unreliable source (according to them). (Could be WP:TAGTEAM?) For the timeline of the War, I have provided them with Bakker's timeline of the Gupta-Hunnic struggle but they keep neglecting it and instead of focusing on the topic of the discussion they derailed it with useless laughable talks at the end. Note that the other sources cited by ImperialAficionado do not give a single reference for any involved belligerents victory and merely talk around the fall of the Gupta Empire. Again see Talk:Gupta–Hunnic Wars#Constant_disruption.
    Responding to relevant points in @ImperialAficionado's third comment:-
    • Strange how ImperialAficionado didn't bother to put the whole context here, alright I'll do this for him.
    I have explained the reason for reverting your edits at Talk:Gupta–Hunnic Wars and placed warning templates on their talk page which was being removed by ImperialAficionado. They removed it not only from their own talk page [118] but they also tried to do the same from user Mnbnjghiryurr's talk page, which was later reverted by [119] Jonharojjashi (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats not the whole context. And its still not a good idea to suggest that me and Imperial are tagteaming with all the evidence I have of you here - because if we’re tagteaming, we’re going to have to find a new word for you and your Discord group. You’re trying to shift the focus, and it’s not going to work. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonharojjashi and Malik-Al-Hind

    Malik-Al-Hind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    My god, can they make it less obvious?

    1. Both Jonharojjashi [120] and brand new User:Malik-Al-Hind [121] use the obscure and poor source written by a non-historian Dictionary of Wars
    2. Both fixiated on making poorly sourced WP:SYNTH war/conflict articles where the Indian part wins [122] [123]
    3. Like Jonharojjashi [124], Malik-Al-Hind also tries to overinflate Gupta territory/history through source misuse (WP:SYNTH) [125] [126]
    4. Both Jonharojjashi [127] and Malik-Al-Hind [128] are fixated on me not focusing on User:DeepstoneV. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know much about Johnarojjashi but I noticed that he has similar edits like DeepstoneV (as they both edit around Ancient indian history). Since I don't know about him so I can only reply to the accusations on me.

    Firstly, I'd apologize if the book I cited is not written by a historian but I found that cited in Afghan-Maratha War, so I thought it would be a WP:RS.

    Secondly, my draft is well sourced, you can raise the issue at the talk page. I'll surely fix it.

    Thirdly, you were extending the topic with different discussion but still I preferred answering your doubts instead of raising concerns of diverting topic, you even played the game of "response and skip" in the discussion and you only arrived there in the interval of 2-3 days (why?), I had quoted RS to clear your doubts, the other users (Flemish Neitz.. and Based Kasmiri) also supported my view so don't just accuse me of doing synthing.

    Fourthly, Because of User DeepstoneV the Gupta Empire page was protected (requested by me) and they have removed several sourced contents from diff articles (reverted by me[129][130][131][132]) but instead of warning them you chose to support deepstoneV for no reason, even if they did disruptive edits. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, my “doubts” ended up being real, as you did indeed misuse WP:RS to overinflate Gupta territory, which Flemmish also ended up calling you out for [133]. But long live dishonesty I guess. The rest of your comment dont even deserve an answer, seems like you and Jonharojjashi are using the same poor lines to respond to me. HistoryofIran (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here we go again, @Malik Al Hind If you don't know much about me then why do you want to link me with DeepstoneV? Just stop this nonsense. And why are you apologizing to Historyofiran for using this book? As per RSN it is a reliable book [134], we are not binded by their dictatorship but only Wikipedia policies and guidelines, (as expected historyofIran keeps biting newcomers). Interestingly they didn't oppose the addition of the same source by ImperialAficionado [135]. Tag teaming goes hard. Note that when I raised the same issue for defending poor edits of deepstoneV, they removed my comment from their talk page [136] because they don't want hear anything against their tag team members. Jonharojjashi (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The whataboutism resumes once again. This report is not about me, Imperial nor Deepstone, but your discord group. And please dont put words in my mouth, I removed you from my talk page because I dont want a meatpuppet leader in my talk page. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonharojjashi and Sudsahab

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

    1. Both Jonharojjashi [137] [138] and indeffed user Sudsahab [139] use the incredibly obscure and obviously non-WP:RS by a non-historian Bharat's Military Conquests In Foreign Lands
    2. Both make poorly sourced WP:SYNTH war articles with no source for the date of when it started, heck the start date doesnt even appear in the body/lead of the article [140] [141]. Notice that there are only a few days between the creation of the articles 2 March 2024 9 March 2024, this is not a coincidence that they both create an article related to a Saka "campaign/war". --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now this. Sudsahab has already asked me to help them improve their article [142] and as I said their, I was busy back then within working on my own drafts and replying to these ANIs. Beyond that I know nothing what happened to them or their sock, keep me outta this.
    I hope historyofIran knows that anyone can see others contributions and edit history, so isn't it obvious that Sudsahab could be influenced by the source used by me? In fact the book Bharat's Military Conquests In Foreign Lands. is quite popular among South Asians. So I don't claim copyright of it, anyone can read it if they want. Jonharojjashi (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At this rate you might as well give me an invite so I can craft a better excuse for you. The two articles were created BEFORE your conversation with Sudsahab, and I dont see him asking you to create that article either for that matter. And ah yes, the non-WP:RS by a obscure, non-historian is no doubt popular amongst South Asians, and who are more than 2 billion a that. Do you have a source for that? HistoryofIran (talk) 16:33, 10 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 [143]), likely a sock [144], though the SPI might not come with conclusive results again.

    1. At Talk:Hazaras, Bravehm blatantly lied that User:KoizumiBS removed sourced information [145], 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 [146] [147]
    3. Bravehm also blatantly lied here to justify their removal of sourced info about the Mongol aspect [148]
    4. Removed sourced info about the Mongol aspect again [149] ("According other sources, the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words.")
    5. Same here [150]
    6. And here [151]
    7. And here [152]
    8. And here [153]
    9. And here [154]

    --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 [155]. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Another attempt to minimize the Mongol aspect [156]. 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.[157] 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 [158] Bravehm (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @HistoryofIran: [159], [160]
    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" [161]. 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: [162] 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 [163]. 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 [164]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was just a restoration of sourced info deleted by KoizumiBS.
    This's how I did it (Restored revision 1219713481 by WikiDan61 (talk): Please do not delete previous contents [165]) Bravehm (talk) 12:59, 9 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]
    Thanks for trying to discusss this here. Your opinion about your own edits is irrelevant. The fact that you can't do anything but raw URLS and your communication issues demonstrate a competence problem. I reverted many of your edits because they were problematic; a references section is not a place to dump random tangentially related refs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graham87 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)<diff>[reply]
    I'm concerned that Graham87 doesn't understand the problem with heavy-handed blocks like this, and the damage this sort of admin work does to Wikipedia. After looking at this case I took a quick look at some other recent blocks, and there are some other reasons to be concerned:
    • Special:Contribs/2400:ADC5:1A9:7500:0:0:0:0/64 — blocked for 6 months with no warning, no explanation, no block notice, and no advice on how to appeal.
    • Special:Contribs/Orbitm8693 — blocked without explanation, with no talk page or email access. The reason given is "block evasion", but no indication of what block they are suspected of evading, nor any way for them to appeal.
    • Special:Contribs/Randompandaeatcake — same as above, "block evasion" without explanation nor any means of appealing.
    • Special:Contribs/Wondabyne — again, no explanation, no means of appealing as both email and talk page access were revoked. Graham87 initially reported them as a sock of RichardHornsby but the evidence didn't hold up. Yet they remain blocked with no way of appealing that decision.
    I haven't had time to dig any deeper yet, but this may require a broader investigation. – bradv 14:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's fairly common to not specify the master of a block evader to deny recognition. It's also very difficult to communicate with a /64 user and editors focused on adding unreferenced content about one particular country are ... not what we want here. I don't believe users who waste the time of other editors should edit here. Re the sock block, I did indeed get the sock wrong on my first go but it was corrected. Graham87 (talk) 18:13/19:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's usually done for long-term abuse cases, or in the words of the essay you quoted, "true vandals and trolls". Which LTAs are these? You haven't even specified which blocks they are evading. – bradv 02:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Is there not any way for us to note, say, in a revdelled edit which master a sock goes to? This seems like it would be more useful than a total blank. jp×g🗯️ 02:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah it would. I've added links to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RichardHornsby in all those cases. Honestly normally I would add such links but for that particular case (both the person I thought it was originally and the actual sockmaster), I didn't think there'd be any point; those who know could use the search feature to find it. Graham87 (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So you're saying that you blocked Orbitm8693 as a sock of RichardHornsby, but that SPI says the accounts are unrelated. And they have no way of appealing as you revoked email and talk page access, despite any evidence of abuse. Do you see the problem? – bradv 19:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at their contribution history, most of their edits consisted of undoing revisions without explanation or discussion (thank you for providing such an explanation). This is not at all normal for a new account and strongly fails the duck test. They seem to have been on the same side as Randompandaeatcake and may well be a meatpuppet of that user, as discussed at the sockpuppet investigations page. I need to be out of here soon and I've only had the chance to skim-read the rest of the blocking policy so far. Graham87 (talk) 09:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Came on this discussion due to a bot report at AIV. Gotta say, I think a long removal is due here. See e.g. the filter hits from May 13 (today). None of these are appropriate per WP:BLP if no other reason. Special:Contributions/2601:646:201:57f0::/64 is in general worth blocking for disruption and/or WP:CIR and the only reason I haven't issued one is because this section exists. Izno (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Regardless of the IP editor's competence issues, Graham87's understanding of policy - especially his comments about sockpuppetry in this thread - is very concerning. At the very least he needs to stop DUCK blocking suspected sockpuppets and start reporting them to SPI. BoldGnome (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I noticed the IP's recent edits too and they're ... interesting, but I thought it'd be better for other people to observe them and act as they see fit. Re sockpuppetry: I'll take the above message on-board; I don't often encounter situations quite like this. Graham87 (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is normal and routine for admins to block potential socks based on reports at AIV and places elsewhere than SPI. See also the length of the SPI queue (which is not helped by adding obvious socks) and/or User:Tamzin/SPI is expensive. (I make this comment in the general sense, you may have been trying to be specific about whether Graham should be issuing such blocks.) Izno (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was being specific about whether Graham should be issuing such blocks. BoldGnome (talk) 04:10, 15 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]

    Boomerang topic ban proposal for User:Hcsrctu

    My first interaction with @Hcsrctu: was at Kalachuri Era(redirect) which they redirected to Abhira Era without consensus.[166] ,my second encounter with them was at Graharipu , where they engaged in an edit war with 3 different editors(incl. an admin) to restore their preferred version[167] then proceeding to report me to an admin @Bishonen: [168] without discussing on the talkpage first. From this thread , it seems their behavioural pattern of engaging in disruption and then trying to file frivolous reports against editors hasn't stopped yet despite me warning them to be more cautious on how they conduct themselves in this topic area[169]. I believe a topic ban from caste related topics is due at this point to minimise the disruption. Therefore I'm making this formal topic ban proposal. Pinging the subject of this thread @Ekdalian:.Ratnahastin (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ratnahastin: Perhaps you do not know that Abhira era and Kalachuri era are the same. Later Abhira era was called Kalachuri era. And the user whose edit you reverted has been already blocked. And I reverted the edit to the Graharipu article because its sources support it. And I debated with @Ekdalian on some issue, that issue has been resolved, still I apologize to @Ekdalian and I will not make such mistakes in future. Hcsrctu (talk) 07:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're back,this time adding POV caste promotional content using archaic sources here.Ratnahastin (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already expressed my opinion in the above section, 'Ekdalian'! Personal attacks are not acceptable, especially such serious allegations. Would request the admins to take appropriate call regarding the user. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Ratnahastin, the user Hcsrctu has been engaged in tendentious editing so far, and I sincerely believe that appropriate action should be taken against this user as per WP:GSCASTE! Moreover personal attacks against a fellow editor in the above section 'Ekdalian' are not acceptable at all, where the user is accusing me that I am "vandalizing" the article on Yaduvanshi Aheer (all experienced editors have supported me on the article talk page & the article has been reverted to the last version by Sitush); even the user Hcsrctu assumed my caste (considering my contributions) and mentioned above that "he only promotes his own caste and hates other Indian castes especially the backward castes", which is a serious offence to say the least. Ratnahastin, you may report this at WP:AE, and I shall support you, though I would like to get this resolved here itself! Pinging admins.. @Bishonen, Newslinger, Doug Weller, RegentsPark, and Bbb23: please have a look at their talk page warnings along with edit warring tendencies, and note that almost all their caste related edits have been reverted by some experienced editor or the other; would request you to take necessary action! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Many articles created, and i have concerns regarding quality and the lack of reliable sources because most of articles are BLP!

    I was wondering, while checking this https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Saqib

    (He was given Autopatrolled rights by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BU_Rob13 ) Just came to this user saqib created 200+ articles with Autopatrolled rights only with two lines (alosmost all articles) and most of them are not properly cited. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and hundred more.

    Is it okay to manufacture short articles with Autopatrolled rights? Because as per guidelines creating "clean" "elaborate", well cited articles is mandatory!.

    The user started defending with assumptions when I informed the administrator here.

    Is it okay for a user to manufacture hundreds of articles with just two lines ? Lkomdis (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to agree with Saqib. This looks very much like Saqib is being targeted. I clicked on 1,2, 9 and 10. They are all well-made stubs on clear WP:NPOL passes. I saw Saqib taken to WP:XRV yesterday. And now I see OP has been shopping around for admins to do their bidding. This is definitely not a user with 103 edits as it would appear. This is a sleeper for a farm, presumably one Saqib might have foiled with their AFC or NPP work. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, definitely not a good-faith editor. They were provided sufficient explanation at the teahouse here yesterday. Yet here they are raising the same issues as though that had not happened at all, having in between gone to Bbb23 and then WP:COIN. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I believe this is the third report of Saqib here of elsewhere I've seen in the last few weeks - virtually all have the same linguistic structure/grammar, and virtually all are bad-faith complaints/content disputes. It's hard not to think this is a campaign of harassment by a sockmaster. The Kip 17:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These creations appear to be rapidly created and near-identical - in other words, without consensus they are WP:MASSCREATE violations.
    There may also be an issue with Lkomdis, but Saqib needs to hold off on these creations until they get consensus for them. BilledMammal (talk) 04:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I clicked a dozen or so and they are all on legislators. As long as the sources verify that they were elected to parliament/s, I have no concerns. Legislators are exempt from GNG requirement. If there are articles on topics that require SIGCOV that were rapidly mass-created without citing them, that would be a different matter. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    However, they’re not exempt from our rules on WP:MASSCREATION and WP:FAIT; indeed, the biggest issues we have had with mass creation - the ones that have consumed the most editor time and caused the most drama - have been on topics where notability is presumed. BilledMammal (talk) 04:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see why those PAGs exist and I can think of areas where they would do good, even in article creation; I just don't see how they could be applied to legislator bios to benefit. NPOL was well-established well before I joined, and in all my time, I have never got an impression other than that we want to create standalone articles on every single one of the legislators because we believe that's essential information for encyclopedias to have and we believe all legislators are sure to have more coverage in reliable sources than our pretty lax inclusion criteria. I would need to see that the stubs have other problems than that they were quickly created en masse. I recognise your position. And I have seen you, along with others, convince the community of it, in other areas of the project, sports notably, but you have not done so for NPOL. I don't think the current community position foresees any problem with legislator stubs that you may do. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The PAG might apply to the bios which simply repeat information already on List of members of the 16th Provincial Assembly of Sindh and List of members of the 16th National Assembly of Pakistan, but one of the examples above, Syed Adil Askari, shows how they could be expanded further. Odd that that ended up in the list. CMD (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm NOT buying this complaint against me. The OP also accused me of COI and UPE which I've clarified here. For the clarity, I've created over whopping 2,000+ BLPs on Pakistani MPs, not just 200 as the OP wrote above. And if anyone's wondering why I made those stubs, it's simple. They all meet WP:POLITICIAN, they're well-referenced and I haven't inserted any PROMO or even WP:OR. I challenge if any one can find any such, please provide the diffs here. Honestly, I'm surprised nobody has linked to the BLPs I created that later became quite detailed bios like (Aseefa Bhutto Zardari, Ali Wazir, Fawad Chaudhry, Usman Buzdar, Anwaar ul Haq Kakar, Muhammad Aurangzeb, Liaquat Ali Chattha, Mohsin Dawar, Nausheen Hamid, Rana Aftab Ahmad Khan, Hammad Azhar, Fayyaz ul Hassan Chohan, Sardar Nasrullah Khan Dreshak, Musadik Malik, Ismail Rahoo, Sibtain Khan,Faisal Vawda, Zartaj Gul, Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Murtaza Wahab, Sadiq Sanjrani, Usman Dar and the list goes on...). --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      created over whopping 2,000+ BLPs on Pakistani MPs Please read WP:MASSCREATE, and please stop engaging in the mass-creation of these stubs until you get consensus that such mass creation is appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 06:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For sure, if it's a policy and applies to WP:NPOL, I'll steer clear of that in the future. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's a policy, and it applies to all content pages - both those covered by WP:NPOL and those not covered by it. BilledMammal (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If that's the case, then fair enough. I wasn't aware of this, if you take my word for it. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's an obscure policy; it's understandable to be unaware of it. BilledMammal (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The policy applies to "large-scale" creation; also "Alternatives [...] include creating the pages in small batches"; the articles were created in batches of around 20. The policy does not mention a recommended amount of time between batches. https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Saqib goes back to 2014 and only lists 1,899 pages (of which 240 were created in 2024). Creation in small batches can be disruptive if the reliability of the sources is unclear, but approval is not required. Peter James (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I want to make it clear that I'm not citing non-RS, as you can verify by randomly checking any BLP. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      From June 2020 to February 2024, Saqib only created one article which was in 2021. In 2024, there were 3 days they went over 24: March 24 created 73, March 26 created 107 and March 29 created 32 so a little over 200 over the period of 5 days which did violate Masscreate. Before that they created a total of 18 articles and since March 29 they have created 9 articles so this is not something they are doing continuously. From what I can tell, these appear to be the result of a recent election. Is that correct, @Saqib: and are you done or are there more? S0091 (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yep, that's right I created BLPs for newly elected MPs right after the 2024 Pakistani general election. This is my area of expertise and interest. Not only did I create BLPs, but I also contributed extensively to election page. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok. Next time, get approval beforehand even if you do not know exactly how many. I am not sure how much lead time you need so I suggest asking at WT:BRFA. They may also be able to point you to previous approval requests for examples. S0091 (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't foresee the necessity to create a large number of BLPs until the 2029 elections, barring any disruptions to the assemblies. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      But wait, I didn't use any tools so why would I need to ask at a bot forum? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @S0091 and BilledMammal: WP:MASSCREATE states that bot approval is required when it is large-scale automated or semi-automated content page creation. Unless I'm missing something, these completely manual creations by Saqib are fine, since no tools were used? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      My understanding is the method does not matter. If edits/page creations are done in a bot-like/automated fashion, it's covered by the policy. See WP:MEATBOT. S0091 (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @S0091: There it says that it can be disruptive, but only if there are issues with the content being produced: However, merely editing quickly ... is not by itself disruptive. Are there any issues with these articles besides them being short? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I reiterate that no tools, scripts, or automation were utilized. Everything was done manually , and I ensured that no mistakes were made.And if anyone finds a mistake, please feel free to provide the diffs. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Lkomdis I think is the only editor who has raised an issue with the content, then BM about Masscreate. Meatbot also states If there is any doubt, you should make a bot approval request. In such cases, the Bot Approvals Group will determine whether the full approval process and a separate bot account are necessary so I think this fits the bill to at least ask at WT:BRFA. S0091 (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @S0091: IMO, there is no point in making a BRFA request; there's no one who thinks that a bot should be doing these activities (there's likely only going to be a few confused "why are you requesting manual creation be given bot approval?" comments if taken there) and I seriously question the motive behind Lkomdis pointing out these "issues" (see my below comment) – Saqib has used no tools (i.e. completely in-line with MASSCREATE) and as far as I'm aware there's no issues with the content itself – I see nothing that needs to be done here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      To be clear, I don't think there anything to be done at this time either regarding Saqib and share you concerns about the OP. This is all in hindsight. The articles have already been created, Saqib legitimately did not know about Masscreate, it is not something they are doing continuously and no one has brought up any specific issues about the articles. So the question is do these articles meet the Masscreate criteria thus in the future require approval? I lean on the 'best to be safe' side but either way I don't think this discussion belongs at ANI but at BRFA (or someplace else?). S0091 (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:MASSCREATE does list that as an alternative, but it also makes it clear that approval is still required - the only difference is that it suggests approval may be more likely when the proposal is for small batches rather than for large ones. BilledMammal (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to clarify, I didn't use any tools. I created all the pages manually and it was quite a hectic task. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It says it's an alternative but then says it is not an alternative but is just a way that is more likely to gain approval, so the editors who created that policy made it contradict itself. Of course if split into separate tasks (instead of one task whether in one batch or several) no approval is required. Peter James (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Looking through the last few pages of Saqib's contributions, I am not seeing a MASSCREATE issue. Creating a lot of similar articles about clearly notable topics is not inherently a MASSCREATE violation. Rlendog (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @BilledMammal Your reply is appreciated and I agree with you. Lkomdis (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Even if you were not aware about WP:MASSCREATE, but you kept manufacturing same two articles silently since 2016!, with the use of Autopatrolled Right, if you are not aware about policy guidelines please don't miss use any privilege right.
      @Rosguill This user right was supposed be for prolific creators of clean articles in order to reduce the work load of New Page Patrollers but see what is happening here! Lkomdis (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Lkomdis, what is your problem?? You return from a four-year absence and one of the first things you do is report this editor to the Teahouse, then after being told its fine report them to Oshwah, then to Bbb23, then to the COI noticeboard, and then bring them to ANI, and it seems you've done almost nothing else? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @BeanieFan11 If someone returns from four years break doesn't justify that I should not report such incident, as I was not aware about reporting proces of such incident i went to Teahouse first, then Oshwah to here,
      While checking his edits, i found group of paid editors were mantaing or defending Waqar Zaka, a VJ-turned-television host and a cryptocurrency enthusiast, so reported to Bbb23, but he looks to me doesn't care much about it, and replied.
      "Enough years to know that I have no interest in these issues. I suppose you could take it to WP:COIN"
      For me Saqib looks potential candidate of COI, check by yourself about his defense style here then here, his recent edits on cryptocurrency enthusias article smells like he may be involved in this to make an image of Waqar zaka either in favor or against the person. and that's the case of investigation. Lkomdis (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      First you accused me of being a UPE adding PROMO stuff to Waqar's BLP, now you're saying I'm against him. Can you make up your mind first about whether I'm editing for him or against him? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Saqib Playing victim card will not lead the discussion anywhere, just let the community review the case, and being too defensive about the article of cryptocurrency enthusias Waqar Zaka, will not save it, and doesn't prove anything!. Lkomdis (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Lkomdis, I don't really have a strong opinion about the Waqar Zaka BLP, unlike some UPEs who are really attached to their creations. You know why? Because I don't have any clients to answer to, so even if this BLP gets deleted, I'm not bothered. I've made my point that it shouldn't be deleted, but if the community decides otherwise, it's no big deal to me. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Saqib That's why this case was reported to WP:COI , and I will suggest please don't conclude everything on your assupusons, there are other editors too, leave some room for them to see what is going underneath with Waqar Zaka article. Lkomdis (talk) 11:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Masscreate exists for a reason, it's not just to stop policy or guideline-violating articles. Autopatrol should not exist. It doesn't help NPP (in the big picture it probably makes their job larger by creating walled gardens) and everybody needs a second set of eyes. Taking away autopatrol is not a big deal, it's just normalcy. Which is what should happen here. North8000 (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Autopatrol should not exist. – Strong disagree. There are clearly some people who do not need their work checked by members of NPP, and that's okay. It doesn't help NPP – Tell that to the massive backlog we have and the lack of volunteers we have to help deal with it. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm an active NPP'er ad do worry about the backlog and disagree. But I only made the general statement here supporting my stance and that it would be no biggee to remove autopatrol. But my bad for not making that clearer or not wording it differently.North8000 (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @North8000 Regarding  this case, I am of the same mind. However, if Autopatrolled is not available, it will cause NPP overload. "everybody needs a second set of eyes", that's the truth, to avoid this kind of incidents again in future. Lkomdis (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed with Lkomdis here, Saqib has created multiple BLP's like Syed Adil Askari, Waqar Zaka with WP:Non-RS yet still he is nominating articles, the similar BLP's for WP:AfD.
    • Is there a reason why the OP hasn't been indeffed yet? They obviously didn't just materialize in good faith after four years and immediately stumble into Saqib out of sheer coincidence. This is a targeted hit job and should not be tolerated. If there are issues with Saqib's edits, they should be sorted out, but it is unconscionable to leave the OP unblocked. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not see anything in this section which requires administrative intervention (in fact, any intertvention). I suggest that someone closes this section. On the other hand, an indef proposal for OP which is below seems legit and should run its course.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Boomerang Indef for Lkomdis

    Uninvolved editor here (I say this a lot now), seems like Lkomdis is going after the user involved here (WP:FORUMSHOP) and is clearly WP:ABF. In addition, I would suggest taking a look at related editor Aanuarif (this suggests a big sockfarm here) who might related here. This doesn't mean Saqib is completely exonerated but this is a pretty unambiguous action we can and should take. I suspect that one of the reasons that Saqib is being targeted here is that his mass stubs may be eroding the business of the farm in question (you can't pay for a Wikipedia article that already exists), or it could just be socks boomeranging. Edit: In addition, this behavior seems to have started after Saqib started an SPI and started NPP. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it's not about their concern regarding my stubs on Pakistani lawmakers. It all started with this SPI and particularly involving this IP. The attacks intensified after I started NPP just a few days ago. I nominated some of their articles including BLPs for deletion (all related to Pakistani actors and TV shows) and some AfCs (again all related to Pakistani actors and TV shows) were also rejected by me, after which I began receiving attacks both on-wiki and off-wiki. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I'm not related to any kind of WP:Sockfarm, I initiated some new articles (Draft:Hook (2022 TV series), Draft: Wonderland (Pakistani TV series) and Draft:Gumn) out of my interest which were all declined eventually so I was seeking reasons as to why cause creating articles manually and inserting around 25-30 sources (I had no awareness about WP:RS) is a hectic thing. 182.182.29.217 (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I forgot about that! (I knew I'd seen your name around somewhere). Add that too to the rationale. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support indef. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Allan Nonymous from the beginning @Saqib in hurry to conclude the result of incident by his assumptions based narrative, but later he agreed that he was not aware about WP:MASSCREATE, and was manufacturing BLP articles silently with the help of Autopatrolled Right, he was given Autopatrolled rights by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BU_Rob13 . I don't think this should be encourage and I agree to user:North8000 comment "everybody needs a second set of eyes". Thank you for your reply Lkomdis (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why you're attacking Saqib in a section about your conduct or why you're not responding to the allegations here. Heck, this almost suicidal pursuit of the user in question kind of makes my point for me. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Allan Nonymous it's not about Saqib, but the way he was using Autopatrolled for WP:MASSCREATE silently from years, that was my concern, he admitted that he was not aware about it, that make sense to me. And I think no buddy should be beyond the guidelines to take advantage of loophole. Now i don't have any issues about this incident with Saqib after this discussion. I wanted to bring the incident to attention to prevent similar incidents in the future. I appreciate your reply. Lkomdis (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you were concerned about a possible WP:MASSCREATE violation (which frankly seems to have been minor, if it even was one), at the very least post in the user's talk page letting them know before doing anything else. Going WP:FORUMSHOPPING is very much not the way to go, but then again, you don't seem to care about this account, do you. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Support indef As @Lepricavark: states, the OP has not edited here since 2020 and within minutes after returning they make a complaint about Saqib at the Teahouse, then to Oshwah and then onto Bbb23. The response at the Teahouse was there was no issue, @Oshwah: told them to file a complaint here while @Bbb23: told them COIN so they filed both which is the problem with WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Nothing they have presented here supports any BLP violations, that the articles fail WP:NPOL or any other abuse of autopatrol and so far the COIN complaint, which included other editors, is going nowhere. At most there might be a WP:MASSCREATE violation but even that is debatable per the discussion above. They have wasted enough of community's time lodging baseless complaints complaints against Saqib and are WP:NOTHERE to create an encyclopedia. S0091 (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Aye yai yai... That sucks to hear; I apologize if my response caused any inconvenience to the community. My response to the user on my user talk page meant to say, in a nutshell, "If you have concerns about something this large (200+ articles) by a user, then ANI is where I'd likely go. You need more eyes on this, and a community review is the right action to take." It wasn't intended to be made with any implication that I agreed with what they were reporting. Saqib (correctly) pointed out that this user's huge gap in editing, and the fact that they returned from about a four-year break from editing Wikipedia at all, was concerning. I did agree with Saqib's observations and response. I'm going to err on the side of extreme caution and recuse from adding my recommendation here. While I doubt adding my recommendation here would be argued to be crossing the line into "WP:INVOLVED territory" by others, it's better to be safe than to put myself into a position where my ability to exhibit proper judgment is questioned. I think I've done enough already... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah you did not do anything wrong and it was not my intent to suggest you did so no need to apologize; same for Bbb23 or those who responded at the Teahouse. None of you were the 'cause' for multiple complaints multiple places but the inevitable symptom of forum shopping. S0091 (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah Don't feel regret about it and your response didn't cause any inconvenience, even the Saqib was not aware about WP:MASSCREATE violation but as it is debatable, this discussion will help to improve policy, and thank you for your suggestion to report it here. I appreciate your reply. Lkomdis (talk) 11:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block (indef or short term) per above. Clearly this was an unnecessary report throughout multiple talk pages and noticeboards of Wikipedia. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a temp block, neutral on indef Tolerating weaponization of Wiki systems is probably Wikipedia's worst mistake that contributes to it being such a nasty place. And this looks like that. I'm not sure of that enough to support an indef. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef per my first two comments which have totally held up. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have INDEFFed in my capacity as an individual admin and per emerging consensus here. Discussion can continue about Saqib's creations without the participation of an account who clearly is Not Here for anything but stirring up drama and is likely evading a block. If consensus finds reason to unblock, feel free to do so. Star Mississippi 15:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Encylo-P-D

    Disturbing edits reverted by many users. Starting edit war with me, Merangs, FeldmarschallGneisenau, Øksfjord, ... Dasomm (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide actual diffs of "disturbing edits" and "edit warring".Nigel Ish (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only during last hour: Slovakia, Poland, Slovenia Dasomm (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also altered Austria and placed it into Western Europe and the Czech Republic into Central and Eastern Europe. Øksfjord (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Anything new on the matter? The user in question now accuses me of using sever IPs to revert his changes on the Slovenia page (both anons seem to come from Ljubljana as far as I could make out), which is false (I only edit under my own name). Additionally, he has been prompted multiple times by several users to take the situation to the talk page to resolve it as the change of geographical location is highly contentious, but he obstinately continues to refuse to do so, instead merely claiming to have added "accurate information". As the page about Slovenia is unprotected (as opposed to Slovakia), he is effectively able to do anything he pleases and continue edit warring without consequences. Øksfjord (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not start an edit war, however, you have broken the 3-revert-rule when you used this IP address (84.255.219.234) and you said "I reactivated this account after a while as I did not want to engage in the matter on an anonymous basis". This reads to me as a case of sock puppetry to create an illusion of support as well as to avoid WP:Scrutiny and to WP:LOUTSOCK
    Diffs here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slovenia&diff=prev&oldid=1223081562
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slovenia&diff=prev&oldid=1223083542
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slovenia&diff=prev&oldid=1223160174
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slovenia&diff=prev&oldid=1223118781 Encylo-P-D (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have time to follow up properly but if I did, I would be blocking Encylo-P-D a week or more for distuptive editing, including edit warring. I didn't count the hours on Slovenia but I'm not slavish to 4 reverts to block someone who is obviously warring and causing problems across a few different articles. WP:3RR doesn't mean you get to edit war as long as you only revert 3 times, btw. Not even close. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again causing problems across a few different articles. again again... and again... Dasomm (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Uninvolved editor dropping in here, it's clear User:Encylo-P-D is, at best, warring against a general consensus. I would strongly advise the user in question to post his issue to the talk page, and maybe open up an RfC on the issue. Else, a short ban from the pages of Countries in Europe, is a good way of preventing future edit warring. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is yet another time I see a new user edit-warring in articles about European countries over whether a country is considered "Central Europe" or not. Please take a look at this sockpuppet investigation I started a few weeks ago: [170]. NicolausPrime (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Encylo-P-D has been blocked indefinitely as a sock account of HJ72JH. NebY (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but this still may be relevant to the other investigation. It's also interesting that User:HJ72JH has been editing a very different set of articles than User:Encylo-P-D. NicolausPrime (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Øksfjord

    No basis for report, that was combined. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Personal attack WP:NOPA


    “someone else who finds them exasperating.” As well as collusion to harass https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dasomm


    Encylo-P-D (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Strangely, User:Øksfjord's return to editing today after four years has included reverting[171] Talk:Slovenia to its 20 October 2020 state, which broke various things and left red-links, then adding "I am adding this text as a wake-me-up call." I'll repair that. NebY (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I sincerely apologise for that, it turned way worse than I imagined it would. I only intended to bring that discussion to Encyclo-P-D's attention, but instead managed to mess up the entire layout. Sorry for any inconvenience caused. And yeah, I reactivated this account after a while as I did not want to engage in the matter on an anonymous basis. Øksfjord (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, there has been a complaint lodged about Encyclo-P-D and his edits by user Dasomm directly above - refer to the situation described there. Øksfjord (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't notify Øksfjord about this discussion, as required. I've done that. NebY (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Encylo-P-D (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you are looking for sanctions for them saying “someone else who finds them exasperating.”, you are going to be disappointed. That isn't a personal attack. Also note, you do need to notify and provide better links in the event you come back again to an admin board. We can't be expected to do the homework for you. So if you have some better diffs, please link them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've turned this into a sub-section of the report made by Øksfjord, as this appears to be retaliatory for that report. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:AndyTheGrump Conduct

    Hello, I was trying to help find sources for an article about Herschel Weingrod, and was asking the community for help to find sources. I asked somebody if they believed some sources were okay, and he replied "Garbage. There is absolutely no way we are going to include such content," and left an edit history note of "If you persist in citing such junk, I shall report you, asking for a block." While I admit the sources were not great, I was unsure if they were still good enough to be included, that is why I asked. But those 2 things that he said to me are not the main issue.

    On his Wikipedia userpage, he writes "Taking a break. Possibly permanently. Wikipedia is institutionally incapable of self-reflection and incapable of recognising its many inherent flaws, and of recognising when it is being abused by those well-versed in its ways. I've known that for a very long time. Not sure why I started editing again. Well-informed criticism from outside is probably more effective anyway. To add to the above, I am getting the distinct impression that this place is becoming even more overrun with idiots than ever. As to whether this is due to idiots being attracted to the place, or to the place making idiots out of otherwise sane people, I'm unsure. Either way, I'm clearly an idiot myself for believing I could do anything to reduce the idiocy. Time to get back outside the tent, and resume pissing in, methinks..."

    I find this highly disrespectful and not fit for a Wikipedia userpage. He also stated this "As for Wankel-nuts, trying to argue with a cult is pointless" about a person trying to make edits on the article Rotary engine. He then says "And while you are at it, read the f**ing (I censored that) article. It explains what a rotary engine is. It explains the difference between a rotary and a radial. It isn't that difficult to understand, if you actually take the time to learn something new."

    He seems to not be doing anything constructive on Wikipedia, rather being extremely hateful to others.

    Not to mention his long block log, most being for Personal attacks/Harassment (although they were from several years ago [172]) Antny08 (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally, I consider my efforts to prevent people turning Wikipedia into a sub-tabloid gossip rag to be both constructive, and in accord with Wikipedia policy. And given the comments at the WP:BLPN discussion which Antny08 has conveniently omitted, [173] it seems I am not alone in that opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion is not whether you are right or wrong about the sources (you are right), the discussion is about how you discuss with people, or your lack thereof. You seem to use your time on Wikipedia to hate on others and revert other peoples' edits, rather than actually helping the editors and encouraging them to learn. Antny08 (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, Antny08, you had a disagreement with AndyTheGrump and then went looking for reasons to bring him here to ANI? Do I have that about right? Dumuzid (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, he suggested to come onto here. I told him I did not want to argue, and he said we can bring it to here, so I did. I looked at his userpage before I replied to him. Antny08 (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I am no admin, and others may well see it differently, but the fact that none of the conduct of which you complain was actually directed at you makes me look at this filing with a jaundiced eye, so to speak. Dumuzid (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that, but I don't just care about myself. He should not be allowed to say rude things like that and get away with it. He should not act like that at all, whether it is to me or somebody else. Antny08 (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A question for the uninvolved: do they, like me, find Antny08's repeated (poorly sourced) efforts to add Weingrod's ethnicity to the article [174][175] to be of questionable taste? Why the urgency? Why that? Why now? Why, if biographical content is needed, not look for better sources, and more detail, and do the job properly? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was in WP:GOODFAITH. I have realized my mistakes and I do apologize for that. I did not realize that the sources were not good enough to be included. Speaking of which, in WP:GOODFAITH, it says not to attack editors who are just trying to help, which I was just trying to do. Antny08 (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, no, there was no ill-intentions with adding his ethnicity. I was attempting to revert changes previously made from the article, when somebody removed that fact. If you saw my other edits, (which I will admit you cannot see because the history was removed), I added that to include in an early life section, I added much more to the article than just that. I am a proud American, and I do not support hatred against Jewish people. To accuse me of wanting to include his ethnicity for questionable reasons is an attack on me, which is the reason I am reporting you, so it was not a good choice for you to say that here. I believe Wikipedia should be an unbiased place, and information should not be censored. Antny08 (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I very much doubt whether either your nationality or the fact that you are proud of it will be considered relevant here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was responding to your question. USA and Israel have historically had good ties, therefore I mentioned it Antny08 (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Herschel Weingrod is not an Israeli, as far as I can determine. The NYT says he was born in Milwaukee. [176] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, but Israel is a Jewish state, and he is Jewish. Anyway, this is getting off-topic. If you have anything else to say, please make sure it is referring to the discussion. Antny08 (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was certainly off-topic before you said so. For my part, inferring that being a Jew is synonymous with the Israeli state is as nonsensical as suggesting that because I'm Irish, my interests march hand in hand with those of the Republic of Ireland. Ravenswing 00:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not saying a Jew is synonymous with Israel. I am saying I have a good opinion of the Jewish state of Israel. Antny08 (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "If you have anything else to say, please make sure it is referring to the discussion." Do as I say, not as I do? Ravenswing 00:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Antny08: your edits to Herschel Weingrod were blatant WP:BLP violations and Andy was right for calling them out. Your edit here added a source which is a copy of an old version of the article. The contents of Andy's user page, or blocks they received over a decade ago, are irrelevant. Please drop this, and then read through WP:BLP and WP:RS to ensure you do not violate these policies in the future. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry, but I will not be dropping this. This report is not about him removing my edits, it is about his conduct on Wikipedia. he was right to remove my edits, but he has been extremely rude. In this case, his userpage is relevant, because he is using his page to harass Wikipedia and its editors. Antny08 (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is his userpage harassing anyone? That makes no sense. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, I did identify one specific Wikipedia contributor as an 'idiot': myself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Harassing was the wrong word, but just read it. "To add to the above, I am getting the distinct impression that this place is becoming even more overrun with idiots than ever. As to whether this is due to idiots being attracted to the place, or to the place making idiots out of otherwise sane people, I'm unsure. Either way, I'm clearly an idiot myself for believing I could do anything to reduce the idiocy" This is not how the userpage is supposed to be used. Antny08 (talk) 23:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Antny08: I'll make myself more clear - drop this now, or you will likely be blocked. Your BLP violations are substantially worse than anything Andy has done. At this point, you are being disruptive and wasting people's time. Review WP:BOOMERANG before making any further comments. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My edits were in good faith. I already read WP:BOOMERANG before I opened this report and fully acknowledged everything it said. You are helping nobody here. My "substantially worse BLP violations" are no where near as bad as what he is doing. I made one mistake, I don't see the issue. Antny08 (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a WP:CIR situation: Antny08 lacks competence in the BLP area and in the area of identifying reliable WP:NEWSORG sources as he lacks sufficient media literacy. If Antny08 does not commit to start listening and learning immediately, he should probably be banned from those areas probably for a definite, but not a short period, during which time his grasp of these things can be expected to ... mature.—Alalch E. 23:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Once again, this is NOT about the edits I made. I made a mistake, I will admit that. This is about HIS CONDUCT. Antny08 (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Welcome to ANI. You don't get to dictate the scope of a conversation here. But let's talk about the conduct you have brought up:
      • Andy was rude to you in an edit sumarry: ok, that's arguable. I wouldn't say it rises to the level of needing admin action on its own though.
      • You don't like the content of his userpage: that seems like a you problem. It doesn't attack anyone specific and criticism of the site should be welcome, from within and without.
      • You don't like a comment he made in a conversation with another user, referring to a group of people who have disrupted content here as "nuts" and a "cult".
      I'm not seeing any cause to take any admin action relative to Andy in this situation. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "And while you are at it, read the f**ing (I censored that) article. It explains what a rotary engine is. It explains the difference between a rotary and a radial. It isn't that difficult to understand, if you actually take the time to learn something new."
      This comment was the biggest issue. Antny08 (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "F*** this, the whole place is overrun with idiots - including me apparently, for participating in this charade..."
      This edit summary also raises a flag for me... (I censored the curse) Antny08 (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "on second thoughts, I'll leave this for others to deal with"
      "Under no circumstances do we cite Reddit for anything, and we aren't interested in your personal opinions about 'reverse fears', whatever that is supposed to mean"
      "This is utterly absurd. If it isn't wilful misinterpretation, it is cluelessness almost beyond comprehension. Block per WP:CIR and be done with it"
      "collapse, as the waste of time it clearly is,"
      These too, not appropriate for edit summaries, very rude. Antny08 (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, having edited a BLP with edit summaries that had to be revdel'd, following it up with Jew-tagging, you want to complain about someone who confronted you about that? Acroterion (talk) 23:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Jew-tagging, excuse me? Please read my other messages before you say terrible things like that. Antny08 (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given Antny08's absurd and grossly inappropriate comment above [177] I am formally calling for Antny08 to be topic banned from all articles relating to Israel and/or Jews, and from all biographies of living persons. Arbitrarily conflating Jewishness with support for the state of Israel is always questionable, and doing so while discussing a sensitive topic doubly so. Antny08 has not presented the slightest bit of evidence that Israel has any relevance to this discussion whatsoever. Or even Weingrod's Jewish ethnicity for that matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it "absurd and grossly inappropriate"? I was stating a fact. Your statement makes absolutely zero sense. Also, in the same message I said that we were going off-topic and should get back on topic. Antny08 (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Jesus, all I did was step away for a bit to mow the lawn. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it "absurd and grossly inappropriate"? I was stating a fact. Your statement makes absolutely zero sense. Also, in the same message I said that we were going off-topic and should get back on topic. Antny08 (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I replied to the wrong comment @ScottishFinnishRadish Antny08 (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Antny08: Multiple editors have suggested that you drop this. It's good advice. Perhaps you should read WP:DROPTHESTICK. Meters (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The edits were so bad, that not only were they Revert/Deleted, they were Suppressed, so I can't even view them as I'm not an Oversighter. Andy can be a bit too blunt sometimes, but given the fact that this had to be Suppressed, my best guess is that he was right on the money. Also noting that an admin had to advertise for more editors to review the article at BLPN. So, Antny08, to address your claim that "This report is not about him removing my edits, it is about his conduct on Wikipedia.", please note that when you come to ANI, the conduct of all parties will be examined, and it seems that his response to your edits was proportional to the damage done by those edits, so it's a push. The only question remaining is what to do about your behavior. Looking at this discussion, I'm forced to agree with Alalch E. that WP:CIR may be a factor here, as you can't seem to understand that your behavior makes Andy's (less than optimal behavior) pale in comparison. Given the breadth of your problematic edits, from [178] to the Suppressed edits, to your behavior here, I'm not convinced you are capable of participating in any collaborative efforts here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The edits were not bad, they were removed because the sources weren't good. I already discussed with the person who suppressed them and they unsuppressed some of them. The only reason they were removed was because of the sources, not anything else. Antny08 (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      When it comes to BLP bad sources make bad edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      When it comes to BLP bad sources make bad edits. – That ought to be in quote box on a guideline or policy page somewhere. EEng 03:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      But the text itself wasn't bad, just the sources. Antny08 (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The text was so bad I deleted the revisions and then it was suppressed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Explain to me how please. Antny08 (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You made absolutely life destroying accusations against a living person without any sourcing sufficient to back it up, making the website which will almost certainly be in the top three results on any search engine repeat the accusations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I understand, but many websites are already reporting it. It obviously happened, as the video that started this all is on YouTube. Antny08 (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The above post provides clear and unequivocal evidence as to why Antny08 needs to be topic banned from biographical material on living persons immediately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      See, here's at least one thing you aren't getting: making edits that need to be supressed is a big deal. Even administrators can no longer see those edits, so other than SFR who did the original deletion, we don't know what you did, we just know it was bad enough that it needed to be completely removed. If you want further explanation, you'll need to contact the oversight team. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Maybe you're just not getting this, Antny08, no matter how many editors and admins tell you otherwise, and I'm beginning to agree with AndyTheGrump that your extreme tunnel vision ("What about HIM? What about HIM?") is a competency issue. But let me try to phrase this in simple, direct terms: going beyond revdel to suppression of text is HUGE. This is not merely that the text was bad; it's that it had to be stunningly vile to have someone think that admins shouldn't even be allowed to see it any more. THAT is a fact on the ground, and if you are unwilling to accept that fact because you're focused on seeing AndyTheGrump spanked nothing else matters to you, then yeah: you might not be a good fit for Wikipedia. Ravenswing 00:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      And just because you say my conduct wasn't perfect, it was in good faith, and it doesn't mean he shouldn't be punished for his conduct, which had no good faith, since it is just flat out rude. Antny08 (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      We don't do "punishment" here. Sanctions/blocks/etc are to prevent disruption of the project and degradation of the content. Pretty much everyone seems to agree that you've demonstrably done more of both than Andy has in this instance, you might want to consider that and stop digging this hole. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Andy has repeatedly shown that he disrespects other Wikipedia members and violates Wikipedia's policies. You can say all you want but he is in the wrong here not me. Antny08 (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The way you are acting right now, in this thread, makes it far more likely that a sanction is going to land on you as opposed to Andy. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The unanimous sentiment of nine uninvolved editors running against you would put paid to that. At this point, I support a topic ban against you, as AndyTheGrump outlined it. Ravenswing 00:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The BLPN thread linked above makes it clear what the accuaations were, I watched the footage and it reminds me of a Project Veritas style set up. In other words, garbage, as Andy said. I'm not arguing that Andy couldn't tone it down a little sometimes, but he's one of those editors who has this annoying habit of being the most rude when he is absolutely on the right side editorially and the other person is acting the fool, which is what we have here. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In reviewing Antny08's editing history, I see a number of things that indicate some maturity issues, like what appeared to be suppression of too much personal information from their userpage, a patently obnoxious edit to Bearcat's userpage [179], their misplaced interest in becoming an administrator, and their reactions to criticisms here. They've made good,or at least unobjectionable contributions in areas concerning military conflicts, so I think a BLP topic ban might be a good idea, since they don't seem to be gaining a clue that their edits to the BLP were egregiously bad, and think that deflection is a good defense. However, if I see one more attempt at deflection, I am going to make a short block to stop that,at least. Acroterion (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This all illustrates nicely that AndyTheGrump is particularly valuable to Wikipedia (and I speak as someone that's been grumped at). NebY (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    topic ban proposal for User:Antny08

    It's been 24 hours with unanimity in supporting the topic ban, as well as the editor themselves accepting the topic ban [180]. The topic ban is indefinite and appealable in six months and once every six months thereafter. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Now that I have a clearer picture of what went on here, both the ineptitude of the initial supressed edits and the seeming urgency of trying to tag the subject as Jewish for reasons I don't like to contemplate, I don't think this is someone who should be editing BLPs at all, ever. I therefore propose an indefinite total topic ban on editing any content in any article that regards a living person, appealable in six months and once every six months thereafter. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 01:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Whatever I'm quitting this site anyway. I had fun on here but I am tired of dealing with constant arguments. I have only tried to do good for this site and have never intended harm. I am going to miss this site but this is the end for me on here Antny08 (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked indefinitely: I don't see why we would want to have patience with editors who are interested in adding serious XXXXXXXX allegations and Jewish ancestry, real or not. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't really disagree, but I'd like to keep this proposal around in the case of a succesful block appeal. It absolutely should be a condion in the event anyone considers unblocking. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 01:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I feel like this would have turned out differently if I didn't have to mow my lawn, and instead spent a bit more time instead of dropping at BLPN. :/ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      On the other hand, does the community really need to waste more effort on this? This whole thread did not need to be this long. – 2804:F1...09:2AE4 (talk) 01:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's possible this is over as they have stated on their talk page that they do not wish to continue editing, but we've heard that one before. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 01:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I meant more in that it takes more community effort to enforce or review an appeal for a ban than for a block. I'm not against it, just saying. – 2804:F1...09:2AE4 (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. although Drmies has indef blocked for WP:nothere, I think this needs to be in place if they ever have a successful unblock. They do not need to be editing BLP articles, not just for the one bad edit, but because of the lack of competence that is required to edit articles about actual living persons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This conversation illustrates the principle that repeating an unpersuasive argument over and over and over again does not make it any more persuasive. Cullen328 (talk) 01:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: per my comments above. (And yeah, as Just Step Sideways says, how many times have we heard that one before? Considering that the time stamp on the appeal of their block is fifteen minutes AFTER the ragequit above?) Ravenswing 01:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, though it needs to be made absolutely clear that WP:BLP policy applies anywhere on Wikipedia, and that further non-article-space comments like this [181] will lead to an indefinite block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support just to make things official. Dumuzid (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (non-admin) I just caught up on some BLPN reading and found this rabbit hole. Holy shit. Thanks, User:Drmies. JFHJr (㊟) 03:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban, question indefinite block I'm not going to speak in support of this editor but just sharing my misgivings about this discussion thread. Clearly the Antny08 made some terrible edit choices, one of the biggest of which was refusing to drop the stick. But this discussion also reminds me of the "old days" on ANI, say 8 or 10 years ago, when an editor would start a thread and boom! 2 or 3 hours later it would snowball into an indefinite block for the OP. I agree that CIR became an issue here with the suppressed content but I'd prefer to see outcomes like this evolve over 24 hours or longer so an editor has the opportunity to consider the criticism offered about their contributions and walk back from the edge of the cliff. It's just the rush to judgment and the lack of a problematic edit history that has left me with some questions about this result. Liz Read! Talk! 04:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If the editor wants to come back, the editor can request unblock. I noticed a few of Antny08's creations and assessments. They should weigh heavily in favor of reprieve as long as BLPs stay off limits. There seems to be a differential here re CIR when it comes to stuff vs. living people. But that was a very capable editor refusing to listen in a fundamental WP:CONSENSUS way. Slower WP:BOOMERANG is possible when the obstinance itself goes slower. JFHJr (㊟) 04:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban, strongly oppose indefinite block - this user obviously has serious competency issues, but it is extremely unlikely that this person is not here to build an an encyclopedia. I think it's much, much more likely that they saw news about a person, and thought it was of encyclopedic value. And they're right. With sufficient sourcing, this "vile, life-ruining" accusation is of extremely high encyclopedic value. And it's also extremely accessible from a simple google search. This user appears to be have been indefinitely banned on the basis of a lack of understanding of proper sourcing. This is an extreme-overreaction and a huge assumption of bad faith. That being said, a topic ban from BLP is obviously needed. Cjhard (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Seriously, the guy has 2000 edits, 981 of which are on mainspace. This is his first block. I'm getting increasingly concerned about NOTHERE being used as an indefinite ban gun for any problematic user, regardless of whether they're actually here to build an encylopedia. Cjhard (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      He was given ample opportunity to acknowledge the problems with his edits, which, as I and others have pointed out, were not confined to egregious BLP problems. As I noted in my denial of his unblock request, he talked himself into this after we proposed less drastic solutions, and the door remains open for self reflection. I see profound maturity issues which can be cured with time. BLP policy allows little or no leeway for defamation emanating from anything but gold-standard sourcing. Frankly, if revdel and suppression are required, so is a block of some significant extent, even without the obstinate refusal to acknowledge any error. Acroterion (talk) 05:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I understand all of that. None of it speaks to "not being here to build an encyclopaedia" which was the primary reason for the indefinite ban and is just blatantly false. Cjhard (talk) 06:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Personally,I would have used a wordy block summary like "maturity/competence issues, severe misunderstanding of BLP requirements and ethnicity policies, battlegound conduct," which arguably looks worse in the block log. Blocked is blocked, the templated rationales don't always match up,and anyone who looks at an unblock request will look at actual events rather than relying on a block summary. Acroterion (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a topic ban. I don't know about an indef, but it already feels like we're wasting our time here. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. I mean this [182] was their last comment on ANI that addressed other editors concerns over their understanding of BLP. Demonstrating that even after multiple editors has tried to explain it to them they still didn't get it. As for the indef, I agree the reasoning is questionable. However I do think a competence one is justified since their fundamental inability to understand the problems with their edits would seem to affect their editing elsewhere too. Nil Einne (talk) 05:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I should clarify I'm not that fussed about a reblock myself, although if they are unblocked in the future it might be helpful to clarify when unblocking so people quickly glancing at the block log only are less confused Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Some have expressed concern over the type of indef block (WP:NOTHERE) vs. WP:BLP/WP:DE (WP:IDHT, etc), which can be rectified if Drmies wants to reblock under a different criteria. I'm not as concerned with the nomenclature myself, but I would say that an indef (not necessarily permanent) block was justified, and I think a consensus here agrees, even if they would have used a different rationale. In fact, an indef block is the only option and the user still doesn't have a grasp of why they were blocked, which brings up WP:CIR/WP:DE concerns. I think a time limited block would not be useful because there is a high likelihood the behavior would be repeated soon after expiration if the blocked editor is oblivious to the reasoning. I had considered reblocking myself and "adopting" the block, but I'm due for a wikibreak, and don't want to leave it hanging. IMHO, I think we really can leave it as is, understanding that the community supports the block, but under a different rationale. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Uninvolved editor, TBAN seems warranted; indef is definitely going too far. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support tban; "Israel is a Jewish state, and he is Jewish" and "many websites are already reporting it. It obviously happened, as the video that started this all is on YouTube" are merely the most blatant bits of the long demonstration above of an inability to accept, let alone see the propriety of and need for, WP:BLP and other policies. Endorse indef block as preventative; indefinite is not infinite, but to be allowed to edit Wikipedia again, Antny08 needs to make a convincing unblock request that shows they understand and will work within Wikipedia's policies as well as any personal tban. NebY (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, per the above. - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMO, NOTHERE applies if an editor shows no respect whatsoever for the BLP, which is an essential element of us building an encyclopedia--yes, Cjhard. Drmies (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
     Comment: The wording of this topic ban at this page and the WP:EDR entry is ambiguous due to a misplaced modifier; should the log entry be changed to: "[...] topic ban on editing any article content that regards a living person"? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User may need talk page access revoked.

    Dadaastra is blocked indefinitely and has user talk page access revoked due to abuse of editing privileges. --Lenticel (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    See Dadaastra. The user was blocked for promotional editing and started posting the same promotional content on their talk page after being blocked. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    All set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Antisemitism and vandalism

    59.103.30.107 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

    His/her first edit was vandalism, his/her second edit was a violation of WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAPBOX, the rest of his/her edits were blatantly anti-Semitic. Ban him/her and delete his/her records. Parham wiki (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like a WP:NOTHERE to me.CycoMa1 (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP seems to have wandered off. I will block them if they pull similar stunts again. Cullen328 (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandal is back with stalking and harassment

    Harassment dealt with, the digression is off-topic and generating more heat than light. (non-admin closure) — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Further to this thread, the vandal under discussion is back again with stalking, harassment and incivility. ‎Diddycomin4u is the new name for the vandal, who has stalked through my edits, reverting a random series of edits here, here, here, here, here (again) and here. All the edit summaries are uncivil. There were several others after these too, but it's too boring to cut and paste the links: the editor has made no other edits except stalking and vandalism with uncivil edit summaries. Funny to think I was attacked by the peanut gallery and had a minor facility removed by an admin for correctly calling out a vandal. Hey ho - SchroCat (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I issued a level 2 warning after noticing the "Plonker" comment on Pantheon ad Lucem. Having looked at the rest of the edit summaries, this should clearly have been a 4im. User is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, I'd recommend an immediate indefinite block. Adam Black talk • contributions 11:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I can't speak to the prior thread, but the actions of this new (sic) user were so beyond the pale that I blocked them indefinitely for harassment and WP:NOTHERE. Further, I was about to ask SchroCat if they'd tangled with a user before, since they were clearly the target of the abuse. —C.Fred (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks to you both. This is the third or fourth time this particular vandal has been a minor inconvenience, and I have no doubt they will be back again with the same sort of reverts and incivility. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SchroCat, I took a quick look at the background of this and your edit history to refresh my memory (as I remember seeing the original edit war at the Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick article). In doing so I noticed a questionable edit on your part. This reversion at your talk page - the edit summary "What on God's green earth are you playing at?? Don't come round threatening me with no basis" is of concern. A friendly message was left on your talk page which at no point threatened you. I am pretty sure a fundamental pillar of editing on Wikipedia is working collaboratively with other editors and assuming good faith. The message left by ScottishFinnishRadish was polite and assumed good faith, while your edit summary did not. Some of your responses at the previous ANI thread which you linked, dismissing other users' comments as "bollocks" and "nonsense" are also of concern. This should not be construed as an attack on you or a warning in any way, but I felt it was prudent to point out that I believe some of your own actions have not been in keeping with Wikipedia policies. None of us are perfect, I myself recently engaged in behaviour I am not proud of here. Editing on Wikipedia can be frustrating at times, I'm sure everyone here can agree with that. We all, including myself, have to try our best not to let those frustrations get the better of us. Adam Black talk • contributions 12:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    tl;dr and I don't care for the patronising lecturette and tone. Please don't bother with a response: I just don't care enough about AN/I to give a monkeys - I spend my time developing articles, rather than reading tosh like this. - SchroCat (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User runs citation bot and deletes data

    User User:Ecangola is running some bot to improve citation formatting. They are doing in in such a way that is deleting lots of important information from the citations: namely, author, publication date, publisher name. Typically, this user is replacing a "plain text" citation with a "cite web" formatted citation. The intention is okay, but they delete author & date information in many instances.

    Several users told the user (in their Talk page) about this problem in early April 2024, but the user has not replied to the complaints. In fact, the user is still deleting information as of yesterday. For a examples & details, see User_talk:Ecangola#Why_delete_author_&_Publication_date_in_article?

    I'm not too familiar with the ANI process, but can someone with authority please tell the user to stop deleting important information when they run citation bots? Noleander (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked at the user's contributions at Special:Contributions/Ecangola, and it looks like all they do is run bots to improve citation formatting. There is nothing wrong with that. They started in 2017, and have been doing it continuously. In 2017, it looks like they were more careful: I don't see any changes from 2017 where they deleted information (author, publication date, publisher) from the citations. I'm not sure when they started getting sloppy, but certainly during 2024 they've been deleting information.
    It is very hard to re-add info into formatted citations: one has to track down the original citation, find the data, and re-insert it into the new citation. Noleander (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if they are running a bot, though they are definitely running a script (this is pretty funny: <diff> *don't think ignoring a 'are you a robot' check is proof of being a bot) and WP:ASSISTED has it's own rules. Honestly they have gotten many bot notifications this year and a few complaints, the only one I've seen them respond to was a question about what fmt means in their summary, doesn't seem like they addressed or even communicated with any of the people with concerns in their talk page.
    I think we all might like some concrete examples of the problems you're claiming, but so far, from their talk page and some cursory checking, it's looking pretty bad.
    – 2804:F14:8093:BD01:94B9:757A:5CC5:C94C (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC) *edited: 20:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying that it is script, not a bot. I've never used bots/scripts, so I'm not an expert in the automation side of things. Following are some diffs showing changes that deleted important information about the source/cite. All of these were done within five minutes on a single article; I suppose that similar information deletions frequently happen, based on some comments in the users Talk page.
    a) Name of author (of newspaper source) deleted: [183]
    b) Name of author deleted: [184]
    c) Source of the citation is EPA, ("EPA" deleted) [185]
    d) Date of publication deleted: [186]
    e) Date of publication deleted: [187]
    f) Author name deleted: [188]
    g) Name of publisher ("The Guardian") deleted: [189]
    Again, the user appears to have good intentions, but needs to be told to NOT DELETE INFORMATION that article-creators labored to find and document. Noleander (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, I said I don't know if they are running a bot, not that they aren't. I'm not familiar with where Wikipedia draws the line. – 2804:F1...C5:C94C (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's wait and see if they reply here before proposing any sanctions. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • If they are using a bot, and it isn't a WP:BAG approved bot (and I don't see evidence they approved), then they need to be blocked anyway. There is a reason we restrict bots to approved only. They can screw things up, really fast, which is why unapproved bots aren't allowed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t use a bot. I just click on the "convert" button when offered and trusted the results so far with some manual improvements here and there. The loss of information in the process, such as the name of the publisher, was not intentional. In the future, I will enter more information manually, as the automatic conversion isn't trustworthy, obviously.--Ecangola (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Improving references is always welcomed, but all the automated tools suffer from some amount of flackiness. Just make sure to spend some time after pressing convert to make sure the output is correct, the results are not always to be trusted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ecangola .. you can see from the examples above the kinds of data that is being deleted or changed: author names, publisher, publication date, etc. So if you could focus on doing a visual review to make sure that all the original information is NOT deleted & not changed, that would be much appreciated. Noleander (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks. Will make sure that no information will be lost in the future. --Ecangola (talk) 06:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: does anyone who is familiar with the "convert button" know which UI it appears on and what script it calls on the backend? If references are being damaged by part of the mediawiki interface we've got a problem and should figure out who owns the offending codebase. Folly Mox (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Folly Mox: I found it mentioned in Help:VisualEditor#Editing an existing reference when they said they used it - but I don't have that option as an IP(*edit: turns out I can, was just doing it wrong). I am unable to confirm if it's the same thing as Help:VisualEditor#Using Automatic tab, but it sounds like it is (that one says it uses the Citoid service, with a link). – 2804:F14:80B7:8201:29D0:A5B4:8E85:AAD8 (talk) 10:59, *edited 11:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! I guess I'll go bother the maintainer of mw:Citoid again. Folly Mox (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bothered, and crossbothered in case it can be fixed in VisualEditor by doing some basic output checking before overwriting existing citations. Folly Mox (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I added my 2 cents to those two pages. I need to try that Convert button myself and see what kind of feedback it provides to the user: does it popup a warning that says "Tool was not able to convert all information from raw citation. Proceed or cancel?"  ? It's hard to believe that the script is deleting information silently. Noleander (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Cheetomalik4

    CLOSED
    Indefinitely blocked, per WP:NOTHERE and WP:HID. jp×g🗯️ 22:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Cheetomalik4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I'm concerned with some of the actions of User:Cheetomalik4. For starters, they recently created this userbox, which an early consensus at its MfD seems to agree is a violation of WP:CIV. Moreover, Cheetomalik4 seems to be struggling with some of the content policies, a quick look at their talk page shows numerous articles created this month which have been deleted or will likely be shortly at AfD. These include:

    All of the example from XfD currently have unanimous !votes for deletion. Of Cheetomalik4's articles not going through a deletion process, they're of very questionable quality. See here or here for examples. These examples are just from this month, if you look further up the talk page you can see many more articles deleted or draftifyed recently.

    I think that the civility issue may need to be addressed, but Cheetomalik4's ability to create pages is currently a net negative for the community, and is worth evaluating here. I would support a temporary ban from creating new pages. Bestagon ⬡ 01:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

    Description of the userbox
    TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION: A userbox, using the {{userbox}} template, featuring Image:Anti LGBT.png at a sixty-pixel width, the text "This user Hate LGBT", and the user category Wikipedians Hate in LGBT issues.
    I have speedy-deleted this userbox as worthless, inflammatory garbage. I haven't been able to thoroughly investigate whether the user made it earnestly, or as a satire of prejudice, or as an inarticulate way of expressing some other sentiment, but taken at face value, it is bigoted trash, and for that reason I don't think we need to have it on Wikipedia at all. jp×g🗯️ 01:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    it is bigoted trash, and for that reason I don't think we need to have it on Wikipedia at all. Totally agree, so let's remove it from this thread as well, shall we. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The userbox is trash, but I really don't think we need to bowdlerize the words "This user Hate LGBT". Especially not out of a discussion that's specifically about whether a editor who wrote them in a userbox should face disciplinary action for doing so. If we are going to censure certain kinds of behavior, the absolute minimum is that we know what the behavior is. jp×g🗯️ 06:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I understand, was just letting you know that I am offended by it, and it shouldn't be displayed on a high-traffic noticeboard. As for disciplinary action, it appears to me they should have already been sanctioned for that, because in my view, if they hate me and other LGBT editors, they certainly wouldn't be able to collaborate productively with those of us who self-identify as LGBT editors. Anyway, that's my 2¢, and I will certainly try to avoid this editor, now that I know what they stand for. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it wasn't already obvious what it was going to say from the template's title, its content can also be seen in the page deletion log. While it was no doubt put here in good faith, I agree it's unnecessary to reproduce it on this page, and it should not receive a permanent place in the ANI archives. A further (unintended) side effect is the source is now quite easy to obtain and copy from your comment. While it might be trivial to make an infobox, the people who spread this kind of hate onwiki tends to overlap with the people who have CIR problems. Please reconsider leaving it here. Local Variable (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure what you're talking about (there was never an infobox in this discussion). At any rate, the {{userbox}} template has an information page attached to it that clearly explains how to type text into the param, so I don't think that a user trying to make a custom userbox will figure out how to go through unindexed ANI archives and not figure out how to read the userbox template. jp×g🗯️ 17:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @JPxG, I also ask that you please remove the userbox in question from this board - it doesn't need to be displayed here. The bright image is eye-catching and then a source of distress for at least a few editors, and we have the wording preserved in text format (which doesn't jump out at you the way the rainbow does) if that's needed in the future. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, the image in question was literally a rainbow-colored rectangle (i.e. the pride flag) with a "x" over it, which I have now enclosed in two nested collapse templates. I am somewhat concerned about the usability of the administrators' noticeboard if we are required to make decisions on sanctioning people's behavior without being allowed to mention what the behavior was; there are quite a number of user conduct issues that involve repugnant imagery and statements. jp×g🗯️ 17:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel that your textual description of the offensive matter should itself be encapsulated in a protective collapse box warning our colleagues that a description of something offensive is contained within. Then that collapse box should be wrapped in another collapse box not mentioning that there's something offensive inside, since some editors may be triggered by the mere knowledge of the existence of unpleasant things. EEng 17:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't appreciate your smart-ass comment. I would ask you to strike that comment, but that would be pointless, since your snark and ill-advised attempts at comedic relief at this noticeboard are generally accepted and sometimes applauded by a select few who think it's cute.
    And FYI, I am fully aware of the existence of unpleasant things, having experienced those unpleasant things in real life. And I always thought that when those unpleasant things reared their ugly head here at WP, like an editor who openly admits they hate the LGBT community, that kind of hate would warrant swift and decisive action from administrators, but apparently I was wrong about that. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I too am fully aware of the existence of unpleasant things, having experienced those unpleasant things in real life as well. And I think swift and decisive action is warranted. But I also think (a) that the mature adults gathered here should be fully informed about exactly what it is action is being taken on, and (b) that the psyches of mature adults, if they indeed are such, can withstand (and even be strengthened) by being so informed. EEng 23:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I also object to the two nested collapsible templates. I know you don't care, but I'm voicing my opposition anyway. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So we agree on something. EEng 23:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For non-admins who lack the benefit of viewdeleted, I took a look at one of these articles. We all sometimes have to take the L on creating articles which later get deleted, but SadaPay was quite bad to the point of looking like UPE:
    SadaPay, a Pakistan-based financial technology company, is revolutionizing the way people manage their money. Their user-friendly mobile app allows for quick and secure money transfers, bill payments, mobile top-ups, and online shopping via a virtual debit card – all without the hassle of traditional banking methods. SadaPay prioritizes user security with PCI DSS compliant systems and strict regulations, making it a trustworthy option for a seamless financial experience. Learn more about SadaPay and download the app to unlock a simpler way to manage your finances
    The only ref is this: Siddiqui, Arslan (2023-01-26). "Everything You Need to Know About SadaPay". Graana.com. Retrieved 2024-05-01. jp×g🗯️ 01:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reviewed this user's contributions and agree with the OP that they're more of a burden than a benefit to Wikipedia. Their creations require a lot of maintenance from other editors, who then have to assess and AFD them. It's clear that the time spent managing this user's creations could be used more productively elsewhere. Implementing a ban on creating articles would be a constructive starting point. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done the same, and good grief: this is a terrible record for a short time. I'd certainly back a tban on new article creation at the least. Absolutely a WP:CIR issue. Ravenswing 02:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Cheetomalik4 is aware of this ANI report, yet appears to have chosen not to reply here. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I am prepared to indef if there's consensus for it. jp×g🗯️ 18:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support an indef. GiantSnowman 18:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll also back indef since their efforts don't add up to a positive contribution for Wikipedia. One less problematic editor to deal with. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Article creation ban proposal

    Now that there's a consensus above that Cheetomalik4's article creation has been inappropriate (indeed, since this ANI report was created there have been more), I propose that Cheetomalik4 is indefinitely prohibited from creating articles in the mainspace, including moving articles into the mainspace. Cheetomalik4 may use the AfC process and may appeal this ban after 6 months. Bestagon ⬡ 17:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    IP 47.39.190.24 engaging in COI, disruptive/poor editing and personal attack

    47.39.190.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been in engaging in WP:COI editing on John Albers for months, disregarding warnings for such. Further, the edits to "his" article have been disruptive and poorly structured, replacing normal encyclopedic text with unformatted lists of accolades. Last, he just engaged in a personal attack on my user page where he has admitted that he is editing the page about him. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 01:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    193.163.150.131 Vandalism, unconstructive and insults

    IP user vandalising the page and insulting people on the page. Most of their historic edits have been reverted, most likely for being unconstructive. LouisOrr27 (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @LouisOrr27, if you are sure of the vandalism. Then take the issue to WP:AIV where its best solved and will be given immediate attention. Thanks. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 20:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    user:stop the occupation of karelia and user:MiteriPanfilov unusual edits

    I have noticed that user:stop the occupation of karelia and user:MiteriPanfilov have both been making a large number of edits to pages related to the Karelian National Movement. More specifically, they both seem to be trying to make the claim that one "Dmitry Kuznetsov" is the leader of the movement with user:Stop the Occupation of Karelia even claiming to be "Dmitry Kuznetsov" on their user talk page. also there is an obvious conflict of interest with user:stop the occupation of karelia if his claim of being Dmitry Kuznetsov is accurate. Gaismagorm (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've also noticed that on the Karlian national movement page it states "Dmitry Kuznetsov, who also goes by the name Miteri Panfilov" so user:miteripanfilov appears to also be claiming to be Dmitry Kuznetsov due to their username. Gaismagorm (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    alright i reported user:stop the occupation of karelia to wp:uaa Gaismagorm (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, WP:NOTHERE to me. Reverted the edits, which appear to be somewhat related to the internal bish-bosh inside the organisation. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, thats the TL DR, the telegram channel of Dmitry Kuznetsov, aka Miteri, aka Stop the Occupation of Karelia recently made a post about how people try to fake Vadim Shtepa's (his former rival) influence on Karelia and Russian separatism research, he also left comments on the talk page of the article about Shtepa being a nobody and sending "documents and links" in order to "make the pages contain the truth". I wouldn't be surprised if he makes a telegram post or something about wikipedia being pro-russian 'cause of this. Dictatorialkarelian (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh actually, he did make a statement already, here are some quotes:
    "“Karelian national movement” in Russian Wikipedia.This is just a joke, yesterday I tried to edit and they banned me. Everyone knows that Russian Wikipedia is controlled by the Russian FSB."
    "Then look at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karelian_National_Movement This is half true, but it looks like it can be corrected.I will work on this, it’s time to restore the truth!"
    "As long as these Russian assholes: Oreshnikov, Oleynik, Safronov, Ivanov, Kruglov represent our peoples, there will be no point.As long as the SBU is financing them, I think it makes no sense for us Karelians to make any attempts to help Ukraine." Dictatorialkarelian (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    this is quickly becoming the strangest situation on wikipedia i've found myself in. Gaismagorm (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    that guy is a bit of a nutjob, so it's normal Dictatorialkarelian (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So now this ban's being used for propaganda? Great...
    Anyways, the page should probably be monitored for a little while just in case this user's version of "restoring the truth" on the page is to sockpuppet and add the same material back. That Tired TarantulaBurrow 18:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That 1st one is clearly a username violation, you could try WP:UAA for that. 2600:1011:B1C8:B754:5DE3:EFE1:E9FC:4172 (talk) 14
    29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, the first user's name definitely seems like it's supporting a movement. To me, it seems like these accounts are mainly trying to add informational content about the Karelian Naional Movement; however, if they're claiming to be the leader of this organization, that's a clear conflict of interest; I'll add a note about it on their Talk pages. That Tired TarantulaBurrow 15:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure about that. To me it feels like the main intention here is WP:RGW around divisions within the organisation, as well as poking at people the editor seems to dislike (for example, adding a unsourced addition about the founder being an 'ethnic Russian Neo Nazi'. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    another thing im worried about is the fact that both of the accounts are seemingly claiming to be the same person as explained above, Gaismagorm (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it does seem like there could be some WP:RGW going on, but they're claiming that their edits are due to misinformation. However, claiming that political rivals are "Neo-Nazis" still isn't appropriate; I'll talk to them about that. I'll also contact them about the other account, since if they're the same person (which is pretty likely), they'll need to disclose that and understand when having an alt is appropriate. That Tired TarantulaBurrow 15:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have soft blocked User: Stop the occupation of Karelia. Usernames that reference "highly contentious events or controversies" are not permitted. Cullen328 (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MiteriPanfilov is still editing the article, rather than discussing on the talk page as requested. He has just accused an named individual of criminality in an edit summary. [190] AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. I can't be bothered constantly reverting a user who is WP:NOTHERE whilst on a wikibreak, I trust an admin to sort this. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    thats fair, hopefully it gets resolved soon. Gaismagorm (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reverted some of their edits, but one of them seemed genuine, if anyone thinks otherwise feel free to revert that one as well Gaismagorm (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    alright both users are now blocked, so situation (hopefully) over! Gaismagorm (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I blocked both accounts that I believe were under control of the same person with a glaring Conflict of interest. If anyone thinks my assessment is wrong. please reach out to me. Cullen328 (talk) 08:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Promotion by Ginigangadharan

    CLOSED
    This seems like a clear example of WP:RADAR -- their talk page is a litany of speedy-deletion notices piled up over the last decade, and nothing else, because they basically don't edit anything else. Basically all of their contributions have been this sort of promotional stuff; the fact that they only do one edit every few years means it's difficult to notice, but not that it's acceptable. I am indef-blocking them. jp×g🗯️ 22:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Ginigangadharan (talk, contribs) is a promotion-only account that has edited since 2011. Their userpage reveals their identity and that they are promoting their book Ansible for Real Life Automation and their website techbeatly.com. It also explicitly declares their COI relating to their website. They have created promotion-only pages such as Wikipedia:Articles for creation/colorvibes studio and Draft:Techbeatly, which have been deleted. Edits like [191] reveal that they are spamming pages with unrelated external links to their products' websites. Their talk page also shows that they have committed copyright violations. Administrators, please review this case and block if warranted. Air on White (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    IMO, I don't think Ginigangadharan is here to build an Encyclopedia. The numerous recreation of book which they wrote and their website (YouTube) link which they have created as well but got deleted. Looking at the contributions, it is clear to all eyes that it is one minor edit to the user page or the other. If much isn't found, promotion of person is literally against Wikipedia's policy especially when they keep recreating such. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 20:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking through deleted contribs, these are all extremely bad. Here is Colorvibes studio:
    Colorvibes

    colorvibes studio is a web service company which is based at Kerala. Colorvibes Studio is formed to provide end users to migrate their activities /business to a next level by providing promo in new ways including web, visualmedia, printmedia etc. History colorvibes is based in Kerala, India. colorvibes studio was planned and founded by a group of creative people in the various field of visualmedia and web. We are providing services and support in various design fields as listed.

    Techbeatly (all refs are to the company's own site)

    techbeatly techbeatly is a community-based platform for IT professionals offering educational resources like articles, how-to guides, and videos on various IT specializations (https://www.techbeatly.com/). History techbeatly originated as a private knowledge-sharing channel for founder Gineesh Madapparambath. to share personal notes and technical documents with fellow IT professionals. To reach a wider audience and simplify content distribution, techbeatly transitioned to a public website. Due to branding and an expanding readership, the platform migrated to its current domain, techbeatly.com. Mission techbeatly's mission is to empower IT professionals through knowledge sharing. They achieve this by: Providing educational resources like articles, how-to guides, and videos. Encouraging reader engagement through comments, questions, and contributions. Offering opportunities for passionate individuals to join their editorial team. Content and User Engagement techbeatly offers a variety of content formats including articles, how-to guides, and videos. The platform fosters user engagement through comments, a contact page, and chat groups. Additionally, techbeatly welcomes contributions from aspiring authors passionate about sharing their IT knowledge. Contact and Additional Information For inquiries or feedback, users can reach techbeatly via comments, email, or their chat groups Editorial Team How to Become an Author Privacy Policy Comment Policy Affiliate Policy Advertisements Disclaimer techbeatly emphasizes that all content on their platform is based on the author's knowledge and experience. Users are advised to consult official documentation before implementing any method in a production environment.

    Model Polytechnic College, Vadakara

    === The Model Polytechnic College,Vadakara === is the brain child of institute of Human Resources Development ( I H R D ) established by the Govt. of Kerala in the year 1988,whose main objective is to function as a catalyst to foster the growth of electronics ,computer and specialized fields such as Medical Electronics throw a plethora of innovative endeavors. The Polytechnic College offers three year Diploma course in applied electronics, Computer hardware maintenance and Medical Electronics,the courses being recognized by the PSC.The institution has been accredited by the National Board of Accreditation (NBA) of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) New Delhi.

    Courses Offered

    3 Year Diploma in

    • Computer Hardware Maintenance  : (40 Seats)
    • Medical Electronics : (40 Seats)
    • Applied Electronics : (40 Seats)

    Other Details

    • Year of Establishment : 1988
    • Other IHRD Cours : PGDCA, DDT & PM

    Place

    • Nearest Airport : Kozhikode - 60 KM
    • Nearest Railway station : Vadakara - 1 KM.
    • Nearest Bus Station : Vadakara - 1 KM

    Contact Information


    The Principal
    Model Polytechnic College,
    Nut Street, Vadakara,
    Kozhikode Dist.
    mptvadakara.ihrd.ac.in
    mptvadakara@ihrd.ac.in http://www.ihrd.ac.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11:model-polytechnic-college-vadakara&catid=28:polytechnic-colleges&Itemid=48

    These all seem like UPE to me. jp×g🗯️ 21:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    BLP issues with Andrew Tate DYK hook

    CLOSED
    Further discussion of the underlying issue brought up here is at is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#ANI thread - "BLP issues with Andrew Tate DYK hook". Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Original section title was "Are the idiots who run DYK under the mistaken impression that WP:BLP doesn't apply there?" jp×g🗯️ 20:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Se the section on Andrew Tate. Regardless of what we think of him, the quote seems to have been taken out of context, and regardless of whether it was or it wasn't, the from page of Wikipedia in no place for such loaded cherry-picking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:CIVIL, no? GiantSnowman 18:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) #User:AndyTheGrump Conduct is still live. Do you need to be reminded about WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF? Or do you just need to be blocked? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He said it and never denied saying it -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, Andy, you lost me on this one, there's sourcing for the quote looks pretty solid. The full quote is "You can’t slander me because I will state right now that I am absolutely sexist and I’m absolutely a misogynist, and I have f— you money and you can’t take that away.” so I'm having trouble aseeing how using just part of it makes him look worse than using the whole thing. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This from a reputable British newspaper quotes Tate, saying "You can’t slander me because I will state right now that I am absolutely sexist and I’m absolutely a misogynist, and I have f*** you money and you can’t take that away", which is the source used for this DYK. So it looks absolutely valid. GiantSnowman 18:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The same newspaper does state In a video shared to his new website on Wednesday (23 August), Tate claimed that many of the criticisms levied at him are based on clips that have been “taken out of context”. The author clearly didn't see the irony in quoting one sentence of his. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unsure how that quote can be taken out of context, he's pretty clear... GiantSnowman 18:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And it is from the day before the article was published -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I may actually have been the editor who suggested this particular hook -- too lazy to go check -- and I kind of feel like calling me an idiot is a bit of a personal attack. Valereee (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's 100% a personal attack and should be retracted with an apology. GiantSnowman 18:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1. There were an infinite number of ways to raise this issue without calling people "idiots." Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly do you think this thread will solve? Sincerely, Dilettante 18:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no reason whatsoever to be 'civil' about a gross regard for core Wikipedia policy. Tate, for those who may not be aware, is currently facing charges in multiple countries over concerning alleged rape, human trafficking and organised crime. Regardless of what Tate did or didn't say, we should not be trivialising such matters, out of respect for any victims, if nobody else. Or is rape now amongst those 'quirky' subjects that DYK considers legitimate clickbait-fodder?
    AS for what this thread can solve, given past history, very little in the long term I suspect. Not until either the community shuts DYK down as the liability it clearly is, or the WMF decides to step in. Meanwhile though, can someone at least remove this particular abuse of the main page from sight. It is utterly irresponsible, and puts Wikipedia in a particularly poor light. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    CIVIL is a "core Wikipedia policy" that you don't seem to care about disregarding. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I take it that you consider rape allegations not involving Wikipedia contributors to be of less importance than breaches of WP:CIVIL amongst ourselves? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an absolutely insane fucking reach. wound theology◈ 01:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Girl. I also think the hook is inappropriate and reflects badly on WP, but what is this lol Zanahary (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, respectfully, you're making no sense. There is no trivialisation here. GiantSnowman 19:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect potential rape victims might have a different opinion on that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Civility is one of the WP:5P. To me, the disregard shown to it here and on your user page overshadows BLP concerns that level-headed editors can discuss. You should be nowhere near any contentious topics. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, you will need to explain to us how quoting Tate describing himself in what is a negative manner to most people is trivialisation of rape victims. GiantSnowman 19:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Right we had a long debate at DYK and I opposed suggested BLP violation hooks. Regarding the PA above I suggest a sanction for the OP here. ATG cannot slander Valerie (wrote the hook) and everyone else in DYK that operated in good faith just because they are a seasoned editor. We should not accept this kind of incivility from anyone. Lightburst (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Something weird happened here – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    I was thinking of doing it myself. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Muboshgu, you mistakenly replied to an incorrectly-copy-pasted series of messages, which have now been removed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont know what to do with this. I was replying to a comment by JPxG about a potential indef block. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You posted in the wrong thread. You want #Cheetomalik4. GiantSnowman 19:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest that Andy take some time to:
    • 1) clearly explain how a self-summary by the man himself (which accurately encapsulates the opinion of high-quality RS) can be defined as "loaded cherry-picking" which violates WP:BLP
    • 2) clearly explain how the hook currently on the Main Page "trivialises the alleged victims of Tate's activities"
    • 3) clearly explain how his posts so far on this page are acceptable violations of WP:CIVIL and not examples of tendentious WP:RGW.
    I emphasise "clearly explain" thrice because clear explanation has not been a hallmark of ATG's posts so far. Hopefully that changes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) Selecting a single phrase, with no further clarification of context, for the purposes of a DYK hook is very much cherry-picking. Indeed, that's how the clickbait-farm works. They've been doing it for years, with blatant disregard for basic human dignity and common sense, never mind Wikipedia policy. Do I have to link the time they stated as fact improperly-sourced claims that a Singaporean who disappeared in unexplained circumstances had been cooked in a curry? (2) I was referring to the trivialisation of crime, not of victims. And I doubt such victims would appreciate their attacker being given a platform to dismiss events as 'misogeny'. Not that Tate was, clearly (he remains unconvicted, and denies all the allegations). Given the complete lack of context though, one might very well assume that this was what was being referred to. (3) I was under the impression that complaining about things done in violation of Wikipedia policy was considered a legitimate use of this noticeboard. If it isn't, perhaps people should be advised of the fact in the notice at the top of the page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) So this is a disagreement with the existence of DYK, rather than this particular hook? I would suggest that ANI is not the place to deprecate the process (and, incidentally, as I am an active participant, please feel free to use "you" instead of "they" with your customary insults). (2) is somewhat incoherent, but seems to be worried about assumptions and connections that I can only describe as far-fetched. (3), meanwhile—well, I am unable to see how an explanation of ANI's purpose is at all relevant to whether your comments met the standards of WP:CIVIL or WP:RGW. Please try again. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You completely dodged question 3 -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the Socratic intent involved in how you've structured these inquiries, but I don't think it's particularly helpful to suggest to Andy at this moment in time that there might be a variety of "acceptable violation of WP:CIV", because he's clearly going to take that implication and run with it. I have to join with the consensus here so far: Andy has engaged in an unambigous and unabashed use of a PA above and rather than acknowledge it and pull pack, is embracing pure IDHT, and courting an almost certain BOOMERANG if he continues.
    This is kind of gobsmackingly ironic (and oblivious), because it's almost beat by beat what happened to another editor further up on this page who recently reported Andy for similar language a couple of days ago--in that case, in a pair of WP:POLEMIC-adjacent postings on Andy's user page which also make use of his apparently favourite word for his fellow editors at this moment in time: 'idiot'. Everyone here at ANI, myself included, just brushed past that issue, either by not addressing it at all or by focusing on the uniform opinion that the behvaviour of the OP was of more concern. There was also apparent agreement that, insofar as the comments don't address particular editors or groups of editors, those comments don't really, strictly speaking, constitute a PA--an assessment with which I basically agree.
    That said, what those posts do accurately constitute are clear indicators about the thinking of an editor who, per this discussion, is heaving extreme difficulty comporting with WP:AGF and WP:CIV at this moment in time. Andy, as was noted a few times in the previous thread, your discussion style has always had a bit of a "crusty" aspect to it. I think it has generally been well tolerated in part because your very username puts people on notice to the fact that it may be coming and we all just laugh it off a bit as on-brand for you. But at this juncture, you have tipped completely over into WP:Disruptive territory, and you need to pause and re-assess your mode of interaction here before the community takes action. It is never ok to refer to a fellow editor (or clearly identifiable cohort of editors, even) as an idiot/idiots.
    Indeed, it was already a worrying sign when you were utilizing such language to vaguely opine about the community in general. But making such observations about particular editors is a brightline violation of PA, and you very certainly know that. Just as you know that you don't get an exemption from following the same basic behavioural rules we are all bound to here just because you are fighting the good fight in the project's interests, as you see it.
    The afore-mentioned posts on your user page seem to indicate that you have been contemplating stepping back from the project because of your current frustrations with the community's priorities. This discussion suggests to me that you may want to consider this the ideal time to put that plan into action, because if this is the extent of the self-restraint you can show when it comes to lambasting your rhetorical opposition with commentary about your perception of their level of intelligence (and then refusing to hear the concerns of the community about same), you're probably going to soon talk yourself into blocks or editing restrictions.
    If the lesson you took away from Antny08's thread above was that the community was going to continue to support an acerbic, insulting tone from you so long as you were enough in the right on the content issue, that was an error. The lesson you should be taking is about a well-intentioned editor with blinders on to their own issues, and the limits of the community's patience with a refusal to drop the stick. Your love-affair with calling other editors on this project "idiots" has to come to an end. Completely. Immediately. SnowRise let's rap 20:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Muboshgu Apologies I think I erred when I edit conflicted. But yes, I support sanctions for the OP- does someone have a proposal? We would not give any other editor time to reconsider their attack. And ATG obviously flamed out and then said they were taking a break. Lightburst (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll explain my opinion on 1. WP:DYKBLP is quite clear not to blurb anything negative. I'd wager most of us would say someone being a misogynist, self-professed or otherwise, is negative. The guideline does not read Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons which the person would consider negative should be avoided. Though I agree on some points with them, I do think I'd support a short civility block for ATG. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with this - your interpretation means we could not have things like 'John Smith was a Nazi' etc., even if 100% accurate and properly sourced. GiantSnowman 19:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How many BLPs do we have on Nazis? Sincerely, Dilettante 19:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We have 173 BLPs on convicted war criminals, for example Radovan Karadžić. —Kusma (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DYKBLP ≠ WP:BLP – Muboshgu (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first line of WP:BLP is Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. If you're violating a reasonable guideline, you're ipso facto not taking particular care. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If Tate refers to himself as a misogynist, how does it violate BLP to say that he refers to himself as a misogynist? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I have retracted my request to pull/change the DYK (see the bottom comment on ERRORS). However, I'll present my argument one last time:
    1. One type of (relatively minor) BLP violation is not taking particular care when writing about a BLP.
    2. Violating DYKBLP could be reasonably construed as not taking particular care.
    3. Calling someone a misogynist, even if they'd agree, is focusing on a negative aspect.
    4. We should err on the side of caution when it comes to BLPs.
    5. Therefore, we should fix the DYKBLP (and thus BLP) violation by changing the hook.
    6. Even if it's only an extremely dubious violation, we should still try to avoid that in case Tate's lawyers want to come calling.
    Which step is wrong? This isn't meant to be aggressive; I'd genuinely appreciate being corrected if I'm wrong somewhere. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would pinpoint the error to be between steps two and three. DYKBLP does not prohibit all negative hooks; if it did, we would never be able to run a hook on, say, Andrew Cuomo sexual harassment allegations. It prohibits unduly negative hooks; but if the RS coverage of a person is so negative that they merit an entire split article for something negative they're a part of, it has to be the case that DYKBLP is satisfied. Now, this is Tate's overarching biography and not a split article, but the same principle applies. The RS coverage of Tate is so squarely negative that I can't possibly think of a reason that this hook is unduly negative compared to RSes. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think we should never run a hook on the Cuomo allegations or Andrew Tate or any of a million other topics (although I have no doubt I'm in the minority on that). However, you're right about the undue part—I realize why the hook does not violate policy/guidelines. Sincerely, Dilettante 20:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • AndyTheGrump, I really wish that you would retract the insults and apologise for them - they're a distraction from the real issue. FWIW, I agree that putting that page on the main page was a really poor editorial decision. Wikipedia isn't censored, but we still have editorial judgment, and the discretion to choose whether or not to do something. DYK hooks are inherently trivialising. I like them, I write them whenever I can when I publish a new article - they're fun. This subject isn't fun, or funny, and while I don't condone the insults and have a high regard for some of the people they were directed against, I can see why he's angry about the decision to put this on the main page. Girth Summit (blether) 19:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but I am of the honest opinion that the DYK was not only contrary to policy, but that the decision to run it was idiotic. If it makes people happy though, I'll accept that it was contrary to WP:CIVIL to refer to the individuals concerned, rather than the act itself, in the manner I did. All of us are capable of doing idiotic things, myself included. The distinction between part-time idiots and full-time ones mostly comes down to ones' willingness to recognise ones' failings, and learn from them... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is bait.

    @Andythegrump: We can read the username, we get that you're a grump, you don't have to remind us by calling everybody at DYK an idiot in the thread title, for Christ's sake. What's the matter with you??

    On the issue of the actual damn thing he is talking about, for reference, the DYK hook on the Main Page right now says this:

    ... that social media influencer Andrew Tate described himself as "absolutely a misogynist"?

    To be fair... this does kind of sound like bait. So is this stupid thread title, for the record. But I don't know if this DYK hook is really so bad. The guy did say, a bunch of times, that he was a misogynist. The quote this is taken from is: "You can’t slander me because I will state right now that I am absolutely sexist and I’m absolutely a misogynist, and I have f*** you money and you can’t take that away." Now, on one hand, maybe it's a little silly for us to be making a DYK hook out of an excerpt from an article, which is itself an excerpt from an Independent article, which itself is an excerpt from a longer interview... but he really did say that. It seems pretty reasonable to summarize this as him "describing himself as a misogynist". Like, if he had said "Oh yeah, well by your standards I'm a misogynist" it would have been different. But he didn't! Like, it's true that DYK plays a little fast and loose with BLP stuff sometimes, but this case seems pretty obvious and straightforward. In general, yes, DYK hooks should probably try to be less baity, but I mean, the whole point is to get people interested enough to click on them, so I think they are entitled to at least a little bit of "peepee poopoo Joseph Stalin ate my balls" immaturity. jp×g🗯️ 20:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think, I'm not sure about this because there is too much heat and not enough light in the original post, but I think that ATG thinks that this article is just not suitable for the click-baity trivial nature of the DYK process, and I'm inclined to agree with him. I'm sure it's not the first time it's happened, and I know that this project isn't censored, but 'not censored' is not synonymous with 'tasteless free-for-all'. DYK hooks are meant to be interesting, fun, surprising, funny even - but ultimately, trivial. This particular subject is dark, and serious, and I think a better editorial decision would have been to use our discretion and not put this article through this process. Girth Summit (blether) 20:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally find the fact that Tait directly admits to being sexist to be interesting and worth pointing out -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, really? Of course he admits it, it garners more publicity, it's part of his schtick. Say something shocking, get headlines - and apparently DYK hooks on Wikipedia now. Girth Summit (blether) 21:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps we should also apply WP:DENY to attention seekers off-wiki. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe it's time to retire DYK, from Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    +1 Though any RfC would doubtless be SNOW closed against retiring. Sincerely, Dilettante 20:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're all extremely, unfashionably late to the party. This particular DYK hook was extensively vetted and discussed for many weeks and every conceivable BLP angle was investigated. It turns out that the hook is well supported, cited, neutral, and BLP-compliant. I think it's time to close this discussion, which appears to be based on emotional rhetoric and rooted in editorial misunderstanding. Viriditas (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was discussed for many weeks? By whom? Where? Didn't the fact that it took 'many weeks' to resolve perhaps suggest that another subject for a hook might be more appropriate? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See here. Sincerely, Dilettante 20:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So no, the specific DYK actually posted on the main page wasn't actually 'discussed for many weeks'then, was it? Instead, you link an ongoing discussion, where serious concerns about having a Tate DYK at all were raised, concluded by a couple of posts on a new proposal that got no significant discussion at all. Prime evidence for just how broken DYK is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tate was nominated on March 10. Discussion ensued on the nom page until it was promoted on May 1. At the same time, a second discussion took place for a week in April on the main DYK talk page. That's more discussion and attention than any other nomination usually receives and every aspect was considered. Viriditas (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And you've only mentioned things that have already been mentioned in this discussion or at ERRORS. If we're unfashionably late and you repeat what we say, what does that make you? Punctual and extremely, extremely late? Sincerely, Dilettante 20:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_198#Andrew_Tate_nomination, formerly at WT:DYK, between 11 and 18 April (so not "for many weeks"). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many weeks, including the discussion at the DYK nom itself, in addition to the DYK talk page. Viriditas (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If there have been 'many weeks' of discussion over the specific DYK hook concerned, they appear not to have been linked here. Instead, we have seen rambling and inconclusive threads, with the 'misogyny' quote hardly discussed at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The onus is not on other editors to link those threads here. You raised the issue here without adequately researching those threads beforehand. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is entriely possible, however, to have a broad-ranging RFC aimed at reforming DYK practices. It's a good thing for us to to review how we do things once ina while, and I do think there are some serious concerns with the day-to-day operations of DYK that could be addressed. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think this should be closed without sanctions against the OP. I am rather disgusted that the editor is free to insult editors and post diatribes both here, and on their user page. There is mo way that I would be allowed to do the same. Lightburst (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal Andy the Grump 24 hour block for violating our no WP:PA policy

    NOT DONE
    I feel like if there was an admin willing to issue this 24 hour block, they would have done so by now. There is a general consensus, even among thos who opposed the block, that Andy's tone in opening the above section was uncalled for and that he be more careful with his words in the future. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • Support as proposer. No place on a collaborative project for name calling and flaming. Lightburst (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose pouring more fuel on a dying fire is an unwise move. Andy has already acknowledged his CIVIL violation, and this entire thread has outlived whatever usefulness it may have had. I tried closing it a short while ago, but decided to back off after edit conflicting with an admin. Hopefully someone else will come along soon and send us all back to article space. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Where is Andy's acknowledgment of the breach? GiantSnowman 20:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, just seen it above - the fact that Andy acknowledges but does not apologise makes it worse. GiantSnowman 20:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So we should block him 24 hours for a breach he has already admitted because he neglected to say he's sorry? That sounds punitive to me. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Furthermore, I'd like to note that I was subjected to an uncivil remark a few months back by one of the admins who has criticized Andy in this thread. Nobody even considered blocking that admin, and I never saw an apology. I won't name names because that would only fan unproductive flames, but once again I am reminded of the double standards in civility enforcement. If Andy's comments had been made by an admin, I have no doubt that some other admin would have seen fit to close this thread before sanctions could be discussed. I believe that a 24-hour block would accomplish nothing except to provoke Andy and to allow those supporting the block to feel as though they've done something. If you all really feel that a block is necessary, you should be discussing something longer because you all know that a short block is pointless. But you don't want to lose a productive editor, so you're pretending like a half-measure will somehow be effective. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - he has repeatedly refused to retract or apologise for calling people "idiots", and his responses here have been combative. GiantSnowman 20:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Andy has presumably read the comments here. What's the point of adding a 24-hour block to them? We're not supposed to do punitive blocks, and what would such a block be if not punitive? Bishonen | tålk 20:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    This seems like a fully-general argument against anybody ever being given a 24-hour block for incivility. Blocks are a consequence of actions taken by editors, so of course they're always going to be "punitive" in some sense. jp×g🗯️ 21:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support -- if he's not even going to bother to remove the insult, or apologize for it... I mean, what is the point of having a civility policy at all, if no action can ever be taken against somebody who breaks it because "it would be punitive"? This seems like a pretty obvious, central example of what it is intended to prevent. jp×g🗯️ 21:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I am someone who does not enjoy being called an idiot and I think Andy can benefit from a break. This is not a punitive block because there is a pattern of incivility and an extensive blocklog. Someone cannot be allowed to disrupt over and over just because they are sometimes civil or they retract hateful language when asked. You cannot unring a bell, I heard it loud and clear.
      I spent a lot of time arguing against hooks about Tate that referred to small dick energy and alleged crimes etc. I finally relented on the hook, because how can I argue against a label the LP gives himself? Bruxton (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. ATG has already gone some way to rolling back his position above. He's heading in the right direction already, the only thing a 24-hour block would achieve would be to fan the flames. Girth Summit (blether) 21:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Can you tell me with a straight face that you would be making an argument against sanctions on some two-month noob with a thousand edits on the basis that, while they hadn't stopped violating the policy, and they hadn't even said they would stop violating it in the future, they had "already gone some way to" considering thinking about contemplating not violating it? jp×g🗯️ 21:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually yes, I think I probably can say that with a straight face. Further up this page, there is a section called Ekdalian. A three-month noob with 70 edits was throwing around some personal attacks up there - they concerned malicious intent rather than idiocy, but they were still personal attacks. I told them that there comments weren't appropriate (as I have done with ATG), and I waited to see whether they stopped. A couple of days later, when the dust had settled and the heat had died down a bit, they apologised. I don't know whether they'll turn into a productive member of the community or not, but we live in hope. Sometimes blocking someone who is angry and doesn't want to back down is necessary, but sometimes it's just fanning the flames.
      Now, since I've answered your question, will you answer me this: what will a 24-hour block achieve here? ATG is not on some personal attack spree where we need to intervene urgently but temporarily. He is not unfamiliar with our policies regarding civility. His block log is so long that it doesn't fit in the little pop-up window one of those clever scripts gives me - I actually have to scroll down to find his first block - so he is not unaware that blocks are a thing (although to his credit, none of them are within the last decade). So what actual purpose is served by imposing a 24-hour block? Surely it's an indef until he convinces us he won't do it again, or (and this is the option I prefer) it's talking, and working through disagreements, and trying to talk a valued contibutor down from a position they took when they were angry about something? Girth Summit (blether) 22:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For starters, at the next AN/I thread nobody would be able to say "to his credit none of them are within the last decade". jp×g🗯️ 22:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I can't argue with that if you genuinely think it's going to benefit the project. If that's the only benefit you see, would it help if I promised not to bring it up again? Girth Summit (blether) 23:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      ATG is not on some personal attack spree ... I beg to differ, unfortunately. Off the top of my head: April 26 This is what is known as editorial judgement. Some of us clearly have it, and understand its purpose, even if you don't...; May 6: And while you are at it, read the fucking article [...] It isn't that difficult to understand, if you actually take the time to learn something new.; May 9: As for Wankel-nuts, trying to argue with a cult is pointless...; May 12: Are the idiots who run DYK under the mistaken impression that [[WP{BLP]] doesn't apply there? This is too much. Levivich (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A long time ago Levivich, I remember you telling me that you thought opprobrium was more useful than blocks. That vibed with me, and it's what I've been trying to apply here. I was not aware of all of the diffs you've posted above, so forgive me if I've been speaking about a specific instance when there is more to the story. But it brings me back to the question I asked jpxg: what purpose would a 24-hour block serve here, when the diffs you present go back to April? If this is habitual, surely an indef is needed until such time as an undertaking to knock it off is given? Girth Summit (blether) 23:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Girth Summit: I still believe that, and I'd support a warning proposal or just some "not cool" feedback in this instance. I'm not sure if other editors would agree though, there is a case to be made that we've already tried the opprobrium and it hasn't worked. Right now the options are 24hr block or civility restriction, and given the choice I think the former is better. What I oppose is doing nothing, which would be excusing it. An indef seems harsh but frankly I'd support that over excusing it. Note of the four examples from the last 3 weeks, two are understandable and directed at obvious bad faith editing, the other two are directed at good faith editors and totally unjustified. He can't just keep going on being rude to everyone indiscriminately. The first was ignored, the two in the middle (from the thread above) were excused, but this time we should draw a line. I'd support anything that would get Andy to rein it in and hold his fire, and clean up his messes when he misfires (as he has done here). If all of us saying "not cool" does it, then great. But if that doesn't work, maybe a short block would, which would be better than an indef (well save time by not having to process an unblock request). Really, whatever works. Levivich (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      AndyTheGrump - please read the above. I appreciate your contributions. But really, the attitude you project sometimes isn't OK. This thread is almost entirely about you rather than the issue you raised because of the way you presented it. You'd probably get more positive outcomes, and create a lot less needless and unconstructive drama, if you would just cut the pointless hostility and insulting language out of our posts. By all means type them out if you want - I know I do that sometimes - but then I have a cup of tea, calm myself, and delete all the stuff that I know perfectly well is not permissible. It would probably also help if you were willing to say something along the lines that you will knock this kind of thing off in future. Girth Summit (blether) 23:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Excellent advice, Girth Summit. I often do this too. We are all human and we let our emotions out sometimes. It is quite healthy to do so but is not appropriate at all venues, especially a place that requires civil collaboration to function effectively. In this case, both sides can be right while simultaneously being wrong. The one difference is the civility aspect and it really is shameful that Andy has now garnered more attention than the appropriateness of the DYK hook. --ARoseWolf 11:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. It's not like this is the first time with Andy. Here's the same pattern two years ago: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1092#User:AndyTheGrump. He was "warned" then, and he didn't take it to heart. Here's Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1112#User:AndyTheGrump from later in 2022. I don't think finding others would be difficult. It's not punitive to block someone for a pattern of incivility where they've been warned and haven't changed course. Mackensen (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose would do nothing—Andy doesn't care, and he'd be back at it in two days. Something WP:PREVENTative seems much preferable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    AirshipJungleman29, I wish I had this kind of WP street cred. A while ago I was threatened with a block if I did not immediately strike a PA, the gist of which was me saying that Levivich was ax grinding. It was either Girth Summit or Evergreen Fir, I can't remember which admin now. So I edit in a different Wikipedia where I have to follow policies or I get blocked. Imagine if I started a thread calling editors idiots? Lightburst (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is an interesting thought experiment—if I described probably a couple of dozen editors as a clickbait farm full of idiots with blatant disregard for basic human dignity and common sense, what would be proposed? I've rewritten a fair few articles, so maybe I'd get the "net positive" designation? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Holy crap Lightburst, are we really going to do this? Do you want to dig out the diffs of that 'threat', and have us all scouring around our contributions history from years ago to work out the context under which you were told that, and then compare it against this current situation? I do not want you to be blocked - I didn't then, and I don't now. I do not want AndyTheGrump to be blocked. You are both productive, hard-working contributors. I want all of us to do our best get along without (a) insulting each other, or (b) the moment we see someone else do something stupid because they're angry, calling for them to be blocked. You and I have shared enough talk-page time and emails for me to have thought that you wouldn't cast something out like this willynilly, with the obvious insinuation that I'm being biased, but maybe I was wrong about that. What the hell, take a free shot now: call me an asshole, an idiot, whatever, I won't call for you to be blocked, and I'll unblock you if anyone else does it. Girth Summit (blether) 22:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry GS. Was not about you so much as the double standard that JPxG mentioned above. Thanks for noticing my contributions and have great weekend. Lightburst (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries - I was probably being a bit touchy. The offer stands though. Girth Summit (blether) 20:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral – but I do look forward to seeing everyone making the "he's learned his lesson!" argument back here next time :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per above. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, and yeah, a 24hr block might not prevent anything, so I'd support an indef until Andy says he won't do it again. Of course if that's seen as too harsh, then fine, 24hr. Mostly, though, not cool, Andy. Valereee shouldn't have to put up with being called an idiot because you don't like a DYK hook. Name calling is immature behavior; no editor should have to put up with being called names because another editor is upset about a DYK hook. I'm tired of "the Grump" schtick. A DYK hook being a BLP vio does not justify calling people idiots. It's not righteous outrage, it's a tantrum. Interact like a reasonably polite adult or get off the website. You lose your cool? Apologize, or strike, or get off the website. Levivich (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Please don't tell editors to "get off the website". Thanks. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Why not? If somebody can't participate here without calling people they disagree with names, habitually, and refusing to do anything meaningful to retract it (because we all lose our cool sometimes), why can't I express that I think they should not be allowed to participate here? Because I don't want to share this website with people who are habitually very rude, and I don't think I should have to tolerate it, nor should anyone else. Levivich (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Because he can (of course that doesn't mean you can't, was just my request, continue doing as you see fit). Sluzzelin talk 23:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I know he can, which is why I'm saying either do, or go. Levivich (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support It's not just this incident. Has anyone else here read User:AndyTheGrump lately? More calling Wikipedians "idiots". If ATG doesn't strike that voluntarily, I don't see any backtracking. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • a 24 hour block is too short to matter one way or another, it’s just stupid.Jacona (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose if this is an habitual offense then a 24 hour block won't suddenly charge their view and threads like this will just pop up in the future. I suggest indef block instead. --Lenticel (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support. I was leaning towards opposing here, on pragmatic grounds already raised by Girth Summit and others above--particularly with regard to the question of what a 24 hour block is likely to accomplish that previous blocks have not. Well, there is one thing that I can think of: a block going into Andy's log would actually have a pretty significant pragmatic effect, especially as the notation would be likely to include a link to this discussion. This would flag for the next group of editors forced to grapple with this behaviour (and unfortunately, as things stand now with Andy's responses here so far, I am inclined to expect there is likely to be a next occasion), that there was behaviour felt worthy of a sanction as recent as now and that Andy received unambiguous feedback from the community that this behaviour needs to change, or that a longer term block would be warranted. Looking just at comments and discussions raised by others in this tread alone, it's pretty clear that there has been a non-trivial amount of such warnings from the community already in recent years. At some point, the kid gloves have got to come off here.
      As such, I'd say this is the minimal amount of formal community action necessary to try to drive the point to Andy or, if it should prove insufficient to accomplish said warning, at least memorialize the fact that the community has made clear the baseline level of respect for CIV that it expects from him. In truth, I'd say something between the proposed sanction and an indef (say a couple of weeks off) would have been more pragmatic, but I'd agree that the most important thing is that there is some sort of concrete community response. SnowRise let's rap 01:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - if an editor has a history of violating a core policy and other measures have not stopped them from doing so, then they should be blocked. If there is agreement that the proposed length is not enough to prevent them from violating the policy in the future, the block should be lengthened to a period that has a reasonable chance of deterring future violations. Hatman31 (talk) 02:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Andy can learn. After he came here for calling people retards[[192]], he has stopped doing that. I'm sure this will be a similar learning experience. Cigarettes are Safe (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC) — Cigarettes are Safe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      Two-day-old account with twelve edits who clearly remembers user talk page drama from 2022. Many such cases - SAD! jp×g🗯️ 04:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Confirmed sock. Striking. –dlthewave ☎ 22:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Blocked as suspected sock, not confirmed, and the supposed original (who got 1 week block) never commented here. Not that people were putting much stock on this vote anyways.
      – 2804:F14:80B7:8201:29D0:A5B4:8E85:AAD8 (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Girth Summit - can we just let this die now that the hook has rotated off the Main Page rather than escalating it further please?. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support as a regular at BLP/N and a self-described BLP hawk I share Andy's concerns about editor's frequent disregard for BLP. However I also find their approach often does more harm than good. I'm not saying I'm better but this anyone is free to propose a sanction on me if they feel it's justified; and there are regulars at BLPN who I feel have a far better and more productive approach to BLP issues. All this is to say that I think Andy needs to change how their approach things no matter if they may often be right about BLP issues. And having seen their pattern for a long time, I'm unconvinced that this ANI is by itself enough to achieve that whatever Andy has said above. I'm not convinced a 1 day block will do that much, but at the very least as with all blocks where we have good reason like we have here, to think the editor's behaviour may reoccur at any time, it will protect wikipedia for 1 day. And given that there are often genuine BLP issues behind Andy's concerns, it's fairly unlikely we'll get consensus for anything more in the short term. So I don't see any harm in starting small in a typical escalating blocks fashion, hoping the editor changes before we end up needing to protect Wikipedia the other way. Nil Einne (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Since my comment was already long I didn't add this but in light of some other comments I think it's important to add. I have no comment if there was a BLP issue here. It's unclear enough that we need more community discussion. But given the current trajectory of everything, I'm somewhat doubt that that community discussion is likely to happen. As I said, I'm a BLP hawk but I have zero desire to discuss this in part because to my mind, Andy has destroyed the hope for fruitful discussion and frankly I probably couldn't be fair in such a discussion since I fear any feeling I have over what's right here might be overwhelmed by two combined emotions. One is my dislike for the subject, which I can often put aside by itself. But two is that my gut reaction to want to oppose it given the ridiculous way Andy approached this. And this sort of highly counterproductive approach is hardly unusual either. In fact over a month ago there was Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Publication of Living Individuals Home Addresses. I commented very early at BLPN on the issue. By the time I saw it again a few days later, it had blown up completely in an extremely nasty way. I watched it from afar and saw the WT:BLP thread but intentionally stayed away because the actions of people both on wiki and off wiki meant I didn't want to touch it with a ten foot barge pole. Andy was one of those on wiki, not the only one but definitely one of them. I wasn't surprised to that discussion died without any real result given all that happened, I was actually expecting it given how pearshaped it had all gone from very early on. I'm fairly sure there are other times I've seen where what a discussion has IMO been significantly harmed by Andy's participation even when Andy might have been at least partly right IMO. Civility is important not just because it's policy but because when editors behave atrociously as Andy often does, they can significantly harm any chances of fruitful discussion and achieving the outcome that Andy desires which often may be better for Wikipedia. You cannot blame others for behaving like many humans do and being turned off by what Andy says, even those like me who might often agree with their general point. Nil Einne (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – making your grumpiness a textual part of your personality doesn't give you carte blanche to irritate others with it. With the possibility of hyperbole admitted, we simply do not need AndyTheGrump as much as he's stated we do if he's to be this grumpy. (I stated this before, then self-RVed, and I'm putting it back, full disclosure.) Remsense诉 09:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose (Originally posted misplaced) DYK remains a walled garden. The question here is literally whether civility trumps our biography policy. The answer of course is... it doesn't. BLP isn't just a convenient method of maintaining another of our pillars—neutrality—it's the fecking thing that keeps us out of court. That's literally why we have it. Whether there's actually a BLP violation is, perhaps, a matter of debate; but whether it trumps CIV... is not. ——Serial Number 54129 10:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Serial Number 54129 Serial you seem to be rewriting history. You favored a very negative hook, and agreed with Theleekycauldron who is in that thread saying it would be undue to have a neutral hook. You even had an edit summary saying F Tate. The record here is pretty clear and now you are critical? Leeky was very clear on the fact that they wanted a anti-Tate hook. Honestly there is a whole list of editors and admins who called for negative hooks, but they are not rewriting history here so I am not calling them out. Leeky is the resident DYK expert so there is that... But let's not forget that you wanted to trash the guy. Lightburst (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "The question here is literally whether civility trumps our biography policy."
    I'm sorry Serial, but no, the question being presented here is not that, or anything remotely like it. The notion that we have to choose between applying WP:BLP (or any other content policy) on the one hand, and restraining Andy (or any other community member behaving uncivilly in a given instance), on the other, is (forgive my bluntness) very obviously the most ridiculous and grandiose of false choices. Andy is hardly the only voice arguing for a strict application of BLP, nor anywhere near its ideal advocate. For that matter, he's not the only editor who felt as he did about the specific issue here (I'd guess that there are a significant number of us here who do).
    But Andy's approach to handling these situations is not just suboptimal: it's counter-conducive and disruptive. Calling people idiots (besides being an unambiguous breach of policy) at best causes a distraction away from movement on the important content issue, and, worse, typically will only entrench positions and lower the effectiveness of the arguments for the position one is arguing for. In short, when Andy behaves like this, he becomes a liability for the very approach he supports. So even when he has the right end of the stick, policy-wise, he's still generating heat, not light, when he lobs these PAs. Levivich quite hit the nail on the head when they said that the behavior being discussed here does not constitute "righteous outrage, but rather tantrums", and tantrums do not win community discussions. At least, typically and ideally they don't.
    Also, I think it's beside the point, per the false choice identified above, but even if we did accept the nonsensical argument that WP:CIV and WP:BLP are at least partly mutually exclusive, your argument would still fail to pass muster under community consensus: WP:CIV is a WP:5P and WP:BLP is not. BLP is a critically important set of principles for constraining our content, but the most well-considered content policies in the world are useless to us if we can't maintain an atmosphere in which they can be reliably applied without the most onerous of behaviors and instincts derailingthe process of consensus. And that's the function that WP:CIV, arguably above all other behavioural policies, comes to serve. SnowRise let's rap 10:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are none so blind as those that will not see. Your argument is purely ideological, wordy, but empty with it. (See how civil that was?) Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 11:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, my concerns are foregrounded in the actual pragmatics of why this community proscribes the behaviours in question. I'd argue that the position that one should be permitted to lash out in anger, just so long as they believe they are fighting the good fight and are on the right side of a given content issue, as you see it, is far more "ideological" in nature than someone pointing out that this kind of behaviour is actually a pretty abysmal method of convincing the community of anything, and actually almost always self-defeating. SnowRise let's rap 11:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It saddens me a bit that we sometimes get to a point where we feel these two concepts are mutually exclusive. That's not a dig, I genuinely do wish some things were working a little better for everyone. Remsense诉 12:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Serial, I'm very confused what you're saying here. Are you saying if someone comes to ANI and says "fucking grooming paedos, have turned the J. K. Rowling article into a string of insane libel, accusing her of transphobia and other stuff that is highly inaccurate and offensive" this is completely fine if the editor genuine believes this and is concerned about BLP? Because this could easily happen, it doesn't take much experience to know plenty of people genuinely believe that. But you and I know this is likely to result in a quick block and I suspect you'd agree with that block. So you seem to agree being genuinely concerned about BLP does not mean you're allowed any and all uncivil language. So why do you suggest a block for civility violations means civility trumps BLP when you agree it's not even clear that there was a BLP violation, and I'm assuming you also agree it was totally unnecessary for Andy to say what they said even if there was one. Nil Einne (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there's much argument that JKR's social media is indeed a continuous stream of transphobia these days, the only issue would be finding a reliable source that actually backed that up ... and given how litigious and wealthy she is ... Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose as unlikely to fix anything, although the oppose would be much stronger if ATG would simply have said something like, "You're right, I shouldn't have called people idiots, apologies, I'll strike that, but can we talk about the issue?" For the record, from a personal standpoint in general I find it pretty funny when someone can't actually come up with an argument and has to resort to insulting me instead. from this day forth, I'll use you for my mirth, yea, for my laughter, When you are waspish. :D
    AndyTheGrump, I get it. You think DYK should just go away, and you certainly aren't alone in that. But when you come into a noticeboard with a personal attack in the actual section head and then keep using that same language over and over, of course you're going to end up with people focussing on your behavior instead of your point. That's one of the reasons we try to get people to avoid making personal attacks: they're completely counterproductive. Which is exactly what happened here. If what you really want is to fix DYK, this was a counterproductive way to get that started. I think what you actually wanted here, and still seem to want, is just to vent your spleen. FTR, I would actually have no problem with getting all BLPs -- along with all currently available commercial products -- off of DYK. Valereee (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support longer block - Having been on the receiving end of Andy's grumpiness in the past, I am surprised that this hasn't happened sooner. My last ANI discussion about Andy's incivility almost boomeranged back at me, which seems to be a common outcome that I would not mind if anything had been done about his incivility anyway. I don't hold grudges, and Andy has proven to be a highly respectable contributor to WP:WikiProject Aviation. However, incivility and personal attacks targeted at problematic editors are still a violation of policy, and Andy has shown no improvement in his behavior since my last interaction with him. I would be happy to work with Andy if he does agree to act with civility, but I unfortunately have little hope that he will improve even after a 24 hour block. - ZLEA T\C 18:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The link is broken, the discussion was at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1114#Personal_attacks_Uncivil_behavior_from_AndyTheGrump. You were the one at fault in that altercation. You were presenting fringe aviation history claims as fact, as well as being uncivil yourself. This is just sad axe grinding by someone with a grudge. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is ironic given that they claim not to hold grudges. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hemiauchenia I don’t appreciate your assumption of bad faith, and I feel the need to point out that I in no way endorse any fringe claims that I had defended before I knew the whole story (I’m not proud of it, it’s practically treason for a native North Carolinian to claim that anyone but the Wright Brothers were the first to fly). As I stated in my argument, Andy is a respectable editor who happens to have an issue with incivility. I do not hold grudges with any editor, but I do recognize when they have behavior problems that persist for many years without any sign of improvement. I will politely ask that you retract your accusation that I am acting on some sort of grudge. - ZLEA T\C 22:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Andy is a great contributor who does great work at enforcing BLP policy. Even though I don't necessarily agree with Andy's take here, BLP should apply equally to everyone, even people who are widely despised, and people shouldn't be penalised for going into bat for terrible people purely on principle. I don't think the remarks in the discussion warrant a block, given that he has walked them back. DYK often does not properly factcheck the DYK hooks or sensitive to BLP concerns, and this is a genuine problem. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Hemiauchenia: he has walked them back what are you referring to? Levivich (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That would be If it makes people happy though, I'll accept that it was contrary to WP:CIVIL to refer to the individuals concerned, rather than the act itself, in the manner I did., it's maybe a halfway walking back, but its its still some contrition. I don't really want to get into a back and forth about whether this comment was contrite enough. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's the absolute bare minimum, but also simply not good enough. "If it gets you off my back I'll acknowledge a breach. But I won't retract it, say sorry, or promise not to do it again!" GiantSnowman 20:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Hemi: I suppose it's not putting words in your mouth to say that the comment was contrite enough for you to oppose this proposal. Personally, I would not use the words "contrition" or "walking back" to describe that comment -- walking back, to me, would be saying "those people are not idiots," and contrition would be "I'm sorry for saying that." But I appreciate you pointing me to the specific comment; I am also not interested in arguing the point, just in making sure I didn't miss anything that I might feel was "walking back." (I'm not looking for contrition at all, FTR.) Levivich (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Oppose. Though being right isn't enough, any such block at this point would be purely punitive. It's off the main page; we can drop the stick and move on. His apology left something to be desired which is why this oppose has a qualifier. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm curious what the distribution of (bytes of text)/(length of potential block) ratios are at AN/ANI. I feel like it might be an inverse relationship, though that might be a recency bias. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Wikipedia doesn't have a place for this but it should. Which is a finding and advice. The finding is that Andy, you are being too grumpy and uncivil too often (including this time). You should change that. North8000 (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't think a block at this point will be useful, but hope that ATG takes away from this that shooting from the hip at ANI by attacking an entire group of editors, without researching to see that the nomination had been extensively discussed by those editors beforehand [193] is unlikely to be productive. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose because at this point we're in "though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now" territory. But we're going to be back here soon if something doesn't change. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm unconvinced that a block now would be anything other than punitive but it would not have been at the time. Even though WP:BLP is our most important policy, it does not extend to never showing a living person in a negative light, especially if the vast majority of reliable sources about them do the same. Indeed, under such circumstances it would be bizarre if we bent over backwards to find a hook that wasn't in some way negative, and therefore not represent the actual article fairly. Yes, probably the best thing would have been not to run a hook about Tate at all, but if we did so I don't think that spotlighting something that came out of the subject's mouth - and they were quite happy to own - is particularly objectionable. Black Kite (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A later quote from Tate, commenting on his earlier “absolutely a misogynist”: “It is very unfortunate that old videos of me, where I was playing a comedic character, have been taken out of context and amplified to the point where people believe absolutely false narratives about me...". [194] Now, we are under absolutely no obligation to take this at face value. It is however in my opinion improper, and a violation of WP:BLP policy, to knowingly present a quotation that has later been retracted as representing the true opinions of an individual. This isn't just 'objectionable', it is dishonest. It remains so regardless of whether we think the first statement or the later retraction more accurately represents reality. This is by far the only issue with the way the Tate DYK came about (see here for what looks like an honest attempt to consider where things may have gone wrong [195]), but it is, in my opinion, deeply problematic, and indicative of what the underlying issue was: the perception by some that DYK is an appropriate medium to express our dislike for Tate. Having failed to come up with any agreement over other alternatives that satisfied this questionable objective, the decision was taken - by just a few of the participants of the long-running debate - to go with a quote they must have known had been retracted.
    I am firmly of the opinion that any DYK that quotes a living individual on matters closely related to serious criminal charges (in this example alleged rape, human trafficking and organised crime) the individual is currently facing is improper. Regardless of whether it presents said individual in a positive or a negative light, it of necessity decontextualises, and almost inevitably trivialises, events that need, out of respect for all involved, to be handled by Wikipedia with care, and in a dispassionate manner. That simply isn't possible in DYK-format single-sentence clickbait. That is the stuff of tabloid journalism. We don't need to go there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a few errors in your assessment. Firstly, nothing has been "retracted" as you say. You link to a August 2022 Telegraph article about Tate's social media ban. There's no retraction anywhere. Later in the article, Tate defends his opinion by saying "It is very unfortunate that old videos of me, where I was playing a comedic character, have been taken out of context and amplified to the point where people believe absolutely false narratives about me." If one looks into the full statement and the media coverage from that time, there is no "retraction" of any kind nor apology nor backpedaling. Just the statement that he was playing a comedic character, which is supposed to be a kind of free speech defense, not a retraction of the content. I think this is a very important distinction; a retraction and a free speech defense are not the same thing. In fact, this free speech defense is the opposite of a retraction, as Tate is explicitly defending his right to say misogynistic things as either himself or as his "character" (to date, there is no evidence of any kind of character other than this single press release to oppose his social media ban). Secondly, in case that's not enough evidence that no retraction was ever issued, in 2023, BBC News interviewed Tate, and continues to cast doubt on his "comedian defense", noting Tate's "description does not match the tone in an online video seen by the BBC". Tate also denied several stories that the BBC was easily able to verify and confirm, contrary to Tate's allegations. For the record, in 2024, two years after the Telegraph piece reporting on Tate's press release defense, BBC News continues to report the same story, noting Tate is a "self-proclaimed 'misogynist'".[196] One would think that if any of this had been retracted or was in error, BBC News would not continue to report it. Viriditas (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Telegraph reports what Tate said in regard to the YouTuber video where the "absolutely a misogynist" comment came from. He responded to the Telegraph's questions by stating "It is very unfortunate that old videos of me, where I was playing a comedic character, have been taken out of context and amplified to the point where people believe absolutely false narratives about me". That is clear and unambiguous. We don't demand that people use the exact word 'retraction' when they state that an earlier comment was role-playing, and taken out of context. Continuing to use the quote in such circumstances is entirely contrary to core Wikipedia policy. It doesn't matter in the slightest what sort of 'defence' we think it is supposed to be. It doesn't matter whether the BBC , or anyone else, think his defence is valid. It is untenable to knowingly use a quote in such circumstances, regardless of what we think of the later statement's validity. And frankly, I'm somewhat dumbfounded that anyone with your experience at Wikipedia could think otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We have completely different takes on this subject. To reiterate, the Telegraph is reporting on Tate's free speech defense which he sent out as a press release in response to his social media ban, reframing his comments as that of a "comedic character", "out of context", and amounting to a "false narrative". Nowhere in this press release nor anywhere else in the last several years for that matter, has Tate retracted a single word of anything he has ever said, nor has he backpedaled on anything that he has been accused of in regards to his alleged misogynist claims. The BBC News and other mainstream sources who have repeatedly interviewed Tate and investigated this story since 2022 have consistently upheld the position that Tate continues to be, in their words a "self-proclaimed 'misogynist'" based on his original comments and videos, and nobody has yet been convinced by Tate's claim that he was playing a "comedic character" of any kind, a claim that is usually made in the context of the American legal system as part of a free speech defense, not as a retraction. Viriditas (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So Tate issued a WP:MANDY non-denial denial? Fascinating, and I guess it makes the inclusion arguable. But in the current context, I would say only an idiot would take that at face value. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak oppose On the grounds that this would be clearly punitive, and thus yield very little to the project. I think a more structural solution may be in order here, which is not something the current discussion is very conductive to. That said, I'm very much in favour of a formal warning. I very much expect this incident to come up the next time a WP:CIVIL violation comes up and I suspect the community will be much less lenient in extending more WP:ROPE then. This should also not be understood to be an oppose to a block in general, I would be more likely to support a longer block in this specific instance --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support while remaining supportive of further sanctions. Ideally, a 24 hour break would provide AndyTheGrump with an opportunity to reconsider this long-term pattern of uncivil behavior and resolve to follow Wikipedia policies going forward. That is what would make such a block preventative. I am, however, very mindful of—and I'll admit persuaded by—comments that suspect AndyTheGrump will decline the preventative character of such a block and continue violating Wikipedia policies after such a block. Because of that, I think that AirshipJungleman299's withdrawal of the civility restriction proposal was premature, as I would have also supported that; such restrictions provide parameters for 'another chance' and also provide context for administrators, the community, or ArbCom to more quickly escalate to a stronger sanction. In the (likely) event AndyTheGrump's uncivil behavior continues, I support a longer term block, including an indefinite block.{{pb||By way of comment, I notice that some of the comments seem concerned about the possibility that blocking AndyTheGrump means 'losing a productive editor'. I see it the opposite way. Removing an uncivil editor from Wikipedia is a net gain for the project. We gain a more civil editing environment; we gain the productive editors that the uncivil editor's incivility would drive away from the project; we gain the mental health and happiness that the incivility robbed of editors who fell victim. Civility is not some nice extra we try to add to the project 'when we can'; it is one of the five pillars, and all five are important. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As pointed out by multiple folks in the section below, civility restrictions are almost useless. We could consider a t-ban from DYK, maybe. I don't know. ATG's complaint has prompted a discussion of the issue at DYK, which I think is valuable. But honestly, the combination of clearly hating the very idea of DYK and inability to remain civil w/re DYK...maybe that really is what's needed? Valereee (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as a 24h block 2 days after the fact is now in punitive territory. Either propose something with some teeth if you feel seriously about PAs, or issue these sort of shorties right at or near the moment to prevent further abuse. Zaathras (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Alternative proposal: place AndyTheGrump under a civility restriction

    Withdrawn by proposer. Seems to me that if civility restrictions are so unhelpful, we should remove them from the toolbox, but heigh-ho. (non-admin closure)~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • Support as proposer. When they don't contain insults, Andy's contributions are helpful. When they do, which is rather often, we get a brouhaha like this. A solution that retains the helpful contributions without the constantly-repeating furore is, to my mind, ideal. Seriously, it feels like this happens every month.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose we got a brouhaha here because nobody has yet bothered to close a pointless thread. Civility restrictions are pointless; either block him or let's all find something better to do. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Here I would like to represent the institutional memory as regards civility restrictions. They have never been a good idea, both because people's cultural notions of what is civil and what is not vary so wildly, and because they paint a target on the back of the subject of the restriction, and baiting them into incivility tends to become a sport. Historical examples, which will mean something to some oldtimers, are Giano and Malleus Fatuorum. This comic by User:Geogre refers to Giano. Bishonen | tålk 21:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    • Oppose. Old-timer checking in here, and Bishonen's right. Civility restrictions are a nice idea in theory and too subjective in practice. Impossible to enforce, and they don't accomplish the actual goal, which is separating out the productive content editor from the person who tests boundaries. Mackensen (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Bishonen and Mackensen: did you ever find something that accomplished that goal? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, you have four possible outcomes: (1) the editor in question takes on board the feedback from the community and changes their behavior, (2) the editor is eventually banned, (3) the editor leaves of their own volition, (4) the editor's level of rudeness continues to be tolerated by the community. The outcomes depend on lot on the individual personalities involved, and the position taken by the community. There's a school of thought that says warnings are either meaningless (because they aren't blocks) or harmful (because they're humiliating). I tend to think warnings are helpful because they make the community's attitude clear before we get to the point where blocks are the only option. Mackensen (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        So would you warn ATG in this case, Mackensen? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm in favor of a block, in view of past warnings that went unheeded. I would also support a warning as a lesser measure. It's an opportunity to for people to go on record and say they disagree with someone's behavior. Mackensen (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Civility restrictions never work - what will happen if this is imposed is what always happens - the editor in question gets baited until they react and then gets punished. If you want to ban ATG, at least be honest about it.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose DYK remains a walled garden. The question here is literally whether civility trumps our biography policy. The answer of course is... it doesn't. BLP isn't just a convenient method of maintaining another of our pillars—neutrality—its the fecking thing that keeps us out of court. That's literally why we have it. Whether there's actually a BLP violation is, perhaps, a matter of debate; but whether it trumps CIV... is not. ——Serial Number 54129 22:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Amicus curiae

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

    Andy being trolled

    See 5 contribs; somebody please mop this up, thank you. Levivich (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Was that targeted at me specifically? I'd be flattered if I gave a (rude word I'd best keep to myself), but honestly I doubt that - just run of the mill stuff, aimed at wherever said troll thought might be effective. Which it clearly wasn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done All mopped up. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite block or topic ban for User:MidAtlanticBaby

    I've been noticing that MidAtlanticBaby has been making some edits that many users have considered to be disruptive. Today, when I was browsing around Wikipedia, I noticed their talk page, and saw that they were engaged in a discussion with Magnolia677. Magnolia had been warning them about not making an edit about "West Central Florida" (This is the discussion). After Magnolia had told them that they made 760 edits and had their talk page littered with warnings, this user responded rudely by telling her to watch their fucking tone and who the fuck are they talking to. I scrolled through their talk page and noticed that they indeed did have a lot of warnings on the page. In fact, on April 20, Drmies had given them a 31 hour block for edit warring, which I assume they had also been doing. With that, I propose that either an indefinite block or topic ban (which should also be indefinite) be given on this user. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    MidAtlanticBay has blanked their page and "retired". They have made 78 edits in the last 24 hours, many of them unnecessary and/or disruptive. I think most, if not all, of those edits should be reverted, although I will look at each one before I do so. In the meantime, I have blocked them for 24 hours for disruption. Donald Albury 23:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. That's perfectly fine. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If this editor returns with any similar profane insulting diatribes, the next block will be dramatically longer than 24 hours, if I have anything to say about it. Cullen328 (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. I considered an indef as NOTHERE, but, while some of their earlier edits were problematic, their behavior had not risen to a blockable level until yesterday. Maybe they can return and contribute constructively, but the rope will be short. Donald Albury 12:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Beauty pageant editor continues to make unsourced changes after many warnings

    Wictoriamalawi has made very few edits to articles that are not about beauty pageants, which are considered under WP:GS/PAGEANTS. They have been warned multiple times starting in October 2023 [197] about making disruptive, unreferenced changes to articles. Their behavior doesn't seem to have substantively changed since then and they are adding unreferenced changes as recently as 13 May [198][199]. I think admin help is required here to effect a change. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've p-blocked from article space, as this editor has made only three barely-responsive attempts to respond to concerns on their own and no edits to any other talk page. Valereee (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ivan Milenin and poorly sourced BLPs

    CLOSED
    User:Ivan Milenin has resolved to contribute per the below discussion in both translating and sourcing articles. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 16:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Ivan Milenin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User creating a massive number of poorly sourced translated articles (see their talk page and this will be clear). I haven't seen any indication on their talk page they are willing to discuss the issue with reviewers, or improve their article creation so I am bringing it here for discussion and remedy. A look at their talk page will see dozens of articles that have been deleted, drafted, redirected. Dispite many notices, warnings and attempts at communication, they continue to create poorly sourced translated articles.

    I've been reviewing their recent creations at NPP, here are a few of the very poorly sourced BLPs from the last two weeks: Vasyl Kiselov, Anatoliy Korniychuk, Vitaliy Kurashyk, Rati Bregadze, Yefim Fiks. This type of article creation does nothing but clog AfC, AfD, and NPP.  // Timothy :: talk  03:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Commment I disagree with that statement, because I am translating articles on politicians since, and for no particular reason, I am being targeted just because I am translating in good faith, weather in Russian, Ukrainian, Georgian, German or any other language from the other Wikipedias. Secondly, the have met notablity as State Duma members, Verkhovna Rada members can and will meet notability as MPs on national level, but not on a local level of course. As far as I'm concerned, if anyone would justify that incident for me being targeted it wouldn't surprise me. Ivan Milenin (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You are creating poorly sourced BLPs. This is not acceptable on English Wikipedia. You need to either remove or properly source the information in the BLP article you are translating. Your articles will be reviewed just like everyone elses.  // Timothy :: talk  12:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't talk back during the incident, but since you insist, I'll tell you why you are wrong to reply. If it's reviewed, and needs improvements, other's can contribute, and not just me, because I haven't got the time to edit all of them, all at once, otherwise I'll receive a burnout. Don't reply to me anymore during the incident, I've rest my case. Ivan Milenin (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivan Milenin you're not engaging at all with the main issue, which is the creation of articles on living persons with poor sourcing. WP:BLP is an important policy. Translations aren't exempt from that policy; sources that might be acceptable on one Wikipedia might not be acceptable here, and vice-versa. Mackensen (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mackensen @Qcne @TimothyBlue Otherwise, expect deletion. Ivan Milenin (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivan Milenin I don't understand what you mean? Qcne (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Qcne I don't improve my articles, I will expect have my articles deleted if I don't improve anything at any circumstances at all. Ivan Milenin (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are not willing to improve your articles please do not submit any in such a poor state? Qcne (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Qcne Of course I'm willing to improve, It's a just rhetorical statement. Ivan Milenin (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivan Milenin Will you stop creating biographies of living people without full sources? Every statement must be verified per our policy. Qcne (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am the person reviewing you articles and there are significant problems. If you are going to translate articles, you need to make sure they are properly sourced. This is especially true for BLPs. More recent examples: Yuriy Tymoshenko, Vasyl Nimchenko, Madle Lippus, Vladimir Frolov (politician), Boris Agapov (politician), Yevgeny Lukyanov, Yury Grekov, Valentin Bobryshev, Mykyta Poturayev  // Timothy :: talk  13:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivan Milenin The different language Wikipedias have different policies. The English Wikipedia (this one) has the strictest of all the policies when it comes to verifying information. This is especially true for articles which are biographies.
    You should not create biographical articles with poor sources and expect other editors to improve them.
    Please either remove any information which is unsourced when translating articles, or find the sources yourself. Qcne (talk) 13:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Accusing people of targeting you and talking back to you is not a good look. Timothy has real concerns about your sourcing and you're simply not responding substantively to any of the concerns. A person passing WP:GNG doesn't mean that it doesn't matter what the sources are and you can just move onto the next article. If you haven't got the time to edit "all of them, all at once," it's far better to add a few articles done very well than add a large amount of poorly sourced articles. It's also poor form in a public discussion to try and order someone to not reply to you; this is not your talk page. Timothy's certainly not bludgeoning the conversation, but trying to get you to directly answer at least one of the concerns about your editing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CoffeeCrumbs I was translating articles from Russian to English, for example, there are some various Russian sources, sometimes without, and yes, they are some statement's without sources, and if there are none, I'll remove them. Ivan Milenin (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CoffeeCrumbs But othertimes, even articles will get deleted even if I had a chance to improve them in worst case scenarios. Ivan Milenin (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CoffeeCrumbs But even that, he shouldn't have to nominate that articles for deletion for something if I'm trying to improve which is right. Ivan Milenin (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivan Milenin but you should not be creating poor quality articles in the first place. If you want to work on articles and improve them, please create them in draft space. Qcne (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Translating articles doesn't waive the sourcing requirements; an article that is considered well-sourced enough to exist in another language's Wikipedia does not automatically make it sufficient here. And you're being told that the sourcing of these articles is insufficient, but accusing others of targeting you rather than addressing the problem. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CoffeeCrumbs Because if anything, the article will get deleted. That's what I've seen from him, even with those sources I've provided while I was done traslating. If I did accuse like that, I apologize, but I will gladly improve the article. And I did found additional sources I added on Aleksandr Surikov (diplomat). Ivan Milenin (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All that's being asked is that you slow down and source these articles better. You're well-suited to provide quality sourcing, probably better than most given your interest in the area, so we'll get better articles if you provide a quality initial article rather than make a weak one that requires someone else fill in the blanks later. Nobody here -- and I'd bet the farm that includes Timothy -- wants you to stop translating articles of notable people, we just want you to take a step back and make them more substantive, which you have the ability to do. Quality > quantity. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with above. @Ivan Milenin - just slow down and maybe create articles in draftspace while you work on improving them, then they won't get deleted as unsuitable for the main encyclopedia. Qcne (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll accept that. Let's just end discussion for now. Ivan Milenin (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will state I absolutely want you to continue working, but you need to continue working within Wikipedia guidelines about sources, especially when doing BLPs, but your answers do not fill me with confidence you will do this.
    I think this can be closed if:
    • You have read WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:RS
    • Acknowledge the problem above is real (since you have repeatedly refused to accept this above) and commit to not repeating the problem in the future.
    • Agree to stop ignoring messages on your talk page and engage in discussion.
    If this is the case, I will draft the recent BLPs you have created lacking sources, to allow you time to source them properly.  // Timothy :: talk  14:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will gladly abide by all of these. Ivan Milenin (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the above response.
    Request this be closed as resolved.  // Timothy :: talk  15:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Steffanhalvorsenekholt

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

    WP:UPE. User has been warned multiple times on talk page, WP:TH, and WP:AFCHD to disclose their paid relationship to Draft:Vue Play. Instead of adding the {{paid}} template, user blanked the aforementioned pages. ([200][201][202][203]) '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, please just remove my account completely and rename my account name, I do not want my real name to be visible on wikipedia, I have not fully understand how WikiPedia works, but now I understand more and it is scary that I can not delete my account. Please just delete my account and everything I have posted. Steffanhalvorsenekholt (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CanonNi ... Steffanhalvorsenekholt (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steffanhalvorsenekholt: I've deleted the draft per WP:G7. Accounts cannot be deleted. I don't think your sins are so bad so that you are not entitled to WP:VANISH, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Should it be "sin"? Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 14:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is your real name, it's not bad anyways but you still can request changing your username. You don't have to leave. Also, Wikipedia is not scary, you rather make it scary when you want to. Many editors are here enjoying their editing privileges which all of us have volunteered for. It's just all about volunteering. Why not do minimal clean up or editing before rushing into content creation. Why am I here talking about this, let me try the talk page. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 14:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are people who use their real name without issue, but there are good reasons people fear doing so; they don't want to be publicly associated with a particular topic, they don't want friends/family/colleagues to know what they are editing about; they may fear government surveillance, etc. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Galamore, gaming the system

    Having joined Wikipedia some 6 months ago, user Galamore has made hundreds of copy edits, in the span of 1 month, spamming categories to articles, in order to pass the 500 edit requirement for extended confirmed protection. And later, immediately started editing controversial, ECP articles after gaining the permission. Ceasing all copy edits involving categories. Ecrusized (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ecrusized, can you show diffs where they have used spamming categories. I just looked briefly on their contributions and I can't find much thread. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 16:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SafariScribe: 130+ Category edits from 20 to 31 March 2024. Number of total edits during this period went from 300 to 500+. The last 300 edits are specifically made on ECP protected pages. Showing the user has no interest in editing non-ECP content. Ecrusized (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    JBW, you unblocked them a few months ago. What do you make of this, if anything? Drmies (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking as the administrator who a few months ago indeffed Galamore as a suspected UPE, after they wrote several extremely promotional articles about non-notable subjects: this doesn't seem like gaming the system. This seems like somebody -- I despise more than anybody for this to be true, but I must admit it -- editing in good faith, or at least not doing anything visibly wrong, along the rules that we explicitly tell them that they have to follow. At the
    If we don't think that "500 edits and one month" is enough for someone to edit CT articles, we shouldn't have thousands of words of policy teling people, repeatedly, in no uncertain terms, that making 500 edits and having an account for a month is required to edit CT articles. jp×g🗯️ 18:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I frankly couldn't care less if someone is gaming ECP as long as their following CT edits are 100% productive and NPOV. That, however, is very rarely the case - like this example. Black Kite (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How could anyone possibly know if it's rare or not? Anecdotal experience and confirmation bias are no substitute for data gathering and analysis. There have been thousands of new editors editing CT areas, and AFAIK no one has ever gathered data about or analyzed their productivity. Levivich (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but that's not what I said. I was talking about editors who had clearly gamed ECP to edit those articles, not "every new editor". Black Kite (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, everyone, my name is Gal, Gal the teacher (in Hebrew with English letters it comes out GALAMORE). I entered Wikipedia because I wanted to write about technology, I wrote the article on Perplexity.ai (which received 568,902 views so far!!), after I wrote about a few more high-tech companies I was temporarily blocked and warned not to engage in business matters probably for fear of receiving money for it. Almost every morning, before I start teaching, I go to Wikipedia to edit and I enjoy it very much. I am Israeli, so the Israel related topics interest me. If it is relevant, politically, in Israel I believe in peace with our neighbors and want an end to wars. When I see something that is biased, I try to balance it and bring sources from both sides. Even if there is an Israeli editor who makes claims that are "in favor of Israel" but are not substantiated, I will correct it - because I truly believe in balanced coverage of topics. I am not obssessive to my edits, I just enjoy adding information and I think it is productive to humanity. On this occasion, may I ask where and when can I request that the prohibition to write on tech companies be removed? Galamore (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User needs TPA revoked.

    See (Redacted). Nothing good going on here. Please remove and revdel this section when completed. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Now I need to go shower. --Yamla (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we nuke the username or something too? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a way to add parts of that username to a filter (e.g. something about either g or j being valid as a first letter). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so -- transposing linitial etters is tomething shat's domputationally cifficult to detect, but very easy for dumans to hetect. That is, you can probably read that sentence without slowing down much, but I have no idea how you would write a regex to catch it without having over 9000 false positives. jp×g🗯️ 03:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack

    Myself and five other editors have recently been pinged on the talk page of an IP, who posted an attacking message, which I consider downright insulting, towards the six of us. This is unacceptable. I don’t know what to do with this. Tvx1 00:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It was the only edits from the IP in a few years so I just reverted. They're already range blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple rule breaking edits

    I have removed content from Siege_of_Güns that was unsourced. The claim, given within the page's infobox, gave an estimate for one side's force strength at a particular battle. This number is not mentioned in any of the source that were linked which is why I removed them.

    User user:OrionNimrod has broken multiple editing rules in response. First, these sources which do not substantiate the listed claim, and have been continually re-added. I made sure to create a talk page heading in case anyone was able to find new information in regards to this claim, but the same user didn't seem very interested in engaging with the talk page and would simply re-add the sources. Again, these sources do not contain the information claimed.


    Finally, after refusing to engage with the statement that the removed sources do not make the listed claim (which I continually asked them to address on the Talk Page) user:OrionNimrod proceeded to engage in WP:OR by using other sources (which were never ones that I'd removed anyway) that also do not make the listed claim, to speculate about figures. Whatever one speculates, reasonable or not, about a certain force strength based on a given number at some other time and place constitutes original research, as this fact is not stated by those authors and is entirely an assumption on the part of the editor.

    This user also stated "the story is well known" as an revision explanation, which does not constitute a source, and also stated "you arbitrary misunderstand the sources because you dont like the numbers" which is both insulting and indicates their re-adding of the sources is strongly biased. (Lostsandwich (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]

    Hello, Lostsandwich,
    Do you have any diffs to demonstrate these improper edits? It's important to provide evidence when you bring a complaint to ANI. You also posted a notice on their user talk page about a discussion about them on WP:ANEW but I don't see you started a discussion on that noticeboard. Maybe you could remove that message if you didn't follow through on that claim as it would otherwise be confusing to the editor. Liz Read! Talk! 03:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Liz
    These are the diffs where the current edit (my own, with the source material removed) is reverted to re-add the material (which does not contain the information):
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_G%C3%BCns&oldid=1222668863
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_G%C3%BCns&oldid=1220849001
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_G%C3%BCns&oldid=1220709871
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_G%C3%BCns&oldid=1220511172
    All 3 sources are easily accessible, but I'll past the most relevant areas to make it easier.
    From the linked source: Conflict and conquest in the Islamic world : a historical encyclopedia, pp 151
    "But Suleiman returned in 1532 when he led some 200,000 men from Constantinople at the end of April."
    Which you'll notice, doesn't address this specific battle- but only the total force at the beginning of the campaign.
    The linked source: "The Ottoman Empire, 1326-1699" pp 49-51 states:
    "Suleiman the Magnificent launched his Vienna campaign on 10 May 1529 and reached Osijek on 6 August with an army of perhaps 120,000 men."
    Which of course is 3 years prior to this battle, though it does mention the following on page 51:
    "Suleiman was back in Hungary in 1532 for a second try at Vienna with an even larger army than he had brought with him in 1529"
    Which is again, not an estimate for the size of forces at this particular battle.
    The third linked source: The Enemy at the Gate: Habsburgs, Ottomans, and the Battle for Europe pp 59-60 doesn't give a numerical estimate anywhere and only mentions this particular battle in passing:
    "In 1532, Suleiman attacked again, but by a different route. This time the Ottoman army began its march earlier, and, instead of heading north towards Buda, marched westward towards the uplands and the towns south of Vienna. En route the army had briefly invested and captured seventeen fortified towns or castles. On 5 August it arrived before the small town of Köszeg (Güns), south of Sopron and only a few miles from the Austrian border. The castle at Köszeg was an insubstantial obstacle and many stronger places had yielded without a fight."
    That's why I've removed those sources, the simply do not state what the data in the infobox claimed. The editor in the talk page continually refused to address this point and then used a considerable amount of speculation, which I believe meets the criteria for original research to not only leave up the numerical figure, but also the linked sources.
    As for the edit warring notice, I must have pasted the wrong notification template on the page. Will editing it to point to WP:ANI suffice or does it need to be added anew for purposes of tracking?
    Lostsandwich (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, the article Siege of Güns marked as good article since 2012, those Ottoman army numbers were there for 12 years long already, and Lostsandwich suddenly appeared and started an edit war, many reverts to remove arbitrary the numbers, and remove many academic historian sources. Me and Kansas Bear were involved in the talk page, where we provided many academic historian sources which confirmed those numbers: Talk:Siege of Güns#Ottoman force composition strength, even I provided several additional non cited historian sources which confirmed the same, even campaign map. We think with Kansas Bear that the sources and numbers are valid but Lostsandwich still deny everything as you can see on the talk page, as he want to remove the Ottoman army number at any cost from the article.
    I do not know if I would break any rules if I restored 4 times (within 2 weeks period) the removed content and talked in the talk page about this. Morover other users also did the same as I did, so Lostsandwich did more reverts than anybody else.
    Unfortunatelly we can see this tendency in Ottoman battle articles, that many users (mostly new users) are obsessed to minimze the Ottoman army, Ottoman losses and maximize the enemy army and losses and claim Ottoman victory where it was Ottoman defeat.
    Lostsandwich started to do the same in other Ottoman articles: [206] OrionNimrod (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest taking this to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) I think this sounds pretty good. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 12:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) The DRN isn't going to touch any dispute from these two until the behavioural issues (if any) are addressed here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, the article Siege of Güns marked as good article since 2012, those Ottoman army numbers were there for 12 years long already,
    The length of time an article exists is irrelevant. I'm not sure why you're making excuses or continuing to talk past the point, which is the linked sources not saying what the infobox claims.
    many reverts to remove arbitrary the numbers, and remove many academic historian sources
    They were removed for a reason, which was noted in every edit and in the talk page. The reason is that sources do not state what the infobox indicated. Making things up entirely is pretty strongly against what wikipedia is all about.
    Me and Kansas Bear were involved in the talk page, where we provided many academic historian sources which confirmed those numbers:
    The additional sources do not claim what the infobox does. You interpreted it as such, and this, are conducting Original Research. Similarly, "additional sources" were not removed by me. This was noted time and time again, and you continued to talk past this.
    We think with Kansas Bear that the sources and numbers are valid but Lostsandwich still deny everything as you can see on the talk page, as he want to remove the Ottoman army number at any cost from the article.
    For the purpose of this noticeboard, I even pasted the relevant areas of the linked sources (which I removed), they do not state what the infobox did.
    I do not know if I would break any rules if I restored 4 times (within 2 weeks period) the removed content and talked in the talk page about this. Morover other users also did the same as I did, so Lostsandwich did more reverts than anybody else.
    Using sources that do not make the claim that is being cited, and conducting original research very much are against wiki's editing policy.
    Unfortunatelly we can see this tendency in Ottoman battle articles, that many users (mostly new users) are obsessed to minimze the Ottoman army, Ottoman losses and maximize the enemy army and losses and claim Ottoman victory where it was Ottoman defeat.
    Your bias is affecting your ability to edit articles. Whatever historiography you believe is occurring is also irrelevant as wikipedia policy requires that claims match the cited sources, which the ones I have removed did not.
    Lostsandwich started to do the same in other Ottoman articles:
    You should probably review your own bias before making accusations. My removal of material was in concert with wikipedia's policies. The ironic part is that in the past I was in agreement with you over an article using inflated numbers.
    Notice as well that two more users have agreed that the removed material does not make the claim that the infobox did, and also generally agree that interpreting total-force estimations at the start of the campaign as being one and the same as that at this battle constitutes original research. Lostsandwich (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There's definitely merit to this. I read through this post, Talk:Siege of Güns#Ottoman force composition strength, and the sources mentioned, and I see no reason to keep restoring this version. The 3 sources for "100,000–120,000" simply don't verify the content. It doesn't matter if one or all of them were used when the article passed its GA review, because they don't actually verify the content. At the Talk page discussion, OrionNimrod found some entirely new (and possibly reliable) sources that give more estimates: "bulk of the army" (Banlaky) and "at least a hundred times superior force" (Rubicon). But then Kansas Bear and OrionNimrod discuss how to synthesize the original 3 sources with "bulk of the army" and "at least a hundred times superior force" to arrive at a brand new set of unsourced numbers. OrionNimrod, you've had 7.4k edits over almost 3 years. Kansas Bear, you're at 47k edits ove 17 years! Both of you should know you can't do this. If Banlaky or Rubicon are found to be reliable sources, then we should cite them instead. But we can't just multiple estimate A by estimate C and estimate B by estimate D and arrive at numbers that feel right. Woodroar (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is exactly what I was about to say. Lostsandwich definitely does have a strong rationale when it comes to disproving the sources provided. Reading through the entire thread was a hassle, but I know that the sources provided by the two do not directly mention a Siege of Güns, instead an army by Suleiman sent from Constantinople that could diverge, get lost in battles, retreat, split up, ect. "At least a hundred times superior force", even if this could be useful evidence, note how it says at least: it could be much more. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 00:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ongoing forum violations by IP

    I would take this to AIV but this is a long-term issue and regular blocks seem to not be working.

    72.197.193.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been making WP:FORUM violations on the same two pages for five months, during which time they've been blocked four times. The last block, which lasted 3 months, ended 10 days ago – the IP immediately resumed the WP:FORUM violations. They've since received 3 more warnings about this, including a final warning.

    Requesting a much longer block for them, as it seems even a 3 month block isn't enough of a deterrant. — Czello (music) 07:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User Rishi_vim making disruptive edits and not stopping after multiple notices

    Looking at the contribution, it's clear the user is making bad faith edits in a particular article. All their edits have been reverted but they continue to make same edits. Reason for their last edit is "Trueth by God".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rishi_vim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenm v2 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)<diff>[reply]

    Rishi vim is an SPA entirely focused on whitewashing the article Rampal (spiritual leader) by removing mentions of the subject's murder conviction & status as a cult leader from the article's lede. They've been warned and reverted multiple times over the last month, and have no edits outside this article. Suggest they be blocked from the article, so we can see if they'll contribute positively elsewhere, or just leave. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, as noted, there are attempts to move a detail of the murder convention, wipe the crime, edit-war to add an honorific, and one edit that was just a random sentence of praise for Rampal. From a look around the internet, this type of thing seems to be common among his followers, though it peaked several years ago. P-block is a good start, but I'm admittedly not optimistic about this editor contributing elsewhere. All the vandalism was extremely poorly written. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DonnaPrintss

    INDEFFED
    (non-admin closure) User indeffed as WP:NOTHERE. No point keeping this around. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 16:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Weird anti-semitic edits, like moving a page to draftspace with the summary "Jewish nonsence", saying stuff like "Jewish are not welcomed here." and "Delete yourself from here and go away", and nominating/!voting for deletion Jewish-related articles (here, here and here, for example) for no real reason. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. – Hilst [talk] 14:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    They appear to already be blocked. And appropriately. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only for 48 hours. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 14:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's say Convert to Indefinite per WP:NOTHERE. Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously, how? That should've been an indef as WP:NOTHERE. Hate is not welcome on this project. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, should edits such as Special:Diff/1223806716 be revdel? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm tempted to say yes. Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeffed and I think everything is cleaned up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Does an admin want to revert the page move back to main space or are we not bothering bc said user moved it out of draftspace in the first place.Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Spamming multiple articles with The Famous Orpington & District Amateur Boxing Club

    Box32 (talk · contribs) adding promotional content to [207]; [208]; [209]; [210]; [211]; [212]. Declined draft is here [213]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That is appalling. I'll notify the contributor responsible, and ask them to explain here why they labelled your initial edit (more than adequately explained in the edit summary) as 'vandalism'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it was something homophobic because I seen the revert summary "Stop with this gender bullshit", that was on my part i should of seen the other edits before reverting. ModdiWX (message me!) 15:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry--where did you see that comment related to this thread? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeffed for advertising/promotion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By entering into this and by the confused explanation above, there may be WP:CIR issues at English Wikipedia regarding Lolkikmoddi. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There certainly seems to be evidence that at minimum Lolkikmoddi needs to be a lot more careful with the use of rollback tools. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Disruptive, perhaps, but I'm not sure why this [215]] was considered 'homophobic.' Rollback privilege needs to be looked at here. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a mistake. Sorry for any ruckus I have made. ModdiWX (message me!) 15:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Back to the topic at hand. It looks like what we have here is an editor who has access to offline sources, but has no experience with something like Wikipedia. Is there anyone who has the time to help them out a bit? I think they're editing in good faith, but Wikipedia is quite a bit different than being a boxing coach. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe there's someone here [216] who'd be interested in helping. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    IP talk page spamming, BLP violations

    User has been repeatedly spamming Talk:Nikki Benz with unsourced/poorly sourced WP:DOB info. I have given two warnings after politely explaining WP:BLPPRIVACY and its applicability to talk pages. Nonetheless they say they "won't stop". A clear failure to WP:LISTEN, evidently WP:NOTHERE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That's right, I will not stop writing DECEMBER 11, in the TALK PAGE.
    So do what you must to block, or I will continue. 2604:3D09:6A86:F300:7932:A573:B23A:D0B1 (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The links posted at Talk:Nikki Benz do not satisfy reliable source. The birth date is not a big deal and it is standard to leave it out unless there is a good source. Johnuniq (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But will the whole Wikipedia project collapse if the words December 11 are left in the talk page? 2604:3D09:6A86:F300:7932:A573:B23A:D0B1 (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Irrelevant question. You say you are trying to "generate discussion", but to what end? There's nothing special about the date that I can see. Repeating it ad nauseam doesn't help us arrive at a decision to include it in the article or not. Honestly, it seems like you're just trying to get around the requirement for reliable sources by posting things to the talk page instead of the article. However, BLP policy applies to all pages, including talk pages. Your most recent comment dismissing all this as "esoteric terminology" suggests you're not interested in learning how Wikipedia works or collaborating with others. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC) edited 08:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A hit dog will holler. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Somewhat less than civil reaction from a SPA

    CLOSED
    User:Kannarpady has been indeffed by admin DanCherek for violating WP: CIVILITY. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 21:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    It's been a while since I've been on vandal patrol and used to get such nastigrams on a daily basis, so I'm not sure how things like this are handled these days. More importantly, I'd like an uninvolved admin to take a look at their entire (brief) editing history to determine if any action is needed. Thanks! Owen× ☎ 19:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Generally you'd take that to WP:AN/I but, yeah, that's bad and I'd suggest admins will likely handle that regardless of it being slightly the wrong noticeboard. Simonm223 (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've indeffed on the basis of that comment alone. DanCherek (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. That was quick! Owen× ☎ 20:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User needs TPA revoked.

    The TPA of VITALITY.NUCLEUS has been revoked by admin Cullen328 here. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 21:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Blocked user VITALITY.NUCLEUS has resumed promotional editing on their talk page. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Swarleystinson88

    How does this user know so much about editing, despite having joined hardly a month ago? He is definitely a sock, I just don't know whose. Kailash29792 (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Kailash29792, notify the user as you're required to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I intentionally used the noping template so he wouldn't abuse me upon finding out about this discussion, the way Padmalakshmisx once did through one of his socks. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See the note, visible every time you edit here: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." Do that, and we can then ask them how they 'know so much'. If they actually do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notified. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kailash29792 How can you be so sure that they're a sock if you haven't even attempted to discuss your concerns with them? Please remember to assume good faith and don't assume you'll only be met with harassment as previous socks have given you (and no, it's not an excuse to fail to notify the editor either); just because a new editor is an expert doesn't always make them a sock. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 10:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I didn't know who it could be a sock of. Swarleystinson88 shares a similar attitude with Padma, although his English is far better. And he is not the first with a pro-Telugu agenda, linking to Telugu cinema rather than language. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are accusing me of being a sock because I tried to add facts and counter your point on Mayabazar (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mayabazar&action=history)? Is this how you shut people up for adding reliable sources by trying to block their account. Swarleystinson88 (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (ANI stalker) While precocious editing can be a sign of a sock, it does not mean that the user is definitely a sock. A legitimate newbie could be experienced from editing as an IP editor, being a legitimate alt, editing other wikis, carefully reading policies and guidelines before editing, etc. I don't think there is enough evidence to block here. If more signs arise, a Checkuser could help. QwertyForest (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lkomdis

    This user, User:Lkomdis keeps making disruptive comments on their talk page, making unblock requests that ping an unnecessary amount of admins, including Jimbo Wales himself. Note that they were blocked for NOTHERE (technically NPA violations towards Saqib) via a mostly false ANI thread they started, which still hasn't been archived. They allege me, an experienced editor, of having a COI with an article I have never edited, using Jimbo as the founder as an excuse to shut me up, indirectly allege me of canvassing, and snarkily telling me to "Assume good faith" even though I am trying to get them to stop. All of this can be viewed at their talk page, linked above. I am also fairly certain that they are a sock because harassing Saqib after they came back from a wikibreak (which makes me think they are a sleeper that has woken up). At minimum, I would like their TPA to be removed. Thanks, thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 03:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks @TheTechie. For those following along at home, User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Thanks_for_your_thanks and related to my block of Lkomdis. I am about to log off for the evening and consider myself Involved so wasn't going to yank TPA in the event an uninvolved admin thought there was merit to the unblock. There's probably also paperwork but I remain on and offline and haven't had time to sort the master to file it. Star Mississippi 03:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Star Mississippi Anytime! I just wanted to get this nonsense done with. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 03:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly this report and your activities on that user's talk page are a bit weird. Could you not just stop badgering the blocked user? BoldGnome (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Talkpage access revoked. I don't see anything wrong with what TheTechie did here, it was Lkomdis who made things weird. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    IP-hopping user is causing trivial headaches with an edit-war

    The most recent one is 2600:1700:5003:D800:6C71:5BC1:26B:9AA1 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), but see also 2600:1700:5003:D800:9851:1695:3F20:5D84 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 2600:1700:5003:D800:88DC:47D2:FE30:50D5 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and 2600:1700:5003:D800:28D2:E6B0:CDAB:8A80 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This person keeps on arbitrarily changing a color at Saturday Night Live season 50. I thought his initial edit was a mistake or test, so I changed it in a way that I thought would resolve his error, but then it became clear that he is engaged in edit-warring and insists that his color needs to prevail. I bowed out of any further edits, as I am under WP:0RR and cannot revert, but also because this was clearly not going to be productive: he would not respond to posts on his talk, it was not clear what his goal was (hence I originally thought his edit was just a mistake and he didn't understand hex codes). Since then, Jgstokes has reverted and I have posted to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase where Daniel Quinlan suggested that I warn the user and post here prior to escalating. All that said, this is completely stupid edit-warring and the IP only bothered to even try to talk about it once he was told that I was reporting this issue. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC) See also Lists of Saturday Night Live episodes. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The vandalism continued, with the person responsible using multiple accounts now to skirt punishment. Page protection would be appropriate, in my view. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 07:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I think a short-term (three days to one week) rangeblock and a medium-term (multi-month) page semi-protection is appropriate and what I would like to request. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    koavf, it's unclear to me how your two most recent edits are anything other than reverts to your preferred version. Your first revert replaced the new color with a color that is same color to the previous color. Your second revert replaced the new color with a color that is very similar to the previous color.
    2600:1700:5003:D800::/64 and Mcleodaustin have been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Jgstokes has been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daniel Quinlan:, I was not clear on what the user was trying to do: his first edit seemed like a mistake or someone who didn't understand hex codes, so I changed the name to a hex code, which is what I thought he was trying to do. The second edit was trying to change it to a new color that maybe he thought would make sense (and was not the same as the initial one), but when it became clear due to his edit summary that he was only interested in "darkgrey"/"555555", then I stopped editing. I was not trying to revert/undo/etc., but just try to fix what I thought was an error. If you think this is a violation of my 0RR, I hope you can accept that this was an incidental and accidental one and not a strategy. As I noted above, I will not edit war and am disallowed from doing so--even in cases of unambiguous vandalism, I have not undone any edits since my 0RR and when I have sought clarity about what constitutes any kind of revert/undo/etc. Note that some kinds of accidental reverts were discussed during the discussion that placed my restrictions on my editing and I have tried to never even accidentally end up undoing anyone else's edits and sometimes have self-reverted when I thought it could be interpreted as reverting. Again, if you are interpreting the inclusion of different hex codes as a revert, I will self-revert on that page and allow the discussion process to play out. My revert restrictions are serious and I do not want to in any way contradict them and have sought discussion, escalation, requested edits, etc. in all cases that I would have otherwise used undo or direct or sneak reverts. In good faith, I'll undo for now and I hope that you can see that I'm abiding by my editing restrictions.Well, actually that would directly undo someone else's edits, so I think more editing would not be constructive. Again, please give guidance if you think this is an issue, as I am very serious about not engaging with edit-warring or reverting in any way. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daniel Quinlan: E.g. is this a revert? An article was tagged as an orphan, I linked it so it is now no longer an orphan and consequently removed the template. Again, I want to be very conservative about abiding by these restrictions as the community was very clear that edit-warring on my part is completely unacceptable, so I have not used any direct method to undo anyone's edits at all and want to only progress articles toward new consensus versions and not remove whatever someone else has tried to add to an article. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone would consider that a revert. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, well please do let me know if any of my edits look like they are in the realm of contradicting my editing restrictions: I am very serious about trying to abide by the community wishes and I want to continue to be a productive member that proves that he can avoid edit-warring in all respects to regain community trust some day and maybe get to a 1RR in a year or so and no editing restrictions in a few years. Thanks for your feedback. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All I can say is that those two edits on Saturday Night Live season 50 look like reverts to me, especially considering that it's not just one edit, both lack an edit summary, and it's the color you added that you're trying to restore. Anyhow, at this point, I would recommend leaving the color alone. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 08:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotcha. Honestly, I will just try to not remove anything or change any existing content and just only add things at this point. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has now made the account Mcleodaustin. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think until/unless there is an issue again, this is resolved and no protection is necessary at the moment. Anyone who disagrees, please remove the below template. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed the resolved template, I think it was added a little too hastily here. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 08:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hokkien; not getting the point; off-site canvassing

    User:Mlgc1998 is a major contributor to Hokkien. This isn't a content dispute, so I'll be brief.

    1. The infobox on Hokkien was far too long, as to defeat the purpose of infoboxes. I try slimming it down some.
    2. A month later I notice it's been reverted without explanation, and I restore the slim version while starting a discussion on the talk page pointing out the guidelines to Mlgc1998, trying to establish consensus. Unfortunately, during this discussion they do not seem interested in anything that involved the article shifting away from their personal preferences. They generally ignored all reference to site guidelines and norms, and their reasons terminated in their knowing more than me about the particulars of this subject. To wit, their instant assumption that I and others were lacked basic knowledge of the topic left a bad taste in my mouth early.
    3. I ask for input from three relevant WikiProjects, and the five people who comment in some form generally agree with reference to the aforementioned guidelines. This seems to matter little to Mlgc1998. While I am irritated, it seems increasingly unlikely that they are arguing in good faith or are trying to get the point.
    4. Meanwhile, there's a worrisome sideline about basic verifiability, but this isn't about that other than to better illustrate my concerns about their conduct.
    5. This morning, I get a message on Discord from another editor who saw Mlgc1998 had asked for "reinforcements" regarding the article in a topically-related Discord server. I don't feel I need to name them, but I have permission from them to do so and provide screenshots if someone needs me to. Upon me confronting them on the talk page, Mlgc1998 plays dumb.

    Could likely be briefer, but I tried. My apologies. Remsense诉 10:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HiddenFace101

    User:HiddenFace101 has made >10k edits while racking up perennial warnings about seemingly indiscriminate additions of their personal opinion to articles. They have made 8 edits to their own talk page, and none of them are responses to editors repeatedly telling them about this. Remsense诉 10:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not just warnings, blocks too. One for a week, the second, shortly after, for a month. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Skyfox Gazelle's transphobia

    Skyfox Gazelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Skyfox Gazelle is an apparent WP:SPA which has shown up at Moira Deeming to argue against what reliable sources say. Definitely not the first and most likely won't be the last.

    As part of her reply to myself after I've told them what the reliable sources say in Talk:Moira Deeming, they've responded back at Special:Diff/1223928765 and part of their comment is "Do biological women now have no voice?? Yes it was opposed to allowing any biological man who simply states he’s now a woman, to enter change rooms and toilets where young biological girls are present".

    Transphobia of this sort should be unacceptable behaviour per WP:NOHATE and should not be tolerated ever. TarnishedPathtalk 11:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like this user is certainly WP:NOTHERE. Orange sticker (talk) 11:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Tendentious editing at String Quartets, Op. 20 (Haydn)11:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Ravpapa (talk)

    User:Wikiwickedness has taken issue with much of the content of this article. He has recently twice deleted documented content that he disagrees with. I urged him, should he have reliable sources that support his view, to expand the article to include them, rather than merely delete what he disagrees with. When he deleted the material a second time, I restored it and opened an RFC to hear what other editors think. But then I discovered that I had created exactly the same RFC two years ago. Wikiwickedness's views in that RFC were universally rejected. So I now think that a second RFC is not the proper course, and this noticeboard is where the issue should be dealt with. Ravpapa (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1223957738"