Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aman.kumar.goel (talk | contribs) at 19:30, 2 December 2023 (→Beccaynr misusing 3RR exemption for edit warring: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Banned Wikipedia User utilizing at least 15 Different IPs to vandalize Wikipedia pages by removing mention of Noktundo

    These multiple IPs have violated WP:NR, WP:PA, WP:DE, WP:NPOV and I highly suspect they are committing WP:LOUTSOCK based off the sheer number of IPs they are using combined with similarities to a previous banned user.

    This person has engaged in racism towards Koreans and Chinese and other East Asians as a whole, they have called Korea and China "backwaters" and said I quote, "Unlike Europeans who had mathematics, science, exploration, and made maps, East Asians like Koreans and Chinese never had any of these" Here are the examples: [8] [9] [10]

    They have conducted numerous personal attacks, directed mainly towards me, they refuse to engage with me on their usage of multiple accounts, accused me of lying for reverting their edits, and other things. [11] "Stop making up history" [12] [13] Accusations of lying

    They have repeatedly deleted material on the articles, for example any mentions of the territorial dispute for Noktundo on Noktundo, Convention of Peking, List of territorial disputes and they have made more than a dozen new topics on the exact same topic of if Noktundo "exists or not" as well as if the territorial dispute exists or not when they could have kept it to one or two topics. I cannot list all of them because they've done more than 20+ of these disruptive edits, but here are some of the most egregious examples, such as them ignoring admins. [14] [15] [16] [17]

    They are aggressively pushing their POV, suggesting that Korea will "invade" Russia and try to seize the island as well as other things. A particular quote of theirs here: "How so? Are we going to dispute which country owned Pangea? Disputes can only be for things that exist. Disputes cannot be for things that do not exist. Any claim that Primorsky krai is Korean land is a blatant violation of Russia's territory. Might as well claim Moscow is Korean land because Moscow is north of the Tumen river. So? Is South Korea going to claim Moscow is Korean land because Moscow is connected to Primorsky krai by land?" [18] [19] [20] [21]

    I believe these fifteen IP accounts are likely from the banned ПаравозЛазо (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which in turn was a sockpuppet of the banned user Kaustritten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who had multiple sock puppets such as TTACH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

    I believe there is probable cause to this claim, because [22] shows that Kaustritten and TTACH have used similar racist personal attacks towards other users, and have been adamant on removing any "territorial claims Korea has on Russia" such as when TTACH [23] tried to remove evidence of Goguryeo's presence in Russia which was incorrect.

    I hope admin takes action as the distruptive editing through the use of fifteen different IP accounts is both harmful to Wikipedia and is a very serious vandalism issue for the Noktundo wikipedia page. I will notify the user pinging their latest IP that they used, though again it is a bit difficult to contact this user as they keep switching IPs.

    Follow up Edit: I also had previously warned them to stop, but they ignored my comments to stop. 1st warning: [24] 2nd and final warning: [25]

    Sunnyediting99 (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Looks like the affected pages have been semi-protected for 3 weeks to 1 month, by Materialscientist and Daniel Case. Unfortunately, looks like blocks won't work here due to the rate at which they switch IP addresses, as well as the significant differences between many of the IPs (i.e. they're not all part of one common range that can be blocked or partially blocked). The amount of messages spammed by this single user on Talk:Noktundo is staggering though. — AP 499D25 (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, thats been of great help as prior to the protection of the three pages, they were constantly reverted back with deletions by the vandalism done by the IPs.
    I feel like either still temporarily blocking the IPs, or somehow protecting the Talk Pages (or just immediately deleting all future comments from IPs that are spouting similar content and vandalism) would be ideal, I assume they will run out of IPs before we run out of bans. As you mentioned, the messages spammed by this person on the Noktundo Talk Page is indeed staggering, something has to be done to stop this person. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't realise that the odd messages in Talk:List of territorial disputes were part of a wider issue. This level of spamming is definitely disruptive. CMD (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They have seen the notice and message I sent them, their reply is as follows:
    "It is you who are vandalizing Wikipedia and bringing down its standards. Wikipedia is a joke thanks to nationalists like you who ignore reality. You cling onto a stupid article written in Russian from 2013 as your justification about some Noktundo being a disputed territory. You live in your own little fantasy world and ignore the real world. If anything, police should arrest you and throw you behind bars for using a stupid article written in Russian from 2013 to incite conflict and violence. You should be ashamed of yourself and go seek professional help. You saying a Noktundo which does not even exist being a disputed territory does not make it so. You are a crazy person who is clearly not right in the head. 45.58.94.255 (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)"[reply]
    [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Noktundo&diff=prev&oldid=1186564245]
    [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Noktundo&diff=prev&oldid=1186564520]
    They still have not commented on this ANI despite me alerting them. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 02:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That IP has been blocked by Widr. CMD (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Noktundo&diff=prev&oldid=1186632339
    They are ignoring the ANI, and have posted through a different IP that was used earlier, the compilation of the points they had previously made through various IP is the strongest evidence yet that the IPs are all the same person.
    Admins, while the page is being protected, could you erase all their spams on the Talk Page? Or alternatively are editors allowed to erase content on Talk Page if its vandalism? It's starting to get frustrating seeing them just ignore the ANI and keep repeating their points over and over Sunnyediting99 (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you know which talk page? Secretlondon (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's Talk:Noktundo Sunnyediting99 (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    IP has shifted to [Talk:List of territorial disputes] using Special:Contributions/172.98.151.41 Sunnyediting99 (talk) 05:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Shifted again to 162.221.125.217, perhaps protection might ease this off instead of whack-a-mole? I find it hard to figure out a coherent message amongst the various posts. CMD (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The latest IP address, 162.221.125.217, is now blocked 31h after a report I made at WP:AIV. Additionally, Talk:List of territorial disputes is also semi-protected for two weeks, thank you Materialscientist. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both, I would recommend also potentially re-protecting Talk:Noktundo if we have one more case of vandalism.
    I agree, there's not really a coherent message amongst the posts for the most part, it's mostly just personal attacks or disruptive editing. The user doesn't seem interested in following the rules. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll keep an eye out on those talk pages and report IPs to AIV / request page protection where needed. Regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey @AP 499D25
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Noktundo&oldid=1187591670
    They went back to the Talk Page after its protection expired Sunnyediting99 (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I noticed.
    At least they finally provided a source this time around for their claims, unlike their last 100 posts that basically spammed the same POV over and over again without any sources to back it up. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    IP 45.58.94.255 beclowning themselves and spamming anti-Korean posts.

    Merged here where it belongs. --JBL (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone take a look at IP 45's actions on various talk pages (including Noktundo)? They've gone off the rails. 182.228.179.154 (talk) 05:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This IP address was already being discussed in the thread Banned Wikipedia User utilizing at least 15 Different IPs to vandalize Wikipedia pages by removing mention of Noktundo above, but anyways, it has been blocked by Widr for 31 hrs duration just five minutes before this post. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive, redundant and unexplained changes to thumbnail sizes by User:Mndata2

    MOS:UPRIGHT explains how upright= should be used, specifying the circumstances where it might be reasonable to choose a thumbnail size other than the default. User:Mndata2 has visited dozens of articles, inserting upright tags without any evident logic and ignoring requests to use edit summaries to explain their reasoning. Multiple attempts on their talk page to address the issue have received no response whatever:

    WP:Communication is required. I suggest that this editor be blocked from editing until they show willing to engage in dispute resolution mechanisms. (A make-weight I know, but they also ignore notifications from DPL bot too, leaving it to others to clean up their errors.)

    Is that enough? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Refusal to communicate and wasting others time with unexplained small edits contrary to established WP:MOS means I support a block since that seems to be what it will take for Mndata2 to respond to the many concerns. TylerBurden (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mndata2 has continued to edit since the ANI reference, continues to make unexplained changes to thumbnail sizes (upright=1.1! seriously?), such as [46], [47] and [48].
    All their editing is on mobile, afaics. Does that mean that they are not actually seeing any pings that there are messages on their talk page? If so, then a temporary block must be the only way to grab their attention. What do I need to do to get an administrator to intervene? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well posting here I would say was sensible since this is the definition of a chronic and unmanageable behavioral problem that requires administrator intervention since the editor either is unable or unwilling to listen to anyone else. Hopefully one will intervene before the thread is archived, otherwise perhaps an administrator could be contacted directly. TylerBurden (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For science, I momentarily disabled "Advanced mode" in my preferences, and confirm that the notification icon is still visible at the top of every screen. All mobile editors would appear to receive notifications now. Folly Mox (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:FuzzyMagma and close paraphrasing

    TL;DR: Not only does FuzzyMagma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have an extensive track record close paraphrasing, but they actively dismiss any warnings about their editing and do not properly acknowledge their mistakes.

    Summary
    Part of dying's source-text analysis, originally without tables at WT:DYK (20/11/2023)
    Source[1] September 1983 laws
    "Nimeiry was allied with the Muslim Brotherhood led by ... al-Turabi [and] allowed the group to carry out its advocacy, political, and economic activity. The latter took advantage of the opportunity in order to empower itself and take control. The group blessed the announcement of implementing the laws of September 1983 and took out massive marches in support of the move. It also provided its political support for the laws through its advocacy platforms, student organizations, and voluntary organizations, as well as its cadres of judges ... such as Muhammad Mahjoub Haj Nour and Al-Makashfi Taha Al-Kabashi." "Nimeiry was allied with the Muslim Brotherhood led by al-Turabi and allowed the group to carry out its advocacy, political, and economic activities. The Brotherhood took advantage of the opportunity to order to empower itself and take control. The group blessed the announcement of implementing the laws of September 1983 and had massive marches in support of the move. It also provided political support for the laws through its advocacy platforms, student organisations, and voluntary organisations, as well as its cadres of judges such as Muhammad Mahjoub Haj Nour and Al-Makashfi Taha Al-Kabashi."
    Source[2] September 1983 laws
    "... as many as 300 Sudanese who have lost one or more limbs .... Emergency courts routinely ordered amputations for people found guilty of stealing property worth $40 or more. For those who received such punishment, stares, accusations and harassment are constant. Employment is, for them, an ever-diminishing expectation. ... Their severed limbs represent badges of criminal guilt ..., making ... wrongful arrest common. They are taunted .... The punishments sometimes brought an end to family life; to go home without a limb would mean shame .... The amputees have formed a self-help association ... to establish small businesses and obtain medical and legal assistance. ... Peter Anton von Arnim ... said the Government's arguments ... included accusations that it would be a front for criminals, and that would upset Moslems who favored the Sudan's form of Islamic justice." "As many as 300 Sudanese endured the painful amputation of limbs. These punishments, administered by emergency courts, were inflicted on those found guilty of stealing property worth over $40. These amputees faced constant social stigma and accusations, making it increasingly challenging to secure employment. Their severed limbs were perceived as marks of criminality, leading to wrongful arrests and a life of taunts as they walked the streets. In many cases, these punishments shattered family lives, as returning home without a limb brought shame. ... However, they rallied together to form a self-help association, aiming to establish small businesses and obtain medical and legal assistance. They ... faced opposition from the government, citing concerns that it might be used as a front for criminals and disrupt the Sudan's form of Islamic justice."
    Source[3] September 1983 laws
    "Then, in 1984, Nimeiry began proposing draft broad constitutional amendments to the 1973 Constitution to declare Sudan an "Islamic Republic" ( Article 1 of the draft amendments ) and for the President of the Republic to be "a leader of the believers and the head and imam of the state" ( Article 80 of the draft amendments ), and for the sources of Sharia to be It is the law and custom that does not conflict with it ( Article 59 of the draft amendments ). Then the 1998 Constitution came to glorify the religious foundation by introducing a text on "the nature of the state," which stipulated that governance in the state belongs to God, the Creator of human beings ( Article 4 ). It also stipulated that it is not permissible to enact a law that conflicts with Islamic law and the consensus of the nation ( Article 65 ), as the text thus excluded non-Muslims by consolidating the religious state's dominance over the aspects of public life." " Also in 1984, Nimeiry began proposing broad constitutional draft amendments to the 1973 Constitution to declare Sudan an "Islamic republic" (article 1 of the draft amendments), and for the president of the republic to be "a leader of the believers and the head and imam of the state" (article 80 of the draft amendments), and for the sources of Sharia to be it is the law and custom that does not conflict with it (article 59 of the draft amendments). It also stipulated that it is not permissible to enact a law that conflicts with Islamic law and the consensus of the nation (article 65), as the text thus excluded non-Muslims by consolidating the religious state's dominance over aspects of public life."
    Source[4] Islamism in Sudan
    "After the overthrow of Numeiri's rule, Al-Turabi and his men founded the "National Islamic Front," which ran in the elections for the Constituent Assembly and won third place after the two historical parties, with 54 seats, which made it the leader of the opposition. Al-Turabi succeeded once again in acting as a pressing opposition party, disrupting the attempt of Sadiq al-Mahdi, the prime minister and majority leader in parliament, to suspend the controversial September laws and initiate peace negotiations with the south." "Following the fall of Nimeiri's regime, al-Turabi and his associates established the "Islamic National Front." This newly formed group participated in the Constituent Assembly elections and secured the third position, amassing 54 seats. This achievement positioned them as the leading opposition force. Al-Turabi once again excelled in playing the role of a influential opposition party, effectively thwarting Sadiq al-Mahdi's endeavor—head of the government and the parliamentary majority—to suspend the contentious September laws and push forward peace negotiations with the southern region."
    Source[5] Kalakla
    "The history of Al-Kalakla goes back approximately 450 years, since the arrival of Sheikh Ali bin Muhammad bin Kannah .... Hamdallah bin Muhammad Al-Awadi ... came in the same era to this spot ... and the two intermarried, so the name (Al-Kalakla) came to be included in them. The ancient Kalakla migrated from Al-Manjara to the land of gravel, which is the area south of Al-Hamdab and Al-Shajara .... The Kalakla worked in agriculture, cutting trees ...." "The history of Kalakla goes back approximately 450 years, since the arrival of Sheikh Ali bin Muhammad bin Kanna .... Hamdallah bin Muhammad Al-Awadi also came to the region in the same era .... The two intermarried and the name Kalakla came to include all of them. The ancient Kalakla people migrated from Al-Manjara to the today's Kalakla, an area located south of Al-Hammadab and Al-Shajara. The Kalakla people worked in agriculture, and cutting trees and lumber."

    and more, smaller examples.

    References

    1. ^ [1]
    2. ^ [2]
    3. ^ [3]
    4. ^ [4]
    5. ^ [5]
    Post-warning close paraphrasing (21–25/11/2023)
    Source[1] War crimes during the War in Sudan (2023)
    "Scores of women and girls, some as young as 12, have been subjected to sexual violence - including rape - by members of the warring sides. Some were held for days in conditions of sexual slavery." "Numerous females, including girls as young as 12, have endured sexual violence, including rape, at the hands of combatants from opposing factions. Certain individuals were forcibly detained for extended periods in situations tantamount to sexual slavery."
    Source[2], Malik Maaza
    "He worked at universities throughout Europe and Asia before coming to South Africa as a senior lecturer at Wits University in 1997, where he became Research Group leader for the Advanced Nano-Materials and Nano-Scale Physics Lab. He has co-initiated the African Laser Centre and the South African Nanotechnology Initiative ... he initiated the Nanosciences African Network"
    "Maaza’s research covers not only photonics but materials science at the nano-scale for different applications such as selective solar absorbers for solar energy harvesting and conversion, Nanofluids for enhanced heat transfer in concentrated solar power (CSP) and other renewable energy technologies."     		"After working across universities in Europe and Asia, Maaza joined University of the Witwatersrand in 1997 as a senior lecturer and later led the Advanced Nano-Materials and Nano-Scale Physics Lab. He co-found the African Laser Centre and South African Nanotechnology Initiative that was launched in 2001 and spearheaded the Nanosciences African Network."
    "His research spans photonics and nano-scale materials science, targeting diverse applications like selective solar absorbers, nanofluids for enhanced heat transfer in solar power, and renewable energy technologies."

    References

    1. ^ [6]
    2. ^ [7]
    Thus, I have no confidence that FuzzyMagma understands their mistakes or wants to fix them. This is a shame, because they are an editor who clearly cares greatly about fixing the systemic bias on the project. Hopefully, this thread conveys something of that nature to them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like I am being targeted for the same issue at two different places. Have a look here Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#FuzzyMagma.
    It’s amazing that two different people (not dying) are investing time reporting this. Again not the one who claim to found something but two who sided with dying from the beginning.
    Talking about systemic bias ok! You told my to drop the stick and once I pointed out that I was not the one with the stick you went quiet, and gave me a warning on my talk and now this.
    At least the other admin did the decent thing and let someone impartial have a look. That is how you at least solve systemic bias.
    Anyway, read my reply at CCI. FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    “have an extensive track record close paraphrasing, but they actively dismiss any warnings about their editing and do not properly acknowledge their mistakes.” do not state opinion as a fact, wait for the CCI outcome or at least read my rebuttal and don’t put your “feeling” about my rebuttal but summarise what was said using an impartial language. FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How did you conclude that Malik Maaza is WP:close paraphrasing?!
    please just wait for CCI, your whole summary of the incident is unfair/skewed and for some reason you want close this by providing - what you think - as more evidence FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I mentioned the ongoing CCI report above FuzzyMagma; this ANI report is letting impartial administrators have a look to decide whether action needs to be taken now. If you are unable to see the clearly-outlined close paraphrasing at Malik Maaza, that may be evidence in that direction. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You did not answer my questions about why you summairsed they CCI in the way that you did. Did you read that you need to give a a brief neutral description of the dispute. What you did is not neutral.
    As for Malik Maaza, I truly do not see it. How would you arrange someone early life, PhD and then date of birth? These are typical article sentence structure. and I understand that you might not be a scientist but you cannot paraphrase technical terms words like "heat transfer" and "selective solar absorbers" although I did try. They do not fit the WP:close paraphrasing (see WP:LIMITED) even when you apply earwig, it detect these names but still give 7% similarity. FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @FuzzyMagma, Dying, Theleekycauldron, Rjjiii, Viriditas, and Diannaa: editors mentioned or previously involved with DYK nom or copyright; talk page notification to come shortly.

    • Despite everything, I'm going to plead for leniency on FuzzyMagma's behalf. For starters – and this is partially my fault – dying's concerns at the original WT:DYK thread and the nomination discussion were communicated incredibly poorly. The first example dying cited turned out to be a dud, leading FuzzyMagma to think that they were out of the woods. dying did not clearly identify all of the sources the submitted article was copied from, within Wikipedia or otherwise, which they implied after the fact was an intentional choice on their part to spare FuzzyMagma the criticism. That led to example after example of source material and conflicting quotes from the DYK rules being thrown at FuzzyMagma, with them being tasked with sorting all of it out without a clear picture of what was going on and under the time pressure of the hook already being queued to appear on the Main Page. I hope dying's takeaway from this thread is that, though they remained civil, that choice made the thread much longer and more painful than it needed to be. None of this excuses FuzzyMagma's behavior towards dying, and it especially doesn't excuse the very legitimate copyright concerns, but I can certainly understand their frustration with this entire process, which revolves around the application of niche and esoteric DYK procedural rules designed to prevent newness-by-copying and was not explained well. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I have no doubt that FuzzyMagma was frustrated by the discussion at DYK, theleekycauldron. My concerns are with the ongoing addition of close paraphrasing, even after they have been explicitly warned and after you opened the CCI. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If we assume everything said about the situation under discussion is true, what about a simple solution that temporarily restricts the user to draft space, where their work can be checked by interested parties, and they can demonstrate how to paraphrase appropriately? Perhaps combining this with a mentorship would be best? This would allow the user to continue their work just as they doing now, with the only difference that it would have to be checked and approved before going to main space. Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The tables above show clear copyright violations and they are not permitted anywhere. I have not investigated this issue but taking the tables at face value and regardless of how poor earlier communication was, FuzzyMagma has to avoid similar edits because repeated problems of this nature have to result in a block. Johnuniq (talk) 05:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like a good solution to me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The pre-warning examples are a bit long to meet WP:LIMITED IMO, but the post-warning examples are fine per WP:LIMITED. No mentorship or other action seems needed here, the "warning" seems to have worked. Levivich (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    A GA review of Horses in Sudan was started by A455bcd9 since the last post in this thread. After initially being put on hold, the GA review was failed the same day for OR, SYNTH, verifiability and editorialising issues with some strong criticism from a455bcd9 and also from Grorp. Grorp's changes to the article note that:

    A response from FM says that

    • "what [a455bcd9] call[ed] failed verification [FM has] showed to be a failure of understanding how summaries works",
    • a455bcd9 "either didn’t read ny rebuttal or choose to ignore it" (hardly AGFing), and
    • advises a455bcd9 that "when you are challenged, you should normally seek a second opinion not just stick to yours"... all whils FM maintains sticking with their opinion.

    Though the issue here is not COPYVIO or close paraphrasing, it is a sourcing issue and struggling to see issues in one's own work, etc. I thought a455bcd9 or Grorp might like to comment on this thread, and that perhaps further / broader consideration is needed of the issues connected with FM's editing. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I am loath to dig much deeper than what I already have done for the GA review of Horses in Sudan. In short, it seems FM copied info and [at least] 4 citations from the French-wiki and from another poorly-cited English-wiki article without checking the sources for reliability or suitability.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    they actively dismiss any warnings about their editing and do not properly acknowledge their mistakes: based on my only interaction with them (Talk:Horses in Sudan/GA1) I'd say this as well. After this GAN review, I wanted to check their edits as I was concerned about the (lack of) quality of their edits and their reaction to my feedback. It looks like I'm not the only one to be worried about this contributor... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unbelievable! I stand corrected, having just discovered that the unreliable citations FuzzyMagma 'allegedly copied' from Tawleed... he put there in both articles! [49] [50] It makes me angry that I posted giving him the benefit of the doubt, just to discover that he knowingly chose crappy citations... and then defended his position in a GA review. Now evaluating his edit in Tawleed [51] and comparing the content FM added against the 3 sources he cited (to see if he might have closely paraphrased) instead I find FM made it all up; it's all WP:OR. There is nothing in those citations to support the content he added to the Tawleed article.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 09:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The far paraphrasing is a much bigger problem than the close paraphrasing. Levivich (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • text: The Tawleed horse breed originated in the Khartoum region of Sudan. It is a unique breed known for its strength, endurance, and suitability as a riding horse. The breed was developed by cross-breeding native Sudan Country-Bred horses with an exotic breed, primarily Thoroughbred, which contributed to its riding qualities
    • source: The Tawleed was developed in the Khartoum region of Sudan as a riding horse. It was formed by upgrading Sudan Country-Bred horses with exotic breed, primarily Thoroughbred.
    • text: Tawleed horses are characterised by their sturdiness and excellent endurance, making them ideal riding horses. They are often described as strong and easy keepers, capable of thriving on meager rations.
    ... Despite being less renowned for its appearance compared to some other breeds, the Tawleed horse possesses qualities like stamina, endurance, and a gentle nature. These attributes, combined with its strong, short-coupled body
    • source: What is known about the Tawleed horse breed is that it is used by the indigenous people of the Sudan in the mountanous areas. The breed is an extremely easy keeper. They are strong and sturdy with excellent endurance. These horses are good riding horses. The horse's gaits are not known nor are the color variations. However, it is thought that the breed will be able to be DNA traced to Thoroughbred blood.
    • These attributes, combined with its strong, short-coupled body, made it suitable for various equestrian disciplines, including dressage.
    FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I generally try to address the substance rather than how it is phrased but saying that "giving him the benefit of the doubt" is not true. See our first encounter Template:Horse topics#Unchecked expansion when you complained that the "evolution and history" has been expanded with CONTEMPORARY (you used all caps) articles because I added Sudan and Togo next to the United States. Later you made a new template while including the same articles you labelled as "evolution and history" with the "CONTEMPORARY" without seeing the irony.
    Also at Talk:Horses in Sudan/GA1 you said that my articles related to Sudan/Africa/Muslim topics; not horse topics. two notes
    • if you have a comment be constructive, you do not need to use gatekeeping antics. Just address the issue and leave
    • Sudan in Africa, and I have never created any article about "Muslim" (or Islam) topics but I did create plenty about materials science, and plenty of other topics. In many of these topics, most editors are kind enough to give a constructive feedback; however, you choose to alienate [me].
    FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @A455bcd9 there is nothing wrong about being challenged and requesting a 3O. here is an example of why I challenged you
    You stated ", I could not verify the following statements using the following ref: * Sudan's horse culture dates back centuries, with horses being highly prized and associated with wealth and power. [5]; I pointed out that is a summary as the source mentions
    • The families renowned for horse breeding and horsemanship in Khartoum include those of Imam Al-Mahdi, late statesman Al-Azhary, Mamoun Ahmed Mekky, Muntasir Abdul A'al, Kaboky, al-Waleed Madibo and many other families." these are wealth and powerful families
    • In Darfur, the famous families connected with horses include those of Mohamed Hamid Al-Jailany (Abu Garjah), Fadul Hamdan, Ibrahim Obaid Tairab, Gony Mukhtar and others.
    • strong passion for horses and they often mention those domesticated animals in their traditional ardent poems and songs gleefully listened to by every Sudanese.
    • They constitute an historic legacy
    • The young horseman said, after winning a championship equestrian and Presidential Assistant Abdul Rahman al-Mahdi offered him a cap and a neck-tie as a present as an incentive and promised to equip his new horse a saddle, reins, other accessories and a costume.
    a 3O came and sided with you. Case closed, move on ... FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • General note: not sure where to put this, but I am getting busy in "real life" and will disappear until Xmas; thus, I might not be able to reply but at the same time I won't edit Wikipedia, except on the 9/12 for event. I hope there is no deadline for me to clarify why I did something that might be preserved as "not understanding my mistakes or want to fix them" when I think that I am trying to do that as much as I can. I work between "Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it" and "Do not be upset if your bold edits get reverted" from Wikipedia:Be bold FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @FuzzyMagma: Do you think we're that gullible? You just gave 3 dishonest examples! Now it's my turn. Using this diff which shows your actual edit in Tawleed; you added content and cited 3 sources, and I'll mention them in order just like you did.

    1. You added the content It is a unique breed known for its strength, endurance, and suitability as which is not reflected in the 1st source.

    2. The 2nd source does not support this content you added: capable of thriving on meager rations. This breed has historical significance, and its development played a role in the evolution of other horse breeds, including the Andalusian and even Western Hemisphere breeds like the American Quarter Horse and Appaloosa.

    3. You just now cite French Wikipedia, which isn't what you actually cited in your edit; and by the way, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. You instead had cited this blog as your 3rd source which contains none of the content you added, "Despite being less renowned for its appearance compared to some other breeds, the Tawleed horse possesses qualities like stamina, endurance, and a gentle nature. These attributes, combined with its strong, short-coupled body, made it suitable for various equestrian disciplines, including dressage."

    To those reading this thread here on ANI, this is a perfect example of "does not properly acknowledge their mistakes," but instead has dishonestly tried to convince the readers otherwise.

    And while I was drafting this note, FuzzyMagma wrote more screed about this or that, just more reactive pushback that I won't bother to address, except for this: FuzzyMagma, my point about related to Sudan/Africa/Muslim topics; not horse topics was to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were not a horse-topic editor and might have gotten it wrong because of your lack of experience on the topic. The word 'muslim' was because your edit history shows you created a lot of BLPs of muslim-type-named persons. Maybe I should have used a different word, but I'm not familiar with the subject matter and was only pointing out you don't edit horse articles!   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @FuzzyMagma: no horses being highly prized and associated with wealth and power cannot be backed by the source saying "The families renowned for horse breeding and horsemanship in Khartoum include those of Imam Al-Mahdi, late statesman Al-Azhary, Mamoun Ahmed Mekky, Muntasir Abdul A'al, Kaboky, al-Waleed Madibo and many other families." and YOU guessing because you know/think/consider that "these are wealth and powerful families". This is WP:OR. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If some people want to dig deeper: FM has 12 articles waiting for review at WP:GAN. (Including Islamic Sharia laws in Sudan, a Sudanese Islamic leader, and Islamic school in Sudan: so I'm surprised that FM denied contributing to "Muslim" (or Islam) topics. There's nothing wrong about these topics, just weird to deny this unobjectionable fact...). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s weird that you are changing the name of these articles to justify [not sure what to call it]
    And Just drop the stick and go annoy someone else, you clearly don’t understand the difference between summaries and WP:OR, and don’t understand that I put these articles to be reviewed 🤦‍♂️ FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the wrong approach. Aside from the close paraphrasing issue -- there are still articles, like Islamism in Sudan, which are almost entirely close paraphrasing of one or two sources (e.g. the Google translation of ref #5 in that article), which alone is enough to get you kicked out of here -- there is the separate, and in my view worse, problem that some of the stuff you're writing is completely failing verification; it seems like you just made it up. Examples are given in this thread above and in the Horses in Sudan GA, but just to pick three, "capable of thriving on meager rations," "which still races on the Khartoum racecourse," and "being highly prized and associated with wealth and power." Your explanations above are original research--your own interpretation of the sources or of picture you've seen or whatever, but not something actually verified by the sources. None of those three quotes are verified by the sources.
    Both the "close paraphrasing" and the "far paraphrasing" are very serious issues. You should go through your work, check everything for close paraphrasing and re-word it, check everything for failed verification and fix it up, so that no one else has to do that. Levivich (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ok will do that starting with Islamism in Sudan. I will do it in few weeks FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you really think that I did not know what WP:GAN was @FuzzyMagma? I pointed out to these 12 articles precisely because you put these articles to be reviewed. It means that you consider them good. So they may represent the best of your edits and the community could look at them to check whether your best meets Wikipedia requirements. The article I reviewed (Horses in Sudan) unfortunately showed a complete lack of understanding of Wikipedia's basic policies (OR, Verifiability, and RS). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Really! Have a look again. I have more articles of BLP with non “muslim-type” name. See these for example: James Marrow, Fionn Dunne, Angus Kirkland, David Dye, Dierk Raabe, Archie Mafeje, Bona Malwal,Godwin Obasi, Edemariam Tsega, Livingstone Mqotsi,Eugene Aujaleu, Marcin Kacprzak, Anne Ormisson, Handojo Tjandrakusuma, Francesco Pocchiari, Mário Barbosa,Francisco Cambournac, Werner Pinzner and many many more!
    they cover different topics but no one tried to alienate me during writing them. Many editors came, provided good advise, good mentorship and walked through stuff and I did the same whatever I could. FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Per the tldr at the top of this thread, FuzzyMagma actively dismiss[es] any warnings about their editing and do[es] not properly acknowledge their mistakes, with a link provided to WP:Disruptive editing § Failure or refusal to "get the point". Very apropos. Levivich is also right; "close paraphrasing" is too narrow a focus for the real problem we're looking at.

    Fuzzy defends their actions rather than just fix the problem. They are not listening to the community when the community says they want to see better judgment skills for sourcing and creating content. For example, in this ANI thread, no one but Fuzzy cares that I used the word "muslim" in Sudan/Africa/Muslim topics; not horse topics and yet Fuzzy went on to repeatedly focus on and resist the word "muslim"; but it's irrelevant to what we're trying to discuss (Red herring). Another example, in response to one of my comments above, Fuzzy goes on and on about some horsey template we'd both edited (I didn't even remember it was Fuzzy who created the mess I cleaned up) and tried to turn the focus on me and my editing, which isn't at issue in this ANI thread (Whataboutism). These are examples of "not listening" and not addressing the actual issues being brought up.

    To sum it up, we have an editor here who has shown repeatedly that he includes close paraphrasing (copyright issues), adds original research, uses unreliable and inadequate sources in an attempt to hide OR, pushes back against those who point out something wrong, doesn't change his method of dealing with other editors, and hasn't over many months (despite it being pointed out) corrected his sourcing and content-creation issues.

    Some of this would be excusable for a new editor, but FuzzyMagma is not a new editor: a year of heavy editing, 24,000 edits, 200 mainspace articles created. We are long past the stage when a new editor should have learned how to identify a reliable source, and how to use a source to create content. We shouldn't still be seeing these fundamental content issues this far into FuzzyMagma's editing history. That tells me this editor is absolutely disruptive to the project. It's not just about 'refusal to get the point'; see WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, especially point #2: Is unwilling or unable to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Reminds me of Doug Coldwell. Levivich (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Crorp, these are your words. if you want a focused discussion then do not use them. just focus on commenting on the issue not my credentials or personality or your feelings.
    Falsely categorising my work as "Sudan/Africa/Muslim" is your doing not mine, and not sure why you did it. as I said from the beginning, you can make your point without pushing a false narrative. You also did not need to paint yourself as good by saying "giving him the benefit of the doubt", And now you also making the same mistake by saying "We are long past the stage when a new editor should have learned how to identify a reliable source, nothing here is about that! no one is talking about reliable sources, non of your examples talk about that. Again just focus on the problem that you want to address, say your piece and leave.
    I can also tag 10s of editors who can attest that their experience with myself was good but that is beside the point. This is not about how editors "felt" when they discussed issues with me, this is about me failing to acknowledge my mistakes and failing to fix them, two accusation that can end my work here, so I am not going to take them lightly.
    Again, I have not tag any1 that I believe can support my case or discussion where I did "acknowledge my mistakes and fixed them" and I truly have plenty. I am trying to defend my case as it stands while also fix the problems that are genuine, and leave it to uninvolved parties to weigh in, and respect whatever decision they reach. Take care FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    no one is talking about reliable sources: of course we're talking about this as well, as you keep citing poor quality blogs and even Wikipedia. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption on Talk:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign

    The IP 67.82.74.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been disrupting Talk:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign for the past few days, engaging in frequent personal attacks (including this comment which has since been removed), starting two out of process, non-neutral RfCs (1, 2), and generally failing to maintain an appropriate level of decorum despite multiple warnings from other editors. They also removed a good-faith comment from another editor, describing it as "vandalism". Given that this is a pretty clear case of WP:NOTHERE/WP:RGW or whatever else you want to call it, I think it's time to show them the door. — SamX [talk · contribs] 17:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This report is ridiculous. No one has posted on that page since April prior to the current incident. I came back to the article after many months and found that the article is now in flagrant violation of Wikipedia policy, stating in the relevant text that introduces the issue that "Trump claimed the election was stolen" without then mentioning that the claims were false, as do the reliable sources stated in the article. Since the comment section of that article is effectively dead, I have merely asked for eyes on an important issue in order to resolve it, since posting to a talk page that has not been used in over 8 months is unhelpful. Nevertheless, I have also posted these concerns, in detail on the comment section. I am frustrated by the lack of engagement with substance on a flagrant violation of Wikipedia policy. There is not a single source in the article that frames Trump's claims of a stolen election without immediately stating that these claims are falsehoods. My description of this state of affairs is neutral because there is no dispute as to whether Trump's claims are indeed false; every reliable source states that they are false and no one has denied that. Framing this as an issue of neutrality is incorrect because there is no real dispute as to the truth of these claims.

    As far as the accusation that I removed an edit, this was an error as I misunderstood their vote for a close to mean that they had unilaterally closed the discussion in opposition to the prior poster who had also decided the discussion could stand after the changes that had been made to the original post. I did not realize there was a comment, I thought they had simply closed the discussion from the edit description. It was an error.

    And again, all I have asked is that we restore the word "falsely" to the sentence that "Trump claimed the 2020 election was stolen," as it used to read. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I have partially blocked the IP editor from Talk:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign and its associated article for 48 hours.
    IP editor - You may not use the talk page as a forum. If you wanted to ask that "falsely" be reinserted, this certainly was not the way to do that. Your edits were disruptive at best. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but can you kindly explain to me how I "used the talk page as a forum"? I was concerned solely with making a specific change to an article. To my understanding, using a "talk page as a forum" means using the talk page to discuss the topic in question. I proposed a concrete change to the article in order to render the article in compliance with Wikipedia's policies and adhere to its sources. For example, the specific article cited for that sentence introduces Trump's false claims of a stolen election as follows : "his false claims of election fraud in the months leading up to the riot." Wikipedia however introduces proven falsehoods described as such in reliable sources merely as "claims". I'm honestly shocked that not one editor has taken the effort to correct a flagrant violation of policy where an article directly contradicts the description given in the article's sources. I would have thought this would have been a priority for our editors here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.74.5 (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you were not solely concerned with that. The vast majority of your edit consisted of a diatribe against Trump supporters and insults towards previous editors of the article. That is not what a talk page is for. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly. The following are diffs and quotes from your edits that were forum-like, i.e., they used the page as a venue to vent your personal opinions on the topic. They were additionally WP:POLEMIC and WP:NPA.
    That was from the first half of the edits you made today. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps that is polemical, but I was all along discussing a concrete change to the article. And I changed my tone when others complained and removed the language to which others objected. The final version of the RfC was scrupulously neutral and yet the entire discussion has now been deleted under the guise of WP:NOTFORUM, which seems inappropriate. This is a legitimate issue. Trump's claim that the "election was stolen" should not be allowed to be given in Wikipedia without stating that the claim is disproven. Every reliable source we cite rigorously adheres to this guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.74.5 (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have thought this would have been a priority for our editors here. Our "priority" is to ensure that our articles have a neutral stance. We write facts, not opinions. You are blatantly ignoring this, no matter how many times you have been warned. On top of all this mess, you are also attacking other editors that are trying to say what I am. I would highly suggest you stop arguing that "our editors" who have much more experience then you are completely wrong, or you might get locked behind the gates by an administrator. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 18:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Our priority is to ensure that our articles have a neutral stance."
    I accept that some of my comments may have been intemperate and will of course abide by the temporary block, no matter how unjust it may be. However, the text I proposed adding to the article was 100 percent neutral. I was the one in this dispute who was asking that Wikipedia include "facts, not opinions" as given by our sources. If you look at the citation for the sentence in question, [1] it introduces Trump's false claim that the election was stolen by stating that the claim is false, describing his falsehoods thus : "his false claims of election fraud in the months leading up to the riot." Every citation in the article adheres to the same practice, and yet our article does not. Describing proven falsehoods as false IS neutral. An encyclopedia is supposed to reflect the consensus of the sources it cites. The consensus of reliable sources is that Trump's false claims of a stolen election must always be described as false, because they are. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's equivalent to arguing that every mention of Earth on Wikipedia must include "which is not flat", because the scientific consensus is that it is not flat. We have articles about Trump's false claims, we don't have to beat readers over the head with the fact his claims were false every time it comes up in an article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The passage in question is the very first mention of Trump's lies that the 2020 election was stolen, and this encyclopedia fails to advise its readers that these claims are untrue, despite the cited source for the passage describing them as false. For many readers, this may be the only time they see Trump's lies of a stolen election referenced in the article, and despite the sources cited rigorously adhering to the guideline that Trump's falsehoods must be identified as falsehoods, the encyclopedia does not. You will not find a single reliable source in the article that does not state that the claims are false when introducing them. And yes, in articles on flat-earth theory, we do not introduce the theory without stating that it is false and disproven. Go have a look. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My point being that you've gone overboard. If you'd politely requested the statement be added to the article, it likely would've been. Instead, you came in like a bull in a china shop, then threw a tantrum on the talk page. This ANI is entirely a result of your behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So you agree that there is a problem with an encyclopedia article that I've correctly pointed out, but in order to "punish" me for the way I requested it, you choose to allow the problem to go uncorrected. Fixing the encyclopedia content isn't a "reward" for me for good behavior; it is a benefit for the encyclopedia and the reader. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    THe IP should be banned from the page/talkpage, until after the 2024 US presidential election, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I have merely asked that Wikipedia adhere to its own policies and asked that Wikipedia neutrally abide by the language which the sources use. Can you say the same? Have you taken action to correct the gross violation of Wikipedia policy I have tirelessly pointed out and documented here? 67.82.74.5 (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're going about it the wrong way, by being a tad too passionate. Besides, such campaigns would naturally be tilted toward the positives of their candidates. Is there (for example) a lot of negative material in Biden's 2024 presidential campaign page? GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is in fact not appropriate that pages on political campaigns "be tilted toward the positives of their candidates." They should reflect the way the campaigns are described in reliable sources. That is my entire point. Since the reliable sources we cite in the article always describe Trump's claim that the election was "stolen" as a lie, so should we. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We do call it a lie – plenty of times (more often than we don't, in fact). We don't need to shoehorn it into literally every instance, that's just bad writing. The article already makes it clear it's a false claim. — Czello (music) 11:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't bad writing that an encyclopedia article should state that knowingly false claims are false when it first introduces them. The passage in question should probably be put back into the lead as well. I don't know why such highly pertinent information is being buried so deep in the article. It's not the role of an encyclopedia to attempt to put a positive spin on things. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The very statement you're talking about links to Big lie and the very next sentence states that falsely asserted Trump had won the electoral college vote in those states. We don't need to beat readers over the head with it, it's pretty clear. — Czello (music) 11:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All right. Let's hope so. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This noticeboard is not concerned with whether you are right or wrong about article content, but with your, and others', behaviour. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not listening, which does not go over well at ANI. Had you simply made the suggestion, I may have supported it after looking through the archives to see if this had been previously discussed. (It’s obviously accurate; but I’m ambivalent about the need.) Instead you created an RFC without prior discussion that sounded more like a Trumpian speech than an RfC. So, I removed the RfC tag as malformed. I’ve now added the question to the talk page. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I'm sorry some of my remarks were intemperate. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks to have been a learning experience for IP. A lot of people start editing because they are Big Mad about this or that, but can get onboarded in short order. I encourage IP to register an account if they have no specific reason to avoid it. That can lower the noise level a little. Sennalen (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP editor is continuing to act in a rather rambunctious manner, with dubious attacks on other editors, over at Reaction video. See discussion on their Talk page at User_talk:67.82.74.5#December_2023 and Talk:Reaction_video#WP:3O, and oh-so-many over-the-top edit summaries for Reaction video. Bondegezou (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-effort-live-updates/2021/01/11/955631105/impeachment-resolution-cites-trumps-incitement-of-capitol-insurrection

    Seeking en masse rollback of disruptive edits

    Is it possible to request a rollback of all the edits made by Oilcocaine since this one [52] (05:21 26 November)? Many of the user's early edits are improvements, but since this one [53] (19:09 24 November 2023), they have been almost all disruptive, many reverted by a variety of editors, all based on this one problem: articles in the "See also" section must have some relevance to the article in which they appear. The user has expressed their belief that ethnic groups which migrated centuries ago (mostly Dom and Romani) from the Indian subcontinent have a connection strong enough to warrant a "See also" of Romani people in Ireland to India–Ireland relations. Probably the biggest stretch is the repeated addition [54], [55] to Romani Holocaust (Nazi-era Europe) of "See also" List of massacres in India and Late Victorian Holocausts. The extended discussion on User Talk:Oilcocaine is probably the best overview of the problem and the justifications they have offered (e.g. [56]). A rollback may not be the best solution because, again, there's some baby in that bathwater, but the extent of disimprovement (dozens and dozens of edits across a broad range of articles), and the incorrigibility apparent in the user talk, suggests it would be a challenge to find a better one. Since this is not a black and white issue, I appreciate input and attention to this matter. Thanks. signed, Willondon (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that the OP is working with ill motive. I will not say that there is an anti-Indian bias behind their actions, but it seems their fixation on slandering and subjugating a Wikipedian from India is behind this. MaiJodi Mk 1 (talk) 06:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)— MaiJodi Mk 1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    *chuckle* OK. signed, Willondon (talk)
    Are you suggesting that Wikipedians from India ought not to have to follow the same policies and guidelines as Wikipedians from anywhere else, and that they should be immunized against complaints of breaching them? There's nothing in the least "ill motived" about questioning the relevance of the mass murder of Romani in WWII to massacres in India and the Victorian period, nor of Romani-Irish relations to Indian-Irish relations, and if Oilcocaine is being intransigent on these and other issues, that's a problem that needs to be addressed. Ravenswing 07:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (With that, it's not the least degree credible to see that this post is MaiJodi Mk 1's sole Wikipedia effort; sockpuppetry is plainly afoot.) Ravenswing 07:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not doing this for vandalization. I am doing this for navigational reason Oilcocaine (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oilcocaine, if you would humor me and the point I'm about to make, I would really appreciate that. I think it might help to look at your edit history, but note your edits that have not been reverted. Many of them, including those related to Romani subjects and historical tragedies, have stayed right where they are. Why would we keep those if we had a deep bias against you or your intent to help spread information about these important topics? I really want to try and underline the underlying difference between each of your edits that have been reverted, and each that haven't, that you have a broader sense of what a useful connection means specifically for the See Also section.
    There not being a link there does not mean two subjects are totally unrelated, it does not even mean the topics only share an unimportant connection. I don't think anyone here thinks that issues facing Romani historically are completely unrelated to those historically involving Indians. The connections are obvious, but they are of a lateral kind where if everybody applied this schema, there would be no point to the see also section, because many important connections would be there, but totalling too many to usefully navigate The point we've been making over and over is that the see also section has more specific guidelines for what should go there, based on how to best organize an encyclopedia in the context of what is not brought up in the article, but has a specific direct connection to the subject. Just because connections are abstract or indirect, like those faced among various prosecuted groups throughout human history, does not mean they are not real or are unimportant. Have you considered doing research for an article about the connections between Romani and Indian societal dynamics? You clearly care a lot about the subject. It is valuable to understand the connections you're trying to bring up with your edits, but they are not best expressed in the see also section. does that make sense? If you assemble sources and write an article directly itself about this connection, it could be very valuable to the site. Remsense留 00:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick note to say that (1) there are "See also" edits that are not a problem, but that (2) among the ones that have not been reverted yet, there are many that I believe are wholly indefensible, but I have not reverted them pending the outcome here. I initiated this discussion (for chronic problematic behaviour) because in reverting the dozens of edits I felt to be unhelpful, there were (1) dozens more to go, and they kept accumulating because (2) Oilcocaine did not stop despite all the reverts, feedback, and warnings. I'm disappointed to see Oilcocaine continuing to edit the "See also" sections while the discussion plays out. I feel I've been charitable toward their behaviour, because I do see demonstrated potential to make productive edits to Wikipedia. And I have never suggested a block.
    I can't speak for the others who have reverted and "finally warned", but perhaps like me, didn't "pull the trigger" because they appreciated some value in their edits. I see Oilcocaine as competent and of good intent. But, I suggest competence includes the ability to be aware of the cooperative environment in which they work, and an ability to respect and understand the opinions, insights and actions of other editors. I issued another "final" warning [57], and at this point, I'm prepared to ask for an indefinite block the next time they continue the behaviour that has me here trying to coordinate a surgical measure to correct and prevent further damage, rather than an outright block. signed, Willondon (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I've amended my request below. I went ahead and reverted 102 problem edits which I had graciously left until this process could run its course. signed, Willondon (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support mass rollback, and some temporary topic ban may be needed. Also, there are wider issues outside the topic: to begin with, this user should start using edit summaries (they received warnings about that, but their replies ignored the point). Also, whatever the topic, they should (have) stop(ped) their "see also" additions when they realized such edits were at best controversial and were being reverted by multiple editors. Cavarrone 09:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose mass rollbacks unless the same be applied to non-Indian Wikipedians with the same zeal the above seems to want to do to Indian Wikipedians. Bali Mangti 1947 (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)— Bali Mangti 1947 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Definitely concerning. I'm looking at a history that is entirely addition of links to See Also (with a few main article links thrown in). The various references to European racism (cf. the user's talk page and this) make me suspect an agenda driven editor. I'm also not sure what to make of the two one-edit supporters who showed up here (meats? socks?). Add to that the fact that, despite the concerns expressed here, Oilcocaine continues to add see also links I'm thinking a not here block or at least a ban from adding links is warranted. RegentsPark (comment) 20:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of these should be reverted; Roma in Poland have little to nothing to do with India–Poland relations, on top of the potential concerning implications such a link has given debates about Roma status. The redirect Romani people in Central Asia to Lyuli also seems inappropriate, given the only mention of Roma on the Lyuli articles are statements that the Lyuli are not Roma. I just reverted this edit made while this AN/I was open, which while unrelated to Roma did add a See also link from a topic already linked (unpiped) in the article. CMD (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Update and amended request: I was hoping a rollback would avoid this, but the problem edits kept rolling, so I queued up Physical Graffiti (figured I'd need a double album) and went to work. I listed all of Oilcocaine's "current" edits and went through them judiciously [58]. I reverted 102 problem edits. I examined them all impartially, and made sure to tailor the edit summary, being aware with each revert what I was editing and why.

    My amended request:

    1. A rollback should no longer be necessary, as I've done it old-school.
    2. I request at least a partial block of some sort, or
    3. an indefinite block, based on persistent disruptive editing after plenty of feedback, engagement, and (often "final") warnings from at least three other users.

    As in my previous post here [59], I suggest competence includes the ability to be aware of the cooperative environment in which they work, and an ability to respect and understand the opinions, insights and actions of other editors. Thanks to all who have spent the time looking in and providing input. signed, Willondon (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked. Since Oilcocaine has ignored several warning and continued to add inappropriate See also's, I have blocked them for two weeks, with a warning that the next block will be longer. (IMO, if another block for the same thing is needed, it should be indefinite.) Bishonen | tålk 15:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

    Kosovo Security Force

    Since at least May this year, a variety of accounts have tampered with Kosovo Security Force to add unsourced or malsourced material. They have occasionally edit warred to prevent the removal of this unverified content. Some of the claims they consistently add are that Kosovo has an air force (one went so far as to create Kosovo Air Force, which I sent to AfD as a hoax), that Kosovo is receiving Iowan Black Hawk helicopters, and unsourced content regarding what items Kosovo's troops are equipped with (with multiple accounts repeating the claim of secret military documents 1 2). They all edit in broken English (I am leotrim that's my name diff, Please do not remove the info if you have no clues diff), occasionally edit in a foreign language, give either no edit summary or ones that are effectively nonsensical, and generally utilize usernames including some arrangement of "illy". I'm not the only one who has caught on: ZLEA noted their concern on my talk page. I filed an SPI against some of the accounts on the 18th, but the CU backlog has prevented action. If possible, admin action is desperately needed here. I would also really appreciate an expedited CU. The accounts I believe involved are listed below with diffs of their sock/meat behavior:

    Thank you, ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I was actually writing an SPI report for several of the accounts listed above when I was pinged here. As I explained on Pbritti's talk page, the "Illy" usernames all seem to be in reference to Illyria, a historic region that includes modern-day Kosovo. I also noticed that four of the accounts (Illyrianzz, IllyStar, Eron Lushaj, and USIllyria.) seem to share a pattern of editing various Kosovo/Serbia-related articles before shifting their focus to Kosovo Security Force within the past few days/weeks, with most of their edits to the article (which Pbritti has already listed above) being unsourced or poorly sourced changes to the equipment section. I strongly suspect there to be sockpuppetry, or at the very least meatpuppetry, to be at play here. - ZLEA T\C 01:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added only sourced information there but someone is trying to delete also sourced informations, also some others have provided information without source but not me check my edits carefuly you will see links in every information. Illyrianzz (talk) 07:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Where are the sources in this edit? What about this one where you falsely claim that Kosovo has an air force? - ZLEA T\C 14:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now an IP from the same are has tried to delete the AfD discussion banner three times: 1, 2, 3. This is an open-and-shut case of disruptive editing that needs to be addressed. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I found two more IPs that may be connected. Back on November 8, 46.99.118.13 added the "Kosovo Air Force" to the operators section of Baykar Bayraktar Akıncı. Shortly thereafter, 185.67.177.137 added the "Kosovo Air Force" to the article's infobox as well. Both IPs are registered in Pristina, Kosovo. - ZLEA T\C 23:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also adding 185.179.31.75 trying to add back to Armend Mehaj (unsourced) pictures of awards uploaded and previously added by Eron Lushaj. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 13:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems Eron Lushaj has kept a backup of Kosovo Air Force on their userpage and has restored the article. I've messaged the admin who deleted the original about the recreation. - ZLEA T\C 02:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the supposed website of the "Kosovo Air Force" that was present on the recreated article. I find it hard to believe that anyone would think that this is real. - ZLEA T\C 03:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That website is hilarious. I love the fact they have a photo of what is clearly a United States Air Force recruitment being used for the "Kosovo Air Force". And other photos very clearly taken from other air forces and military sites around the world. The firefighters from Elgin AFB in the US, clearly labelled and rondeled RAF helicopters, old Yugoslavia era photographs etc. Clearly something someone made up one day. Canterbury Tail talk 00:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if you have read the content, it always says that the pictures are taken with allies, anyway the Kosovo air force Instagram page claims this link as their website, it is not meant to always use your photos. About the recruitment, it is Jon Musliu an Kosovan Cadet of USAF, at the eand of the day that's how they educate their staff. The old Yugoslavic jets, those are jets in the military tunnels of Kosovo Airforce, it is not only this webpage but there is a lot more content in the internet that can prove the truth of this webpage.
    @Canterbury Tail IllyStar (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's barely even a web page, it's more of a glorified PowerPoint presentation that you seem to know an awful lot about. In fact, I'll go ahead and state the obvious that I believe that you or someone you know made it. There is no way to prove that the so-called Kosovo Air Force created the website, and I find it hard to believe that a government that can afford to maintain an air force can't even pay for a proper domain. - ZLEA T\C 15:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, Gamma.app is just an AI powered presentation creator. It's blatantly not a website, it's something someone put together in school one day. Canterbury Tail talk 15:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also find it hard to believe that there is no Albanian and/or Serbian-language versions of the website if it is an official website of the Kosovo government. I don't know what percentage of Kosovans speak English, but one would expect at least a version of the website in their native language if they are recruiting. - ZLEA T\C 15:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Greetings, I have been reading this conversation for so long even tho I don't recognize any of you, I have been trying to create an article Kosovo Air Force for so long, well referenced it was deleted two times. But let's see unsourced material in Kosovo Security Force article and delete it. Thank you for taking care so much, Pbritti I would like to know you and what are your real facts that you are referring to when doing these edits. With my honest regards Eron Lushaj (IllyStar) IllyStar (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I've updated the SPI accordingly. - ZLEA T\C 15:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why am I even being mentioned here? Uniacademic (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    here are a lot of haters, ethnic haters possibly serbian that are removing everything in the page abusing with fact source and not source you can keep removing everything also old informations with dead reference(links) but you cant hide the fact that Kosovo Security Force is equipping hardly with a lot of modern army eqippment. Keep removing everything no problem. Illyrianzz (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note I have blocked Illyrianzz for 24 hours for the above comment accusing others of being haters, ethnic haters and Serbians. That sort of language is never acceptable. I wonder if it should have been for longer. No comment on the sockpuppetry stuff. Canterbury Tail talk 15:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    If any admin have a spare moment, the 23:55 comment from IllyStar above is them admitting to being a sock with Eron Lushaj. I'm pleading for admin intervention. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    OK. Elmedinhajr is not a sock. IllyStar and Eron Lushaj are CU-blocked. I don't see much of a reason to check Leotrimylli--oh, wait, never mind. Leotrimylli is CU-blocked, confirmed with User:Tlanku and User:Uranitalo1--now also blocked. I'm looking at Illyrianzz. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gologmine

    Users (myself included) have repeatedly told this user not to add information using unreliable, questionable, or even no sources to articles, such as:

    There are more instances, but I have no time to list them all. Also worth mentioning is their responses on their talk page. Spinixster (chat!) 15:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    KlayCax repeated canvassing & edit warring behavior.

    @KlayCax: recently engaged in an edit war, violating WP:3RR at the 2024 United States presidential election article. While they self-reverted so I assume they did not mean to violate it (even though they have a history of edit warring); they actively canvassed me to try to persuade me to undo their self revert. Please also note that our article falls under a contentious topic, which makes this behavior even more pressing to address.
    Here are examples of KlayCax canvassing: [60] [61][62][63]
    Here are attempts by me to warn KlayCax not to canvass. (Please note that in addition to the warnings on their talk page, I have also given them several warnings on article talk pages): [64][65] Prcc27 (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. I've been busy at residency. The edits were reverted days ago. @Prcc27:.
    Asking what aspect of the edit you objected to is not canvassing. Per the definition: Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way. None of that has applied here. Per WP: ONUS, changes that are disputed by editors shouldn't be instituted into the article without consensus, which adding Democrats/Republicans to the infobox indisputably does, as the discussion page shows. KlayCax (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This was unquestionably a canvassing incident. As for the other incident, I never said I objected to removing the red and blue bars; I am not the user that re-added them. However, I did tell you to self-revert, not necessarily because I agreed or disagreed with your edits, but because you made 4 (then 5) reverts in less than 24 hours. Do you honestly not see how it is disruptive to edit-war, then self-revert when you realize you crossed 3RR, but then try to bypass 3RR by persuading a user to undo your self-revert? It would have been more appropriate to make your argument at the article’s talk page, instead of pinging me at your talk page and trying to make your argument there. Also, you have been canvassing on circumcision related topics too, which I called you out for in the past. So it’s not like you haven’t been warned about this behavior. Prcc27 (talk) 06:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sca – partial block request

    It's been over a year (14 13 months) since I was banned from ITN/C because of an ill-considered, flippant remark on Oct. 26, 2022, that was misconstrued by some as a racial or ethnic slur. As I've said repeatedly, nothing could have been further from my mind at the time. I am committed to equal rights and equal respect for all, regardless of ethnicity or LGBTQ identity, as can be seen from my user page.

    I apologize to any who took my errant post as a slur or insult. I vow never again to post anything that could be taken as an ethnic or racial slur.

    Since the partial ban was imposed, I've quietly continued involvement in other areas of Wikipedia, notably WP:FPC, and engaged in random copy-editing of articles I encountered elsewhere, making around 800 contributions.

    With respect, may I suggest that it's time to reconsider (and hopefully rescind) this partial block on a volunteer who's been a user for almost 20 years and has contributed thousands of edits.

    Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to working with you all in a polite, collegial, friendly and productive manner. – Sca (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    13 months, not 14. For those who are interested, the discussion that led to the block is here, and the previous unblock request is here. --JBL (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sca, much of the discussion that led to your block was about other alleged disruptive behavior of yours at ITN. Do you have any comment? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As background, there was a time a decade or so back when there was much pejorative and disparaging talk at ITN/C and on talk pages by various users, including some admins. Fortunately, this is no longer the case.
    Now: My approach to ITN, if allowed, would be sober and carefully considered. Also, I would be less prolific, i.e. I would lessen the number of comments I would make. I think that, if the pblock were rescinded, I would give myself some time to observe ITN/C before participating.
    I certainly would make every effort to get along with all who are active there. – Sca (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sca, could you explain why you denied the blindingly obvious in the discussion that led to the block? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It may have been blindingly obvious to some, but in all honesty, whether you or others believe it or not, I was not thinking at the time of a racial/ethnic slur. To me, it was a sort wordplay with another user. You may not accept this, but it's true. Needless to say, it was and is very much regretted, and I apologize for the lack of judgment on my part that it so woefully displayed. -- Sca (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Give enough rope I think people were primed to think the worst in that ANI; I really don't think the possibility that it was a political jab, rather than an ethnic one, as being so inconceivable either. If the issue at hand is possible racism, I see no reason to give Sca some WP:ROPE. If it really was a misunderstanding with nothing to do with insensitivity, the odds of this happening again are slim to astronomical. If it wasn't, then it probably won't be long until its spotted again, and they can be summarily p-blocked again. But I also think if the community feels the greater issue is just being too much of a jokester at ITNC, then I suppose the current block was the end of the rope. GabberFlasted (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it would reassure any who distrust me to learn that one of my current reads is "A Square of Sky", per Amazon the "story of a Jewish child's survival in wartime Poland, while the rest of her family were killed by the Nazis" The heroine survived because she was taken in by a Catholic convent. A compelling story. (Eland Publishing, 2005.) – Sca (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. The joke was explained thus: since Xi Jinping is a totalitarian whose dictatorship was guaranteed to continue, the ITN blurb regarding his reelection should say he was "erected" instead of "elected." The only way this works as a joke is if it mocks the inevitability of Xi's victory and I can think of dozens of words, "installed" foremost among them, that would have worked far better than "erected," which is a word no English speaker would use to describe what happened. So I think my opposition here is per User:Sca. In one of their messages here, they said "whether you or others believe it or not" and "You may not accept this" and I interpret those phrases to mean that, since I don't believe it, I shouldn't support this request. City of Silver 21:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, City, your reasoning doesn't seem logical to me. But you have a right to your opinion and the right to express it. So I'm going to thank your for you comment anyway. Adieu. -- Sca (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to give you a quick tip and say if you continue to respond individually to every single comment or !=vote here with your personal thoughts or anecdotes, you are going to wear out any patience people have for you. At the rate you're on you will undoubtedly be called out for bludgeoning the process. GabberFlasted (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Duly advised. Thanks for the tip. I've had enough for a while anyway. – Sca (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One question, Sca: you maintained at the time, and apparently continue to maintain, that "nothing could have been further from my mind" than the idea that your comment could have been interpreted as racist. How, then, are you planning to ensure that you never again "post anything that could be taken as an ethnic or racial slur"? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The topic is quite clearly in my mind due to this incident, and I expect will remain so. -- Sca (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Sorry, Sca, but this is not sufficiently convincing to me. If this was a mainspace page I might be more inclined to say that we should unban and see how it goes, but I don't see that there's a compelling case that having you back at ITN/C improves the encyclopedia enough to outweigh the potential downside Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Sca was p-blocked not only for the specific off-color joke being discussed, but also because the purpose of his participation at WP:ITN/C seemed to be to share his personal opinion on news stories and make jokes and asides (WP:FORUM) rather than help improve and highlight quality articles relating to current events (see first paragraph of WP:ITN). A review of his contributions since then doesn't offer much evidence to suggest that he is now WP:HERE.
    His contributions at WP:FPC seem largely to be subjective personal opinions in the form of comments based more on what pictures he would like to see on the main page than the WP:Featured picture criteria. Many of his other edits are to WP:ERRORS as an alternative way to influence content on the main page and to user talk pages (especially his own), with comparatively few copyedits (that don't always seem helpful) mixed in.
    Therefore, I don't think allowing Sca to return to ITN/C would be beneficial until he demonstrates that his intentions are to build an encyclopedia rather than using Wikipedia as a forum to share his opinions. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My intention is to help build the encyclopedia. One thing I do in this respect is change verb tenses to past tense -- except when the article is developing around a current event or is otherwise in a state of flux. -- Sca (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate that. I think taking a step back to consider whether your broader editing patterns and behavior have matched that intention would be beneficial. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, for now "We at Wikipedia have no sense of humor we are aware of." Also, showing; not telling.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I've learned, and changed my conception of Wiki to a more serious or businesslike one. -- Sca (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Didnt you say you were going to stop responding to every oppose? I understand the instinct, I really do, but you are absolutely killing the very slight chance this appeal had to begin with. If you want to appeal a sanction on Wikipedia, you do these things. 1. Show you can edit productively elsewhere. 2. Admit fault, do not re-litigate, justify, downplay, or otherwise dismiss the issue. Do not badger opposers. Thats it, thats the secret recipe. You may still not get it overturned, but if you dont do these things you definitely will not. nableezy - 17:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I don't believe that Sca really understands why he was p-blocked, the ethnic slur was merely the final straw. It was the years of contributing little to ITN/C except chit chat and jokey asides that finally exhausted the patience of multiple editors. I have little confidence that he will be able to avoid slipping back into this behavior, which he didn't even address above until it was brought up by another editor. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Davethorp

    User:Davethorp has been intractable on Talk:Strictly Come Dancing (series 21) with a steady stream of personal insults, including, for example, labeling edits as "vandalism" simply because they disagree with them (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Strictly_Come_Dancing_(series_21)&diff=prev&oldid=1185630496 & https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strictly_Come_Dancing_(series_18)&curid=64408487&diff=1187382975&oldid=1187378976, among others). Their issue seems to be regarding the inclusion of one table (an average score table) which I have long stopped arguing about since the nice folks at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard confirmed that the means used to generate the data for the table do not violate WP:OR. I don't know what they are still carping about, but today they blanket-reverted several articles to the "last good version" (whatever...) that erases the work that went into bringing those articles into compliance with the MOS. I explained the changes here: Talk:Strictly Come Dancing (series 21)#Compliance with Wikipedia MOS, and received no complaints other than that one table. In fact, other suggestions were implemented, but User:Davethorp insists on undoing everything while throwing around threats and personal insults ("If you don’t think that calculating the mean of some numbers is a routine calculation then that probably says more about your maths ability. Thankfully you don’t need to do the maths. I’m sure someone else will be more than happy to do it for you...").

    I have received nothing but personal insults, harassing phone calls, my personal information posted here on Wikipedia, and a heinous death threat so severe that Wikipedia felt compelled to contact my local police department by users in the U.K. over this fucking TV show. Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging User:Ponyo she since is at least aware of some of this nonsense. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) "Death threats"? "Harassing phone calls?" This user is really starting to piss me off already. @Bgsu98, read this page now, it will guide you with what to do in your case. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 22:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I already did all of that when those things took place. I enjoyed being woken up in the middle of the night by my local police department inquiring as to whether I was still alive... Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And this has what to do with me? If you’ve received death threats that’s unacceptable but nothing to do with me or the dispute we have Davethorp (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And this has what to do with me? But didn't you actually do it? You sent them; logically, you are the only suspect here. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 23:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea who is behind everything. But it all stems from this fucking TV show. Like, seriously... touch some grass or get some fucking fresh air. I can't imagine getting so bent out of shape over a dance show's Wikipedia article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK OK, slow down, what the hell? Have you read WP:PROFANEDISCUSSIONS? I'm literally the spectator in the Colosseum watching a tiger (you) aggressively fighting the gladiator (Davethorp). The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 23:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm excuse me. What are you accusing me of here. [Legal threat redacted] by Patient Zerotalk. I’ve literally done nothing here but have been accused of sending someone death threats which I’ve never done Davethorp (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm just trying to help. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 23:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You literally said I was the only suspect In something that may well be made up
    Sounds Like an accusation to me Davethorp (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia's Trust & Safety department has all the details. Nothing has been made up. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So given this ANI and some arguments that have been made against me you have evidence that I made these threats?
    Didn’t think so but if you do have evidence of that please do share. Otherwise it’s not relevant to this vexatious ANI Davethorp (talk)| Davethorp (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By all means delete the swearing though. Not like it shows on edit histories or anything Davethorp (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow
    Your edits on the articles concerned have been shown as going against concensus on the talk page
    If anyone has had an issue with the concencus of Wikipedia it is you. You were told average score tables were compliant with WP:CALC. You didn’t accept that and ignored the opinion of two editors and took it to WP:NORN who also told you they were subject to the same
    You Continued not to accept this and described the inclusion of the average score tables as “idiotic” in your edit summary. You also demonstrated incivility violations to me in that time including failing to retract a rolled eye emoji
    I stated I considered your edits vandalism and got no response so started to revert them which then led to this ANI all of which is of your making ——- Davethorp (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not dignifying your garbage comments any longer. I responded by telling you that edits you don't personally like do not constitute "vandalism", yet you have continued to throw that term around. As far as consensus goes, there was an RfC in 2021 which addressed this issue: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 12#RfC about elimination-style reality programs. Per that RfC, "There is a consensus that in articles about elimination-style reality television programs... tables should comply with accessibility guidelines." Local consensus cannot override these requirements. Over the past year or so, there has been a concerted effort to bring the articles of these reality TV programs into compliance with the MOS. And again, your only complaint seems to be about the Average Chart, which the last time I checked, is ON THE FUCKING ARTICLE. In fact, after the OR people confirmed it did not constitute original research, rather than pursue the matter, edit-war, or whatever, I actually formatted the table to bring it into compliance and last week corrected it, because even though it was a "routine calculation", somehow two score totals divided by the same number of dances yielded two different averages. So, is there any complaint other than the Average Chart which was long dealt with? Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not going to dignify this with more of a response than it needs to
    You have demonstrated that you don’t accept that the average score tables meet WP:CALC. This is shown on the series 21 talk page and your edits on that article. This is all any objective admin needs to see Davethorp (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you are carping about the Average Score chart, which has been present on Strictly Come Dancing (series 21) since September 23: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strictly_Come_Dancing_(series_21)&diff=prev&oldid=1176760214 Why on earth are you still going on about it when it was re-added two months ago. I am so against that table that I spent time I would rather use doing almost anything else to a) format it properly so it meets the requirements of the MOS, and b) do the math properly since someone else was unable to? Does that make any sense? Have I removed the table? You're upset that I asked for an opinion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard? Isn't that what we would want Wikipedia editors to do: seek out confirmation of policy at the appropriate forum? I don't know what on earth your grievance is at this point. Despite being informed by User:Ponyo that your blanket reversions contrary to MOS:ACCESS were disruptive and also deleted administrative protection templates (User talk:Davethorp#November 2023), you did it again. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And all anyone with a degree of impartiality needs to do is look at the Strictly Come Dancing series 21 talk page. Right at the bottom
    You never accepted the concensus against you. If you had we wouldn’t be here Davethorp (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "You guys wanted this chart, so please explain to me how two different dancers with the same number of cumulative points and the same number of performed dances have two different averages. Also, the second column says Rank by average, yet they are ranked by elimination order. Make it make sense. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)"[reply]
    🤷‍♂️ Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And as I commented then your disdain for the accuracy of the chart came 9 minutes after the published end time for the show at a time the article was being heavily edited
    Hardly the attitude of someone who had accepted that concensus had gone against them when it came to the average score chart but more the attitude of someone looking for a reason to remove it despite the concensus Davethorp (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Did I remove it? No, I edited it. What is your problem? Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not the one with a problem. You brought this here
    I’m also not the one using foul language in their comments here which could be considered an incivility violation. Rather like the rolled eyes you declined to retract on the talk page for series 21 of Strictly Come Dancing Davethorp (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By all means delete the swearing though. Not like it shows on edit histories Davethorp (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop. There's already almost no chance someone is going to read all of this. Each response cuts that already slim chance down even further. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone please explain, using short, unadorned sentences, what's going on here? The next profane comment catches a block. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Davethorp has engaged in disruptive editing and personal insults (for example, describing edits he doesn’t like as “vandalism”) despite instructions from an administrator (User:Ponyo) to cease. He has also refused to drop the stick by continuing to insist that I am trying to delete a specific table that has existed intact at Strictly Come Dancing (series 21) for over two months. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And to counter user Bgsu98 has engaged in disruptive edits on the same article and a refusal to accept concensus. The tables they mention have stayed in the article as they say but they’ve taken every opportunity to show their disdain for it both in edit summaries and on the talk page rather than just accepting it and moving on
    Some wild and frankly false (Davethorp (talk)) 07:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC) accusations have also been thrown around in this ANI discussion suggesting I made death threats to the user when I’ve done nothing of the sort. Bgsu98 on the other hand has resorted to foul language Davethorp (talk) 04:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mackensen: Davethorp has been asked more than once to stop issuing legal threats yet they believe that the part of WP:NLT that says "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat" means they can keep flinging the word libel and variations around. City of Silver 05:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well, in the interest of avoiding something that may be perceived as a legal threat, though in no way was intended to be, I retract and apologise for my use of the word libellous or other derivatives
    That said there are a number of false and misleading accusations concerning me both in the original post on this discussion and the discussions which immediately followed it and I ask that they be corrected. I believe that’s the correct way to go about it looking over the policy linked more in depth now it’s not the middle of the night here Davethorp (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks everyone, appreciated. Are there diffs that substantiate the various claims? Mackensen (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    [[66]] shows bgsu98 referring to the inclusion of an average score table as being “idiotic” despite it complying with WP:CALC
    [[67]] shows bgsu98 again criticising the average score table as being inaccurate 9 minutes after the show had ended at a time when the article was being updated by other editors
    Bgsu98 has also removed a lot of long standing information from all of the series articles on Strictly Come Dancing that they view as being “fancruft” but many editors disagreed but it’s very much become a case of we’re doing it their way and tough if you object
    As for the false accusations and misleading that misled another editor into believing that I had been sending bgsu98 death threats the first few comments in this ANI should be sufficient Davethorp (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From my original post on this thread (edited for length): User:Davethorp has been intractable on Talk:Strictly Come Dancing (series 21) with a steady stream of personal insults, including, for example, labeling edits as "vandalism" simply because they disagree with them (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Strictly_Come_Dancing_(series_21)&diff=prev&oldid=1185630496 & https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strictly_Come_Dancing_(series_18)&curid=64408487&diff=1187382975&oldid=1187378976, among others). Their issue seems to be regarding the inclusion of one table… which I have long stopped arguing about since… Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard confirmed that the means used to generate the data for the table do not violate WP:OR. I don't know what they are still carping about, but today they blanket-reverted several articles to the "last good version"… that erases the work that went into bringing those articles into compliance with the MOS. I explained the changes here: Talk:Strictly Come Dancing (series 21)#Compliance with Wikipedia MOS, and received no complaints other than that one table…User:Davethorp insists on undoing everything while throwing around threats and personal insults ("If you don’t think that calculating the mean of some numbers is a routine calculation then that probably says more about your maths ability. Thankfully you don’t need to do the maths. I’m sure someone else will be more than happy to do it for you..."). Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks all. Many of these diffs and the talk page discussion are from September. They're messy, but they're in the past. I don't think you two should talk to each other, but what's the present dispute? Mackensen (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The issue that prompted this rigamarole in the first place was User:Davethorp's blanket reversions to months-old versions of the following articles: Strictly Come Dancing (series 20), Strictly Come Dancing (series 19), and Strictly Come Dancing (series 18). These reverted to non-compliant states that were in violation of MOS:ACCESS among other MOS policies (MOS:COLOR, MOS:DTAB, etc.). His argument was that "consensus" had not been reached, when it had (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 12#RfC about elimination-style reality programs). The necessary changes were outlined here: Talk:Strictly Come Dancing (series 21)#Compliance with Wikipedia MOS. Aside from the issue of the one table (Average Score Chart) which, as you said and as I've also said, was settled back in September, Davethorp did not raise any other objections; yet his blanket reversions undid all of those MOS edits. Finally, his persistent use of the word "vandalism" to justify his reversions (describing my edits as "vandalism", etc. just because he didn't personally like them) was also what prompted this filing. Bgsu98 (Talk) 07:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And from my side the issue is that despite the issue of the average score tables, as you say, being over two months ago there are still signs that bgsu98 hasn’t accepted that in their edits or edit summaries since which I gave two examples of. This is disruptive and Wikipedia:Listen seems to apply here.
    As I said above bgsu98 has also removed a lot of long standing useful information from the articles in question labelling it as “Fancruft”. Whenever anyone has tried to oppose this, and there has been opposition from some editors, they’ve been met with an attitude of basically “tough, this is how it is now”. What should have happened before this long standing information was deleted, and one other editor confirmed this on the talk page, was that they should have sought opinions on the relevant talk pages before deleting this long standing and useful, I myself make use of it for my job, information. Again bgsu98 doesn’t seem to Wikipedia:Listen to what other editors are telling them
    My edits may have been a little heavy handed, and for that I apologise, however it was done with the intention of reverting the data that bgsu98 removed so there could be some discussion, as others have said there should have been, before it was removed again and I only did it on a small number of articles to test the water rather than the whole subset of 20 articles.
    I also agree Mackensen that going forward it would be best if me and bgsu98 avoided interacting. Unfortunately it’s hard when they’ve effectively taken control of articles that I regularly refer to for my day job. If bgsu98 actually listened to the community concensus concerning the average score tables rather than taking every opportunity to knock them and show that they aren’t happy with the concensus that was reached then I could probably accept the removal of the rest of the information from those articles and things probably wouldn’t have flared up in the way they did Davethorp (talk) 09:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what "long-standing information" you are referring to, but perhaps you have Wikipedia confused with a fansite (WP:NOTDATABASE). Might I suggest you check out https://strictlycomedancing.fandom.com/wiki/Strictly_Come_Dancing if you want to track who has the highest-scoring tango or what dance netted Joe Schmo his lowest score. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I won’t engage with the response too much as Mackensen made it clear that it would be best if we don’t engage each other, something I’m in total agreement with
    However I find it interesting that whilst I was fairly pragmatic in my last reply above and trying to work on a solution that you again go out on the attack and again declaring the long standing information you removed to be fancruft or better suited on a fan site and it has to be your way or the highway no matter how many editors object
    Perhaps I’m not the problem here Davethorp (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Stonewalling by Beyond My Ken

    I am currently dealing with stonewalling (and hostility) from Beyond My Ken over an edit to Induced demand (my change) that I would have thought was rather uncontroversial.

    I have attempted to reconcile disagreement on the article talk page (Talk:Induced demand#Lead paragraph), where the user refused to explain what part of the content change he disagreed with, and insisted that I find consensus. I followed his demand, and sought consensus on the talk page (Talk:Induced demand#Consensus seeking). No other editor raised objections (or support). Beyond My Ken insists that changes are not needed, but has still not explained what was wrong with the change, or why we should not explain terms introduced in the lead.

    I briefly attempted to address the user at his talk page, pointing to the problems with reverting based on “no consensus” (User talk:Beyond My Ken#Attitude). I was met with the accusation that I want to “fuck up a Wikipedia article”, and subsequently had my signature vandalized on both pages ([68] and [69]).

    I suspect, based on previous reverts ([70]) and talk discussion (Talk:Induced demand#Removal of my changes to Induced Demand) that I have stumbled into Beyond My Ken attempting to “defend” the page (or his version of the page, which obviously would be problematic WP:OWNERSHIP). I didn’t stop to investigate other edits for who was “right”, but Beyond My Ken does not appear interested in engaging with other editors in discussion, or elaborating on his actual disagreements to seek meaningful consensus. — HTGS (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I took a quick look and while I won't comment on the substance of your request (BMK), I should point out that beginning every response with a ping is a bit passive aggressive and not exactly conducive to a calm discussion. FYI. Also the "fucking up" comment was in response to rather ill placed humor on your part. RegentsPark (comment) 01:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken if he's fuck[ing] up the article, then it's reasonable to expect that you'll explain how he proposes to do so on Talk:Induced demand. It's difficult to build consensus when senior editors don't contribute to the discussion. Mackensen (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 Paul August ☎ 01:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @HTGS: Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment are all possibilities for broadening participation. Mackensen (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate that. I didn’t (don’t) see the change to content as the main issue, so much as BMK’s continued refusal to engage with the substantive issue. — HTGS (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:AGF, I believe those changes to your signature were mistakes, not vandalism. Several of BMK's messages in that thread contain similar, uh, oddities. City of Silver 01:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a fair assessment, and one I had been working with. I probably should have couched my initial comment there with less certainty; please don’t take it as a primary concern. (Assuming good faith is an exercise that gets harder as frustration grows. As readers will no doubt understand, I got here in final frustration, but I will take the lesson.) — HTGS (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Propose this be closed with no action.
    There's fault on both sides, but nothing to get worked up about. BMK could have provided a single substantive objection, e.g., "The definitions are unnecessary" rather than the unsupported, if correct, assertion, that it "does not improve the article". This would have put us quite a bit higher on the hierarchy of disagreement. However, disengaging what BMK thought to be an adversarial editor is exactly what we're told to do, so it's difficult to fault that.
    HTGS did come off as somewhat abrasive with the repeated pings, the title of the BMK talk page section "Attitude", and the ill-fated attempt at humor, plus some WP:BLUDGEONy behavior in the talk page. However, BMK's refusal to engage also left few avenues for good faith attempts to improve the article.
    Both editors were acting in good faith, rubbed each other the wrong way, and now there's a discussion on the article talk. Nothing more to do here.EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this is a minor affair. That said, my concern here is that this is a pattern that we've seen with BMK before, including cases where there's no possible concern about the behavior of the other editor. Specifically, an editor proposes a change, BMK objects, the editor asks what's wrong with the change, BMK tells the editor to go get consensus for the change without really engaging on the substantive issue. It can look like bludgeoning because the other editor keeps trying to engage, and BMK has at times (including this one), set some pretty strict limits on their engagement.
    Let's set out a sequence of events here:
    1. User A edits article.
    2. User B reverts the edit.
    3. User A raises the matter on the talk page.
    Leaving aside outright vandalism, I think we'd expect User B to explain their objection. This is a collaborative project. If User A and User B go in circles, it's not unheard of for User A to wander over to User B's talk page to figure out why they're talking past each other. I've certainly done that. If User B refuses to engage User A on their talk page (which is User B's right), then User A is kinda stuck unless (1) someone watching article decides to put an oar in or (2) they pursue one of the other options I listed above. It's possible for User B to make the cost of change for User A rather high without really doing anything. Maybe that's okay. Per WP:ONUS, the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Emphasis added. Without a substantive objection there isn't really a dispute. WP:OWN and WP:EPTALK go into this. In my view, and I think policy backs me up on this, reverting a good-faith change creates a responsibility on the part of that person to explain the revert substantively if someone challenges it. Mackensen (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Mackensen here, it's exceptionally poor behaviour on Beyond My Ken's part. When you revert a change, it's reasonable for the reverted editor to ask why; in fact that approach is recommended in several places such as WP:EW and WP:BRD. If you respond that a change is "not an improvement", it's reasonable for the other editor to ask you to elaborate. It seems to me that HTGS did a reasonable job of explaining why they felt their changes were an improvement, and also explained their rationale and asked for BMK's input on an acceptable way forward, and BMK just basically said "no" and expected that to be the end of the discussion. It looks very much like BMK opposed for the sake of opposing and for no other reason, and then refused repeatedly to discuss, and bluntly refusing to discuss is not the fait accompli BMK seems to think it is. Later, after HTGS started an expanded discussion to which they invited BMK (BMK again opposed for no other reason than to be in opposition; a clearly tendentious argument by that point) there appears to be consensus emerging against the proposal, but those editors gave reasons that HTGS could respond to, and since there's actually a discussion things are moving forward productively. If BMK doesn't want to participate in that discussion then so be it, but their repeatedly saying "no" with no attempt to explain and no followup is very clear WP:STONEWALLING. Frankly, if BMK was not as experienced as they are, I would consider pblocking them from the page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note BMK's comment here (since reverted), in which they cast a bunch of aspersions about HTGS' motivations, and said they would participate in a consensus-seeking discussion once HTGS started one. That comment was left here just shy of three full days after HTGS had already started a discussion, a day and a half after HTGS pinged BMK to comment in it, and roughly a day after BMK's last hand-wave opposed-for-the-sake-of-opposing comment. I would like to see an explanation for all of this, although I don't expect one to be forthcoming. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken: Could you please respond to the above concerns expressed by Mackensen and Ivanvector above? Paul August ☎ 19:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't believe we are still seeing these same old complaints about BMK. This is a perennial problem going back many many years and countless people have tried getting through to him. Status quo stonewalling is an extremely maddening disruptive behavior to have to deal with and I don't know why he continues to do it. Absolutely exhausting. ~Swarm~ {sting} 22:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm too new to be aware of the deeper history, but since @Ivanvector and @Mackensen have seen one, perhaps they would be willing to propose a solution, such as a short block with escalation if it continues. Since I haven't seen the pattern, I would not support such a proposal, but if they can dig up some diffs that demonstrate the pattern, I'd be amenable to casting a support !vote. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had run ins with BMK as well. They are needlessly antagonistic and happy to ignore things like ONUS when they are certain they are correct. My recent example was related to disputed content added by an IP editor to the Right-wing_populism page. BMK was certain they were right thus ONUS wasn't going to apply. The problem in this case is they might be correct but since they were certain they were correct they didn't feel it was important to follow the normal dispute resolution process (discussion, get consensus etc). As an individual incident this is a blip. However, these things come up time and time again with this editor. Perhaps a 1RR limit would help? Springee (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You are all taking this way out of proportion. Examining just this complaint, there is almost no substance in it. First, is there really stonewalling going on? OP changed some text in the lead, BMK reverted, this went on a couple of times (WP:BRD HTGS?). The discussion moved to the talk page where all I see is an "original lead is better" vs "new lead is better" arguments. Either both are stonewalling or neither is. Technically, it is HTGS's job to explain, line by line, why their version is better. The "Fuck" comment is by itself understandable. Starting every response with a ping is less than polite because it reads like "John, why do you think so"; "John, you are not right",... which is passive aggressive in the extreme. Then OP chooses to make a "joke" which is barely funny and you need to focus on the ! point at the end to figure that out. When BMK responds with "don't be a smart ass", HTGS responds with "Some people have a sense of humour, some don’t", a very obvious implication there. Add to that the rather patronizing "It’s merely advice; we’re all here to improve the encyclopaedia, after all". Given this background, BMK's response is actually quite mild "I enjoy humor, and especially when it's appropriate, but mot so much when it's an excuse for fucking up a Wikipedia article". All this delving into history etc. is not appropriate in this instance. RegentsPark (comment) 17:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Prior history

    Per EducatedRedneck's request I've gone through the archives for prior examples of this issue. I don't like digging up old disputes like this but I think it's relevant to show a pattern:

    There are plenty more in the history. BMK is a good editor who does good work. He's also a confounding editor who digs in his heels over trivial things and makes mountains out of molehills. I don't like the idea of BMK getting blocked, but I also don't like that BMK's approach to collaborative editing guarantees that we'll be back here again. It's a waste of his time, our time, and the time of whichever novice editor accidentally crossed his path. Mackensen (talk) 01:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I happen to know that BMK is going through some things, and some of those things may have contributed to a shorter fuse than was called for. T he above list is--well, if half the list is from June of 2016, then maybe we should not weight those things so heavily. I propose we move on: I know BMK is trying to. If at any point his supposed stonewalling is actually disruptive enough to warrant a block (or if it amounts to edit warring, etc.), then surely one of the administrator in this thread can consider placing a block. Same for the other editor, of course. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you Mackensen for compiling a history, and thank you Drmies for the added context. It sounds like nobody wants a block for BMK, but I would like to hear them at least acknowledge that status-quo stonewalling is unproductive and state that they'll try to avoid it in the future. Even discounting the 2016 cases, there's still a one-per-year ANI pattern, including the case this time last year for damn near the same thing, for which they were reprimanded. In that case also they never seemed to acknowledge they did anything wrong, and here we are again. Before we move on, it'd be good to see some indication of progress, and not that we'll be back here again next year. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies I appreciate what you're saying, but let me push back. We all have lives outside of Wikipedia. At any time, editors are dealing with difficult situations. We don't know and it's not fair to ask. This also recalls BMK's response during one of the 2016 discussions, when he went on a long personal tangent instead of addressing the matter at hand: [71] (starts with I will not be participating in this discussion again, read on). We're still responsible for our conduct, and this is a pattern of conduct. I can dredge up examples from over 10 years ago, and I can also find more recent ones. BMK has "moved on" from these incidents before. He stonewalls, people object, he evades any real accountability for a situation that he caused, and then we're back here again. Mackensen (talk) 12:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    EducatedRedneck, I don't think we'll hear from BMK anytime soon, and that's really all I can say without betraying confidence. Mackensen, you've been an admin for longer than me--rather than continue this thread and try to find more arguments in the past for why the user should be restricted in the future, why not use our new and very sharp tool? You see something, say something: warn the editor and then give them a partial block from the article and/or talk page. I don't think BMK has a tendency to "spread" his ... stonewalling, so a partial block seems like a helpful thing here. But no, again, I do not support sanctions. The disruption is over, at least for now, and building a case (like the old RfC/U, which I'm sure you'll remember!) for serious editing restrictions, or whatever you had in mind, that's going to take a while and I'm not convinced it will do anyone any good. Drmies (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a fan of digging up old history, but I'm also not comfortable that an experienced user with a noted problematic history can simply ignore the discussion about yet another incident in the same pattern and thus escapes any sort of accountability for it. BMK has been editing since this thread started, and did comment here although they removed that comment, so I don't accept that they're "too busy" to respond, whatever it is that's going on in real life (and no we don't need to know what, you can take Drmies' word to the bank). None of us is perfect and we all have bad days, all we're looking for here is for BMK to acknowledge that they were having a bad day and that their behaviour in that discussion was below the level generally expected of veteran editors, or, you know, something. It's pretty much the bare minimum, and I think if we had that then we'd all just move on and go do something else. Instead, here we are talking about blocking him, and I can't say I disagree. This probably will blow over, it's already pretty far up the page and sometimes things go that way here, but next time this happens I wouldn't blame anyone for blocking first and asking questions later. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is also good to know, and does mean we could extend a little more compassion. I still am concerned that this seems to be a pattern independent of whatever's going in in their personal life and, as Ivanvector pointed out, they've continued to edit outside this thread. This was before this ANI, but they seem to have been exhibiting some stonewalling behavior in this thread as well, where they assert that sources support their insertion, that it's necessary, and forbade it from being removed. A pblock from Induced demand doesn't seem to solve the issue, and without some assurance that BMK is working to fix it on their end, I think something should be done to prevent further disruption to other editors that are attempting to improve the encyclopedia.
    @Drmies, this is not an ideal situation, where the community needs reassurance but BMK is not in a position to give it due to personal life. What would you think of an indef, with the stated intent that it be lifted as soon as BMK provides the bare minimum as Ivanvector says? If BMK is dealing with things in their life, I agree that we shouldn't demand they put aside serious personal matters just to reassure us. Is it unreasonable to enforce a wikibreak until BMK is able to provide the requested assurance? EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    EducatedRedneck, I think an indef block for this is excessive. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair. I'm just trying to find some way that we can know the disruption will stop, but which makes it easy for BMK to edit productively , as they seem to do good work. I'll keep thinking on it, and if you have an idea, I'd be interested. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Drmies has made this disclosure, let me say that I'm in a position to confirm what Drmies said, and I discounted it because BMK has behaved this way for over a decade, as demonstrated above. If your personal situation is such that you can't edit in a reasonable way on Wikipedia, then that's fine, but the solution is that you don't edit Wikipedia until that's no longer the case. Mackensen (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mackensen, last I checked BMK made a few edits but is not looking at/fighting over that Induced Demand article anymore. I am not saying that BMK has never been criticized for his edits, and I have in the past agreed with some of the criticisms. I just think that this has already blown over, and yes I think that we should move on, which is what we often do in meaningful relationships. Sorry, I'm just sympathetic toward his personal situation, and I know that doesn't excuse past indiscretions, but I do think this one is over. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies if that's how you see things I won't try to change your mind. I would ask you this: what's your plan for addressing things the next time this happens? Because it will happen again, and the fact pattern will be identical. Is that just the cost of doing business? Because it really sucks for the editors who encounter BMK and his abusive behavior for the first time, who wonder if maybe they did something to encourage it. It's up to experienced editors, administrators or otherwise, to model expected behavior and set norms. I've thought for years that we do everyone a disservice--including BMK--by just shrugging our shoulders. Mackensen (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mackensen why would we shrug our shoulders? We can block for all kinds of things, including disruptive editing, and we have partial blocks to get editors out of one particular article or page where they are not acting properly. I use that tool all the time; I rarely shrug my shoulders. A temporary partial block is a great tool. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    EducatedRedneck said: I would like to hear them at least acknowledge that status-quo stonewalling is unproductive and state that they'll try to avoid it in the future, and Ivanvector has said this is: pretty much the bare minimum of what we should be willing to accept from BMK. Without such I don't see how we can not impose some kind of sanction. Paul August ☎ 15:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with Paul August that some kind of restriction is necessary but that an indefinite block is too harsh. I think a WP:1RR restriction gets at the nub of a major issue--reverting without discussion--and has the benefit of being easily enforced. Something more elaborate of requiring a discussion of reverts isn't enforceable. Mackensen (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    There's the issue of what's been called "stonewalling" and there's the related edit warring/hostility over trivial matters, both of which go back many years. BMK doesn't often use edit summaries at all, and when he does they're frequently of the "not an improvement" or "better before" variety (those links are lists). There are many complaints about fighting disruptively over things that should be trivial (basic MOS stuff, etc.) going back 15 years (omitting a link to an RFCU from way back then because it's under an old name). Every single one of BMK's replies at Talk:Induced_demand#Lead_paragraph is frustrating. Repeatedly reverts with inadequate explanations, then HTGS starts a discussion and BMK responds with the nuance of an ecommerce chatbot, saying "start a discussion and get a consensus" with no substance six different ways to someone who started a discussion and is trying to get a consensus. It took multiple other users getting involved for the matter to go anywhere at all. A restriction that says, after so many years, "you have to better explain your reverts" doesn't seem like it would be functional, so maybe a revert restriction is the only way to intervene (certainly not a block). I'd probably modify the 1RR Mackensen proposed to specify it's for things that aren't obvious vandalism or flagrant POV pushing -- BMK does a lot of noncontroversial reverts, too. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. While I can sympathize with BMK on a human level for whatever he’s going through right now, I have never not. And most of us have never not. BMK has always been a very well-liked, sympathetic, highly respected editor, and it is uncontentious that he is overwhelmingly a net positive member of the community, to say the least. It brings me no joy to criticize him, much less say he should be sanctioned. I just can’t buy into the suggestion that this is a minor incident that has blown over and we should all just cut BMK a break and move on. That’s literally what we’ve been doing for years and years. It sucks, but I can’t even take the suggestion seriously anymore. It is just an endless cycle and begging him to self-correct over the years just hasn’t worked. ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Death Editor 2 edits

    In this Death Editor 2 (talk · contribs) continues WP:TE regarding his desire to add the word fraudster to the LEAD and this violates BLP 1RR rules. Another editor GreenC (talk · contribs) has been beyond patient with Death Editor. Content currently under discussion at Talk:Sam_Bankman-Fried#Is_“fraudster”_appropriate_wikivoice? and at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Sam_Bankman-Fried_and_"fraudster". However, this discussion is meant to discuss the specific WP:TE behavior of the editor Death Editor. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment recent record:
    Plus other conflict boards, and various warnings and edit warring disputes (talk page). -- GreenC 07:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated disruptive editing by Betelgueseboy

    User:Betelgueseboy continues to create pages without references (see User talk:Betelgueseboy and add unreferenced info to existing pages ([72], [73], [74]. Despite warnings, they do not respond and continue to edit. glman (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Not an admin, but shouldn't this be in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism? AkiyamaKana (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see it already is now, added by another user. It will probably be seen more quickly in the designated space, though. AkiyamaKana (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! That's my bad - I wasn't sure where this fit. glman (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Alomomola and common names of fish

    User:Alomomola has repeatedly created articles about fish species with invented common names. The scientific name named in the article will be correct, but the common name false. Both I and User:Skarmory tried to engage with them at User_talk:Alomomola#Paracheilinus_amanda, first by asking politely where they found the name, and gradually escalating, but there's been zero communication back from them. They briefly backed off after the warnings, and resumed creating several legitimate articles under the scientific names of species for the title, but they have now resumed inventing common names like Easter Island infantfish and Rapa Nui infantfish for Schindleria squirei. Not a trace of either name can be found online. Puerto Rico grunt will need to be moved by an admin to species name Rhonciscus pauco, without redirect: the only reference I could find for that common name was from iNaturalist.nz, which turned out to be a WP mirror. Since they never bothered to communicate back about it, it's hard to tell if they're simply having fun inventing common names, or are just making honestly mistaken inferences from misreading something online. Some admin intervention would be helpful. Wikishovel (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked, redirects deleted, page moved as requested. Let me know if you need anything else. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the quick reply. I've started moving some more: could you please delete the made-up common names at redirects Great deep-water cardinalfish, Whipfin bass, Coral Sea slimehead, Shinyscale fairy basslet, Shiny-lined grunt. This could well take a while. Maybe I should post a list of these to your talk page? Wikishovel (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That would work. I'll be around for the next couple hours. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been going on since July, and is a big cleanup job, needing not just moves and deletion of bad redirects, but also reverts of vandalism to fish articles (mostly sourced by inaturalist.nz mirrors of the vandalism). I'll ask for help over at WikiProject Fishes, and then come back to you with a list ASAP, so I won't need to dripfeed you the requests. Thanks again for your help with this. Wikishovel (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. This definitely isn't my field or I'd offer to help some more, but at least I can do the deletion and moving part wherever needed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to think it is over-enthusiasm rather than deliberate vandalism. Schindleria squirei is a newly described species of infantfish from around Easter Island (Rapa Nui) so it is not unreasonable to refer to it as the Easter Island infantfish, although that doesn't make it the common name (especially in the Wikipedia sense). For another example, Abudefduf conformis, the paper originally describing the fish (see [75]) mentions "the color pattern of this Marquesan damselfish", meaning a damselfish from the Marquesa Islands rather a fish with the vernacular name "Marquesan damselfish". The names certainly shouldn't be added as vernacular names until other sources use them, and the lack of engagement is an obvious problem, but the creation of new articles for newly described fish seems a genuine effort to contribution to the encyclopaedia. I'm not questioning the block, just suggesting that Alomomola shouldn't be treated as a vandal if they do reach out in an attempt to return. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Jts1882: your WP:AGF is admirable, but the sheer weight of previously unknown common names added, all sourced to iNaturalist mirrors of the WP articles in question, leads me to believe that they either thought it was OK to make up common names, or that these are deliberate hoaxes. If you can find a RS for any of these, I'd be grateful, and will use the RS to recreate anything that's been removed. Wikishovel (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @The Blade of the Northern Lights: it turns out that WikiProject Fishes is a lightly monitored project, so I've gone ahead and fixed the problems myself, though I haven't yet dug for mentions of these fake common names in other fish articles. Thanks to User:Valereee for deleting the first five fake common names listed above.

    Can you please also delete these fake common name redirects:

    I've moved some of the articles above, where permissions allowed, to their correct scientific names. The remaining three titles will need page mover permissions to fix, so can you please:

    Many thanks again for the help. Wikishovel (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Should be all set there, Animum's mass delete tool is a godsend. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, @The Blade of the Northern Lights, that's a new one for me! Valereee (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to spread it around! I remember it took me a few minutes to figure out how to get to the interface, but those few minutes have probably saved me hours over the years. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you found refrename yet? It goes through and changes all the VisEd ":2" refnames to something readable by humans. Fabulous. Valereee (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not... until now! Thanks for the tip, could definitely use that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TruthSeeker7331

    The user TruthSeeker7331, who appears to have a singular focus on removing contents across multiple pages, has a talkpage history with many warnings against removing large amounts of sourced content. Despite this, the user removes all these warnings from the talk page and continues with disruptive edits. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    p-blocked from article space for refusal to communicate. Valereee (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) I've reopened this thread after it was closed, as the blocked user may want to engage here so that an understanding can be reached. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be my fault. Sorry! For five more minutes...it's just a single vice 17:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    OrangTangerang53

    OrangTangerang53 blocked for two weeks by Drmies. Ravenswing 01:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


    OrangTangerang53 (talk · contribs) has been previously blocked for the unsourced addition of content to BLPs. Despite that, and all he multiple warnings received, they continue to add unsourced content to BLPs. I think a longer block is warranted. GiantSnowman 17:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Strongalliance

    As a global sysop, I just deleted some thousand pages from pamwiki and cbk-zamwiki (copy-pasted from here) created by this user. I suppose it is Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bertrand101. -- MF-W 21:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    •  Possible based on some rather old information on the cuwiki, but not similar to more recently reported socks other than geolocation. Someone more familiar with Bertrand101's behaviour should have a look at this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      (Non-administrator comment) Whilst I am not an admin, I am familiar enough with Bertrand101's behaviour to know that this edit, this edit, this edit, this edit and especially these edits (I make particular note of the reference to Cebu in the final diff, which is a well-established behaviour pattern of theirs) are all indicative of this user being a possible sock. Looking at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bertrand101, you can see which articles they frequently disrupt, and these match up to a few of them, plus there are some similarities in terms of editing articles on Philippine radio stations (despite the exact names of these stations not necessarily matching up to those listed). Patient Zerotalk 02:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User creating inappropriate pages

    This user has created several pages in the Talk namespace of some (fictional?) fan film which, according to a Google search, seems to be their own creation. The user here indicates they have no intention to abide by Wikipedia's policy or editor advice. funplussmart (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you have mistyped the name of the user in question, because the link you provided does not correspond to an existing user. Remsense留 02:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Remsense, it should be fixed now. funplussmart (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is, thank you. Remsense留 02:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Funplussmart: when you start a thread about user here you need to notify them on their talk page. I've done so for you. On the merits, I think this is premature. You've given them adequate warning and an opportunity to learn how to edit here. If they ignore the warnings and keep creating nonsense pages then we'll have to block them, but I'd like to hear from them first. Mackensen (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This concerns the deleted Talk:Bendy And Friends: The Adventure In Paradise Falls. An ANI report is not needed for such a new user doing something inappropriate but not particularly harmful (except that File:Bendy And Friends The Adventure In Paradise Falls.png certainly lives up to its copyright violation speedy deletion request). A new user like this would benefit from more explanation. Johnuniq (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Partial block request for 156.52.0.0/16

    Can an administrator block the IP range 156.52.0.0/16 from the article Kepler-1649c? A user from the range seems to have a strange obsession with the article, making unconstructive or otherwise disruptive non-English edits to it, such as this and this and this. This has been going on for a timeframe of nearly a week. I feel like a partial block (of maybe 2 weeks or 1 month?) would be the perfect remedy here. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WMrapids (blanking)

    The editor WMrapids has repeatedly blanked sourced content from articles:[76][77][78][79][80][81][82]. Despite having warned against this several times ([83][84][85][86]) (and admittedly restoring the removal in the Colectivo (Venezuela) article), WMrapids has continued with these removals: [87][88][89][90][91]. In the case of the 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt article, the editor dropped a WP:TAGBOMB and a lot of inline tags in the content that they wished to remove: [92]

    This has been part of a complex problem that has been ongoing for months. Very briefly, after a heated move discussion, WMrapids shifted from editing in articles about Peru to those about Venezuela around May 2023, mostly politics and current events. Their pattern has consisted mostly in repeatedly reinstating disputed content, discussing about the issues while the content is present, not when it has been removed (contrary to WP:BRD). Said articles include Operation Gideon (2020), Nelson Bocaranda and others about Venezuelan media outlets, among others. This has included long-term edit warring, and it should be noted that WMrapids was already blocked in the Spanish Wikipedia in April for this before switching to Venezuelan topics. When the editor has failed to add desired content, they have resorted to include it in recently created articles as a sort of POV fork. For example, disputed or rephrased content in La Salida article was added in the Guarimba#La Salida section (portraying the 2014 Venezuelan protests as mostly violent), while the one that has been objected in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources and related media outlets was added in the Venezuelan opposition#Media section of the recently created page (portraying independent outlets as part of the Venezuelan opposition).

    I started the Guarimba and Venezuelan opposition threads in the NPOV noticeboard to explain these problems further, and even further content can be found at "WMrapids reported by Alejandro Basombrio (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)", "WMrapids reported by NoonIcarus (Result: No violation)" and "User:WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS". The behavior has led many editors to become tired and frustrated with the discussions. ReyHahn, originally active at the Operation Gideon talk page, decided to simply stop participating weeks ago, while SandyGeorgia has explicitly said that she has unwatched related articles because they prove too exhausting to keep up ([93][94][95][96]). I personally can say, too, that at this point it seems just better to stop editing in these articles for being so stressful and that any discussion has proven fruitless.

    While this behavior may not fit neatly into a single pattern, it is clear that it is disruptive. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    There has been a consistent issue of limited participation in Venezuelan topics. As NoonIcarus mentions, our interactions began during discussion on the 2022 Peruvian coup attempt article. After they raised comparisons to the topic and Venezuelan events, I reviewed Venezuelan topics in general. After W1tchkr4ft 00 said that Venezuelan topics have continuous, uninviting NPOV conflicts, I explained my involvement in Venezuelan topics to them in this discussion: "I also didn't want to get involved in [Venezuelan] topics either since I was immediately barraged with reverts and threats of blocks, but I saw a need and had to fill it. Overall, we need more participation on Venezuelan articles because they are very controversial and have some fairly blatant POV issues. If we have a larger amount of viewpoints present, the trajectory of varying views will point articles in a more NPOV direction instead of a few bold editors hammering away with arguments." Upon my entry into the subject, I endured tag team editing and hounding against concerns I raised, including from NoonIcarus. Compared to other users involved in Venezuelan topics, there is no desire for me to have Venezuelan articles to have bias leaning one way or another (prior to this the was only and interest in Michigan and Peru topics) since the issues concerning the topic approached me instead of the other way around. As W1tchkr4ft 00 said in our discussion "the usual thoughts and feelings around such articles that any changes towards neutrality will be an uphill battle with the so called people who inhabit this space ... all stresses that make it more often than not simply - to me at least, i am sure to others too though - not worth attempting". So NoonIcarus' attempts to blame me for users disengaging is not the case; the main issue is that we have a controversial articles with limited participation. Sure, other users can come forward and say they took a break because they were frustrated with my edits, but I can say the same with other users too when I took some time off. It is important and healthy for all of us to disengage from controversial topics sometimes.

    About the previous block on Spanish Wikipedia regarding these edits, I was unaware of edit warring behavior (new to controversial topics) and the user who I was edit warring with has been blocked indefinitely for English Wikipedia for... edit warring. So I admittedly fell into their trap.

    Regarding allegations of blanking, if there were issues present, then of course I would attempt to remove them. NoonIcarus uses an argument of "stable version" to support the inclusion of contested material consistently, which I will address later. For instance, in the article Bolivarian propaganda, I removed a multitude of BLP violations, original research and inappropriate usage of primary sources that was placed targeting alleged supporters of the Venezuelan government. For NoonIcarus and similar users, there were no apparent issues with the Bolivarian propaganda article as they permitted the inappropriate information on the article for years. There was also my removal of POV material from Colectivo (Venezuela) (it previously described the groups as "terrorists" three times without attributing the political position of the National Assembly), which was reverted by NoonIcarus who simply said in an edit summary "Not a reason to delete the whole content", blanket reverting my good faith edits. Another case was the 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt article, where a single source provides the majority of the information; I was admittedly not aware of WP:TAGBOMB as my intentions were genuinely to attribute information and tag concerns present in the article. I innocently thought that placing such tags was appropriate after NoonIcarus and a separate user did so on Venezuelan opposition[97][98], Guarimba[99][100] and other articles. Burrobert has also raised concerns about NoonIcarus' tagging behavior here and here. NoonIcarus has participated in possible blanking themself, also on Venezuelan opposition[101][102][103][104][105][106][107] and Guarimba[108][109]. Some significant blanking by NoonIcarus involved removing controversial information related to the Venezuelan opposition, specifically Globovisión[110][111] and Alberto Federico Ravell[112]. La Salida is also another article where NoonIcarus participated in stonewalling to remove information that the Venezuelan opposition attempted to remove Maduro through protests; this required my inclusion of multiple sources while NoonIcarus frequently moved the goalposts and participated in sealioning, demanding evidence. Per WP:SATISFY, this behavior by NoonIcarus can result with a ban.

    As for NoonIcarus, they have participated on the project with concerning behavior since their first edits on English Wikipedia during the 2014 Venezuelan protests. Shortly after our first encounters, I noticed that NoonIcarus was previously using an essay that they primarily created, WP:VENRS, to inappropriately remove large amounts of material through hundreds of edits. After months of editing, earlier this month, I raised concerns about NoonIcarus' potential advocacy edits on their talk page after seeing images that they were involved in protests against the Venezuelan government. This is no attempt to out NoonIcarus since I am not including personal information; I have reviewed the previous behavior towards them which was completely unacceptable and I would not want to experience that myself. But NoonIcarus has been present beside armed protesters on various occasions and among top Venezuelan opposition leaders. One can say this is an association fallacy, but if it looks like a duck (physically beside opposition leaders and protesters) and acts like a duck (participates in edits supporting Venezuelan opposition POV), then it's probably a duck.

    Now returning to the "stable version" concerns; this was raised in the same post on their talk page regarding my thoughts on potential advocacy. NoonIcarus would inappropriately use the "stable version" argument while reverting edit summaries without explanation, doing so after this concern was raised. It appears that their behavior has improved somewhat as they continued to threaten me with blocks and prepared this ANI.

    Overall, Venezuelan topics will remain controversial and with limited participation, the few users who stick around become fixated on what they interpret is "stable", with or without their bias glasses on. As I said above regarding Venezuelan topics, "If we have a larger amount of viewpoints present, the trajectory of varying views will point articles in a more NPOV direction instead of a few bold editors hammering away with arguments". While I could probably make further complaints about NoonIcarus' behavior, I hold no ill will towards them since I understand that we are stuck in a controversial topic where circular (sometimes heated) arguments may occur. As always, I'm open to listen to any concerns and learn how my behavior can be rectified for the future. WMrapids (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    We can all agree that there are appropriate removals of content, such as vandalism, "BLP violations, original research and inappropriate usage of primary sources".

    This complaint is not about that. I'm not citing "legitimate" or possibly debatable removals, but rather disruptive and persistent ones that WMrapids has not addressed here. These have been characterized by 1) Removal of appropriately sourced content, 2) opposition by involved users and 3) sometimes, edit warring. Getting more detailed:

    Examples of blanking
    • Most recently, at the Rupununi Rebellion, WMrapids has repeatedly removed information about extrajudicial killings: 1 2 3 4. They have said that it is because of failed verification and because the source was unreliable, respectively. I have pointed out that old information might be kept, just like with dead links (WP:KDL), and asked for further information, but haven't received it for the moment.
    • WMrapids has also cited WP:WEIGHT for some of these removals (not only reliance on a single source, as it is the case with the 2002 coup article): 5 6 7 8 9 10. This has included the implementation of the crowd control Plan Ávila and the cleanup of a shootout scene, which I'm baffled of how it can be considered undue weight for the article, and at times has included edit warring: 11 12.
    • Regarding the Colectivo (Venezuela) article, the editor has not explained why they removed information about the groups presence in the country:13 (even when I acknowledge that this was placed back after I objected to it 14).
    • Same with the Venezuelan oil shipments at the Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis: 15. Just like with the examples above, it is not a "BLP violation, original research" or a "inappropriate use of primary sources".
    • Removals have included content sourced by La Patilla, for instance: 16 17 18, whose reliability was questioned by WMrapids but said assessment is disputed. Its current WP:RSP entry is "No consensus". This is one of the "grey areas" that I'm referring to, but plenty of these times I easily found the information covered by another source and it's worth mentioning regardless.

    Most of the removals that removals that WMrapids is referring to is recently added controversial content by them. In many cases several editors opposed the chances at the same time, explanations ranging from original research to veracity (not just for the sake of only a consensus or the stable version) have been provided and there have been countless discussions on the matter: Talk:Guarimba#Tags, Talk:Guarimba#Gara, Talk:Venezuelan opposition#POV, Talk:Venezuelan opposition#Media section and Talk:Venezuelan opposition#Scholars opinions, just to mention a few and the ones that the user cited. Plenty of this content has been tagged to prevent edit warring, hence the tags. This is different from WMrapids' removals: usually they are the only editor supporting them and many times there has been insistance in the removal, the Rupununi Rebellion article being the last case. I just noticed that some of the examples of "blanking" are just content moves to other articles:[113][114]; I frankly find the comparison dishonest and would like it to be corrected.

    As for other accusations, I already provided a response that I will stick to, in few words: To anyone interested: I don't belong and have not belonged to any political party (nor I wish to), and I have avoided editing about any notable people that I might have a relation with, however small it might be. I'm from Venezuela, and that's something that both I have been open about and that can be easily confirmed by visiting my user page. I have likewise been editing for almost ten years now, and I have been a member of Wikimedia Venezuela for several years as well. It's only natural that I'm interested and knowledgeable about edition about my home country. In the last ANI I said that if personal attacks stopped, I said that no action would be needed, but they have continued:[115] Helping Commons to have media with Creative Commons licenses should barely count as "advocacy", and the removal in "hundred of edits" mostly consisted in the removal of the sources and not the material, which included Correo del Orinoco, now considered an unreliable source in WP:RSP. This should not distract from the issue at hand.

    All of this should be a reminder that this is an intersectional issue, and should be evaluated as such. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, there appears to be a double standard on your part. The "stable versions" of multiple articles that you supported were undue and you create the excuse that "it's been this way for (X amount of time), so you can't remove it". If it's undue and inappropriate, then yes, it should be removed. It's not my fault that other users are scared away from editing a controversial topic like Venezuela and don't review the broad range of issues still present in the topic.
    Here is a short response to your "examples":
    1. You can see in my most recent edits that the reports of "extrajudicial killings" were exaggerated according to a more reputable source. I'll provide a response later, but as for now, I'm stuck here with this...
    2. Yes. Having 60 citations from a single source as the framework for 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt (with the author happening to be a fiction writer with little previous experience) is undue weight in support of that source. As for the clear POV section that you created (cleanup of a shootout scene), it was created by you using only the disputed author as a source. I thoroughly explained this when I removed this.
    3. It was an article by an opposition media mogul of El Nacional (Venezuela) that only had the "colectivo" word mentioned in an image caption, which wasn't clear.
    4. What Venezuela does with its money is not relevant to shortages in the country (nations have financial/agreement obligations, you know). The information you were supporting was not relevant, was synthesis and was undue in an apparent attempt to lead readers.
    5. Again, the conclusion of the La Patilla RfC could have been more clear; it says "Avoid use in contentious topics", yet even though Venezuela is an obviously "contentious topic", it is not labeled as so in WP:CTOP. Maybe Venezuela should be included.
    About your accusation that "several editors opposed", there was you and another user who were mostly active on Venezuelan topics in the last month. That is it. So such claims are misleading.
    Regarding your possible advocacy, one can look at the article Venezuelan opposition that opposing the government is less party/ideological (as you argue) than it is just being united in opposition to the Venezuelan government. I'm not going to badger you about whether or not you were protesting or not, but your bias in support of the Venezuelan opposition is clear and present.
    For your claim that your edits "consisted in the removal of the sources and not the material", that is false. In a previous RSN discussion, I outlined how you would remove a source per your WP:VENRS essay (even if it were properly attributed), mark it as "citation needed" and then later remove the material since it no longer had a source (after you removed the source). Regarding the 2002 coup article, I also detailed how you cited your essay while blanking information from the article, including author Bart Jones, without explanation. I placed back much of this information, which you also left with "citation needed" tags after you removed the original sources, leading one to think that you may have repeated your similar behavior of remove source, tag and then remove material. Without a thorough review of your edits, one cannot know how much material you have removed from Wikipedia using this method.
    So, recognizing that it takes two to edit war, you can plaster templates on my wall, but it is only inflaming the situation when you yourself are performing disruptive edits that the community has to deal with, possibly years later as you maintain your "stable version". I've made multiple attempts to encourage more inclusion and to avoid heated disputes in Venezuelan topics, including RfCs. Despite our conflicting edits, the lack of participation in Venezuelan topics is the main issue that I'm seeing here. WMrapids (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I would also want to bring attention to NoonIcarus casting aspersions and accusing me of placing misinformation, yet NoonIcarus cites a self-described nation with links to the Venezuelan government for controversial claims about Guyana committing killings. NoonIcarus appears determined to include fringe information supported by Venezuela that these killings took place; academics state that only 2-3 deaths occurred and described higher numbers as "rumors". Looking at the history of NoonIcarus, they have previously participated in blanking on Rupununi uprising as well,[116][117][118][119] in an apparent attempt of advocating for rebel positions and the Venezuelan claims of the Guayana Esequiba.--WMrapids (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    IP Seasons

    These IPs are insistent at adding seasons behind show names in the 2nd Children's and Family Emmy Awards article. Can somebody please block them for distruptive editing? Scoophole2021 (talk). 13:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    NotPeterParker

    NotPeterParker (talk · contribs) has been uncivil at Talk:African Americans and related discussions. These are the most inappropriate diffs/quotes, with more available on request:

    1. complaint about "non-Black editors policing" the article
    2. Of good-faith contributor Rsk6400, they say: "One, you're not American. Two, you're an ethnic German who is pro-Russian (according to your page), so you have neither a cultural investment or real comprehension of this American affair and should probably refrain from making further idiotic edits on here."
    3. After a warning from Rsk about ownership and a warning from me about personal attacks, they double down and describe Rsk as "a non-American based in Europe"
    4. A reply to Rsk:
      • "I refuse to let you or anyone else determine what is and what is not relevent to them in regards to so-called African Americans. You not being American is trivial; you being Germanic is minor. You being a foreigner is the crux of the issue."
      • to Rsk: "Stop inserting yourself into matters you obviously know little about (probably - but not certainly - because you are a foreigner)"
      • warns Rsk that "if you keep writing unsolicited nonsense on my User page, I will ban your privileges from editing Wikipedia."

    I haven't gone into the context of the content dispute, but it's definitely gotten contentious in other ways at Talk:African Americans' newest sections, and more attention from editors would be helpful. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    At the absolute best this is an astounding lack of good faith from NotPeterParker – the ethnicity or even location of an editor is absolutely irrelevant to their ability to edit an article, or the weight of their comments on a talk page.
    At worst these are personal attacks that enter the realms of racism. — Czello (music) 15:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin comment) I'm happy that Firefangledfeathers took this here, because I think the idea that only certain editors are allowed to edit certain pages would be the death of Wikipedia. Just for clarity I want to add that I'm not pro-Putin. The statement on my user's page is focussed on Russian literature and I use it to balance my support for Ukraine stated there. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With just a couple hundred mainspace edits, I don't see that NotPeterParker's has had so overwhelmingly positive a contribution history as to even provide the faintest of cover for NOTHERE cracks such as those. I reckon we could do without his mindset. Ravenswing 16:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Made them go bye bye. Racial gatekeeping is not acceptable. If they think they can contribute in a co-operative manner they're welcome to make an unblock request. Canterbury Tail talk 17:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, CT. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, especially for stating that racial gatekeeping is not acceptable. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Swalors

    Swalors (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) @Swalors is disruptive and edit warring in articles Gayur-khan and Simsim despite my requests to stop. He's removing WP:COMMONNAME supported by number of WP:RS (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - here he also added AI image that he presented as the image of Gayur-khan, 6, 7) renamed the article without discussing (1). I recommended the user to use talk page to explain his concerns there but he instead continued on edit warring despite his edits being reverted by me and another user (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). -- WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yelh ma yelh;(( Swalors (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Azmarai76

    User:Azmarai76 has been repeatedly edit warring and making a series of unconstructive edits to Swati tribe[120][121][122][123][124], adding self-published tags over sources published by Duke University and ISMEO, the basis of which being the claim that they got printed by Pashtun fascists.[125] The user has not provided a single source in the support of the claims they want to get added, even after being asked many times to do so at talk page.[126][127][128] Instead, they just have been adding irrelevant wikipedia guidelines links inspite of being requested to not do so.

    Azmarai76 has been already warned by User:Fayenatic london multiple times to stop removing references and to adhere with WP:NPOV. [129][130] Sutyarashi (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going through some of their recent work now. The issue isn't only that they're tagging things that shouldn't be tagged, they're also not using tags properly. They're doing things like inserting "WP:INTEGRITY" directly in the article beside statements they don't like, and "WP:RSPIMPROVE" directly in front of references they think need to be improved. They aren't even the right guidelines for their arguments. In other instances they add malformed tags like "{citation needed}}" (often in front of a source which already supports the statement they're demanding a citation for) or they just write in the text that the proper tag would produce, like "[unreliable source"]. Some of this may be because they are editing very rapidly and may not be checking their work, but it's highly disruptive regardless.
    After Fayenatic London's warning about NPOV they responded "Yes brother I know these NGO guys and their ways to make foriegners believe what they say", which is not a promising response for neutrality. They do have a point about the Wemountains source, it has been suspended by its hosting provider but archives do strongly suggest it hosted user-generated content. It's also very difficult to follow their arguments because of their odd indentation style and lack of command of English, but it does seem to me that while they're challenging and removing sources they disagree with, they have yet to provide any source to back up their own arguments, instead just insisting that they are correct. This seems like a WP:CIR block situation. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources even the genetic studies I provided, and even modern historians like Haroon ur Rashed weren't accepted by Sutyarashi and he threatened me thrice. He called Raverty and Dorn B. As British servants and wants to keep Leitner in support of Dards despite the fact Leitner was also RAJ times. He also misquoted Angluish that Sultanate of Swat was collection of dardic states which the author never wrote. Moreover, Sutayarshi wants Tajiks category be changed to Dards on the basis of one reference which isn't correct but misleading for Wikipedia readers. He is ready to take definition of the term Dardestan from Iranica. Com but denies to consider the definition of dehgan from iranica. He simply wants the misleading material to spread across Wikipedia and still wants it to look genuine. Regards Azmarai76
    Azmarai76 (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Provide any diff about with what or where did I threaten you. About rest of para, well, what can I say. Even during talk page discussion it was almost impossible to know what exactly were your objections over the sources or what changes you wanted to make, especially since you didn't provide any source, reliable or otherwise, over there. Sutyarashi (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore Angluish never gave any sounds or alphabets to Gabri language rather his opinion that the language was dardic. He didn't have anything in support of his assertion. I fail to understand if we have to keep Wikipedia clean and avoid falsifications or otherwise.

    Sutyarashi is constantly negating all references and even genetic studies as Primary Sources or RAJ. He has threatened me thrice and made disruptive edits to three pages Sultanate of Swat, Swati tribe and even Pashtunization process. He has passed on derogatory remarks on authors like Raverty, Elphinstone, Dorn B., Haroon ur Raseed and others on one basis or other while is ready to keep a RAJ author Leitner as a source without whom Dard term would never have come into existence as he was the first to have come up with this term. Similarly, he is ready to undo all Wikipedia policies on source integrity to online verification of sources to Tabloid Journalism to assert his point of view on other editors and also Wikipedia readers. Regards

    Azmarai76 (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Provide evidence that I threatened you anywhere, passed any derogatory remarks on anyone or undid "Wikipedia policies on source integrity". Otherwise they are just baseless accusations, and probably even constitute personal attack. Sutyarashi (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Propose indef for Azmarai76: I read through the talk page discussion and it was painful. Azmarai has failed to provide any sources to back up their claims and repeatedly claimed that Sutyarashi is threatening them. The first time was in response to this warning not to edit war, which wasn't a threat. I was unable to find anything else that could constitute a threat. This, combined with the mentioned weird indentation and difficult in making themselves understood, makes me think a WP:CIR block may be in order. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Propose indef for Azmarai76: Agree with EducatedRedneck and Ivanvector about the possible WP:CIR block. Especially seeing how they have failed to give even a single evidence of their repeated accusations against me, and that they did not provide a single reference during the entire talk page discussion, and just kept on claiming that they are somehow more credible than the references present, I have very little confidence in that they can contribute to wikipedia constructively. Sutyarashi (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unsure if it's directly relevant to the current issue, but Azmarai76 has been blocked once for personal attacks and edit warring at the very same page. This suggests that it is somewhat a deep-rooted behavioural issue, especially since their recent conduct is not any better. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sutyarashi

    No need for a new thread, discussion is taking place in the earlier thread. --Yamla (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Sutayarshi is constantly negating all references and even genetic studies as Primary Sources or RAJ. He has threatened me thrice and made disruptive edits to three pages Sultanate of Swat, Swati tribe and even Pashtunization process. He has passed on derogatory remarks on authors like Raverty, Elphinstone, Dorn B., Haroon ur Raseed and others on one basis or other while is ready to keep a RAJ author Leitner as a source without whom Dard term would never have come into existence as he was the first to have come up with this term. Similarly, he is ready to undo all Wikipedia policies on source integrity to online verification of sources to Tabloid Journalism to assert his point of view on other editors and readers. Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    You have not notified Sutayarshi, as is required, by following the instructions at the top of the page. Please do so immediately. Please also provide specific diffs to back up each of your claims. --Yamla (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, never mind. You should never have opened this thread. The discussion is taking place immediately above. Please keep your discussions there. --Yamla (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Smasongarrison

    This user does not understand that "People from" categories are only for residence, per WP:OCLOCATION and WP:CATNAME, and that "French people" is a nationality cat. Since we cannot derive nationality from residency, I believe that we cannot categorize Sportspeople from France by region as French people.

    I'd like her to be reminded that Wikipedia's rules apply to the category system and that she should stop systematically reverting my edits. Frenchl (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe that Frenchl is omitting context: User talk:Frenchl#November 2023 I tried to have a discussion with him about the process for changing category convention after they made a huge number of changes [131] that had to be mass reverted. I can pull up some diffs. Mason (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @Frenchl: This appears to be a content dispute between you and that user. AN/I is not the place for that. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the place for that please ? Frenchl (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I stated several times, you can bring this larger concern to categories for discussion [132], [133], [134]. You didn't, and stating that "[you] don't have concerns. The rules are perfectly clear. Please respect them and stop your disruptive edits or I will bring you case to ANI." [135]. So we're here, at ANI. @GiantSnowman and Liz: might have thoughts as involved admin [136] [137] Mason (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell, Frenchl, you're making mass disruptive edits based on your own interpretation of policy. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not my interpretation of the rule but its application. Frenchl (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem here is that people aren't informed: they don't know that the "People from" categories are residential only, and that it has been decided in 2007. Nationality is reflected by the occupation category, not country or county or city of residence ([138]). Frenchl (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    No comment on this category dispute between these two editors, but BOOMERANG generally applies here to Frenchl. They have a long history of disruptive and POINTy editing, evidenced by the number of warnings from multiple editors which litters their talk page. They are combative and do not work as part of a community. GiantSnowman 17:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Being right on the content issue does not excuse the way Frenchl has gone about this. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully agree. Pure disruption and refusal to listen, which is a standard way of editing for them. GiantSnowman 21:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm willing to listen to you, Giantsnowman, but you'll also have to answer the questions.
    I'm still waiting for proof that there is a consensus on the fact that in the case of dual nationality, only one of them needs to be mentioned in the opening sentence. This goes against MOS:NATIONALITY, that gives two examples of dual nationality both mentioned in the lead, against the Player manual of style of the WikiProject Football, and also against this Request for Comment that says all nationalities should be mentioned in the opening sentence. And secondly, your desire to include the country of birth at all costs for dual internationals goes against MOS:CONTEXTBIO ("country of birth should not be mentioned in the lead").
    My edits cannot be disruptive when they are in line with MOS, RfC and Wikipedia rules, while yours and Smasongarrison's are in line with, well, nothing. Frenchl (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there is no "willing to listen" - you HAVE to listen, to the multiple editors who have repeatedly raised concerns about the manner in which you edit. GiantSnowman 08:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Frenchl, please read my last edit. This noticeboard is about behaviour, not content. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So basically you're telling me that anyone who wants to respect Wikipedia's rules must first ask permission? Frenchl (talk) 12:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am not. I am telling you that WP:CIVIL applies to everyone, whether they are right or wrong about content. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Adrinopaulindromeus "wakes up" to make an attack page

    User:Adrinopaulindromeus, having had no contributions since 2019, suddenly created a soapbox user page describing Wikipedia users as having low IQ and a lot of free time, and accusing admins of being paid contributors. I quickly messaged them on their talk page to tell them it was against guidelines, but had no reply. I would have reported the userpage for speedy deletion, but I figured out it's best to signal it here too. Thanks a lot for your hard work, ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 22:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    As soon as I read this exactly the same thing occurred to me. Odd coincidence they'd wake up like this to use the same language. — Czello (music) 09:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Unlikely based on the technical data, but  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust and all that. @Zzuuzz:, can you take a peek at Adrinopaulindromeus? It's a range you're familiar with.-- Ponyobons mots 18:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed it's unlikely. The range has previously produced a variety of ugly offspring, but none of the usual tells are present. This is a situation where more edits will probably yield more data. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:S201050066 sockpuppet

    (non-admin closure) IP address has been blocked by User:ScottishFinnishRadish. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 06:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The banned User:S201050066 has gotten hold of another IP address (2607:FEA8:59E1:9D00:A8B6:2124:7F4E:206B. He's been posting draft content relating to the Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic on his talk page and also made a false report about edit warring on my talk page. When @Melcous: reverted the on his talk page, he stated that "Melcous you are amking bassless clams accusations stop attacking us and follow our rules Wikipedia is terrorist organization and you guys are all dangerous. I have reverted that edit. S201050066 has made it clear he won't stop his war against Wikipedia even after being permanently banned. Besides sockpuppet accounts, he is not using any IP address he can get hold off. Andykatib (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Repeated draftification; possible admin negligence

    Hello, my article Draft:QuillBot was previously draftified twice. The second time, another editor undid it, per WP:DRAFTOBJECT

    Today, an editor/admin named User:Praxidicae draftified the article for the third time, seemingly without checking history, and within 60 seconds seems to have draftified another page.

    I am wondering if this is negligence on his end, or mine. As far as I understand, per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, the article should have been moved to AfD. Thank you. Comintell (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I find it odd that you moved it back to draft space only seven minutes after tags (including a UPE tag) was placed on the page. Also, recommending ZeroGPT for deletion in what appears to me as a way to prove a point about keeping Jasper AI is concerning. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For a second I thought you were talking to me and I was like "whaaaa?" but yeah, this is totally sus. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 21:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a chance. Sorry for any confusion. In fact, I saw the message on your talk page and got out of the way. I felt the need to chime in here eventually though as it was starting to go down the path of BOOMERANG. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So what should I do? Sus because I tried to do the right thing and please you guys? Im confused have people saying both things. Please understand, I have ASPD, and some things that might be clear to some aren't always clear to me. Comintell (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, even if you did have a COI, you'd still be welcome to submit the draft for review. I'd say do that at least if you want to. You'll get feedback on your draft from a reviewer who will either accept or decline your draft. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. That does make sense. I do feel that sometimes it seems many Wikipedians believe AfC is the way to go, but then, users who are registered are able to publish to mainspace freely. I felt initially, that it was like being told "You can have a cookie without asking" then being told, "You should ask first." But I am learning. Thanks for your input and perspective. Comintell (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I recommend AfC even if you’re a very experienced editor. This is especially true if you’re under suspicion as a COI editor. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to add that user was previously given similar advice.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption on autoloader

    Autoloader (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has seen apparently different IPs repeated adding a paragraph on the survivability of NATO and Soviet autoloaders since the 28th of November. The paragraph is both original research and unencyclopaedic in tone. Although the addresses are slightly different, given that they are intent on adding exactly the same paragraph, it seems more like the same person behind a dynamic IPv6 address. Brought this here as I'm not sure whether page protection or a range block would be more appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 10:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I have semi-protected the article for two seeks, in the hope that the disruptive person will lose interest. Cullen328 (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Darrell Wesh

    BLOCKED
    Blocked by User:Primefac. (non-admin closure) -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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



    This user is impersonating athlete Darrell Wesh and posting libelous information about him, both on the English Wikipedia and Commons. (btw I don't know how to report an ANI because I'm not on here a lot, so excuse me for that) QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 12:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

     Comment: He does seem to be inactive but I think a block is still in order. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 12:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    I've revdeleted it as it appears to be from the subject, although obviously childish. Secretlondon (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Edelweiß109

    This user has expressed views incompatible with Wikipedia's mission. Particularly, the creation of this userbox, stating that "This user is a national socialist" next to an image of an enormous swastika. It was briefly on their userpage. The user has also disruptively edited the WP:NAZI essay (see this diff). The user has few edits but they generally relate to ethnic groups (see this edit) or far-right issues. The user came to my attention due to their !vote in an RfC concerning a Third Reich propaganda icon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillowCity (talk • contribs) 14:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This user is almost certainly 47.219.237.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), based on their comments at Talk:Horst Wessel. However, they've been indef'd by Ingenuity. — Czello (music) 14:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fostera12

    I came across the article Dhootha (TV series) and moved it to Dhootha because disambiguating the article title was not necessary, as there was only a single article on Wikipedia on that topic. However, the editor has been abusive and blaming me since then. If you wish to view the diff, you can refer to my talk page and Fostera to see the history. I am totally disheartened by all this, which has led me to post the incident here. I just want clarity. Am I the one who is wrong here, or is it Fostera? Thank you for your consideration. — C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 15:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    (non-admin comment) Your move was correct - see WP:PRECISE. I've tagged the redirect Dhootha (TV series) as {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Narky Blert (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also posted disambiguation advice to Fostera12 on OP's Talk Page. Narky Blert (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't help but notice that Fostera12 has been blocked twice previously for edit warring and inability to edit collaboratively and calling other edits trolls etc. Canterbury Tail talk 16:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ( Peanut gallery comment) Their response to the ANI notice, along with their other posts there and on User talk:C1K98V, makes me think the issue here is that they don't know when we should disambiguate titles, and for some reason are combative about it. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: I don't intend to edit the article until I receive clarity and resolution regarding the incident. The Earwig's Copyvio Detector report indicates an 80% copyvio (see link here). Could someone please remove the content that has been copied from the official streaming platform Amazon Prime Video (see link here) and tag it for revision deletion. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by C1K98V (talk • contribs) 18:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow that's quite a lot of copyvio. I wonder how many more of their edits are like that. Seems we should take a look into them. Canterbury Tail talk 17:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reverted the article back to before the copyvios and removed them from the history. Canterbury Tail talk 18:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bilgiljilll - Disruptive editing at the article Cheerappanchira

    The user Bilgiljilll is engaging in a disruptive sourced content removal from the article Cheerappanchira like he did multiple times [139],[140],[141].

    The user Bilgiljilll, suspecting has a vested interest on some particular caste from south Kerala , wanted to remove the connection of the Cheerappanchira family with north Kerala, where one particular caste is absent. Suspecting he has his own vested interested to keep the family belong to a particular caste origin and region. He has been doing removal of the sourced content relating to the origin of the family multiple times

    The place of origin is mentioned in the two reliable sources from leading news channels from Kerala , by the family headmen itself. In the 2 news channel video it is correctly saying by cheerappanchira panicker that 'cheerappanchira panicker went to moolatharawad at Kadathanadu and thus explaining the story of body armor of Ayyappan. Mathrubhumi video [1] on 1:50 , also Asianet (TV channel)(acv) [2] at 3:13 Cheerappanchira panicker says about their family origin from Kadathanad and the story of Ayyappan's body armor when the headmen of the family returned to his family origin (Moolasthana in Malayalam) at Kadathanadu.

    Non-Malayalam speaker can clearly hear the word 'Kadathanad' , also they can just translate to see from Malayalam to English

    Afv12e (talk)


    Really @Afv12e , Instead i should bring you here , you added unrelated topics to the page just like you did previously to other pages like kalarippayattu , i intiated a talk section and asked you to solve the dispute , when did i recently edited the page, i only maintained a stable version of it  ? None of the sources you mentioned says anything regarding what you wrote . You cannot use vedio sources to interpret things in your own way , when written sources say otherwise , even the vedio sources dont say anything regarding that. I already did intiate a talk section in your page regatding the source politely ,instead you did this ??As per WP:VIDEOLINK ,"If the material in a video only available on YouTube and includes content not previously produced or discussed in other reliable sources, then that material may be inappropriate for Wikipedia" thats why i intiated a talk section regarding what you added in your page .Because noone of the written sources or primary sources says so. Infact You are disruptively adding things , you added it again now without even minding to solve the dispute and you are calling me disruptive ?? Also you have clearly violated WP:DEALWITHINCIVIL ,I had intiated a talk section regatding the diapute and I was about to ping an uninvolved one to solve the concern, however seems like you dont even mind to solve it, you added the same thing again to the page Cheerppanchira , A summary of incidents happended here: You added some disputed contents to the page , i moved the page back to the previous version and intiated a talk section , you added the disputed content back ,bought me to ani and giving me threats and personal attack and abusing me clearly shows who is disruptive ?? The content you have added was previously added multiple times starting from dec 2016 ,which was removed by multiple editors thus as an editor who is watching the page since a long time, i intiated a talk section , however you were repeatedly adding it back without a proper source . —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilgiljilll (talk • contribs) 18:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


    How can you say the two reliable sources where the cheerappanchira panicker himself explaining about 'going to mool tharawad (family origin) at kadathanad' make you see that i'm INTREPRETING when he is explicitly telling the facts out in the two reliable sources from leading news channels in Kerala. It is not just a YouTube video, but aired channel content of the leading two channels in Kerala.

    What do you hear in Mathrubhumi video [3] on 1:50 , also Asianet (TV channel)(acv) [4] at 3:13 ? Tell me what he is saying at these time frames from 2 channel videos.

    Anyone with an average eye and ear can tell what he is saying in these 2 videos.

    I cannot make someone understand things who is acting like a blind and deaf , just for the sake of time wasting

    Afv12e (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    You said "I will kick you out" in the page cheerappanchira , and now "Blind and deaf" ?? You seriously do not have the patience to even discuss it you are desperate , you dont want to expose yourself for a verification regatding what you have added. Instead you want to kick me (who politely asked for a source) out , so that you can escape from the check ?? I thoroughly did check the relaible written sources added in the page, why nothing related to this is present there ? This makes me raise the concern Bilgiljilll (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also the content you added is completely absent from any written and verifiable sources , [5] (like this from the page ) but it only appears in a regional vedio? interestingly similar claims are being removed from the page as per the history of the page from 2016 ownawards . Also I dont tolerate abuses and threats. Bilgiljilll (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You have now turned your plate and pointing out saying that I have said that 'i will kick you out' , which is 100% lie.
    You want to confuse the moderatos and other people here turning your plates here and there.
    This is what i ahve added in the summary and anyone can read that[6] :
    'stop your 'vested interest' distruptive editing. In the 2 news channal video it is corectly saying by cheerappanchira pancker that 'cheerappanchira panicker went to moolatharawad at kadathanad' and the story of body armour of ayyappa. i know you are a malayali editor , keep on disruptive editing will get you out of wikipedia'
    Wondering why people want to keep on lying
    Also there is no rule that all sources in Wikipedia must be written sources, you want to stick with with this baseless argument again and again because you want to remove the reliable sources which explicitly saying the origin of family (moola sthana tharawad) is in Kadathanad.
    Note : Don't add your contents between the discussion like you were doing to confuse people[7]. Add your contents only under the last discussion
    Afv12e (talk) Afv12e (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Verifiability English sources are usually preffered over non english sources ,here the source is a vedio in non English language , where the content is completely absent in the the written english sources ,In addition to that I can see this was removed multiple times from the history of the page , thus as a responsible editor i have thw right to raise a concern , i stick to it . Bilgiljilll (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Verifiability has nothing to do this as these are leading news channels from Kerala and is publicly available. Ayone has the access.
    You being a Malayali editor , who knows Malayalam how can you say that you cannot verify this ?
    Also it doesn't matter whether it is removed multiple times or not, when someone is coming with 2 new reliable sources, where previously no sources have been produced in Wikipedia for the claim. Afv12e (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Verifiability have nothing to do with this ?? When u are dealing exclusively with a non english language , that too interpretated from a non english vedio ? Well I can understand certain south indian as well south asian languages(with an above average or intermediate proficiency ).I did watch the vedio after you gave a timeline here, the vedio seems like a conversation beetween 2 people , that too in non english language, interpretation from such sources , completely without the lack of any written or english sources that supports this is a against WP:VIDEOLINK as well as WP:Verifiability. The possible reason i believe it got removed by other users earlier and the reason for me raising a concern over its credibility or its interpretation , i have no problem if you add it with proper sourcing but from the alleged vedio alone (interpretating from conversation) while its absent in all written documents , and by the way i have no affiliation or connection with the temple/family /religion/caste/region (i saw you were continuously making this argument) , my pov is neutral, i have contributed to pages of multiple religions/caste/regions/personalities/celebrities/regions/languages mainly based on south asia , thus please avoid any personal attacks on me let us talk about editing here. Lack of Proper sourcing is the sole problem here. Bilgiljilll (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also the fact is that all of the written sources by the same media houses you mentioned [8] given in the page as well as from outside do not talk anything about this. [9] have not even mentioned the claim in their article. So how the alleged conversation in the vedio alone can be a source ?? Bilgiljilll (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also , you instead of doing a dispute resolution seems to be more interested in calling me blind ,deaf, WP:NPA (personal attack against a person or a group of disabled people) and giving me threats that you will get me out of here , so that you dont need to answer to the objections anymore, above all of that you immediately added the disputed content back to the page Cheerappanchira ?? Literally none of the written sources i found , which are produced by the same media houses you mentioned about the same topic ,supports your interpretation from the particular conversation from the non english vedio , this is violating WP:VIDEOLINK . Bilgiljilll (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So you have not checked the source earlier and removed sourced content multiple times from the article like you did here[142] [143][144] citing that 'source does not contain anything like this'. You are now saying that, after I have given the time frame you now went and checked the videos now and found that the claim exists.
    This is the proof that you have been into disruptive 'vested' interest editing in Wikipedia.
    You were removing sourced contents without even checking the source. You were clearing into disruptive editing multiple times until I report this here.
    Your claims of 'non english' , 'written references', 'threating' (Lol, warning some guys about their distruptive editing is threating ?) doesn't hold here and you cannot put that all here to make a cloud out of it and confuse the people here.
    You were into disruptive editing and you have admitted that here , you have only checked the video reference only after I reported here , giving you time frames from the video, meaning you have targeted in removing that particular part with vested interest.
    For your information, it is not a conversation between some random dudes in the video, being a Malayali you knew it. It is between the news reporter and the Cheerappachira family head/member himself talking. In the article it is added as such 'according to their family history' Afv12e (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Kindly go through my previous reply again , the vedio(mathrubhimi) which you posted at that time with time line is a small converstion and they dont even mention the vast majority of the words like "kadathanad'in their conversation which you added to the page .Secondly the same words are absent from any written and relaible sources published by the same media company also the vedio is in non english language when relaible written sources are used in the article and the thing you claimed is completely absent from the sources, in addition to that none of the written sources even mentions anything related to that ,thats why i asked you to provide a source in your talk section and you replied with things like vested interest, blind , deaf , regionalist etc WP:APA , I already replied to this very clearly , you are not even bothering to find a resolution rather you desperately added it back ? , I am again repeating , kindly do check WP:VIDEOLINK-- Very clearly the content you added is no where available in the written sources published by the same media(means they didnt interepreted your claim from the vedio published by they themselves. In addition to that i also did check other sources available in the page as well as from outside and the mythical family roots claim is completely absent there too , why so it appears only in the alleged conversations(if there ) ? and check WP:Verifiability and reply based on the guidelines if you have a point other than personally attacking me . Also i jist noted that , You removed clearly verifivale sourced content from the page cheerappanchira with a clear english source and citation , before adding this disputed content back , shows who is disruptive in editing . Bilgiljilll (talk) 02:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You removed sourced content from the page(while a source in english is available which was previously available in the page since years ) cheerappanchira and added the alleged youtube vedio referenced thing(in non english language) in a regional language over  : AccordingThe toCheerappanchira mythologyfamily, Lordaccording Ayyappato wastheir learningfamily martialhistory, artsoriginates from Guru[[Kadathanadu]] Panickarand atwere theknown Cheerappanchirafor Kalaritheir proficiency in Muhamma,[[Kalaripayattu]].Lord whereAyyappan hecame here to learn Kalaripayattu.He was livingintroduced by a person named 'Vellutha' as Manikandan,his close relative because the KingCheerappanchira ofPanickers Pandalamm'swere adoptivenot sonwilling to train someone from outside their country. They were focused on training soldiers from their own kingdom. Ayyappan started his martial arts training in Cheerappanchira Kalari hiding his true identity as the Prince of Pandalam. [10] while there is a discussion in your talk section as well as here, clearly disruptive , also when there are written english sources which says so . Also the interesting fact that you added the same written sources also as a reference to your content while you argue that how the regional vedio source is important over the written english source is really interesting.just take a look at the source and WP:VIDEOLINK [10]Bilgiljilll (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They did mention about the place of origin 'kadathanad' starting from the time frame I have given and you have accepted that saying above as : 'written sources are not available even though it is there in the video' . You are now concerned about written sources. WP:VIDEOLINK doesn't says that it need a written reference for a reliable video source like of news channels. Also I have used 2 references from leading news channels from Kerala , they are not just YouTube videos, it is of leading Kerala news channel videos aired, if you are sticking to any other argument.
    Also don't come up every time with new new tricks, first you came with saying 'you have checked the source and no where it is saying about the place of family origin (moola tharawad) as kadathanad' , later you changed and said above 'you have only checked those videos only after i provided the time frame of the video reference here' , then you go on telling about non-english reference, threating you , now you have come with your new trick that I have removed sourced content. I have restored the version previously removing your disruptive edits and nothing important got removed. Here is my edit , anyone can verify [11]
    Also there is no discussion going on my talk page, it is regarding your disruptive editing.
    I'm done talking here, let moderators and admins decide. Afv12e (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also summarising,- All the concerns I raised are purely based on the guidelines i provided, whereas you initiated by personally attacking me WP:NPA, Violated WP:DEALWITHINCIVIL(didn't even bother to answer the talk before this) the words you used against me: 'deaf', 'blind' (insulting any person or a group of people with a severe level of medical concerns or disabilities), 'vested interest', '"get you out of Wikipedia "(threat). The language you used right from the beginning (both in my page , your page as well as here ) is extremely hurtful and informal mixed with slurs and abuses, just letting you know that I do not wish to tolerate this from my side. Here we are talking about sources, content, and its reliability, so I request you to focus on the same rather than abusing me personally or using derogatory remarks about me. Bilgiljilll (talk) 05:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the content you added by removing the written english sourced content (actual version) :
    The Cheerappanchira family, according to their family history, originates from Kadathanadu and were known for their proficiency in Kalaripayattu.Lord Ayyappan came here to learn Kalaripayattu.He was introduced by a person named 'Vellutha' as his close relative because the Cheerappanchira Panickers were not willing to train someone from outside their country. They were focused on training soldiers from their own kingdom. [12][13][14][15]
    You have clearly added the english and writtten sources along with your with vedio as a source to support your claim(using wrong reference,as the written reference do not talk anything regarding to the content you added ) while you removed the actual content according to the written reference , and here you are arguing how the alleged vedio is preffered over the written reference ? You yourself believe in those written sources ,or you need that ? Claims like "They were focused on training soldiers from their own kingdom. " Why the written and verifiable sources published by the same media house says nothing about kadathanad ? Can you atleast present one formally written source? Atleast one ? The history part you added is your own interpretation of two conversations from two different vedios (each vedio for each claim ) , and this is completely absent in any formally written sources WP:VIDEOLINK, and i intiated a talk regarding the same after i reverted it back , you show no interest in exposing yourself for a fact check , and you call me desruptive ? Bilgiljilll (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My points are : The alleged content you added is not present in any (atleast one ) written sources, the sources by the same media houses also have COMPLETELY avoided the alleged conversations . Multiple vedios are required to verify(wheather possible or not) your claims and interpretations . Regarding the vedio(in non english language), you are claiming that different words are said during certain timelines (one at this timeline and one at another timeline in another vedio, as per you said ) , so can that proves the entire interpretation (3 paragraphs) which is completely absent in all sources (my main concern is relaibility) ?? WP:VIDEOLINK clearly states if it is solely available only online in a youtube video(as per you claim) where there is no formally written edvidence , it is inappropriate . I throughly did check the all of the written sources by the 'same media house' and it is not even(or anything related to the claim) are present there. My question is ,this is regarding the history of the family (as per the addition) and why this is completely absent in all those sources???, that too published by the same media houses  ??? Also i wonder how non english youtube vedio interpretations are entirely preffered for the whole arguement, when multiple written english sources are available , (i)that too to make changes regarding the 'history' or origins, (ii)that too when this is completely absent in sources published by the same publishers (both) and in all other sources .Interestingly the same claim was removed by multiple editors starting from Dec 2016 onwards. (can check the references and sources) WP:Verifiability WP:VIDEOLINK. You should not use ANI to escape from being questioned related to what you have added(the disputed content )without proper source, tht too when i have intiated a talk section in your page and asked for atleast one relaible source , way before that. Bilgiljilll (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the talk section of the page cheerappanchira is untouched regarding the dispute, I am initiating a talk section on the main page. Bilgiljilll (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I know absolutely nothing about the topic and have no opinion on your content dispute, but I do know that this page isn't intended for you to continue arguing back and forth. Please stop. Neither one of you looks good.--Onorem (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BxaaDikLy0
    2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzLfTaqMCK8
    3. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BxaaDikLy0
    4. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzLfTaqMCK8
    5. ^ https://www.newindianexpress.com/magazine/2015/jan/24/In-Memory-of-a-Warrior-Deity-709189.html
    6. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cheerappanchira&diff=prev&oldid=1187826064
    7. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Afv12e#Cheerappanchira
    8. ^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/swami-pura-all-prepared-to-receive-sabarimala-pilgrims/articleshow/55395891.cms
    9. ^ https://www.asianetnews.com/amp/kerala-news/cheerappanchira-family-claims-that-the-chembola-related-to-sabarimala-temple-was-taken-to-the-supreme-court-decades-ago-r0jijj
    10. ^ https://www.newindianexpress.com/magazine/2015/jan/24/In-Memory-of-a-Warrior-Deity-709189.html
    11. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cheerappanchira&diff=prev&oldid=1187826064
    12. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzLfTaqMCK8
    13. ^ "ചീരപ്പന്‍ ചിറ മൂലസ്ഥാനം: മാളികപ്പുറത്തമ്മ പിറന്ന നാട്, സ്വാമി അയ്യപ്പന്റെ കളരി ഗൃഹം".
    14. ^ "In Memory of a Warrior Deity".
    15. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BxaaDikLy0

    User:Drdpw edit warring at United States presidential eligibility legislation

    Drdpw has been edit warring at United States presidential eligibility legislation over an issue whether the article should also include a law passed in California about a requirement to publicize a presidential candidate's tax returns. Two discussions have been opened up on the topic (discussion #1 discussion #2), and both discussions have resulted in an agreement that the article should include the California law.

    In spite of the consensus Drdpw continues to edit war (Rever #1 on Dec 1 and Revert #2 on Dec 1). Where is Matt? (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    After Discussion #1, I edited the presidential eligibility legislation article's "See also" section in a good faith effort to reach consensus with Where is Matt? and resolve our content/article-scope dispute. In response, Where is Matt? opened Discussion #2, explicitly rejecting my compromise regarding the issue of whether California's legislation on tax returns falls within the scope of the presidential eligibility legislation article. Where is Matt? has now unilaterally declared, and without engaging, that "Consensus on talk page is now clear" in favor of their proposed addition to the body of the article, which is not the case. That said, if as stated, "both discussions have resulted in an agreement that the article should include the California law", I would ask Where is Matt?, why have you rejected my compromise? It gets the California law article mentioned, and preserves the scope of the presidential eligibility legislation article. Drdpw (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't view this as a "compromise". RFC now has 2 editors who explicitly said that the California legislation belongs in the article, so with me, that's 3 editors in support of inclusion, against the one editor who is against inclusion. The overwhelming consensus in the discussion to explicitly limit the scope of the article to birther legislation was not to limit.
    Yet you continue to edit war, even though consensus is against you. Where is Matt? (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather, you are misinterpreting the consensus in Discussion #1 and improperly declaring consensus in Discussion #2. You also appear to be under the mistaken belief that when editors express their individual views in a consensus-building discussion they are casting "yes" or "no" votes as on an election ballot proposal. Drdpw (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Thecheeseistalking99 is overwriting existing images with potentially copyvios, ignoring warnings

    Thecheeseistalking99 (talk · contribs) – keeps overwriting existing image files (see example here) instead of uploading a new one; seemingly trying to bypass any copyvio issues. Seasider53 (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    1 Every file I changed is fair use.
    2. I didnt ignore the warning I just didn't see it? Thecheeseistalking99 (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: TheCheese, I did write a comment on your talk page that Screenshots are preferred for soap opera character articles (due to them being more fair use and due to them showing the character, whether promo shots are ambiguous as to whether it is the actor or character), but I never got a reply. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalization by IP 68.33.4.126

    The IP user 68.33.4.126 has been vandalizing the Zamorin page, mainly by deleting referenced info in the lede and replacing it with unsourced content about one of the king's suicide and pension, none of which are of any relevance to the topic, and definitely not as per WP:Lead. The last version of Admin @Materialscientist is stable and the article was restored to it, but the IP user keeps reverting it to the suicide and pension stuff. Please have a look if possible. HölderlinRem1 (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The reference added is raj era of 1938, by the court historian of the zamorin himself. The source is not reliable , instead he removed sourced content of fall and current situation of zamorin family from the article, restore the same 68.33.4.126 (talk) 68.33.4.126 (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    also the thing he added in the article is already mentioned down, so removed to avoid recursion 68.33.4.126 (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    the user HölderlinRem1 is into caste promotion. He need to portray article as a Nair king , though the history of the dynasty trace back to 1000s of years (1000ce) and it is only mentioned by court historian of zamorin in raj era times as Samanthan of Erady, one who hails from Eranad.
    For the sake of the discussion that part has been retained though it is from raj era and also directly depended work by court historian of zamorin. 68.33.4.126 (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Would one of you please link to the discussion you had regarding this content before you brought this matter here? City of Silver 19:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is in the Zamorin page, where the IP user keeps putting the suicide and pension of one king in the lede. As per WP:LEAD, the lede should be a brief summary of the article, not on the misfortune of one particular king. And then he accuses me of promoting article, that's basically a personal attack as per WP:NOPA. HölderlinRem1 (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @HölderlinRem1: I asked where you and the anonymous user have had a discussion. That means I can't find where you and they have exchanged messages. that article's talk page hasn't been touched in about ten months so are you saying the two of you have discussed this in the article's actual text? City of Silver 20:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it was discussed in the Talk page, only in edit summary. But the content he is adding isn't per the lede criteria, and he keeps reverting without any Talk page discussion. HölderlinRem1 (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussing things like this only in edit summaries is no good because every time you and that user say something to each other, it comes in the context of you undoing each other's work. And while you might be right that the other user should have started a discussion, you should still start it yourself. It would have been a much better way of addressing this matter than using edit summaries then coming straight here. City of Silver 20:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not on a particular king - but the last ruler , that is how the dynasty rule has ended and important in lead to point out the downfall in one sentence also their present day status.
    I agree lead in little long, and can remove already written things like origin of the dynasty(from nediyiruup and their conflicts with chera king) which is well written below the article. Not the one which is not mentioned.
    Lead should has a crisp idea of who,what,when of orgin and fall of a dynasty. 68.33.4.126 (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This noticeboard is for behavioral issues, not content issues, and this reply you just left is entirely regarding the article's content. Would you both please take this matter to Talk:Zamorin? City of Silver 21:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a section at the talk page of zamorin [145] 68.33.4.126 (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay thanks, that's a good thing. We can sort it out there. HölderlinRem1 (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Editwarring at page under Israel-Palestine arb sanctions

    There's an edit war going on over a passage in Al-Shifa Hospital.

    There is an ongoing talkpage discussion about what to include concerning the incident, but the editwarring on the article is happening nonetheless. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    One user has made no comment whatsoever. Bri has declined to answer very basic questions asked of him on the talk page. Per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS not engaging in productive discussion about your reverts is disruptive editing. I’ve repeatedly asked him how he would like me to attribute what has three different sources for. He has steadfastly refused to engage. I don’t know what I’m supposed to do when somebody doesn’t answer basic questions about their reverts. As far as the by administrator revert, uh so what? That administrator has likewise violated NPA in their edit summary and just like you refused to answer basic questions about their edit. You can’t just stonewall and revert. But I have not restored the material since one user is at least engaging in discussion. Up to that point there was just stonewalling and classic disruptive editing by users who simply would not discuss their reverts. Bri is editing disruptively, they are not participating in the consensus making process at all, they are purely editing obstructively. nableezy - 19:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nableezy - If Bri is under-engaging, you are over-engaging. Please turn down the heat at least 20%. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, tell me how to discuss this with people who won’t answer questions. If somebody just refuses to answer a substantive question on their revert what am I supposed to do? Just leave their unexplained and unjustified revert alone? For how long? nableezy - 19:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Until others start engaging as well. That article has a lot of watchers. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, but that is rewarding disruptive editing in which editors who refuse to discuss the sources are able to impose their will through sheer numbers on an article. But fine. I won’t be restoring the material, and will continue to discuss the sourcing in the hope that some other editor who does follow our content policies and engage with good faith does so. nableezy - 19:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears better suited for WP:DRN. AN/I is far too large a hammer. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Timtrent; I don't think a hammer is the right tool here, and I understand, from looking at the talk page, that Nableezy feels like their comments were not substantively addressed. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Although not directly involved in this, I was myself inclined to restore and said so in discussion. The issue covered by the material is not realistically in dispute, the most one could argue about is the specific wording.Selfstudier (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me like the talk page discussion is at Talk:Al-Shifa Hospital#propaganda campaign. I'm seeing Bri respond there, so that seems to go against the claim that Bri isn't responding to questions. Also, whereas taking this instead to DRN is one option, another is to go in the opposite direction, to WP:AE, as this is covered by CT. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He made a response, one that did not answer the questions asked of him, and never answered them despite repeated requests that he do so. nableezy - 21:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If I understand correctly, the response to which you refer was the first of three posts he has made in that section. (So it's not like he made a single post and then walked out.) It's true that you then asked him why we should only attribute it to a single source, and he didn't directly answer that. But he had said that it would be OK with him to include the material cited to that single source, and then indicated a sort of neutrality about the other sources, so I can imagine that from his perspective, he had already answered you. Subsequently, he asks you, twice, why you (in Bri's opinion) did not address Graeme Bartlett's concerns. That exchange starts to sound, to me, like Bri asking you why you didn't address other editors' questions, and you asking Bri why Bri didn't address other editors' questions. Perhaps, you may feel that this is an unfair characterization, but it really does sound to me like editors going around in circles over that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did address their questions though, I addressed it by asking a follow up that nobody answered. If anybody had said what they wanted, or you know, if what they really wanted was to add attribution and it was not in fact just pretext to remove material they didnt want included period, added the attribution they wanted themselves, there wouldnt have been an issue. I told them I was fine adding attribution, I just needed to know how they wanted to attribute something that was cited to several sources. Nobody ever answered, so I have put on my mind reading hat and done it myself, taking into account the view of the one user who engaged at least somewhat productively. nableezy - 22:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You believe in good faith that you addressed Bri's questions, and Bri believes in good faith that they addressed your questions. As Timtrent correctly observes below, this is something of a back-and-forth that isn't working. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, did Bri address my questions? You yourself said he did not directly answer the question asked of him. Based on the discussion, do you think he debated productively? nableezy - 23:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, I agree with Timtrent that this isn't working. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies, @Tryptofish Whichever route it goes is acceptable, but here it is fast showing the potential for turning into an "I said, they said" tennis match which will get no-one anywhere. I have an instinctive preference for DRN where discussions are moderated to an extent, but I also see why AE can be considered to be justified.
    My main point is that ANI is not the right arena for this. It appears to be a dispute susceptible to rersolution, and thus, for me at least, resolution is preferable to enforcement, though the spectre of enforcement might be used judiciously to 'encourage' resolution. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    XMcan stirring up trouble

    User:XMcan has started a thread at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory#Gaslighting in which he has copied a comment by Newimpartial from Sennalen's User Talk page and pasted it, along with speculation about Sennalen's politics, in what looks like an attempt to cause trouble. Neither Newimpartial nor Sennalen asked for this and it seems unfair to both of them. Even if this is not deemed to rise to the level of true harassment, it is clearly an unpleasant way to cause disruptive drama and I think that it is time to put a stop to it. DanielRigal (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    My position is:
    1. The material doesn't need to be discussed on the article talk page.
    2. It's reasonable for XMcan to want to notify the article talk page of a related conversation on my talk page.
    3. It could have been done with a shorter note.
    4. It's completely unnecessary to edit war to delete the message.
    5. Especially unneccessary to escalate it to ANI.
    Sennalen (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree broadly with Sennalen. XMcan's actions are hard to understand, but I'm not sure if they're intended to cause trouble. I wouldn't call such a conclusion an assumption of bad faith though, as I see many of XMcan's comments at that talk page as unnecessarily temperature raising. Diffs on request, but this is something of a side issue. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for my tardiness; I have a lot of things on my plate right now IRL, and I haven’t been able to finish my thoughts regarding the post in question (as I’ve explained in the preliminary comment). I do intend to make a cogent connection between the quoted post and the topic of the Talk; if only I could be given a little room to formulate my thoughts. Thanks! Regarding the ANI issue, a tiny boomerang would be appropriate, just to make the point. (a small) Ouch 😊 XMcan (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a strong rationale for keeping XMcan around? They look like a low-grade troll on classic right-wing talking point topics. I don't see anything in their contribution history which makes me think that they are liable to become a worthwhile contributor to Wikipedia. My two cents, but WP:NOTHERE seems satisfied by all of their contributions. jps (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Hmmm, as someone being a subject of an open RE that I've commented on, you ought to be a little more cautious about casting aspersions. Perhaps your !WP:FAITH comment deserves a small boomerang reminder, too. XMcan (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I have looked through all your contributions. I find nothing that indicates you are interested in helping to build the encyclopedia. I see a lot of evidence you are here to grind an axe and act as an WP:ADVOCATE for your pet causes. Help me out. What's the evidence to the contrary? jps (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • ජපස, I think it's a really big step to ask "Is there a strong rationale for keeping XMcan around?". You seem to be implying they should be indefinitely blocked. You need to provide diffs ASAP or this looks like serious ASPERSIONS / ATTACK / BAD MOJO on your part. I don't know anything about either of you so I checked: sure enough, XMCan has been blocked before once. But wait, you've been blocked I don't know how many times; let's put it way, your own block log was 2+ screens long on my laptop.
    You wrote "I don't see anything in their contribution history which makes me think that they are liable to become a worthwhile contributor to Wikipedia. My two cents, but WP:NOTHERE seems satisfied by all of their contributions. I looked at XMCan's activity analysis - his most edited article is Philosophy of happiness (35 edits) followed by Happiness. Is there something we should know about his edits there? Is Happiness ideological? How do you even troll an article like that?
    Maybe XMcan is problematic, maybe they're not but it's a long step to ban someone. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest topic banning them from politics in general, not indeffing them. I don’t believe in indeffing people who are incompetent in one area even if it’s their primary area— it could easily be unhealthy obsessiveness and not a complete inability to edit. Dronebogus (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to explain the trolling of Happiness. The skewing of the content is in favor of an approach by IDW ringleader Jonathan Haidt. Rather surreptitiously, the edits XMcan is effecting are to skew the content of those articles towards Haidt's The Happiness Hypothesis which is the preferred source for a particular political persuasion on this topic, but one heavily criticized more broadly. This whitewashing continues in Wikipedia and it is insidious, for sure. jps (talk) 13:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So what is that “particular political persuasion”? My impression is that book was well-received. And what’s so bad about Haidt? —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 13:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You could do worse than this source for an explanation. jps (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Just wanted to point out that XMcan is a "senior newbie", by which I mean he has edits going back to 2011, amounting to 153 in total, therefore I think he is due a certain amount of newbie slack. This, despite a somewhat irascible approach paired with a kind of slightly off (or very off) use of policy or guideline links to try to argue his case which tends to miss the mark and just makes it worse for him, such as his using WP:HUSH to push back on Generalrelative's perfectly appropriate {{Uw-ew}} template. So, a bit of slack, maybe, and some advice to go easy, and read up on WP:TALK, WP:TALKOFFTOPIC, WP:CIVIL would be a good start. I don't think we need a block or T-ban, getting brought here will hopefully be a sufficient wake-up call. XMcan, can you just dial it back, and try to learn from editors who have been around a long time? Mathglot (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • XMcan just broke 3RR at the talk page. It's been 12 hours since they posted their unfinished comment, and we still don't know how it's connected to any article content suggestion. I'm sure there's some reasonable explanation, but this much time and this many reverts is itself disruptive. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree, I think a warning shot is in order if they don't stand down. I saw nobody has given them something like {{uw-chat1}}, so I have[146]. I see they've been around since 2009. They might not realize that unlike in 2009, you can't just show up to a contentious topic area and revert war forumy stuff onto the talk page. There's a bit tighter of a norm around moderation in 2023. Andre🚐 05:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, I noticed, too, and it is disruptive. I tried one more time just now at his Talk page, but as I told XMcan in that post, the extra slack due a new user eventually wears out, especially if there is a pattern of repeat behavior after having had a guideline explained. XMcan, I'll just repeat here the request I made on your user talk page: will you please revert your last change at the article Talk page? I'd like to wait one more sleep cycle to give you a chance to respond, and I hope the response will be a self-revert. If that doesn't happen, I think we know where this is heading. Mathglot (talk) 08:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    "I'll justify this later" (which will inevitably result in a WP:SOAPBOX) shouldn't be accepted as a carte blanche excuse for disruptive or bad behaviour. That authority shouldn't be allocated to the person in question, whom multiple editors are now complaining about, whom multiple warnings have already been given, and who has already had action taken against them recently. Slack has already been given, and rejected by this user. 14.202.188.111 (talk) 06:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just as a note, XMcan just broke the 3RR by restoring the section in question a fourth time, after multiple editors explained why it isn't appropriate for an article talk page (and after their comment above): [147][148][149][150]. I also think that comments like this one strain the presumption of good faith - I wrote a lengthy post noting that the overwhelming majority of the sources presented in that discussion simply do not seem to say what was claimed and therefore their usage appeared to be OR (obviously a very pressing problem), and XMcan's response was to object to the words seemed and appears. I don't think there's any reasonable way to read that as anything but an attempt to derail the discussion - an editor can't clip words out of context like that to avoid the main point by accident. Additionally, note the attempt to invoke actual policy there; it shows that XMcan has been here long enough to know what magic words to try and use in that context. I don't think they ought to be treated as a new or inexperienced user - it's clear they know what they're doing and are doing it deliberately. The fact that they would resume an edit war after commenting in this discussion shows that they just don't care and have no intention of complying with our policies. Similarly, from the revisions above, note [151] where they plaintively asked someone to point them to a relevant policy; then note their earlier revert [152] where they removed a comment by someone pointing them to the relevant policy. --Aquillion (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Anankiaushdud & List of awards and nominations received by Rakul Preet Singh

    Previous ANI report and block on 26 November - [153] Reporting for similar behavior again. Obsessed with Rakul Preet Singh and is repeatdly trying to create the awards list but BLP does not have enough awards to have a separate list. Warned multiple times previously.

    • Changes the image again for no reason without changing the caption [154]
    • They have edited logged out after the 48 hour block WP:EVASION [155]
    • Recreated the same awards and nominations list that was previously moved to draft. [156]. At this point, it has no sources.
    • List is completely sourced from IMDb as mentioned by themselves [157]
    • Vandalizing other lists [158] and [159]

    Jeraxmoira (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging active admins Aoidh and Ponyo as Anankiaushdud is currently active. Jeraxmoira (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Vidpro23 keeps removing the animated Nelvana specials

    This user, Vidpro23, keeps removing the animated Nelvana specials (A Cosmic Christmas, The Devil and Daniel Mouse, Romie-0 and Julie-8, Intergalactic Thanksgiving, The Jack Rabbit Story (Easter Fever) and Take Me Up to the Ball Game) from the List of Warner Bros. Discovery television programs page. Could you please just give him a warning about it? AdamDeanHall (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtesy link: Seemingly an identical ANI discussion four months ago. Remsense留 22:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Perennial racism, islamophobia, and personal attacks

    (non-admin closure) Cullen328 indefinitely blocked Basvossen for repeated misconduct of various kinds. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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



    User:Basvossen posted here in a way which immediately came off as rude at best given the person they were speaking about in their linked post. The behavior found thereafter on the rest of their talk page is clearly unacceptable, and they should likely not be here. Remsense留 23:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I was just coming here to post this Teahouse thread. Some diffs, for convenience:
    That last one is from 2015. The behaviour isn't going anywhere, and their edits to articles aren't getting any more useful either. -- asilvering (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indef as WP:NOTHERE. Scorpions1325 (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indefinitely blocked Basvossen for repeated misconduct of various kinds. Cullen328 (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Repeated and misleading edit summaries

    That much is obvious, per a view of the edit history and a comparison with the edits themselves [160]. ‎Improved overall readability and consistency is the current default summary; previously Reviewed and refined the text to enhance its lucidity and rectified any errors in spelling, grammar, and external links as well as eliminated any extraneous Wikilinks was favored. User was notified of this in October [161], to no avail. Which is a surprise, given their industriousness in creating and sourcing articles, especially for underrepresented subjects. Using these boilerplate summaries hundreds of times is kind of a red flag. I've begun to address this at their talk page, along with concerns about paraphrased content and npov, but that isn't going well, either [162]. It's not clear that they understood the edit summary concern in October, or now. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey @2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63
    Thank you for addressing the issue. After going through my edit summaries two hours, I recognized the same identical verbiage in most of them. When a fellow Wikipedian drew attention to this issue, I first thought he was talking about the external and extraneous Wikilinks in the article, as seen in my response. I responded to him without addressing his edit summary suggestion, assuming he was talking about the article summary style and its external and extraneous Wiki links. Similarly, When you left a notice a few hours ago, I responded to you in the same vein, assuming your concern was also about external and extraneous Wiki links. Hence, my responses were directed towards the article writing summary style rather than your edit summary suggestion. I now understand your points in more detail (indicated in italics), and I apologize for any inconvenience. I’m not saying this just because you brought up the issue here, but it stems from a conscientious reflection of my actions and also my apologies for those injudicious remarks on my talk page. Thanks for the heads-up! EdwinAlden.1995 (talk) 06:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ANI responses written by ChatGPT (or equivalent) are never charming. 50.235.11.61 (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, Sherlock, you've uncovered the literary culprit! It seems ChatGPT's fingerprints are all over this text! I hope your charm doesn't get lost in the syntax. Nobody wants any codependent relationships! EdwinAlden.1995 (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin closure) Jauerback blocked Mhoneyblog. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


    See Special:Diff/1187894382. Uhai (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User is blocked until they retract their threat of legal action. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 04:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:BeingObjective

    This user has repeatedly shown disregard for Wikipedia's policies, as evidenced in previous incidents, for example diff. They were blocked twice for these very reasons prior.

    Recently, they took up a bunch of GA reviews, gave very poor-quality reviews, and bailed. All of their GA reviews have been invalidated.

    I raised my concern regarding this on their talk page diff but it was instantly reverted within a minute diff without any response.

    This consistent pattern of behavior demonstrates a lack of willingness to collaborate constructively with other editors, which is fundamental to building an encyclopedia. I believe this issue warrants further attention. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I request investigation into this users broader acerbic and constant attacks and hostile tone--WikiLinuz . The aforementioned is disingenuous and also reflects at pattern on non-constructive behavior by --WikiLinuz
    The reverts without any meaningful explanations have caused other editors a lot of distress and angst.
    This is likely more a case of constant attacks and harassment.
    WP:Wikipedia:Harassment Doctor BeingObjetive MD. BeingObjective 04:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not being harrased. Repeatedly accusing other editors of harassment simply because you disagree with them is not helpful. There has been a pattern of this behavior. --WikiLinuz (talk) 05:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's allowed to delete your comment from his talk page, WikiLinuz. Doing so is not disruptive. It means he's seen your comment and has chosen not to reply to you about it.—S Marshall T/C 10:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the substance of this complaint -- well, this user has seen the entrenched, permanent, and horrible backlog at GA, provided a bunch of GA reviews which (in my view) fall very far below GA quality norms, and they've all been reverted. This was a mistake, and new users are allowed to make mistakes. Importantly, before you started this thread, BeingObjective acknowledged that he'd made a mistake and committed to learn from it here.
        In an unrelated matter, as you rightly point out, a couple of months ago, when he was even newer, BeingObjective was blocked for edit-warring. This was also a mistake, and it hasn't been repeated.
        This is a user who's in the process of adapting to Wikipedian culture and Wikipedian norms. He's made what I and I think most Wikipedians would describe as errors, but if he's been disruptive, at all, then (a) I can't see it from looking at his recent contributions, and (b) you haven't provided the diffs to support the allegation. I think that now that you, WikiLinuz, have called this user disruptive -- you need to prove it or retract it.—S Marshall T/C 11:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Are you sure they are in the process of adapting to Wikipedia culture and norms? This thread over the last 15 hours (and this, their latest edit) doesn't look much like that. DeCausa (talk) 11:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I came close a while ago to blocking BO for some sort of combination of WP:NOTHERE and WP:DE. They have been bouncing about all over the place, in terms of "I'm retiring", "I'm not retiring", I'm an expert and I know best, and it goes on like that. All this from an editor who didn't create an account until October of this year. The bull in the china shop syndrome. Things become a little clearer when you see evidence of disruption well before the creation of an account by Special:contributions/172.220.81.119, who just left two identical messages on two admin Talk pages, Mz7 and Liz, admitting to being BO, saying again they will not be returning to Wikipedia (why bother telling anyone this?), and complaining about other editors, especially (surprise) WikiLunz. If you look at the history of this IP, you can see that they were blocked by ToBeFree last June for two weeks for disruptive editing; in other words, the disruptive behavior by this person is hardly new. If you look at the IP's edit filter log, you'll see even more aggressive, inappropriate behavior of a similar ilk (trying to edit another user's userpage putting the word VANDALISM on it (disallowed)). Just happens to be the user who I believe reported the copyright violations by BO. That's enough to go on. Me I'm gonna ponder a little more what's best to do at this point. I seriously doubt that BO is going to stay away from Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Mildly concerning behavior by User:Lexarike

    While not all of their edits are unconstructive, a fairly significant chunk of their mainspace edits fall into one of three categories:

    • Changing the phrasing in articles about buildings to say that the buildings were "erected" instead of "constructed" or "built": [163] [164]
    • Adding the word "dastardly" to articles: [165] [166]
    • Adding an archaic synonym for "greedy" that is shockingly close to a slur:[167] [168]

    They have been warned for several of these edits, but the warnings are usually removed from their talk page fairly quickly: [169] [170]

    While I'd like to try and assume good faith, the nature of the almost-slur edits leads me to believe that this is just thinly-veiled trolling. miranda :3 05:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    maybeitsmir, this new contributor has less than 50 edits. This noticeboard is to discuss chronic, intractable behavioral problems. You say that this is Mildly concerning, and therefore I recommend that you discuss your concerns with a detailed, personalized message on their talk page. If they are here to troll, and perhaps you are right about that, then such a discussion would probably reveal that. Cullen328 (talk) 06:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That "archaic synonym" is a synonym fro "miserly", not fot "greedy". It seems that Lexarike doesn't know this, so their reason for using it is suspect. Maproom (talk) 07:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thinly-veiled indeed. Lexarike is one of our frequent fliers, now CU-blocked. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And they have been changing built or building to erected, so they need reverted as well. Canterbury Tail talk 14:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Khnv and User:Quick Editing

    This user keeps promoting their YouTube channel on the page Kashyap Jyoti Borah and I'm starting to suspect they are WP:NOTHERE. Despite adding CSD tags due to A7 and G11 on that page, another user repeatedly removes CSD tags to bypass prevention of CSD tag removals. – 64andtim (talk) 06:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

     Comment: I have also requested salting of this page to either autoconfirmed users, EC editors or admins; Quick Editing may be a possible sock of Khnv. – 64andtim (talk) 06:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect they are a sock. There are several other accounts, now blocked, who have been trying to create these same articles and moving them around to different page titles over the past 3 or 4 days. Admins can look at the deleted edits for Kashyap Jyoti Borah (KSHP VLOGS) to see the other blocked accounts. I can see that User:Materialscientist blocked one of them so they might be familiar with the sockmaster. Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We may have to add the title to the title blacklist in case deleting pages and salting measures were insufficient. – 64andtim (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    64andtim, you can see all of the previous socks at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kashyap's ReAction Channel. They are very persistent over the past few weeks but have a narrow focus so I think in the future you can report any ones you see creating similar articles on minor YouTube channels. Liz Read! Talk! 06:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand, but do I report suspected socks here or at the SPI? It doesn't look like there is an SPI for the sockmaster. – 64andtim (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked, deleted, salted, checked, and tagged. – bradv 06:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin closure) The IP address has been blocked by 331dot, and Daniel has re-implemented semi-protection. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


    178.222.31.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    Not the first time he's done it[171] — Czello (music) 09:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked by 331dot and I have re-implemented the semi-protection. Daniel (talk) 09:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Japanese Bias Editor Problem

    Hello, I like to report my recent edits on Moro people, Liver (Food), Free China (Second Sino Japanese War) and Japanese migration to Indonesia has been recently reverted with a user I have trouble with for a while, NmWTfs85lXusaybq.

    His reason for reverting is nonsense with the most common used reason, Neutral Point of View violation. He had use that reason as his justification of reverting.

    However, my edits have never violate the NPOV. My edits on the liver (food) article covered all the historical parts where different people had eat human liver, so it makes no sense to say I am not neutral. I have covered religion and both side in wars eating livers

    Not only that, my edits has follow the source carefully, I am just adding the information indicated by the source. Not to mention the references are reliable and active to Wikipedia standard. His accusation on those edits like failed verification and NPOV fails.

    Not to mention, he usually strike at my edit whenever I edit Japanese related topic, I believe he is a Japanese nationalist who dislike my edits which include either war crimes or getting defeated. I am tired at the fact that my edits are harassed whenever I edit a Japanese related info.

    I hope I can finish the problem soon.

    Yaujj13 (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    If any of your edits have been reverted the first thing to do is to start a conversation on the article talk page, which you do not seem to have done, and then if you don't achieve consensus to follow the steps at WP:DR. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's see how Yaujj13 issued the ANI notice on my talk page: I really don't like ever since you reverted the edits, looking at your talk page, you are really just an asshole. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the problem is more likely to be not enough of this editor's massive unattributed cuts-and-pastes from other articles getting reverted than too many. —Cryptic 13:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Let us also look at this editor's removal of a warning from their talkpage compared with the ANI notice that they delivered to the same editor (linked above). I don't think the OP is a net positive at all here. Black Kite (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JackkBrown

    User was blocked for 72 hours on November 15th by Tamzin for disruptive editing. Once the block expired, user returned to making disruptive edits and engaging in uncivil discussion on talk pages, as can be see in the sections following User talk:JackkBrown § November 2023 2. Persistent editing issues include a refusal to use edit summaries, WP:OWN, and WP:POINT. If he responds to criticism, it's WP:DONTGETIT. Apocheir (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Apocheir: good evening gentle user, where are destructive edits? I have been told to avoid removing superfluous spaces, etc. (and that I can only do so if this "correction" is part of an edit that includes much more important changes) and I haven't done it again, and I have never responded uncivilly but always politely; I honestly don't understand all this fury about me. In any case, I apologise, although I don't quite understand where I went wrong this time (I was also warned not to impose lowercase letters in paragraph titles, and since I have been warned I haven't done it again). JackkBrown (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Apocheir: however, you wrote me "like an upset child", I simply replied that it's not nice to write something like that. JackkBrown (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JackkBrown, please use the preview button when editing. You did not need to use 15 separate edits to write this. – bradv 19:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bradv: you are right and I take note, unfortunately operating from a mobile phone it is difficult to make a single change, as it could happen that I lose connection or the page is automatically reloaded and I would lose all my changes (speaking of changes to pages, not discussion pages). JackkBrown (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Beccaynr misusing 3RR exemption for edit warring

    Anyone can review this revert by Beccaynr which he is making by citing WP:3RRBLP only because he does not like the content. This is after he was already told in an earlier revert that he is "not exempted from edit warring here".

    There is absolutely no WP:BLP violation because the content is clearly supported by the reliable source as already discussed here on WP:BLPN.

    Until now, Beccaynr has made 7 reverts in 29 hours for reverting the same content by providing misleading edit summaries.[172][173][174][175][176][177][178] Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 19:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1187997380"