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

Cross-wiki CITESPAM and stalking

Recently it came to my attention that User:Doctor Xiao has been promoting a number of papers written by a Congrong Xiao ("肖聪容") in a number of articles on Chinese and English wikipedia (zh:客家文化, zh:羅馬尼亞, National symbols of China, Chinese dragon and so on). Since these references are either from questionable open access journals or journals with little evidence of peer review or impact, I removed them as WP:CITESPAM. Soon after there are a group of IPs warring to add back the citespam material. One such IP has stalked over here, Special:Contributions/170.83.216.60. Please monitor these articles in case problems arises. -Mys_721tx (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

And Special:Contributions/23.158.104.249 on Taiwan Passport. -Mys_721tx (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The papers cited by Mr. Xiao are all from legitimate academic journals, which can be found on Google Scholar, CNKI, or Wanfang, so it is not a problem to use them as reliable sources. I don't understand the importance of so-called "peer review" in Wikipedia - as far as I know, most sources of Wikipedia do not have authoritative peer reviews. Should delete all of these? Of course, some of the content you deleted was indeed reviewed by authoritative peers. In fact, the most crucial principle is the "Assume good faith" principle. Are these academic concepts themselves correct in the eyes of most people? Is it against common sense or full of political tendencies? It seems that none of them. 23.158.104.249 (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Correct it, it's "I don't understand the importance of so-called "ittle evidence of peer review or impact" in Wikipedia" 23.158.104.249 (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, what do you mean by deleting my complaint in the Chinese section? Is it because you want to learn from authoritative government to make people shut up? 23.158.104.249 (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Do not make personal attacks. NM 22:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Based on the Assume good faith, all of us hope that Wikipedia's content will be richer and more authoritative. I have obtained Mr. Xiao's consent for using many of his papers, and he is also happy to contribute to enriching Wikipedia. But your behavior is completely opposite to the spirit of Wikipedia, which is really disappointing. 23.158.104.249 (talk) 09:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Most sources of Wikipedia do not have authoritative peer reviews.

Academic journals making nuanced historiographical claims should.

Should delete all of these?

Yes. Remsense诉 10:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

And to emphasize: it is nowhere near sufficient for a journal to be listed in various index or database services, or whatever you mean by "legitimate". The phrase reliable source has a specific meaning. It does not require (or even care at all) whether the author of a source has a certain preference. Given you know about the assume good faith rule, it should be obvious to you that "Is it because you want to learn from authoritative government to make people shut up?" is an unacceptable thing to say. DMacks (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

"Is it because you want to learn from authoritative government to make people shut up?" is an unacceptable thing to say

I have already publicly disclosed this relevant evidence on Twitter (X). By the way, let me tell you this is a Chinese-style joke called"Who is kneeling below the dais, and why does he accuse this official（me)?" 81.89.213.87 (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

This is evidence. 46.70.172.125 (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: zh:Special:Diff/81456027

Anyone who says anything will probably be considered party to whatever conspiracy you are conceptualizing, but I will try to speak plainly regardless: it must be said that rallying support off-site may seem justified to you, but it is unacceptable on Wikipedia. You've proven nothing, and moreover proudly spoken about you conspiring off-site to make waves here. That's all I've got. Remsense诉 10:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I have explained that the academic journal sources I cited are reliable (refer to CNKI), and the actions of "Mys_721tx" attempting to block all my edits and Mr. Xiao's academic viewpoints are contrary to Wikipedia's principles. You claim "Anyone who says anything will probably be considered party to whatever conspiracy you are conceptualizing"? I have never said anything resembling that. Do you have any evidence, or is this a rumor you are fabricating on the spot? "Unacceptable on Wikipedia," so Wikipedia editors cannot be questioned by anyone, is that right? That sounds like quite an authoritative government. 119.236.164.241 (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Listing in a database is not peer review, and is a much less significant indicator of reliability. Remsense诉 03:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "not peer review"? Does it mean that this journal can log in to CNKI without being reviewed (which is clearly impossible)? Or does it mean that the expert editorial board is not a peer review? Or is a master's thesis recognized by a university professor's defense committee not considered for peer review? Do academic journals with influencing factors not have peer review? 119.236.164.241 (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Does this count as peer review? 119.236.164.241 (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I just checked, even the journals indexed by CSSCI are considered "with little evidence of peer review or impact." CSSCI is basically where only professors are qualified to publish papers. It's clear that his reasons are just arbitrary remarks. Do you really believe him? 119.236.164.241 (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

In fact, similar behavior has not appeared on Wikipedia before (see here for details), but my updated academic views are basically culture, art or history, and have nothing to do with politics, especially the Chinese Civil War, and opposition to the Communist Party. The editor "Mys_721tx" was previously considered pro-communist by many people in Hong Kong and Taiwan (see details here).Considering his doubts about the reliability of academic journals hosted by the Hebei Provincial Committee of the Communist Youth League of China, I suspect that his political stance is being questioned due to his poor academic abilities? 119.236.164.241 (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

In fact, I also cited many scholars' papers to enrich Wikipedia (some were deleted along with Mr. Xiao's viewpoint). All the articles I have cited (including Mr. Xiao) are from official academic journals, and if these are unreliable, there are no reliable sources. Many of the viewpoints of Scholar Xiao's papers are still preserved in Wikipedia, but the authorship of his paper has been removed, which has made Wikipedia's emphasis on sources a joke. Someone deleted my Chinese complaint section and locked it down. This is not the behavior of an authoritative government，then what is it? 185.142.40.63 (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Correction, the paper by American scholar Fox is not from a journal, or the part I quoted is not from a journal 185.142.40.63 (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The IP has a point: if you're going to delete references to Xiao's papers, also delete his viewpoints from the article (unless those are based upon other WP:RS). tgeorgescu (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia should retain content that is correct or neutral, and has reliable sources. But some people have clearly done the opposite, deleting a large number of academic viewpoints or sources without considering whether these viewpoints themselves are reasonable, correct, or neutral. This is clearly contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. 138.99.205.110 (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure is Mys_721tx or Remsense Or someone else is trying to ban my IP, I'm just explaining that this kind of "shut up" behavior is happening now. 142.154.108.208 (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are one of the administrators of Wikipedia, so I will not follow your thoughts for the time being (if I understand correctly, you think all content in Wikipedia that has no clear source should be deleted). But I hope you will do so. 138.99.205.110 (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems you have a misunderstanding of what administrators do on Wikipedia. NM 22:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm not sure if I misunderstood the work of Wikipedia administrators, but honestly, I don't know. However, "Mys_721tx" attempted to block all my editing content and Mr. Xiao's entire viewpoint. Does this contradict the openness principle of Wikipedia? Secondly, I am fairly certain that users "Manchiu" and "ZhuofanWu" are puppets of "Mys_721tx", and I suspect "Malcolmxl5" might be too (but I'm not sure). Does this violate Wikipedia's principles? Lastly, the situation has developed to this extent solely because "Mys_721tx" forcibly blocked me and refused to communicate with me in any Chinese forums (even though he is an editor of the Chinese Wikipedia). He claims that CNKI, China's most authoritative academic paper website, and some influential academic journals are "questionable open access journals or journals with little evidence of peer review or impact." Therefore, I doubt his attitude and academic ability as a Wikipedia editor (or does it mean that only academic journals indexed by SCI or SSCI, CSSCI, AHCI, AMI, etc., can be cited on Wikipedia?). In summary, do you think I misunderstood, or is "Mys_721tx's" attitude highly questionable? 119.236.164.241 (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Do not accuse others of being sockpuppets without evidence. If you have evidence, take it to WP:SPI. If you do not, then strike through that comment, or else it can be construed as a personal attack.

The rest of your comment is just further casting aspersions against Mys. To answer your question, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is for. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I remember the requirement from Wikipedia that "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third party sources" is what? For example, do academic journals organized by national or provincial organizations belong to "local companies"? And if CNKI, SCI, SSCI, CSSCI, and these are not independent third-party sources, what are they? It has already exposed some people's claim that there is no peer review. 46.36.116.224 (talk) 08:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Repeating yourself is not going to make these issues go away. Take it up on the article talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

These IPs are all User:Doctor Xiao, right? _Dial^mayo 18:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I think an SPI should be filed. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 21:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:SPI generally won't link IPs to an account. However, WP:DUCK applies, it's fairly obvious what's going on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Should we refer any of the journals to WP:RSN? For example, the International Journal of Frontiers in Sociology (Special:Diff/1209106440) and its publisher checked quite a lot boxes for criteria by Beall's list despite not on the list.-Mys_721tx (talk) 17:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@StarkReport; Edit warring, numerous warnings, WP:CIR, WP:OR and other violations

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

- WP:EDITWAR

[1] (his 1st rv, reverted then by me)

[2] (his 2nd rv, reverted then by @HaeB)

[3] (3rd one, he'd rv Apaugasma's edit, reverted then by @Toddy1)

[4] (4th one, he'd rv Toddy1's reversion, was reverted then by @TryKid)

[5] (5th, rv some text)

[6] (6th, rv @DenverCoder19's reversion, was reverted then by @Toddy1)

- WP:BATTLEGROUND & WP:CIR. Numerous warnings already regarding edit warring and other stuff on his talk page. However, he removed all of them.

[7] , [8] warned by @HistoryofIran

[9] by @Kuru

[10] by @Diannaa

[11] by @Isabelle Belato

[12] by @AhmadLX

[13] by @Gotitbro

[14], [15] by @LouisAragon

[16] by @Girth Summit

[17] by @Apaugasma

[18] by @Toddy1

- WP:OR; source misrepresentation

[19] Pointed out by @AhmadLX

[20] (Including cherrypicking & WP:CENSORSHIP) pointed out by me.

[21] Unsourced.

- WP:CIR or WP:IDHT

StarkReport was informed by Toddy1 [22], [23] that deleting text but leaving its sources is something that destroys verifiability. He replied with "alright" [24]. He had also been warned about something similar by TryKid [25]. However, just recently he overwrote some text but again left the sources of the text he removed [26]. Even though those abundant sources were for information that was very different from the text he just entered.

- WP:COPYVIO (had been warned before by Diannaa)

[27] Almost exact copy from [28] p. 6. (Compare the edit with [29] the parts I underlined, he merely added "According to the influential thesis of Ameer Ali" at the beginning of the passage.)

-WP:CENSORSHIP, whitewashing on articles related to Islam.

[30] Removed sourced content that

... Muslim world exporting as many as 17 million slaves to the coast of the Indian Ocean, the Middle East, and North Africa

[31] Again censorship (−1,061‎)‎. Warned then by AhmadLX [32].

Starkreport then proposed a draft on the article's talk page. However, @Apaugasma considered that his draft:

"is a lot worse than the original. What it trims are not needless details, but the context needed to understand how exactly the views of the different scholars differ. The proposed revision reads as if all these views are more or less the same. This not only misrepresents these views (since in actuality they are rather different), it also gives the paragraph –even though it is shorter than the original– an almost superfluous feel."

[33] Trying to remove this sourced material:

"Aisha also spoke her mind, even at the risk of angering Muhammad. On one such instance, Muhammad's "announcement of a revelation permitting him to enter into marriages disallowed to other men drew from her [Aisha] the retort, 'It seems to me your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire!"

- Again WP:CIR or WP:IDHT

Starkreport was told by Apaugasma on the Battle of Karbala's talk page on August 1, 2023 [34] that "Historical subjects generally require (secular) academic scholarly sources", but just recently he was again trying to use religious sources in Aisha to push a fringe theory [35]. I, as well as Apaugasma, informed him again that our WP:SOURCE policy requires sources to be independent [36], [37]. Toddy1 also told him that the view he was pushing was fringe [38]. His response suggests that he understood [39]. But not long after that, he did it again [40].

- Trying to mislead people to win over an argument.

[41] Warned by @HaeB to "not throw around links to pages that do not mean what you claim they mean."

[42] Told by me that he was misrepresenting what Apaugasma said. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 02:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

1. Displaying revisions from over a year and a half ago, during a period when I was less experienced, all of which were successfully resolved amicably.

2. Misrepresenting the minor issues as significant ones.

3. Utterly false accusations and distortions like "Trying to remove this sourced material"[43] where as I merely discussed it with a senior user and he simply stated "I think it contributes a lot to our understanding of their relationship" and the end.

I absolutely refute this appaling fabricated evidence which has been manipulated to align with the perspective of a single user, Kaalakaa.

This is a clear-cut case of WP:Bullying's False accusations and Misrepresentation. Please tak action against this sort of behavior.

To the administrators, I respectfully request to ask those mentioned above like Apaugasma, @Toddy1, @Anachronist, and others about what do they think. StarkReport (talk) 05:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, you are trying to mislead people. The ones from 1.5 years ago are just a few of the warnings on your talk page, while the diffs about your behavior are mostly recent. And many of them are by no means minor. Anyway, I'm already tired of your incoherent bludgeoning. The evidence is there, let's just see what the admins have to say. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 22:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Responding to pings. I'm sorry, but I don't have time for this. Both of you seem to seek out difficult and controversial Islam-related issues, yet neither of you seem to have a proper understanding of the historiography of Islam, nor the editorial skill to forge a consensus on thorny subjects.
  I was pinged to Talk:Aisha on 30 January, and responded that I wouldn't be investing a full week's time into this. Yet you both are still bickering there and elsewhere. Both of you, indeed StarkReport somewhat more than Kaalakaa, but both of you are causing serious timesinks for other editors.
  My advice for you two is to stop editing Islam-related articles, and to go and edit something on which you have less strong feelings and more expertise. My advice to the community is that if this doesn't stop, topic bans on Islam-related subjects should be considered. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  Dear @Apaugasma, I apologize if you think of me that way. But on that article's talk page, those who disagreed and tried to explain policies and guidelines (such as WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, etc.) to StarkReport were not only me, but also many other editors, including yourself. As @TryKid summarized the situation here as one (StarkReport) against many. While on WP:ORN [44] I simply pointed out the gross source misrepresentation StarkReport made in another article, which still doesn't get a response from him. There is indeed a difference of opinion between me and you (which is normal for people) regarding the treatment of a fringe theory about Aisha (you yourself agreed with me that it is a fringe theory [45]), which you have not responded to here. Maybe it's because you haven't had time, or maybe my concern isn't worth responding to for you. But if you think I should be given the same sanction as StarkReport, who I believe has done the violations I listed above, I think that is very unfair. I believe that I have always tried to write articles in accordance with our policies and guidelines. If you see problems with my other edits, feel free to point them out and I will try my best to answer or fix them. But still, I respect your opinions, even if I find them hard to accept. 🙂 — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 00:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Kaalakaa,I take my words back about addressing you as a "senior editor." It seems you clearly are not. The amount of times you exhibited WP:IDHT and WP:CIR is exhausting. And, despite my explicit clarification "Kaalakaa, my argument has nothing to do with including the views of Muslims scholars rather the content like however, elsewhere Tabari appears to suggest----- " which was made by consensus way before both of us "should not be removed under no circumstances" and yet you shamefully tried to manipulate it "But not long after that, he did it again" and tried to get me banned. But, to no avail.

  Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND and stop treating it as such. Else you will be sanctioned. StarkReport (talk) 06:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Speedy close - WP:FORUMSHOP There was already a report of StarkReport ^{created by Kaalakaa 22:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)} at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Source misrepresentation and cherrypicking in History of Hinduism. It is best to deal with that complaint first.

The list of complaints by Kaalakaa (above) is over-long because it contain duplication. @StarkReport: would do him/herself a big favour if he used talk page archiving. With talk page archiving it would be easy to see that he/she had dealt with some (or most) of the warnings in an entirely satisfactory way. If he/she wants, I will set it up for him.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The No Original Research noticeboard has a different purpose than this one (ANI). If an editor has engaged in multiple different forms of problematic behavior (e.g. misrepresenting sources on the one hand and e.g. edit-warring, battleground behavior, misrepresenting other editors' comments, or misrepresenting Wikipedia policies on the other hand), then I don't see why it should be prohibited to raise each in the most appropriate noticeboard around the same time.

In any case, concerning the NOR noticeboard thread you brought up (which Kaalakaa had already cross-linked above): Despite StarkReport's vocal but unspecific denial (Absolutely not. [...]), two other editors appear to since have agreed there that StarkReport has indeed misrepresented sources. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Then kindly, also read ahead. The editor who also agreed has proposed this sentence "The Mughal kings of the golden age were known for their religious tolerance, and they actively patronized the arts and literature"

Now tell me is it really that different from what I wrote "Under the Mughals, India experienced a period of relative stability and prosperity. The Mughals were known for their religious tolerance, and they actively patronized the arts and literature." Is this what you call misrepresentation??

Nonetheless, I have already tried to address the concerns by removing the sources and providing alternative references days ago after the complaint. If the issue continues, I suggest to engage in a discussion on the article's talk page instead of magnifying it unnecessarily here and making a mountain out of a molehill. StarkReport (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@StarkReport: The source is far more specific than your summary of it. The difference in meaning is important - and is explained rather well by Kaalakaa at WP:NOR#source misrepresentation and cherrypicking in History of Hinduism. Please stop being defensive; he/she has shown that you should have read the source more carefully, and not just the sentence you were trying to summarise.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

There is also an element of spin in the above report. The claimed "edit war" consisted of a list of all the reverts he/she made to the page on Aisha between 30 January and 23 February.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

There is also an element of spin in the above report. The claimed "edit war" consisted of a list of all the reverts he/she made to the page on Aisha between 30 January and 23 February.

Isn't slow edit warring blockable? Like these cases, perhaps: [46], [47]

And the first four of his reversions, which I listed above, took place between January 30, 2024 and February 3, 2024.

WP:FORUMSHOP There was already a report of StarkReport created by Kaalakaa 22:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC) at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Source misrepresentation and cherrypicking in History of Hinduism. It is best to deal with that complaint first.

I'm not sure about that. WP:ORN is not a place to "report" on an editor's behaviour, it is a place to ask for input on possible original research. And the issue I raised there is just one of the many things I listed above. Also, I posted this report here because I saw the 6th rv by him.

The list of complaints by Kaalakaa (above) is over-long because it contain duplication.

Which part is a duplicate? Let me know so I can strike it.

would do him/herself a big favour if he used talk page archiving. ... If he/she wants, I will set it up for him.

That, I think, is a pretty good idea. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 17:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

This is one example of duplication.

• 107 by @Toddy1.
• StarkReport was informed by Toddy1 22, 23 that deleting text but leaving its sources is something that destroys verifiability. He replied with "alright" 24.

I have not checked to see whether there are others duplicates. If I were you I would also strike through the nonsensical complaint of edit warring above - if you look at the diffs: No. 1 & 2 are about one thing, No. 3 & 4 are about a different thing, No. 5 is about yet another thing, and No. 6 is about a load of different things. i.e. the six reverts done over a 25 day period are about four different edits. You are beating a dead horse. Both you and StarkReport are inexperienced. Just accept that you have made a mistake. We all make them. Be willing to accept advice. And if there is still an issue with StarkReport's behaviour after the other forum report is closed, wait two weeks and figure out which forum is best for it, and then make a report that applies the lessons about what was wrong with this one.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

This is one example of duplication.
*107 by @Toddy1.
*StarkReport was informed by Toddy1 22, 23 that deleting text but leaving its sources is something that destroys verifiability. He replied with "alright" 24.

The one above is in the list of warnings on his talk page, while the one below is my elaboration of one of his WP:CIR/WP:IDHT issues. So I don't think it's a duplicate.

No. 1 & 2 are about one thing, No. 3 & 4 are about a different thing, No. 5 is about yet another thing, and No. 6 is about a load of different things.

WP:EW:

The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually.

the six reverts done over a 25 day period are about four different edits.

As I mentioned earlier, his first 4 reverts happened between January 30, 2024 and February 3, 2024. He had received an edit-warring warning [48] from Apaugasma after his 3rd revert. It was only his 5th and 6th reverts that took place on February 23, 2024. Perhaps this case of another editor can be used as a comparison. Their first 4 reverts happened between July 8 and July 13, 2013, while their 5th and 6th reverts happened on August 1 and August 3, 2013, respectively. But they got blocked for edit-warring, nonetheless.

the other forum report

Dear Toddy, like I already said, WP:ORN is not a place to "report" on an editor's behaviour, it is a place to ask for input on possible original research. And the issue I raised there is just one of the many things I listed above. Also, I posted this ANI report here because I saw the 6th rv by him. If I only report it later after the issue I raised on WP:ORN is archived, I'm afraid it will be too late to report this edit warring case. 🙂 — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 03:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

How does an editor whose account was created in 2023 know about a WP:AN/3RR case from 2013?-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Toddy1, If its any relevance, Kaalakaa has also been under suspicion of engaging in sockpuppetry. After @DeCausa asked him about it, he clearly refused to give a direct answer. See SPI investigation.

You are more informed about the necessity of initiating another more thorough immediate investigation if it is required. StarkReport (talk) 09:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I've only seen Kaalakaa at Muhammad. It's pretty obvious they edited extensively before this account and, for whatever reason, don't wish to disclose it. I don't know who they were previously so it's not something I would take to SPI. Don't know anything about the issues in this thread. DeCausa (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea if or by what account Kaalakaa edited previously, but as far as the linked SPI report goes, I am 100% sure that Kaalakaa is not Loverofediting (and trust me, I'm in a position to know that). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Didn't you know that we had a search function? The results can be very random if you don't sort by date, though. Like the reason I got that case. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 10:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I haven't read through the whole complaint, but seeing StarkReport's behaviour around the time I had an eye on the talk page, I do see a pattern of obnoxious (civil?) POV-pushing. And now silly references to "battleground behaviour", "CIR", "IDHT" against the complainant here—pre-empting or mirroring descriptions of his behaviour? I'm not sure whether any adminstrative action is required though. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that StarkReport shows a pattern of obnoxious but definitely civil POV-pushing ('sealioning', though apparently more as a result of inexperience than of bad faith). I'm also not sure whether administrative action is required. I think that would get cleared up more easily if Kaalakaa's approach to dealing with the civil POV-pushing would be much more concise and a little less battleground-like. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, when I initiated the discussion about the Aisha article, I envisioned a swift resolution with a few requests for improvements. Regrettably, I had no idea it would drag this long. StarkReport (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Disruption and personal attacks

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

Aroneasadas has been making disruptive edits and personal attacks ever since they have started to edit election articles and this has increased since the past week.

• On February 2023, removed 22,000 bytes of content from an article without any explanation. Special:diff/1138944985 Two months later, edit wars over it (Special:diff/1149496511) and once again without explanation.(Special:diff/1165972819)
• This was his response to another user in the talk page of an election article on March 2023: "...i can also accuse of you being anti India , pro terrorist." (Special:diff/1144950325)
• Has violated WP:3RR in 2024 Indian general election in Tamil Nadu with five reverts on the edits of three different users within the last 24 hours to push his unsourced POV content.(Special:diff/1209812236)(Special:diff/1209816206)(Special:diff/1209841957)(Special:diff/1209934641)(Special:diff/1209944362). From 21 February 2024 to 24 February 2024, he has made 8 reverts in this article without any explanation.
• When I posted a warning template for edit warring in their talk page, he personally attacks me and calls me a "moron". "... I do not have to tolerate your lies and deceit. You are the moron one who changes my edits to the way you like and trying to gaslight me.." (Special:diff/1209933475)

Most of his disruption since the past week is happening on 2024 Indian general election in Tamil Nadu to secure his POV version of the article by indiscriminately reverting anyone with no explanations in the edit summaries. - SUN EYE 1 13:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

What you accuse me about is applicable to you also

your reasoning for changing my edits is based on your delusional dogmatic view points.

Do not expect all of them has the same opinion as yours

None of your expiation is satisfactory, I do not want to type long paragraphs to enlighten you.

You are in pretentious sleep, you can't be awakened

All of your edits are pro indi alliance. Your Low tolerance about other views

for example

1. (Special:diff/1209938590)

2. (Special:diff/1209787884)

3. (Special:diff/1209763413) these are some examples , do not pretend to be a white knight

All of them are not subscribed to your dogmatic ideas and narrative setting

no explanations in the edit summaries

I already give explanations when a critical edit is done for minor edits what the need of explanation.

You are the one deleted those without proving anything

i give links to credible sources, why do you delete it

why you always delete NDA candidates and K.Annamali links without any explanation and saying that "its just cleaning" the article

You are the intolerant one who pretends to be a nice guy

I like to know your view points in details, why do not you explain yourself for your lies and deceit.

I will give summaries and expiation for all my edits. How about that? Aroneasadas (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

How about that? Sounds to me like you're talking yourself straight into a WP:NOTHERE indef, is what. Ravenswing 14:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

How about that? Is the only thing you get in your mind ?

I want to give a balanced view points to the world, not one-sided view points

WP:HERE Aroneasadas (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

We do not provide WP:FALSEBALANCE here, nor do we tolerate personal attacks like ...i can also accuse of you being anti India , pro terrorist. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The first unlinked diff you've provided (Special:diff/1209938590) is an edit by another user. The second one (Special:diff/1209787884) is me removing an WP:EL to another language wiki which you had added like a citation. The third one (Special:diff/1209763413) is me nominating an article for deletion with WP:TWINKLE. I'm unsure how these diffs support all the personal attacks in your reply again - SUN EYE 1 05:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• 415 edits, POV pushing, a years long string of personal attacks? NOTHEREd.

Courcelles (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

User talk:ScarletViolet

This editor, ScarletViolet, has unilaterally nominated an article to GAN (which I created/expanded), where they had zero input and contribution, and at the same time initiated a review of said article. I'm quite stunned by the lack of awareness for the GAN process displayed the this editor, but also saw this coming considering this user has a history of this type of behavior, and I have made repeated warnings on the editor's talk page.

As a note, this user has had this behavior within the TFA and FAR spaces. And has been temporarily banned twice in prior years.

• Nominating Regine Velasquez's article to TFA as an April Fools joke [49]
• Nominating Mariah Carey's article to TFA and then withdrawing it because said editor could not not address issues to improve the article [50]
• With regard to second bullet, nominating the FA article for Featured Article Reassessment without being able to raise concerns at the talk page [51]

I would like to request that this user be sanctioned accordingly, either a block from editing, or a block from the FAC/FAR/GAN pages, whichever is appropriate as it appears that repeated warnings have not worked. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I am very very sorry for what I have done. Promise I won't ever do those things again. Please note I'm currently working on a Sarah Geronimo article so that I can have it as GA/FA, and I have been blocked twice in the same year by the same administrator for violating citation-related policies when editing NBA-related articles. ScarletViolet (talk • contribs) 03:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

As far as I’m concerned, apologies and promises don’t bear any weight considering this editor has been a repeat offender for violating processes in Wikipedia, particular within the GAN, FA, TFA, FAR spaces, where said editor has repeatedly put forward ill-prepared requests that are violations of standard guidelines. I have not seen a change in behavior despite making promises [52] [53] after frequent warnings. Pseud 14 (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The editor keeps mentioning that they are “close to promoting” their work to GA or FA, when a closer look at the article, it seems to be unprepared. It also validates my argument that the editor should not be given access to these spaces, as these are considered Wikipedia’s best and high-quality work. They seem to imply that they are close to promoting their work to GA or FA, but they are unaware of the guidelines, ie the editor nominating an article they have not contributed to and then initiating a review of the same article at GAN, among the many infractions they have committed. Pseud 14 (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully, this case will come to an amicable conclusion, which I will accept and respect the decision made by the admins. ScarletViolet (talk • contribs) 12:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Good. Remember that non-admins can give good advice too. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour of User:UtoD

User UtoD has twice reverted all my recent edits on Sri Lanka Armed Forces: [1] [2] However, they gave explanation for reverting only for one of my edits concerning child sexual abuse in Haiti by Sri Lankan peacekeepers but refuse to explain also reverting another edit concerning UN's report on war crimes even after I had notified them here by stating: "You also reverted my another edit without giving any reason. Again take it to the talk page."

In their latest reply to me in the talk discussion, they once again refused to address my complaint.

Further, in the same talk discussion, they refuse to engage my repeated requests ([1][2][3]) for clarification on the reasons given for reverting my first edit and instead only insists I alone have the burden despite instructing me in the edit explanation to reach a consensus. Yet this evasive behaviour is not conducive to a collaborative consensus-building effort that Wikipedia relies on. -- Petextrodon (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

If your definition of disruptive editing is not forcing your edits through then its on you and your first instinct to run to WP:AN/I then its your issue. And yes, you added the content so you have the burden of arguing for it. And you didn't even do that, you basically demanded Cossde (talk · contribs) who reverted the highly problematic edit to go to the talk page to explain the reverts, which he did and then you reverted to force through the edits and then I also reverted your edit and gave my reasons in the talk page. You have not even bothered to explain the inclusion of the content you added and expects it to be the status quo through continuous reverting alongside user Oz346 and is currently involved in a multi-page edit war including the Sri Lanka Armed Forces with other users.

There is also the issue of you editing the Sri Lanka Armed Forces to make WP:POINT about the LTTE page to User Cossde, throwing accusations of WP:HYPOCRISY at him in that page for reverting the edit in the SL Armed Forces page. That is disruptive behavior. In simple terms, you failed to even enter the talk page before the content you added was reverted twice and that is, after you demanded they enter the talk page in your edit summaries and both me and Cossde gave reasons in the talk page before you even bothered to write a word and still haven't even bothered to explain the need for inclusion of the content you added and instead jumped straight to WP:AN/I. -UtoD 07:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree with UtoD, Petextrodon and Oz346, has been engaged in a rolling edit war across multiple pages.

• Pottuvil massacre: [54], [55]
• Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam: [56], [57], [58]
• Sri Lanka Armed Forces : [59], [60]
• 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom : [61], [62]

In fact this was raised by me in a WP:ANEW. Although both Petextrodon and Oz346, engaged in multiple reverts without engaging in the talk page, he reported me for WP:ANEW resulting a Take to AN/I note.

Both Petextrodon and Oz346, have been engaging in WP:NATIONALIST editing as their edit histories show that they do not contribute beyound Pro-Tamil Elam and Anti-Sri Lankan content. It is very clear that they engage in WP:HYPOCRISY as they have removed citied content from the LTTE age here claiming "Governments' policy statements are primary sources that need secondary analyses" while they have writen up articles List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces and Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka], which appears to be WP:OR with Pro-rebel media and Humen rights advocacy groups that are primary sources as found in a WP:RSN disscussion]. In fact I had to open a WP:DRN due to their reverting my edits to creat a prelude section, citing claims such as "removed excessive details from background section which is clearly undue weight, and reverted back to status quo in the meantime. " (Oz346), "reverted disruptive edits ruining the flow of the article with unnecessary details against the advice of other editors; either discuss in the talk page or wait for requested third opinion" (Petextrodon). Oz346 has refused to accept Sri Lankan Government sources claiming them to be bogus clown, while claiming that former LTTE orgernizations as RS, while Petextrodon in the disscussion (that has stopped) on content on the LTTE page, openly threaten "As for the LTTE article, either we summarize or cut down on the entire section if you insist on bloating it up even further, in order to maintain some balance.". Both Oz346 and Petextrodon has been preventing my content additions with selectively removing content that they do not agree with. Petextrodon reverted my last additions after Oz346 third party opinion request. I made a request for admin attention [63] several days ago. Both have been engaged in personal attacks agaist me such as [64], [65], [66]. Hence if any one has a disruptive behaviour it is these two editors. Cossde (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Cossde, Although this particular discussion is about the Sri Lanka Armed Forces page, you are bringing up other disputes involving another user on other pages. I can also show your long history of removing war crimes allegations from the Sri Lanka Armed Forces page, selectively using the same sources which become reliable or unreliable at your whim and blatant double standards when it comes pro-government and pro-rebel sources to demonstrate your bias. Rest of your charges are unfair and misrepresentation of my actual views. --- Petextrodon (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon, lets keep it simple shall we, can you please accept or deny the following:

• Your contributions in Wikipedia have been limited to Tamil Elam related topics and no broader contributions made.

A simple Yes or No would be fine. Thank you. Cossde (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon, we are still waiting. Cossde (talk) 02:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cossde, Stop attempting to derail the discussion by policing what topics other users choose to edit.--- Petextrodon (talk) 03:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon, why can't you give a simple Yes or No? Cossde (talk) 13:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Dear admins @Bbb23, is this user @Cossde not engaging in personal attacks by repeatedly derailing the discussion to focus on what topics I contribute to? --- 18:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC) Petextrodon (talk) 18:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Both user Cossde and UtoD make spurious claims by incorrectly citing various wikipedia policies such as WP:BURDEN. When these policies are cited and accusations are made, they need to be carefully cross checked by independent observers, as they do not stand up to scrutiny. That is my humble request. Oz346 (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Like you two did in [67] and [68]. Cossde (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Or this [69]. Cossde (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

well there you are wrong, I was correctly using the policy of WP:BURDEN and WP:VERIFY on those edits, which is about the reliability of the source. You nor UtoD were questioning the reliability of the source on the Sri Lankan Armed Forces page regarding the pedophile ring of the Sri Lankan Army, but the policy of WP:BURDEN was consistently being cited (incorrectly). Oz346 (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, didn't you say "But you're also disputing its reliability, therefore you also have burden to demonstrate why it is not reliable." Please tell me what part of WP:BURDEN states this? Cossde (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Eventhough WP:BURDEN explicitly states that when a content addition is challenged for any reason "and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back." you and Petextrodon have entirely ignored that and consistently abused reverting to brute force the content through. And that you two are coordinating across multiple pages as a pattern. Even after I pointed it out in both revert summary and talkpage you action was to revert yet again to force the problematic content. -UtoD 14:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

"WP:BURDEN explicitly states that when a content addition is challenged for any reason"

WP:BURDEN says nothing of the sort. Stop making things up. It is disruptive behaviour. It's not a policy that you can abuse for any reason that you can think of. WP:BURDEN refers to the sourcing of the text, nothing more. Oz346 (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, you yourself has misinterpreted WP:BURDEN in the past such as this [70]. The problem here is your style of using brute force to enter a content of your choice without open discussion and removing content you don't like without discussion. Cossde (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

A personal attack. Nice. Right below Cossde's complaint about your previous personal attacks against them. Claiming WP:LIAR against me is meaningless. You won't get to claim WP:IGNORANCE as I have repeatedly told you about it before and claiming its only about the "verifiability of the source" contradicts your past posts where you showed knowledge of note C of WP:BURDEN, I pointed it on 22 2021 December and you said in 24 December 2021 which would contradict your current claim that it's exclusively about "verifiability of sources". So please don't bring the "you didn't see it" defence because I have told you multiple times, you knew and then went back to trying brute forcing edits into pages coordinating reverting with Petextrodon across mulitple pages. Now in February 2024 you suddenly claim the guideline doesn't exist and straight up throwing WP:LIAR at me. -UtoD 17:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

my use of the word burden there was not in the wikipedia WP:BURDEN policy sense, but in the more general use of the word. Namely that an independent third opinion had agreed with me, therefore, it is only reasonable that my version of the page should be the status quo. And that it was up to you to seek further wikipedia moderation if you still disagreed with me and the independent third opinion. Oz346 (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Your response to my request to establish a WP:RS under WP:BURDEN was to say "No you dont have to 'PROVE' each and every blatant reliable source". . Cossde (talk) 02:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Another humble request to the admins reading this discussion, please try to avoid being side tracked by the multiple messages not directly relevant to the initial complaint. If others have other complaints they should be filed separately. Otherwise the whole point of this discussion will be derailed. Oz346 (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, the root cause of all this is the brute force tactics you and Petextrodon are engaging in as part of your WP:NAT edits. Cossde (talk) 02:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@UtoD, you still have not explained why you refused to give explanation for twice reverting my other edit on UN war crimes report. I was and am willing to engage in the talk discussion that's why I asked you to explain what you meant by those Wikipedia rules that you kept throwing at me without further explanation (you have a history of doing this and another user had called you out on it too) but you refused to do so and simply insisted I alone had the burden. That's not how a collaborative effort works. --- Petextrodon (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon, right like how you added content that appeared to be a minority view [71] without engaging in the talk page discussion of Talk:Sri_Lankan_Tamils#Eelam_Tamils_name, yet used WP:FALSEBALANCE in this edit [72] without bothering to explain it in the talk page. Cossde (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cossde, is that your other account? They do keep showing up to your aid every time we are in disputes on Sri Lanka Armed Forces page. If not, I would like the person addressed make a reply themself. --- Petextrodon (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon. Are you accusing me of WP:SOCKING? Cossde (talk) 02:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

No I don't know what your relation with that user is. If you don't represent them in any way, let them explain their behavior themself. --- Petextrodon (talk) 03:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I don' think that is what you meant by .. "is that your other account?" ? Cossde (talk) 13:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Clasus1453

Clasus1453 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Fail to see how this user is a networth to this site. All their edits have been reverted (mostly by me) and for good reason; they're unsourced and revisionism. Their talk page is also full of warnings (mostly by me).

They have never written a edit summary once, let alone written in a talk page. Back in January they created the revisionistic Category:Ottoman-Azerbaijani wars, adding it to conflicts between the Ottomans and Aq Qoyunlu [73] [74] [75], referring the latter as "Azerbaijani", despite the ethnonym first emerging in 1918 and the Aq Qoyunlu article literally stating that they're Turkoman, not Azeri. After reverting them, I tried to explain this to them at their talk page [76], but it was clearly ignored, as they went on a second time to create Category:Ottoman-Azerbaijani wars after it was speedily deleted for being empty, and after being reverted for that´too, they started edit warring [77] [78] and then created a even more revisionistic category, Category:Azerbaijani-Uzbek wars, this time not only calling the Turkoman Aq Qoyunlu (and Turkoman Qara Qoyunlu) for "Azerbaijani", but now also calling the Turco-Mongol Timurid Empire for "Uzbek" [79] [80] [81].

Bonus; altering sourced information [82]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Clasus1453 made their last edit at 05:22 on 26 February. If they resume editing without responding to this complaint, please let me know. A block should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Will do, thanks EdJohnston! HistoryofIran (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Text as a graphic

Coming here as I've hit 3RR if I'm wrong about this. Mainerlife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding (five times so far) a list to Thomas College. The only issue is... it's a list they have neatly typed out in Excel and uploaded a picture of to Commons. They're not responding to attempts to communicate to them why this is A Bad Thing. Would someone else care to? 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Let me know if I am wrong, but I think the 3RR noticeboard is better for this. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 19:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so. AN3 is for reporting people who have violated 3RR. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 19:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not really to do with 3RR. It's to do with the text in a graphic, the MoS issues and the lack of communication – the latter especially, for which the venue is ANI. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

If they continue to do this, please simply guide them to WP:ACCESS, because a PNG of a spreadsheet is simply not accessible and should be a paragraph or table of prose rather than an image, and they can easily make a WP:TABLE using Wikicode just as well that meets ACCESS. Nate • (chatter) 20:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

User was Pblocked from Thomas College by Cullen328. User has admitted to working for the school, and expressed intent to keep adding it. I'm holding off on a full block for now, let's see if they're willing to accept advice. The photo itself has also been deleted from Commons. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I left a COI notice. DMacks (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: and @DMacks: A Thomas College staff member looked up my personal e-mail address (not hard to find - I link to my webpage from my User page) and sent me an e-mail today demanding that I not edit their article because "I am the authority on our brand and what is listed on the page, and you are not." So there's definitely a COI/paid editing issue here and hopefully this partial block addresses the issue. ElKevbo (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This is interesting. Judging by what this person has written on their talk page and at the Teahouse, they have no idea what Wikipedia is, let alone what it is for. They appear to be assuming that this place is like Google's "claim this knowledge panel" and Apple Maps' "is this your business?" features – click on it, provide vague proof, get pretty well complete control of the entry in question. If their confusion as to why they've been prevented from adding photos of Excel spreadsheets and promotional material to the article is genuine, a belief that the article is just an extension of being able to update your info on Yelp or TrustPilot is probably why.

They were given a {{welcome}} template upon first arrival, but that explains Wikipedia in terms of how to physically edit. It doesn't explain what we are and what we're for – we assume all 7bn people know that by now. There doesn't appear to be a welcome template that actually explains we're an encyclopaedia and what our mission is. I tried drafting some text for their talk page, but every attempt looked like I was taking the piss, or at least being very condescending.

Is there someone reading this who could do better than me and help them out with a "What is Wikipedia" 101 on their talk page? Perhaps there is a template that does this and I've missed it? 81.187.192.168 (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I made a post on their Talk page to try and help out, but we'll see if they're willing to listen. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Juniorpetjua

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

---

Editor Juniorpetjua (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Juniorpetjua) was blocked indefinitely on the Portuguese Wikipedia for "attempts to impose WP:POV generating numerous edit wars", as written here: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Pedidos_a_administradores/Discuss%C3%A3o_de_bloqueio/Juniorpetjua/10 . He has been applying the same editing system here, not accepting changes to the articles he edited, he has "article owner" syndrome and although he thinks he is some kind of "protector of articles about the Northeast Region of Brazil", which is where he came from, he usually carries out massive unrealistic propaganda for the region, combined with political propagandism, and uses force and editing wars, as can be seen in 2017 editions in Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and now, where, recently he made nothing more, nothing less than 9 reversals in the Recife article in a way that completely disrespects other editors and the project. He already has a history of 2 blocks because of this and has learned nothing. I ask that the referring user be blocked from this Wikipedia as well.Stockpeixe (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Stockpeixe: As per the instructions at the top of this page, you are required to notify Juniorpetjua of your complaint.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Done.Stockpeixe (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Stockpeixe: Have you attempted to discuss this user's edits with them? City of Silver 23:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss with an editor who has carried out massive edit wars, vandalism and propaganda on Wiki Pt and Wiki En for more than 10 years. His behavior is flawed: he is here solely to advertise the area where he was born and to propagandize politicians from the party and politicians for whom he is radically passionate, this is visible in what he did in the article Recife where he put a lot of activists and politicians (his idols). He has always done this and will always continue to do this, in other words, he is an editor who is in no condition to participate in Wikipedia - he is not here to contribute anything useful, he is partial, has addictive and childish behavior. There were 10 discussions to ban him on Wiki-pt and he always avoided the ban by acting like a poor guy. When they stopped feeling sorry for him they finally did what they should have done in the beginning, they wasted a lot of time talking. Don't waste your time with another 10 years talking to him here.Stockpeixe (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Stockpeixe, we do not block an account on English Wikipedia for their behavior on another language Wikipedia. We do not block editors in 2024 for misconduct in 2017. This editor has only made 18 edits in the past four years. When you write There is nothing to discuss with an editor who has carried out massive edit wars, vandalism and propaganda on Wiki Pt and Wiki En for more than 10 years, you are incorrect. We always try to discuss before blocking and even before reporting to ANI. Your report is far too broad and sweeping. You need to explain concisely, preferably with diffs, what this editor has done wrong in 2024. Cullen328 (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, OK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recife&diff=prev&oldid=1209695814

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recife&diff=prev&oldid=1209695957

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recife&diff=prev&oldid=1209695994

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recife&diff=prev&oldid=1209696175

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recife&diff=prev&oldid=1209696216

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recife&diff=prev&oldid=1209696271

Mental translation of all editions of Juniorpetjua: "I am a radical socialist from the Northeast of Brazil with a very low level of education, which makes up almost the entire population of that region, I have had my brain washed my entire life by populist-socialist propaganda, so, I decided that I need to use the structure of Wikipedia to carry out propaganda no matter what the cost. I love Lula and PT more than my own life, I'm a radical activist, everything I do in life is based on that, my last 12 years at Wikipedia have been doing just that, I was banned from the PT Wiki for this reason and as I don't know how to do anything different in my life, I'm going to continue doing this on the English Wiki, look, I'm going to include a bunch of politicians from PT, the corrupt owner of Odebrecht who is Lula's partner. Paulo Freire who destroyed Brazilian education and reduced it to memorizing and being automatically approved even if you got everything wrong, left-wing radicals who taught me that they are gods that I must follow and idolize. I have no ability to contribute to anything on Wikipedia, only my subservience to a political system that mentally controls me as if I were an ox in the pasture."Stockpeixe (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see that the person who needs to be blocked is you then. Glad you've made that very clear with your egregious personal attack of a mental translation and lack of assuming good faith. – 2804:F14:80C5:3C01:E903:6335:76BA:FBB4 (talk) 08:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Juniorpetjua dont has any "good faith". He waa blocked several times here and in Wiki-pt for merely wanting to use this here to praise his particular gods (Northeast Brazil, Lula and everyone who is in favor of Lula). And he has nothing more to contribute or do here until his death. He will even stay here until he is 90 years old, watching the pages to see if no one is damaging the image of his great love Lula. Banning him will be good for his mental health, who knows, maybe he will seek specialized treatment.Stockpeixe (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Stockpeixe, what you wrote above is a personal attack that is entirely unsupported by any actual evidence other than your personal hostility toward the other editor. Despite my specific request, you have presented no actual evidence so far. Do you have evidence, or are you here only to cast aspersions? Again, what specifically has this editor done wrong in 2024. Cullen328 (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I already said above: Banning Lula's political activist will be good for his mental health, only then will he stop carrying out political propaganda here and seek specialized treatment.Stockpeixe (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you stop commenting on someone's mental health and redact all statement you've already made. That's indefinitely blockable behaviour right there. Nil Einne (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Stockpeixe, you are simply not permitted to speculate on Wikipedia about another editor's mental health, without presenting rock solid evidence of irrational behavior. Which you have not done. Even if you happen to be a psychiatrist, which I doubt, you cannot diagnose anyone without evaluating them in a clinical setting. I am ready to go to sleep now, but to me, it increasingly looks like it is you who should be blocked, not the other editor. It is very late at night where I live and maybe I am missing something. But it looks to me that you have failed to make your case. Cullen328 (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

P.S. When I wrote the above, I just saw the two comments on mental health, and thought WTF and replied. I didn't expect to see something much worse, but I now see the "mental translation" comment. I think an indefinite is well justified. At a minimum, the Stockpeixe needs to demonstrate they understand how unacceptable both those things are before they're allowed to resume editing. Nil Einne (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, you are from San Francisco, your oppinion doesnt counts when it comes to politics. And this is not advocacy. Juniorpetjua has a extremelly limited knowledge, he is like a bum payed for politicians to raise some campaign sign. Northeasterners like him are semi-slaves in Brazil. He swlls himself for food, he's a ppor guy. Dont worry, he'll be blocked globally whether you want it or not,because he has NOTHING else to contribute here otger than carrying out this type of ridiculous activism.Stockpeixe (talk) 10:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

If Stockpeixe hadn't already talked himself into an indefinite block then he certainly did with that edit. Can an admin please put this thread out of its misery? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

San Francisco people is braindead about politics. Dont have any importance anymore, you are the world's joke. Stockpeixe (talk) Stockpeixe (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

This comment is beyond the pale. Can an admin please indef Stockpeixe please. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that's enough of that. They have been indef'd. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I note that no human editor has edited Talk:Recife for over a year. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Starting a new category

Ahoy! Was trying to create a category for honorary citizens of the United States, but apparently that's off-limits for me and requires an administrator. Even though the category would only include articles about 8 people and about the honor itself, I think it's still worthy creating, considering the high honor in question. Requesting said category or help relating to this. Many thanks in advance! Kaljami (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe this might be something for WP:AN, not ANI. The Kip 23:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, that category has been deleted 3 times previously, which I guess is why it's locked down to prevent further creation. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It's actually something for WP:DRV not AN. But despite the long-ago date, the rationale in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_8#Category:Honorary_Citizens_of_the_United_States) still seems compelling to me: "another honor that is bestowed upon famous people who receive many awards and honors" contradicting WP:OCAWARD "category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a #DEFINING characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients". —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Jiabao Li

I have reason to believe that:

• Agnescooper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• coopgalvin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zerokelvins69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2605:A601:A0A3:9200:FD86:A463:EF9C:36E9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

are engaged in either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. I also have reason to believe that at least one of the users has a conflict of interest with the subject of the article. I'm not sure if publishing information about the COI would violate WP: OUTING, so I'm only going to share information about that privately. There's also two more IPs that seem tied to this as well, but I'm less sure about their connection to this article (see the last paragraph of this section for more information).

I nominated this article for deletion about four days ago because I didn't think it met WP: N. Since then, three users opposed the nomination, but all three of them have essentially only edited this article. There's also a fourth IP that's done some editing on the article as well:

• Agnescooper (talk · contribs) has only edited this article.
• 2605:A601:A0A3:9200:FD86:A463:EF9C:36E9 (talk · contribs) has only edited this article.
• Coopgalvin (talk · contribs) has only edited this article and added Li's name to a list of TED speakers (diff).
• Zerokelvins69 (talk · contribs) has only edited this article, with the exception of two unrelated edits that only add / modify a small part of the article.

The diffs these users have collectively produced seem pretty slanted, in violation of WP: NPOV.

Here is a revision of the page that only contains edits from Zerokelvins69 (talk · contribs):

Li has contributed significantly to the tech industry, inventing the Electrocardiography (ECG) on the Apple Watch and the Scribble function for the Apple Pencil. She conceived and prototyped several features for the Apple Health App for mental and physical health. She also played a crucial role in the conception, prototyping, and development of the Apple Vision Pro.

I'd expect to see phrases like "contributed significantly", "conceived and prototyped", and "played a crucial role" on a resume. They have no place in a venue that asks editors to maintain a neutral tone when editing.

Li has been recognized widely for her innovative work, including being named in Forbes China's "30 Under 30". She is the recipient of numerous prestigious awards, such as [a list of awards, omitted to brevity].

This is puffery. On what basis does appearance in a single list constitute wide recognition? Why are the listed awards prestigious?

The only significant diff the IP editor added was this. The basis for my AfD was about the quality of the sources, and this editor seems to have tried to add some in response. (I think these editors are conflating quality and quantity of sources, but that's a discussion for the AfD itself.)

Agnescooper (talk · contribs) has produced this diff ("Her work at the lab focuses on transforming perceptions of nature, exploring the intelligences of non-human species, and fostering a harmonious relationship with the environment") and this diff ("Li serves on juries for major design awards") which contain slanted language. They're also both marked as minor edits when they're clearly not.

I'm here at the advice of the Teahouse (this links to the question that I asked) and because this seems to be a conjunction of issues (COI, BLP, sockpuppetry). If there's somewhere else I should go next time, please let me know. There's also some cryptic edits on my Teahouse question by 126.254.227.110 (talk · contribs) and 126.53.182.81 (talk · contribs), one of which accuses me of using an LLM, I think? (I don't think the IPs are related, and I misread one of their comments. I do find it unusual that an IP's first edit is on the Teahouse of all places though.) I don't know. This situation feels very weird and very wrong. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you feel so harried and troubled. At the same time, may I ask what the urgent incident or chronic, intractable behavioral problem is? Otherwise, there are other noticeboards that are better suited for investigating sockpuppetry and for content issues.

• WP:SPI (Sock Puppet Investigations)
• WP:NPOVN (the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard)
• WP:BLPN (Biography of Living Person Noticeboard)
• WP:COI/N (Conflict of Interest Noticeboard)

P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

From the original submission: "I'm here at the advice of the Teahouse and because this seems to be a conjunction of issues (COI, BLP, sockpuppetry). If there's somewhere else I should go next time, please let me know." HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Er, yes, those sentences are in your OP; I read them. That's why I let you know where else to go. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding here. I'm aware that noticeboards for SPI, BLP, and COI exist. I wasn't aware about the one for NPOV though. My problem is that there is a violation of several rules happening at once, so I don't know which one is the right place to go to. The edits span back more than six months, which seems chronic. There's also four different accounts (if you include the IP) that are coordinating this, which seems pretty intractable to me. I would guess that meets the "chronic and intractable" standard, but it's my first time here. Am I supposed to post a copy of the same section to four different noticeboards? HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

This is the correct place to post as there are clearly issues here. However, the first thing I would do is post to WP:SPI, as there is clearly a sock/meat problem here. The COI issues are secondary. Frankly, however, any administrator looking to close that AfD is going to discount the comments made by those editors, as they are fairly clearly simply incorrect. Black Kite (talk) 09:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@HyperAccelerated I noticed this a couple days ago as well and have just opened an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Agnescooper. Came across their talk pages and saw this ANI, you can submit your findings there as well, thanks. TLA^tlak 18:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

 Resolved Users in question blocked. TLA^tlak 03:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment: Apologies if this edit was inappropriate, but I changed {{User:Zerokelvins69}} to {{User|Zerokelvins69}} in the OP's post, as I think that was the intent (it was transcluding the user page into the post, including adding ANI to the list of sockpuppets category). – 2804:F14:80E5:6B01:F969:B861:B7FB:B942 (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Muhammad Jalal al-Din

Muhammad Jalal al-Din (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New editor, registered today, removing references and making large numbers of unsourced changes, mainly changing the "creed" of individuals between Ash'ari and Athari. Unresponsive to Talk page notices from multiple editors. See contribution history for more.. eg: [83], [84], [85], [86] , [87], [88], [89], [90].  // Timothy :: talk  02:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Timothy, thank you for taking this to the administer noticeboard, it is well needed. This new editor is coming with a malicious motive and hasn't learned our community guideline policy. He comes in and immediately takes the route of vandalism by disrupting long-standing content without notifying other editors and their contribution. He makes addition without adding any reference [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] and sometimes he removes longer established references and replaces it with unreliable sources [96] [97] [98] [99]. He also bluntly decides to engage in an edit-war with multiple users. [100] [101] [102] [103] It's clear this user is not here to respect the community or their contribution but rather he's here for an agenda. Ayaltimo (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Otuọcha

Hi guys. Please help with the account Otuọcha (talk · contribs). Account created to make vandalism on Wikipedia. Thanks in advance.--BobVillars (talk) 09:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Please help as fast as possible. This account has been created to make vandalism and have fun on Wikipedia. Thanks --BobVillars (talk) 09:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

You haven’t provided any examples nor left them an ANI notice on their talk page as explained at the top of this page. Celjski Grad (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I did : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOtu%E1%BB%8Dcha&diff=1210583764&oldid=1210233098 ; For example please look of the contributions of the user. Vandalism or at least DND and having fun. I am not the only one to complain. --BobVillars (talk) 10:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@BobVillars, that's a warning about vandalism; you specifically need to inform them that you have posted about them on AN/I, there's a template for it at the top of the page.

That being said, WP:AIV might be a better place to report them if the problem is vandalism. Admins are usually very quick to act there. StartGrammarTime (talk) 11:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@BobVillars, as the user still hadn't been left an ANI notice, I've done it as a courtesy. Neiltonks (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

BobVillars, you warned them for vandalizing Swaady Martin. Adding a citation needed tag to an undersourced BLP isn't vandalism. Nominating an article for deletion isn't vandalism either; at least not in this case. Mackensen (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I see no issues with Otuọcha's issues. Maybe strayed a little close to 3RR but not intentionally. Their addition of maintenance templates, fixing the article to Wikipedia policies and manual of style or nominating it for deletion are not vandalism or anyone having fun. At this point I think there's more of a curved stick looking at BobVillars' edits. Canterbury Tail talk 12:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

To give additional context, BobVillars has been indeffed from the French Wikipedia a couple of weeks ago for sock puppeting and promotional editing [104]. On the english WP, he is very likely a sock puppet of blocked users User:YtoSu and User:RutoSu following the same patterns of editing, on multiple WP languages. --McSly (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

How to become an Administrator?

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

---

Please answer my question thank you and God bless ❣️💕🥰 REPETITION is not allowed (talk) 12:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

See WP:RFA. ActualPrimeNumber1567v (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

User blocked. Tollens (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. ActualPrimeNumber1567v (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Repeated and unexplained insertion of dubious content

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

I have recently noticed that Nwaiotbaw (talk · contribs) has inserted a lot of unusable content into articles about railways in Hong Kong and mainland China, including obvious factual errors such as the reversal of a railway service's driving direction (even though it is obvious and indicated by the cited source that it runs on the left), changes to cardinal directions that are clearly wrong just from looking at a map or comparing the coordinates shown on the respective pages, and unsourced and overly detailed prose. Others have previously warned this user for inserting speculative information from their imagination (so this seems to have been going on for some time) and never writing edit summaries. I should note that I think it is possible that some of their edits are constructive.

I am at a loss for what to do in this situation, as the user has apparently never communicated with other editors in any way in talk pages or other forums, and has never responded on their talk page. Nowadays there don't seem to be many active editors in this space to keep track of dubious edits. I haven't edited much in recent years, so I'm not sure if this is the right place to mention this or if this issue would be considered not severe enough for this forum. Jc86035 (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

We do sometimes block users for complete failure to communicate. I've left an admin warning at User talk:Nwaiotbaw. They have never responded to any of the issues raised by others on their talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

If they continue to edit without discussing things (their most recent contribution was several hours before this thread was opened) then the first step is probably a partial block from the article (and maybe template) namespace. They don't seem to be using a mobile device so this doesn't seem to be a WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU issue. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Reopen of discussion

Please, reopen this discussion per WP:BADNAC. @Super ninja2 close the discussion to supervote. Zsohl^(Talk) 13:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Re-opened It's not even a supervote as such, as the editor that closed it had espoused their desired result throughout the discussion; they clearly therefore can't close it. Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I have asked Super ninja2 to come and explain this close here. They were only recently unblocked/unbanned, so I would have expected a different editing approach than this. Daniel (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Daniel for giving me the chance to explain myself. Before closing the discussion, I looked for how to close it and if I should close it and found this in WP:CLOSE: It is unusual for anyone to request a formal closure by an uninvolved editor unless the discussion has been open for at least one week so I thought that this was a habit here. I actually was surprised to know that the policy prohibits evolved editors from closing the discussion so I messaged Black Kite to know more about it. Thanks again. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 09:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Super ninja2: "Most discussions don't need closure at all, but when they do, any uninvolved editor may close most of them – not just admins" (from WP:CLOSE). Thoough this should sort of be obvious, I would have thought... Black Kite (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Legal threats

• User_talk:BalaM314#Trouted_(incorrectly,_for_reverting_COI_content_removal_on_SETS)
• User_talk:120.154.50.154
• Talk:Sydney_Electric_Train_Society

The user with IP 120.154.50.154 (talk) is connected to the Sydney Electric Train Society and attempted to remove negative information from their page, claiming that it is incorrect. I reverted because the information has sources.

They then threatened to sue Wikipedia for defamation.

Not sure what to do, but WP:SUE tells me to report it here.

『π』BalaM314〘talk〙 14:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

[105] Relevant diff with the legal threat. Conyo14 (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Calls for a block. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't actually read that as a legal threat. It's more of a statement related to the other stuff they're droning on about regarding AI and Wikipedia's (perceived) inability to avoid bad information being put in by AI. That last part needs to be read in context of the entire comment. In other words, I don't read it as "fix this or I'll sue". ButlerBlog (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The criticism section in Sydney Electric Train Society is terribly written and clearly violates the Neutral point of view. I am going to delete that section. Cullen328 (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It may not be the intent, but invoking legal threats (whether indirectly, as here, or directly) has a chilling effect on other editors. It's never a good idea to go there. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

JassyGamer - Overlinking spree

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

---

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

New editor, rapidly making multiple edits, almost exclusively overlinking on multiple articles, e.g. [106] with the edit summary "This article mentions the correct article from Wikipedia." I have tried to engage with the editor explaining they're creating a problem [107] but it seems to no avail as they've continued. Some of the edits have wrongly linked the wrong article e.g. [108].

Much as I hate to bring it here, as it seems to be genuine if incompetent editing but they are creating quite the need for a cleanup. WCM_email 16:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

 Note: blocked as a sock by Spicy. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Constant disruptive editing, no sources, multiple warnings from multiple editors

Taeisawesome21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After a second (possibly more, but I wasn't counting) revert of this editor for adding content previously noted as non-MOS, I included a notice via RedWarn for disruptive editing. I did not see until later that this user has been warned on multiple occasions over the past month for constantly adding unsourced content. That by itself would not be so problematic except that their responses to being warned about the need to cite sources is basically of the "c'mon, get over it, man" variety. I can assemble diffs if requested, but a review of their talk page notices, their responses to those, and a brief look at their editing history shows a pattern of disruption with no intention of correcting what has been pointed out to them. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems like all of Teaisawesome21's contributions and complaints are related to TV/TV Series/broadcasting, I think a topic ban is a clear move needed here. TLA^tlak 18:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Taeisawesome21 for their pattern of disruptive editing. Cullen328 (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 You made an error in the block notice. Not in the block itself, that's fine. The notice is saying, "You have been blocked indefinitely for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions." The picture itself also shows the stop sign with the cross, but there's a clock. Probably would recommend changing the notice. There's nothing wrong with it, just a cosmetic error. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I mean, it's impossible for an indefinite block to expire on its own unless the admin decides to lift the block. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

NoobThreePointOh, thanks. I have copyedited the block notice. Cullen328 (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

No problem. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Milan Knežević (Montenegrin politician)

Hello, I need some help from an experienced editor regarding recent changes at Milan Knežević (Montenegrin politician).

New user Jovanadnp has made many changes to this article over the past months, 100% of which have been reverted. There is a clear conflict of interest ("I am Milan Knežević's representative"), as well as many other problems - the edits are extremely worsening the page.

This is the most recent change by this user, which, similar to their earlier changes, again removed previous good content and its sources, removed all wikilinks, and added a vast amount of unsourced content. It is simply not an improvement, but I don't want to get into an edit war, and frankly am done with this issue.

Jovanadnp is now threatening police action against myself or anyone who alters the page.

I would love someone to step in and speak with this user, as this is really not my area.

Than you very much for your time. Jessicapierce (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Multiple legal threats here [109], admin intervention is definitely required. WCM_email 17:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

And here WCM_email 17:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be a very good demonstration of why people with a conflict of interest shouldn't edit an article directly. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for legal threats and with an additional note on the COI, and frankly the lack of ability to understand Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 18:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

IP-hopper continuing to disrupt

There is an SPI open for about three (or four) IPs socks who appear to be evading a block placed by The Wordsmith. One of them is continuing to disrupt [110] whilst the investigation is open. Some relevant diffs: [111], [112], [113] Conyo14 (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

As an addendum: One of the IPs (swiftly blocked thereafter) also directly admitted to being the blocked user Gymrat earlier today. We’re encountering significant WP:CIR issues if they can’t understand that a block means a block. The Kip 23:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The filer seems to be referring to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moka Mo. EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, we came here to see if there’s any larger sort of range-block that can be undertaken (or some other action) - the sockmaster in question won’t get the message that blocked means blocked, but unlike a lot of sockmasters they’re open about their identity, which IMO means CIR is at play too. The Kip 22:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Alpoin117 being extremely disruptive on Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell

• Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Alpoin117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Alpoin117 has violated 1RR a few times over and is being very unconstructive. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Vandalized the current events page too. [7] [8] Salmoonlight (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh. Scratch mine. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

They have now insulted me in an edit summary: [1] Salmoonlight (talk) 04:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Weisz21 speaks very similarly to Alpoin117, inflammatory and seemingly just looking for a reaction. [1] [2] [3] Might be a sockpuppet. Salmoonlight (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Salmoonlight Indeed, upon a closer look of the edits between the two accounts, I have noticed a lot of similarities and connections between them; I have went and filed an SPI report: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alpoin117. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Ad Orientem (talk · contribs) unblocked Alpoin117 in March 2023 under a specific set of conditions visible here: User_talk:Alpoin117#ArbCom_2022_Elections_voter_message. I'm not willing to block because I can't commit to being available to review it over the next few days. Mackensen (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Mackensen, I can commit to being available to review it over the next few days, and so I have indefinitely blocked Alpoin117 for an overt violation of the unblock conditions set by Ad Orientem in March 2023. That, plus aggressive POV pushing at the disputed article. Cullen328 (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Endorse Block with regret. I wish I could say that I'm surprised, but I'm not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Beyond the nakedly disruptive editing cited above, I have to admit that having taken a hard look at the article, I am not wowed by its encyclopedic tone. Frankly, it reads like hagiography. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Trust me, I have been trying to find reliable sources that are more critical, but I must admit that I somewhat detest that portrayal of the article. The fact of the matter is this incident occurred just days ago so maybe wait... LegalSmeagolian (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

NmWTfs85lXusaybq

• NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I posted to this editor's talk page earlier today, raising concerns about their JWB-powered mass-removal of {{talk header}}, as well of the removal of the |living= parameter from WikiProject banners, on talk pages of redirects (permalink). As I was going to continue this discussion on their talk page, I noticed that - since I posted there (and they responded) - they continued making these changes via JWB (at a fast pace); which I believe was in violation of AWB rule 3 (which states that it should not be used to make controversial edits, and that [i]f challenged, the onus is on the AWB operator to demonstrate or achieve consensus for changes they wish to make on a large scale). I then re-posted to their talk page asking them to stop making these JWB edits for this reason, to which they responded OK, I will do it manually (diff).

I'd like to discuss my objections to these changes in the normal manner, but that's made difficult when they're being mass-made before such a discussion has occurred (and after NmWTfs85lXusaybq's been made aware of my objection to them). Since my request that they halted the JWB edits, they have continued to make the same edits in a WP:MEATBOT-like fashion (but without using JWB); which I'm finding hard to see as something other than a 'workaround' to my request that they stop these JWB edits, in addition to continued mass-editing without consensus.

If there are any queries, please let me know. I apologise if anything is worded poorly. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 05:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I will keep an eye on this thread. So, please leave comments here if there's any further concern from other editors. Thanks, NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Primefac: I noticed that you removed their AWB perms - thank you for doing that. However, NmWTfs85lXusaybq has continued to make these problematic mass-changes without consensus - only, doing it manually now, rather than using a semi-automated tool. Please can an admin ask them to stop? (On a side note, I'm happy to expand on my reasons for objecting to these changes; I just haven't yet, as I didn't know if it would be appropriate/helpful to do so in a discussion about editor conduct.) All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 07:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

 Note: The task has already been completed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

NmWTfs85lXusaybq, this is what, the second time you've been at ANI in addition to WP:BOTN for this sort of mass editing? You say that this task is done, but what about the next time? Will you simply ignore any complaints and just power through until it's done, and then say "well, you can't complain any more, as I am done"? In other words, I am looking for a reason not to block or partially block you for continually refusing to acknowledge others. Primefac (talk) 07:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

None of my edits have ever been reverted regarding these threads. I haven't received any objection from editors other than a smart kitten. And I haven't got any response from them after I replied to all their concerns. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't reply further on your talk, because you continued making the edits (without giving me time to respond) after I objected twice; leading to me starting this ANI thread. As I said above, I would have liked to discuss my objections to these changes in the normal manner. That I started this thread rather than responding further at your talk doesn't mean that my concerns were alleviated - the contrary is true. ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 08:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

You haven't reverted any edit of these tasks and you only asked me not to use those tools to make edits. I did exactly what you asked. You can't just claim to object all my edits because I just don't like it. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Mass rollback proposal

I would like to propose that the (around 1,300) mass-edits by NmWTfs85lXusaybq that (a) removed {{talk header}} from redirect talk pages, and (b) removed the |living= WikiProject banner parameter from redirect talk pages, be rolled back; due to being mass-made without obtaining consensus (and after receiving an objection), and for the following reasons:

• Regarding the edits removing |living=yes from WikiProject banners - NmWTfs85lXusaybq stated at their talk page that they believe the {{BLP}} banner obviously doesn't apply to redirects (diff). I disagree with this - redirects (as with all pages) are subject to WP:BLP; and redirects can still have BLP implications (e.g. a redirect from a living person's name could be validly added to categories within the scope of WP:BLPCAT).
  Furthermore, even if {{BLP}} didn't apply to redirects, that would (in my opinion) be an issue better brought up at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell and/or Template talk:WikiProject Biography; where the banner could be set to not display on talk pages of redirects, if that's what the consensus was for - rather than the living parameter being unilateraly removed en masse to achieve this outcome.
• Regarding the edits removing {{talkheader}} - NmWTfs85lXusaybq stated that they believe it to be helpless and...in conflict with {{tpr}} on redirect talk pages (diff). I can't see why it's helpless, and - if it's contradictory to {{tpr}} - that's more of an argument to modify {{talkheader}} so that it isn't, rather than mass-remove it from redirect talk pages.
  Furthermore, on redirect talk pages with archives, these edits also removed what may well have been the only link to said archives from the talk page itself - e.g., after Special:Diff/1210736966, there's no link from Talk:Autism to that page's archives. In response to this concern, NmWTfs85lXusaybq stated that {{Archives}} can be added to those pages - however, my point is that it shouldn't be necessary for a third editor to perform this sort of manual 'clean-up' after the mass-removal of a template that (in my opinion) doesn't even need to be removed. (I, for one, don't feel up to going through all of the edits removing this banner to check which talk pages have archives and which ones don't.)

Per WP:FAITACCOMPLI, the fact that these edits have already been made should not be a reason to justify them. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 08:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

All my edits of these tasks are made on the talk pages of redirects only when there's a {{tpr}} banner on them.

• Regarding the removal of {{BLP}} and {{BLPO}} on the talk pages of redirects, it has been stated clearly in their template documentation that This template is intended for article talk pages.
• Regarding the removal of {{talkheader}} on the talk pages of redirects, it has also been stated clearly in its template documentation on when it should be added to the talk page. Besides, {{tpr}} is already the banner for talk pages of redirects and its introduction that Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at xxx completely contradicts the introduction on {{talkheader}} that This is the talk page for discussing improvements to xxx and Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. If there's any need to show archive links, add this feature directly to {{tpr}} instead.

NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Reserving judgement for now. Oppose mass rollback, support other sanction given WP:IDHT, wikilawyering, or WP:CIR below. @NmWTfs85lXusaybq Do you have a link to where you got consensus for these changes? The reasons you gave would be a good way of establishing consensus, but my understanding is that mass changes need approval prior to implementing them. That goes double when there has been an objection voiced. @A smart kitten While Fait Accompli does state that "it's already done" is a poor justification to keep edits, perhaps we should develop consensus for or against these edits before rolling them back. After all, if it's decided they're good, there's no point in duplicating work. However, even if they're good, I agree that the reported editor should NOT have continued in the face of objections, and if they don't acknowledge this, their access to semi-automated tools may need to be restricted. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC) EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Although there's no consensus about how to deal with these talk pages of redirects, I made these edits based on previous discussions. The conditions of misuse of {{talkheader}} have been stated in its documentation, which is based on consensus. In addition, a TfD for merging {{Auto archiving notice}} into {{Talk header}} suggests the replacement by {{archives}} for this-is-only-for-archives functionality. As a convenient way, there's an alternative option to bring the functionality of archive box directly into the {{tpr}} banner. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

That might be true, but nothing you have linked shows a consensus for this change. After all, WP:MEATBOT is also based in consensus, and WP:ASSISTED (which may apply more cleanly) also makes it clear: get consensus for your proposed changes first. If you did, I think it'd be useful to link to that specific discussion; hand-waving at templates is not convincing. Again, your edits do seem to me to be good, so I'd like to hear that you understand why this was a bad way to go about it, so I can just say "I trust you", be reassured that this problem won't recur, and let you get back to editing. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck: Apologies if you're already aware of this, but this is at least the second time a problem like this has occurred - see WP:BOTN § Fully automated edits without BRFA - Request for assistance for further context. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 20:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I was not, though I should've been; I missed Primefac's link to it above. Thank you for directing me to it! That link shows that it is even more important that NmWTfs85lXusaybq shows their understanding here, and pledges to get consensus (ideally via seeking WP:BOTAPPROVAL) before undertaking mass changes. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck: I'm relieved that my edits seem good to you. And I clearly understand I won't use automatic tool or semi-automatic tool to do a task without consensus. But WP:MEATBOT also states it clearly that For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. As long as I'm not editing against a consensus or causing errors, I can do it manually. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The very next sentence in the passage you quoted is No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked. I think I've stopped reserving judgement. That policy says the opposite of your conclusion that you can do it manually. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck: And the very next sentence after the one you quoted is However, merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time, is not by itself disruptive. Additionally,

as you stated above, my edits do seem good to you. If that's still disruptive to you, then disruptive editing looks good to you. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

You're not "merely quickly editing" though, you're making bot-like rapid fire edits. Trying to wikilawyer around this is a bad look. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Behavioral Sanctions

I believe NmWTfs85lXusaybq needs to be restricted from making mass edits to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia.

• They have used semi-automated tools and operated in a bot-like manner without approval.
• When objections were raised, they refused to stop the mass editing.
• As pointed out above, this is at least the second time this has happened.
• When confronted, they first pointed to template instructions on their use, as if that overrode policies and guidelines.
• When the P&G were referenced, they then cherrypicked passages, misrepresenting them to justify their actions.
• This shows they either didn't actually read the policies, couldn't understand them, or are deliberately misinterpreting them.
• Therefore, I propose that NmWTfs85lXusaybq is prohibited from mass editing indefinitely. Until such a time that they show they understand and will abide by policies, in the judgement of any administrator, they should be prevented from further disruption.

Reviewing their talk page has also shown that they seem to have trouble collaborating with others. To quote User:Chris troutman to NmWTfs85lXusaybq, I'm becoming increasingly concerned that when a variety of Wikipedians address problems with your editing, you either ignore their issue, explain away as if it was not your fault, or change the subject. N.b.: This message was responded to by removing it with the edit summary: "Harassment or Personal attack". I'd also like to propose a 31 h block for disruptive editing, with the understanding that continuing to edit disruptively and failing to respond to other editors will lead to increasing blocks. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support both as proposer. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Chris troutman have made personal attacks on me in Talk:Trenkwalder#advertising? and leave a comment to a thread on my user page which he has never got involved in. I have to call this WP:Harassment. And pinging an editor who is clearly against me could also be WP:Canvassing. You should have also pinged all the other participants who have got involved that thread, including @Liz and Formyparty:. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Chris Troutman made a comment about your behaviour, not a personal attack. Calling that harassment and canvassing is at least not helpful. The Banner talk 13:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I see no difference between Chris Troutman's comment in Talk:Trenkwalder#advertising? and Arminden's comment in Talk:Horon#Horon_is_a_term_with_many_meanings_in_several_cultures about the behavioural issue. And Amakuru's comment in the latter thread may be helpful: If you have specific behavioural issues with that editor that you want to discuss then you can continue to post those at the WP:AN/I thread, but they don't belong here. And WP:harassment is about Chris Troutman's comment in a thread on my talk page they didn't participate, but WP:canvassing is about EducatedRedneck's behaviour as they only pinged the one who is clearly against me in that thread. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 13:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

As for the second proposal, I have to cite WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE for you. And if you haven't realized what personal attack I have experienced, Arminden's comment in Talk:Horon#Horon_is_a_term_with_many_meanings_in_several_cultures is such a case and is similar to Talk:Trenkwalder#advertising? I cited before. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive or keen but inexperienced editor

• Tomlovesfar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cothenius Medal awardees, 1792-1861 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Cothenius Medal awardees, 1792-1861 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I created this article Cothenius Medal awardees, 1792-1861 as an offshot of Cothenius Medal as the main Cothenius Medal article will get too big. Editor Tomlovesfar came across and moved it to draft where it is now at Draft:Cothenius Medal awardees, 1792-1861, saying it should be all kept in the same article. The editor is not an Afc reviewer and is a newbie. Keen I think and mistaken but a pain. Called it spam. This is the most prestigious scientific medal that the Germans award. I mistakenly copied it back over his redirect to get the article back to mainspace. The article is now shown as being created under his name, by mistake. Can somebody please remove the Cothenius Medal awardees, 1792-1861 and rename the Draft:Cothenius Medal awardees, 1792-1861 back to the original name. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 06:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Any admin or page mover can handle this. This was one mistake of a pretty new editor who thought they were acting appropriately. They made the unfortunate decision of draftifying an article by a very experienced editor but I don't think this had to be escalated to ANI. Education is called for in these situations, not bringing a disagreement to the drama boards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Editani, promotional edits

• Editani (talk · contribs · logs)

User was given a level 4 warning in 2014 for adding paintings by R. Gopakumar into mainstream articles, and a COI notice in 2019 when creating biography articles of R. Gopakumar.

Nearly all edits their from 2021 onwards have been to add inappropriate interwiki links to R. Gopakumar's entry on the Italian Wikipedia, in lists and templates that are meant for enwiki-notable Indian artists, and to big him up as India's first major digital art collector. This seems like a user who is WP:NOTHERE. Belbury (talk) 13:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

This user hasn't edited on en.wikipedia in months. Are you complaining about their actions on the Italian language version of Wikipedia? There's nothing we can do about that, you need to bring it up there. --Yamla (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

You're right, apologies, hadn't thought about the dates, I realise now this isn't an urgent one. I'm here from Commons where they're currently uploading more of Gopakumar's artwork. Was just surprised to see when I checked their enwiki account that they'd been warned a lot in the past for promoting Gopakumar but never blocked, and had continued far beyond the last warning. (When I say that they've been adding links to an entry on the Italian Wikipedia, I mean that they're adding those links to English Wikipedia articles and templates: eg. [114].) Belbury (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) FWIW, I reviewed the citations in it:Gopakumar R, and could see no prospect whatever of approaching enwiki WP:N standards in that collection of passing mentions. Narky Blert (talk) 08:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Long term battleground pattern of NOTHERE

Radiant Fellow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has a long term history that shows it is primarily SPA, more than 76% of their mainspace edits are The Chosen (TV series) and related articles. There is a significant pattern of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OWN by constantly re-editing articles to their preferred edits over the objections of other editors. They do not openly revert, but rather will return and re-edit over any edit that has changed their previous edits, marking those edits as "minor", and using edit summaries such as "fix redundancy" or things of that nature, masking the fact that it is a reversion of another user's edits. Often, these are bundled in multiple edits making it difficult to notice. They have essentially refused any discussion. Key points of WP:NOTHERE, they have shown a pattern or disruptive, battleground editing with no interest in collaboration or discussion. I don't know if marking these stealth reverts as "minor" is intentionally gaming, but that's NOTHERE as well.

There is a good deal of this in their history, but in the interest of being as concise as possible, this is primarily just where it came to a head with another editor.

• In List of The Chosen characters, another editor (Alaska4Me2) had been adding a legitimate cast member that Radiant Fellow continued to remove through the "stealthy" reverting mentioned above. She pointed this out to me, that she had been trying to add this several times and had even reached out to Radiant Fellow via his talk page for discussion, which he generally blanked with the edit summary "bs".
• I agreed with her addition and reverted his edit [115] and posted an edit warring notice on his talk page, which he blanked with "copy, noted"[116].
• Alaska4Me2 made a number of additional edits (listed as one diff:[117]), which he again stealthily reverted in multiple edits, all marked as minor (listed as one diff:[118]).
• I reverted that to status quo ante asking him to discuss first[119] and notified him about the issue marking non-minor edits as minor[120].
• He reverted back [121] and blanked his talk page with "understood and resolved"[122].
• I reverted to status quo ante and again asked for him to leave it at that and discuss the edits with the other editor involved [123] with a tp notice of disruptive editing [124].
• He blanked that with "consensus is given"[125] and reapplied his edits with "As far as I understand, it corresponds with everything given" [126].

I had originally asked Doug Weller to take a look at it because he was somewhat familiar with some of the history involved. Only then did he come out with any kind of talk page acknowledgement [127], which, from my POV is a little bit of too-little-too-late and rings hollow since there was plenty of opportunity to discuss this at the article. And even after that, he made one very minor change with an edit summary "in accordance with Alaska4Me2" [128] presumably to give the impression that he's now collaborating (which he's not, as her edits that he overwrote multiple times were far more than just that minor change).

Anyway, after I had posted the evidence on Doug's page, I thought better of it because he's dealing with a lot and in order to not bug him with it unnecessarily, I am moving it here. I can provide additional evidence or clarification as needed, but as I noted, the vast majority of his activity reverting other editors is done through compound minor edits just going back to his preferred article state. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not at my best today due to recent chemo. I am not going to comment on Radiant Fellow's general editing because of that, but I did look at their talk page edits two days ago and was not happy with all the continuing reverts of discussions. As Butlerblog mentions above, blanking with an edit summary of "bs" suggests strongly that they have a difficulty with editing collaboratively. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Having read as an uninvolved editor the diffs OP provided and some additional edit history, I'm seeing what's described. This behavior is WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:OWN, or WP:NOTHERE, or a combination thereof. The combination of gaming the system with stealth-reverts tagged as "minor edits", misrepresenting the situation in edit summaries, and this having happened over an extended period of time is seriously troubling. I agree that Radiant Fellow's eleventh hour acknowledgment of being spoken to at all is a little bit of too-little-too-late and rings hollow; the behavior is more like attempting to dodge consequences than actual progress on improving upon prior behavior. If this behavior does revolve around The Chosen topics, a topic ban for Radiant Fellow and a warning to not continue this pattern of behavior on other subjects seems like a suitable next step. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

^{Alerted user[129]} Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{Killer Queen} 16:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Babysharkboss2: FYI, I alerted him when this was opened - he blanked it, along with everything else as noted above. View his user talk history. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Still open with no action. I think at minimum a TBAN is warranted, if not consideration of NOTHERE. If a TBAN, then what I'd like to see is a more consistent pattern of constructive editing that includes collaboration with other editors before lifting the ban would be considered. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Butlerblog I've blocked indefinitely or disruptive editing per this thread and their failure to work with others on their talk page. We'll see what their unblock request says, Doug Weller talk 16:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that's reasonable. Thanks for looking at it. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding a user with prior restrictions for bludgeoning and edit warring

A user with tban and anti-bludgeoning restrictions believes that "edits in Article space have nothing to do" with their restrictions. I would appreciate clarification on whether this is accurate because they appear to use edit summaries to make statements and express opinions that cannot be challenged without risking edit wars. It's worth noting that they have not previously edited this BLP before, and as of this writing, they have yet to engage with the BLP Talk even though they been politely asked to. List of User’s edits with summaries. User’s posts in Talk (empty). XMcan (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Looking at that BLP, the clear aversion from every participant to any form of discussion is so noticeable that I hardly think Newimpartial alone can be blamed for it. That said, that comment shows that their battleground tendencies are alive and well... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

As someone who voted in favour of NewImpartial's bludgeoning restriction (and has perhaps even been on the receving end of said bludgeon!) I can say I don't think this is a violation of the restriction. I agree with AirshipJungleman29 that all users could do with participating on the talk page more, but that's about it. — Czello ^(music) 16:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

1) well no, bludgeon refers specifically to overinvolvement in discussions and belaboring the process, you really cannot apply that to edits and edit summaries.

2) speaking of wp:bludgeon tho, one should note that XMcan has been on the same tangent for almost 2 months now at that article talk page but their position has not gained consensus.

3) XMcan's rationale for their latest edit war is lots of IPs are saying it so they must have a point.

3) also note that XMcan has been indeffed from the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory page, and the subject matter that the user is involved in at the blp is Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. wp:boomerangs may be in play. ValarianB (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

A tban from the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory broadly construed maybe in order. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not okay with how much XMcan has been edit warring at James A. Lindsay, which I agree is an article that is related to Cultural Marxism. Edit warring was part of the disruption that led to their page block from the Cultural Marxism article and its talk page. The opening statement here suggests that some edit summaries "cannot be challenged without risking edit wars", which doesn't make sense, and leads me to think the edit warring will continue. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The OP seems confused about WP:BLUDGEON, as they demonstrated in this accusation shortly after their block from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Valereee tried to clarify XMcan's understanding of my restriction here, but that doesn't seem to have changed their impression that I must have some done something wrong when our perceptions of a topic differ.

In the present instance, what I see on Talk:James A. Lindsay is essentially a WP:1AM situation where they are the "1"; I generally agree with the other editors in that discussion (which I have been reading in installments long before editing the page), but I haven't felt compelled to add anything to that conversation - quite the opposite of BLUDGEON, I should think.

I would also point out that XMCan's convictions animating their participation on the Lindsay page appear to be precisely the same convictions that animated their disruption of the Cultural Marxism page. Newimpartial (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

but I haven't felt compelled to add anything to that conversation - quite the opposite of BLUDGEON, I should think. Agree completely. The talk page seems to indicate 1am as you have said, so perhaps some level of WP:BOOMERANG is in order. I'd endorse ActivelyDisinterested's tban suggestion. — Czello ^(music) 20:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• I think this attempt by XMcan to make this an issue in an unrelated thread is indicative of a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, and I would support a topic ban on them as proposed above. Hatman31 (talk) 05:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  Since we are cherry picking, we should pick this cherry, too. 🍒 XMcan (talk) 10:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  WP:BATTLEGROUND might also be indicated by XMcan's contributions to an XfD discussion - contributions that include obvious ASPERSIONS about my motives in this vote. Once again, the avowed topic of their behaviour is related (by editing history of the author of the page up for deletion) to the Cultural Marxism topic (and, in this case, to other conspiracy theories as well). Newimpartial (talk) 12:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  Editors who read my brief comment to NI in context will notice that the user who initiated that exchange appears determined to have the last word. Such tendency could explain a preference for making dismissive comments in edit summaries rather than participating in Talk. XMcan (talk) 15:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  Given that you did cast aspersions in your reply, I don't think this is last-wordism from NewImpartial. If I received such a comment, I'd probably want to reply and say what they said.

  I can't really see any wrongdoing from NI in any of the comments you've linked; I'd suggest it's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK because this could boomerang. — Czello ^(music) 16:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

As others have said, editing articles isn't really bludgeoning. Of course edit summaries aren't the place for details discussions over changes, and if an editor with a bludgeoning restriction moves on from bludgeoning to edit warring to force their version in, without bothering to discuss their changes, they might quickly find themselves blocked for reasons that have nothing to do with bludgeoning but I see no evidence this has happened here. Nil Einne (talk) 10:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:GAMING to achieve ECP status

Wiki-heIper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor has made over 350 meaningless edits to their user pages in the past 24 hours to achieve ECP status. This can easily be seen by looking at their contributions, where at one point, they start counting down the number of edits they need. Since doing this, they have resumed editing Al-Daraji, the page they created but were previously prevented from editing. This is indisputably WP:PGAMEing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

ha! particularly like how they label their own edits "Random Edit 20". this is clear gaming. ValarianB (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The counting down to ECP status is a big giveaway. Obvious PGAMEing. — Czello ^(music) 16:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

this user has been WP:WIKIHOUNDING/WP:FOLLOWING the past week now, with his friend Fred and WP:TAGTEAM me. It is getting to a point where there is a clear hatred against me and this is clearly against the rules. I emailed ToBeFree and he told me the 500/30 restriction simply required 500 edits, and the rules quite clearly say "An editor makes many unconstructive edits in a sandbox to become extended confirmed, and then makes controversial changes to extended confirmed protected articles'. What is controversial about my edits, please let me know?

before my block: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Duraji&oldid=1210074967

after my block, and the subsequent edits made by this user: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Daraji&oldid=1210744882

me just today, spending a little contributing effort on the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Daraji&oldid=1210836208

I am almost positive this user just doesn't want to see this article be a well written, cited article. I assume some sort of personal WP:COI. Please review the edits for yourself. The only reason I did around 200 edits, no where near 350 which you can also check, was because I also owned Elijahtree. mohamed (wiki-helper) (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Wiki-heIper, what you quoted as "rule" (An editor makes many unconstructive edits in a sandbox to become extended confirmed, and then makes controversial changes to extended confirmed protected articles) is not a rule but an example of gaming of permissions. In other words, what you did was explicitly a violation of the guideline. Schazjmd (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

okay, why add the second half of the example. The rule seemed vague, and it is. The first thing I did was check WP:BADSAND to make sure I was not breaking any rules and it does't mention anything about unconstructive edits. Why?

Furthermore, why are every single one of the moderators discriminating against me, I makes absolutely no sense. I have already told you that he is WP:WIKIHOUNDING and WP:TAGTEAM against me yet you completely disregarded that? I have asked ever so kindly to look at the edits, see that are literally just constructive edits which are all cited, and maybe take at look a the "Various levels of intent" section. I am not causing harm to this user, he simply just wants to ruin this page. It makes no sense for me to be a paid/biased editor. I made this page in 2018, and left it inactive during freshman to junior year of college. I understand he is a hardcore editor and you probably value his word over mine, but this is clear favouritism and discrimination against me, and it is getting to a point of censorship.

~ mohamed (wiki-helper) (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

They are indeed much more constructive than what the article looked like before, Wiki-heIper. However, WP:GAME is clear that making many trivial edits to increase your user access level is wrong. I give you my word that I do not have a COI with this article, that I don't want to "ruin" any page, and that I am not WP:HOUNDING you; I am simply making sure that Wikipedia guidelines get enforced. If you are willing, you can provide reliable sources you wish to add on the talk oage, and we can discuss their usefulness rhere. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The "Fred" in question is Fred Zepelin, who I have never interacted with before this week, and can't really be called a friend. The user is very upset that they weren't allowed to maintain the article in question as a COATRACKed, UNDUE mess, and resorted to personal attacks such as "manipulative" and "explotative" (and "Mongol-fanatic exclusionist for me, which was probably intended as an insult but I'm not taking it as one). Fred Zepelin also feels there were issues with CANVASSING, but I have no opinion on that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Ninjapiraterobot revoked the EC right. (In point of fact he beat me to it :)) Earn it correctly or next time it'll be a longer block for misbehaving. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

it it isn't an insult. it is clear that your profile revolves around the Mongol Empire, which shows the conflict of interest you may, or probably do, have against me and my page. I do not care about the revoking, You followed me to this account, you are the one hounding not me. How was the article Coatracked? Why didn't you just say something and worked with me instead of your awful lack of communication and restrictions on me. Again, this issue wasn't mentioned anywhere on WP:BADSAND and I was simply taking back the edits I made when I was locked out of this account. You guys have now removed my ECP status indefinitely which is basically restricted me indefinitely. This favouritism against me is terrifying, honestly terrifiying.

Are the mods just going to completely disregard my complaints? fair enough ~ mohamed (wiki-helper) (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

item 1) Its not your page, its Wikipedia page. Item 2) If you're going to accuse people of this and that you need diffs for proof, otherwise all the admin corps and veteran editors see is whining. Item 3) there ain't favoritism here, there be rules, and those rules must be followed. By everyone. Including you. If you be on the ANI board then either you're trusted enough to take action to address Wikipedia's issues or you done enough barking that people be putting you here to complain about the noise. That be how this page works, lad. Good news be that the ship can be righted, but it takes both sides to make the maneuver work. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

relax, it was never this serious lol. no need to be all poetic, lol. literally I was the one who was blocked and you are angrier than me. anyways hopefully you can calm down a little and explain if it would be possible to remove the 200 posts. i don't want to argue anymore. mohamed (wiki-helper) (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

You aren't blocked. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I was perfectly willing to work with you; you never gave me the chance. My first edit to the article was after the article had been restricted, and you immediately decided I was on a mission of personal revenge. I saw your post at ANI, and sent you a welcome message telling you what assuming good faith was, as you were obviously confused about that; you decided that was me "rubbing [something] in your face". I am willing to look past your insults, but you must remember that Wikipedia is a site for collaboration, not enmity Wiki-heIper. The removal of your ECP status is not eternal; if you collaborate productively for a while, you can ask to get it back, and if I agree that you deserve it, I will support that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

not sure to be fair, it felt like you were kicking me whilst I was down. I was already told to assume good faith and was restricted from editing; i felt like there was no need for you to repeat it to me, one scolding is always better than two. alas, if you genuinly were being nice, and im going to WP:AFG here and say apologies for going off on you. mohamed (wiki-helper) (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Salmoonlight

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

---

User Salmoonlight has been making persistent edits on the Current Events portal in trying to restore false information pertaining to the death of a self immolator Weisz21 (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The disruptive edits are on the section of February 26, 2024 Weisz21 (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: This is potentially related to section #User:Alpoin117 being extremely disruptive on Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell. – 2804:F14:80E5:6B01:F09A:24EE:9203:57C6 (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Relate what you wish, the question to the admins is if Salmoonlight is entitled to make disruptive edits in constantly restoring false information Weisz21 (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It is related. Salmoonlight (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Salmoonlight appears to believe another user’s bad behaviour justifies that he can make disruptive edits. Weisz21 (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

You could have brought this up on the talk page first instead of bringing it to ANI. Salmoonlight (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

You should know what edit is disruptive, the moment you see that people persist in taking it down you should research to know what happened before editing, whatever other people do is not relevant to your best performance. Weisz21 (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

You still did not need to take it here. Just pinging me on the talk page would have been fine. I've realized my mistake. Salmoonlight (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It took ignoring multiple users until you finally realized your mistake, that doesn’t exactly following cooperation with the community. Weisz21 (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I've simply been trying to fight off Alpoin117's vandalism. I didn't realize the content was irrelevant until after I restored it. Salmoonlight (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

But you didn’t because you reverted someone else Weisz21 (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

??? Salmoonlight (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

“ “ Weisz21 (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I will just make it easier to find and inform that Salmoonlight tried to delete the report before admins had time to go over it Weisz21 (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Because it's a pointless report, I thought it was recommended to take issues to people's talk pages instead of wasting the administrators' time. Salmoonlight (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

And what exactly would I have told you on the talk page? You think other users have to do the research for you and let you know on your talk page? Judging by the disruptive nature of the editing I think it’s better admins should be aware. Weisz21 (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

You would have brought up my reversions and the issue would have ended right there. Salmoonlight (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Salmoonlight: Be that as it may, for issues which you are involved in or issues that you are reporting yourself and other people have already responded, it is inappropriate to even be the one to close the discussion, let alone remove it entirely. If it's not obvious vandalism disguised as a report, and maybe even then if it's not too obvious, let people uninvolved decide what to do with it. – 2804:F14:80E5:6B01:F09A:24EE:9203:57C6 (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Good thing admins should know exactly what is vandalism. How can vandalism be disguised as a report? Whereas removing the report is clear vandalism. Weisz21 (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Page move appears to be vandalism

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

---

ජපස (talk · contribs) recently moved Spiritism (the proper name of a spiritual tradition) to Kardecist spiritism, which is not what sources call it. Then they created an erroneous dab page at Spiritism conflating Spiritualism (the proper name of a distinct spiritual tradition) and Spiritualism (philosophy), neither of which are commonly referred to as "Spiritism". The page needs to be speedily moved back. Skyerise (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I am also unsure about this move, so I opened a RM to discuss the move. But I disagree that jps needs to brought to ANI. I don't think it was vandalism or a change that warrants dragging him here, and could just be resolved through normal means. Natg 19 (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Since there was no move discussion, it should be put back. If the editor who moved it has arguments for the move, then they can present them. Meanwhile, editors and bots are attempting to "fix" the now ambiguous links, wrecking the clear distinctions between historically different socio-religious movements that were formerly present. Skyerise (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:RM, there's nothing wrong with making a move without discussion if one believes in good faith that it is an obvious correction to make, whereas controversial moves should be discussed first. I'm not seeing any evidence to indicate that jps made the page move in bad faith, and it's obviously not "vandalism". So the dispute as to whether it should have been discussed first is really a content dispute, not a conduct matter requiring administrator attention at ANI. Once the move has already happened, the solution is to start an RM discussion, as Natg 19 has done. Let the discussion reach its consensus, let the bots self-revert if that's what ends up being the result, and close this ANI discussion without further action. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

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

I don't really agree with Tryptofish's comment. WP:BOLDMOVE is quite clear that while bold moves are allowed, when they are quickly disputed they should be reversed. The move from 2007 has clearly been in place way too long that it can simply be reversed but the recent move has not [130]. If User:Skyerise cannot revert the move themselves, then the proper place to deal with it would be at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests where experienced page movers, admins or not, could deal with it. That said, since it is something admins can deal with, it's arguably technically not wrong to post it here, or at least Skyerise should have been directed to the proper page. In other words, it might not be a behavioural issue, but it's still something that might need the intervention of admins or page movers. Since Natg 19 has already opened a RM, it may or may not be more confusing to revert the move now, however it's important to emphasise that the old title Spiritism is the WP:STATUSQUOANTE in the event of no consensus and while I normally dislike worrying too much about no consensus (e.g. when editors get into an edit war rather than just starting a discussion), I think in the particular case of article titles, they are important since there's often no middle ground so no consensus is a somewhat common outcome. Skyerise should be reminded though that false accusations of vandalism are personal attacks and they have been here way too long to not know what vandalism is. Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

User:PoliticsMaps

Please revoke talk page access. They are issuing legal threats. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Done. --Yamla (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

compromised account

I think we may have a compromised account. After 90,000+ edits there's no way they should be blanking pages. blanking of the Babylon article here vs the norm Babylon. Same type edit here vs the norm Babel. I'm not super familiar with the editor but I've never seen anything like this. Moxy- 00:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

They’re on the same IP they’ve been on since December. So, technically, I don’t see it as a compromised account. Courcelles (talk) 00:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

That's very concerning....... is this the normal pattern they've been doing for years? Moxy- 00:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Not compromised. It appears that Grimes2 thinks only sources with ISBNs are reliable. Schazjmd (talk) 00:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I’ve left a warning about this POINTy conduct. Courcelles (talk) 00:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Their behaviour in commons is perhaps even more strange, see these 4 images that they added: [131], [132], [133] and [134]. – 2804:F14:80E5:6B01:4D71:4DC5:FCED:34F0 (talk) 00:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Mind you, their uploads before the 26th look fine, from a cursory glance. – 2804:F14:80E5:6B01:4D71:4DC5:FCED:34F0 (talk) 00:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the circle, er, "Sun without beams", had been added to the Byron article, for example. toweli (talk) 00:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, and the Pyramid_(2) image to Pyramid. Is there no possibility of their device being compromised? I guess that would be hard to tell. – 2804:F14:80E5:6B01:4D71:4DC5:FCED:34F0 (talk) 00:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)*edited 01:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The POINTy behavior now includes vandalizing WP:RS (by adding a “cn” tag to every paragraph). I have reverted, but this does seem unusual. Blueboar (talk) 00:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, my armchair evaluation says this is either a wiki version of Death by cop or some sort of real-life stressor event. Either way, a preventative block appears to be in order. Zaathras (talk) 00:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Because Grimes2 has continued to make disruptive edits while this discussion is ongoing and has failed to provide any coherent justification for their behaviour, I have blocked their account indefinitely. Any other admin can feel free to reverse my block if they provide an explanation for their recent edits that they feel is satisfactory. But my take on the situation at this point is the same as Zaathras'. Spicy (talk) 01:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Good block. Their CU data is so static I was hoping for a good explanation (and their actions made no sense for someone physically getting on their computer), but we were getting nothing but more disruption. Courcelles (talk) 01:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

It goes back at least to the 23rd of this month.

• Special:Diff/1209966112 is straight up partial blanking vandalism, for example.
• Special:Diff/1209962508 removes links of non-English names to Wiktionary.
• Special:Diff/1209961499 adds a stupid maze graphic to Odyssey.
• Special:Diff/1209722431 adds an image of completely the wrong thing to Selection (user interface). Special:Diff/1209720073 adds that same image to Election in Christianity.
• Special:Diff/1209733693 just blanks a source citation for a statement in an image caption.
• Special:Diff/1209304820 removes paths from URLs and archive links.
• Special:Diff/1209729185 adds the same wrong image as above and also completely blanks the citation for ISBN 9781572301023. I question the competence of the editor at this point, as this was trivially searchable by the book title.
• Special:Diff/1209727517 blanks part of a book citation including quite valid DOI, second author, volume number, and series title.
• Special:Diff/1208962733 just blanks the result of vandalism instead of rectifying it.

And we're only at partway through last week. Very good block: a lot of this needs a damn good explanation.

Uncle G (talk) 04:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Addendum: More blanking vandalism at Special:Diff/1208704377 on the 18th. Uncle G (talk) 04:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Summerdays1 and WP:BATTLEGROUND

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

---

Summerdays1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User has been making an extensive WP:BATTLEGROUND for months in order to target myself and a few other editors, involving consistent WP:CANVASSING and warring to revert edits, accompanied by personal attacks. This editor continues this behavior regardless and ignores every warning by multiple editors, including this most recent one by Ponyo [135]. Their reversions are usually under nonsensical edit summaries and often break article formatting or duplicate existing information, which is also disruptive. It's a pattern long enough to warrant a block. I've listed some here (this is not comprehensive, the rest can be seen through their edit log):

• Multiple violations of WP:CANVASS [136][137] [138]
• Intent to WP:HOUND [139] [140]
• Removal of edit warring notice [141]
• Removal of ANI notice [142]
• Continued removal of editor warnings and notices (not following them either) [143] [144] [145]
• WP:ICA (taunting me on my talk page) [146]
• Personal attack [147]
• WP:PA against Leventio [148]

Numerous reverts and unconstructive edits that I can't list them all. The most comprehensive view on my end would be through the edit-interaction analyzer (most of his edits were just reverting mine for no reason): [149]. They've continued their recent trend of just haphazardly reverting with nonsensical edit summaries which can be viewed on their log. Repasted from my old report (any newer edits show the same pattern):

• Spelling mistakes, reckless formatting mistakes, and grammar mistakes ( [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160])
• Erroneous material ([161] [162])
• Readded boosterism ([163]) GuardianH (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Not commenting on anything else, but removing ANI/edit warring notices from their own user talk is not sanctionable. They're allowed to do that. TarnishedPath^talk 11:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Same goes for edit-warring notices (and most other deletions one makes on their own Talk page). I think the some of the other claims may or may not be valid but could benefit from clarification/elaboration. "Erroneous material" claims, for instance, might benefit from saying what about the edits was erroneous, and should be supported by evidence that Summer was warned that their edits were erroneous. DonIago (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I noted the notices there as its just another part of the them ignoring warnings by editors and continued WP:ICHY. GuardianH (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

For what its worth, I do believe their conduct on Talk:Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II (and my talk page) supports the notion the editor may exhibit traits of WP:ICHY. Myself (and briefly another editor) have repeatedly asked this user for a rationale for including content we have dispute over, This user has been unwilling to address the issues we've raised, or even attempt to reach an amicable position that satisfies both parties (despite my own attempts to reach a compromisable position). The latter part of the latest discussion on the article's talk page is largely them stating I am wrong with no rationale to back it up, or simply just asking/demanding of me to just to "leave it alone" (again exhibiting traits of ICHY concerning content they care for).

Once it was clear to myself that we would not be able to resolve this on our own, I've repeatedly asked them if they would like to wait for other editors to chime in on the talk page, or go to 3O or DRN. In turn, they have done everything except answer the question for a rationale/a rebuttal to my own rationale, or if they would like to find another party to help resolve this dispute (for this latter question, they have even questioned the utility of going through 3O or DRN instead of opting to choose a course of action).

This user has also made several comments which border on PA here and here. But that's besides the point of reinforcing the notion this user exhibits traits of ICHY. Leventio (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This user has also begun to remove my last comment on Talk:Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II, even after I told them to look over WP:TPG to not do so. I can't comment on GuardianH's issue with the user, but their conduct on this talk page really makes me suspect traits of WP:ICHY. Leventio (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Deleting a notice is not "ignoring" it, but rather is typically considered to be the editor in question seeing your notice but choosing not to engage with it, which is their right. In terms of demonstrating a behavioral issue, it would be more effective to provide a narrative where you show that the editor made a mistake, then that you notified them that they made said mistake, and that they continued to make the same mistake. For instance, with the claims of inserting erroneous material, you should show that you notified the editor that the material they inserted was erroneous and that they then reinserted it. DonIago (talk) 07:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Why did you edit war your removal on E. Gordon Gee instead of discussing, after you were reverted twice, seeing as it was contested?

Spelling mistakes, grammar mistakes, and formatting mistakes, so long as they dont go over into WP:CIR territory are acceptable so long as the edits themselves are in good faith. Nobody's perfect, and we have several people who dedicate their time here to fixing spelling mistakes for otherwise productive users. DarmaniLink (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)^{retracted after seeing new evidence}

Spelling mistakes, grammar mistakes, and formatting mistakes, so long as they dont go over into WP:CIR territory are acceptable so long as the edits themselves are in good faith. Nobody's perfect, and we have several people who dedicate their time here to fixing spelling mistakes for otherwise productive users. DarmaniLink, as an editor who cleans up such mistakes, I find this an infuriating take. No, we don't just block someone who makes such errors, but it's not okay for users to create error-filled edits on the assumption "someone else" will come along and clean it up. WP:CIR is a metric for whether someone should be allowed to edit the site, not the bar for whether an individual edit should be accepted. It's perfectly acceptable, even preferable, to revert "productive" additions that introduce a bunch of errors rather than to ignore them and expect other editors to clean them up.

An editor edit-warring to maintain such edits may not be a WP:CIR problem, but it's perfectly reasonable for OP to include edit-warring over them as part of the behavioral issues at play. Grandpallama (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I actually covered this previously, but Summerdays1 has been repeatedly reverted and has received warnings before about his reckless editing mistakes. Of course, they continue to do them or try to war them in (i.e., Nadine Strossen). They aren't in good faith either. Summerdays1 said that they would combat my edits and they've gone and done just that by following onto pages I've worked on — these grammar/spelling mistakes were made deliberately to worsen the quality of the articles. GuardianH (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The linked warnings (ignored ones?) are just someone asking the editor to participate in his own ANI case, not adding links, and not chirping into talk page disputes.

Sorry, but where are the warnings for the editing mistakes, and the instructions for correction? I don't see them in your case, and all I see on their talk page is a generic template warning for edit warring.

How do you feel about a two-way WP:IBAN if you do not want him reverting your edits, and he doesnt want you reverting his? Some edits such as Special:Diff/1206704749 appear to be constructive and good faith to me. (This would require his agreement as well)

Though, the editor does seem like a hothead, and does need to be told to calm down. ^{retracted after seeing new evidence}DarmaniLink (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I think they'd also benefit from not summarily deleting all or most of the messages left at their Talk page and choosing not to engage in this conversation. While it's certainly their right to do so, I think it's fair to say that it's coming across as a disinterest in collaborating with their fellow editors. DonIago (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• I've only encountered Summerdays1 in the last few days at Talk:Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II. I hadn't until now spotted that this thread was open but having now seen it I'm surprised Summerdays1 hasn't received some sanction for WP:PAs, WP:BATTLE and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Just from that talk page alone the most egregious examples are:

1. Look, you are easily exasperating. Why do I need to give you any reasons? I choose not to for the following: you are difficult and I really don't wish to converse with you on here or anywhere.
2. Because you are ridiculous. I'll say it, you are nuts.
3. They deleted an article talk page reply to them with the edit summary "unwanted expl.".
4. and again with edit summary "asked for another opinion, not yours"
5. "stop talking...You are deluded. I will not answer further."
6. 5 repeated deletions of another editor's article talk page post.[164], [165], [166], [167], [168].

DeCausa (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see all those.

Yeah, definitely deserves a sanction. DarmaniLink (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The thing which isn't easily summarised in a diff but which can clearly be seen from reviewing that article talk page is that they don't feel the need to justify their policy-free opinion and being challenged on that results in an extreme WP:BATTLE reaction. Unless they shape up this is not someone who can collaborate here. DeCausa (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I think indef blocking them first and asking them to explain how they'll cease being disruptive might set them off. A month (with appeal), for them to contemplate how disruptive they're being might be good though. If that doesn't work, indef them again DarmaniLink (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I support a block here — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Agree. I also support a block. GuardianH (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks are bad enough. Deleting other editors' posts on talkpages, that aren't theirs? crosses the line. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Based on the evidence presented, I support an indefinite one-way IBAN for whoever has been repeatedly harassed and a one week block for personal attacks, harassment, deleting talk page posts, and battleground behavior to deter future misconduct. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  seconded DarmaniLink (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Update: After having a close look at some of Summerdays1's contributions on various articles, I found some striking similarities in edits and behaviour between Summerday1 and an older account, AloofAnteater45. I have filed an SPI report, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AloofAnteater45. Thanks — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

De-archiving this since problems persist, and there is an emerged consensus for some form of block. It would be good if an admin could take a look, as this would be the second time its been taken out of the archive. GuardianH (talk) 02:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for unarchiving this discussion. I'm not sure a long block is necessary, it would be helpful if the editor came and participated in this discussion. I know when I spent more time on these noticeboards, I liked to hear from both parties in a dispute.

I know that this is not a helpful comment but what is considered a "personal attack" has really changed. The diffs I looked at here were mildly insulting but are not what I would consider "attacks". They are more casting aspersions which is also not good. But then, I remember a very well-respected content creator telling me years ago that "You are the epitome of everything that is wrong about this project now." That seems more like an attack but I didn't bring them to ANI or report them, they were just venting and focused on me. By the way, they are no longer editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

In this case, the repeated deletions of another editor's article talk page post, name-calling, and incivility, like DeCausa listed, are in spite of multiple warnings by other editors, and there is a line crossed regarding WP:PA and WP:BATTLEGROUND here by Summerdays1, who still continues this behavior now, and multiple editors support a block. GuardianH (talk) 06:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Liz, I understand your reluctance for an indef without hearing from the editor in question. However, at this point, Summerdays1 has been actively editing throughout this ANI report, including at various user talkpages, but has refused to participate. I would think a "you need to engage and explain" block is now warranted, at the very least. Also, see my comments below where I endorse the indef. Grandpallama (talk) 14:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I filed that SPI case (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AloofAnteater45) over 11 days ago; however it seems like there's a huge backlog at SPI right now, as that case is yet to be looked at and actioned, along with another report I filed at a similar time here. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I've done the technical work on the SPI, which now needs Clerk/Admin eyes to complete.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Block proposal (Summerdays1)

I don't think there's any point waiting around for an SPI when there's been ample evidence presented here by GuardianH and DeCausa of severe WP:BATTLEGROUND. I am therefore proposing an indefinite block. TarnishedPath^talk 10:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support as mover. TarnishedPath^talk 10:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support like I said previously above. I agree with this proposal let's just get this done and over with here since SPI seems to be taking a long time due to the huge backlog, and since the user continues to make disruptive edits to this day without any communications. — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  I lodged a SPI a bit over a month ago and it took 3 weeks for a clerk to make a decision about whether a checkuser was appropriate. I wouldn't wait around when this is something the community can deal with. TarnishedPath^talk 11:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support Regrettably, the behavior has continued and arguably worsened. They seem like they had some potential to become a good editor, only real problem was behavioral issues. A peaceful resolution would have been preferable, but alas, they chose to cast the first stone. DarmaniLink (talk) 11:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support I'd been thinking the SPI might resolve this, but the backlog there is pretty severe. In the meantime, whether or not an indef is the correct ultimate solution, I do think it's necessary right now in order to push Summerdays1 to ANI to account for their edits and behavior. Today, I had this edit in my watchlist. At first, I thought it was just the usual word tinkering, but the weird edit summary made me review the entire edit; the last part of their edit turned the "Potential crossovers" section into gibberish--the same section I had cleaned up last night. It's an article Summerdays1 has never edited before, so it's hard not to see this as retaliation for my input here. Other edits from today show that while they continue to disdain responding here, they've no problem doing so elsewhere; see this ridiculous demand/warning placed on ElKevbo's page today. Grandpallama (talk) 14:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I'd like to see the editor respond and to see if there's an acknowledgment of the issues presented. We should err on the side of caution when it comes to handing out indefinite blocks. Nemov (talk) 14:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• I'd like to see the editor respond Same here, and an indef is usually the way to get an editor's attention when they are non-responsive. I think the behavior I've observed today shows they're well aware of these reports and are choosing not to respond; it's been over two weeks since the report was first opened. Grandpallama (talk) 15:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, my mistake... I didn't realize this had been open since the 12th. Nemov (talk) 15:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support sadly, the user appears to have come down with a severe case of WP:FLU. Unfortunate, that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  Support an indef. Editor had plenty of chance to respond here but deliberately chose not to. NM 16:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support an indef. Editor has received multiple warnings from many different editors, but still continues a consistent pattern of overtly disruptive behavior and personal attacks against other editors. User has had plenty of opportunities to join the discussion but refuses not to, as evidenced by their removal of all the ANI notices, among other things. GuardianH (talk) 16:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support indef. Please explain all of your edits for the past 6 years on your usertalk is not a useful attitude for an editor to express here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support, since Summerdays1 has elected not to participate in this discussion and has not engaged with many requests/critiques on their talk page. Communication is not optional. Schazjmd (talk) 16:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Consensus in this discussion is clear. Accordingly, I have indefinitely blocked Summerdays1. Cullen328 (talk) 18:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

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

User:PowerRanger200 ignoring seven years of warnings

Warnings have been piling up at User talk:PowerRanger200 since 2017. Most of their edits to their talk page are deleting these warnings, and they don't seem to understand what they're doing wrong. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

It's okay for editors to remove warning messages from their user talk page, as long as they read and acknowledge them; see WP:BLANKING for more info. Is there actually a long-term issue of disruptive or problematic edits here that need to be looked at?

Just a quick note, we don't sanction editors just for receiving many user-talk warnings, especially ones from many years ago; we sanction them for persistent behavioural issues, e.g. a pattern of disruptive edits they continue to make on various articles over and over again despite those warnings. — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, I've just deleted two of their page creations because they were straight copies from copyrighted websites, so... Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Links: PowerRanger200 (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

If you are talking about disruptive editing, see warning #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7 throughout the years. They apologized after receiving a {{Uw-generic4}}, after which they received two more warnings for disruptive editing. NM 16:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Lawyer.F

Lawyer.F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is not WP:NOTHERE and clearly lacks WP:CIR. After being unblocked for promotional username, they have only caused trouble.

Despite being told multiple that they have to cite a WP:RS for their additions/changes [169] [170] [171] [172], they still don't get it. In fact, they kept doubling down on the WP:OR/WP:SYNTH rants in their talk page. To make it even worse, they rejected countless WP:RS because it did not fit their views, such as their last comment [173], where they even randomly made assumptions about my place of education...? "I guess, you have been educated in Iran and have never been educated somewhere else". Now, they are adding their newly created and unsourced category "Qizilbash confederacy states" (whatever that means?) to several articles, even edit warring [174] [175].

To get a better picture of this and how bad it is, I would advise you to read this whole talk page section [176]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Clearly does not meet CIR requirements. Should be blocked to prevent further disruption to the project. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)