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

Proposed article-space block Greghenderson2006

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

---

Greghenderson2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was p-blocked from article space in August 2023: User_talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive_12#August_2023 and unblocked in December: User_talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive_17#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Ferdinand_Burgdorff_has_been_accepted for UPE and problematic sourcing. However their promises less than three months later are resoundly and regularly broken: User_talk:Greghenderson2006#Please_stop_the_COI_editing You are right, I forgot I was a distant relative of the guy. might be believable with a new editor, but not with someone of Greg's history. User_talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive_17#Hazel_Watrous, immediately after the block was lifted shows their ongoing issues with sources have not improved and there's more of the same at: User_talk:Greghenderson2006#Draft:Santa_Clara_Verein. Too much editor time and energy is spent trying to fix Greg's content when it's clear he has no interest in changing his behavior. This is especially problematic when he's paid and volunteer time has to be spent cleaning up. I believe it's time to re-instated the p-block which will allow him to use edit requests and article talk pages to propose his edits as well as improve his articles in draft space, which has been suggested multiple times.

Note I'm not going to ping anyone but the un/blocking admins as there are fewer editors supporting Greg's reinstatement than opposing and I want to avoid any indication of canvassing. I will of course notify him directly on his talk. Thank you! For the purposes of disclosure, I'm noting I did just !vote delete in an article of theirs at AfD but my proposal would allow them to continue participating there so I don't think there's an issue. Star Mississippi 22:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

COurtesy pings to @Drmies and @PhilKnight as noted Star Mississippi 22:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm pinging Graywalls too, who deserves a medal for their work cleaning up. I know this is from last year, from before the block, but still. Who'd have thunk that a longterm editor would write like that? Drmies (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - In my own defense, the above statements are not correct regarding no interest to change my behavior. I do have a keen interest in changing my behavior! I am not doing any paid editing. I have written over 400 articles and have been helping to cleanup articles with tags. Since November 2023, I have written 11 new articles, 8 have been reviewed and accepted into the article space. In January and February 2024 alone, I have cleaned over 30 articles. I acknowledge my past involvement in problematic COI editing and have worked hard to earn trust again. I have consistently used the review process and have responded to requests from my fellow editors. An article-space block will limit my ability to help cleanup articles and make improvements to existing articles. Wikipedia should be an open collaborative place where our editors are supportive of one another. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not doing any paid editing. Then what about Nyombi Morris, Jin Koh, Zearn, Robert W. Smart, Winston Swift Boyer, Washington Review, and Gary Hugh Brown? On the lattermost two, you directly reverted to restore disputed material on your paying clients' articles as recently as January 28th, which one other editor said was "rather objectionable" while another simply called it "outrageous". Left guide (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I have not done any paid editing since I was p-blocked from article space in August 2023. Since then I have followed the guidelines and heped write Wikipedia articles, update existing articles, and made every attempt to rehabilitate myself. Yes, I did try to update two articles with inline "requested better sources needed" edits, not realizing it would be a conflict of interest. I realize now that it was not OK and have since use the Edit Request process. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

and User_talk:Greghenderson2006#January_2024? You should not be directly editing anywhere that you have a COI given your ongoing misunderstanding of primary, secondary and reliable sourcing. It seems you continually need to toe the line. Also, your comment below re: AfD (although I'm not proposing a block from there) is disingenuous. People should not need to repeat themselves or cite a policy. You have a COI and are a paid editor. Of course you have a vested interest in keeping the article. It must be disclosed. Star Mississippi 16:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

How did you not realize it would be a conflict of interest to restore validly disputed material by making direct reverts on articles you are being paid to edit? If somehow that's actually true, that raises serious WP:CIR concerns. Left guide (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment re-reading Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_163#Greghenderson2006 where Possibly noted They !vote at AFD without disclosing their COI while !voting. and Greg followed up with I forgot to add my COI on AFD pages, but will do so in the future when Left guide had to make this disclosure for Greg today. Further to my thinking that they have neither the intention nor the willingness to follow our guidelines. Star Mississippi 23:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  Untrue, I am willing to follow the guidelines. In the above case, I was not fully aware that in an AFD, you need to disclose this in a "Keep" vote. If this is the policy, I will follow this in the future. Please understand that I am willing to follow the guidelines and appreciate the freedom to edit and write articles. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment, Greghenderson2006 has said here I was not fully aware that in an AFD, you need to disclose this in a "Keep" vote. But in July 2020 he was specifically asked Why is it so hard to disclose on AFD pages that you have a conflict, or give us a list of articles you have a conflict with? and replied These rules of WP:COI and WP:AFD are somewhat new to me. I am still learning. So bear with me.] [1] It was also pointed out at the time that that was seven years after he had first been warned about COI editing. And yet now he is saying that 3.5 years later again, after dozens of back and forths on this topic with multiple editors, that we should still WP:AGF that he was not "fully aware" of this. I also note this discussion from August last year about paid editing where he said The omission of disclosure concerning payments and conflicts of interest appears to have endured for the past year until you raised the matter here. Frankly, I had concerns about drawing attention to the articles, which led me to avoid addressing the issue altogether. Moving forward, I commit to strictly following the COI guidelines. This reads to me as demonstrating clear awareness of the guidelines but a decision to deliberately "avoid addressing" them, and again came with a clear commitment that the guidelines would be strictly followed, yet they have demonstrably been ignored again and again. I'm sorry to say I have very little patience or good faith left here. Melcous (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I feel you are rehashing old issues and that since I was p-blocked from article space in August 2023, I have followed the guidelines and have written some decent Wikipedia articles, updated existing articles, and made every attempt to rehabilitate myself. I am not perfect, I realize I should always disclose my COI and not edit pages or vote on Afd without disclosing this first. I feel these incidents do not warrant blocking me from writing on the main article space. Look at my user page and you will realize I am making an honest effort to write and update articles and have a long history of contributions to this wonderful encylopedia! Greg Henderson (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Given the evidence of chronic ongoing competence concerns raised at Talk:Joseph W. Post House, I believe the behavior of this user should continue being reviewed and discussed here before this archives. Pinging @Graywalls, Melcous, and Netherzone: who are involved there, and have been tirelessly cleaning up after (and trying to mentor) this user. Left guide (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

my Joseph W. Post House article was peer-reviewed and accepted into the article space on February 13, 2024. The questionable edit came from two sources: here and from the Posts, California article. I do not think this edit warrents an article-space block. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Totally missing the point, that comment was never meant to zoom in to that one individual incident as the sole basis for sanctions, but rather to show evidence that the bigger overarching pattern of chronic competence issues still persists, even after you were made aware of this discussion. Left guide (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a very general statement. The point is I have made significant contributions to Wikipedia that should be reognized and not punished. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

You have made significant COI and UPE contributions to Wikipedia that are certainly being recognized in this discussion (as of now, 8 of your top 12 most-edited articles are COI/UPE). If you wish to argue that those significant contributions shouldn't be punished, you're welcome to try. You also promoted your non-notable paying client across other articles without coming clean about it, which is yet another UPE violation. You failed to mention them even though you were inquired about conflicts of interest on your user talk page numerous times since those edits. Left guide (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Your conduct has gone far beyond one individual edit but a long pattern of disruption, COI and messes for other volunteer editors to clean up for your paid clients. Star Mississippi 02:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment - The oldest warning about COI actually goes back 14 years to 2012: [2], the first warnings about UPE go back 12 years to 2012 regarding a since deleted article: AFD [3]; follow-ups by closing admin: [4], [5], [6]. And the first warning about removing maintenance tags goes back 17 years to 2007: [7]. I don't have the time to into the incompetent sourcing that has cost volunteers hours of volunteer time. I am sorry to say that do not think that Greghenderson2006 will ever change his ways, as he has been apologizing for repeating the same behaviors for over a decade. Heartfelt sounding apologies or acting clueless should not be a strategy to game the system. Just weighing in here because I was pinged. Netherzone (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment - Instead of criticizing past behavior, let's focus on finding solutions to prevent similar issues in the future. I am commited to providing WP:RS and following the WP:PILLARS. Since October 2023, I have written 10 new articles that have been peer-reviewed. Since January 2024, I have contributed to and helped clean up 50 articles. My commitment to Wikipedia guideines and desire to improve my editing skills is important to me. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Comment May 2023, WP:OR that goes along with his pattern of writing in hagiographic tone. On December 22, 2023, I removed pay to play Lynn Momboisse's voicemap.me walking tour Greg introduced into the article. On January 10, 2024, Greg removed Lynn Momboise blog, but left behind contents sourced to this blog causing the prose to appear as it is reliably sourced and this required additional reviewing time. Then as recent as February 14, 2024, Greg introduced personal website/blog as a source into an article. Graywalls (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support indefinite mainspace block. I do not find Greg's explanations convincing. He has repeatedly affirmed that he will abide by the rules for COI editing, but he claims to not have an understanding of those same rules every few years (per Melcous). On February 9 in this discussion, he claimed I am not doing any paid editing. Yet, on January 28—less than two weeks before he made that claim—he added improperly sourced material back to two articles he wrote for paid clients (per Left guide), and he now claims that he was unaware that that would constitute COI editing. Greg has already been blocked from the mainspace for UPE and sourcing issues, and he immediately continued the same behavior when the block was lifted (per Star Mississippi). At this point, an indefinite mainspace block is needed to prevent continued COI disruption; Greg should still be allowed to make edit requests and discuss other issues on article talk pages. voorts (talk/contributions) 09:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  Also, strong oppose site ban as excessive and bordering on punishment. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support indefinite mainspace block, or indefinite block in general as this behaviour is well beyond what usually rates just getting kicked off the encyclopedia - David Gerard (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support indefinite mainspace block. Looking at just his talk page I stopped counting the number of times editors have patiently explained why not to do something, Greg has agreed to not do that thing, and a very short time later Greg is found to be doing the thing again. The commitments and promises are unfortunately not something we can rely on any longer. Greg may be genuinely forgetting or misunderstanding, but CIR and I don't believe his actions live up to his words. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support indefinite mainspace block or indefinite sitewide ban. I just spent some time looking at this, examining numerous edits not mentioned here, and I see that their behaviour has not changed much at all since they were unblocked in December 2023. — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support - an indefinite mainspace block or an indefinite site ban. This is based on all of above and the vast number of concerns on his talk page and archives (and article talk pages). The behaviors still exist today even after multiple concerns being communicated over the years, a block, and many editors devoting time and attention to trying teach and mentor this editor for longer than a decade. It's a huge time sink for the community. Problems persist re: COI, UPE, repeated use poor-quality sources and writing puffed-up or promotional content that is an exaggeration of or doesn't exist in the sources, or is original research. It seems clear that CIR and IDHT are also relevant. Netherzone (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Support for mainspace block but Weak Oppose sitewide ban - despite this really crummy (hope that is not too uncivil) behavior, I still would argue the vast majority of this user's edits are constructive, but obviously the COI issues cannot be ignored. Because of this I think allowing the user to submit edit requests on talk pages as well as create draft articles if the editor still wants to contribute. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I have demonstrated improvements to my editing skills. Since Ocotober I has created 10 new articles that have peer-reviewed, and contributd to 54 existing articles. Since I started writing for Wikipedia, I have created over 400 articles and made contributions to over 300. I am a valuable asset to Wikipedia and deserve to be treated wtih respect not a mainspace block. Greg Henderson (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

:*Don't write about yourself in the third person.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose for indeff block- I've reviewed a couple of Gregg's articles via AfC and they are generally well written, constructive, and a probable net gain to the project. I have real concerns about the CoI editing, so would Strong Support mainspace block. Qcne (talk)
• Support main-space block and/or TBAN (subject area ban) on broadly construed: 1: Henderson and their extended family members 2: People, organizations/companies and buildings related to Carmel-by-the-Sea and Monterey County area, broadly construed. Graywalls (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support mainspace block. Having read with incredulity Greg's responses to the questioning he has been getting on his talkpage, I don't see that he has much left in the way of a defence of his cause. Seemingly an able editor, his slow grasp of the COI issues at hand are his downfall. Many of his draft articles are accepted, so there is hope for the near future. Seasider53 (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
• Update The basic premise “Greg’s ongoing issues with sources have not improved” is not true. I have improved and my recent articles and my updates show this improvement (see my user page for current articles created and updated at User:Greghenderson2006). Per WP policy WP:INDEF an indefinite block is “usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy.” I have improved Wikipedia and added value. I believe the articles I have edited or created are examples of expanding the scope of Wikipedia. My article El Castillo de Monterey was recently peer-reviewed and accepted into the article space. I enjoy making quality contributions. I admit to making some mistakes when articles were subject to Afd or tagged with not being notable. I have learned from these mistakes and will not make them again. If a block is put in place, please add a time-limit, per WP:BLOCKLENGTH. Having edit privileges is important to me so I can maintain the 400+ articles I have created in the past 20+ years. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Having edit privileges is important to me so I can maintain the 400+ articles I have created in the past 20+ years. says so much and I have learned from these mistakes and will not make them again. is absolutely meaningless when you've continued to make these mistakes while this discussion is open.

  Peer review is not what happens at AfC. Star Mississippi 16:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  I understand that I've made mistakes, and I take full responsiblity for them. My recent articles and updates show my initiative and willingness to change. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Greg, this or the variant of this is what you say every time. Graywalls (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  I understand you've heard this before, but I meant it sincerely in this context. My intentions and contributions to Wikipedia can be seen in the articles I have created and edited. Although, they are not perfect, they are improving over time, and helping to expand the scope of Wikipedia. I am constantly trying to improve myself to make my articles the best they can be. You and other editors have been a great inspiration for me. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  None of that addresses the bigger COI/UPE issues (which are considered to be significant disruption and major breaches of policy) germane to this discussion and most of the vote rationales supporting the proposed indefinite mainspace block. So I don't see how that explanation has much value in your new goal of negotiating for a temporary block; you've deflected the main reasons why the community is supporting the proposal, and instead pushed your own preferred narrative. Left guide (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  I understand your concern and belive there are other factors to consider as well. Perhaps we can find a solution that addresses your concern without an indefinite mainspace block, which seems too severe in this case. The articles I have created speak to my willingness to make quality contributions. Greg Henderson (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

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

User:SheriffIsInTown and timesinks

This was long due as SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has managed to avoid scrutiny for a long period by choosing not to archive their talk page messages, notices, and warnings. Instead, they have chosen to display only barnstars, praises, etc., creating a false impression for any editor who might have concerns regarding their editing behavior. They have been given enough WP:ROPE to mend their ways and become a productive editor rather become a massive WP:TIMESINK, don a rhino skin as they say [8], and adopt WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT approach.

User:SheriffIsInTown have chosen otherwise and continue to dismiss any criticism of them by amusing productive editors ([9]), be uncivil ([10], [11], [12]), pass comments, or just ignore. They passed comment like "Please do not allow censorship otherwise they will censor everything they would not like about someone" against me on 6 February 2024 to which I asked them to stop [13] (and @Edwardx: who agreed with me by sending a thanks), but they still repeated the offensive comments in an other form and said "You cannot just barge in and start changing already established content. It seems as though you are here to unveil history rather distort it in your way since yesterday. There are editors who have been unveiling history for decades here". on 7 February 2024 in an edit summary, violating WP:SUMMARYNO. I'm deeply hurt by this and felt like they are trying to drive away editors that doesn't agree with their definition of "truth", regardless of what reliable references say or write. I again tried to resolve this and asked them to stop [14] and in reply they said "Please grow up, there is no personal attack in it.". This shouldn't be tolerated and should be enough to sanction them.

User:SheriffIsInTown apparently doesn't care what the community thinks about them and uses sick quotes like "It is not sufficient that I succeed; all others must fail." to describe culture on Wikipedia. It is also unfortunate that they take community sanctions imposed on them as a joke, (like ban on them editing Muhammad (imposed on 16 January 2016 by @HighInBC: and arbitration block imposed by @BU Rob13:), and displays them as some kinds of medals of honor.

Other recent issues in span of a month

• On 18 January 2024, @Jacobolus: raised an issue with them regarding their use of refill script You can't just mindlessly run the URL "refill" script. You have to inspect and think about the results to prop up edits counts but most of them were unproductive edits. Instead of apologizing and helping Jacobolus clean up the mess they created, they wrote an AI-generated rap to mock them.
• On 22 January 2024, someone raised an issue with them regarding the use of WP:LLM ([15]) which they just removed it on their talkpage ([16]) and on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup. Apparently they also don't know what the spamming is. The issue was regarding their use of ChatGPT to generate a rationale to nominate Wikipedia articles: i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sher Afzal Marwat (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Awrangzib Faruqi, generate a lot of law-related articles with AI. It is abundtly clear that they used ChatGPT to do all this and even didn't acknowledge the warning. They just don't care.
• On 30 January 2024, @Saad Ali Khan Pakistan: had enough of this (hurt by them like me) and complained to them what is their real issue to which they wrote another a rant and again tried to impose what is their definition of truth. A day ago, they reverted User:Saad Ali Khan Pakistan's edits without a reason [17].
• On 1 February 2024, they joined unreferenced articles drive to prop up the edits count but soon they created more work for volunteers than they contributed and were kindly asked by @Broc: and @Altamel: to slow down ([18]). Another time sink.
• On 3 February 2024, they downplayed User:Saad Ali Khan Pakistan's work on a list and claimed that they were already working on that list for a few weeks (without providing any evidence like sandbox) and went on to use terms and sentences like "try to do better job", "It seems you beat me to it by simply creating a separate article that looks somewhat clumsy", "You ought to have demonstrated politeness and respect by communicating with the editors who dedicated hours to the actual work, suggesting the creation of a separate article to acknowledge their contribution", and "there are certain manners we should all adhere to as human beings" See User_talk:Saad_Ali_Khan_Pakistan#1970_members_list.
• On 6 February 2024, they started to edit war with me ([19], [20]) and insists to add a section titled "Alleged extramarital affair" on a private woman's biography based on primary references, such as an interview given by her ex-husband after 6 years when military started the crackdown on Imran Khan. See Bushra_Bibi#Alleged_extramarital_affair. It is another time sink created by them to waste community's time - I've asked for independent opinion on multiple noticeboards.
• Since 7 February 2024, they are reverting ([21], [22], [23], [24]) well-cited information that summarizes the article in the lead that PTI intra-party elections case ruling was controversial (per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY) and was influenced by the military of Pakistan. They dismiss all the reliable references as WP:FRINGE and cited essay like WP:STATUSQUO when in actual I'm just summarizing the body and citing additional references for the verification. They even moved war when a move discussion is going on [25].
• On 8 February 2024, they were warned by @ARoseWolf: to stop the distruptive editing ([26]) to which they haven't replied.
• The massive disruptive editing from them is on 2024 Pakistani general election where they are trying to censor anything related to Imran Khan and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) as if this site is operated by the military of Pakistan, contorary to the fact that reliable publications in the whole world are describing the PTI-backed candidates as a separate group and a clear consensus on the talkpage is that we should include them, see Talk:2024_Pakistani_general_election#Should_PTI_be_included_in_the_Infobox. They are still edit warring ([27], [28], [29]).

• On 9 February 2024, @Saqib: warned them to stop removing referenced information on Talk:2024_Pakistani_general_election#Removing_rigging_information. That information is from reliable publications such as The Economist, Time, France24, but according to them these sources are "speculative" and "we shouldn't blindly include wild accusations based solely on speculative reports; not everything reported in the media is suitable for an encyclopedia." They are speaking the language of the Pakistani military establishment and attempting to impose Pakistan's censorship standards on Wikipedia which is against liberal norms. War Wounded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another editor who almost always agree with them repeating similar narratives, and is editing from a mobile device like SheriffIsInTown. I suspect that they are either collaborating offline to establish a false narrative on Wikipedia articles or are the same person. I ask the community to review them concurrently with User:SheriffIsInTown as well.

Remedy

All of these concerns converge on a few topics, such as politics of Pakistan, blasphemy ([30]) towards which they have a strong bias and couldn't contribute constructively. Wikipedia volunteers' time is the most precious thing and a deliberative approach to create work for others and waste community's time is a serious issue for which we have to take some kind of action. I'll leave it to the community to discuss the necessary measures, but I suggest the following restrictions at a minimum:

• Topic ban from articles related to politics, blasphemy, and restrict them to use semi-automated tools to do quick edits in general.
• Obligate them to engage in discussion with fellow editors constructively (i.e. cite proper diffs and independent references, rather than making awkward arguments) and avoid incivility.
• Require them to archive all past talk page messages and continue doing so in the future, especially for warnings, notices, and noteworthy discussions.

Thank you. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, while they didn't double-check or clean up all of the citations they had twiddled – hundreds to thousands of which were never checked by anyone else, with likely a substantial proportion of regressions – SheriffIsInTown was at least somewhat responsive to talk page discussion, and did make some effort to fix edits where the problems and appropriate solutions were explicitly explained. Since then, they seem to have stopped trying to do script-assisted citation changes. If they refrain from further masses of script-assisted edits going forward I won't have any personal problem with them. I can't really comment on the Pakistan politics stuff. –jacobolus (t) 18:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, due to having been away from WP for some time, I'm not familiar with the cases put forward above except that I find SheriffIsInTown's editing approach on the 2024 Pakistani general election page quite amusing. I returned to WP yesterday after hearing reports that individuals were tampering with the election page in an attempt to censor information. To my dismay, I found that it was indeed true. I suggest If SheriffIsInTown or any editor continue with this editing style, I strongly recommend implementing a topic ban. I agree with what User:HistoriesUnveiler said we don't have enough time to keep engaging in pointless discussions/arguments with someone who has clear POV agenda. SheriffIsInTown suggests that the Pakistani military must admit to engaging in election rigging before we can include those credible news reports in the article. Otherwise, there's no point in even mentioning them. It's as if the military has acknowledged in the past their involvement in election rigging. The Pakistani news media is forbidden from explicitly labeling PTI-backed candidates as such, for apparent reasons. However, if foreign media is openly acknowledging them as such, why are we hesitating to do the same? Are we here to serve the Pakistani government and censor information? Is this website run by the Pakistani government, for heaven's sake? --Saqib (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

It's evident how he quietly removed Imran Khan's statement [from jail], which was well-referenced and unrelated to rigging. --Saqib (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

In 2024 Elections PTI gave tickets to its candidates and just before elections Election commission, whose main duty is to conduct "Free and Fair Elections" went to Supreme Court against PTI and Supreme court gave ruling to take back PTI's Bat symbol because PTI party elections were not valid. Another party ANP also didn't conducted their party elections which was only fined PKR 20,000 by the ECP and ECP also ruled that ANP should conduct Party elections after elections of 2024 and their symbol "Lantern" was not taken from them. See Reference[31]

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf being the largest party of the country deserves to be added in election Info box because it received most number of seats across the country and although PTI candidates ran as Independents but they were backed by and supported by PTI party and they received PTI tickets before the SC ruling. Many prominent and Independent news sources of the World and Pakistan stated "PTI-backed Independents" and differentiated them from other Independents. Here in Wikipedia, which is an International and Independent platform we were discussing on this topic to add PTI backed Independents in election boxes but it was opposed again and again. Western World (United States, United Kingdom and European Union) expressed concerns over lack of level plating field, fairness of elections and undue restrictions of freedom of expression. See[32]

Removing Imran Khan's statement from jail is against freedom of expression and showing real information to the readers of Wikipedia because people of Pakistan has given mandate to Imran Khan and his statement should be added with reference from valid reference. Reference from International Media should also be added on election rigging and human rights in the country as well.

It was my first time working on election page of Pakistan during current event time. I started adding election boxes(details of candidates by votes, % etc) which sheriff reverted by saying that it is against neutrality to add election boxes before elections, so I stopped working on it. When I worked on making List of members of the 5th National Assembly of Pakistan and I copied names of elected members from 1970 Elections page and I worked to modify it by adding party colors to the table, adding districts and divisions of East Bengal (Now Bangladesh) at that time, Districts of West Pakistan, separating elected members from members elected on by-elections adding a separate section "Membership changes", adding Members elected on Women seats and also added members names of Patuakhali district. but still he stated "Dummy edit for attribution". Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hm. The reported editor has a long history at ANI, so others well versed in it are likely to chime in. But my first observation is that OP has a rather precocious editing history, creating articles and initiating page moves within five days of account creation (and within their first twenty edits). Grandpallama (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Grandpallama, I'm a MediaWiki developer, so I'm familiar with the platform. Before the creation of this account, I edited as an IP editor, so I'm familiar with the main guidelines as well. I mainly created this account to create or edit content considered censored in Pakistan, and could have repercussions (see Enforced disappearances in Pakistan), so I don't want to reveal my public location and IP. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Grandpallama (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@HistoriesUnveiler: It's difficult to grasp how a MediaWiki developer could be so knowledgeable about what's going-on on Wikipedia. You seem to possess more knowledge about SheriffIsInTown than I do, but that's beside the point. It's good to know that you're here to edit content perceived as censored in Pakistan. However, I also feel your attempt to remove BLP on Bushra Bibi is also viewed as censorship, IMO. --Saqib (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Knowledge about SheriffIsInTown in form of diffs is public. Any one can access/collect it using the software. I spend a day to go through their history and collect the diffs, just to stop the disruption. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Note to admins: HistoriesUnveiler and Saqib had content dispute with me which they took to ANI. HistoriesUnveiler, a 12 day account starts changing article content massively disregarding already established consensus, when countered by me, they could not get through their edits due to lack of consensus, Saqib ends their long break and decide to help them out, the content dispute ends at ANI instead of them resolving that on talk pages or engaging official content dispute mechanisms such as WP:DRN. Further than that if an admin finds anything questionable or objectionable, please ping me and ask, and I'll gladly provide clarification. Otherwise, I prefer to dedicate my time to enhancing the encyclopedia rather than engaging in a back-and-forth exchange of essays. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Let me clarify that despite being on a wikibreak, I've been intermittently active on WP. I'm not here to support User:HistoriesUnveiler or anyone else as you claim without any evidence. I fully agree that HistoriesUnveiler should have sought resolution through WP:DRN instead of bringing the issue here. I've no issues as long you refrain from removing properly sourced material. --Saqib (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that users are leaving messages on the talk pages of both Sheriff and War Wounded, asking them why they are actively interfering in the process of inserting crucial information which must be available to the average reader (such as the claims of the military rigging the election, which is true, and the refusal to insert Imran Khan in the election box), but these two individuals are not responding to the messages on the talk pages, thus there is a missing confrontation which further makes it difficult to address these problems. VosleCap (talk) 11:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@VosleCap: Your comment is not clear to me. Who is inserting crucial information to pages and which two individuals are not responding to the messages on the talk pages? --Saqib (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Saqib, disruptive editing and incivility history is too long, which we cannot resolve through WP:DRN. The topic ban on politics-related articles is necessary. They have a long history here: IBAN from Dresser, POV-pushing on Afghan president's WP:BLP, abusing an editor in Pashto, harrasement of @Sminthopsis84: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive921#User_page_and_actions,_User:SheriffIsInTown, attempts to remove word Islamist from a militant's biography, and describe Hussain Haqqani as a traitor and incivility issues with @Kautilya3:. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Because I was specifically tagged here I will respond. This will be my only comment on this issue unless asked for more information. I have 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault watchlisted and saw and edit war taking place between SheriffIsInTown and HistoriesUnveiler. I started a discussion on the article talk page, something that should always be done before an edit war escalates to the point it did. Neither editor was blatantly adding or removing vandalism. As stated there, Sherriff removed some very obvious misrepresentations when you actually read the source material. The misrepresentations were caused by previous good faith attempts at simplifying the wording in that section. The problem is that the edits changed what was being said. I cautioned Sheriff to maybe do a little deeper dive, it took me less than a minute, to find out the history of that section. The editor that made the edits responded and we are going to both work together on restoring the correct information. I am not aware nor do I want to be involved in any further dispute between these two editors. I only wanted the edit warring to stop. --ARoseWolf 16:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• If I've previously edited a page, I typically review the edit history starting from my last edit. However, I hadn't edited this page before, and I encountered objectionable text while researching for any existing article on Salman Akram Raja, whom I was planning to create an article about. Raja is known for his advocacy for human rights and women’s rights, but the text in that article falsely accused him of victim-blaming, which seemed inaccurate. Recognizing this serious violation of the WP:BLP policy, I concluded that it had been added by someone to discredit Raja and proceeded to remove it. HistoriesUnveiler had already been involved in conflicts with me on other articles and wikihounded me to the 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault page. They began restoring the BLP violation without consideration, seemingly to prolong their battleground behavior. Given their wikihounding, I didn't believe they would be receptive to reason when it came to this matter, otherwise I would have attempted to engage them on talk. Since then, I have revisited the page and restored the text to its original wording, effectively removing the BLP violation. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Reading all above details, In short I agree with SheriffIsInTown in a way that Saqib and HistoriesUnveiler both have many behaviourial issues which cause suspision and disruption. I feel both of these have biased views dening nuetrality. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Hard to see this comment as anything other than retaliatory for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:LingoSouthAsia_reported_by_User:Saqib_(Result:_Declined). Grandpallama (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• I was tagged in OP's post, so I will add my comment. SheriffIsInTown participated in the WP:FEB24 drive, adding dozens of dubious sources to pages of villages and railway stations in Pakistan. After it was repeatedly pointed out in the talk page, they stopped using those sources and continued editing as nothing ever happened, without ever looking back on previous edits. The result: 100+ poorly sourced articles that will probably never be cleaned up (I started doing so and it's a massive undertaking). While the user has been responsive, they have not shown an attitude of being able to recognize and correct their mistakes. Broc (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• The aim of WP:FEB24 was to diminish the unreferenced backlog, which stretched back to December 2007 (17 years old). My intention in participating in the drive was solely to provide genuine assistance. The village articles pertained to legally recognized locations, and the sources I added were not for contentious material; rather, they simply verified the existence of these places and their population. The population census data is compiled by the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics and was copied by a third-party website. By adding sources to this third-party website, I effectively removed these pages from the unreferenced backlog. While more sources could potentially be added in the future, I believe this was sufficient to address the backlog for now. I intend to continue working on articles related to Project Pakistan, and those articles now being on my watchlist will certainly be revisited and improved upon. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  The "third-party website" is a personal blog [33] and definitely not a WP:RS as has been explained over and over again in your talk page and on the drive talk page. Pakistani census data is officially available (as you have yourself used this as a source on later pages), yet you are not willing to correct or even admit your mistakes.

  On several ([34] [35] [36] and many more) railway station pages you added a fan club as a source. Again, it was pointed out, you stopped adding the source but never admitted your mistake or backtracked.

  There is no point in discussing content here as it's not the right venue and you have had all the opportunities to express yourself; I am slowly adding {{Unreliable sources}} to many of the pages you edited as part of the drive, but this goes to prove the point of OP here, your editing behavior causes huge time sinks. Broc (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Within WikiProject Pakistan, there are over 100,000 articles, many of which are in a subpar condition, written in language that may not meet English proficiency standards, as English is not the first language for many Pakistani editors. A large portion of these articles lack proper sourcing, fail to adhere to style guidelines, and have been left stagnant after initial creation by transient editors. WikiProject Pakistan requires extensive improvements, and with that being said, small village articles and railway stations were not high on my list of priorities. I came across them during the drive and attempted to locate better sources, but encountered difficulties due to the unavailability of the Pakistan Railway website and anomalies in Pakistan Bureau of Statistics data. As a result, I resorted to sources that, while not entirely reliable, did not contain incorrect information in my assessment. Due to these source-related challenges, I chose not to actively participate in the competition aspect of the drive, as it would have been unfair to others who were able to provide better sources. Outside of the drive, I have other high-priority tasks, such as election coverage and reducing the article size of Pakistan, which has over 15,000 words of readable prose. However, over the course of my editing endeavors, I do intend to enhance many articles within WikiProject Pakistan, including those related to villages and railway stations, when the time permits. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  As a result, I resorted to sources that, while not entirely reliable, did not contain incorrect information in my assessment.

  This is facially unacceptable reasoning if one accepts why WP:V is important, and ultimately does not help improve the content you'd like to improve on the site. While you are my fellow editor and I do respect your commitment to improving a topic that really deserves more adequate coverage, I do not want to take your word for it regarding claims more than I do for anyone else. I trust you would also find this unacceptable if it was coming from another editor. Remsense诉 04:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Appreciate your feedback, I will strive to find better sources going forward. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I am not particularly knowledgeable regarding abstruse political issues, and am not inclined to the research necessary to give an informed comment on them, but @SheriffIsInTown: this is not good and I would appreciate if you did not do it. First of all, you are wrong -- tools like ReFill do need to be used with caution, and it does create more issues than it solves if you use them blindly -- and second of all, even if you are right, it is hard for me to imagine any situation in which having ChatGPT write an insulting rap is an appropriate response to an onwiki problem. jp×g🗯️ 21:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It was just for fun and it happened only once. It was not intended to insult. I regret that, it won’t happen again. As for the refill, I already stopped using it for large scale edits. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Like JPxG, I don't have the time nor inclination to examine in detail all the issues being raised here, but I did happen to look at the discussion between jacobolus and SheriffIsInTown containing the "insulting rap" linked to above, and if that discussion is in any way representative of SheriffIsInTown behavior, then it would suggest that they are not a net positive here. @SheriffIsInTown:'s "just for fun" is a childish and terribly unacceptable justification for insulting behavior, and such a response (itself insulting) is further evidence of your inappropriate behavior. Paul August ☎ 13:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I regret my behavior and no rap of any kind will happen in future. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I really appreciate Sheriff for above acceptance. This may be taken as a positive step by Sheriff. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It really does not seem that bad. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the rap as being a problem. The problem in that thread is that the errors other editors are pointing out were real errors, while Sheriff continuously argued that they weren't errors (up to and including the rap). The mainspace errors were the main problem; the refusal/failure to listen to others' explanations of the errors were the secondary problem; in my view it doesn't matter if WP:IDHT behavior occurs in poetry or prose. Levivich (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't disregard the issues entirely; some were indeed valid, and I took steps to resolve them. However, it's been over a month since then, and I've ceased relying solely on refill, realizing there are numerous other constructive ways to contribute to Wikipedia. I have definitely learned from that experience. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

You really didn't resolve them. What you did do was (eventually, after excessive effort on my part) (a) give up on the style of semi-automated edits, hopefully for good, and (b) make at least nominal effort to fix problems with particular edits which were pointed out to you along with explicitly recommended fixes (while several of your fixes were mediocre, I give you points for at least making some effort here). This is certainly better than continuing to cause further damage, but does not entirely solve the problem. You made at least hundreds of other questionable edits which have never been double checked, a substantial proportion of which are likely regressions which should be fixed. (If you or anyone reading along here wants to volunteer to do that, it would be appreciated.) –jacobolus (t) 18:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I also reviewed some edits beyond the ones you highlighted and did not identify any noteworthy issues. It's hard to confirm that none of the edits were double-checked, considering that many of those pages are likely on the watchlists of numerous editors. However, if you believe all my refill edits had problems, I'm willing to revert them all to their previous state or, as a goodwill gesture, I can manually fill one reference per day outside of WikiProject Pakistan. Manual corrections are time-consuming, but I'm committed to contributing positively. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Manual corrections are time-consuming – yes, this is precisely why doing questionable 1-per-minute-pace semi-automated edits is a problem, because it takes significantly disproportionate effort to clean up later. –jacobolus (t) 21:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I see it as not that bad, SheriffIsInTown is committed to contributing positively. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea where to shove this, but, unaware of this whole thread, I restored the comment on WT:WPAIC. That AfD example looks LLM to me. Queen of Hearts (talk • stalk • she/they) 07:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• See their full note here. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• I've blocked the OP as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
• Can I request a closure here as I have been a victim of targeted campaign first by an IP, then by OP who has been blocked as a sock now? I have addressed all other issues in my comments above. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Jonharojjashi; concerning edits and suspected meatpuppetry

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

These past months there have been a surge of "new" users making the same WP:TENDENTIOUS edits, making use of the same (poor/misused) sources, all in India-related (generally war/battle) articles, many of them being the exact same topic, including poorly written *insert Indian victory here* articles. Because of this, I made two SPIs which go into a lot more detail about this [37] [38], but they were mostly fruitless. Which leads me think this surely must be meat puppetry; one thing is that two similar users emerge around the same time, but several? (even more have emerged since the latest two SPIs) No way.

Jonharojjashi is still continuing these problematic edits. Besides creating two poorly written non-notable articles to get a cheap "Gupta (Indian) victory" (Gupta conquests of Bengal and Extermination of Nagadhatta), they're making a WP:POVFORK variant of Kingdom of Khotan [39], trying to push a legendary story obviously not supported by WP:RS to Indianize the Kingdom of Khotan. Remember the meatpuppetry I mentioned earlier? Well, just coincidentally not long ago one of the users that Jonharojjashi was suspected to be connected to in the SPI, also attempted to Indianize the topic in the article itself [40]. More proof that this can't all be a coincidence. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems like Jonharojjashi is now attempting to retaliate against some of those users who have shown concerns with their edits, including me. They made a poorly made SPI, trying to connect me with random users from completely different backgrounds and interests... Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ImperialAficionado HistoryofIran (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Now I have even more compelling evidence that there is ongoing meatpuppetry - the evidence certainly explains the bit about the random new users pretty much working together. Don't think I can post it here per WP:OUTING - I'll gladly email it to a interested admin. HistoryofIran (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

If you have found more compelling evidence of meatpuppetry by me then please go to SPI as you have done earlier [41][42] and I haven't retaliated to this ANI instead I had already told you that I'm getting links or in other words I'm getting your connections with other users, so it was obvious that I would go for SPI [43] and I have explained there that how some of them are coordinating with you or grouping with each other in order to bite newcomers.

You are again demeaning Gupta conquests of Bengal, please go through the sources before making such allegations. [44] I have explained that how this article is notable. And again please don't pass such judgements here [45] if the draft is still in development. Jonharojjashi (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Pardon me? Please refrain from suggesting that we are colluding to "target newcomers" by lumping everyone together. I specifically addressed certain accounts that were engaging in edit wars for a specific agenda. Additionally, I pointed out the creation of articles like "Battle of X" and "Siege of X" without proper sourcing, relying solely on invented names. While there's no issue with creating such articles if reliable sources mention them verbatim, here we've observed multiple articles being created with invented names to favor a specific perspective. When concerns are raised about these articles, they are met with coordinated pushback and even the removal of AFD tags [46]. Many newcomers contribute constructively to contentious topics, and their efforts are valued. However, creating articles with less notability and inventing names for battles and sieges are discouraged. It's crucial to remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative project aimed at expanding knowledge, not for personal agendas or gratification. I recommend submitting your drafts for Articles for Deletion (AFD) review instead of moving them to mainspace unilaterally, especially since multiple concerns have been raised. Imperial^[AFCND] 07:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you should look into yourself as you have removed sources before proposing AFD many times [47][48]. I have given substantial evidence for Tag teaming [49] and can you elaborate by what you mean by certain agendas? Jonharojjashi (talk) 09:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I gave proper reasoning in the edit summary, and it is a good faith edit. Non WP:RS will be removed. And the reason for removing the template from Extermination of Naghadatta is given in its edit summary. Why didn't you participate in those AFD discussion, and now talking about it? And I don't know anything about the "Tag teaming" talking here. The "Agendas" are clearly mentioned by HistoryofIran in your earlier SPIs [50] [51]. I made the earlier comment to make clear that we are not "targetting the newcomers", and I will not be lengthening this thread by baseless arguments. Waiting for the conclusion of the ANI report. Imperial^[AFCND] 09:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

And the "Agendas" which were earlier mentioned by historyofIran was proven to be nothing but an unrelated call [52] and three different peoples [53] by the SPI clerks.

As you have previously made personal attacks on me by calling a good faith edit as "vandalism" [54] so I will again warn you to not portray me as a sockpuppetier anymore and do not use words like "agenda" and "vandalism" and "to gain some pride points" (obviously referring to historyofIran) when I wasn't guilty. I don't want to overreact as ANI is still ongoing but honestly this feels like WP:HA and WP:HOUND so this is it, I will just stop replying from now. Jonharojjashi (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, if you have evidence of off-wiki canvassing and/or meatpuppetry, you should send it to ArbCom. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, just send an email to ArbCom. HistoryofIran (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

62.4.44.220

62.4.44.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) pretty much has just posted PA's against me (and possibly others) over at Talk:Battle of Bakhmut [[55]] [[56]] [[57]] I asked them to stop [[58]] and as I said on their talk page they seem to very much be a SPA that is not here to build an encyclopedia. Their response to my warning them about this is this [[59]], which is a clear statement they are not going to stop disrupting talk pages with comments like this the first one I link to. Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

My opinion, fwiw, is that you both need to calm down and stop engaging in petty disputes. Ultimately I'll leave it to other more established users to decide what action they think should be taken here. 123.226.224.217 (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I see unsubstantiated demands and discussing editors behaviors. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

IP and non EC users AFAIK are not allowed to post on TPs in and around that area unless they have something constructive to say. This does not appear to be the case. RUSUKR is a shitshow and this sort of behaviour doesn't help. A "pipe down" temp block should be administered promptly and I don't foresee anyone objecting to that. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

RUSUKR TBan definitely needed. _Dial^mayo 16:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

And they continue to make everything about me [[60]]. Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Prety clear. SPA WP:NOTHERE. WP:GSRUSUKR applies. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Per past individual sanctions, the IP should be warned, rather than blocked. I would also support a brief topic ban (one month at most) in RUSUKR as a less restrictive alternative to prevent disruption. In any event, I encourage IP to edit in non-ECP areas and help improve Wikipedia. voorts (talk/contributions) 08:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

And it continues [[61]] Slatersteven (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Allow me just to observe one thing. Its just so happens, that the 3 users who are active on the mentioned Battle of Bakhmut talk page, and happen to be the vast minority who keep pushing this agenda that the battle is not over, is a Ukrainian victory, and other stuff that is clearly not true, also just happen to stumble upon this here, and ask for my ban. Interesting. Unlikely I would call it, but ok.

Both Slaterstever, ManyAreasExpert and Cinderella157, only one of which I have ever directly adressed, all prefer the article to not state the result of the battle, which is clearly infuriating everyone who has any integrity whatsoever.

The RfC results currently has 16 votes, 14 of them want it called a Russian victory. 2 of them don't. Slatersteven and ManyAreasExpert, both of which happen to want me gone. The third one, Cinderella157 added another option to the rfc, which is another way to not say its a russian victory. No one voted it, including them. Guess they don't like losing.

In total, I don't mind getting banned. I probably deserve it, and its not like I edit anything anyway. I never edited a thing on the page either to be clear, nor have I ever intended to. I only left comments in the talk page, because, just like dozens of others, I was stupefied by what these people are doing with their agendas. They are intentionally distorting the truth, through "fair" wiki mechanics, but its outraging everyone who comes across it.

Just becuase they are polite, doesn't mean their intentions are good. They are clearly leaving the article in a state that no one except for them wants (going off of the RfC results, but also common sense).

Again, ban be sure, but wonder why a battle for a town taken in May 2023 took 6 months to get an end date on wikipedia, and why it still has no result of the battle stated? The answer is these 3 users. 62.4.44.220 (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

You will find that I, too, called for a block for you and I have not edited that article (or any other article pertaining to RUSUKR, for that matter). This is not due to animosity toward you, or because I agree with your "opponents" (I do not believe I have ever interacted with these users at all), but rather because you are breaking the rules in pretty blatant fashion and being disruptive in doing so. You said that [j]ust becuase [sic] they are polite, doesn't mean their intentions are good. We can flip that around and say that just because your intentions are good (or because you're right) doesn't mean you get to be impolite. You can get your point across without breaking the rules, and that you chose to lash out is particularly puzzling since, according to you, there's a current RfC where your preferred position seems to be prevailing. Oh well. Ostalgia (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I never disputed me deserving a ban.

Just pointing out, that the emergence of people like myself, along with the behavior, is triggered by Wikipedia giving 'editors' like the couple of them on the Battle of Bakhmut page safe heaven to push political or ideological agendas.

Why did that battle take 6 months to get an end date, even though the end date that is now shown was clear the day it was proclaimed? You could maybe argue about 1-2 days up or down, but all the news, all the media stated that Bakhmut was lost in May 2023. And they, these editors, took all the available tools they had, for it to remain as 'ongoing' for as long as possible. After they exhausted their options with that, they turned to the result, and suddenly, its 'unclear' who the winner is, even though one side clearly took control of the town during the battle. And they are, again, using the same modus operandi, just dragging this process, for reasons known only to them.

And if you look at the talk page, you will see its not just me, its dozens of users who are expressing all kinds of issues with the page being bad. Most of it is instantly closed and archived ofc, by said editors.

You can debate things that are debatable ofc, but when something is so clear, as the result and duration of this battle is, having it lag for what is gonna be probably a whole year, to reflect on Wikipedia, is really just hurting Wikipedia as a whole, FAR more than my, I will not fight you on that, rude outburts on the talk page.

These lengthy processes on Wikipedia (such as an RfC), that a user can just start willy-nilly, clearly have an abuse angle. And RfCs have been abused in that way on that page many times, several times by the same user. 62.4.44.220 (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Please provide diffs regarding people inappropriately closing discussions or other talk page chicanery. In any event, as Ostalgia said, being rude and personally attack others is not the best way to win friends and influence people. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

As far as Im recall the removed or closed threads were either A, attack pieces (aimed mainly at me) or B, related to then RF, and by users not even allowed to comment there, as the IP is not (and which they continue to do) [[62]]. Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It is interesting that so many random users are attacking you, isn't it?

But when you spend 6 months delaying an article about a battle having an end date (which it clearly had), and after that you continue to dispute the result of the battle with the exact same means (which you are clearly doing), yeah, some people might start to get annoyed by your actions.

I do not buy for one second, the idea that you thought your stance is gonna get any support in the current RfC. Its an indefensible stance. And other editors called you out on it, days before you initiated it ("Guess, you'll force us to make another RfC to deal with this... Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)")

You took the article about (in terms of life loss at least) the biggest battle since WWII, and decided to make it a stump of an article (which it still is), that shows nothing and says nothing. You pushed your agenda how the battle is not over until you exhausted every possibility you had, and without ever saying sorry for wasting months of the article being in that state because of you, you just went on from the ongoing/over discussion to somehow its not a Russian win, but loss one, with arguments that, I am sure, not even you believe in.

I strongly suggest, if you want to avoid being attacked, is to stop intentionally disrupting important articles on Wikipedia from being complete for months on end. 62.4.44.220 (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I really have nothing to add to this. Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I plead you to read WP:NPA if you don't want to be blocked! Flux55 (my talk page) 03:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

They have been asked to, told to and I suspect ordered to, and the above is a clear (well not only) refusal (but also a statement they will continue). Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

This [[63]] maybe related. as this is the only place I can find any discussion of my behavior. Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Recommend that all those disruptive IPs be blocked. At worst, they appear to be seeking only to entertain themselves. That's assuming they're different individuals. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Please review WP:AGF you (or may not) be violating policy. 97.103.129.121 (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

You stated you have reported me, this is the only report I can find where I am talked about hence why I assumed this was related. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Slatersteven, you are mentioned in two recent Reddit threads regarding Bakhmut.[64][65]. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I have only just seen this edit by the IP where they would imply bad faith editing by myself, Manyareasexpert and Slatersteven. For my part, I was the editor that opened the recent RfC that altered the scope of the article and argued for the change of scope that has led to the battle being considered to be over. The closer indicated there was nuance to the result. Nuance cannot be captured in an infobox but should be discussed in the aftermath section of the article that did not exist. I have only ever advocated that the result should be vacated until the aftermath section is reasonably developed and is supported by the aftermath section. I have never advocated a Ukrainian victory. See my comment in the result RfC. I have never advocated a Ukrainian victory. I have no ideological agenda to push save that WP articles should be circumspect, apply academically objective rigor and be written at arms-length from the subject. I have had cause to disagree with other editors who appear to edit with an apparent bias. I would see that the IP is going off half cocked and barking up the wrong tree. Casting aspersion about my integrity without substantiation is a personal attack. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Redit is not Wikipedia, and has no relevance (and I do not have an account). Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I was only explaining (possibly) the source of the comments targeting you, which I also see as unsubstantiated attacks. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from Rockchalk717

• Rockchalk717 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Travis Kelce (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rockchalk717 has engaged in disruptive edit warring on the Travis Kelce article. When a talk page discussion was opened up over whether to add his altercation with Andy Reid during the Super Bowl here, he has since refused to participate after true allegations of WP:STATUSQUOSTONEWALL. This is not his first ANI, similar issues of ownership have arisen within the past 5 weeks. I propose a topic ban from any article involving the Kansas City Chiefs broadly construed. 2603:3003:4802:5F00:D059:EC1D:21C9:6D9E (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs showing the edit warring? —Bagumba (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

[66] [67] [68]. To be fair #1 isn’t directly about the issue at hand, but it does show his edit warring attitude.--2603:3003:4802:5F00:28FF:B7F4:3EBB:8078 (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to go off-topic but can I talk you into signing up for an account? Your first message on this thread is the same IP as your last message at that talk, your second message here is from a different IP, and I can't tell which, if any, of other the anonymous editors at that thread are also you. City of Silver 17:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

All the IPs should be the same /64 - 2603:3003:4802:5f00::/64. 2603:3003:4802:5F00:28FF:B7F4:3EBB:8078 (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, for an IPv6 address, the first 16 characters matching means its from the same connection. —Bagumba (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The second diff which shows the Reid reference being removed was actually done by a different editor. As for the talk page discussion, WP:CONSENSUS doesnt require unanimity. If you can establish consensus on the wording to add, and if another editor with permissions doesnt add it, you can make an edit request on the talk page, referencing the consensus established. —Bagumba (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

We aren't going to topic ban Rockchalk717 for disengaging from that thread. This is a content dispute, not a behavioral issue. If you want the content included in the article, you can write a draft paragraph and then open an RfC on whether it should be included. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@2603:3003:4802:5F00:28FF:B7F4:3EBB:8078: Edit warring is reverting the same edit. Those are 3 different edits being reverted. Removing myself from a discussion doesn't violate a policy. It's a little frustrating to be reported to ANI twice by (who I assume) is the same person hiding behind an IP and for some reason refuses to create account and be accused of disruptive editing because they disagree with something I've said. Disagreeing with a proposed addition isn't stonewalling either. Please stop falsely accusing me of stonewalling.--Rockchalk717 20:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no requirement for an editor to create an account, though there are benefits for doing so. —Bagumba (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Rockchalk717, just a reminder that per WP:3RR,

The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually. A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert.

I have not looked into the details here, but if you think edit warring requires reverting the same edit, you're mistaken. If there are intervening edits, then reverting different edits still counts towards the 3RR limit and therefore may be considered edit warring. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It's worth reiterating that WP:STATUSQUOSTONEWALL is an "explanatory essay" and not a policy or guideline of the project.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The point remains, I wasn't edit warring. Only once did I have more than one revert within a 24 hour period on that page, and the 2nd one was right before I began discussing the edit dispute with the editor. The point also remains that I've done nothing wrong. This person hiding behind the IP address appears to have something against me for just disagreeing with them on two separate occasions as this is the second time they've created an inappropriate ANI report about me, both of which where thinking an edit dispute was a violation of policy.--Rockchalk717 07:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Point remains; you like to take OWNERship of articles, make accusations, edit war, etc. A topic ban from the chiefs is lenient; I’d personally advocate for a topic ban from all of the NFL.96.231.203.242 (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Your comment is tantamount to a personal attack. We are not going to topic ban Rockchalk717 from anything. Again, this is a content dispute that you need to resolve via RfC. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Rockchalk is refusing to discuss, and an RFC cannot be attempted because someone is going to claim WP:RFCBEFORE wasn’t followed. Also, do NOT accuse someone of personal attacks without substantial evidence; that is a personal attack itself. 96.231.203.242 (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. You could absolutely start an RfC on the article talk page if you wanted to. Rockchalk's withdrawal from one thread will never be enough to warrant any sanction, let alone a topic ban, in the eyes of any competent observer. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

(1) Numerous RFCs have failed before due to RFCBEFORE requirement. (2) “any competent observer” that’s a personal attack. (3) This isn’t the first time Rockchalk has engaged in disruptive editing. The previous ANI showed them refusing to add a maintence tag for unsourced material on 2023 Kansas City Chiefs, and most editors agreed that the tag was appropriate at the time. 96.231.203.242 (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I have attempted at the article talk page to turn the discussion back to content. If you can't be bothered to start an RfC, maybe I will. At any rate, the previous ANI + your scurrilous accusations here are not nearly enough to warrant a sanction; it is time to disengage before a bent stick is sent your direction. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Can we just close this discussion? It's been made clear to this editor I've done nothing wrong and no disciplinary action is necessary. I even have personally agreed to a brief comment about the incident the editor wants included. The editor just keeps personally attacking me with false accusations of edit warring, stonewalling, ownership of articles, and inappropriate usage of ANI directed towards me. The situation is nothing more than an edit dispute and the editor has taken what I would admit is a little stubbornness on my end the wrong way. I will apologize for the stubbornness but me being stubborn on here at times is not against the rules.--Rockchalk717 18:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOXING, edit warring and POV-pushing in Pakistani election articles

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

---

Bolt Kjerag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been imposing POV edits using a website they claim to be a reliable and “official” source self-proclaiming electoral fraud in 2024 Pakistani general election despite multiple warnings by other users over its provenance and partisanship. This led to the election page being protected to prevent them from hammering down their source, whereupon they moved to Electoral fraud in Pakistan to impose their exact same edits again with disregard for concerns raised by editors over the same reasons and even going as far as to place highlights on their citations in a bid to WP:SOAPBOX, claiming it to be not ordinary and even official data from a “reliable”, “well-researched” website that screams ELECTORAL FRAUD at the very beginning and was created for the sole purpose of disseminating such ideas. Furthemore they have sidestepped wiki decorum by demanding all discussions be held in their talk page rather than the page they’re tampering with. As of now they are currently edit-warring despite two warnings on their talk page.

See:

• [[69]]
• [[70]]
• [[71]]
• [[72]]
• [[73]]

For reference, this is the so-called source that they have been parading around as “information”: [[74]], which is a virtual copypaste of this website from one of the affected parties in this election. [[75]].

Request immediate action to deal with this before the credibility of said articles becomes compromised. Borgenland (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Just want to note that their behavior is persistent and similar as Dirceu Mag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:SOUPBOXER - The answer posted on Administrator page concerning your complaint.

Thanks,

Bolt Kjerag Bolt Kjerag (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Cross-wiki CITESPAM and stalking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most sources of Wikipedia do not have authoritative peer reviews.

Academic journals making nuanced historiographical claims should.

Should delete all of these?

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

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

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

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

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

 Courtesy link: zh:Special:Diff/81456027

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vandalism by user @TimothyBlue

@TimothyBlue

Hello, I would just like to report one user who has recently taken a very strong stance on my articles. He has been bashfully marking articles written by me as unreviewed, despite the fact that they have been previously verified. He deletes my entries despite the fact that I have added references to them to verified sources. He accuses me of plagiarism, unprofessionalism and using bad sources.

Here is a small outline of the whole situation:

1. it all started with the fact that this user added hundreds of notes to the article ''List of wars and conflicts involving Poland'' under the title ''citation needed'' even to those that already had their own separate article. I reminded him of this and we began to discuss the issue on the ''talk'' page of the article, after a short discussion the user in question was unable to present credible arguments and his only goal in my opinion was to vandalize that page.

[76][77][78][79][80][81]

2. So he began to take revenge on my articles by marking many of them as unreviewed despite the fact that they had been previously reviewed, he began to slander my articles as if they were of poor quality and I should not write any more, he added many notes to my articles that were intended to get rid of them.

[82][83][84][85][86]

3. Although our main dispute was about the article "List of wars involving Poland" which this user vandalized, he claimed that Polish uprisings, invasions, rebellions, raids, civil wars, coups. and many similar entries had no place there because, in his opinion, they did not belong to the ''war'' category, I tried to explain to him that these entries fit there, and that every single article titled ''List of wars'' is structured similarly, although I partially helped him and started adding appropriate references to all entries that did not yet have their own website. Polish medieval chronicles describing specific events in detail, historical books etc. To which the user replied that I was still wrong and started adding a 'verification failed' note to them.

[87][88][89][90]

4. Yesterday, despite my assurances and warnings, this user went all out and deleted half of the entries from a given article, which made me angry and I decided to write to support for help.

[91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116]

When it comes to my articles, I have absolutely no problem with criticizing them because I am not flawless and I can make mistakes, however, when someone vandalizes them in a certain way, I cannot turn a blind eye to it and pretend that nothing is happening over each of the articles. I worked many hours, donated a lot of my free time to create them, and now one user who decided he didn't like them decided to vandalize them, which really upset me. So, coming to the point, is there any chance to minimize the damage that a given user commits to my articles, especially the article ''List of wars involving Poland''? Would it be possible to block this user's access to editing a given article, I work very hard to improve it, every day I add new pages I create to it, and this user destroys all my hard work with just a few clicks... Thanks @SebbeKg SebbeKg (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

FYI, you didn't leave a notice at TimothyBlue's Talk page, per the red banner at the top of the page. I've done this for you this time, but please do remember in the future. Woodroar (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Woodroar, thank you very much, i overlooked it. SebbeKg (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• User:SebbeKg, I suggest withdrawing this topic and returning to the discussion at Talk:List of wars and conflicts involving Poland before you're hit with a WP:BOOMERANG. You should also avoid words like "slander", which approaches a legal threat (see WP:NLT) and "vandalism", which has a narrow definition on Wikipedia (see WP:VAND). It's clear that TimothyBlue is engaging in good-faith editing and cleanup of List of wars and conflicts involving Poland; this is not vandalism. And after reading through the article, it does need cleanup. I mean, you're citing Jan Długosz, someone who's been dead for more than 500 years, rather than contemporary sources. Two editors have pointed out to you that your sources don't verify the claims being made. This is a very big deal on Wikipedia, as verifiability is one of our core content policies. My advice is to listen to TimothyBlue and Annwfwn, who have much more experience with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Woodroar (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Please show which select handful diffs clearly indicate the problem you're having with @TimothyBlue. No one is going to review this many examples. Star Mississippi 17:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Woodroar, yes, you are right, this article has many pages that do not have their own pages, and some of them need cleanup/their own page or appropriate references, although this is what I am currently working on. Yes, of course, Jan Długosz has been dead for 500 years and many chroniclers are not 100% reliable, but I wrote to this user that in the next few days I will be adding references to these entries also to other works, not only Długosz. However, as I wrote, my problem is that the author deletes entries that already have their own pages discussing specific topics in detail. Please see the links I provided in point no. 1 of my comment. What is the reason for quoting or deleting Polish military operations during World War II, Polish uprisings, civil wars that already have their articles? If TimothyBlue wants to clean up this article, let him delete or add notes to entries that do not yet have their own article, and this is mainly the ''Piast Poland'' and ''Feudal Fragmentation'' sections, although there is no need to delete entries that have already been extensively described in separate articles and as shown in the links in no. 4 of my comment, the author deleted all very important for the Polish Wikipedia community, Polish uprisings and almost every conflict in the 20th century... SebbeKg (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi I mainly mean adding 'citation needed' notes and deleting articles that already have their own pages. See links from no. 1 and no. 4 of my comment. SebbeKg (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a dispute about the inclusion criteria at List of wars and conflicts involving Poland. Acceptable entries in such lists must either have their own well-referenced articles, or a reference to a reliable source must be provided for the entries. It should be obvious that modern scholarship is vastly preferable to a 500 year old source, because if that old source is useful, it would have been checked and analyzed by modern scholars. SebbeKg, I recommend that you apologize and withdraw this report, which amounts to an extended personal attack on an editor trying to enforce Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Your hostility and false accusations of vandalism are particularly disturbing. Cullen328 (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

After all, SebbeKg, writing of Jan Długosz, the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica said his strong personal bias must certainly be taken into consideration in any critical estimate of that famous work. Cullen328 (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Cullen328 i mentioned that in my previous comment, the reason I used his chronicle was because it was the easiest to navigate, after all I wrote that I would also add other references in the next few days. SebbeKg (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

SebbeKg, do not use poor quality 500+ year old sources as references with a promise to add better sources "in a few days". Add high quality sources when you add new content, without exception. Cullen328 (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Boomerang

• I've tried discussing sourcing and list criteria with this editor to no avail.[117], [118], [119]
• List of wars currently with their additions: [120]; version partially cleaned up by me: [121]
• Many of new articles they have created have substantial amounts of unsourced or poorly sourced material: [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131]
• This morning they made an undiscussed move intended to change article scope of List of wars involving Poland: [132]. Someone with needed permissions should undo this undiscussed move.
• I think the ping spam here shows their attitude towards working with others: [133]  // Timothy :: talk  18:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  @TimothyBlue

  Just stop deleting entries for websites that already have an existing article, this is my biggest problem in our dispute, if you want to clean up this article, remove or add 'citation needed' notes to articles that don't have their own website. The "Piast Poland" and "Feudal Fragmentation" sections require partial cleaning, but there is absolutely no need to remove Polish uprisings or conflicts of the 20th century, which are some of the most important wars in Polish history.

  We can discuss this separately if you want my discord is: sebastian.1100069 just write me there. SebbeKg (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  I am not going to message you in a video game. This suggestion is ridiculous.  // Timothy :: talk  18:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  All discussion of this matter should take place openly and transparently here on Wikipedia, not on some random Discord server, SebbeKg. Cullen328 (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Hello @Cullen328 well, no problem, I suggested discord only because it is a very convenient platform for writing. SebbeKg (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Dear @TimothyBlue if you want to clean up this page, please do not delete entries that already exist on Wikipedia, and only do it with those that have neither references nor articles. Many entries that you deleted today are of great importance to Poles and deleting wars such as Polish uprisings, 20th century conflicts or Polish military actions during World War II is simply inappropriate. SebbeKg (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  SebbeKg, will you be withdrawing your false accusations of vandalism against TimothyBlue? Please be aware that that editor and others will continue to enforce Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, even if you object. Cullen328 (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  People have already tried to tell you this multiple times, but it is not acceptable to lean on other pages for purposes of verifiability. Wikipedia is not an acceptable source. Reliable citations should be provided for every contestable claim in every article, and the WP:burden is on the person adding the claims.

  You do not have a leg to stand on here, you being annoyed at people asking you to cite claims according to site policy is overly possessive, even if you worked hard on the content under scrutiny. you do not have ownership of any articles, and do not get to decide unilaterally why material is fine or not fine. Remsense诉 02:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  SebbeKg is still struggling to understand list criteria and proper sourcing. From today:[134], [135]. Annwfwn (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Problem continues

• I thought the above and the talk discussion resolved this issue with @SebbeKg: but it has continued. See [136], [137], [138], [139]. This editor clearly does not intend to respect guidelines and policy.  // Timothy :: talk  18:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  @TimothyBlue, why are you removing those entries when i am currently adding references to them??!! SebbeKg (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Why are you ignoring the LISTCRITERIA?  // Timothy :: talk  18:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  @TimothyBlue

  This situation is simply abnormal. Yesterday we had a long discussion on this topic, after all, I add references to these entries not from the chronicles of Jan Dlugosz but from books by professional historians. And you, by deleting these entries, are making my job more difficult. SebbeKg (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Why are you ignoring the LISTCRITERIA? You have not improved the article, just made it a larger mess.  // Timothy :: talk  18:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  @TimothyBlue

  You can't delete entries with already existing separate articles discussing these wars, you also can't delete entries that have a reference, after all I started today to add references to history books that have nothing to do with Dlugosz, so why are you deleting them? SebbeKg (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  @TimothyBlue

  Btw. lets discuss it in the talk page of the article and not here. SebbeKg (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Here is the appropriate place. And you still have not replied to @Cullen328: above.  // Timothy :: talk  18:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Hi SebbeKg, you absolutely can delete already existing articles that do not meet the list criteria. For example, you added Naval battle near Hel to List of wars involving Poland. This is not a war, thus it does not meet the list criteria. Plus you did not add a source. [140]. Annwfwn (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  And a quick look at List of wars involving Poland#Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569–1795) section will show the mess this has become.  // Timothy :: talk  19:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  He is doing his best, he is really doing a lot of good for Wikipedia, and a few Wikipedians even congratulate him for that. Yes, some of his references and sources may be very old, but it did not make sense for me to put so much pressure on him. Also he adds current references. Please be patient, he will fix everything. Vbbanaz05 (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Vbbanaz thank you very much for the kind words, several other users also thanked me for my editing of this article. SebbeKg (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Editor seems to be under the impression that adding any reference will make something a war, when the entry clearly shows it does not meet the article LISTCRITERIA. [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147]. There are more, see article history.  // Timothy :: talk  03:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposal

SebbeKg has been warned by several editors [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154] here and on other talk pages but is refusing to get the point. I propose the following:

1. A block from the article List of wars involving Poland, they can make edit requests on the talk page.
2. A warning against creating new articles until the ones they have already created are properly sourced: eg: [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164]
3. New articles they create should go through AFC for a review of proper sourcing and original research.

This will allow them to both contribute and solve the issues.  // Timothy :: talk  19:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support: as proposer.  // Timothy :: talk  19:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• I would need to see some—any—acknowledgement from them that site guidelines exist or apply to them before I support a limited solution like this. As it stands it seems like a WP:IDHT case bound for an INDEF, unfortunately. Remsense诉 03:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Indefinite but not infinite block for I didn't hear that, indicating possible lack of reasonableness, noting that the editor can be unblocked if they agree to discuss guidelines, and recognize that Yelling Vandalism to "win" a content dispute is not collaborative. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support pending a change in attitude, per above.

Remsense诉 01:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• I have indefinitely blocked SebbeKg. Cullen328 (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

LTA MakaveliReed: seeking a larger rangeblock

• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MakaveliReed
• 2601:240:CD00:0:0:0:0:0/46 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

MakaveliReed has been active recently on a number of /64 ranges in the Chicago area. He got blocked yesterday at Special:Contributions/2601:240:CD01:F7A4:0:0:0:0/64, but was active before that and after that on other /64 ranges. Today he re-appeared on Special:Contributions/2601:240:CD01:22E6:B455:12A9:7A68:25CC.

I would like to propose a rangeblock on the /46 which covers the last month of activity. Larger ranges have more collateral damage. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week: expanded current block to the /46 range. El_C 06:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposing topic ban on PenmanWarrior

• Michele Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (older/now-deleted revisions)
• Draft:Michele Evans
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Evans
• PenmanWarrior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Micheleevansny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.117.93.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Quick timeline of 9 January, which is quite revealing.

• 14:44 (diff to a user talk page post confirming the action, since I can't link to a deleted diff), the IP amends the redirect for Michele Evans to a newly created article about a totally different Michele Evans.
• 14:51 IP adds link to Michele Evans to an article
• 14:54 IP adds another Michele Evans link
• 14:57 Micheleevansny adds link to Michele Evans to an article
• 15:43 Micheleevansny amends a pre-existing Michele Evans link to retarget to the previous redirect target (Lockheed Martin)
• 15:43 Micheleevansny does the the same again.

Now I'm hoping there's not much doubt in anyone's mind that Micheleevansny, with their rather revealing choice of username, must have some connection with the IP that was making Michele Evans related edits just minutes before, and that the use of the IP was an attempt to avoid accusations of potential conflict of interest.

The creation of the article on Michele Evans resulted in a discussion thread at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive355#Michele Evans, followed by the "Articles for deletion" discussion linked to above. During the latter, the IP bludgeoned the discssion for days on end, not even a 60 hour block stopped then coming back and wasting more time with even more bludgeoning. The PenmanWarrior account was created on 14 January and is either the same person or someone associated with them, based on the exceptionally narrow editing interest.

The deletion of the Michele Evans article should have put a stop to the promotion, save for some grunbling from the IP that seemed to be the case. However PenmanWarrior created a draft which is pretty identical except for the addition of a more recent news article that mentions Evans a couple of times, and wouldn't override the result of the Afd discussion as far as I can tell. They are also making spurious requests for undeletion, more of the same here, and more complaining here.

We've had the discussion about Michele Evans and the consensus was clear. There's no reason why PenmanWarrior should be permitted to waste any more of the community's time on this, and I propose they are topic banned from anything to do with Michele Evans. Obviously my proposed topic ban would cover the IP and the Micheleevansny account, since they are either the same person or acting in concert with them. Kathleen's bike (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Love the way facts are glossed over and new developments are ignored! This shows a lack of good faith! 69.117.93.145 (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

What does that mean. It's eligible for speedy deletion for goodness's sake! ''Flux55'' (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

No it isn't; the Article was deleted, so the Draft is not eligible for WP:G4 (that's the whole point of the Draft space). Primefac (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind that... ''Flux55'' (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Support topic ban. Uninvolved reviewer here, also my first time on a ANI! I gave the editor some good advice on the AfC Helpdesk but was met with a fairly belligerent tone and I am seeing hints of bludgeoning again. They're providing poor sources. There must be an undisclosed COI here. Qcne (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Support block/ban of IP and/or PenmanWarrior. LOUTSOCK, new-account to evade scrutiny, or any other shade of puppetry is a problem itself. And given the disruptive edits and refusal to listen, I'm seeing a time-syncsink with no net gain for the project. On the fence about which buttons get pushed where. DMacks (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Now that everyone's clock is in agreement, we can discuss how much time is wasted. DMacks (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked PenmanWarrior 31h for disruption, including IDHT (including some via forum-shopping). Even if later raised in a more appropriate location, the fact is they raising the same points that have been repeatedly responded-to, roundly opposed, and/or are not accepting our policies, guidelines, and processes. And now even disrupting the review of their own draft. DMacks (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Good block and support longer if the disruption returns when they are unblocked. They're welcome to try and improve the draft, they're not welcome to wear everyone out in search of the answer they want. Star Mississippi 01:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be a legal threat from the user directed at @Kathleen's bike. Qcne (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if this is particularly a legal threat but rather an "I'm gonna get you blocked grr" threat or something similar. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 12:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - Obvious close association with subject. Evidence includes citing a primary source immediately after it appeared online, and citing a source on the strength of hidden text within the HTML. The fact that PenmanWarrior denies a conflict of interest, and refuses to take on-board anything anyone else says does not suggest they are willing to contribute in good faith. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Since everyone's in agreement, should this ban be enforced? ''Flux55'' (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Less than 24 hours have passed since this thread was started, and the user is currently blocked for another 18 hours anyway. Are you in some sort of rush? Primefac (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Not really. I just realized that they were already blocked just now. ''Flux55'' (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Will be updating with many refs and details. Active campaign to eliminate Ms. Evans from Wikipedia. Just added a new MAJOR source. One might not like my communication style but that does not warrant a topic ban. Active stalking/harrasment in progress as defined by Wikipedia. Speculations based on timestamps is frivolous and just that SPECULATION. Including ban on other accounts displays bad faith. Also, the enactor of ban to paint me in bad light refused/couldn't/wouldn't respond to or give explanation of what was done to warrant ban. Fact is nothing was done by me to support this. I followed all Wikipedia rules and made appropriate contributions with new major developing sources. PenmanWarrior (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not trying to conspirate to remove her. What do you mean by "major developing sources" anyways? Flux55 (my talk page) 13:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you use COI edit requests for future editing of this article, and you can still contribute to the page. _Dial^mayo 14:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

More WP:BATTLEGROUND editing here [165] today. Theroadislong (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Can I propose a motion to block as WP:NOTHERE? Qcne (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Theroadislong @Qcne. I would once again ask the continued harassment be discontinued. Condensing facts into one comprehensive space and asking for advice on how to proceed is not any of the above implied/accused/linked circumstances. PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I may have time to categorically review every single reference on Friday in your Draft and write up my findings, which would then hopefully put to bed this entire issue as either a Yes She is WikiNotable or No She is Not WikiNotable and then, either way, no more of your time or Wikipedia volunteer time will be spent discussing this. Qcne (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Support a NOTHERE block. Penman, this is not harassment, your behavior is disruptive and people have been asking you to stop. I get you think you have to defend Ms. Evans, but that's a bad idea and only going to result in you being blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I have put a great amount into an article that had 59 sources at one point. My time is just as valid. Please address what nobody will:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/nyregion/rikers-island-authors.html

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/creative-rikers-island-inmates-writing-books-to-pass-the-time-hfbkdpkzb

https://web.archive.org/web/20080430180657/http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/23/parker-actress-road-to-dream-tv-gig-with-robin/

My edits are valid, major and appropriate. I have asked people to stop. They have not. @Qcne Promised he would go away but continues his campain.

"I may have time to categorically review every single reference on Friday in your Draft and write up my findings, which would then hopefully put to bed this entire issue as either a Yes She is WikiNotable or No She is Not WikiNotable and then, either way, no more of your time or Wikipedia volunteer time will be spent discussing this. Qcne (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)"

My requests to stop are just as valid as anybody else's. I have asked for advice and continue to do so. Please visit my talk page to see detailed content compiled into one section. PenmanWarrior (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Update: PenmanWarrior has been blocked indefinitely by administrator Daniel, see new thread § Repeated issues with attempts to block Michele Evans article below. Do we close this thread with no action taken here, or would a topic ban also be placed on the user as well, given there's a consensus here in favour of it? — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  I went ahead and merged that section into this one. PenmanWarrior not only got blocked, but their IDHT led to talk page access being revoked. They'll now have to appeal through UTRS, so I think we can consider this closed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Repeated issues with attempts to block Michele Evans article

Please see the following issues. I am a new editor and have asked several times for help addressing this situation. The behavior detailed below seems to violate Wikipedia. I am a new editor and don't know how to file complaints so please help me format places/concerns to address these issues.

Recently ran into issues editing/creating an article about controversial figure Michele Evans.

Some of the issues have been:

Please use diffs and links, not enormous copy/pastes

@Kathleen's bike: violates Wikipedia standards again: WP:BLUDGEON, edit warring, disruptive editing While technically not done within the 24hr timeframe, the essence of, three-revert rule was also enacted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rikers_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1196841532 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rikers_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1208941127 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rikers_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1209368498 Kathleen's bike claimed "See guidance at WP:ON:US regarding the repeated restoration of content whose inclusion has been disputed" However only one restoration had been made and the inclusion of this book in Rikers Island had never been disputed. Kathleen's bike also recommended deletion of Michele Evans "Delete Escape Orbit summarises things easily enough, fails notability guidelines at the present time. Kathleen's bike (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)" @Escape Orbit: comments Kathleen's bike was referring to: "Author. Self published only, so unlikely to be notable Software Engineer. Not notable. Creating Tiger Woods' website is not sufficient, and source cited does not support this claim. Sports Reporter. Possibly, but entirely unsourced and almost purposely vague. A single op-ed in The New York Times written by her." Escape Orbit continues: "Again we are agreed. The sources currently on the article are not adequate in demonstrating notability. So I urge you to find the existence of suitable sources, and the matter will be resolved. Others have tried and failed. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)" Kathleen's bike herself admits Escape Orbit sumarises things. Escape Orbit said this would be resolved. His issues were addressed with the introduction of the new articles: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/nyregion/rikers-island-authors.html https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/creative-rikers-island-inmates-writing-books-to-pass-the-time-hfbkdpkzb https://web.archive.org/web/20080430180657/http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/23/parker-actress-road-to-dream-tv-gig-with-robin/ It is resolved. Escape Orbit has been asked to stick by his word and resolve as promised, but as of this writing, has not. In addition Kathleen's bike violated Harrasment Hounding WP:HOUND WP:HOUNDING WP:WIKIHOUNDING WP:FOLLOWING Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. Kathleen's bike engaged in "an attempted outing". Stated belief of editor's identity/real name and even opened a complaint to do so in order to enhance this alleged outing. WP:ANI "Kathleen's bike (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)" On the subject of not sticking to promises: @Qcne: after promising to leave alone, comes back next day and threatens to decline article Michele Evans: "I have to note you as a hostile commentator. In addition to you incessantly posting to my talk page, you suggested I should be barred from writing about a subject simply because you did not like my valid question to you. Can you please place your energy and focus somewhere other than on me? Thank you! PS. Nobody says the source was used by itself. Currently, there are 58 sources on the page. PenmanWarrior (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)" "Sure thing, I'll leave you alone. Good luck with your draft. Qcne (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)" PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC) "However, @Theroadislong, I am minded to reject if you agree? Qcne (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)" @Qcne: continues his campaign after promising to leave alone. Now attempting to be only authoritative voice on subject after having already been noted as hostel to subject. "I may have time to categorically review every single reference on Friday in your Draft and write up my findings, which would then hopefully put to bed this entire issue as either a Yes She is WikiNotable or No She is Not WikiNotable and then, either way, no more of your time or Wikipedia volunteer time will be spent discussing this. Qcne (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)" @Theroadislong: declines article, refuses to answer requests to address major sources, goes back add multiple non-major comments to article, finally admits did not read sources and then re-declines article after twice insisting he wasn't going to review again: "Sorry I have no idea what you are referring to, you can submit for review and another reviewer will take a look, I will not review again. Theroadislong (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)" Theroadislong refuses/won't/doesn't respond to requests to address major source and instead goes back and adds comments to article: 'Comment: Ridiculous weird content about distant relatives and ancestors is not remotely helpful. Theroadislong (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)' 'Comment: As noted elsewhere "Her software engineering does not make her notable. Her self-published books do not make her notable. Her filming work does not seem to make her notable. Her personal life (death of daughter, grandfather, lawsuit, etc) do not make her notable." Theroadislong (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)' 'Comment: There are still 17 links to her own books and Amazon profiles which are NOT required and other sources which do not mention her, hack it back to the reliable independent sources and report on what they say. Theroadislong (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)' 'Comment: A large number of these sources make no mention of Evans whatsoever, references to her own work are not required and see WP:REFBOMBING. Theroadislong (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)' Finally, Theroadislong admits: "I do not have a subscription to either of these websites so cannot see the references. I have made valid comments about totally inappropriate content. You are free to re-submit I will not review the draft again. Theroadislong (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)" "Ok, yet another editor admitting they did not read the sources before declining the article. A pattern has emerged. PenmanWarrior (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)" Theroadislong then goes back and declines the article after saying twice he would not review the article again. "Submission declined on 21 February 2024 by Theroadislong (talk). This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. If you would like to continue working on the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. If you have not resolved the issues listed above, your draft will be declined again and potentially deleted. If you need extra help, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors. Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted. Where to get help How to improve a draft Improving your odds of a speedy review Editor resources Declined by Theroadislong 3 hours ago. Last edited by Theroadislong 2 seconds ago. Reviewer: Inform author." User talk:69.117.93.145 was blocked for edit warring things/edits involving Michele Evans by: "Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)" I would ask @Daniel Case: to equally block Kathleen's bike for edit warring and violating other Wikipedia standards. While you are doing that a WP:BLUDGEON review is warranted for @Theroadislong: and @Qcne: and any other actions I may not be aware of. Also please advise how to handle/report Kathleen's bike for the above-stated behavior as I am a new editor. @Caeciliusinhorto-public: minimizes/reduces Evans contribution to Rikers Island Covid-19 section https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rikers_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1209141675 Curiously ref to Evans' New York Times is deleted in Rikers Island https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rikers_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1209359829 There is a lot of incoherent grumbling here which nobody will read, you are free to take any gripes to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. To be clear I have only reviewed your draft ONCE. Theroadislong (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Incoherent? I's all just copied and pasted content from other sources. Now it appears you are personally attacking. Maybe 1% commentary on my part. If you have only reviewed once, why is article showing declined again, after I resubmitted it yesterday? Also why would the time stamp be you declining 3 hours ago? since you initially declined yesterday? Please help me understand as I am new. If it is explainable, I will remove the associated content. If nobody will ready this, why did you make accusations on Wikipedia:ANI about it? Make it make sense please. PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC) @Theroadislong PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Two editor's decline article and subsequently admit to not having read substantial sources @Muboshgu: "PenmanWarrior, that NY Times piece from yesterday would add to her argument for passing WP:GNG, but I cannot tell how much as it is behind a paywall and I am not a subscriber. However, the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Evans appears to be overwhelming and I doubt one new piece will change that. Since the draft is basically identical to the deleted article, save for a sentence or two based on that new NYT article, I think it would be inappropriate to accept the draft. If you believe that the new NYT article changes things, make a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)" @Theroadislong: "I do not have a subscription to either of these websites so cannot see the references. I have made valid comments about totally inappropriate content. You are free to re-submit I will not review the draft again. Theroadislong (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)" I am a new editor but I can't imagine declining an article without reading MAJOR SOURCES is appropriate. Someone please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PenmanWarrior (talk • contribs) 14:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC) @Red-tailed hawk I see you added an unsigned template but did not address any concerns or respond to advice. Please do so.. Thank you! PenmanWarrior (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Continued campaign in WP:ANI: "More WP:BATTLEGROUND editing here [165] today. Theroadislong (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)" "Can I propose a motion to block as WP:NOTHERE? Qcne (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)" "@Theroadislong @Qcne. I would once again ask the continued harassment be discontinued. Condensing facts into one comprehensive space and asking for advice on how to proceed is not any of the above implied/accused/linked circumstances. PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)" PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC) I strongly suggest you concentrate on addressing the issues pointed out in the reviewer comments on the draft and stop with the conspiracy theories about a non existent "Campaign to eliminate Michele Evans from Wikipedia". Theroadislong (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC) @Theroadislong Labeling conspiracy theory is dismissive of valid issues raised here. Concentrate on your comments? You completely ignored three very substantial sources and admitted to not reading. How am I supposed to concentrate on comments that don't exist? Nobody will address the three new substantial sources. Please do so now so I can address as you suggest. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/nyregion/rikers-island-authors.html https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/creative-rikers-island-inmates-writing-books-to-pass-the-time-hfbkdpkzb https://web.archive.org/web/20080430180657/http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/23/parker-actress-road-to-dream-tv-gig-with-robin/ Although it would be ideal for you to read, the fact these stories lead with photos/captions/excerpts of Evans is enough to know they are not mere mentions. You can see that much regardless of paywall! PenmanWarrior (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Response to concerns about Speedy Close of Deletion Review: Hello PenmanWarrior, I noticed that you left this comment on the deletion review noticeboard after your request for a review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Evans was closed with the deletion endorsed by the community. Your comment asks How do I appeal?, saying that you have found additional sourcing. As it stands, that discussion was your appeal, and your appeal was declined by the community. I note that you are active at Draft:Michele Evans, where you are working to try to bring the article up to standards. What would help the reviewers on that draft might be something simple: if you were to go to the draft's talk page and list the three best sources you have for demonstrating significant coverage of this individual by independent reliable sources, along a brief (two-to-three succinct sentences) explanation on why you think those sources demonstrate significant coverage, that would be helpful. If all three of the best sources are in the context of one event, you may want to include a fourth source that provides significant coverage in some other context. I can't guarantee that the article will be accepted, but structuring your arguments in this way will be more clear to reviewers than they are presently. Cheers, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC) @Red-tailed hawk A speedy delete was used to circumvent the new substantial source being addressed. Time was not being wasted as good reliable sources were being addressed. This was an abuse of process and the article never got a chance to be properly considered. Will add your suggestions to the article's talk page. Thank You. PenmanWarrior (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC) I don't see a speedy deletion as having been used on the article; the only deletion log for the article I can find is this one, which clearly states that this was done pursuant to consensus in an Articles for Deletion discussion. The deleted article's talk page was speedily deleted as a page dependent on the deleted article (see: Talk pages with no corresponding subject page), but that speedy deletion seems to be correct. Is there some other page I am missing here? I've looked through your deleted contributions, and I can't find any page that you have edited and was deleted except for the article at Michele Evans. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC) On the review page: " Michele Evans – Summarily endorsed. Nominator's blocked for DE and the community's enacting a topic ban, with, at the time of typing, unanimous support. I'm invoking the fourth limb of "Speedy closes", above, to close this without wasting further time.—S Marshall T/C 19:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)" PenmanWarrior (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia:Deletion review PenmanWarrior (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Speed Close is what it is called apparently. PenmanWarrior (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC) I didn't even get a chance to explain the situation for the review. They blocked me, refused to give reasons as their were none, and then closed the review. You will note the lengthy explanation I responded to on the block notice above, which was the only thing I was allowed to respond to at the time. You can't call it a review and not let the requester present reasons for the review. That's an abuse of process. PenmanWarrior (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC) You had the chance to present your reasons in the nomination statement you made, and you did present them. Nobody was convinced. You were also clearly told why you were blocked. Look, PenmanWarrior, Wikipedia is really attractive to people who want articles to exist for their own personal reasons, and we've had to develop ways of dealing with such people very promptly and efficiently. If we didn't do that our readers would never be able to find anything useful because of all the spam. I'm sorry if this makes you unhappy but you aren't going to be an exception.—S Marshall T/C 16:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC) No at all. I did not get the chance. I was gathering reasons/getting ready to respond when I was blocked. My initial opening simply had links to two sources. There was no detailing of those links or case made as to why the appeal should be approved. I had been accused of bludgeoning before and was waiting to listen to others' positions so I could respond only once. As it is, there are 3 new sources. Closing the appeal the way you did is an abuse of process. Your rant on personal reasons is also inappropriate. I've spent a lot of time crafting this article. My time is just as valuable as anyone else's. No spam. Please address the following very significant sources. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/nyregion/rikers-island-authors.html https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/creative-rikers-island-inmates-writing-books-to-pass-the-time-hfbkdpkzb https://web.archive.org/web/20080430180657/ http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/23/parker-actress-road-to-dream-tv-gig-with-robin/ I can't imagine unfounded accusations wouldn't be frowned upon! PenmanWarrior (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Block never explained when asked.

"@DMacks:??? Disruptive edits ??? Please explain PenmanWarrior (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)" Wikipedia says blockers should respond to the request. I made no disruptive edits and detailed extensively the lack of offense in the block announcement above. PenmanWarrior (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC) @S Marshall PenmanWarrior (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, please advise as I am uncertain how to properly handle this. User:PenmanWarrior (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

You can start with a one or two paragraph summary instead of 20K of TL;DR. If you've been accused of bludgeoning, ANI is a poor choice of venue to repeat it. Acroterion (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be verbose forum-shopping after a rejected DRV request. Acroterion (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a spurious report. I have offered to help with this draft , as have other AfC reviewers, and we have been bludgeoned. Editor has already received a temp topic-ban, but the behaviour is now becoming disruptive.

I am not sure if I am being accused of anything due to the wall of text (thank you for correctly leaving the ANI notice on my User Talk Page), except perhaps changing my mind when I first suggested I would not interact further with the Draft and then today offered to spend a significant amount of time in good faith going through each reference one by one to try and establish notability. Qcne (talk)

Sigh... Theroadislong (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

As PenmanWarrior has now been blocked and had talkpage access revoked this is probably moot, but I want to note for the record that (1) I stand by my edit to Rikers Island: there was absolutely no need to dedicate so much of the section on the jail's handling of the Covid-19 pandemic to Evans' account, without any evidence that this had been discussed by secondary sources and (2) despite their repeated complaints that nobody addressed the new sources they had added to the draft, I did and they responded to my comments on the topic though they ignored the substantive point I made presumably because it wasn't what they wanted to hear. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

This thread was the final straw. I'd been monitoring this issue for the past couple of days. I have indefinitely blocked the editor - "Single purpose account, continued disruptive editing, refusal to accept advice from experienced editors verging on battleground mentality".

As always, welcome review of the block from the community here. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Good block. Exceedingly tiring Editor which became disruptive. Qcne (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I've revoked talk page access, we (as admins) are not going to spend the rest of our lives reading through every appeal this guy files in order to whine about his circumstances. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Good block. We literally had a previous ANI thread about this, albeit posted by a different person and not by them, from a week ago. See section § Proposing topic ban on PenmanWarrior above. They were previously blocked 31h as a regular administrative action, but it seems that didn't really change the way they edit. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I've merged the two sections to keep this together when it gets archived. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Daniel, after reading the thread I decided to put on my special glasses. User:HandThatFeeds, you may be interested in this as well. User talk:Micheleevansny is CU-confirmed with PenmanWarrior. I don't know if you're interested in tagging them; that's up to you. There are two other accounts on that IP that technically are indistinguishable but either haven't edited, or haven't edited in that area--something to keep an eye on. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Well that's a plot twist I wasn't expecting. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I was, but then again I checked earlier in the week. Personally speaking, I see PenmanWarrior as somewhere between a DIRTYSTART to Micheleevansny or the latter as an abandoned account. I figured if the latter didn't keep editing there wouldn't be much point in blocking. ​ (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk)

Ongoing incivility by Peter Isotalo

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

---

• User:Peter Isotalo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Vasa (ship) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't see any need for technical action, but if someone could talk this editor down a bit and convince them to strike their incivility it would be helpful. I think there's a bit of ownership going on at Vasa (ship) after their hard work getting it to FA, but it's becoming toxic.

[166], [167], [168], [169], [170].

Notified: [171]. VQuakr (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding the incivility in those diffs? I see a WP:CITEVAR dispute that's getting a little heated. It appears there's a content dispute over WP:CITEVAR and the extent to which that policy and WP:FAOWN should put the onus on others to produce a positive consensus for a change. Looks like an RfC will be necessary for such a change without significant additional participation. Regardless, I see allegations of subpar behavior from multiple parties and nothing particularly egregious from anyone. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

From my perspective, these[172][173][174] and especially these[175][176][177] were quite disconcerting. Peter ^Isotalo 00:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything in either set of links that actually violates policy but it's pretty clear that unless something changes, you aren't going to be able to collegially edit alongside each other. Per Rhododendrites, an RfC might do the trick so @VQuakr and Peter Isotalo: are either of you willing to start it? City of Silver 01:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver: Yes, I had suggested a RfC earlier. I'll likely defer to the individual proposing the changes on its actual writing but there seems to be broad agreement that this is a molehill not a mountain and that a RfC is a good path forward. VQuakr (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

VQuakr's interaction with myself or Vasa (ship) have been limited to the last 24 hours and have in my view not helped in any way, only worsened the dispute.

The larger issue here is a single other user interacting with a few maritime history articles I've worked on a lot, including galley and more lately Vasa (ship). Their approach is very much hit-and-miss because they lack experience with the topics and their surrounding literature, but approach the topic with the vigor of an inquisitor. For example, there was just recently a very unproductive debate about the English translation of a word in Swedish despite the user not knowing a word of Swedish. There's plenty of other friction caused by the user not being able to fully differentiate between neutral synthesis of sources and their own opinions.

The whole process is just exhausting because it feels like I can't do anything right. VQuakr's behavior has dispirited me greatly because I feel they are ignoring and belittling me. If I make arguments, they're dismissed as subjective. If I provide links to specific threads, I have to specify diffs. When I post diffs, they're all irrelevant.

I've completely lost all joy in editing at the moment and feel embattled and exhausted. Peter ^Isotalo 06:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This looks like a spurious report, because from what I can see, the filer is no less uncivil than the person whom they are reporting (in both cases of the mild variety). Both disputants should seek assistance with the content dispute, like a Third opinion, rather than argue about WP:OWNERSHIP versus WP:STEWARDSHIP (ship!), and so on. HTH. El_C 06:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This is kind of a side topic but there's no difference between {{sfn|Doe|1999|p=11}}and <ref name="Doe-1999-p11">{{harvnb|Doe|1999|p=11}}.</ref>. The {{sfn}} template is easier to type and the {{harvnb}} template is more versatile and works with the VisualEditor. The issues raised on the talk page about this are likely based on a misconception. Both of those templates use the same module and work in similar ways, Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I found this dispute from the 3O board, admittedly, it was the first third opinion I tried to do, so I may not have given it well enough. I tried to gently say that I agreed with peter, but that if he wants change, he should open an RfC. DarmaniLink (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@DarmaniLink: I thought it was a pretty good 3O response. VQuakr (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keeping WP:FAOWN in mind, this whole thing seems nonetheless kind of unnecessary and sad for everybody involved. The issue seems extremely minor. The complainant and complainee both, based on their talk pages, seem to be quite skilled professionals (as well as grown adults who've both spent more than ten years on Wikipedia) -- surely there is enough brain power in the room that this can be resolved amicably? We can open an RfC if it's that big of a deal, but I think ANI is unnecessary here. jp×g🗯️ 18:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  @JPxG: This discussion is going nowhere and should be closed with no action. An RfC is both an excessive escalation and the fairest, quickest way to put a stop to the dispute at Talk:Vasa (ship) which is also going nowhere. City of Silver 19:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Since my actions have been mentioned, I feel obliged to comment. Peter Isotalo seems to have a great deal of difficulty understanding any point made by another editor. The translation issue of the meaning of Vasa is mentioned above. The point was made that the major source (Cederlund and Hocker) gave a different meaning – which gave the astounding and unexplained assertion[178] that they were not an RS on that point (despite clearly being used as an RS on the historic changes in spelling, as discussed in the article). We also have a failure to understand what was going on in Talk:Vasa (ship)#Unreferenced concept and the older discussion on Talk:Galley#Referencing displayed a massive inability to understand that there was clearly a simple referencing error. We also saw an simple lack of knowledge about lateen rigTalk:Galley#Propulsion section (fundamental to most galleys, which actually spent the majority of their time sailing). There are other examples, but with further attempts to explain an issue, they are all lengthy to read. In trying to rationalise why it is so difficult to work with PI – and despite whatever failings I might have shown, I really have tried – the only explanation I can find is that he does not understand points made by other editors. Hence everything ends up as a big dispute. (He does have knowledge of value, having recently pointed out a good source of copyright free pictures from the Vasamuseet.[179] – "DigitaltMuseum") I offer no solution, just a bit of exasperation that an article that needs improving is suffering. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Worth adding that[180] is, in context, odd behaviour. I introduced {{sfn}} with [181], which appears to have already been accepted with [182]. There was no other short form referencing template in the article. This grew to 15 usages, which have now been arbitrarily and without discussion, changed to a different template. What was the point of this other than to irritate other users? (Perhaps there is one.) At a minimum the edit summary ("starring [sic] to converting to harvnb for consistency") is misleading: consistent with what? In the context of a possible RFC, it approaches the definition of disruptive editing as mentioned in WP:RFC. On its own, this is very minor, but it is part of a bigger picture ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Multiple IP addresses making unexplained edits in Seberang Perai

Calling for urgent intervention on the multiple addresses (suspected sockpuppets of the same editor) making unexplained edits on Seberang Perai without WP:ES and potential edit warring behaviour by said addresses in spite of warnings.
114.142.173.45 ([183])
116.206.15.31 ([184])
116.206.14.18 ([185])
116.206.15.31 ([186])

hundenvonPG (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Already protected by administrator Mandsford. One year protection hopefully will do the trick. El_C 01:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:HundenvonPenang

As a beginner on Wikipedia using the internet in my office, I tried to edit and develop the article on the neolithic history of Seberang Perai, also changing a picture in the infobox because there are similarities between the city skyline and central terminal with a image. But a User:HundenvonPenang always disrupts my edits with his assumptions, even though I only want to develop this section. Can the admin here warn him? because almost 90% that article dominant by him, judging from this history. Thank You 116.206.14.19 (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Yet another IP address, a sockpuppet of the above mentioned issue. No explanation at all from said IP addresses. Edit-warring & treating WP as a battlefield. Just another classic case of assuming bad faith. hundenvonPG (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• To hundenvonPG, protection has been added to limit registered users has been placed for the next 12 months. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.Mandsford 14:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• To User 116.206.14.19; I suggest that you register as a Wikipedia user. After you register, you may consider creating an article about prehistoric discoveries in Seberang Perai, in that it appears that you have substantial sourcing, and then create a link to that article.Mandsford 14:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• To both users, if correct, the additional information relating to discoveries in Seberang Perai does not appear at first glance to be irrelevant, and reverting edits, if substantiated and relevant, is not encouraged.Mandsford 14:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, WP:CIR issues, no communication User:Larabdodoo

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

---

Editor User:Larabdodoo only seems to work on the Larisa Akrofie article. As well as adding unsourced content and external links, linking social media, the editor has now put a link to whatsapp. Can you believe. Seems to think its a blog. I've warned the editor until I'm blue in the face and there has been no change and no communications. I must have cleaned that article about 4 times now over the last couple of years. I suggest a indef block. Time waster. scope_creep^Talk 16:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

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

DaRealConMan persistently adding unsourced content and original research

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

---

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

I think this report was long overdue; DaRealConMan has a lengthy history of adding poorly sourced content (if sourced at all) and original research to numerous articles, primarily those related to public transit in Southern California. Aside from instances of just plain-old adding unsourced content and OR, more egregious examples of their disruption include restoring a bus roster without addressing concerns regarding sourcing and original research, removing valid maintenance banners without explanation (twice), and using self-produced images as sources. They've been warned plenty of times regarding this (see their talk page) over the past few years but seem to ignore them, so tacking more of them on their talk page seems to be out of the picture moving forward. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 16:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I fully agree. Every edit of theirs that's come across my watchlist has been unsourced cruft. It's time for a block. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:DaRealConMan#Indefinite block. El_C 01:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

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

CIR and persistent addition of unsourced content by User:Salfanto

Salfanto (talk · contribs · logs) has had a persistent issue with adding unsourced content (and OR that is not adequately supported by the cited sources), [187] [188] [189] [190] [191] [192] [193] [194] and has been warned for this behaviour numerous times. When warned in the past, as visible on their talk page, their response typically involves saying "ok sorry" in response to these issues, and then essentially ignoring them completely and not actually changing their behaviour in any way at all. This most recent diff [195] leads me to believe that this is a CIR case, if not outright disruption - deliberately lying in their edit summary, in which they say they "added sources" but only added more unsourced content, which is not something I can find any way to construe as the actions of a good-faith contributor. Loafiewa (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours: User talk:Salfanto#Block. El_C 01:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Loafiewa: I saw your report here, considered the final warning you left this user all the way back in November, and this was the obvious next step. Please keep an eye on this user once their block expires because any further violations should go directly to WP:AIV. City of Silver 01:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisting here again is also fine. Or if I'm around, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. El_C 01:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by IP user 2600:1002:B032:CF57:0:13:274D:4A01

2600:1002:B032:CF57:0:13:274D:4A01 (talk · contribs · logs) inserting unrelated video games sections in various film studio articles. Continued beyond final warning. Barry Wom (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be in WP:AIV? Flux55 (my talk page) 17:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Flux55: please do appropriate research before commenting here. A cursory check of Barry Wom's contributions would have found the edit prior to reporting to ANI, they did report to AIV, where they were told to report at ANI. Daniel (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh. Flux55 (my talk page) 18:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Editor has returned under a new IP of 2600:1002:b0c9:a6a9:0:1c:a7df:cf01 (talk · contribs · count) [196], [197]. Barry Wom (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

JoaoSPinto18

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

---

JoaoSPinto18 (talk · contribs)

This user has a number of warnings for adding unsourced content to BLPs, from multiple users. Last night I reverted them - their reaction was to call me "Führer" and then re-add the content (now sourced) whilst acknowledging that it was unsourced first time around. I was 50-50 to block but thought I would raise here in case I was viewed as involved given the personal attack. GiantSnowman 19:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Support, has received a lvl 4 warning, and the personal attack shows serious WP:NOTHERE behavior on top of that. Geardona (talk to me?) 19:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Support indef ban per @Geardona. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Support indef sounds good. They are always apologetic about any disruptive editing they do and promising to do better, but failing to do better. Then, when Giant Snowman gave them the lvl 4 warning, they escalated it too far with the personal attack. Conyo14 (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. That is an awful personal attack, notwithstanding the other issues. Daniel (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. GiantSnowman 21:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment The personal attack is inexcusable and deserves a block, though I do want to point out that they did add a source (in the re-add edit): <diff>. – 2804:F14:809C:9001:202A:C641:EC4A:1518 (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, my mistake regarding the reference in the infobox which I did not see. Now re-added. GiantSnowman 20:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Awiy

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

---

This user continues to remove sourced content from articles, in these revisions [198], [199], [200], [201], [202], [203], and keeps repeating the same edit summary with "fixed typo". TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:Awiy#Indefinite block. TheGreatestLuvofAll, mobile diffs hurt my soul. El_C 10:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Canada convoy protest

The article has seen a revert war that went to a bazillionRR, with an IP /64 range removing content and an inexperienced editor with an account countering them revert for revert. I don't have time this morning to fully sort it out,but I think admin eyes are needed in any case, since it appears to me that there's some off-wiki organizing going on to insert a POV at odds with sourcing. The talkpage is seeing some soapboxing and the inevitable "watch this video to see the truth" recommendation. The article probably needs semi-protection for a longish term. Acroterion (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection at RPP. Remsense诉 13:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Acroterion This would fall under WP:CT/COVID and so could be protected as an AE action? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

To an extent, but I don't have time this morning to fill out the paperwork or to pursue due diligence with all of the edits, unfortunately. Acroterion (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I did the thing (AEL diff). El_C 14:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Acroterion (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

WILLIAM AFTON 947200

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

---

WILLIAM AFTON 947200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A WP:NOTHERE block may be required, 3 edits all nonsense. WCM_email 13:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 14:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

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

49.130.129.116 cheerleading terrorism

Just this bit of editing at Talk:Mumtaz Qadri. Yikes. PepperBeast (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked and revdel'd. Acroterion (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! PepperBeast (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Clear username violation, clear block evasion and likely sock

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

---

This account BIock evasion clearly violates the username policy and the user creation log also indicated that this account was created at the exact same time as Evading my blocks which has a similar username. Also likely to be a LTA as well. Snices (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Both blocked for trolling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Snices (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, no prob. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

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

User:MMRafez continuously edit warring

Hello, administrators. So I have come to raise concerns about the Sydney Sweeney page. This user is continuously adding an image (in which previously they stated to "reflect her true beauty"). We have repeatedly reverted it, telling them not to do so without giving any adequate explanation or even taking it to the talk page, and this user refuses to listen or heed by the comments I put in my edit summary. I would like for someone else to talk this through, since I'm getting very exhausted from trying to convince them. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

FYI, this is a clear copyvio of this Getty Images photo. In fact, both of the uploads at Commons are copyvios, as the photo they keep adding at Sydney Sweeney is cropped from this one. Woodroar (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I've tagged one of the images at Commons as an obvious copyright violation. I've indefinitely blocked the user for the edit-warring, the copyright violations, and being a WP:SPA fan. NoobThreePointOh, you really should also be blocked (for a shorter period) for edit-warring. I'll let another admin decide whether that's necessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

That's my fault. I shouldn't have done that. But to be honest, I tried to control myself, and... I just couldn't. I admit my mistake too. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Technically, I think 3RRNO#5 applies; although I don't think N3.0 actually knew that at the time. Realistically, I don't think anyone is going to block them for that now that the copyvio is known. Hopefully, this can be a useful reminder that when you get to the "I tried to control myself, and... I just couldn't" stage, it's probably time to walk away. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Now that NoobThreePointOh has acknowledged he made a mistake and accepted responsibility, I think we can just let it remain a "don't do that again" instead of issuing a block for those reverts. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I hope this is indeed a lesson I can learn. Gotta do some breathing exercises. Thanks for reminding me all about this. I deserve a slap on the wrist for that. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

User 86.124.188.86

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

---

its pretty apparent that this user doesn't have the ability to post constructively, at least an admin warning could be beneficial in my opinion [204] 83.168.141.16 (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

That's just the usual reply on any talk page that's Facebook-related, where some people think the Wikipedia page for Facebook is the website itself. I see no reason why this should be at ANI. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Lukt64

Repeatedly creating poorly sourced or misleading articles despite a final warning not to do so. I have noticed this while nominating a recent page created by the user for deletion, which was linked to the current events portal. Administrator intervention might be necessary since editor warnings have been futile. Ecrusized (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Lets see how true this is.

"Repeatedly creating poorly sourced or misleading articles"

[205]

Taking a look, I have created :

2023 dengue outbreak in Bangladesh, an event that has had over 1,700 deaths linked to it.

Tashkent explosion, an article that is sourced fairly well with an event that i think might have been nominated for ITN

2023 Venice bus crash, an article that got on ITN with editors describing the article to be in "good shape" and "well cited"

Oaxaca migrant bus crash, a relatively well sourced article about an incident that killed over a dozen people.

Ardamata massacre, a well sourced article about an event that killed over a thousand people in the midst of ethnic cleansing.

2023 Brazzaville crowd crush, another well sourced article about an event killing multiple people.

Battle of Wad Madani, an article that is well sourced, with an image and infobox about an event of the fall of the second largest city in Sudan.

2023 Plateau State massacres, an article that made it onto ITN.

List of engagements during the Myanmar civil war (2021–present) (self-explanatory)

Siege of Babanusa, an article about a relatively well-documented siege.

2024 Maco landslide, an article about a landslide that killed 98 people.

While I was typing this, the page for the 2024 Iraq clashes was turned into a redirect, a decision that I personally dont agree with but am willing to respect. This "incident" was NOT given after multiple warnings, as this is the first time something like this has happened.

I'm not even going to mention my Contributions on wikimedia commons, as thats a different wiki. Lukt64 (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Lukt64: I’m sure you have created good articles in the past. The problem is creating single sentence articles and linking them to heavily active pages such as the current events portal. Which lowers the overall quality of Wikipedia. The fact that you have been warned by several users about this, including one with a final warning template, but continuing to do so prompted me to open this notice since users warnings have proven futile. A stern administrator warning may be preferable over a block if you agree to stop creating low quality or incomplete articles. Ecrusized (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I will agree to do so. Lukt64 (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Peter Duane Deaver

Need some admins to look at this--as a possible BLP vio that may need to be disappeared. Drmies (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• They have a copy in their sandbox as well. Dennis Brown 2¢ 06:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
  • G10 was declined by Voice of Clam. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits from User:KusumaSPMTickford

Due to WP:PROMO, commercial team entrant names (e.g. "Shell V-Power – The Bend Manthey EMA") are not used in articles under the jurisdiction of WP:MOTOR, with the teams' recognised/registered official name or names (using the above example, "Manthey Racing / EMA Motorsport" as it is a collaboration of two teams) used to comply with COMMONNAME - exceptions are given to the likes of WPS Racing where the team was an extension of a For-profit corporation.

On the 2024 Bathurst 12 Hour article, User:KusumaSPMTickford twice made sweeping edits disregarding the above. Having reverted the first set and provided reason through the edit summary, the user then reverted my edits. Following this, I warned the user on their talk page about their behaviour in an attempt to avoid 3RR; however, the user then subsequently made another unconstructive edit.

As this user has been warned four previous times for misconduct (here, here, here and here), has been warned twice over copyright infringements (here and here), and has been banned once (here), it is clear that a more permanent solution needs to be put in place. MSportWiki (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The editor has been blocked for one week by Orangemike. If the disruptive editing resumes, the next block will be much more stringent, I expect. Cullen328 (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Compromised account?

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

This is a newish account, but I see somebody giving them advice on their talk page, using their own account.[206] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is an instance of a compromised account but rather a new editor mistakenly using the wrong talk page to address other editors. - Aoidh (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Reporting about a User that uses profanity

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

---

Hello I am KhantWiki, I usually edit famous individuals from Myanmar and I have edited one general from Myanmar who is Zaw Min Tun. From that history view of the article, someone with a IP address name called "180.183.230.178" used profanity about my edit on the edit history of the individual that I edited from Myanmar Zaw Min Tun (general). Please warn him to stop using profanity and be respectful and if he continues to do so even if he don't, he will get banned forever. Even if he don't like my edits, he has no right to curse and use profanity freely and comfortably on Wikipedia, let alone say it to a user which is me. Here's the proof. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zaw_Min_Tun_(general)&diff=prev&oldid=1199181330&title=Zaw_Min_Tun_%28general%29&diffonly=1

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zaw_Min_Tun_(general)&diff=prev&oldid=1199181656&title=Zaw_Min_Tun_%28general%29&diffonly=1

This is his account. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3A180.183.230.178&redlink=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by KhantWiki (talk • contribs) 07:12, February 22, 2024 (UTC)

The first diff isn't really profanity - it isn't clear what the edit summary in the second diff is saying.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, In the first one it's profanity because it's a cursing word "wtf" which is inappropriate to me. And the second one might not be profanity, but it's just to show you that he's overly critical and negative of me and my edits and also used profanity but only in the first one. KhantWiki (talk) 12:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Wot does "bar tway yay htar tar all", in the next summary mean? ——Serial 12:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

And if you are using AI to write content as you seem to suggest here then that needs to stop. And edits like this saying "If You don't like me or my edits, you can screw off." are hardly civil.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Even though my words may be 'hardly civil' but I may never use profanity even when I am angry like that user. Hardly civil vs profanity which one's more inappropriate? In the second one in my language Burmese "bar tway yay htar tar lal" means "What is written?" This one may not be the profanity but the first diff is profanity. I got angry at his profanity at the first one which I already shared with you guys. My bad for that hardly civil attitude and words, but he started it with the profanity cursing. KhantWiki (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I use AI because it helps me with thinking more clearly. I write most of the content by myself, and AI by little bit. It's not really a problem if I'm helping Wikipedia and instead of saying profanity around and doing bad deeds. The problem is the profanity User. I would like to suggest you admins to put a warning on that user's talk page and warn him to not use profanity again and if you do you will get banned from Wikipedia for inappropriate profanity terms. When I see that profanity message of that user anytime, I immediately don't feel good and I have a reason why I got 'hardly uncivil' in fact most will react the same like me. Anyone will get angry at profanity. But, even when when I am angry I don't use profanity I just say "if you don't like screw off" and he uses "wtf" which is a cursing inappropriate profanity word. See for yourselves.KhantWiki (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I see no difference between your "screw off" and "wtf." If anything, the reverse. Cussing is not unknown, and within reason, isn't sanctionable. Acroterion (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@KhantWiki: Please stop writing "screw off": it's a profanity in the English I speak. "wtf", on the other hand, is not a word but an wikt:alphabetism used as a euphemism. Bazza (talk) 13:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Guys whatever his using of profanity still offends me. Just put a warning on that user's talk page. If you guys can't sanction him that's you guys choice. Personally his profanity of using "wtf" still offends me. I don't wanna use it myself but here's the example it means "what the fuck" "fuck" is a 100% inappropriate profanity word. Screw off might be also inappropriate but to me it's not as inappropriate and profanity as the word "fuck" or "what the fuck" KhantWiki (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

They mean the same. And I suggest you drop this before the boomerang hits. Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

There are no rules against using profanity; I don't see why they should be warned. Bluntly, if you're offended, that's really a strong you problem. — Czello ^(music) 13:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Merely using profanity is not a problem; only if it is a personal attack is it a problem, as with any personal attack. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

In that sense, The profanity User is Personally not against me, but personally against my edits that he had to use the profanity word "what the fuck" abbreviated "wtf". It still offends me everytime I read it. So I just don't felt good about it, that's why I wanna report it here. If you guys don't wanna ban him or anything just put a warning on his user talk page "Please refrain from profanity and curse words" that will teach the user to not use profanity again. That user will probably get used to it and will keep using profanity in the future and disrupt the other user's with the negative energy he carry with profanity if you guys don't warn him or ban him.

To you guys, "what the fuck" and "screw" (in this sense) are both swear words, but "screw" is not as strong. "Fuck" is one of the strongest and most offensive swear words in English. KhantWiki (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, using profanity is not against the rules. The only time someone would be warned about this is if they were being uncivil, but I don't really see that here. — Czello ^(music) 14:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

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

DarknessGoth777 and CIR, possible troll

DarknessGoth777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Serious possible trolling behavior, constantly linking common terms on Litter boxes in schools hoax [207] [208] [209] several warnings on talkpage about various things over the years, several warnings about categorization, poor communication, various edits reverted... this is an intractable behavior issue and thus this is the right place to post. Therapyisgood (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Therapyisgood, could you provide some diffs of when the user has beenn warned and the behaviour has continued? You have provided three links for WP:OVERLINK, but I can't see any warnings for that in the user's talk page history. You warned them about vandalism today, but didn't say what edit or article the warning related to. TSventon (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Previous warnings about categorization were left on DarknessGoth777's talk page on 15 Febuary 2023 and 27 January 2024. I just left another warning this morning after seeing that the editor placed Carrie (novel) in the Category:Novels based on Cinderella and in the Template:Cinderella despite there being no sources cited supporting that claim, or even any mention of Cinderella in the Carrie article. Donald Albury 17:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Alexei Navalny

Could someone have a look at the recent discussions at this page? The subject recently died (was likely murdered by the Putin regime), and there is a constant stream of new-ish users (many of which may not even edit the page because of the RUSUKR restriction) who suddenly want to give undue weight to the activity of the subject from fifteen years ago, and deploy a lot of original research trying to prove that the subject was not the opposition leader (as opposed to what reliable sources say). One of them, User:Brusquedandelion, with less that one year and 600 edits tenure, came today as particularly aggressive and even issued me a warning for "personal attacks". In any case, the discussion went far away from what the talk page is supposed to serve for. Ymblanter (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Specifically this user, as I see now, already collected a lot of warnings during their relatively short tenure. Ymblanter (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It's interesting that a user who recently wrote this is warning you against PAs, apparently for writing this. I have blocked them for 31 hours for that personal attack and assumption of bad faith, plus for generally aggressive editing as per the talkpage warnings. Bishonen | tålk 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC).

Thanks. May be this will teach them that the talk page is for discussing the content of the article, and not for anything else. Ymblanter (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

This user has so many warnings about personal attacks and not assuming good faith on their talkpage (at least in relation to their short tenure on WP), and so little indication that they care or are interested in toning down such behavior, that a 31-hour block for the same is pretty lenient. Grandpallama (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is, but then it's their first block. Those should preferably be pretty lenient, I think. More just to show that there are limits to what'll be accepted here. Bishonen | tålk 17:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC).

Long shortdescs from User:Transport 2005

• Transport 2005 (talk · contribs)

Either a competence or WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU issue. This user has been adding adjectives and trivia to shortdescs (for example [210] today) since joining last month, despite nine user talk page messages asking them to stop doing this, up to and including a final warning. Belbury (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

User is also totally unresponsive. Has now started adding superfluous links (overlinking) to articles. For example here. The Banner talk 16:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Would suggest blocking from article space to force a resolution. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me. The Banner talk 18:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Transport 2005 from article space. Cullen328 (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Murshad87 supporting terrorism

Just this one edit, calling terrorist and murderer Mumtaz Qadri a 'brave Muslim'.PepperBeast (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see this as an "urgent incident or chronic, intractable behavioral problem" for ANI. It seems like garden variety trolling. Unless there's a pattern of this user trying to whitewash terrorist incidents, just give them a warning and move on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

OK... will do. PepperBeast (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

That edit is unacceptable on various levels and it warrants a block. I have blocked Murshad87 for a week; any admin is free to modify this block in either direction. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

A good block. Any instance of supporting terrorism and terrorist organizations warrants an immediate block, in my opinion. JM (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a good block on multiple levels IMO; the way I read the edit at first was it was praising this terrorist's bravery and adherence to Islam *because* they were a terrorist. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Insults 3

User:Baba Mica continues to slander and harass me on their talk page after being blocked ([211] [212]) calling me and the larger editor userbase all sorts of extreme vulgarities and accusations. I believe this is the kind of situation where a user has their talk page editing access revoked. Thank you. HappyWith (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Note they also asked for a permanent ban in the first diff. Conyo14 (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk page access removed, and PAs removed as well. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing User talk:Bnnat30

User talk:Bnnat30 is disrupting pages without any sources. In January there was 1 warning and in February alone, there were 4 warnings given on the talk page] but Bnnat30 continues to disrupt pages by changing boxoffice and budget numbers without any sources. RangersRus (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:Bnnat30#Indefinite block. El_C 05:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Addiction of unsourced content, blocking bypass and sock

User Satanichellmaster666 (Special:Contributions/Satanichellmaster666) is clearly a blocking bypass of the banned user Greyplod (Special:Contributions/Greyplod), who also created the Uttorks account (Special:Contributions/Uttorks), i.e. using sockpuppets, blocking bypass and adding unsourced content. Goldencerebro (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely, both reported users (block evasion). El_C 05:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Single-purpose editor not engaging in discussion at Pitof

Last fall, I came across Pitof, an article about a French film director. It had a fair amount of unencyclopedic language, overdetail, unverified claims, and in general, possible promotionalism. I cleaned it up, but since January, Oscarwings has repeatedly re-added some or all of the removed material. They are a WP:SPA with an exclusive interest in Pitof and his career. I'm happy to discuss the changes with them, but per WP:ONUS the material should stay removed while we discuss. Repeated comments in edit summaries, talk page pings, and messages on their talk page have failed to garner any response. Oscarwings has never edited a talk page or any page not in article space. It's possible they simply are unaware, or they could be deliberately trying to fly under the radar. Not sure what the next best step is, but will go notify them on their talk page now per ANI rules. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely a SPA. I removed the dob as being unsourced for at least 15 years apparently, and removed some other original research and IMDb and Guinness. If they don't engage on the article talk page and continue adding crappy sources and original research, I propose a pblock to get their attention. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:Oscarwings#Indefinite block. El_C 05:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

User:AdamBlack89

User:AdamBlack89 has been persistently uncivil toward me at Talk:Montacute House, for example in the section Talk:Montacute House/Archive 2#Publicising discussions. The most recent incident was today on their talk page, in response to a notification of a dispute resolution discussion.

The fact that AdamBlack89 has made no contribution to the Montacute House discussion except to insult me makes the incident seem particularly personal. A.D.Hope (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

It's almost surprising how shockingly overt AdamBlack89's behavior is:

• Calling A.D.Hope a bad loser and adding Some might even say troublemaker. [213]
• Accusing A.D.Hope's contirbutions being the equivalent of driving by the talk page of a strange neighbourhood, parking one’s car badly, annoying the local road users and then sounding one’s horn relentlessly until one garners sufficient attention that people give in because they can’t bear the relentless noise.
• Continuing to accuse A.D.Hope of bad faith using mocking language: Now, when it seems you can’t get your own way, you decide to stamp your pretty little foot to attract even more attention to yourself. One despairs, one really does. [214]

Treating other editors with respect and civility is one of Wikipedia's five pillars, and the violation is obvious here, from the mocking tone and personal attacks. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours: User talk:AdamBlack89#Block. El_C 05:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Bobak

I've never interacted with this user before today (that I know of), but they are verbally attacking me over essentially nothing, tripling down on it, and now attacking User:Drmies as well (see Bobak's talk page history). A quick check shows an ongoing problem:

• "Take your straight-up internet bullying harassment and go tell someone who cares. This is why good editors don't want anything to do with you lifers." (Special:Diff/1209629879/1209694975)
• "who, specifically, was I attacking? LOL." (Special:Diff/1209612188/1209618671)
• "what a waste of human effort" (Special:Diff/1209304146/1209394924).
• "who the hell cares" (Special:Diff/1207122171/1207138340)
• "I love how this indicated that someone had no idea "California State University" is a 23-university *SYSTEM* with nearly a half-million students. Do any of you check your work? Then think "hmm, I bet google would give me a little additional data" -- no? Not any of you?" (Special:Diff/1207992908/1209395413)

This started when they verbally insulted me out of the blue over what was essentially a minor typo (calling me "incredibly lazy" Special:Diff/1206450949/1209494134). Other editors have noted their snark is uncalled for (User:TAnthony: "You don't get to be snarky about perceived laziness when you don't bother formatting your citation" Special:Diff/1209395413/1209406940).

I don't see prior history of this kind of behavior, in ANI or their talk page, prior to about 2 weeks ago. Has the account been hijacked? Bobak has been an admin since 2007, they clearly know better than to behave like this. -- GreenC 05:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely with talk page access revoked. Reminder that indefinite does not mean infinite — I just didn't know how to time the length of this block. This will almost certainly end up at ARBCOM, so this is a stop-gap measure. As mentioned in my block notice, being an admin does not allow one to attack others with impunity. El_C 05:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

This is obviously an exceptional block since it involves an admin. Accordingly, any admin may adjust it as they see fit, including by lifting it outright. I need not be consulted or even notified. El_C 06:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

El_C, that this editor is an administrator, that was news to me. I'd never have thought it. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Non-involved comment: Maybe WP:XRV could be the venue for discussing your action? I have seen admins use it before when making a potentially controversial block.

ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

No one has raised an objection for this block yet. If El C feels the need to get reassurance or a concrete conclusion on whether this block is appropriate and justified, they are free to create a thread there themselves. Right now I don't see a need to review this action. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

No, no WP:FORUMSHOP, obscure or otherwise. I'm good with here (or at RfAR). El_C 15:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair point.ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I see a bunch more questionable and rude edit summaries going back years, though not as bad as the current ones. [215][216][217][218][219] It doesn't look like a compromised account, since the language is similar in some places. It could just be a stress or WP:EUI incident, wouldn't be the first and it doesn't necessarily need permanent consequences. Endorse block at least until we can figure out what's going on. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 07:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Huh. I've restored talk-page access (with El C's permission above) in case Bobak has any response to give; anyone is welcome to re-revoke it without consulting me if it's used inappropriately. But yeah, unless there's a very good explanation forthcoming, this is on the fast track to WP:ARC. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Endorse block, it will have to be an amazingly good explanation. And being under the influence would be the worst possible ones. Doug Weller talk 14:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, Extraordinary Writ. I revoked TPA because the tirade was happening an hour'ish prior. If it would have happened something like 24 hours earlier, as was the case with the AdamBlack89 NPA block directly above (damn, many blocks last night), I likely wouldn't have touched talk page access. But this seemed like more of an urgent, in-the-present thing. HTH. El_C 15:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom appears to have started the process for a speedy WP:LEVEL2 desysop, so I don't think there's a need for a full case request at this point. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

"<redacted>"

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

---

(Redacted)

A pretty egregious violation of WP:ATTACKNAME, looking into their contribs its a fresh user making very rapid, random edits. Edits in general are disruptive. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Redacted, redacted, redacted — all redacted (including the logs). El_C 05:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

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

AudiGuy-1204 and me

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

---

My friend, which uses the User:AudiGuy-1204 account, has been editing very weirdly before I even started to edit, and after he got blocked, by repeatedly resetting my modem, he started to vandalize articles of mostly anime, music or car-type articles. This lasted for more than a year.

Last day, AudiGuy reappeared, this time thinking an typo was an different name of a car, then added swastikas to AIV and an admin's talk page, but I entirely took over internet access of my friend. He can no longer edit.

I am not AudiGuy. I will create an new account, which is named identically (despite being not him): ToyotaGuy8811. I don't like Audi, as it moves forward to having an range only featuring electric vehicles.

Now I have edited some of AudiGuy's redirects to be targeted to more relevant articles. AudiGuy started editing in August 2022 as IPs, before creating the account in October and getting blocked mid-November. After that, he continued to edit as an IP until he repeatedly got blocked for block evasion, and the vandalism starts here. The first sock of him as far as I know, was Bucks Meet Weebs, which is an anime-related humorous backronym of the Bavarian Motor Works.

He has repeatedly harassed the anime article editor, Harushiga, creating impostor accounts of them.

He recently started to add swear words and Nazi swastikas, and the vandalism has gone multilingual, vandalizing mostly the Turkish Wikipedia, but also the Japanese, German, French and Dutch Wikipedias.

I am not AudiGuy, nor even a block evasion of him.

Thank you for all your response.

My friend is also an huge car guy, and he created numereous accounts and harassed admins, and I keep getting blocked and all of my constructive edits get reverted, and whenever I post an unblock request, the admins simply think I'm lying or trolling, when it is the fact that I'm closely related to him. 95.70.138.236 (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I have now created my account. I am still a car guy, but different than that AudiGuy. This damn AudiGuy made me unable to edit for one year. ToyotaGuy8811 (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Ummmmmmmmmm... — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not him. Still not a block evasion, but I never used that account. ToyotaGuy8811 (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll send ANI notices to every sock of AudiGuy I could ever see. ToyotaGuy8811 (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) If this was a court of criminal law with the power to take away your life, liberty or money, and so with a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard of proof, I would probably believe you when you say that you're not him. As it is all we can do is take away your right to edit one web site, so we subject ourselves to the "balance of probabilities" standard of proof. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Finally I'm free. ToyotaGuy8811 (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I misread it. You say "take away your right to edit one website". Do this means I'm going to be unfortunately blocked? ToyotaGuy8811 (talk) 11:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm leaving WP entirely. Rest in peace. ToyotaGuy8811 (talk) 11:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

But not leaving as an IP. I'll continue to edit as an IP. Thanks. 95.70.138.236 (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked both the account and the IP address. This is the typical approach AudiGuy-1204 takes these days, along with trolling WP:UTRS. --Yamla (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Regular vandalism, edit warring by Maphumor

Maphumor is continuously contesting in edit warring. He deletes Wikipedia informations without explanation according to his whims. He is seen continuously to impose his edits over other editors. If you see his edits, his edits are mainly of deleting information. Besides, he clearly seems to uphold or suppress specific specific political ideas (he probably does not like that is not my issue...His disruptions is making problems). His edits can be included in Vandalism, Disruptions, Edit Warring, Biased editing. Multiple editors @User:Dhruv edits, @User:Shaan Sengupta, @User:Happyjit Singh, User:XYZ 250706. Please take steps against his edits. A discussion regarding him was done here previously also with no outcome. User:XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

You need to provide specific WP:DIFFs of edits you believe were vandalism. Note that vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and false accusations can be considered personal attacks. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Gresha Schuilling

Can I have some eyes on Gresha Schuilling? We've got a couple of socks (Gresha Schuilling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2402:d000:8138:13a0:5071:b6b8:cb63:512b (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and Dylan Yadhati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) turning stub into a full-blown hagiography. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi there. She is actually part of the church I go to, so I'm trying to contribute some more recent information from her website since the current details are from 20 years ago. Dylan Yadhati (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended confirmed for a week, which unfortunately locks you out as well IP 81. All are welcome to use the Talk to determine whether she's notable and, if so, what should be included. Star Mississippi 19:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll survive! ;-) Thanks for this, Star (and also to Bbb23). 81.187.192.168 (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

and thank you for flagging it, IP 81. Have a great day Star Mississippi 19:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:Navbox top / Template:Last word vandalism

Looks like an admin's gone postal, I'm unable to revert this. — east718 | talk | 20:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)