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

NmWTfs85lXusaybq

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

---

• 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)

Noting that I've unarchived this thread, as the proposals have not yet been closed. All the best. ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 05:51, 8 March 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)

Support mass rollback proposal. Doing so is in line with WP:BRD. Additionally, the loss of archives on redirect talk pages is an issue. Instead of obliging someone else to go through the mass of edits to find which pages have lost archive links and clean things up, a rollback is appropriate. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support per BRD. Queen of Hearts talk
  she/they
  stalk 22:34, 2 March 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)

While this to me feels like a WP:BATTLEGROUND-style Tu quoque, upon reflection I can see how my actions fit the bill for canvassing. My thinking was that it's only polite to ping the person I quoted, so if I misunderstood or misrepresented them, they could set the record straight. Given the context, however, I agree that it was for all practical purposes canvassing. I apologize for that, and thank you for pinging a broader base of editors. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:01, 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)

My feeling is that, even in this very thread, you remain unresponsive to other editor's concern. As such, the block would indeed be preventative, not punitive. If other editors disagree on one or both proposals, that's also okay. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• As the original filer, Support editing restriction (with the caveat that - as a community-imposed restriction - the community, not a single administrator, should be the body with the power to remove it). I would also be supportive of a block for disruptive editing, but I wouldn't want to dictate the length of such a block to an admin that decides to place it. Block or no block, though, I believe that such an editing restriction is clearly necessary; given (among other things) the disruptive mass-editing without consensus, the refusal to stop following objection, and the apparent wikilawyering both during this thread and on their talk page.
  To be clear, I still support my rollback proposal above, per WP:BRD if nothing else: short of mass-rollback, I don't know how I'm supposed to undo these edits that I strongly disagree with; and I don't believe that ANI is the ideal forum to be deciding whether or not the edits were an improvement from a content perspective. However, whether or not the rollback proposal is passed, I believe the proposed restriction is also needed.
  All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 04:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  No objection to stricter sanctions. My thinking was that it's better to have it be an agile editing restriction, so it can be removed easily if no longer needed, and can easily be strengthened if circumstances merit. Similarly, I was thinking of starting with a short block. However, if others believe the weaker sanction would waste community time, I have no objection to a stronger one. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support both. On reading the evidence presented, and seeing NmWTfs85lXusaybq's ongoing WP:IDHT behavior, the mass editing restriction is warranted, and the block would be preventative. I also agree with a smark kitten that if this editing restriction is community-imposed, it falls to the community to be the body to determine its removal. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
•  Administrator note This user has apparently retired. Primefac (talk) 07:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• They have also changed names and are deleting their pages. I'm not sure that complete deletion of talk pages is allowed when other editors have left any comments. This should not be allowed. They can blank it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  I deleted the page earlier today and I only noticed this discussion now. I will not be available for most of the day today, but if consensus is that the deletion was not appropriate (which it might very well be, I have not even read this thread fully) every administrator is welcome to restore. I will check later in the (European) evening. Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, I see, it has already been restored. Perfectly fine with me, and my apologies, I apparently did not check the history of the page well enough.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• I now it is moot by now, but seeing that he removed criticism with a summery of "Harassment or Personal attack" gives me serious worries. The Banner talk 10:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• This is moot, but support restriction if they ever do unvanish. Queen of Hearts talk
  she/they
  stalk 18:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose block as moot, but Support an editing restriction against mass edits, whether automated or manual. The above comments demonstrate a complete disregard for the concerns of other editors, and no indication that they understand why people were upset about a mass-edit without consensus.

— The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Support Both The editor in question has almost certainly already created a CLEANSTART account or will do so soon. I want it on the record that the community does not allow these heedless mass edits. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

 Renamer note: Vanishing is not a means to evade scrutiny or sanctions. It does not offer a fresh start or guarantee anonymity. If the user returns with a new account, the “vanishing” will likely be fully reversed, linking the old and new accounts, and any outstanding sanctions or restrictions will be resumed. – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Meh. Probably our old compañero, Commander Waterford. ——Serial 11:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  Well, CommanderInDubio (their current username) is active elsewhere, so it should be easy enough to take it to SPI, where accusations of sockpuppetry belong... –FlyingAce^✈hello 14:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I spent a little time looking into this possibility and it seems very unlikely these are the same person based purely on behavioral evidence. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  +1, all I could find in common was having a case of editcountitis (probably thousands of people, occasionally including me, I'll admit) and being (ex) page movers (409 people, also including me (this is a magic word; it was 401 when I posted this.)) Queen of Hearts talk
  she/they
  stalk 02:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  ... so it follows that the accusations of sockpuppetry should be struck, right? –FlyingAce^✈hello 02:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  That's what it would seem like to me. Suggestions of sockpuppetry without evidence comes across as aspersions. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 09:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

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)

I meant it per WP:REVTALK: Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors! Sorry, if I didn't make it clear. XMcan (talk) 17:09, 1 March 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)

  NI and the author, whose two articles are up for deletion, have a lengthy and contentious history that involves at least a couple of AE cases that I know of. I'm unclear on why NI is introducing the XfDs or involving that author in this discussion. The purpose of this ANI is to seek clarification on whether the existing anti-bludgeoning limits (two comments per discussion per day) extend to edit summaries, not to revisit past disputes involving other parties. I encourage NI to moderate their behavior, but I'm not advocating for their ban or punishment. If it's determined that they've inadvertently violated limits, a simple warning or clarification would be satisfactory from my perspective. If it’s determined that they are an upstanding wiki-citizen and no longer need anti-bludgeoning restrictions, that’s fine with me too. XMcan (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, XMcan, I mentioned your XfD interventions (not anyone else's) as "similar fact" evidence (of ASPERSION-casting and IDHT) that might help editors to understand your filing here.

  Namely, you exhibit a pattern of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, centered in the topic of Cultural Marxism, and have repeatedly made unsubstantiated assertions about my editing - most recently, that I have a lengthy and contentious history with Sennalen and that I appear determined to have the last word in my MfD participation. Both statements are half-truths at best, and your constant misinterpretations about what my BLUDGEON ban is supposed to address strike me as BATTLEGROUND tactics as well.

  Incidentally, for the record, I am not asking for my BLUDGEON restriction to be lifted at this time; it would be welcome for it to be modified so that my own editor Talk page is excluded, but I understand if the community would like to ask and answer that question through a more formal process than this one. Newimpartial (talk) 20:42, 1 March 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)

Topic ban proposal

(univnolved non-admin comment) Given the background and previous reports, I propose that User:XMcan be topic banned from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, this would prevent him from bringing it up tangentially in discussions and other pages regarding the issue such as James A. Lindsay etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support, though I would word it as "broadly construed", as otherwise I believe XMcan will move to other related articles and continue this disruptive, battleground behavior.

— The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support with broadly construed per continued edit warring since the pblocks. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support and yes, also add the broadly construed verbiage. They appear to be hear to debate this specific topic, nipping that seems the only recourse. Zaathras (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support with broadly construed. I think that this is the very minimum that can be applied at this point given the extent and duration of the trouble caused and there being no obvious prospect of stopping it in any other way. (Disclosure: I was the filer of one of the previous reports that Lavalizard101 mentions.) --DanielRigal (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support with broadly construed. If it’s not Cultural Marxism or James Lindsay it will be something else unless a tban is in place. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Support, broadly construed. The continued disruptive behaviour on the same subject but in a different article leaves no room for anything less. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support with broadly construed. XMcan has wasted enough editor time in this topic area and does not appear inclined to change. Generalrelative (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I feel appreciative of Kafka now more than ever. Does “broadly construed” mean everything related to politics? ;) XMcan (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support, broadly construed otherwise this behaviour looks like it will be moved from article to article. TarnishedPath^talk 05:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Revdel request

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

---

This edit, although reverted, qualifies as a death threat, or at a minimum a death wish, against a certain group of editors and their families. A revdel is requested, and a temporary block of the IP would also be appropriate. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@JoJo Anthrax Ouch. That is actually pretty scary. Yeah. I think it should be deleted because this is pretty serious for a death threat. I support the block. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

(I think it's been recommended to email Oversight about revdels when possible, especially when they're particularly sensitive, to avoid potential Streisand effect.) Remsense诉 13:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Both done. For future reference, @Remsense is correct, please do not bring these type of things to a high profile noticeboard! Courcelles (talk) 13:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, and I now know to email Oversight if similar trash removal is needed again. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

IF PUBLIC VIEW
WOULD BRING DISGRACE
A NOTICE-BOARD
IS NOT THE PLACE
Burma-shave

—Odysseus1479 02:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• I wasn't sure if people still used these. Something something, Burma Shave. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 18:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  I hope we can bring back the haiku closes too. EEng 15:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I shall close the thread

in five, then seven, then five

syllables of verse.

IronGargoyle (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Ongoing violations of MOS after warnings, failure to engage on talk page

User Williamstonhead has been making edits violating MOS formatting, specifically MOS:GEOLINK (like this [1]) for months and has been warned repeatedly by myself and @Magnolia677. They have not responded to a message on their talk page since July 2023, yet continue to disrupt Wikipedia by making these edits en masse. glman (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

More examples from today (3/7/24) of this continued disruptive editing: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. glman (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I think a brief block is the best option. They've been told four times to not do this, and continue to do so even after the AN/I thread was added. Clearly warnings aren't working, so hopefully a block will get the message through. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Ignoring Talk discussions on Zoroastrianism in Iran

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

---

Started talk discussion on the merits of a previous edit to a page. Was ignored, edit warred against, and the editor claimed that "consensus" had been established when there was zero discussion on talk and I had posted a talk discussion. Seeking arbitration on this issue, as the editor has a friend in administrating and clearly refused to debate normally. KanzazKyote (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

If multiple editors revert you, the onus is on you to try to justify your edit. I'd suggest closing this filing, which is full of unsubstantiated aspersions and returning to the talk page before it becomes a WP:BOOMERANG situation. Zaathras (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

One editor has reverted me. I edited that page exactly one time. I can't return to the talk page when the discussion that I started has not been responded to at all and the merits of my statement have been ignored in favor of a claim of "consensus." KanzazKyote (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

You should be clear: are you accusing me of socking?  // Timothy :: talk  23:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

KanzazKyote: Firstly, as noted below, you've been edit warring as an IP before using this account. Secondly, you've been told that the change a year ago has WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Thirdly, you've failed to explain, despite being asked, why you want to revert an article about the Zoroastrian religion to the Christian Anno Domini format despite it being the article's format for the last year. DeCausa (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Boomerang

These issues should be reviewed:

• I think these are personal attacks, [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]
• I think this is edit warring against consensus, [12], [13]; see [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] for editors that have rv this change.
• I think their talk page warning about edit warring on @DeCausa: [20] page is inappropriate.

Full discussions: Talk:Zoroastrianism in Iran#Dating, Talk:Zoroastrianism in Iran#Unbiased Dating.  // Timothy :: talk  23:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

To add it's not really a smart thing to post this on multiple messageboards: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Ignoring Talk discussions on Zoroastrianism in Iran. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I actually told them to post here instead of WP:AN, so that is my fault.[21] I thought they would move the OP. Sorry.  // Timothy :: talk  23:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

A further point: an IP has been edit warring exactly the same point at this article. 15 minutes after that IP was blocked for edit warring (per this) the user appeared at the article arguing the same point and edit warring. Seems to be WP:DUCK. I don't think they've notified anyone of this thread, AFAIK.DeCausa (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

A further point: you appeared at exactly the same point at this article after TimothyBlue started a debate. Seems to be WP:DUCK. KanzazKyote (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked for the obvious block evasion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, who was the editor evading a block? Is there a sockmaster? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

KanzazKyote was evading the block of 173.244.8.254 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

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

A few indefinitely confirmed users

Seen here, there are multiple additions of the confirmed right to two members of edit-a-thon staff (?) and the event coordinator themselves, as well as multiple indefinite grants to attendees as well. Notified event coordinator on their talk page as this concerns them. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe this is what event coordinators do. You might have asked the admin who granted them this user right, User:Femke. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, there are instructions(link) in their talk page by the admin who gave them the right, instructions which say "You should not grant this for more than 10 days" about the confirmed right. – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:D4DC:46FF:5933:EF85 (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this works as I don't spend time at PERM but this editor no longer is an event coordinator so they don't have the ability to remove this right. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Mostly just posting to have someone fix the confirmed status, not necessarily to propose anything specific regarding the event coordinator, especially given that their rights have indeed expired as of the end of February. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 05:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Mistakes happen, no biggie. I've removed confirmed from all the accounts: they'll be autoconfirmed if they hit the 10 edits (none of them have come that far yet). This is not the first time I've seen this happen, so I'd like to improve the message that people get when they are granted the perm. Can't find where it's stored though. I don't think the 'account creator' bit is relevant, better to highlight the basics. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Femke: Looking into the JavaScript, it seems that it substitutes using this template: {{Event coordinator granted}}. – 2804:F1...33:EF85 (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks :). The standard text is hopefully clearer now. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Femke: By chance, any opinion on also bolding the text: "You should not grant this for more than 10 days." in the granting template? Would that come off as hostile to the grantee? EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@EggRoll97: I had it bolded, looked at it in preview, and found it too bitey. That's mostly because I see the last bullet point as overly bitey already (The event coordinator right is not a status symbol...). I couldn't find words to soften that last bit. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Augmented Seventh

I am here to report User:Augmented Seventh for constantly reverting my edits to Wikipedia claiming them to be "vandalism" and "unconstructive". My edits only serve to align existing articles to current conventions in Wikipedia and to eliminate unnecessary embellishments in terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.189.116.236 (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

howdy

the editor in question is removing the word Roman from every link to Roman Catholic Church.

claims it isn't necessary. asked them to stop and discuss, dismisses out of hand. Augmented Seventh (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTBROKEN, "Roman Catholic Church" is a perfectly acceptable way to refer to the Church, so it's tons of edits for no benefit. Q ^{T C} 02:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@203.189.116.236: What is your reasoning for edits like <this>, which swap the order of Indonesia and Philippine in the entire article, including moving entire sections around? – 2804:F1...33:EF85 (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@2804:F14:80C6:A301:D4DC:46FF:5933:EF85:, the IP comes from the Philippines so there may be some bias there. Q ^{T C} 02:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The usage of the term "Roman Catholic" to describe the entire church is inaccurate considering that the Eastern Catholic Churches exist within the Catholic Church. He is also reverting my link simplifications returning them to the absurd long form of [[Catholic Church|Roman Catholic Church]] when simply typing [[Catholic Church]] would suffice. The user also insists on reverting links named Catholic Church in Country X to Roman Catholicism in Country X despite the former being more accurate and being the actual name of the article in the links.

In one of his other reversions, he reverted my correction of a mistake in the article page of Caliraya lake that states that Laguna de Bay is a bay and not a lake. 203.189.116.236 (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The argument that "Roman Catholic" isn't sufficiently descriptive enough to disambiguate the Eastern Catholic Churches might hold more water if you weren't actively vandalizing explicitly Roman Catholic articles with these edits such as this one. Sorry, but Augmented Seventh isn't the one in the wrong here, IP. It's you. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

your changes, at a minimum, should be discussed on the talk page, as you're changing long accepted content to reflect your own pov.

there's a reason why the links point to the Roman Catholic Church.

you're lake edit could be a mistake. when i was reverting your contentious edits, it may have become swept up in the mess.

have a wikipedia day, Augmented Seventh (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Augmented Seventh: I'll say though, the IP's changes, albeit likely disruptive, are not obvious vandalism and therefore are not exempt from the the 3-revert rule, please proceed with care. – 2804:F1...33:EF85 (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

noted, and thank you for the heads up. this is a topic with which i am unfamiliar, i stumbled upon the mass changes while engaged in other tasks.

I'll check back. Augmented Seventh (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Trying to bail @Augmented Seventh out here. I myself reverted several of the Roman removals. I did this because of no response or explanation in the edit summary. If I did such a thing, I would expect someone to revert what I was doing also. A message from the IP to A. Seventh, instead of blanking, then responding almost an hour later to @JayCubby made no sense. Bringingthewood (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm learning a lot from this discussion. thanks for your help . Augmented Seventh (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, the way I was looking at it I was considering the reverting of multiple of the same change from multiple articles, in this case, as a single "revert". Clearly, unless there is a MOS: or some other such consensus that defines one or the other as the preferred way then there is nothing policy based supporting the IP's mass changes, which makes it disruptive from them to continue doing it despite objections - but I'm of the opinion that reverting them "once" is said objection.

That said, IP, IS there a policy or consensus based reason for your changes? – 2804:F1...33:EF85 (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I think I made this last post too conclusory. I second Bringingthewood's points on the IP's lack of communication. Edit summaries and actually responding to people's concerns rather than just bulldozing through them would have been a much better way of handling this situation. – 2804:F1...33:EF85 (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

comment on the issue. This is a rehash of endless edit wars over the decades:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Catholic_Church - is a good start, see the requested moves, and more recently This article should be called Roman Catholic as the term 'catholic' is not unique to the Roman Church conversation. Regardless of the current argument, maybe someone needs to look very carefully at what is pointed out at that talk page about the many thousand words at that page about this issue... JarrahTree 05:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I really wouldn't bother; this has been going on endlessly for years. Many articles will have had references in text changed back and forth several times over the years. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Dispute over editing of incorrect information

Hello.

I'm accuse this to User:Passportrack7 because he continues to correct incorrect information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_Paraguayan_citizens

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Visa_requirements_for_Paraguayan_citizens&action=history

https://www.henleyglobal.com/passport-index/ranking

If you look at the "HISTORY" page... I entered the information through the website source, but User:Passportrack7 keeps correcting the incorrect information.

So i accuse this. Lades2222 (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Lades2222, I have fixed the username, moved the report to WP:ANI and notified the user for you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so there are two issues here: Passportrack7 has added information without providing a source, and Lades2222 has reverted their contributions to the point of edit warring without attempting to talk to the user on their talk page once.

In the future, please try placing {{welcome-unsourced}} or {{uw-unsourced1}}, then {{uw-unsourced2}}, {{uw-unsourced3}} and {{uw-unsourced4}} on the user's talk page before reporting. You can skip "unsourced2" if the issue is significant. See WP:UWARN for more of these templates.

Administrators will rarely block users who haven't been informed about the issue, unless the issue is so obvious/significant that a prior warning wouldn't have made a difference either. If the issue persists after warnings, please re-report. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Lades2222:, please don’t forget in the future to alert the user you are reporting by placing {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ on their talk page so they can respond to your thread here. If you are accusing them of adding information without a reliable source, it’d be helpful to include links to the revs (see Help:Diff#Linking_to_a_diff). Northern Moonlight 00:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

User:That guy who plays games

I would like to make other editors aware that That guy who plays games has been moving pages related to bridges without permission or discussion. I have no authority to block, but I think this issue should be dealt with. EmperorOfTheUS (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

you haven't notified the user, so i did it cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) You were supposed to notify the editor using the template at the top of the page. I did it for you. That said, the speed in which he is moving articles does appear to be a problem, as I am betting most of those are contentious moves. I'm off for the evening, I will let others jump in and figure out what to do about it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you, I completely forgot about it. EmperorOfTheUS (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skyeskyns

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

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skyeskyns could use a going over and a semiprotect, seeing a lot of sock activity and IP editing from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kavex98162 / Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Steal qatar. MrOllie (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It probably does, the IPs are blatant socks The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 17:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Plus, one IP even had the audacity to strike every delete vote [22]. I have reverted the edit. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 17:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

GOOD LORD! Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Exactly! Out of the one year I've been here, this is the most absurd and horrendous thing I have ever seen! The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 17:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

In a whole year you haven't seen anything more absurd and horrendous? You must be living a very sheltered life. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi'ed for a week. I don't have time to look into the sourcing/article to determine whether there's unseasonable weather in the forecast. Star Mississippi 17:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the semi! Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{King Crimson} 18:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Afghan.Records

Afghan.Records (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is the second time I'm reporting Afghan.Records here (the last being this one with lots of diffs [23], which I ended up closing after Afghan.Records got blocked for edit warring after getting reported by another user [24]).

This is the short version of the previous report; Afghan.Records engages in source misrepresentation, pov pushing and using poor sources.

The first edit in an article after their block for edit warring expired was literally another revert which changed a lot more than their edit summary indicated [25]. And now they're continuing the source misrepresentation [26], pov pushing [27] and use of poor sources.

Afghan.Records has no issue with removing poorly sourced information that clashes with their opinion [28], but apparently it's okay for them to add poor sources themselves [29] (citations from 1873 and 1747.. not the first time they've done this with the same poor sources, see the afromentioned ANI report). And despite all this, they still seem to believe that their edits were right all along, as seen in this comment they just made where they also randomly accused me of "propaganda" and "false information" without even pinging me, [30].

Also, their talk page is full of warnings by me and other users. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say Afghan.Records is WP:NOTHERE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• Let's wait for the response from Afghan.Records. I am in support of a WP:NOTHERE block. Lorstaking (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Nomoskedasticity and Douglas Murray

User:Nomoskedasticity has repeatedly restored contentious material to the lede of the BLP article Douglas Murray without discussion, despite being reminded to seek consensus by multiple editors.

On 5th February 2024, User:ShanGuy37 added to the lede that the subject of the article is "widely described as far-right": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&oldid=1203825036

On 7th February 2024, User:Leftistman reverted this edit with the edit summary "Weak sources based predominantly off Humza Yousafs own opinion. Seek consensus." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&oldid=1204620153

22 minutes later, Nomoskedasticity restored the material without discussion, with the edit summary "You can seek consensus for an edit that removes a bunch of reliable sources." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&oldid=1204624154

On 13th February 2024, I looked at the sources and confirmed that they did indeed not support the text used, so removed the material with the edit summary "Leftistman is correct, these sources do not support the statement "widely described as far-right". Seek consensus before restoring per WP:BLPRESTORE." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&oldid=1207060141

The next day Nomoskedasticity restored the material for a second time without discussion, this time without leaving an edit summary. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&oldid=1207162880

The material was removed a third time by User:Hemiauchenia roughly 15 minutes later, who left the edit summary "The WP:ONUS is on those who wish to include disputed content. Needs discussion on talkpage." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&oldid=1207166021

Later that day, I left a message on Nomoskedasticity's talk page, reminding them of the need to follow WP:BLP policies when editing BLP articles. Nomoskedasticity has made no reply to this in the intervening time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nomoskedasticity#Douglas_Murray

Today (7th March 2024), Nomoskedasticity restored this material for a third time, again without discussion, leaving the edit summary "your edit summary didn't reflect this substantive change to the article -- so, I'm reverting that portion of it". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&oldid=1212354126

Since Nomoskedasticity has ignored three different editors asking them to edit properly, it might be beneficial at this point if an admin could intervene. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@FirstPrimeOfApophis: Per the instructions at the top of this page, you must notify anyone you report here. You haven't notified anyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23:I have added a section to Nomoskedasticity's user talk page using the ANI template. Did I use it incorrectly? FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but I would post the same notice to every editor you mention above, even if your principal complaint is against Nomoskedasticity. As an aside, I'm not convinced this is the proper venue for your complaint, but I don't have time to get into that now.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, I will do that. Thanks. I am more than happy to move this to a different venue if another is more appropriate, I just want to see it resolved. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Fred Zepelin edit warring

Fred Zepelin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaging in edit warring to reinsert "far right" into the opening sentence of the article despite there being clearly no consensus on the talk page to include this statement and is baselessly accusing me of doing this because "WP:IDONTLIKEIT [31]" [32] Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

There actually is consensus from 4 editors to include the descriptor, and the editors have cited the dozens of sources that use the term, while the editors opposed to it have not cited any sources, or policies, to justify their removal of the term. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I also note that Fred has previously accused editors who opposed him in another different discussion of being white-supremacist-apologists [33] Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a blatant lie. I said "I do have a problem with white-supremacist-apologists who show up at these articles periodically to attempt to market their favorite cause in a more positive way." I did not accuse any particular editor of being a white supremacist. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Is it worse to be called a white supremacist or a white-supremacist-apologist or a liar? How about following WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and not call editors any insulting names at all, and focus on content? This isn't the first time you've been admonished about this.[34] BBQboffin^{grill me} 06:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how this could be considered a consensus for inclusion. Another 4 editors (Springee, Peter Gulutzan, FirstPrimeOfApophis and me) don't agree with the inclusion. That's clearly no consensus for inclusion. You assert in this edit summary [35] that because you consider the opinions of opposing editors invalid, that this gives you a license to edit war. This is simply not how Wikipedia discussions and consensus works. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

No, it's actually very clear to me what the opinions of the opposing editors are. The problem lies in the fact that they offer no policy-based justification for the removal of the term "far-right", in the face of dozens of sources that describe the subject as such and/or describe his endorsement of political positions that are accepted as being "far-right". The editors that added those sources are describing their edits based on policy. The opposers are simply saying "so what, we don't like "far-right" in the lead" without any justification in policy. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that the concerns about adding "far right" are reasonable WP:BLP concerns, you may not agree with them, but that doesn't give you a right to edit war, and you've been here long enough that you should know that. If you want to gain consensus for the inclusion of "far right" in the opening sentence, I would suggest creating an RfC and letting the closer judge whether or not the arguments opposing inclusion are valid. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

FZ hasn't violated 3RR but I think it is clear they fail to understand NOCON as they argue that editors opposed to a change have the burden vs those wishing to make the change. Their terse/condescending tone on the talk page doesn't violate CIVIL but is not helpful in finding a consensus. I think a gentile reminder regarding consensus would be helpful here. Springee (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

What is a "gentile reminder"? Anyway, I started an RfC, and am eagerly awaiting some policy-based discussion. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

AzerbaijaniQizilbash

FYI

 – Removed distracting use of <big>...</big>, underlining, etc. from AzerbaijaniQizilbash's replies, leaving only boldface per WP:CAPSLOCK. Remsense诉 03:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Reporting them before they cause any further damage, because that's what inevitably going to happen (eg [36] [37].)

Severe WP:CIR issues; inability/refusal to even remotely listen to what they're being told, including the rules of this site and what WP:RS states (a long read, sorry, but can't really link diffs for this one [38], well maybe except this one, where despite after being told countless times of WP:RS and WP:CITE, they state this [39]). They've already been blocked recently for edit warring. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

You say that Azerbaijani Turks have no ethnic origin and you say that I need to give sources to prove the contrary. Azerbaijanis descent from Oghuz Turks. It has established many states throughout history. I gave you reliable sources that Safavids were Azerbaijani, but you did not read them. AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Those reliable sources are on your talk page, still. AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Not what I said (despite both me and another user trying to tell you about it dozens of times, that is your conclusion...?), and you did no such thing. More evidence of WP:CIR issues, and why it's best to read the whole talk section. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

What I said matches WP:RS. AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Not what I said and you did no such thing.

↓

The native language of Ismail I, the founder of the Safavid empire, was Azerbaijani Turkic. He wrote poems in this language under the nickname "Khatai". In fact, the official language of the state was Azerbaijani Turkic, and the people of the palace, as well as the military and religious men of the state, spoke this language.

–

There is also interesting information about the place of Azerbaijani Turkic in the Safavid palace in the memoirs of the German traveler and diplomat Adam Oleari, who met with the Safavid ruler Shah Sefi I in Isfahan in 1637. A.Oleari in his work “Detailed description of the visit of the Qoldshin embassy to Moscow and Persia” writes:

“Especially, those in the service of the shah in Isfahan speak Turkic with greater enthusiasm, you rarely hear Persian words from them.”

–

French traveler Jean Sharden, who traveled to the East in the second half of the 17th century and lived in the Safavid lands as well as in Isfahan for a long time, wrote in his memoirs:

“Persian language is the language of poetry and literature of the people. Palace magnates, soldiers, influential men and wives of rich people all speak Turkic (Azerbaijani) at home. Because the sultan and the members of the dynasty are from Azerbaijan, where the entire population speaks Turkic. The Arabic language is considered respectable because it is the religious language of the community."

–

Stop ignoring the messages I wrote to you and the reliable sources I gave you. AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Sigh…. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

? AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The native language of Ismail I, the founder of the Safavid empire, was Azerbaijani Turkic. He wrote poems in this language under the nickname "Khatai". In fact, the official language of the state was Azerbaijani Turkic, and the people of the palace, as well as the military and religious men of the state, spoke this language.

–

There is also interesting information about the place of Azerbaijani Turkic in the Safavid palace in the memoirs of the German traveler and diplomat Adam Oleari, who met with the Safavid ruler Shah Sefi I in Isfahan in 1637. A.Oleari in his work “Detailed description of the visit of the Qoldshin embassy to Moscow and Persia” writes:

“Especially, those in the service of the shah in Isfahan speak Turkic with greater enthusiasm, you rarely hear Persian words from them.”

–

French traveler Jean Chardin, who traveled to the East in the second half of the 17th century and lived in the Safavid lands as well as in Isfahan for a long time, wrote in his memoirs:

“Persian language is the language of poetry and literature of the people. Palace magnates, soldiers, influential men and wives of rich people all speak Turkic (Azerbaijani) at home. Because the sultan and the members of the dynasty are from Azerbaijan, where the entire population speaks Turkic. The Arabic language is considered respectable because it is the religious language of the community."

–

How many times do I have to show you the reliable sources above? AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

However, during the 1930s, [the Turkic language]'s name was changed to "Azerbaijani".

It's odd how you keep needing to put "Azerbaijani" in brackets when quoting any pre-20th century source. This is the only thing we are really arguing about, the term "Azerbaijani" was not used in this way, and it is misleading to apply it to historical peoples in this way. Remsense诉 03:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I give you reliable sources and all you do is sigh. AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I GAVE YOU THOSE RELIABLE SOURCES. YOU CAN READ THE RELIABLE SOURCES I SHOWED YOU INSTEAD OF SIGHING. AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

That is a violation of WP:CAPSLOCK. Do not use all caps to make emphasis. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 18:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

If you continue not responding, I will report you. AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Sir, please: There is a debate here and you are the one who started it. You said I didn't give reliable sources. So I gave you reliable sources. But all you do is sigh. Please give a proper answer instead of making nonsense. AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@AzerbaijaniQizilbash: Sorry, but those are not what we consider reliable sources here on Wikipedia. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 17:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

From where? Things noted by Adam Olearius and Jean Chardin during their trips to Persia. Why is it not a reliable source? There is a lot of more reliable evidence that the Safavids were Turkish, I can send it if you want? AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSAGE. Remsense诉 03:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

mistake

From where = why AzerbaijaniQizilbash (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Our guidelines on what constitute reliable sources are available here. If you would like to discuss the reliability of particular sources, there is a noticeboard here specifically for that purpose. --JBL (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@AzerbaijaniQizilbash, Are you aware on Wikipedia, you cite the book/website you got the information from via the <ref> functions? ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Like this: <ref> (link to book book or article, page number, publish date)</.ref> ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we've seen enough. Move to indef? 208.87.236.202 (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

UA0Volodymyr continuing to disregard topic ban

On the behavior of @UA0Volodymyr: This user's behavior was discussed at this noticeboard last month. UA0Volodymyr is topic banned from making edits—on any page—that are related to Disputes between the countries Russia and Ukraine, both present and historical, broadly construed and Disputes involving the ethnic identity of particular individuals where it is disputed whether their ethnicity is Ukrainian, broadly construed. Last month, at issue were edits to the Rosa Luxemburg article to add material about claims about the existence of a Ukraininan nation in relation to Luxemburg's work The Russian Revolution.

Despite UA0Volodymyr writing in the previous ANI thread that these actions may have constituted a violation of the topic ban (though the hedging of "may" was troubling) and making a promise to not do such actions anymore as well as professing having lost all interest to the Rosa Luxemburg article, UA0Volodymyr has since resumed editing pages that fall under the broadly construed topic bans:

• Edit at Iryna Farion, an article about a scholar whose notability per the page has a lot to do with her views of whether certain Russian-speaking units are really Ukrainian.
• Edit at New People (political party), an article about a party that has proclaimed its support for the invasion by Russia of Ukraine.
• Multiple edits (another) at Black Hundreds, an article about a Russian movement notable for anti-Ukrainian sentiment
• Edit at Bistra, Maramureș, a location whose economy (specifically train use) has explicitly in the article been affected/precipitated by the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.
• Edit to Rosa Luxemburg, the article UA0Volodymyr claimed to have lost interest in.

I was informed of the contributions to the Luxemburg article by Pitsarotta, who described the Luxemburg contribution as being innocuous but was worried it could be a prelude to further disruptive edits. Because UA0Volodymyr is under a broadly construed topic ban, I thought it wise to double check and discovered these other edits. The terms of the topic ban are to avoid editing any pages that related to the broadly construed topics, whatever of the content of UA0Volodymyr's edits. And per WP:BMB, the measure of a ban is that even if the editor were to make good or good-faith edits, permitting them to edit in those areas is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, to the page or to the project, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good.

UA0Volodymyr has once again demonstrated they will not abide by the topic ban. The indefinite block that was lifted on the condition of abiding the topic bans should be reimposed.

Pinging remaining users involved in the previous noticeboard discussion: @LegalSmeagolian:, @JBL:, @Seawolf35:, @Daniel:, @ActivelyDisinterested:, @HandThatFeeds:, @Chaotic Enby:, @Nil Einne:, @Lavalizard101:, @Ymblanter: P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a pretty blatant violation of the topic ban. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

At first I was like "oh some of these topics seem only tangentially related" but then like yeah, I remembered the ban is one that is broadly construed. I support @P-Makoto's proposal as it seems that the user cannot comprehend what broadly construed means. I would say I don't find the Bistra, Maramureș edit to be in violation of the topic ban (I think even if broadly construed, preventing users from editing ANY European city/town/village that has in someway been impacted by the war is not fair as all of Europe has been impacted, and this was just one line in the article) but yeah the rest are pretty blatant. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Support indef ban, because obviously. Considering they've already been blocked for a TBAN violation, and their ongoing behaviour, there's no reasonable options other than an indef ban. I find it very unlikely there will be any real opposition to this, so the should be blocked ideally sooner than later. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Worth noting, looking at the block log of the user:

1. they were initially indeffed by HJ Mitchell on 27 October 2023,
2. then unblocked by Red-tailed hawk on 10 January 2024 under the conditions of a 1RR restriction and two topic bans,
3. and then on 26 January 2024 they were blocked 1 week by Maxim (a Checkuser) for email abuse and topic ban violations.

So yeah, they have been blocked once for TBAN violations before. I support the indef block proposal here, given this previous 1-week block which has failed to get this user's attention regarding their unblock condition violations. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I think I remember seeing his name at several noticeboards at the same time a few months ago. That he was indeffed but somehow managed to have that replaced with a topic ban, only for him to violate it repeatedly and send abuse privately to other users, should be a sign that he is plainly incapable of abiding by the rules. I think he's been given enough rope to hang himself, and he has, many times over. Support reinstating the indefinite block. Ostalgia (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: For full transparency, while rereading the topic ban and my OP, I wondered a bit at why I tried to concisely quote in a way that was... basically the same length as the original quote. I have edited my OP on this thread to more straightforwardly quote the topic ban without breaking up the quote as much. I continue to support the indefinite block I proposed, because I think the broad construal of the topic bans holds (perhaps not for Bistra; fair enough on LegalSmeagolian's point). A broadly construed topic ban is not an invitation to see how nearly one can dance on the line. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 07:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• This saddens me since the edits look like constructive gnoming, and I felt an enormous sense of fatigue on seeing that the previous ANI discussion was about the OUN trope. I don't have the bandwidth to dig into PoV at the moment, and really, it doesn't matter. Nor does it matter that the Romanian railway edit is tangential. Sanctions are not suggestions, and this one said "broadly construed". I say this as someone who's been called a Ukrainian nationalist (hehe). May I suggest however that perhaps the leap from topic ban to indef is a bit harsh for constructive edits? If someone has evidence that they were actually *promoting* that politician, or any harm to Russian speakers, on the other hand, then I will support an indef with the rest of you. Right now I am thinking that a three to six month block would be fairer, escalating to an indef if necessary. But perhaps my opinion is skewed by recently seeing long-term egregious behavior of other editors get completely dismissed elsewhere. I really don't know, but those are my thoughts.Elinruby (talk) 07:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• Clearly the message from the last ANI, which was slow to sink in then, has been forgotten. Like I did back then, I support a block for persistent topic ban violations. If it isn't indefinite, it has to be long enough to make clear that the next one will be. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• I was concerned in the last discussion that UA0Volodymyr didn't understand their topic ban or what "broadly construed" entailed. None of the diffs above are problematic in themselves, but they are covered by UA0Volodymyr topic ban. Either UA0Volodymyr still doesn't understand their topic ban or they are trying to edit around it, either way that's a problem. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I can't disagree with either you or Daniel. The OUN is a hot button issue, but it doesn't matter at this point. These edits are in fact topic ban violations.

For the record, I don't believe I have ever encountered this editor, so I can't assess whether there is PoV pushing without a lot more digging than I can do right now. I *will* mention the the party of Regions that the politician is in conflict with is associated with the oligarchs who ran the country before the Revolution of Dignity, but I can't defend getting anyone arrested by the Russians. None of that is relevant to whether she should or should not have an article anyway or what should be in her infobox. I am not myself detecting any PoV pushing from these edits, is all I am saying. If that *were* going on after a topic ban, that would certainly be egregious enough for an indef, and I am not saying it's not, just that I don't right now see it.

I realized after I wrote the above that they got the topic ban as a condition of their unblock, so maybe they have used up their rope, I dunno. I am just asking the question. Also, there's also a war on in Ukraine that may be affecting people they know even if they are safe themself, so it's hard to say why they haven't responded yet. That's my best attempt at objectivity, and yes, for the record, I've been a vocal critic of the war, if that affects the weight to give this opinion. Elinruby (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I realized after I wrote the above that they got the topic ban as a condition of their unblock, so maybe they have used up their rope

That's my stance. Their block was revoked on the condition that they stayed away from this topic entirely. And they've violated that agreement multiple times, so an indef seems necessary. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I deliberately didn't mention what should happen now, only my disappointment that this seemed inevitable and have proven so. I don't know if this is a language issue, but UA0Volodymyr seems unable to understand the issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

i probably shouldn't opine on what should happen either if I can't take the time to review what happened. But in case it's useful context, anything involving the OUN is an extremely toxic topic. Elinruby (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the edits themselves aren't problematic, and most of them aren't immediately related, but "broadly construed" they're still a breach of the topic ban. Don't think an indef is anything useful here, but a reminder and clarification of the scope of their topic ban is definitely called for. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby The user was previously informed about their TBAN violations in early February, and the user was also blocked for one week on 26 January 2024 for a previous instance of TBAN violations, so honestly, I don't think a warning let alone a short block is going to work here. — AP 499D25 (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I was there for the last one, but didn't know about all the previous history. Yeah, a longer block seems like it makes sense here. I also feel like broadly construed is vague by nature, and that topic bans should be made more specific (i.e. clarifying that unrelated articles on related pages still count, and defining the scope more precisely if possible). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 00:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are even talking about. My edits neither were about the Russo-Ukrainian conflict or were problematic. The topic ban is on the Russo-Ukrainian conflicts, not on everything related to Russia or Ukraine. In the Iryna Farion article, I've just added a characteristic of her as a politician (and nothing related to the Russo-Ukrainian was); in the New People (political party), I've marked that the primary source is not a reliable one; in the Black Hundreds, I've just added some references and links (none of them weren't related to the Ukrainians in the Russian Empire or the Ukrainian 1917–1921 revolution); in Rosa Luxemburg, I've changed one punctuation symbol and one word; I didn't know anything about Bistra when I was editing it. I don't know what the purpose of your action is, but if you think that Wikipedia is a place where you can monitor every action of the User and to accuse him of what you think is an any violation of the standard rules, which is not what Wikipedia is. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

well yeah they can monitor you, anyone can. And you need to read then ask questions about the broadly construed part, because as someone who is if anything biased in your favor I have to agree that you violated that. Hopefully someone will oblige us with a link.Elinruby (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

check out the examples at Wikipedia:TBAN. That Romanian village does mention the war in Ukraine. I am not an admin so I will butt out now that you are here to speak for yourself but my advice is that you describe the problem yourself with these edits based on that link. Elinruby (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

[40]--Ymblanter (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Precisely. If UA0Volodymyr understood why these edits violated the broadly construed terms of the topic ban—if they, as Elinruby suggested, could describe the problem yourself with these edits based on WP:TBAN—I would be more open to Chaotic Enby's suggestion that this close with a reminder and clarification of the scope of their topic ban. But I lack optimism that UA0Volodymyr will do so. UA0Volodymyr didn't last time (except begrudgingly, and hedgingly) and hasn't this time. The last ANI thread closed with UA0Volodymyr apologizing (albeit seemingly begrudgingly) after being reminded of the scope of the topic ban, with no further action. In the absence of a prompt, overt, and demonstrably comprehending acknowledgment of the topic ban's violation, I think it would be shortsighted to end this thread the same way. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Well. They do need to be able to recognize a clue when it is dropped on their head from a great height. I was expecting questions about now. My thinking is still that we just don't know what's going on RL but the silence here is making me regret speaking up. Give it a little more time? If this starts to look more and more like WP:ANI flu like it does right now, then a warning should yes, be taken off the table and the length of the block should depend in how many other life preservers they have already ignored. Based on Ymblanter's link it looks like several. Elinruby (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm very confused by your comment, they have already replied and you have replied to them (before making this comment) so it's not a case of ANI flu. UA0Volodymyr reply of I don't understand what you are even talking about, shows as I feared that they do not understand the nature of their topic ban (and seems unable to get the point). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 03:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I see what Elinruby means about this looking "like" WP:ANI; there was some hope, on Elinruby's part, that UA0Volodymyr would read the WP:TBAN link provided further up in the thread and get it (or at least grapple with it). And UA0Volodymyr participated much more actively in the previous ANI thread (although just as un-generatively). Instead of facing the topic ban's terms, UA0Volodymyr is suddenly not posting at all.

In any case, we agree that UA0Volodymyr seems not to understand the terms of the topic ban. My own thinking is increasingly that we're well past the realm of warnings. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Yep. My attempt to explain it to them did not include a ping, granted, but they know this thread exists. I linked to what they need to understand and answer to so if they can't see the problem I have to agree that that's a problem.

Elinruby (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Cossde flouting Wikipedia policies

User Cossde added the verification needed tags to my reliable sources on Sri Lanka Civil Security Force simply because they are personally unable to access the sources. I explained to them in the talk page that Wiki policy advises against such action. They then replied that they do not trust me with the implication that I fabricated the entire content, against the Wiki policy that encourages users to WP:Assume good faith. After I removed those unnecessary tags with an explanation citing Wiki policy, Cossde once again re-added those tags stating they are unable to verify. After another user Oz346 reverted it after verifying the sources, Cossde once again reverted it stating they cannot trust this user as well. User Cossde violated several Wiki policies here and undermines the very basis that Wikipedia collaborative effort relies on. --- Petextrodon (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The subject in question is highly controversial. Both users Petextrodon and Oz346 appear to be engaged in WP:NAT editing with their contributions to Wikipedia proving to be limited to Tamil Elam related topics. Hence, citations provided by both need independent verification. Both are known to use either bias and primary sources. Cossde (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:NAT refers to "promoting ideas, without reliable sources and due weight". This is nothing but a baseless accusation. The sources and information used here are reliable and of due weight. On the contrary, the above user Cossde is guilty of WP:NAT editing and has been repeatedly removing reliably sourced content relating to the crimes of the Sri Lankan government. See Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces#OHCHR report regarding sexual violence and Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces#Peacekeeping sex scandal for recent examples. Without providing reliable sources to the contrary, his editing history fits the WP:NAT criteria of promoting the idea that a "Nation did not commit war crimes, massacres, crimes against humanity, genocide or other forms of violent actions" without reliable sources to back it up. Oz346 (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, for one who claims baseless accusations, you seem to be putting out a few against me. My concern is the excessive use of what appears to be WP:PRIMARY sources and unverified WP:RS on very controversial topics. Given the controversial nature of these topics, these are highly sensitive. Your refusal to give due weight have been highlighted in DRN. Furthermore on the charge of WP:NAT review of edit histories by an independent party may set the matter to reset. Cossde (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cossde You have no reasonable ground to suspect me of deliberately fabricating content from cited sources since you will not be able to provide one example from my edit history where I've done this. In contrast, you have a history of falsely accusing me of "nationalist editing" and "original research" simply for paraphrasing what's stated in the reliable source even without reading the source as you have done repeatedly here. I can also show that you in fact have deliberately distorted cited source as you have done here regarding UN report on "human shields", which you continued to re-add despite me and @Oz346 explaining you repeatedly here, here and here that the cited source states just the opposite. I will let neutral observers decide who here is the untrustworthy one. --- Petextrodon (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon, in your edit today [41] you added a citation that said "a series of riots and discriminatory government policies led to the founding of the a number of militant Tamil groups" to justify the sentence The LTTE fought to create an independent Tamil state called Tamil Eelam in the northeast of the island in response to violent persecution and discriminatory policies against Sri Lankan Tamils by the Sinhalese-dominated Sri Lankan Government.. So please pardon me if I want to revalidate your citations. Cossde (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Cossde, even just based on your quote, that citation sounds like it does verify the content Petextrodon added. Also, citations aren't even generally supposed to be in leads, per MOS:LEAD. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on both points. The above case and many others have spilt over to an extent that event lead content is cited. However if you look at the history of the edits it had already been cited. Petextrodon added this citation and changed the wording to this from The LTTE fought to create an independent Tamil state called Tamil Eelam in the northeast of the island, which it claimed was due to the continuous discrimination and violent persecution against Sri Lankan Tamils by the Sinhalese-dominated Sri Lankan Government. Note the hyperlinks used. Petextrodon removed the link to Origins of the Sri Lankan civil war which covers the multiple reasons that lead to the formation of Tamil militancy as explained in the source, while his adds link to two articles Sinhala Only Act and the List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces. The former is only one policy (and not directly attributed to in the source) and the citations says there were many, while the latter covers broader incidents of government violence (much of which have been added by Petextrodon based on Pro-Rebel and Primary sources) while the source says that several riots triggered it. In fact List of riots in Sri Lanka would be more appropriate than the latter, per the source. Yet it was not used. This the point I want to get across. Cossde (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Arguing content is not going to fly here. We're only looking at behavior and, so far, the behavioral evidence is that you're adding inappropriate tags to the article & edit warring to keep them in. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: Users Oz346 and Petextrodon has been involved in a multi-page edit war with user Cossde across multiple pages for example and have been heated. They have also engaged in the forcible inclusion of content by edit warring such as the continuous WP:TAGTEAMING to continuously re-add content that has been disputed for example 1 2 3 4. They also have a engaged in WP:FORUMSHOPPING for example, when I got involved in the recent dispute on February 26 and on the same day less than 24 hours of me entering the talk page of the dispute, they made complaints in WP:ANI claiming I was not replying in the talkpage. They also threw personal attacks against me for example Oz346 called me a WP:LIAR claiming I made up a section I quoted from WP:BURDEN which I was simply copy-pasting from the page. Petextrodon also made accusations of me being a WP:SOCK of Cossde despite being warned not to make accusations of sockpuppetry against Cossde in a similar dispute in 2023. This is a long running multi-page dispute although some have been solved through DRNs for example: DRN - UtoD 18:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy link to last month's ANI report involving the same editors (archived, unresolved). Schazjmd (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

This is starting to look like a whole bunch of topic bans and/or interaction bans may be necessary. Everyone is running too hot right now and this is becoming a mess. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

+1 Look at my talk page. It's a shame that we don't yet include Sri Lanka under IPA; this is to me looking like the sort of thing that only ArbCom can resolve. Daniel Case (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Last time I filed a complaint, the topic was diverted and submerged with issues not directly related to the topic at hand. I hope admins don't get sidetracked this time. --- Petextrodon (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It appears DRN alone isn't enough for user UtoD since they are repeating the same accusations from here on another complaint that doesn't even involve them]

What do you even mean with this? -UtoD 21:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Good lord, I just said that people are being too hot under the collar, and you jump straight in to heat things up more? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

2601:205:4300:54F0*

IPv6 user 2601:205:4300:54F0* (IP alias 67.166.136.47) has engaged in repeated addition of unsourced, disruptive, and non-WP:RS content. User has received two previous bans for the same, and has continued disruptive editing without any acknowledgement of the repeated messages left on talk pages and edit summaries. Diffs for this most recent round—that is, after his latest ban—here: [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]. User is clearly WP:NOTLISTENING. Rift (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Muhammad Jalal al-Din

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

Got a ANI hattrick here. Unfortunately the previous report of Muhammad Jalal al-Din by User:TimothyBlue got auto-archived [48]. Muhammad Jalal al-Din is still at it (eg [49] [50] [51] [52]). I recall seeing another editor referring them as a "sock" some days ago, but now I can't find the diff so I can ask for more info about it. Wouldn't be surprised be if this was indeed a sock. They still haven't used the edit summary let alone a talk page. --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely partially blocked the reported user to prevent edits to articles. I accidentally did a full block initially and had to change it to my intended partial. Johnuniq (talk) 04:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Johnuniq! HistoryofIran (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism to Asian TV articles coming from IP range

Vandal(s) coming from an IP range (Special:Contributions/2405:4802:1800:0:0:0:0:0/37) have been conducting ongoing large amounts of subtle vandalism and adding correct incorrect information (including changing dates, times, number of episodes, etc.) on a number of television shows originating in Asia (especially those from India, Korea, and Vietnam). This range is currently blocked from editing List of flags of Vietnam. One IP will get blocked when reported to AIV [53], but as soon as that is blocked, they are onto the next one. Examples of articles that are being vandalized include, but are not limited to: Arjun (TV series), Achanak 37 Saal Baad, Veer Shivaji, Gangaa, Angel's Choice, Forever Young (2014 TV series), Krishna (TV series), ect. From a quick look, this activity appears to have started around February 5 [54] and has been going on up to edits just today [55]. I have been cleaning up some of the vandalism, but it is a going project to ensure I do revert any possible good edits mixed in; there is still more work to be done. I have also posted about this on the Wikiproject television talk page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Help with the clean-up of subtle vandalism on Asian TV shows coming from an IP range). Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 03:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Wikipedialuva: - I presume you mean incorrect information? Narky Blert (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: Yes, I meant incorrect information, not correct. Thank you for catching that; I wrote this in haste and apologize for not doing a better job identifying my errors. Wikipedialuva (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Legal threat?

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

See [56]: The word you've chosen in some of your public comments are not only misaligned with the respectful and inclusive tone Wikipedia promotes but also potentially cross ethical boundaries and legal standards in India. For background, User:MaithilDil has confined all their editing history, beyond a couple of initial edits to another article, to promotional content concerning Sangram Singh, an Indian wrestler and actor. The Singh biography has unfortunately in the past been the focus of considerable amounts of questionable editing, with unsourced and/or badly-sourced content being added by a succession of single-purpose accounts. Given this history, and MaithilDil's singular focus, I originally enquired on their talk page as to whether there might be a conflict of interest. It took two efforts to get a response (a denial), and I noted that (along with other comments made by MaithilDil on their talk page: see the response to the earlier thread on edit-warring) the responses given were written in a manner that seemed to me to be very much in the style of ChatGPT output: repetitive, formulaic, and full of abstract evocations of good intentions toward Wikipedia that failed to adequately address the points I'd been making. My tolerance for such apparent stonewalling not being indefinite, I then enquired as to whether the posts were indeed being written by ChatGPT, resulting in the response above. If it isn't actually a legal threat, it gives every appearance of an attempt to intimidate, and incidentally once again entirely fails to answer the question I'd asked. I assume that WP:NLT policy applies to chatbot-generated posts as much as any other, and regardless of whether a bot wrote it, it clearly merits some form of admin response. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked MaithilDil for the legal intimidation, exacerbated by the reality that they are using ChatGPT or some other AI technology to mass produce evasive bullshit instead of engaging in genuine human communication. Competence is required. Cullen328 (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The endless 'evasive bullshit', as Cullen so wonderfully put it, didn't stop. I've revoked TPA and sent them to UTRS if they want to actually appeal their block. Daniel (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Serious side question here. Why is it that so many of the legal threats at the moment, and over the last year, have been coming from editors from India? Has there been some kind of law change there that people are grossly misinterpreting as giving them rights on Wikipedia? Canterbury Tail talk 13:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Not really a law change but most social media sites (including Facebook, Insta, Twitter etc) remove posts, block accounts etc based on government directives, although judicial directive is legally required. People lump Wikipedia in with those (just see the contributions of those who make legal threats and there'd be no difference between what they write here and what you'd find on a closed FB group or on Twitter etc) —SpacemanSpiff 17:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It's been an issue for a long time. I think the recent increase is a combination of more editors from India, Indian social media criticism of Wikipedia (i.e. not liking factual articles about current affairs or politicians), and an odd belief that Indian law has any effect here. Black Kite (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a precedent: [57]. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

A lot of it is due to lowest level courts exerting their authority, this also fueled the IIPM scandal (which had its own paid Wikipedia admin to sort things out here) where they got interim injunctions against publishing from a court in a remote district and even had Indian govt websites blocked. Takes a long time for these cases to actually get a final judgment and/or move to an appeals stage at higher level courts. I remember one recent judgement from Delhi HC where the judge actually said "Anyone can edit Wikipedia, if you don't like what's written then go edit it, don't ask us to block the website".—SpacemanSpiff 17:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that might have been the one referred to here. Brunton (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It's the same sort of situation that's led to discretionary sanctions in many other areas: cultural wars, fraught politics, linguistic/religious tensions, governments pushing sectarian ideologies and seeking to impose their partisan POV as The Truth. Then you toss in that India has more English speakers than any other country in the world, and there you have it. Ravenswing 16:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The fact that I'm from India and so many people do this is just... disappointing. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Another factor (relevant to the Sangram Singh biography where the trouble above started) is probably the propensity of sections of the Indian media (including the otherwise more reputable ones) to include what is clearly paid-for material, unmarked, amongst their more legitimate content, per WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Nobody likes being told that the source they are citing for the subject of a biography being a 'philanthropist', 'health guru' and the rest is unacceptable, because it presents nothing in the way of further commentary, never mind evidence, to back such flimflam up. Its a shame really, because biographies of people with genuine talent never reach any sort of stability, and flipflop between hagiography and stubbiness, as the battle between fancruft and legitimate content goes back and forth. Not just a problem for India-related content of course, but it does seem to be more frequent than elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with AndyTheGrump on this point. As a young(er) Wikipedia editor ten plus years ago, I incorrectly assumed that coverage by long established newspapers like the Times of India and Indian Express was reliable. I have learned the hard way that these and many other Indian publications regulary print paid advertising masquerading as legitimate news coverage. This a disturbing fact that greatly complicates our coverage of the entertainment industry in India. Cullen328 (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Persistent disruption at Ben Akabueze

WP:COI, with DeezaLabs (talk · contribs) apparently using multiple accounts to edit war. Removal of sourced content, addition of unsourced content, and most recently, copyright violation. See [58]; [59]; [60]; [61]; [62]; [63]; [64]; [65]; [66]; [67]; [68]; [69]; [70]. Requesting at least a topic ban if not block, and page protection, given that the account has used multiple IPs here, too. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Sharontoo7

Apparent legal threat. Also WP:NOTHERE by the looks of it. Kleuske (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

ALL I WAS DOING WAS EXPLAINING WHO WROTE IF I WERE A BOY , WHY ARE YOU HARRASSING ME AND TAKEN YOUR ANGER OUT ON ME , WHO IS YOUR MANAGER? THIS IS INSANE HOW YOUR TREATING ME . Sharontoo7 (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

DON'T WANNA WIFE
HENRY VIII^th
KEEP YOUR HEAD
ASSUME GOOD FAITH
Burma-shave

Also WP:CAPSLOCK violation. GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 19:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

ok Sharontoo7 (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

what's I don't wanna a wife , suppose to mean Sharontoo7 (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it's refrencing how most of Henry VIIIth's wifes didn't meet a good end. GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 19:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

And not just his wifes but his wives too. EEng 15:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

This one is more explicitly a threat to sue Wikipedia. 57.140.16.57 (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I've indeffed as NOTHERE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing on Portal:Current Events

Moved from User talk:ToBeFree

 – ToBeFree (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello @ToBeFree: - You previously issued a block to editor GWA88 for engaging in edit-warring. I recently come across GWA88 on Portal:Current Events, where it appears that they are engaging in similar disruptive behavior.

I removed an edit added by GWA88 citing WP:SENSATIONAL, which was restored without discussion, based on personal conjecture. I started a disccusion, with GWA88 responding by reiterating previous conjecture without basis in policy. When asked for a policy-based rationale, no further replies were made.

After almost a week, as no other editors had made any comments either, I removed the entry again. GWA88 replied to my notification, claiming I was "wikilawyering". GWA88 then canvassed editors through mass pinging, claiming that the talk page was obscure, despite being watched by over 6,000 other editors.

Concurrently, I removed a second entry, citing WP:ROUTINE. The entry was again restored by GWA88 without discussion. Upon being asked to follow WP:BRD and self-revert the restoration, their response seemed to miss the point of WP:BRD.

After reviewing GWA88's revert log, it becomes apparent that there is a recurring pattern of reversions without engaging in discussion. A significant portion of this activity involves contentious topics. As this conduct is clearly not in line with acceptable behavior, could you please look into this and take appropriate measures? 33ABGirl (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi 33ABGirl, I have moved this to the Incidents noticeboard because I see no immediate need for a quick page protection or block, but a discussion of the behavior here may help. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @ToBeFree. Firstly, let me start by saying I highly suspect 33ABGirl is a sockpuppet of the extremely disruptive user @Carter00000 who was indefinitely blocked by @Theleekycauldron last October for persistent abuse of process after reporting me and many others over content disputes just like this one. The WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour of 33ABGirl and Carter00000 is strikingly similar, from the wikilawyering to the blatant attempt at getting me blocked over a content dispute. Note the account was made before Carter00000 was blocked but the user only became active on the current events portal after Carter00000 had been suspended, also note the editing of Hong Kong related articles, again another topic where Carter00000 was active if you look through their contributions and this ANI thread. The user edits all of the topics where Carter00000 was active, from the WP:YEARS pages to the Current events portal, and Hong Kong related articles. The editing style and behaviour of both users is almost identical.

Also, with regards to disruptive editing on the current events portal, 33ABGirl was recently warned by @Cryptic over their reverting on Portal:Current events/2024 February 10.

I also reject the claim of canvassing as I only tagged in users who were active on that particular portal, the talk page is watched by over 6,000 editors but discussions are usually ignored. I will accept any consensus reached and they are free to oppose or support its inclusion. Again, assuming bad faith where there was none. Just more battleground behaviour. I note that 33ABGirl also recently left a final warning threatening a block on User talk:137.122.64.205 for what appears to just be a good faith edit on 2024. Again, more battleground behaviour from this user.

With regards to my own editing, I'm always open to advice from other editors on how I can improve, and I apologize for any wrongdoings. I always try to stay away from drama and stick to my own lane but obviously I'm here to defend myself from what appears to be a blatant attempt at landing me a block. I hope this issue can be resolved as I'm concerned this user will keep coming after me. In fact, this is exactly what I thought would happen. Thank you. GWA88 (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:SPI time to me, you seem to have a pretty well-built case. The Kip 02:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

6000 watchers? Do nonadmins not get the stat that says how many of those have actually looked at the page recently? (It's absurdly lower.) —Cryptic 03:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The watcher numbers at Special:Pageinfo/Portal talk:Current events are public, as can be confirmed through an incognito window or a different browser. Pages with fewer than 30 watchers behave differently to avoid encouraging vandalism where noone is watching. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Eternal return

Soothsayer79 is engaging in battleground behaviour at the article Eternal return. It began a few weeks ago, with Soothsayer79 continually inserting and re-inserting original research into the article over the objections of myself and William M. Connolley. After our talk page discussion reached a stalemate, Soothsayer79 requested a third opinion. They got two third opinions for the price of one, with both Nemov and IOHANNVSVERVS endorsing my point of view [71][72]. Soothsayer79 indicated that they did not intend to abide by this consensus (see this exchange), so I reverted their edits myself. Their response was to POINTedly remove a large chunk of long-standing content [73], ostensibly on the grounds that they believe it to be original research [74]. I made one last effort to engage with the substance of their argument, but it was clear that this content removal was done in bad faith and not out of any sincere desire to improve the article.

I do think Soothsayer79 was acting in good faith up to that point, but that doesn't change the fact that they just don't seem to understand the OR policy or how consensus works. I had hoped to avoid bringing this to ANI, but I think the threat of sanctions may be the only way of convincing them to back down. I'm not sure of the pinging etiquette; apologies to those pinged, please don't feel any obligation to comment. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

So this definitely appears to be a situation where one editor (Soothsayer79) has decided that the concept originated from Nietzsche, rather than its scholarly recognized earlier origins, and is attempting to force the article to comply with that view. They are also taking issue with the fact that cited sources speculate & disagree about the classical origins of the term, incorrectly applying our WP:OR rules to the sources themselves in order to remove the cited sections about that scholarly speculation.

This also has the knock-on effect of the lede mentioning that Nietzsche revived the concept from ancient sources, but all documentation about the ancient sources has been excised from our article, leaving a puzzling gap for the reader. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Concern about disruptive editing by a user in a dispute on MP4 file format

User:Svnpenn has demonstrated some disruptive editing during an edit war with me and discussions spanning several days on MP4 file format, ISO base media file format and Open file format and during an attempt at dispute resolution:

• Unfounded accusations of vandalism ([75], [76] and [77]) and bad faith [78], which I initially assumed were because the user describes themselves as novice
• Tendentious editing after learning from me and another editor (VQuakr) about Wikipedia policies and guidelines:
  • WP:USERGENERATED: [79] after [80]
  • WP:SYNTH: [81] and [82] after [83]
• Disregard for WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS during the dispute resolution process towards VQuakr [84] after [85]

I acknowledge making a misstep here late into the discussion, which I promptly struck through and then fully removed upon request with an apology.

The dispute primarily revolves on the insistence that the MP4 file format and ISO base media file format are not open formats and that an Open file format must have an Open license. An attempt to resolve the dispute around MP4 at Talk:MP4 file format through a third opinion by VQuakr leaned towards my perspective on the verifiabily of the sources, but as the war continued, both VQuakr and I thought it was better to bring it to the DRN, which ended up failing. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The dispute resolution attempt just ended; suggest giving Svnpenn a chance to move on without drama. IMHO, admin action is only needed here if they start disrupting mainspace again over this issue. VQuakr (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I failed the mediation, and I agree with User:VQuakr. Svnpenn has not edited since I failed the mediation. Maybe I should have said that an RFC should be tried first, with WP:ANI only as an unpleasant option. I suggest that a neutral RFC should be used. If Svnpenn has a concern that the concept of open format is ill-defined, there are other forums to raise that concern, as well as discussing it in the Discussion section of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I just created one RfC for each of the three articles. I didn't do this earlier following guidelines, as the dispute only involved two editors. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

---

I would say the above is premature, especially considering updates I now have in private. since my attempts to find a compromise in this matter have failed, I have been in contact with all of the LOC, ISO and IEC. I have today received a response in my favor from the LOC. they have communicated privately to me that they currently DO NOT consider MP4 an "open format", and pending a follow up I plan to update the talk page and possibly make further edits to related pages pending the outcome of these talks.

to state the obvious, the above user Fernando Trebien has gone WAY beyond anything that could be construed as constructive here. I offered at least 5 different compromise solutions to the disagreement, all of which were rejected or ignored by other editors. further, neither offered anything in the way of compromise. thats not acting in good faith I feel. instead, the above editor Fernando Trebien seems intent on punishing me, even though as others have said I have made no edits since the end of moderated discussion. Wikipedia is not the place to hold or act on grudges, it should be a high quality repository of information, that is my goal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svnpenn (talk • contribs) 23:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Svnpenn: to manage your expectations here: personal communications with LOC, ISO, IEC, etc are not verifiable or published and won't move the needle on a discussion about article content. We're looking at published, reliable secondary sources in order to inform what goes into mainspace. VQuakr (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

you should REALLY stop assuming you know where my head is at. you dont. thanks for the feedback, but it doesn't apply to my situation at all. perhaps instead of continuing to ignore and reject my compromise offers, you could acknowledge them or offer your own. Svnpenn (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Simply put, editors are not required to compromise with you. If consensus is against your changes, you'll have to accept that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Race-related edits by AppGoo0011

User:AppGoo0011 has been going around decapitalizing Black to black ([86]), while capitalizing White ([87]) and adding capital-W White to articles, as well as making a lot of other one-sided racially-charged edits that don't really confirm to the MOS or follow the sources, such as adding the race of white murder victims to pages about white victims killed by undocumented immigrants, in cases where the sources don't mention or focus on that at all, and sometimes even edit-warring over this or using misleading edit summaries - [88][89]; [90] (note misleading edit summary), [91] (note misleading edit summary.) Also see eg. [92] and [93]. This was discussed on ANI just a few weeks ago here, where people unanimously told them to knock it off and warned them of the possibility of a block, but they haven't listened; note that all the diffs provided here are from after that discussion. --Aquillion (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

So which is it? Do you want me to capitalize races or not? My goal is to bring consistency. If white is uncapitalized and Black is, I seek to bring consistency. If White is capitalized and black isn't, I seek to bring consistency. If there's already consensus for mixed use, I don't touch it, even though I disagree.

I do understand the issue with providing race when no sources stated it, though. I won't do that anymore. AppGoo0011 (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

"So which is it" You stop doing these types of edits. Period. End of story. Will never not be amazed by editors being told to stop doing edits that others find problematic, then after awhile doing them anyway. Stop doing these types of edits. Now. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 20:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked AppGoo0011 who clearly did not get the message of the February ANI discussion. Personally, I will oppose any unblock request that does not include a topic ban on race and ethnicity, broadly construed. Cullen328 (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Good block. The misleading edit summaries and baiting tone of the changed phrasing is quite galling. I think it would also be right to oppose any unblock request that doesn't include a broadly construed topic ban on race and ethnicity. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

AppGoo is now asking for an unblock to stay out of race/ethnicity and stick to mobile payment articles; I personally would also see that they stay out of any violent crime articles as that seems to be the broader hot point for them. Nate • (chatter) 23:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

What about articles about White-collar crime? Or Blackmail? EEng 14:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

With the reveal of transmisogynistic edits, I'd say we should just revoke TPA and forget about any potential unblocks. This person is WP:NOTHERE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

SPI report closed based on misunderstanding of my arguments

I would like to preface this by saying that I'm not here to cast aspersions on anyone, but I feel like this is pretty imperative to address this because it involves extremely extensive, disruptive LTA by a sock puppet. A few days ago I made an SPI against what I believed to be a sock account of HaughtonBrit, a user who has been hounding me non stop, particularly since his accounts Javerine and Ralx888 were blocked in April 2023. I laid out my evidence-[94] , however it was closed by The Wordsmith today. When I went to their t/p to inquire about the reasons why; it immediately became clear that there were fundamental misunderstandings about the arguments I laid forth, which I laid out here-[95]-[96].

For example, it seems that my argument that RangersRus made his first few edits on Wikipedia two hours after HB's blocked IP sock was editing it, with the exact same type of edits- [97] were misconstrued by TW as HB editing with that IP only on June 3, and the preceding and successive edits by the IP not being HB, hence the creation date of RangersRus being sufficiently detached from the IP.

It also seems that TW misunderstood my arguments about RangersRus' AFD votes as me claiming that RangersRus's first AFD vote was on my AFD nomination, and that his first AFD votes were on an unrelated topic.

My argument was that RangersRus' first AFD vote was 3 hours after my AFD nom despite being on Wikipedia for 3+ months and having almost 1000 edits, where hitherto I had made it clear that I would start AFD nominating poorly written and sourced articles that the sockmaster had an extremely long history of mainpulating to aggrandize his religion and embarking on campaigns to hound anyone who affronted his convictions; RangersRus first two AFD votes were concerning the Marathas (a topic area in which the sockmaster has an extremely extensive history of fixating on and which I detailed in my SPI), hence the topics were indeed related. Subsequent AFD votes were either made in close proximity to HB socks such as this one-[98] where HB made 14 edits on the t/p of the article and 4 VOTES logged out on the AFD. Another one lined up with the sockmaster's MO of tacitly messing with me in order to aggrandize his religion-[99] like he did in a previous AFD I nominated in 2023-[100].

I think it was unfair that the SPI was closed prematurely based on these misunderstandings. I've been dealing with the sockmaster virtually non stop since 2021, but they drastically ramped up their harassment since April 2023 after 2 of their accounts were blocked. Had there been more ambiguity or plausible deniability regarding RangersRus, I would have dropped this long ago, but I believe the red flags are quite glaring and to see an SPI closed like this doesn't seem right. Once again, I think The Wordsmith is an excellent admin, and I can't blame him for not being familiar with the sockmaster's history; I hope we can come to a peaceful resolution. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

You are required to notify users involved in this post, which I've done for RangersRus. Remsense诉 04:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I also want to state that Southasianhistorian8 has accused me of being a sockpuppet for the mentioned user [1]. However, I was subsequently cleared of these allegations by a check user. At the time of the investigation, I, like RangersRus, was a new user. Once I was cleared, Southasianhistorian8 went on to post a case on me on the Administrators' noticeboard, kind've like how they are doing now with RangersRus. Suthasianhistorian8 (or southasianhistorian8, as they use both for some reason) has a tendency to convict individuals who do not align with their narrative. They have a scorched earth mindset, particularly in their editing in contentious topics. Not only have they consistently bothered The Wordsmith, even after Wordsmith declared their decision would not change [2], but The Wordsmith also highlights how Suthasianhistorian8 bothers many other admins on the same topic, engaging in WP:FORUMSHOP. It's worth noting that this level of obsession is concerning and unhealthy, as is evident in their walls of text in the previous links (to be honest, it's a sight to behold). This is just a case of the boy who cried wolf. Personally, I believe The Wordsmith was correct in their judgment, and I wouldn't be surprised to see another investigation up on me in the near future. UnbiasedSN (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

From what I can make of the case Suthasianhistorian8 seems to have misunderstood The Wordsmith's reasons for closure, rather than The Wordsmith misunderstanding Suthasianhistorian8's arguments. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Pretty ironic how this user throws accusations against me when they're clearly here to troll me-

their 11th edit on Wikipedia is messing with me here-[101] where they tried to re-add figures into the infobox which aggrandized their religion on an erroneous basis. You can see the info-box where they tried to push a narrative that a battle occurred in which 1800 Sikhs were involved fighting a much larger contingent of 50,000-100,000 belligerents and ended up victorious. and killing~ 90% of the opponent army. Of course, none of the sources were reliable, one was a Raj era source which editors in this topic area are explicitly told not to use (Macaullife) and the other was a 17th/18th century primary (Gurblias Patshahi). It should also be noted that by the time UnbiasedSN came on this page, I had already discussed and resolved this very matter with another editor-[102]. See the subsequent, blatantly tendentious edits by this user after the fact-[103], [104]. [105]. You can see that he refused to go on the t/p and instead kept pushing this ridiculous narrative better suited for sites like Facebook, rather than an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. He then left a bogus warning on my t/p-[106].

This user followed me again to another article-[107] trying to mess with me. On a later ANI thread, this user used a LLM/ChatGPT to make a complaint against me, which was pointed out by other admins involved there-[108].

This user follows and harasses me here again-[109] trying to reinstate content that was blatantly aggrandizing their religion; the article was as clear as day displaying incorrect, inflated numbers and casualties that the Sikhs inflicted on their opponents, which is why an unrelated editor reverted him-[110]. Instead of having a respectful discussion with me on the t/p discussing the veracity of sources, this user left another bogus warning on my t/p saying that I am insecure or have an inferiority complex-[111] and unprovoked made a personal attack on the talk page, telling me to get a life-[112].

Shortly after, he made another random, personal attack against me on talk page where I was previously having a respectful conversation with another editor about source reliability-[113]

The user then followed me to my AFD-[114] which I didn't particularly mind since it was a fair question and so I responded accordingly-[115].

He then followed me to HB's SPI for no reason whatsoever, despite the fact that I never invoked him on there since October-[116], [117] and also partially reverted some of my BANREVERT edits after HB's socks were blocked on March 2.

Now once again, despite not being pinged or invoked in any whatsoever, this user is deciding to follow me here, casting aspersions when I never involved him whatsoever. This user is clear as day just following me around trying to frustrate me, most evident from his numerous personal attacks against me. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Also some previous HB socks were also cleared by CUs-[118] but were later blocked since they were undeniably, unquestionably socks with extremely strong technical and behavioural evidence to show that they were linked to HB-[119] & [120] like making the exact same edits as HB's proxies. HaughtonBrit has numerous IPs and proxies at his disposal and has tricked CUs before-[121]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

UnbiasedSN's targeted accusations against Southasianhistorian8 are definitely concerning. This does appear to be ethnic POV editing, followed by multiple accusations of anti-Sikh bias against Southasianhistorian8. Regardless of anything else, this is unacceptable per WP:NPA. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

File another checkuser on me. By all means, don't let me stop you. UnbiasedSN (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

You also can't say I followed HB's SPI for no reason. I'm literally on it... You also flatter me with such long walls of texts. UnbiasedSN (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

User:REETO25

REETO25 (talk · contribs · count)

User seems to be a net negative, I just reverted two edits for overlinking, 1, 2. After reverting I went to the user talk page to place a warning and noticed many warnings, mostly for overlinking (and other issues). - FlightTime (open channel) 23:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I’m sorry REETO25 (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Me too. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems like you've contributed four WP:OVERLINK warnings to this user of two-and-a-half years. There appears to be somewhat long-term disruption from this user too. Conyo14 (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Bluishebrye

• Bluishebrye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sarah Geronimo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user keeps disrupting the Sarah Geronimo article by adding "Guidicelli" and the {{Philippine name}} hatnote on the lead section, whereas I'm working on the article to have it listed for GAN/FAC. I've seen the Regine Velasquez article does not have "Alcasid" when the article's primary contributor worked on it. Recently, the user disturbed me twice to add the Guidicelli thing in the lead. ScarletViolet (talk • contribs) 02:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@ScarletViolet, the IP Special:Contributions/103.132.168.197 has edited the article saying they are her manager in the edit summary. Also, they’ve said the same on ScarletViolet’s user talk. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 03:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that the above IP, who said they were the "manager" for the article subject, was blocked for one month (by Ad Orientem). I've also informed them about WP:COI expectations (diff). El_C 06:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio revdel requested for Back in Black

This copyrighted book by Susan Masino was plagiarized today by new student user Augustkey who copied text straight from the book into the article Back in Black (song). Can we revdel the edits? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. Much of the rest of the article is inappropriate in tone. Acroterion (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I can't check that Guitar Player reference by the same editor, but it looks fishy too. Acroterion (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Acroterion: A Google search found nothing except our article "Back in Black" (song), and searches for "Gress" and "AC/DC" in the Guitar Player online archive turned up nothing. Very fishy. Narky Blert (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa - WP:Battleground behavior and WP:NOTHERE.

@Kaalakaa, whose either neutrality and/or cherry-picking of sources on Islam related articles have been questioned by several editors, including @Iskandar323 [122], and here [123] where he compared Muhammad with Hitler, and by @DeCausa [124], @Anachronist [125], and @Chxeese [126], as well as by @Neutralhappy on the ANI board [127], and who has also been accused of sockpuppetry by @NEDOCHAN (see SPI investigation), and is also used to making snarky personal attacks on much senior editors such as @Louis P. Boog, "It is very concerning that someone who has done over 42,000 edits since 23 December 2006 still doesn't quite grasp basic Wikipedia guidelines", and is now what looks like, Wiki:Hounding me on my old edit on a Muslim section in History of Hinduism.

@Kaalakaa first tried to report me regarding my discussion at Aisha article, but other editors did not found any violation and simply warned both of us to avoid causing timesink, after that he raised the current issue on the OR board about the edits on History of Hinduism saying that I misrepresented a source, I simply addressed them by removing the source whose reliability was questioned by others and provided alternative ones in accordance with the responses and editors like @Eucalyptusmint and @Joshua Jonathan and @Asteramellus were all fine with it. Done.

After that he kept pestering for the sources that I just gave in the talk page to merely demonstrate a point. And when I addressed that too, admitted a mistake, and then gave another source to support the statement, he then started questioning the sources. I warned him about "cherry-picking sources with the same bias to forcefully insert critique where it is not WP:Relevant, disregarding all others, and then WP:BLUDGEON the process to achieve it" after that I once again requested him to stop WP:ICANTHEARYOU and sheer time wasting of other editors; he then challenged me to report him[128], clearly treating Wikipedia as a WP:Battleground which he has been accused of by other editors[129] and he feels he has to WP:WINIT at any cost.

In summary: lack of neutrality by cherry-picking the sources, battleground behavior, challenging other editors to block him; clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia.

A full NOTHERE block must be implemented if not a recommended partial indef block on Islam related articles. StarkReport (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Attention: Toini Ivanov

User @Toini Ivanov is reverting constructive edits and putting threatening vandalism notices left-and-right. See a small sample of good edits that this user has reverted:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_Jalil_Andrabi&diff=prev&oldid=1212749012
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cot%E2%80%93caught_merger&diff=prev&oldid=1212748265
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kochi_Metro&diff=prev&oldid=1212746684
• and many others

Most of his "reversions" are garbage. On top of that, this user adds a threatening vandalism notice to those who made constructive edits. 88.118.7.240 (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

This user made 100 mostly crap edits in half an hour and keeps going unhindered. 88.118.7.240 (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Moved from the Teahouse; endorsing report. Needs to be mass-reverted as well, as the editor appears to be targeting IP editors with no other consideration. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm currently working my way through their edits now to check which need to keep at least some notice and which need to be completely removed and reverted, so far I've only re-applied a notice to one user and that was nothing more than an editing test. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding to the weirdness is the account of registered in 2016, yet made no edits until today when a campaign of similar edits and messages started. Could it be a bot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.200.213 (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The strangest part of it for me is that some of the people they warned they didn't even revert? The edits just remain there, such as the edits on Vanchi Bhumi by this user (which has since had their warning removed). CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

On a side note, the number of reverts done by the user per minute and the usage of a warning template that I have never heard of before {{uw-vandalism4jew}}) seems somewhat fishy to me. EnIRtpf09b (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

This is  Confirmed to The local bishop. It's probably some other sockmaster in reality, but this is the one I saw earlier today. Blocked and tagged. I'm sure they'll be back. --Yamla (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully not for a while. I'll keep running through their edits to see which are actually warranted and which aren't, but I'm doubting that any are at this point. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind then. Thanks! CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

They certainly had the right idea about being effective at doing the most harm before they're stopped. Just look at their talk page. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

This is some sort of LTA, whose mission appears to be to game the EC permission on some old accounts to vandalise EC-protected pages. That's exactly what happened with the 'Timefordindins' account earlier today. Some earlier usernames I've come across are 'A really cool tour' and 'Big Whack'.

A key characteristic of this 'LTA' is they always, always use the edit summary "Your recent changes to [page]" when leaving warnings. Note: I'm not trying to give this user recognition here, just point out an easy to find piece of modus operandi of this LTA for easier identifications of future socks. Thanks all. — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

No, that was very helpful. Just looked at Timefordindins. Same thing. Again a 2016 account. Someone must have found their file with all the alts and passwords for 2016, but I have no idea who. Today is the first time I have seen this tactic. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

There are 30-some accounts related to this (including the ones mentioned above), all blocked already. I have to assume they'll log in to more, but I see no currently unblocked accounts at this time. --Yamla (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Yamla, and thanks CommissarDoggo for your quick move to damage control. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Yamla, please restore User talk:88.118.7.240. I think it had additional discussions, as they were the one who wrote up the nice report and posted to the teahouse. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

By your command. --Yamla (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again — Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Yup, I think it was just me mentioning to Toini not to bite the newcomers, aside from that it was the 4im and the IP user's replies. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 13:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

If it weren't restored, I'd never have seen the heartwarming message they'd replied to me with — Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Toini Ivanov now indef blocked. Thank you. David notMD (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring over formatting

User @FeldmarschallGneisenau keeps changing the case of the title "Prime Minister" in Donald Tusk, which, per MOS:JOB, should be capitalized in the context in which it appears in the article. I brought the issue to User talk:FeldmarschallGneisenau, however, they keep on pushing the change without an established consensus. Max19582 (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

MoS isn't policy and the page-specific consensus ("prime minister of Poland") is established in pages for previous prime ministers and is long-standing when it comes to Donald Tusk as well. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

err MOS is standard you don't get to ignore MOS just because you disagree with it, plus I see no consensus for it on the talk page or archives. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is, however. @FeldmarschallGneisenau links to prior discussions on the matter? Mackensen (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Roll back the page move

Requesting an administrator to roll back the page move of War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War to Tamil Eelam Genocide. Move has been done without a move/article renaming disscussion on a personal POV. Cossde (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted the change, though if the user does so again without getting a consensus on the talk page, I will report their behaviour here. SinhalaLion (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Possible WP:OR in List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces

Requesting Administrator review of the list created in the article List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces for possible WP:OR. An extensive list has been created with incidents that are very controvical and have been added with only a single source that are either Qualified as Pro-Rebal (WP:BIAS/WP:QS), and non English sources (WP:NONENG/WP:RSUEQ).

Qualified as Pro-Rebal (WP:BIAS/WP:QS)

TamilNet - Accepted as a pro-rebel - Qualified source (A source that may be reliable in certain contexts, but always needs to be used with a qualification (also called “attribution”) such as “pro-rebel”, “state owned” or the name itself.) in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/Sources#List_of_sources

NESOHR - Accepted as a pro-rebel - Qualified source (A source that may be reliable in certain contexts, but always needs to be used with a qualification (also called “attribution”) such as “pro-rebel”, “state owned” or the name itself.) in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/Sources#List_of_sources

Non English sources (WP:NONENG/WP:RSUEQ)

Uthayan - Tamil language daily newspaper

Eelanadu - Tamil language daily newspaper

Cossde (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Tamilnet and NESOHR have already been vetted at Sri Lanka Reconciliation project with admin supervision, and can be cited with explicit attribution as they have been. This does not fall under category of OR, as the entries reflect their citations. It is not controversial that massacres of civilians have been committed by the Sri Lankan Armed forces, as this has been well documented by multiple reliable sources. Oz346 (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

and the sources are qualified sources, not questionable sources, two very different things. A search on the RS notice board regarding this subclass of sources can be found. Oz346 (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:QS states "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest". In the case of TamilNet and NESOHR, Sri Lanka Reconciliation project has confirmed these (though disscussion) that these are pro-rebel - Qualified source since these are "source that may be reliable in certain contexts" and they need to be used with "a qualification" due to the obvious conflict of interest. Cossde (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no evidence that these sources have a poor reputation for fact checking or lack meaningful editorial oversight. In fact, the opposite could be said. Like most sources in Sri Lanka, including the Sinhala owned national newspapers, they have their biases, but it is not sufficient to claim they are questionable sources.

In any case, discussions of these sources have already been done to death at the Sri Lanka Reconciliation project, and you are replicating these discussions here. Countless times you have attempted to remove mentions of Sri Lankan Army war crimes from multiple pages, including those cited with the highest level of reliable and scholarly sources, as you have done here recently: Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces#OHCHR report regarding sexual violence and Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces#Peacekeeping sex scandal. This would fit WP:NAT editing. Oz346 (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

On the contary, I have mentioned here that both these sources as Qualified (pro-rebel) sources, and that this has been done in the Sri Lanka Reconciliation project by disscussion and I do not challange it. If you read carefully what I have said this would be clear. As per the alligation of WP:NAT editing, one must only look at your edit history to find that your contributions are only limited to Tamil nationalist topics, where as mine is much broader. Therefore please be mindful of your continued personal attacks on me. Cossde (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The OP seems to have misread WP:NONENG/WP:RSUEQ. Sources that are not in English should be evaluated in exactly the same way that sources in English are. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. English sources are preferred if available and of the same quality. But if not English is not requirement. (A trans-title parameter in the references is extremely appreciated however as is a quote).

I have no opinion about these sources however, and no information on Sri Lanka. Elinruby (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Editor Lau737 "contributions."

Editor Lau737 has made several "contributions" into numerous articles using random pieces of wiki articles that they indiscriminately place into other articles.

Much of what Lau737 places into these articles does not frankly make sense or connect to whatever theme the passage seems to make.

Lau737 has been warned numerous times by several people - but does NOT seem to care to change or learn to do things right.

A list of Lau737's contributions show a laundry list of irrelevant and frivolous contributions. Please take a look at his editing and so-called irrational recycling of "contributions." Attached below is a brief view of his editing history.

Thank you. MRSawesome33 (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

User contributions for Lau737

A user with 1,289 edits. Account created on 24 October 2023.

(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500) 9 March 2024 15:02, 9 March 2024 diff hist +1,411‎ Campus sexual assault ‎ added text from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sexual_assault to Reporting, see page history for attribution current thank Tag: Visual edit 14:57, 9 March 2024 diff hist +1,411‎ Acquaintance rape ‎ added text from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sexual_assault to College samples, see page history for attribution current thank Tag: Visual edit 14:54, 9 March 2024 diff hist +1,411‎ Sexual misconduct ‎ added text from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sexual_assault to Among educators, see page history for attribution current thank Tag: Visual edit 14:50, 9 March 2024 diff hist +1,117‎ Rape statistics ‎ added text from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sexual_assault to United States, see page history for attribution current thank Tag: Visual edit 14:42, 9 March 2024 diff hist +1,409‎ Estimates of sexual violence ‎ added text from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sexual_assault to School, see page history for attribution current thank Tag: Visual edit 14:38, 9 March 2024 diff hist 0‎ Sexual assault ‎ grammar fixes current thank Tag: Visual edit 14:33, 9 March 2024 diff hist +809‎ Gender inequality in the United States ‎ added text from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_by_gender to Sexual assault, see page history for attribution current thank Tag: Visual edit 14:27, 9 March 2024 diff hist +811‎ Sexual predator ‎ added text from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_by_gender to the introduction, see page history for attribution current thank Tag: Visual edit 14:21, 9 March 2024 diff hist +811‎ Violence against women ‎ added text from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_by_gender to Sexual violence, see page history for attribution current thank Tag: Visual edit 14:16, 9 March 2024 diff hist +817‎ Rape statistics ‎ added text from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_by_gender to United states, see page history for attribution thank Tag: Visual edit 14:11, 9 March 2024 diff hist +810‎ Estimates of sexual violence ‎ added text from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_by_gender to the introduction, see page history for attribution thank Tag: Visual edit 13:57, 9 March 2024 diff hist +1‎ Rape by gender ‎ grammar fix current thank Tag: Visual edit 13:54, 9 March 2024 diff hist +2,266‎ Toxic masculinity ‎ added Sexual violence section with text from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_statistics, see page history for attribution current thank Tag: Visual edit 13:52, 9 March 2024 diff hist +2,244‎ Gender inequality in the United States ‎ added text from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_statistics to Sexual assault, see page history for attribution thank Tag: Visual edit 13:48, 9 March 2024 diff hist +2,242‎ Campus sexual assault ‎ added text from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_statistics to introduction, see page history for attribution thank Tag: Visual edit 13:41, 9 March 2024 diff hist +2,242‎ Sexual misconduct ‎ added text from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_statistics to Among educators, see page history for attribution thank Tag: Visual edit 13:38, 9 March 2024 diff hist +2,242‎ Violence against women ‎ added text from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_statistics to Prevalence and extent, see page history for attribution thank Tag: Visual edit 13:35, 9 March 2024 diff hist +2,243‎ Estimates of sexual violence ‎ added text from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_statistic to Schools, see page history for attribution thank Tag: Visual edit 13:32, 9 March 2024 diff hist −187‎ Rape statistics ‎ resolved duplicate citation thank Tag: Visual edit