Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Errico Boukoura

• Errico Boukoura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Janhrach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kerameikou 28 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WP:Articles for deletion/Kerameikou 28

The user made a serious allegation against me here. This comes in the context of an AfD, which I recommend you to read. The editor has previously made an another questionable remark ('The "concerns" raised about Keramikou 28 appear to be more personally motivated than reflective of adherence to Wikipedia rules.') and ad hominem arguments (claiming I am incompetent to judge tone of text, because I have an "intermediate" level of English, as is written on my user page). I can not disprove that the editor may have communicated with a victim of a AfD-exploiting fraud. But even in that hypothetical situation, the editor is too quick to make claims unsupported by anything other. I can, however, explain what led me to nominate the article for deletion:

I have made a question at WP:VPT. I found the talk page of the TFA of the day as an example of the third issue. Later the day, an image was removed from the TFA (for reasons on the talk page) and I decided to nominate it for deletion on Commons. I was told there is a problem with the problem with the image being in use on TFA archives, so I asked about it on WP:HD and I was led to WT:TFA, where I started a discussion. Later, searching for policies related to the discussion, I found CAT:MISSFILE. I emptied it (the date was December 10 – see my contributions), and one of the articles I edited in the process was Kerameikou 28. The article got into the category because an editor changed all instances of "Keramikou" to "Kerameikou" without renaming a file whose name contained "Keramikou". After several edits to the article on the following days, I finally nominated the article for deletion for the reasons in the top of the AfD entry.

I think my argument is sufficient to disprove that my nomination was made in a COI. I would like you to judge Errico Boukoura's conduct. Janhrach (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I haven't yet looked into this enough to comment on the content issue, but I can see that Errico Boukoura made a very tenuous claim of Janhrach having a conflict of interest while admitting that he had a clear conflict of interest himself (Errico seems to be a male name). Phil Bridger (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I have been attempting to make changes to Kerameikou 28 since the AfD was opened. Unfortunately, Janhrach is not clear on what the problems are, as he keeps changing the issues with the page.

Personally, I do not find it offensive to state that an individual who is not a native speaker of English (and claims to be intermediate on his personal page) as they actually cannot provide proficient corrections in English in any way.

Furthermore, my statement about Janhrach 's potential conflict of interest is purely hypothetical. I only mentioned it as there isn't a clear reason yet as to why Kerameikou 28 was marked for deletion.

I would also like to express my personal opinion regarding the transition from the AfD to here. It seems a bit excessive, as Janhrachand I are currently focused on discussing the developments related to Kerameikou 28, and not engaged in any conflict. Errico Boukoura (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

NOTE: I don't fall under the term 'conflict of interest' as I am a professor conducting research outside of any institution, organization, financial or otherwise. I don't know or have met anyone from Kerameikou and I only recently obtained the phone number of the previous owner.

This was an encyclopedia-focused intention, not insitutional or otherwise. Errico Boukoura (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Errico Boukoura, I do not understand your problem with Janhrach's English language proficiency. English is my mother tongue and I have no difficulty whatsoever understanding Janhrach, and the editor is certainly capable enough in English to nominate an article for AfD. Your repeated criticism of the editor's language skills at the AfD, complete with boldface and underscores and bold all caps, is way out of line. As is your strange, evidence free attempt to tie the editor to some phone conversation with the previous owner and some vague, unsubstantiated threat. So, I highly encourage you to avoid that type of unjustified criticism of a colleague. Focus, instead, on demonstrating the notability of the topic and specific ways that the article can be improved. Cullen328 (talk) 06:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I have made all of the changes Janhrach asked for. If there’s anything else I can improve, please let me know. 2A0E:41C:4543:0:B0B6:1007:D6E3:5793 (talk) 09:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

(assuming I am writing to Errico Boukoura) There is still a lot of things to improve. There are typos, unreferenced claims (e.g. how is this URL related to the Role in Athens Arts Scene section otherwise having no other references, what claims are sourced by which references in Community, etc.) and tone issues (e.g. The End of Kerameikou 28 is toned promotionally, actual information there is worth two sentences at most, et cetera. The list I provided before was a counterargument that I can discern tone and was not meant to be exhaustive). We are going off topic. ANI is meant to discuss conduct. By the way, AfD also isn't fit for this, these are matters that were to be handled back at AfC, but you fraudulently bypassed it. Has that not happened, the article wouldn't be facing AfD now. Janhrach (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Please consolidate all your concerns into a single message so that I can address them collectively. The mention of Role in Athens Arts Scene section is the first time it has been raised as an issue.

Once you have outlined all the issues in one comprehensive message, I will ensure everything is prepared within 2-3 weeks. Errico Boukoura (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

What you want to do is not a matter for AfD. It is not meant to be opened indefinitely until the article is ready. Draftification and a subsequent AfC submission are for that. And at AfC, there will be more competent people than me to suggest changes. Janhrach (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Since the pages was published, the article has already been approved as ready. Once you or anyone else addresses any further problems, I will look into it and changed (or added) the issue within 2-3 weeks. My fast-response to your concerns proves that I am more than willing to make any changes if needed.

I would like to excuse myself, while I am currently engaged in another project as well. I will exclusively participate and respond to matters only related to Kreameikou 28 changes.

Any inquiries beyond that scope will be addressed at a later time.

Note: Please address all of your concerns at AfD so I don't miss anything. Errico Boukoura (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

One last thing: the article was not accepted. This cut-down version was. What is there now was expressly declined in previous AfC submissions, yet you re-added most of what was previously declined. Janhrach (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

As mention above, any inquiries beyond that scope of Kerameikou 28 will be addressed at a later time.

Please address all of your concerns at AfD. Errico Boukoura (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

There is a new comment at the AfD, I strongly recommend you to read it, the argument is well-reasoned. @Errico Boukoura: The reasons for AfD are same from the beginning: bypassing AfC, tone issues and references. I brought this to ANI because you accused me of being connected to someone who "threatened" (extorted?) somebody over an article, without absolutely any independently verifiable evidence. Janhrach (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Thinking the allegation over, I can't find any reason why would the new owner of the building complain to the past one (as opposed to the group that resided in the building) about the Wikipedia article. My AfD-exloiting scam hypothesis is almost definitely false – why would a scammer try to contact somebody who is no longer connected to the article subject and whose contact information is hard-to-find? I can't help myself, but I see the phone call as a fabrication.

This is an instance of the 4th bullet point of WP:NPA#WHATIS. Janhrach (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, any inquiries beyond the scope of Kerameikou 28 will be addressed at a later time. Please focus on the issues related to the Kerameikou 28 Wikipedia page for now. I will not respond to any further questions until the deletion of Kerameikou 28 has been settled. 91.80.89.32 (talk) 09:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I am aware that you don't want to respond to queries unrelated to Kerameikou 28, but you don't have a right to suspend this ANI thread for that reason. The above message was not addressed mainly or exclusively to you. Janhrach (talk) 12:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a collaborative environment. If you flatly refuse to engage in discussing potential changes to the article, other editors are free to make their own changes without your input. Stonewalling is a bad tactic. Also, please remember to sign in before making edits or comments. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: Excuse me, did you address me or Errico Boukoura? I think my refusal to discuss the article here, at ANI, was legitimate, and Errico Boukoura refused to discuss matters other than the article, not the article. Janhrach (talk) 10:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The IP/Errico, who is constantly deflecting. You can tell who is being replied to by the indentation of the post, mine is equal to yours because we were both replying to him. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I was confused because you referred specifically to changes to the article. Janhrach (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I meant that to apply to any article, but worded it poorly. Apologies. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

To the admins: WP:PBAN has been independently mentioned two times in the AfD discussion. Janhrach (talk) 10:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I was one of them, I think? Hopefully the AfD closing soon will cut this issue off at the pass, but if it doesn't a p-block/p-ban has to be on the cards here. Daniel (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

New user continued disruption

Baraniscool (talk · contribs · count)

Despite multiple warnings and an expired block, user continues to disrupt Pink Floyd articles. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

{{resolved}} No, not resolved. El_C 03:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

User blocked by Ponyo - FlightTime (open channel) 21:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I'be blocked for two weeks. Perhaps in that time Baraniscool will come to realize that they need to communicate with editors raising valid concerns regarding their edits.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

FlightTime You've also disrupted these related articles. I see you were also edit warring without communication on Fat Old Sun (an article I have been fixing up at the moment and improving sourcing), so you deserve at least an admonishment if not some other WP:BOOMERANG-based sanction. As I write, Machine Head (album) says it was released on 31 March 1972, but the infobox says it was released on 25 March 1972. Which is it? And this is supposed to be a good article. Can you please fix your errors? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: @FlightTime has also been warned very recently about edit warring and being disruptive on other articles as discussed at El C's talk page. This appears to be, at the very least, a recent pattern. --ARoseWolf 13:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  I think FlightTime has been almost but not been quite disruptive for some time, but I can't remember a (recent) time they had sanction-worthy behaviour, always stopping short of it. I do recall blocking them once years ago, but it was reversed as being draconian. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• @Ponyo and Ritchie333: as linked by ARoseWolf above (live, permalink), the brazen expectation on FlightTime's part that they are owed special treatment in an edit war, and their immediate attack against myself when I obviously declined this — that's concerning to me. Concern which I believe FlightTime needs to address. Since, if this is their modus operandi, it's a serious issue. El_C 16:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@El C: if you review the history and think additional action needs to be taken, the by all means, do as you see fit.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Reviewing recent activity, I note FlightTime edit warring with an IP on Rhandy Rhoads, who they then dragged to AN3. The IP's complaint was reverted for no obvious reason (I could accept a blind revert if it was a screed of personal attacks, but not that - it should have been reformatted), and the thread was closed as "no violation". Is it worth putting FlightTime under a 1RR restriction? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Ritchie333 let's not go down that road again. Two reverts in two days, suprised you haven't blocked me again. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

User:KANLen09

I had issues with the edits of this user before, mainly due to their insistence on adding unsourced trivia content in various anime articles (more specifically in episode sections), content that is of no one's interest but their own. I have suggested them before to discuss the matter on talk pages, to which they have refused and continued to make the same kind of edits, ignoring any kind of objection. Now, there is this particular MOS, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, which clearly indicates to avoid adding links to sections within the article, given that the table of contents provides that function. To be honest, it has only been a few months since I and other editors began to adhere to this MOS, and sincerely, despite the time I have been here, I didn't know about it until recently, so I try to be empathetic with other editors who are not familiar with the MOS and continue to edit contrary to what it indicates, in other words, assume good faith. The problem is that I have warned KANLen09 on several occasions through edit summaries to stop re-adding these links once they were removed, pointing out the specific MOS, and if that hadn't been enough (thinking that, maybe, they just didn't see those edit summay warnings), I wrote them directly on their talk page about the issue. The result? The user continues to this date adding those links, without, at the very least, explaining why they continue to do so. I have little reason to believe that they're not deliberately ignoring the warnings. Their edits are almost disruptive at this point, and if they're not doing them on purpose (which is highly unlikely), makes me wonder if this could be considered a WP:CIR case. I didn't want to get to this point, but the user has been trying my patience for a while now. Xexerss (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with @Xexerss on this, I had to edit a lot of articles because this user keeps Ignoring MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and keeps adding links to sections within the articles which is against what that MOS says and no matter how many times I tell them, it's like they don't care. It's honestly becoming really frustrating. I single handedly have edited near 100 articles and more to implement MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and now this person is undoing them one by one and as @Xexerss said this user is trying my patience now. Parham.es (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the talk page of KANLen09 (talk · contribs)—there is almost no explanation there. Also, I just looked at MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and could not follow the point because on my browser MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE did not display the Purpose section. Per WP:AGF and the principle that Wikipedia is too big to rely on admins educating people, next time please use a few more words on user talk (and a couple of diff links) to spell out the problem. Finally, I looked at a couple of recent edits and did not notice a INFOBOXPURPOSE issue. Please use a couple of diffs here. Johnuniq (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says: "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. Avoid links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function."

which means to avoid things like #Episodes or #Volumes and other #X which are sections within the article itself as a hyperlink in the Infobox. The reason you didn't see a INFOBOXPURPOSE issue is because me, @Xexerss and other editors are keep fixing them. As for diffs, here you go:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I_Shall_Survive_Using_Potions!&diff=prev&oldid=1191474807
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Returner%27s_Magic_Should_Be_Special&diff=prev&oldid=1191471214
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=My_New_Boss_Is_Goofy&diff=prev&oldid=1191464251
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Kingdoms_of_Ruin&diff=prev&oldid=1191315864
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Girl_%26_Her_Guard_Dog&diff=prev&oldid=1191201848
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protocol:_Rain&diff=prev&oldid=1191479748

As I said, based on MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE you should not add #Episodes as a hyperlink in infobox which means (| episode_list =) should be empty unless episodes are in another article such as "List of X episodes" (it's just an example). Parham.es (talk) 13:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overtake!&diff=prev&oldid=1190704137
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ragna_Crimson&diff=prev&oldid=1190347351
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Under_Ninja&diff=prev&oldid=1187809725
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Under_Ninja&diff=prev&oldid=1189987759
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KamiErabi_God.app&diff=prev&oldid=1190953306
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=16bit_Sensation&diff=prev&oldid=1187660825
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dead_Mount_Death_Play&diff=prev&oldid=1188333445
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dark_Gathering&diff=prev&oldid=1191625226

Here are a few of the several instances when I showed them the MOS and requested to stop adding links to sections within the article. I didn't elaborate too much in my warning on their talk page because I assumed that the user was aware of the ones already made through edit summaries, given that those are articles frequently edited by the user. Note that the diffs posted above by Parham.es are after my warning of their talk page, and also after this own ANI report, so indeed there are still INFOBOXPURPOSE issues. I really have no reason to believe that the user is unaware of the matter and is not doing it on purpose. Xexerss (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The point is that we cannot rely on someone reading edit summaries. You need to explain this on their Talk page first. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

As I said before, I already explained the issue on their talk page with a link to the MOS in question, and the user keeps acting contrary to what it says. There is also this ANI report notification on their talk page, but the user refuses to rectify their edits. Edit summary warnings aside, given the fact that I have directly warned the user on their talk page and also notified them of this report, do I have to believe that the user is not aware of the matter yet? Xexerss (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The user keeps making the same edits in the same articles, even when they have been warned twice in one. The user have been directly warned on their talk page, notified about this ANI report, and has not give any explanation of the motive behind their edits yet. Seriously, what more evidence is needed to prove that the user is being purposefully disruptive? Xexerss (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

KANLen09 posted on my talk page their reasons behind their edits and intentions to improve them. I have decided to trust their words, so from my part, I think that this discussion can be closed. Xexerss (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Problematic edits on Shia-Sunni topics

• Shadowwarrior8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor mostly edits Shia-Sunni related topics but they have a problematic history in this topic area. They apply a clear double standard on how they present Sunni groups in comparison to Shia groups. They minimise the actions of Sunni groups against Shia while making articles about Shia groups very negative. They often make large single edits with multiple changes throughout the article using vague, generic and unspecific edit summaries which are misleading or even untrue. This masks many problematic changes like removing sourced content. Most editors are not going to check every change in these large edits. They often misrepresent sources and their edits are fulll of non neutral language. I have highlighted numerous examples that illustrate this problematic pattern of editing:

• On Shia-Sunni divide they removed mention of genocide against Shia using the edit summary of "Grammar" which is clearly deceptive insincere.
• On Sectarianism and minorities in the Syrian civil war, they inexplicably deleted mention of the Hatla massacre of Shia villagers hidden among a typical large single edit.
• On Yemeni Civil War, in another very large edit, they stealthy changed the first line of a paragraph which stated that "The international community has condemned the Saudi Arabian-led bombing campaign" to "The international community has strongly condemned Houthi drone attacks,". This related edit on Yemen removed a sentence from the lead and inserted a ridiculous amount of weasel words and also scare quotes to further minimise accusations against the Saudi government.
• I've linked some typical edits on Syria related articles they're very active on and which they have made very negative towards Shia groups: Human rights in Syria, Bashar al-Assad, Syrian civil war, Syrian revolution and Anti-Sunnism.
• On Persecution of Christians, they removed the only mention of genocide by ISIS using a dubious edit summary.
• On Al-Qaeda in Iraq, they added (alleged) next to Anti-Shi'ism with no explanation. They have also systematically removed Al-Qaeda's responsibility for bombings against Shia. For example on List of bombings during the Iraq War.
• On September 11 attacks, they have made multiple problematic edits. In one particularly egregious edit, they absurdly called the attacks a military attack instead of a terrorist attack using another insincere edit summary of "Grammar". Similarly on Letter to America, they removed the only mention of 9/11 and its description as a terrorist attack with an ironic edit summary of "Removed Repetition". Another edit with a misleading edit summary of "Quote box alignment" misrepresents the cited source to change the language to describe Bin Laden's views of non-Muslims in Arabia as being correct according to Islam.
• On Al-Qaeda, they made multiple changes throughout the article in one edit using a typical unspecific edit summary. They removed Islamic extremism and Takfirism from ideology, both well sourced, while adding Sunni–Shia alliance and Muslim unity. This edit also removed the sourced statement that "As Salafist jihadists, members of Al-Qaeda believe that killing non-combatants is religiously sanctioned." A subsequent edit removed all remaining mentions of Al-Qaeda's Takfir. This is in striking contrast to their editing on Hezbollah and Takfir. 217.40.96.193 (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  While the editor might be biased and their use of edit summaries should be improved, in some of these diffs what is being removed is poorly sourced or unsourced content. In the Human rights in Syria diff, the countent added to the article looks mostly well sourced to a Routledge book. (t · c) buidhe 01:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  I linked the Human rights in Syria diff more so to iillustrate the contrast in their edits towards Shia groups compared to Sunni groups like Al-Qaeda. In the linked edit on Al-Qaeda they removed multiple pieces of well sourced content that was negative to the group. 217.40.96.193 (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  I edit on a wide range of topics. LoL

  You've simply compiled a personal collection of a lot of my edits on a particular topic you care about, personally analysed my edit history, (without checking the references and my edit summaries) and have made a lot of allegations which are not backed up by reliable sources.

  It looks more like you are the one behaving like a single-purpose IP obsessed with somebody?

  All of my edits are well-sourced. Contents which I have removed are all unsourced or original research. Maybe you should try to assume good faith.

  You have done absolutely nothing other than linking some of my edits (which are all publicly accessible in my editing history) which you personally find to be problematic.

  Since I dont have the time to expose the obvious shallowness of each and every claim compiled in your list, I am simply going to dismantle your first allegation alone.

  • Regarding this edit, I improved the grammar of the contents and clearly wrote in edit summary "Grammar". Also, there are no references claiming that the Islamic State perpetrated a "genocide against Shias". Infact the page itself is titled "Persecution of Shias by the Islamic State". I simply made that correction. "Value-laden labels... may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." MOS:LABEL

  Onus is on the editor who wants to insert content. Maybe you have your own POV, but you havent backed up any of your claims and complaints with reliable, academic sources. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 05:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  I have checked the references and your edit summaries and that's exactly why I reported you. What reliable academic sources am I supposed to provide when I am specifically reporting YOU for removing well sourced content and misrepresenting sources and have linked and explained numerous examples of you doing this. You have used dubious edit summaries like "Grammar" on other occasions to remove information critical of Sunni extremist groups. Can you also dismantle my other allegation where you used "Grammar" regarding this edit to September 11 attacks? Was your change backed up by reliable academic sources? Is calling 911 the deadliest terrorist attack bad grammar or is it original research? No reliable academic sources call it the "largest military strike by a non-state organization in contemporary history". Fortunately this blatantly egregious edit was quickly reverted.217.40.96.193 (talk) 11:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  If you are claiming that I allegedly removed "well sourced content" or that I "misrepresented sources" (I didnt), it is you who have to provide the inline citations to insert the content. Onus is on the editors who want to back up their claims.

  "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." WP:ONUS

  You havent provided any inline citations to back-up your allegations. So far, you've only resorted to dontlikeit-style of argumentations throughout this entire conversation. The entire premise of your complaint is your accusation of bias against me. Also, your personal view of me as biased doesnt mean you can censor my edits. It doesnt mean anything, infact.

  "The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias." WP:POVDELETION

  You accuse me of being biased, but your recent comments and edit summaries very explicitly demonstrate your biases and POV-pushing, if anything.

  As for this edit on the "September 11 attacks" page, I changed the wording from "deadliest terrorist act in human history" to "largest military strike by a non-state organization in contemporary history".

  I specified the reason for this minor edit in the edit summary. "Grammar". I think my wording is more grammatically precise and has an impartial tone in that particular sentence, which describes these attacks as the "deadliest" amongst a certain category of attacks. The attacks have been described as terrorist attacks throughout the page, so I think the new term "largest military strike by a non-state organization in contemporary history" is more appropriate in that context. MOS:TERROR

  Either way, another editor soon reverted that change after that user disagreed with my view. The content I inserted has been erased. Then why are you making a big fuss about that edit? Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

"I specified the reason for this minor edit in the edit summary. "Grammar". I think my wording is more grammatically precise and has an impartial tone in that particular sentence, which describes these attacks as the "deadliest" amongst a certain category of attacks. The attacks have been described as terrorist attacks throughout the page, so I think the new term "largest military strike by a non-state organization in contemporary history" is more appropriate in that context. MOS:TERROR.

Shadowwarrior, if that is in fact how you view that situation, I'm afraid that your explanation raises more substantail concerns than did the IP's reference to the edit itself, at least for me. The distinction between those two differing modes of description is clearly more factual than it is anything that can reasonably said to be "grammatical", and the description you inserted was clearly not appropriate without a proper citation. Nothing in MOS:TERROR contradicts WP:V or WP:NPOV#WEIGHT (and even should they conflict, the latter, being pillar policies, could not be overriden by the former, being a piece of a style guidance). Countless sources clearly support the "deadliest terror attack" language, whereas, unless I am missing something, you have presented no source for your "military strike" language. That is, to put it mildly, more a matter of semantics than syntax, and you would have done better here to own up to the inadequate edit summary. Because at present it is clear that this is at a minimum an issue of insufficient care and/or lack of accurate policy language, but it also would not be unreasonable to suspect an effort at outright obfuscation here. So it doesn't help us to assume the more innocent explanation when you deny that this was a misleading/inaccurate edit summary at the least: it clearly is.

I haven't looked at all of the other edits presented here so far, but the first one I chose to investigate also shows issues with proper framing: the matter of changing the meaning of what the international community supposedly supports in the Yemeni civil war article. Now, to your credit, you do have some sources on this one. But rather than use an additive approach and trying to demonstrate that different elements of the international community and international institutions had condemned different parties to the warfare at various times, you instead chose to change the entire meaning of an existing statement, presumptively representing previous editorial consensus, to virtually the diametric opposite of what it previously said (at least in terms of the "side" that the international community holds most responsible for the conflict), thus masking what amounts to a deletion of sourced content (complete with the source itself), simultaneous with your own addition. And this too was accompanied by an edit summary of dubious accuracy, as it refers only to supplying info, and not at all to any changes or removals of statments from the previous status quo.

Now, as an uninvolved party who is a big advocate for a healthy application of AGF, I am trying to see these attempted changes in the best possible light, but I must tell you that it's hard not to feel the IP has identified some real issues here, because the choice to replace rather than compliment the existing coverage does suggest a bias (willful or implicit) in how you are approaching some edits, and the way you describe these edits suggests either an effort to obscure them or (hopefully) just a lack of an appropriate level of care for properly labeling them. Either way, things need to change in your approach. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@Snow Rise "Countless sources clearly support the "deadliest terror attack" language"

I am not disputing that, Snow Rise. Numerous academic sources do support "deadliest terror attack" language. What I meant here was that, "deadliest terror attack" and "largest military strike by a non-state organization in contemporary history" are not mutually exclusive (as you well know). In that particular sentence in the lede, describing it as something "largest" within a category of attacks launched by a non-state organization may have been appropriate in the lede, considering the fact that it is already well-acknowledged as a terrorist attack throughout the article. So in that context I felt such a description may have been appropriate to improve the lede.

MOS:LEDE

That edit got quickly removed. And upon further investigating sources, I couldnt find my wording anywhere. So I left it. What I'm trying to say here is that, there is nothing unusual about my edit, when you look in that context. So, there is no point in making a big fuss about this edit.

• Regarding the issue you raised related to the "Yemeni civil war" page, this was my edit a few months ago.

Snow Rise: "Now, to your credit, you do have some sources on this one. But rather than use an additive approach and trying to demonstrate that different elements of the international community and international institutions had condemned different parties to the warfare at various times, you instead chose to change the entire meaning of an existing statement"

Yeah, there was a mistake in my editing, (not sourcing), which lead to a bias. It was a long edit, as can be seen from the contents that were inserted in that edit.

But I later noticed this bias and improved that wording in this edit, making it more impartial.

The IP was only referring to an older edit which I personally corrected later on. Meanwhile, the IP is explicitly asserting in his latest edit summaries that he edits because he personally advocates for something (here, here). I mean, this is the individual who is accusing me of bias. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Providing some variance in descriptions may be a reasonable principle of elegant writing for unrestrcited prose, but it is not a sufficient reason on this project to ignore WP:V; "deadliest terrorist attack" and "largest military strike by a non-state organization" are nowhere near the same description, and you simply should not have been trying to force the latter into the place of the former without a source supporting this novel description of your own creation (WP:OR), especially considering the WP:CTOP context.

The fact that the two descriptions are not factually mutually exclusive is completely irrelevant to the very justifiable concern the IP is raising in respect to this edit: you still have to be able to source your novel wording. And quite the opposite of the WP:LEAD being the best place to experiment with the wording, it actually adds an extra layer of inappropriateness, because the lead is meant to accurately summarize and reflect the content in the rest of the article. All of which is to say that it is a good thing that you dropped the matter after being reverted and moved on. Honestly, I would just stick with that in terms of defending your approach on this issue, because your attempt to minimize/explain away the edit itself is not really supported by policy or good editorial practice.

"Yeah, there was a mistake in my editing, (not sourcing), which lead to a bias. It was a long edit, as can be seen from the contents that were inserted in that edit.

But I later noticed this bias and improved that wording in this edit, making it more impartial."

Ok, but unless I am missing something, the edit you are describing as ameliorative doesn't at all address the issue that you deleted a sourced statement (and the source itself) from the status quo version of a CTOP article, then added a statement supporting an entirely different view, and didn't reflect any of this in your edit summary. The fact that you later massaged other content in the article to be more neutral, to your eye, doesn't eliminate any of those concerns. Again, it would be more helpful to hear you acknowledge the issue with removing content that easily could have stayed when you added your own, rather than replacing a very specific cited fact in a fashion that looks calculated the completely flip the perspective presented and hide deletion of sourced material.

"The IP was only referring to an older edit which I personally corrected later on. Meanwhile, the IP is explicitly asserting in his latest edit summaries that he edits because he personally advocates for something ([here], [here])"

The only thing I see the IP advocating for in those two edit summaries is WP:WEIGHT:

• "Saudi bombing needs first mention. It has received way more coverage than Houthi drone strikes.";
• "The Saudi bombing has killed significantly more people and received far more public condemnation than Houthi drone attacks."

Now you may disagree with their assessment and are free to argue the relevant strength of condemnation by various elements of the international community for the actions of the various parties connected to the conflict, but I don't see where the IP has declared an an intention to contribute in a fashion contrary NPOV or any other policy. And even if they had, it wouldn't necessarily obviate you of the need to recognize and address any of your own biases or any lack of compliance with policy and transparency, at least some of which they have been justified in raising here. I've only checked into three of the articles mentioned above, but in each of those cases, I am finding their concerns at least somewhat justified, and I'm a little worried that you are being somewhat WP:IDHT about hearing what those issues are. I think this discussion could very easily result in nothing more than a recommendation to be more careful in your edits and forthright in your edit summaries, but that's less likely to be the outcome if you don't recognize the significance of some of the issues discussed above. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

SnowRise: "unless I am missing something,... the issue that you deleted a sourced statement"

I didnt delete any sourced content; I rephrased the sourced statement with better wording after editing the new contents above it. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well are of that; the specifics of that edit have already been discussed in detail immediately above. But the very specific issue here is that you think that the approach you employed here should ameliorate concerns. On the contrary, it is especially problematic. It would be a dubious course of action to merely delete a longstanding, sourced statement in the status quo version of a CTOP article, along with the source itself, without giving a compelling policy reason as to the removal. But what you did instead was delete part of the statement in question (along with the source supporting the general thrust of the sentence as it existed), then replace it with content that changed the meaning of the altered sentence to something that is very close to the diametric opposite of what it said before--and then source that new statement.

So, yes, in every functional sense, and every way that matters under policy, you did in fact delete a sourced statement without explanation. It's just that you simultaneously replaced it with a grammatically similar statement located in the exact same place in the article...that just happens to now say the exact opposite of the statement you effectively removed. And then you reflected none of this in the slightest in your edit summary that reads "Info, refs, Para, Spacing, Links" and says nothing about deleting or altering existing sourced content. And all of this despite the fact that nothing stopped you from simply adding the new perspectives/sources in addition to the existing ones.

All of that would be a dubious course of action on any article, let alone a CTOP-designated article. And the fact that this feedback keeps leading to a circular discussion wherein you don't acknowledge why any of that is problematic is increasingly causing me to worry about whether this switch-a-roo approach was intentionally employed or if you just are not hearing why such an approach is an issue, and is drawing attention--either of which options is a concern. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

While I agree with SnowRise on the merits of their commentary, I just popped on to review this thread out of interest, and it seems like a content, not a behavioral dispute. It's also very hard to figure out what the behavioral allegations are here. It seems that Shadowwarrior is changing the wording in a way that the MOS recommends to do, to water stuff down, which is a valid editorial position on some of these things, and the IP doesn't agree. Is there anything red flaggy on the behavioral side from anyone, or should this conversation move to the article or maybe the NPOV noticeboard? It's not an adminnable issue, I don't think, correct me if I'm wrong anyone. Andre🚐 02:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

additionally, the IP never attempted to discuss concerns in my talk page and opted to directly insert some allegations here (with a misleading sub-heading), which is not the procedure.

"Before posting a grievance about a user please consider discussing the issue on the user's talk page." WP:DRR/ANI

Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 02:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I have provided multiple examples above and explained them above but I will explain a couple examples further. One example of you removing well sourced content is on Al-Qaeda. Among the very large edit numerous pieces of well sourced content were deleted. Every mention of Takfirism was deleted in this edit and a subsequent edit. This is well sourced so why remove it among the large edit with an unspecific edit summary? For this other edit to the September 11 attacks, the cited source on the third page says: "In his view, the Prophet Muhammad had banned the permanent presence of infidels in Arabia". The original text stated that "Bin Laden interpreted Muhammad as having banned the "permanent presence of infidels in Arabia"." which was changed with an edit summary of "Quote box alignment" to "As an adherent of Islam, bin Laden believed that non-Muslims are forbidden from having a permanent presence in the Arabian Peninsula." An obvious misrepresenting of the source. 217.40.96.193 (talk) 08:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Right, what is the rationale to remove this:

According to a number of sources, a "wave of revulsion" has been expressed against Al-Qaeda and its affiliates by "religious scholars, former fighters and militants" who are alarmed by Al-Qaeda's takfir and its killing of Muslims in Muslim countries, especially in Iraq.

That seems to be going beyond a simple MOS:TERRORIST. I'm sure there's a good faith editorial explanation, but I'd like to ask for what it is, @Shadowwarrior8:. Andre🚐 08:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Andrevan

As can be seen in that edit, I simply paraphrased the contents in the same sources with proper attribution and a bit more detail.

I elucidated that content into two sentences:

1st: "According to CNN journalists Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, a number of "religious scholars, former fighters and militants" who previously supported Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) had turned against the Al-Qaeda-supported Iraqi insurgency in 2008; due to ISI's indiscriminate attacks against civilians while targeting US-led coalition forces."

2nd: "American military analyst Bruce Reidel wrote in 2008 that "a wave of revulsion" arose against ISI, which enabled US-allied Sons of Iraq faction to turn various tribal leaders in the Anbar region against the Iraqi insurgency. In response, Bin Laden and Zawahiri issued public statements urging Muslims to rally behind ISI leadership and support the armed struggle against American forces."

Again, I can also back these up with inline citations from these sources, but that would make this comment lengthier and would obscure from the crux of the issue here.

The IP has not initiated any normal proceedings of dispute resolution with me in my talk page or in the talk pages of the relevant pages. Instead, the IP opted to bludgeon in the ANI notice board without any due procedure. The IP accused me of various things, after bombarding a compilation of numerous edits the IP didnt like. IP made several POV commentaries of these edits, without even attempting to communicate to me beforehand or even initiating discussion in the talk pages of the relevant pages. Forget about assuming good faith, how is this behaviour even acceptable? And that too in the noticeboard?

Personally, I was beginning a full-break from editing, since I have a lot of important duties & deadlines coming up in real life. I am busy right now. Then on 24th December, I got suddenly notified of a bludgeon of smears in the noticeboard, out of literally nowhere, by some random newly-popped up IP account who never communicated with me before or ever commented in any talk page! And I have been here writing essays against a bombardment of accusations by some random single-purpose IP who doesnt like my edits.

Editors are human beings. If I had an issue with an edit, I'd attempt to resolve disputes by initiating discussions in the talk page. The question here is, can anon IPs collect their personal compilation of edits of other users, suddenly bombard various accusations into the admin noticeboard without any previous discussion, and then attempt to smear other editors in a negative way? Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I do understand your objection that the OP did not try to broach these concerns with you prior to the filing here. That's a reasonable source of frustration for you, imo. And I'm sure many of us here can relate to being dragged into an on-project dispute just when other, more pressing responsibilities are minimizing our ability to engage. You have my sympathies about that, let me tell you. That said, having only looked into a subset of the issues the OP opened this thread with (or that have been otherwise discussed above so far), there are, beyond doubt, some real issues in your approach to these topics, including some misapplications of pillar policies. What you regard as fairplay "paraphrasing" of a source (or reasonable and accurate re-wording of existing consensus language) are real issues in places, while many of your edit summaries seems to vary from problematic to blatantly misleading. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

References

PoisonHK

The user has been informed of CTOP [1], warned [2] [3] and/or challenged [4] by other editors, and already temp blocked twice [5] [6] (unblock request declined: [7]) for POV-pushing by adding/removing locality names in Ukraine and Russia. A couple of days ago he did it again at Volnovakha [8]. Perhaps paradoxically, some of his edits in areas closer to my interests are not bad (for instance, this is a good addition), but it is apparently dependent on whether what they are editing aligns with their views or not. Ostalgia (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

They probably need an indef block. I warned them sufficiently, blocked a couple of times, they never responded (other than posting an unblock request) and never changed their behavior. Ymblanter (talk) 14:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I will work on the etymology section after on, but not native names (on the top part) of those articles. Is that okay? СлаваУкраїні 23:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

You should realize that if you do it again the consequences are likely going to be very serious. Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

You should have thought of this before persistently making these edits in spite of the advice, warnings, and blocks you got. At this point you are most likely going to avoid an indef because no uninvolved administrator seems particularly keen on looking at this report (which is understandable given that it was posted on the 24th of December), so don't waste this "second chance" (it's more like a fifth or sixth chance, but you get the point) and try to steer clear from problematic edits. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Dismissed report regarding User:Keremmaarda

Hello,

some weeks ago I've opened a report regarding the user Keremmaarda, however, it was moved into IncidentArchive1144 [1] and no action was taken. There were several users that were concerned about the uncivil demeanor that Keremmaarda was exhibiting himself. Everyone who criticized his behaviour was accused of being unneutral. I don't want to ping everyone that's been involved because that would go too far, but those are only some of the uncivil comments (disregarding the actual article the report was about):

Are you practicing nationalism?

all the editors who object are Albanian

Am I to blame here?

Now tell those who deleted the same things before a consensus was reached. Thanks (in response to Ostalgia, who criticized his behaviour)

You are not impartial (in response to PoliticDude, who criticized his behaviour)

But I think reading the report will suffice. Thank you. AlexBachmann (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:DIFFs would be important for folks to verify those posts & their context. That's probably why it wound up getting archived instead of having action taken. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

No, these quotes are from the discussion that developed in the previous report, which was backed by diffs. It got archived due to lack of activity after a few days. I tried to mediate in the discussion but was less than impressed with the response I got from the user in question. Ostalgia (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

All the quotes are from the archived discussion. You also made some comments there but as Ostalgia correctly states, I think it was an accident that it was moved. Thanks AlexBachmann (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Sections auto-archive after a period of inactivity. So if no admin was willing to take action, that's it. Unless you can show improper behavior that has continued since then, we'll likely see the same outcome. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Happyjit Singh not following standard layout and also not keen to discuss.

Happyjit Singh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user primarily edits articles related to Indian elections just like I do. The problem is that he doesn't want to follow the Manual of Style/Layout for Indian election articles that is MOS:INDELECT despite being asked to do so repeatedly. If we look at his talk page he has been asked multiple times to follow the layout but he has failed every time. I myself while reverting his disruptive edits mentioned in edit summaries to follow the layout. The most recent example is his recent edits where he has added parties which are not considered major contenders in the infobox violating Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian politics/Election: Article structure#Infobox which says Only those parties that are covered by Reliable Media as a major contender for winning that election are listed in the infobox. The number of potential contenders can be 2,3 or 4 etc. Many parties and independents will contest in the election, all of them cannot be added in the infobox. and The major contenders should not be removed from infobox after the results are declared even if they get 0 seats, because they "were" the major contenders "during" the election. Now after he added the non-major contenders in various articles I reverted his edits and left a message at his talk page User talk:Happyjit Singh#Can you please understand. I asked him once again to follow the layout but he ignored my advise and went on to revert my reverts. I again reverted him and broadly explained both at his talk page and in edit summaries that your additions are disputed and should be added only after it is resolved. But he replies with something from god knows where and restores his edits the way he wants and asks me to add parties with atleast 1 seat and remove them after the results are declared if they get 0 seat. Now if I do this which I won't I will be violating the standard layout which says the major contenders at the time of election should not be removed even if they get 0 seats bcoz they were considered major at the time of the election. He has been warned by multiple editors before also to stop his disruptions and personal analysis as they violate WP:NOR and Wikipedia:SYNTH but he doesn't want to listen to any of these things. Now after restoring the last version twice within 24 hours if I do so once again I shall be violating WP:3RR which I don't want.

I am not providing revision links as there are many and it can be easily accessed in the contributions history of both of us. Still if something is needed I am happy to provide. I am pinging Dhruv edits who too has warned him multiple times. ShaanSengupta^Talk 06:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I warned the user that they must respond here before other editing in order to avoid an indefinite block. I have no idea who is right but clearly the issue needs to be settled without further edit warring. Johnuniq (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Johnuniq I hope this makes you understand better. The whole thing is about which parties are to be mentioned in the infobox. Now this was a content dispute initially and was meant to be resolved through discussion. I thought of reporting this at dispute resolution board but brought it here to ANI bcoz of repeated reverts by the user. Coming to the topic. MOS:INDELECT is the Standard Layout for all Indian election articles. Now the Infobox section says that only parties that are considered as major contender by reliable sources should be added bcoz many parties will be contesting and it is not possible to add every party. That was what was there before Happyjit added small parties with 1-2 seats in previous elections which violates the layout as they aren't covered as major contender by reliable sources and this also violates WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. ShaanSengupta^Talk 07:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I can't remember so many rules. Being a doctor I've to remember hundreds of medicine an illiterate can't edit wiki pages. Happyjit Singh (talk) 07:18, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

If you can't learn the rules, don't edit here. It's that simple. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

We both are now Extended Confirmed. So, I'm no longer your subordinate that I've to listen you.. Happyjit Singh (talk) 07:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

It is totally your problem that you can't remember the rules. And just bcoz you and I both are extended confirmed doesn't mean that you are free to ignore all the warnings and advises of another user. Also it doesn't mean that an EC user can't make mistakes. This again shows that you are moving closer to WP:NOTTHERE as you can't remember rules, you are no longer needed to listen to other EC users and many more. ShaanSengupta^Talk 07:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

MOS:INDELECT is for parliamentary and legislative election not for parliamentary election by state. Happyjit Singh (talk) 07:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Happyjit Singh if you see MOS:INDELECT its very first line says This reference is a guideline on writing about Indian Election (Parliamentary and Legislative Election) this means that all the elections that are a part of 2024 Indian general election come under it. Those articles are made to specify the scenario of general elections statewise. For example 2024 Indian general election in Uttar Pradesh is a parliamentary election that is a part of 2024 Indian general election so it falls under it. It is not an independent election. It is just a detailed explanation of how the 2024 Indian general elections went in Uttar Pradesh. And the header of MOS:INDELECT is Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian politics/Election: Article structure which means all Indian election articles should be made under its guidelines. ShaanSengupta^Talk 07:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Isn't it wrong to add alliance vote share and seats in place of parties. In parliamentary election by state how we can judge major party. Happyjit Singh (talk) 07:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I've edited the pages as per as the format used in last election. Dhruv had warned me for adding opiion poll and result by party table. But had not warned you even though you've added opinion poll table in Next Bihar Legislative Assembly election. You can't ignore my contributions in improving in previous general election pages, past legislative election pages, general election pages by state and science. Happyjit Singh (talk) 07:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

The content dispute is at one side and you ignoring my message at your talk page and restoring your edits violating all the policies is just a abuse of your editing privileges. I told you not to restore those things before discussing but you just were not so much interested in following the rule and says I was late. This is just not so civil and shows your aggressive way of editing. This could have been let go if you were new but you now are an extended confirmed user, so you should have been more careful. ShaanSengupta^Talk 07:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Please pick an example article where this dispute is evident and put a link to it here. Then discuss what should happen for that particular article on its article talk page. I will offer an opinion after seeing the result. Remind me after the outcome at the example article is either agreed or at a stalemate. Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok I am taking 2024 Indian general election in Maharashtra as an example. I would explain it first here. After that if it still needs to be discussed I shall be happy to.

This is how the article looked before the dispute arose. Now Happyjit adds a party with just 1 seat and 0.73% vote share in the infobox which is not a major contender at Revision as of 14:24, 23 December 2023 saying Parties with atleast 1 seat must be added as in country wise European Parliament election pages even if they have less than 1% vote share. Now what makes me say that it is not a major contender. Two things, first the last election stats and second the reliable sources analysis. We can see 2024 Indian general election in Maharashtra#Surveys and polls to see the analysis by reliable sources (The section is transcluded from Opinion polling for the 2024 Indian general election). It shows two alliances as NDA & I.N.D.I.A. (whose prominent member parties are in infobox, the first 6 parties) and mentions Others. Now the party added by Happyjit in this article is AIMIM which is included in others by the agencies which signifies that it is not covered as a major contender for this election.

I revert him at Revision as of 17:16, 24 December 2023 and tell him that We follow Indian election articles structure not European. Please take MOS:INDELECT as a guideline/layout. He ignores the advise bcoz he thinks he is not needed to follow it since he too is an EC user (as stated above) and restores without wanting a need to discuss. I revert him and leave message at his talk page asking him to discuss before reverting. But he ignores once again and restores his version. Then again I ask him to wait and discuss otherwise I will be forced to report to which he says I am late. Then I came here. All of this can be seen in the contributions history and Happyjit's talk page. ShaanSengupta^Talk 07:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

No, please don't explain here. Post at the article talk and start from scratch as if there had been no prior discussion. That will help anyone else who wants to understand the issue. @Happyjit Singh: Similarly, please do not comment here anymore at the moment. Instead, respond at Talk:2024 Indian general election in Maharashtra. Johnuniq (talk) 08:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Just for the record, I have started the discussion at Talk:2024 Indian general election in Maharashtra#Repeated addition of non-major contenders. ShaanSengupta^Talk 08:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Shaan Sengupta: I'm sorry to be picky but your current message at article talk is not optimum. I know all this bureaucracy is frustrating but things will work out best if the article discussion is focused on the issue. Like I said just above, it would help others if you briefly explained the basics. Sure, link to the guideline but also add a sentence outlining what it says and why you think it is that way. That is, how does it help the article that the guideline be followed? If no one has replied, I suggest replacing your current text with something that outlines the issues in way that would help beginners. There is no need to mention another editor or "violating" or "despite being asked". Stick to the article issue. Johnuniq (talk) 08:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Johnuniq I have made changes according to your advise and best of my ability. Please see and let me know if its okay or something more is needed.

Also if you can please let Happyjit know that the layout MOS:INDELECT is applicable on all Indian election articles and specially these since these are just a part of 2024 Indian general election and not an independent election as this is just a seperate article to show the scenario of every state, bcoz by his replies it seems he won't listen to me. This is very much needed. ShaanSengupta^Talk 08:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Shaan Sengupta, please be aware that Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian politics/Election: Article structure is a so-called "information page". It is neither a policy nor a guideline, and editors are not obligated to comply with it. Cullen328 (talk) 06:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Shaan Sengupta, a single editor wrote 73% of the content of that information page and there is no talk page discussion whatsoever. The editor in question has been blocked four times and has been inactive for eight months. In other words, I have found no evidence that this page represents community consensus. Cullen328 (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and Shaan Sengupta: I've made the talk page redirect to the base Indian politics wikiproject talk page. The first edits says that Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian politics/Election: Article structure was originally copied from Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian politics/Constituencies: Article structure and 2019 Indian general election although the copied content was very limited [9]. The Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics does seem somewhat active so you can probably seek feedback on how useful the newish election info page is, however be aware that the wikiproject still can't create any binding rules. Note that likewise this discussion Talk:2022 Gujarat Legislative Assembly election#Last revert AAP in infobox cited as evidence of consensus for including major contenders is useful to get an idea of why that might be the case, but should not be considered as establishing any site-wide consensus since it's a fairly limited local discussion. More importantly perhaps, it doesn't really address what seems to be at the heart of this dispute namely when to add parties that aren't "major contenders". Nil Einne (talk) 10:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Imamul Ifaz

• Imamul Ifaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous May 2023 ANI here.

At first I thought that their edit I reverted here might have been a mistake, so I issued a warning. But it's really a very weird mistake to make, and after looking at the user's history I'm convinced that it was deliberate.

Whether that edit was vandalism or incompetence after all, considering the many warnings, the previous block, and more warnings in July and November, I think an indef would serve better. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

This feels like a targeted. I mistakenly just changed a nickname at the lead page, which wasn't my initial intend. I feel like this is a power trip. You reached out to my talk page and I haven't responded yet you bring this to administrative notices. I haven't been in any beef for past 7 months and trying to adapt with wikipedia's editing policy as much as possible. I feel like my past mistakes has been used up against me to power trip. Imamul Ifaz (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

You may be right. However, changing out a correct name for a very obviously incorrect name without any explanation [10] is not the type of mistake that everyone makes. It either degrades Wikipedia or takes away valuable time from other editors. You really must start being more careful when editing. Can you promise that you will do so? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior by User:AKASH_TH15

User:AKASH_TH15 has been adding unreliable sources such as boxofficeadda.com,[11],[12], despite many warnings from me and another editor. Warning 1 [13], Warning 2 [14] and replied with apology [15] but continued to readd unreliable source, Warning 3 [16], Warning 4 [17]. Then User:AKASH_TH15 copied and pasted warning 4 from his talk page to my talk page.[18] and continued to add unreliable source that fails WP:ICTFSOURCES [19]. User:AKASH_TH15 has been ignoring warnings and Wikipedia policies and continues to disrupt by replacing reliable sources with unreliable ones. Warning 5 from another editor [20] and user AKASH_TH15 still continues to disrupt. Warning 6 [21]. He went ahead and also created page on Wikipedia for boxofficeadda.com with unreliable sources.[22]. Looks like he is trying to promote this site. There have been enough warnings but no change in an improvement in behavior. RangersRus (talk) 20:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for speedy deletion per CSD A7: I think the closest the article gets to credibly claiming importance. is "has been used by some leading newspapers as reference", but I don't think that even gets there. It's borderline, though, maybe I should've just gone for AfD. Remsense留 20:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

122.106.10.1 WP:CIR

122.106.10.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked on 19 December for 72 hours due to poor edits (spelling, grammar, formatting, MOS, or other content errors) on nearly every edit, and not responding to talk page notices such as here. Once the first ANI notice was published they left a couple messages on my talk page defending their edits

During the block they edited the same pages with IP 49.179.62.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Post-block, they have returned to editing without any improvement or communication, including this one [23], which contained a 74-word run-on sentence. Celjski Grad (talk) 12:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

59.89.199.126

This IP (User talk:59.89.199.126 Special:Contributions/59.89.199.126) is very likely User:Jaikumar Linga Balija based on their contributions to Linga Balija. Named user is currently blocked per their talk page and this previous incident. Some text they added to Linga Balija (Special:Diff/1191946336) is copied from this journal, although it's old enough to be in public domain. Reconrabbit (talk|edits) 21:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

RedundancyAdvocate/SurferSquall behavior

Not super familiar with Wikipedia noticeboards but this appears to be the most appropriate venue to raise attention to this issue. I've recently been involved in a bit of a heated back and forth with @RedundancyAdvocate. This started when he re-added links to Simple Flying, an unreliable aviation blog, which I've made a point of removing (there's now a discussion about this website on the reliable sources noticeboard).

In this discussion, he has argued that this blog (Simple Flying) is more reliable than The Nikkei then defended that position after he edit warred to include his preferred blog over Nikkei as a citation.

Unfortunately, I believe their behavior has fallen far short of civil. Aside from accusing me of vandalism for removing citations to this unreliable source (repeatedly, see reliable sources noticeboard), the editor has spammed my page with warning templates even re-adding them when I removed them (admittedly, I responded with some warnings too after he posted rather rudely with the seeming belief that their misguided "warnings" using templates were proof that I were vandalizing). Vaguely threatening language like "we might have a problem" is unhelpful in my opinion, and their repeated rudeness led another editor to suggest they stop. I wasn't planning to do anything beyond attempting to avoid them going forward but another issue raised my interest.

A comment in the reliable sources noticeboard suggested that RedundancyAdvocate's behavior in this matter matched prior discussions (which I was not a part of) involving a user called SurferSquall.

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

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

Interestingly, when RedundancyAdvocate began editing, @Ckfasdf brought it up on their talk page. RedundancyAdvocate began most of its editing around the time that SurferSquall was blocked for one week for disruptive editing. They picked up right where SurferSquall left off, even redoing the same edit. [24] [25]

I also note the similarities in their editing styles and they even both use their sandboxes in similar ways.

User:RedundancyAdvocate/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:SurferSquall/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Ckfasdf says it may be an appropriate use of multiple accounts but it seems as though the new account is attempting to avoid scrutiny from the many warnings, blocks + discussions about the old account. I'm not sure but felt this user's behavior deserves wider attention. Avgeekamfot (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

This is absolutely not a valid use of an alternate account, should it be confirmed that they are the same person. Editing when blocked, evading scrutiny, and then situations like this: [26] [27] (only one example of many, I suspect) is clearly abusive sockpuppetry - again, if it is confirmed that the editors are the same person. Can I suggest filing a WP:SPI and asking for a checkuser to review? Daniel (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Also found this: [28] [29] [30] I have to run now and don't know what SPI is but will try to look into it later. Thank you for the suggestion! Avgeekamfot (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

If you're mad that I warned you, just say that. No reason to warn me back twice and then open an ANI. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 03:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

If you want help with opening the SPI case, I can help set it up with Twinkle. Just give me the links to anything relevant you find! ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 11:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate this offer but seems it's already been resolved! Avgeekamfot (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I already went over this with Ckfasdf. I follow aviation topics on Wikipedia closely and edit accordingly. If I had the same judgement as another user, that's hardly justification for accusing me of being a sockpuppet. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 03:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

My problem is not with you removing Simple Flying. That is the right thing to do, because it's not an entirely reliable source. My problem is that you removed Simple Flying links before giving a reason why. You eventually did give a reason why, and that's great, but you needed to do that before you removed all of those SF citations. I never said SF is more reliable than Nikkei- only that it seemed so when I quickly read through it. You also left two warns on my talk page that made zero sense given the chronological order of events in this situation. You ALSO claimed my warn to you was harassment, when it doesn't meet that definition at all. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 03:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Avgeekamfotread above. I suggest you actually read what I say before responding as if I said something entirely different. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 03:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

 Checkuser note: RedundancyAdvocate and ForeignClimber5 (formerly SurferSquall) are unambiguously  Confirmed to each other. firefly ( t · c ) 23:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Firefly, will block both indefinitely. Have also undeleted the U1 deletions of redirects from SurferSquall to ForeignClimber5, sockpuppeteers don't get to evade scruitiny like that. Daniel (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for resolving this. To confirm, I think I've seen comments by blocked sockpuppets removed before. Is there a guideline for that somewhere? Avgeekamfot (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:ZT and WP:TENDENTIOUS block appropriate?

• Jingle38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I was going to indef Jingle38 under WP:ZT for this edit, but thought I should check first. This user has a history of tendentious efforts related to American politics and Jews. Example diffs: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. Does a NOTHERE inder block sound appropriate? EvergreenFir (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Make it so. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Blocked now. Any admin may reverse or modify it if they wish. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

s201050066

Previous discussion : Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1138#S201050066, yet again

User:S201050066 has gotten hold of another IP address. He made a threat on my talk page. Andykatib (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

He has also made a threat on @Tenryuu:'s talk page as well. Andykatib (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I was just about to submit a report myself. I'm going to add a previous discussion template at the top of this section for more context. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, S201050066 certainly doesn't know how to let go of the past or to control his emotions. At least he had some small amount of decency to wait until after Christmas and Boxing Day. Andykatib (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Update: A new IP, 2001:56B:3FE2:3A57:0:58:29FA:2D01, has emerged to send some more vitriol to both my talk page and Andykatib's. Some choice diffs. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Editor falsely pressing charges for block evasion

Moved from Wikipedia:Teahouse

Hello, I have a problem. An editor is attempting to press charges on me for block evasion when I never evaded any block. He has me confused with a different editor but refuses to listen. He tells everyone I am a troll and to not interact with me. If you look at my contributions you will see that this is not the case. I made a mistake in the past and did my time. I accept that I made a mistake and would like to move forward but no one will let me. Part of this project is AGF. I get it that disagreements happen but if you press charges every time someone looks at you cross eyed it is bad for the project and unfair to me because everyone looks at me like I am a criminal. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:A5E3:2339:6344:1CDA (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. Since you are editing from a different IP address than from the one was blocked, User:Generalrelative is correct. You are evading your block, and any further attempts at block evasion will result in this ip address being blocked from editing as well. Cheers ‍ Relativity 23:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for piping up, Relativity. Hopefully you and I are not caught in a twin paradox! Generalrelative (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Generalrelative :) Cheers ‍ Relativity 23:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

(ec) Hi all, the IP here is referring to me. This user is an LTA who uses an array of ranges and has been blocked multiple times on both 2600:1012:B000:0:0:0:0:0/40 and 2600:1700:1250:6D80:0:0:0:0/64. See this hatted discussion for detailed evidence that they are the same user. Under the /40 they were recently blocked for 2 years by Widr, so they are indeed currently evading a block. The entire situation is detailed on Widr's talk page, where the IP followed me. Generalrelative (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

You guys are confused. I am editing from a diffrent IP address because the other IP address is NOT MINE. Thats what I keep trying to tell everyone!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1250:6D80:A5E3:2339:6344:1CDA (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

It would be strange then to call the block my block [38] when you are saying that you were not the one who was blocked. See [39] Cheers ‍ Relativity 02:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

For simplicity's sake, here is one diff where this IP user unambiguously identifies themselves as being both 2600:1012:B000:0:0:0:0:0/40 and 2600:1700:1250:6D80:0:0:0:0/64. There is plenty of other behavioral evidence available but this one edit alone is dispositive.

Here's how the conversation went down, on the subject of another recently blocked editor:

1) 2600:1700:1250:6D80:0:0:0:0/64 comments to say (in part) So I have no idea how you would think he is a single-purpose account.

2) JayBeeEll objects: Well over 300 of his < 500 edits concern the single subject.

3) 2600:1012:B000:0:0:0:0:0/40 responds: Right. And most of those edits were made to TALK. So as I said, not a single-purpose account.

There is no ambiguity there at all, given the use of the phrase "as I said". The lying by this IP just compounds their other disruption. I dislike going to ANI but it may be required in this case. Generalrelative (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: I'll move this conversation over there. Cheers ‍ Relativity 04:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Generalrelative (talk) 04:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC) Note: This was posted to the Teahouse after I moved the discussion here due to an edit conflict. Cheers ‍ Relativity 04:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

break: now that we're at ANI, let's continue below

Synopsis: I initially thought I could avoid a circus by bringing this issue to the most recently blocking admin, Widr, who had given the 2600:1012:B000:0:0:0:0:0/40 range a two-year block a couple weeks ago. I informed them on their talk page that this LTA is still editing as 2600:1700:1250:6D80:0:0:0:0/64 and also under a previously unsanctioned /64: 2603:8002:73F:1FCF:0:0:0:0/64 (note the previous range identifying as the author of posts by this final range in this discussion). The IP user then followed me to Widr's talk page and opened up a thread of their own at Teahouse. Relativity was kind enough to bring the case here after I suggested it may be necessary. There is plenty of evidence that these IP ranges are the same user, so if anyone has any questions about what's provided above or would like to see more, just let me know. Generalrelative (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support a range-block - There's too much evading going on. GoodDay (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, evading and then lying about it, despite having admitted to being the same user multiple times in the past. For the sake of convenience, here's another piece of dispositive evidence: In this comment, 2600:1700:1250:6D80:0:0:0:0/64 wrote "I attempted - several times - to explain..." and each of those links leads to a diff by the 2600:1012:B000:0:0:0:0:0/40 range. Generalrelative (talk) 07:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked the /64 to match the /40 rangeblock. Acroterion (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Acroterion. Just to clarify, there is still another /64 where this user is currently operating: 2603:8002:73F:1FCF:0:0:0:0/64. In this discussion the same user switches between that range and the one you just blocked. In order to stop the block evasion we'll likely need to take care of this third range too. Generalrelative (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

That's blocked too now. I expect we;ll find other ranges and either block them or expand the scope of the rangeblocks. Acroterion (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Yep, I wouldn't be surprised. Thanks for being on it! Generalrelative (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Hmkelly, copyright violations, and promotional writing

• Hmkelly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• PolyU School of Hotel and Tourism Management (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hmkelly was created in 2010 and appears to have had a sole interest in the PolyU School of Hotel and Tourism Management since then. The user's first undeleted edit was to that page in 2016, and the user has edited exclusively about that school (and its affiliated hotel).

The user has repeatedly added material copied-and-pasted from the website of the school, despite multiple warnings on the user's talk page that go back as far as 2020, after an IP removed material the user had inserted in this edit that was copied and pasted from the University website (here, for example) and promptly warned the user. The user has proceeded to ignore warnings and remove copyvio-revdel template from the page, even though the template explicitly states Please do not remove this template before an administrator has reviewed it.

Because the user has been repeatedly copy-pasting ad copy from the University website into the article without regard for copyright or compliance with Wikipedia's style guide, and because this was done in spite of multiple warnings, I ask that the user be (at minimum) partially blocked from the PolyU School of Hotel and Tourism Management article until they demonstrate better understanding of our policies and guidelines related to copyright, as well as our style guidance related to promotional tone. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• I have indefinitely pageblocked Hmkelly from PolyU School of Hotel and Tourism Management and Hotel Icon (Hong Kong). Cullen328 (talk) 07:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
  • And we have the usual set of confusing-to-the-recipient responses to Special:Diff/1192033965. ☺ One person tells the accountholder that xe can provide the text. Another person tells that accountholder that we don't want the text at all. Uncle G (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Nihonjinron (a topic about Japan) - edit war

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

---

This article is an apparent POV coatrack attack page, extreme undue weight on old and poorly reviewed, fringey material basically designed to bash Japanology/Japanese studies as a legit topic, and possibly undisclosed COI editing. Nishidani is reverting copy edits (Nishidani reverts almost any edit I make on any page), constructive rewriting or removing of unsourced material, and templates, with derisory messages

• [40]
• [41]
• [42]

Can you please tell him not to, or if I'm wrong, tell me? I know he is a regular, we've tangled in the past. Does he have any connection, given his username being also Japanese and his early editing going back to 2008 and earlier on that page? They've responded with an allegation here User_talk:Nishidani#December_2023. To be clear, as you can see from my edits, I edit many articles, including recent reviews of Japan articles, and I created maneki-neko back in 2004, as does Nishidani. I've also created Minoru Arakawa, Shigesato Itoi, PC-6000 series and edited other Japanese topic articles. Should we read his message to read that because I am in a dispute with someone else that agrees with him, he can revert any of my edits on any page he ever edited? Lest someone think that I am instigating this, I was constructively editing the article, and see what Nishidani did? Remove all the templates, restore all the unsourced content tagged since 2015 and 2017? Blatant incivil messages? Need I invoke ONUS and RS and V and CIVIL? REMOVING the reliable references in journals and reference improvements I added? [combined and edited into one line; edited again Andre🚐 10:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)] 10:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that since nothing in WP:CoI policy even remotely suggests that either being Japanese, having a Japanese user name, nor knowing something about the subject matter of an article constitute a conflict of interest. Your blatant attempt to provoke a contributor you have tangled with elsewhere by posting an utterly inappropriate zero-evidence CoI template [43] as your first response to a revert of your edit will no doubt thus backfire on you. I'd drop it now, before more people start looking at the sequence of events here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I posted that in response to the perceived possible COI, given again the similar Japanese name and the immediate revert and their revert comment. I edited that template to a different message[44] since the original note wasn't the one I wanted, which you can see in that talk history. and in response to that the editor stated on their talk they are are "former Japanologist," which would confirm the WP:OR tags placed since 2015 on that article that I was attempting to remedy, which Nishidani reverted. Now they say I'm banned from this page, is that allowed? [45] WP:OWN, WP:ONUS Andre🚐 11:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting once again that you have absolutely no remotely valid evidence to justify making allegations of a CoI as your first response to being reverted. This was self-evidently done to pick a fight, as should be obvious to anyone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

How is it fair that I am the one picking the fight? I made productive edits, they reverted it, with a comment that indicated to me possible OR/COI, so I asked them if they have a connection to the topic, and they confirmed one, a former Japanologist, inserting OR. I don't have any other evidence than the evidence I've given so far, which again, should be sufficient to show a problem. Andre🚐 11:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the evidence is entirely sufficient to show a problem. When a someone who's been a contributor since 2003 posts entirely evidence-free claims of a CoI on another established contributor's talk page as the first response to being reverted, it is most definitely problematic. Are we really expected to believe you don't understand what a CoI is after all these years? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Really, I was trying to send a template that says "do you have too close of a connection to the topic," and how does this obviate the evidence above of problematic behavior? Are you saying my edits were not good? Andre🚐 12:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

You have presented no evidence of problematic behaviour. Not from Nishidani, anyway. Or has WP:BRD been revised lately, to say that when reverted your first response should be accuse your reverter of knowing the subject matter, and thereby having a conflict of interest? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

So it's now OK to remove templates and restore unsourced material and tagged OR fro 2015 and 2017? Andre🚐 12:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I have absolutely no opinion on whether the templates were valid, whether the article contained unsourced material, whether it contained OR, and whether Nishidani was responsible for any of it. I haven't looked at it in the detail necessary to make such a determination, and I suspect I don't know enough about the subject matter to be able to tell. That isn't a question for WP:ANI though, since that would be a content dispute, and we are looking into behavioural issues here - namely, your essentially evidence-free allegations against Nishidani, made as a first response to being reverted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say who was responsible for it originally, but Nishidani restored it, so he becomes responsible for it then. That is policy. As far as the rest, thank you for admitting that you didn't review the diffs, which do substantiate a behavioral issue, which is recurring. I've just come over to do some productive edits and I'd like to be able to engage productively without being insulted or having editors restoring unsourced material and then say they own the article. That is behavioral. And the evidence is right there. Andre🚐 12:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, any editor may ask you to not post to their talkpage (WP:NOBAN). Black Kite (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I read that as "don't edit the article." I will not post to their talk anymore, unless to notify them of a discussion which I have to do Andre🚐 11:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Something needs to be done with Andrevan. They're basically maintaining the battleground behavior that has just got them topic-banned by SFR from Israel/Palestine, and most of their subsequent activity seems to be trolling people. ——Serial 12:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, what is trolling about this? Andre🚐 12:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

  The bit where you looked through Nishidani's contribution history to find an article to pick a fight on. Or was it pure coincidence that you picked an obscure article on aspects of Japanese literature to edit on, and then to post into Wikipediocracy's 'Crap Article' thread? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

  Are you saying that I, as an editor who has made about 1800 edits and a number of page curation reviews this month to a variety of different topics, some of which are Japan-related and were not edited by Nishidani, could not have possibly edited an article that Nishidani, who has 94,000 edits, edited in the last 20 years? Andre🚐 12:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

  And how many of those other edits have led to you accusing people of having a CoI on the basis that they appear to know the subject matter? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Just to note the article is a mess because it contains an uncorrected machine translation of the Japanese article.[46] -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's a huge mess, that I'm trying to cleanup, and being obstructed. Before I forget, I asked WProject Japan for help too, since it seems like people are getting ready to indef me for having the gall to edit an article that Nishidani edited 20 years ago. [47] So before someone attacks this, it's not forum shopping, the article needs help. Andre🚐 12:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• (ec) This appears to be a quick and unnecessary escalation of a content dispute. Hopefully this can be amicably resolved by having the report withdrawn by the OP and discussion on how to improve the article on its talk page. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 12:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Edit wars on the article Milan Tepić; distruption on a contentious topic

For a while, there has been a disruptive edit war on the article Milan Tepić, since one user keeps removing sourced content.

The original text contained both sides, which was also well sourced, [48] contained the sentence: »In Croatia he is perceived as a war criminal (...)« and that the person is viewed a »hero« by Serbia and Republika Srpska. No claims were made, just the two different opinions without any WP:POV. Two of the sources were Radio Free Europe and Balkan Insight, which are well written and WP:RELIABLE sources. To repeat: The statements are well sourced and do not make claims, just mention two different diplomatic views on one person.

However, user Kanikosen started to remove the sourced sentence that contains the opinion of the Croatian diplomacy (but kept the other opinion). This revert was reverted by user Ponor and well explained on the talk page, but the discussion on the talk page between the two users led to no where aswell obv., since Kanikosen continued to remove the sourced content. Another user (Karl Oblique) reverted Kanikosen's revert (because as many times explained) adequately sourced statements were removed) and left him the message and his talk page – to be exact, Kanikosen recieved the first alert message about distrupting editing on contentious topics (Template:Contentious topics/alert/first) but Kanikosen decided to simply remove it from his talk page and once again(!) removed the sourced content.

Today, another WP:EW broke out, this time between user Silverije – and once again Kanikosen.

Silverije reverted to the version with sourced statements, Kanikosen multiple times reverted these edits with sources (see last few edits) and in the last revert, Kanikosen called the sourced content »vandalism«.

This is seriously disruptive editing (WP:BALKANS) and constant edit warring that leads to no where. Please intervene. Koreanovsky (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Although I won't comment on the content itself, people are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page to acknowledge they recieved them. Regarding what appears to be a content dispute, an admin on the relevant talk page already suggested dispute resolution for all editors involved, which appears to be a more productive option. In any case, Kanikosen should stop their behavior of edit warring. Extended or full protection could be an option, with any further changes being discussed on the talk page to achieve consensus first. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 14:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• This seems like it should be taken to WP:AE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
• It's fairly clear that the original version contained the views of both sides about Tepic, and Kanikosen is edit-warring to remove one of those sides - i.e. to whitewash the article. I have therefore blocked Kanikosen from editing the article. Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• FYI, Kanikosen has already submitted an unblock request. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

OJIV

OJIV (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account that focuses on articles related to Radhika Sarathkumar, including the production company they founded (Radaan Mediaworks) and of late, the television show Ponni C/O Rani. Their edits on that article are generally helpful, but they massively overlink terms related to Sarathkumar [49] and ignores the MOS for using italics for television shows [50]. I've been leaving messages on their talk page about this starting in early December [51] starting at polite messages and leading to final warnings [52] with messages on how they need to change their editing style.[53] They have not responded to any messages nor adjusted the problematic edits. I'd like an admin to review this and consider a partial block on either the Pooni C/O page, or article space entirely to get them to discuss and follow the MOS. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Nationalist POV M.Bitton

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

---

Hi good afternoon. It's about the user M.bitton Nationalistic POV with whom I can't have a meaningful discussion. The point is that I pointed out that under Algeria's formation some dynasties in Algeria are not correct. Another user kindly corrected this. M.bitton has now changed the formation in Tunisia without any significant justification. Apparently M. Bitton recognized that the "Roman Empire" does not belong to the Algerian formation. Be that as it may, he only changed the Tunisian formation because there are now significantly fewer dynasties under formation in Algeria than in Tunisia. That's why he has the formation without any justification changed in Tunisia. That's just Nationalic POV according to the motto "If there is no dynasty in Algeria, there can't be one in Tunisia either." Furthermore, in the Moroccan Wikipedia under Establishment I have named several dynasties with sources that count as sources in other Wikipedias (Spanish, French, German), but not for M. Bitton, he removed them with the words "Per your edit on the Algeria article". Here too it is a nationalistic POV according to the motto: "If you change something in Algeria, I will also change something in Morocco". M.bitton has now warned me because I have edited back the formation that he unfoundedly removed in Tunisia. Now I'm afraid of being banned. can you please help me. He doesn't want to have a discussion. Izmir18 (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• I will spare you the content issue that I'm trying to sort out. Please see this section that the OP removed from their talk page (starting with Word has gotten around on social media that..). M.Bitton (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

  That actually has nothing to do with this case. But I would be happy to explain again what the problem is. On Instagram and also on tiktok you can often be seen as (Redacted) in videos doing question edits, for example here:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Outline_of_Morocco. This article is about Morocco and not "Morocco and what it claims" or "Morocco and what it illegally occupies". Writing something like this on such a sensitive topic shows your attitude towards Morocco. I kindly pointed out to you that it was making the rounds on social media and recommended that you perhaps not use such formulations. That was actually a well-intentioned tip from me since you also use questionable wording in other edits. But here too they are trying to distract from the topic. Izmir18 (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

  On the contrary, it explains this personal attack and the report. Unfortunately, I can't always guess which sock is behind them (way too many socks, too little time). M.Bitton (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

  The reason I wrote was that it probably has a nationalistic background. I explained the reason to you in detail. Here too you are trying to distract from the topic. Is it actually a personal attack to indirectly call someone a sock? Izmir18 (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Nationalistic POV? I think that solely applies to you here. Could you explain why you bothered adding a bunch of dynasties to the infobox in Morocco[54] while simultaneously deleting those in Algeria[55]? Skitash (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't delete it, it was the user "Chipmunkdavis". I just pointed it out. Someone added the whole dynastyn again and I put it back the way "Chipmunkdavis" created it. The admin “Ohnoitsjamie” also confirmed this. You also changed the dynasty in Morocco here why? : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1190536642 Izmir18 (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I wanted to say again that I had added the dynasty in Morocco and at that point all the dynasties and the "Roman Empire" were under Algeria's formation. and yet that was changed by M.bitton. This was done several times not only by me but apparently by others too. and then pick on me for something M.bitton has been doing for years is unfair. (no personal attack) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1190630184

I'm sure you deliberately chose the second edit and not the first because otherwise it would be clear that I'm not nationalistically motivated..... Izmir18 (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

picking on me, which M.bitton has been doing for years this is very interesting (given that your account was registered 2 weeks ago). M.Bitton (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Time for an SPI check. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, according to the history of the edit pages... the contribution from "Outline of Morocco" is from 2021......There are many videos of you... You keep trying to confuse the topic. Of course I haven't been here for years... that was related to your edit history Izmir18 (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

You've only been on Wikipedia for two weeks. How could M.Bitton have been picking on your for years? GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't mean me. I mean in general...M.bitton constantly changes things without justification or sources. That wasn't about me. M.bitton has apparently been making changes based on videos on social media for years and keeps his edits history without any real sources and obviously hostile towards Morocco. You can see this in some of the formulations he wrote years ago. Izmir18 (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Too late! The simpler explanation is called a lapsus. M.Bitton (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately I phrased it incorrectly. I wanted to say you guys are picking on me for something M.bitton has been doing for years. That's what I mean Izmir18 (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

picking on me, which M.bitton has been doing for years is exactly what you said. M.Bitton (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I made a mistake. I use Google Translate for longer texts. It may be that I was translated incorrectly. But I mean what I wrote. I've corrected it now... I've been on wikipedia for 2 weeks.... Izmir18 (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe you, especially after what you did: you changed it after it was brought to everyone's attention. M.Bitton (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me, but M.Bitton misquoted Izmir18, leading to the question How could M.Bitton have been picking on your [sic] for years?, which seems to have got Izmir18 so flustered he didn't even think to go back to his own statement and notice that it was a miquote. Izmir18 wrote This was done several times not only by me but apparently by others too. and then pick on me for something M.bitton has been doing for years is unfair. He did not say that M.Bitton (or anyone else) has been picking on him for years. Largoplazo (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC) Never mind! It occurred to me to check the history and I found that Izmir18 altered his own comments after M.Bitton had (correctly) quoted him. My apologies. Largoplazo (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Y I've blocked Izmir18 on the basis of checkuser evidence. – bradv 21:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

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

WP:LEGAL

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

---

• 2A02:587:3500:A700:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

An IP which claims to be under orders by Theo Alexander to edit his Wikipedia article has made a legal threat threatening to sue Wikipedia and me personally for removing copyright violations from the article. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Beaten to the block button by Doug Weller. ☺ That was unequivocal. Uncle G (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Biased editing on contentious topic

It seems to me that the editing practices of users Homerethegreat and Marokwitz are both biased and disruptive. Specifically these users appear to be editing with a pro-Israel bias, and making these edits on pages directly related to the Arab–Israeli conflict — a designated contentious topic.

Levivich recently warned both editors here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nakba_denial#Concerns_regarding_Neutrality and I myself have warned Homerethegreat previously about biased editing here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre#Whitewashing_concerns.

Additionally, both users have been making a high number of edits, with number of edits made since Oct 7th being over 2,500 for Homerethegreat and over 1,000 for Marokwitz, almost all of these edits directly related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I personally don't think this can or should be tolerated or ignored if their editing is consistently low effort, biased, disruptive, and pushing a WP:POV — which it seems to me that it is.

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Go to AE with way more diffs if you want something done, maybe. Arkon (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

You are a user with a total of 622 edits, focusing on the ARBPIA topics since November 5, which is interesting since you have only received edit confirmed rights two weeks ago [56]. Be aware that this could very easily lead to a WP:BOOMERANG, with your EC rights being revoked.

Before complaining here, you have made a false accusation of "disruptive editing" against me here [57], failing to provide evidence, failing to assume good faith, and casting aspersions even though all I did was reply to a discussion on the talk page.

Consider taking a brief break to cool down . Marokwitz (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Since it is a WP:CTOP topic area, you're more likely to get a rapid response if you take it to WP:AE. It'd be important to have specific diffs demonstrating the problem, though. Remember that simply having a bias is not in and of itself actionable (most editors who edit articles on contentious topics do have opinions on them; it would be hard to be fully informed without forming opinions of some sort.) What you'd have to demonstrate is that their biases are affecting their edits in a way that leads to WP:TENDENTIOUS editing or WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct. --Aquillion (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

So before anything, Joyeux Noël! (it means Merry Christmas in French) Hope you're having a good holiday. Just on a personal note I think it's always best to begin in positivity which is an important part of the holiday spirit, so basically hope you're having good holidays wherever you are :).

So regarding the diffs you presented, I think it's important to note that I believe we are all here to improve Wikipedia and at times we have differences which is understandable. As I do recall I think in one of the diffs you showed I explained to you the issue and I do not recall you answering or addressing the issues I raised...

I saw the statement written by @Marokwitz and I think it is possible that a wp:boomerang can happen and indeed there is an issue here regarding you having edited in the topic without being an EC. I must say I feel that I have tried to act in goodfaith in the talk discussions and I do not feel the same goodfaith has been enacted with me.

I hope that we can progress beyond this and work together as I have indicated in one the diffs where you haven't answered (I assume in this age when we are peckered with info it is difficult to keep track). Again, happy holidays and Joyeux Noël! Homerethegreat (talk) 08:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Homerethegreat appears to be WP:NOTHERE to build a WP:CONSENSUS. He is currently holding 2023 Israel–Hamas war protests in the United States WP:HOSTAGE. Despite multiple users asking for an explanation consistent with Template:POV, he just says there is a NPOV issue and won't let the template be removed because he says he explained it already but all he did was copy and paste long sections from the article and declared the problem obvious. An NPOV noticeboard discussion has been opened here. This discussion at Talk:Bethlehem also appears to be WP:SEALIONING. Kire1975 (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm currently waiting for them to respond here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1948_Arab–Israeli_War#1948_Arab–Israeli_War#First_phase:_15_May_–_11_June_1948 as well, where they have reverted changes [58] with little to no explanation. [59] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  This person is past due for a WP:TBAN. Kire1975 (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• An instance of WP:Canvassing/WP:VOTESTACKING between users Homerethegreat and Marokwitz can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marokwitz&oldid=1182347355#Help_in_a_page. IOHANNVSVERVS

(talk) 17:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Homerethegreat is now here seeking sanctions against User:Nableezy at WP:AE because he feels "disrespected" by legitimate, evidence based accusations of tagteaming and edit warring. Kire1975 (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

There's always more WP:ROPE EvergreenFir (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Patience will out. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Partial block for JackkBrown

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

I did not want to come here as I do believe this editor is acting in good faith, but as they appear to lack the skills to edit in a collaborative environment, I think it's time to consider p-blocking them from the Help Desk and Teahouse. Wikipedia:Help_desk#Questions shows the exact same repetition in questions that came up in this prior discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#User:JackkBrown, which also includes information on their November block for much of the same disruption. this discussion is also fraught with issues we've seen before from this editor.

They ask many many questions which exhaust editors' time, resources and patience especially since they do not seem to take the answers on board and just ask again. I don't think this is a factor of their language skills as they can contribute productively in article space, which is why I'm hoping this can be resolved with just a p-block. Thoughts? Suggestions for other outcomes? Note they do not edit the Teahouse as often, but I would not want to see this as an invitation to raise the same questions in a different forum which is why I suggest a p-block from both and encourage them to make use of article Talk, which has been asked of them many times. Star Mississippi 22:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: I agree with whatever decision you make (I don't understand why the Teahouse, I never posted there); I know it will be the right choice whatever it is. A good night. JackkBrown (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Support. While I am loathe to penalise people for asking questions they don't know the answers to, JackkBrown has been essentially posing the same questions over and over for a good nine months without demonstrating an application of what they've learned to later questions. On a daily average we can expect to see one or two questions from them, to the point where I don't bother answering anymore. While I'm a little leery of a p-block in the event that there is a question that is novel and not related to the MoS, it seems to be the best decision, unless there's a way to guarantee that questions relating to the MOS are forbidden. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment. We have other editors that ask repeated questions that don't get blocked (re: Middleton family). If you don't want to answer the question, skip it and let someone else answer. Or, perhaps a T-Ban on MOS questions (anywhere) instead of an outright block? RudolfRed (talk) 01:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I think *everyone* who use the Help Desk wishes we could limit Srbernadette. But they just log out and ask anyway and refuse to address the basics like wrong info/date in the field, so unless there was an edit filter on the Middleton family, I'm not sure it's possible. Also, User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_3#Srbernadette so I'm very much consistent in the "these are a drain on limited volunteer resources". I would be fine with a T-Ban, but when they inevitably break the T-Ban ( based on history, no bad faith), they'll end up blocked. I'm trying to avoid that. Star Mississippi 02:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

It might be possible to reduce that editor's pestering the Help Desk by wrapping Middleton family in span style=".mw-parser-output span.cs1-visible-error {display: none;} ". Might be against a rule somewhere though. Folly Mox (talk) 08:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Here's another question from Srbernadette today. Doesn't help that we've other users enabling them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd be happy if the Middleton editor learned to use edit requests instead of coming by the help desk every five or six days. I seem to recall other users instructing them on how to fix things, to which they claim they are unable to do it themselves. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Support reluctantly. I too am loathe to sanction editors for asking questions, but JackkBrown's behavior is pretty egregious. It's a difficult decision because I have absoutely no doubt that they are acting in good faith and want to improve the encyclopedia. They have been quite prolific, making over 40,000 edits in just over a year. Unfortunately, 1,387 of those edits have been questions to the Help Desk, and which, as noted above, have mostly been asking the same small set of questions over and over again, mostly about whether a particular word should be italicized and/or capitalized. This fixation on small typographical issues would not be an issue if they didn't keep cluttering the Help Desk with these questions. Right at this moment there are 36 threads on the Help Desk; four of them were started by JackkBrown, which is not an unusual situation. CodeTalker (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Support The repetitive questions about trivial italicization and capitalization matters waste volunteer time. The editor has been repeatedly advised to use their own best judgment. Their focus of attention is Italy and the Italian language and they expect volunteers who do not speak Italian to provide judgments on obscure issues related to Italian usage and vocabulary. Most irritating is that they repeatedly insist that Help Desk volunteers explain why some random other editor did some trivial thing like italicizing or not italicizing some specific word. It has gotten ridiculous. Cullen328 (talk) 09:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Support, this time around. They have been offered an abundance of friendly help and advice to avoid falling foul but, despite acknowledgement and thanks, seldom puts it into practice. Their attitude to anything is to expect other users to do the leg-work for them, particularly when it comes to looking up simple MOS policies or guidelines. I should assume good faith, but I think they're following their own personal agenda and targets, rather than considering the collaborative improvement of WP as the primary goal. As well as the issues mentioned above, they've stretched the limit when it comes to lecturing people on what they should be editing; ignoring basic policies (especially WP:BRD and WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS) when they don't fit with their way of working; and filling up page histories (and their personal edit count) with rapid miniscule edits, often with no effect on content, about which they have been offered advice previously. Apologies for seeming to rant: patience has been stretched rather thin by this user. Bazza (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment. Rather than an outright ban/block, how about a limit on the number of questions they can ask, such as "JackkBrown is limited to a maximum of 2 questions per week at wikipedia help forums (including the help desk and teahouse)"? That way they can still use these forums, but it should reduce the volume of questions to a more reasonable level. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Support (this proposal). JackkBrown (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Abuse of editing privileges by 2600:8805:918B:9B00:48EE:78C8:FF35:A1A

This IP Address has been making repeated disruptive edits to articles on wikipedia, including the removal of content on articles without adequate explanation and adding inappropriate external links to articles. Also, they are harassing and trolling other users who have warned them on their talk page. I think that their talk page access should also be revoked if they get blocked. Snices (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Blocked by Ad Orientem following a report at WP:AIV. TPA can be handled if the need arises. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Carliertwo and Siouxsie and the Banshees

After I removed Siouxsie Sioux's solo chronology from several Siouxsie and the Banshees and the Creatures album articles, Carliertwo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted me, citing David Bowie/Tin Machine, Paul McCartney/Wings and "many other similar cases" as examples of album articles that grouped band chronologies with solo chronologies ([60] [61] [62]). I explained that those are isolated cases, that it is not common practice to list band chronologies alongside solo chronologies, and that there's no consensus for such ([63] [64] [65]). I remarked that the user had yet to provide a valid argument for including solo chronologies alongside band chronologies ([66] [67]). I pointed out their unexplained reversions ([68] [69]). I insisted that Carliertwo hadn't yet provided a single valid argument to revert my edits or restore the chronologies ([70] [71] [72]).

Nevertheless, Carliertwo reverted me three more times, repeating the same "argument" ([73] [74]), neglecting to provide an edit summary ([75] [76] [77] [78]), claiming that "domestic changes" (whatever that means) are unnecessary, and randomly bringing up that Siouxsie Sioux was the first headliner of some festival ([79] [80] [81]). The user's edits removed valid formatting-related edits I had made to those pages, which were properly explained in my edit summaries ([82] [83] [84]). The fourth time Carliertwo reverted me included a verbose edit summary that honestly came across as grasping at straws ([85] [86]).

It should probably be noted that Carliertwo's unconstructive behavior (and gatekeeping of Siouxsie and the Banshees articles) has repeatedly been the subject of previous ANI threads, starting in 2017 ([87] [88] [89]). snapsnap ^(talk) 03:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Suspicions of WP:MEAT

Removal of "Palestine" from Historicity of Jesus (result: fully protected). Removal of "Palestine" from Nativity of Jesus. It seems that somebody is canvassing these people somewhere on the internet (I don't know where). tgeorgescu (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I doubt it's a MEAT situation; it's more likely a few Christmas sermons were preached about where Jesus was born in relation to current events. Regardless, anyone that does not meet the WP:ARBECR requirements should not be arguing about this. – bradv 05:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked Ironcladded from the article and talk page in question for 30 days to allow them to get 500 edits in other topic areas. Logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2023#Palestine-Israel articles. – bradv 06:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I was not talking about Israel-Palestine articles. A previous enforcement action was undone, or should I report you as well for misapplying this rule? Ironcladded (talk) 06:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

You are still welcome to edit any other topic on Wikipedia, but you cannot participate in discussions related to the Palestine–Israel conflict until you have been here 30 days and have 500 edits. If you wish to appeal this decision, the instructions are on your talk page. – bradv 06:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The historicity of Jesus is not remotely or tangentially related to the Palestine-Israel conflict. So why are you blocking me from commenting there? Ironcladded (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Attempting to remove mentions of "Palestine" from it is definitely related. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 11:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

So removing Judea, which is the word used on EVERY copy-protected article on this site related to the life of Jesus, is not political? The addition of "Palestine", despite its connotations and NOT being how scholars refer to where Jesus lived, is appropriate?

Motivations for posting to unrelated articles are not a violation of the rule, the articles contents are. There seems to be a lack of an ability to grasp that truth, and certainly the ability to cite specific sections of the rules indicating otherwise. Please show me that motivations are covered by this clause and I will back down. Ironcladded (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not talking about which term is the correct one. Just that editing on a CTOP shouldn't be done if you are not EC, whether your edits are "the truth" or not. That one edit is CTOP (not "political") doesn't mean the opposite edit isn't too. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 16:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus is on my watchlist. The attempts to remove "Palestine" from that article and from Nativity of Jesus are clearly related to the issues raised by 2023 Israel–Hamas war. I don't think it is satisfactory for Ironcladded (talk · contribs) (57 edits, created 27 December 2023) to focus their efforts (all edits?) on removing that word. I am inclined to suggest a voluntary withdrawal or possible a WP:ARBPIA topic ban. If there is no consensus otherwise, I would be happy to semi-protect any articles where this skirmish arises. Johnuniq (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

What made me think of WP:MEAT? At [90], Ironcladded denies being the edit-warring IP. So, technically, there would be three persons involved in such removals. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I did not remove "Palestine" from Nativity of Jesus. You removed "Judea" from the article and substituted it with "Palestine" despite there not being consensus on the issue. Why are users like you allowed to make 100% baseless accusations against other users and get away with it? Ironcladded (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Let me repeat it: that mainstream Bible scholars use the term "Palestine" as applying to Jesus's land and time is not a "baseless" claim.

The three persons are: one IP from London, one IP from Denver, and one IP from Houston. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

That's fantastic. Why are you insinuating that I am the person in question? You have refused to cite your sources time after time, and that is being dealt with in a separate dispute resolution thread where you have refused to make your case to an independent arbitrator, instead choosing to report me here for rule violations you have zero evidence I made. Ironcladded (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I have 0 (zero, naught) power to block Wikipedians. And to talk logically: no, I am not insinuating that you are three different persons. WP:MEAT means more than one person. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Shall I fetch the direct quotes from your first report where you directly accuse me of being multiple users? Ironcladded (talk) 06:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I do have a strong suspicion that you were one of the edit-warring IPs. But if you want to claim that four persons removed "Palestine" from our articles within several hours, be my guest. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Your "strong suspicion" is irrelevant to the very direct accusation you made against me. I have strong suspicions about a lot of things, I simply don't make accusation off of them, as you choose to do, with zero evidence in hand to corroborate them. Ironcladded (talk) 06:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, it is a suspicion, and it will remain a suspicion because checkusers never link usernames to IPs. I'm not a checkuser. Your claim that there were 4 persons involved in removing "Palestine" only makes the case for WP:MEAT stronger. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the suspicion. I suspect that you are Ramos1990, because he commented on a (denied) report that you made against me, also with zero evidence. Ironcladded (talk) 06:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ironcladded: If you keep all of this up you risk being blocked as WP:NOTHERE. Seawolf35 ^T--C 07:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Seawolf, respectfully, I am here to build an encyclopedia. This user has made antisemitic attacks against me, dragged me through several unsuccessful reports, and made several completely baseless personal claims about me. I don't know if you're reading the discussion, and perhaps respond is against the rules, but is his behavior acceptable? Ironcladded (talk) 07:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

To explain my logic: how do I know that you are the same person with one of the IPs? Well, I don't, because it is not a matter of public record. Similarly: how do you know that I'm using the term "Palestine" politically, instead of scholarly? Even if I would privately think that, it is again not a mater of public record.

And the fact that two Bible professors from WP:CHOPSY, who are Jewish, use the term the same as I do, means that I'm not using the term as anti-Israel or as antisemitic. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I insinuated you were antisemitic because our mutual discussion never involved the term "Jewish" anywhere. You asked if the sources you provided were "Jewish enough" for me to admit their validity. How is that NOT politicizing, at best, the issue? Seriously, explain that to me with an explanation that isn't insulting to the intelligence of both of us.

I never disputed that the term "Palestine" was a contemporary term that people make reference of. I disputed your characterization that they say Jesus is from "Palestine", because the name of the province was Judea until 132CE. You did not provide a single source to corroborate that, and launched a series of personal attacks at me, along with non-sequiturs, rather than provide the evidence so that we could move the discussion forward. I provided you evidence that the name of the region at the time of life of Jesus was "Judea" Ironcladded (talk) 07:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

"How is that NOT politicizing, at best, the issue?" You were the one claiming that my edits are polemic and/or politically motivated (obviously meaning motivated against Israel). I replied that it is vanilla scholarly jargon, even these two Jewish professors use it same as we do. Your complaint is basically you don't like it that Bible professors use the term and you acted for Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Righting great wrongs. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I never once claimed your edits are polemic. I claimed they were politically motivated after you accused me of Jewish bias, and did point to the fact that a 10 year old article having a contentious, unilateral addition despite ongoing discussion as a way to silence discussion was not correct. I did claim that some of the edits were polemic, and if you think that's you, then that's fine, but I did not accuse you of that.

The two Jewish professors do NOT use it as you do, they use it contemporarily to talk about a boarder region, and pointing to an article talking about the "ancient city-states of Italy" would not change the fact that Caesar is referred to as a Roman. Ironcladded (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, I will be muting you, I have no further desire to be harassed or dragged through these pointless personal attacks, and baseless accusations. Good day. Ironcladded (talk) 08:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, you wrote "Stop the edit warring. Palestine was not the name of the region and you are using its name for polemic reasons" at [91], which is an outright reversion of my own reversion. It is hard for me to consider you weren't talking to me.

You also wrote "Recent additions to this article were not made until December of this year, 2 months after a bitter and divisive war started. People are attempting to edit tangential topics to have their viewpoints out in front, and this is not a political forum" at [92]. Again: hard to think that you weren't replying to me. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Report of bradv for Misuse of Moderation Privileges

User bradv has misapplied rules regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict to include non-related articles that mention the word "Palestine". Of course, the rules as they are written, apply to topics on the conflict itself, not on articles that discuss the historicity of Jesus, which predates that conflict by almost 2000 years. Those with a poor understanding of the rules should not be in charge of enforcing them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironcladded (talk • contribs) 06:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Contentious topics are broadly constructed; they apply not only to whole articles but also to parts of articles that have a link to the specific topic. I suspect most would have little hesitation seeing an edit war over whether to use Judea or Palestine as fitting into a broadly constructed Israel-Palestine topic. CMD (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

No part of the article has a link to the conflict, and the use of Judea and Palestine was discussed purely based on historical ramifications. Mentioning that there is polemic reasoning for the first addition of "Palestine" 2 months into the conflict does not bring that conflict into the fold. This is incredibly poor logic. Ironcladded (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome to argue this and more against all those offering advice and opinions, but the most likely outcome is that someone will convert your partial block into a wider one. If you do genuinely want to contribute, I would find another path forward. CMD (talk) 07:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I successfully argued this to a moderator already, and his enforcement actions was undone. I am shocked that another moderator would then feel the need to tack the punishment back on at another user's request. The rules are quite clear and specific, and this is not a judicial court where people can interpret them in such a way as to silence others. If you can show me why you believe your interpretation is correct from the standpoint of the rules, with a citation, I will drop this and accept the punishment and advice. Ironcladded (talk) 07:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have moderators. Are you thinking of admins? ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 12:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

What's the point of posting this at ANI? This is the noticeboard for administrators—many admins are already aware of this particular tempest on these articles, what are you making admins newly aware of? Remsense留 07:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand how talking about the historicity of Jesus, from a purely historical perspective 2000 years before a current conflict, is talking about that conflict? I just want to be pointed to a place in the rules where I can read this and will stay clear. I am not talking on articles related to the conflict, I am using historical evidence in a conversation on that article 2000 years before that conflict took place. Ironcladded (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Has someone tried linking you WP:POVTITLE and WP:WIAN yet? Remsense留 08:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy you did! "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title" this evidence has not been presented. I have presented several pieces of evidence, including an edit-protected version of Jesus' biography, that the name of the region Jesus lived in was known as "Judea". This is generally agreed upon, and is the consensus on copy-protected articles related to the life of Jesus. So, why is that different here, now, 2 months into a modern war? Ironcladded (talk) 08:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

As a third-party observer, could I suggest not mentioning the present conflict in Gaza during this discussion/the one on DRN? While it could be seen as being suspicious in its timing (my words, not yours), it seems like a worthwhile exercise to totally excise it from your mind. Everyone wants to establish the best name based on the hard evidence alone, so it shouldn't matter one way or the other. Remsense留 08:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

If you don't want me to discuss the conflict, then why force me to talk about the conflict in the first place by banning me from discussing a non-conflict related article? Ironcladded (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I may have asked a leading question before, but clear that from your mind if you can—I retract it.

The only point I'm making now is: We agree the discussion is about the appropriate name alone, regardless of any short-sighted perspectives. As such, I think repeatedly mentioning the present conflict is beside the point, and could potentially make your case seem weaker, not stronger.

You say your name clearly has the better attestation in the relevant body of sources, so all you have to do is reference them. If you do that, you are in the right. Remsense留 08:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the retraction. Yes, I did make an edit where I tangentially mentioned the conflict and suspicious edit timing. But my discussions on the talk page have been purely from a historical perspective. Regardless of that, I have been called out by users who have gone unpunished for taunting me with whether or not their sources were "Jewish enough" for me to accept. This behavior is discouraging to a new user. I acknowledge I should not have mentioned the conflict, however indirectly, in my edit of the page. I apologize for that, and after discussion with a moderator none of my subsequent posts can be remotely construed to mention the conflict in any way imaginable. Ironcladded (talk) 08:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

You should have named the Administrator who is User:Bradv. Doug Weller talk 13:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not sure where to note this because it's such a mess. I've indeffed Ironcladded for a combination of NOTHERE and disruption. The user is wasting many people's time, and a lesser sanction won't cut it. They obviously haven't learned anything from the pblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Flag of Kyrgyzstan - repeated reverting.

In case my report in the Edit warring noticeboard is incorrect, I'm also reporting it here in case it doesn't fall under 3R. 108.160.120.91 (talk) 08:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

This concerns an edit war at Flag of Kyrgyzstan where 108.160.120.91 wants File:Flag of Kyrgyzstan (2023).svg and EnderKutokuari (talk · contribs) wants File:Flag of Kyrgyzstan (1992-2023).svg. I have fully protected the article for three days while this is sorted out. Johnuniq (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I've given EnderKutokuari a notice about edit warring, as they may not be aware of the 3RR rule. Normally this should be done before reporting someone to WP:ANEW or WP:ANI. – bradv 19:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

User:IgnacyPL

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

---

User:IgnacyPL might be a vandalism-only account as evidenced in edit history of Third Cabinet of Mateusz Morawiecki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.204.141 (talk) 09:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Definitely not. Removing 'informally known as the "two-week government"' (diff) is not vandalism. Is there a source for that term? At any rate, the term is very unlikely to satisfy WP:DUE so it should probably stay out. Johnuniq (talk) 09:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
  • The sources — in Polish, German, and English, so one can take one's pick — are right there in the diffs of the accountholder repeatedly blanking stuff over a period of a month, Johnuniq: Special:Diff/1188178587 Special:Diff/1188442925 Special:Diff/1191666466 They're even right there in the very diff that you gave, in the sixth paragraph of the introduction. You can also have DW saying "14 Tage" and the Irish Times saying "a two-week window" and many others as well. And of course you can have later dated sources saying that indeed it lasted two weeks exactly as predicted. Blanking this as "false" and "propaganda" seems rather suspect. Uncle G (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
    • Naturally a new editor uses over-the-top language but my point was whether the prominent label was DUE. Obviously opponents and news-of-the-day commentators would mock someone for running a two-week government. The question is whether an encyclopedic article should elevate that to the first sentence. At any rate, removing it is not vandalism. Perhaps I should have spelled out my question: is there a secondary source showing that the joke is WP:DUE? Johnuniq (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

      This feels much closer to a content dispute at any rate. Is there any behavioral evidence outside of this one specific article to justify an ANI report? ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 12:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Why are you spreading this false information about the Prime Minister of my country, Poland? I won't allow one of the most important people in Poland to be insulted like that, that's why I deleted this strange information that the Prime Minister of Poland is a zombie and the fact that he was in power for 2 weeks is not encyclopedic style, so it should also be removed, besides NO ONE IN POLAND HE USES SUCH TERMS IN RELATION TO THE PRIME MINISTER OF POLAND OR OTHER MINISTERS, so these are propaganda and false content insulting Poland and Polish politics, and I deleted them for the good of Poland, not because of vandalism. So I think you will agree with me that this false and propaganda information about the Prime Minister and other ministers should be deleted, right? IgnacyPL (talk) 13:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Please calm down. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 13:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

There are literally dozens of reliable sources using the phrases "two-week / 14-day government" and a reasonable number using "zombie government" as well, as even a perfunctory web search would have shown. The material is DUE and sourced. I have however removed it from the opening sentence, as it's not that defining and it's mentioned later in what is a short article anyway. Black Kite (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Well... he's kinda no longer the Prime Minister of Poland so like. Continuing to call him that after he got voted out makes me believe you're very politically biased. Also you're wrong, plenty people in Poland call his cabinet that (I would know I am Polish). Just google "rząd dwutygodniowy" and see how many results you get.

Also nobody is calling him a zombie, are you using an online translator perchance? DjmrFunnyMan (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Tester85 is not here to build an encyclopedia

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

---

Tester85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly making test edits, after final warning, by adding spaces randomly to the article Man in Business Suit Levitating emoji. (diffs). Additionally, the user has displayed disruptive behavior across many articles, including Face with Heart Eyes emoji, List of emojis. The user has also been warned before for overlinking and vandalism. Thanks, -- LemonSlushie 🍋 (talk) (edits) 12:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Also suspicious of their edit history on their own user page, which appears to be either WP:GAMING or a massive amount of test edits. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 12:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I've done a big sum of link edits etc but now Im not sure if im blocked or not but when I'm tryig to post a sentence in other pages other than mine, they all post as a blank space. Sorry for disruption, wont happen again. Tester85 (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

You're not blocked, that might be some kind of bug maybe? Very confusing. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 12:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked Tester85.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Edit warring at List of mass shootings in Russia

Ongoing edit warring between Smeagol 17 and TwoThousandWeeks over the box containing the Bryansk school shooting. None of them appear to be willing to discuss it in the talk page even when I told them to. Borgenland (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I am now discussing that on the TwoThousandWeeks user page. (And I didn’t see your message. Where was it?) Smeagol 17 (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I’m still trying to find the template for the notice. Borgenland (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

So, "even when I told them to" is a bit premature, don't you think? Smeagol 17 (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see you mentioned that on the talk page. But sorry, no notification was sent to me. Smeagol 17 (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I fully protected the article for a week since the last edit on the talk page was 2 days ago, and the last revert in the article was today. Ymblanter (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

User:AlphaSkyscraper seems WP:NOTHERE

I haven't warned the user much, but I really don't know what to do. The user made some test edits and nonsense page creations in May 2022, created a bunch of nonsense on their user page and moved it around in November 2022, recently created a really short WIP article about themselves which quickly got moved to draftspace, went on a thanking spree, and doesn't really elaborate on what the heck they're doing when asked on their talk page. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Blocked. Nothing productive coming out of this editor. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Could Draft:AlphaSkyscraper also be deleted? Aaron Liu (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu User:CycloneYoris beat me to tagging for speedy deletion. Cheers ‍ Relativity 20:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Never mind, they actually deleted it, although it's not how it shows up in Twinkle. ‍ Relativity 20:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done as WP:A3 which would clearly have applied when it was still in mainspace. Trialpears (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)