Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

• 136.143.218.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 162.221.124.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 216.165.208.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 216.165.208.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 172.98.156.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 136.143.217.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 66.22.174.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.166.119.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 136.143.222.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 168.91.61.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 172.98.144.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 172.98.151.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 206.176.157.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 45.58.94.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 204.197.177.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)"

[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)

That IP has been blocked by Widr. CMD (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

Do you know which talk page? Secretlondon (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

It's Talk:Noktundo Sunnyediting99 (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

IP has shifted to [Talk:List of territorial disputes] using Special:Contributions/172.98.151.41 Sunnyediting99 (talk) 05:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(Non-administrator comment) I don’t think it’s a reliable source though… Equalwidth (C) 05:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Yea it's probably not a reliable source, though as AP stated, it only took them several weeks of ANI notices and dozens of topic posts to finally bring up a source.

Honestly very exhausting and absurd that they could have done this from the beginning but instead chose vandalism and insults towards users Sunnyediting99 (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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:

• First friendly advice: user talk:Mndata2#Unexplained addition of upright tags to thumbnails. No response. User started to provide terse edit summaries but continued to add unexplained upright= tags.
  • Advice reiterated by user:Pyrope. No response
• Mndata ignored the polite requests and continued disruptive editing: given a uw-disruptive2. No response.
• Disruptive editing continued, given a uw-disruptive3. No response.
• Disruptive editing continued, given a second uw-disruptive3 warning. No response.
• Disruptive editing continued: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41] [42]. Given a uw-disruptive4 final warning.
  • Request reiterated by user:Murgatroyd49. No response.
• Disruption continued next day: [43], [44], [45] (twice).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Out of their 21k+ editing history, they've only made two edits outside of mainspace. Two. Once on Talk:Michael Collins (astronaut) in 2021 and once on their own talk page in 2022. It is also worth raising the issue that their edit summaries are not representative of their changes. "Added comma" also changed the upright, but made no mention of it. Same with "Added link". They need to WP:ENGAGE, and it seems like after over a week of trying to get their attention, they are not responding. SWinxy (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

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

• FuzzyMagma has previously been warned for copyright issues (see section "Copyright problem: Republican Palace (Sudan)").
• I first noticed their edits when dying posted an extensive cross examination at WT:DYK, as part of a dispute over a DYK nomination (see first collapsible section below).
• FuzzyMagma's response was one of open contempt: "I saw the name dying and stopped reading tbh."
• Because of the clear close paraphrasing and refusal to acknowledge fault, I gave them a warning on their talk page. They immediately reverted with the edit summary "Don’t spam my talk with rubbish".
• In the five days since that warning, they have continued to add close paraphrasing to articles (see second collapsible section below).
• Yesterday, theleekycauldron opened a CCI to discuss FuzzyMagma's edits. FM's response focuses predominantly on other editors' conduct, insinuating that dying had not randomly selected the article Kalakla to look at, and only vaguely addressing the masses of close paraphrasing in their own edits: I am not saying that I have not made mistakes, I have made plenty but ...

Part of dying's source-text analysis, originally without tables at WT:DYK (20/11/2023)

Source 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 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 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 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 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

Post-warning close paraphrasing (21–25/11/2023)

Source 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, 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

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)

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)

“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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

  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)

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)

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)

That seems like a good solution to me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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:

• these two sources fail to verify. the first is clear that it rarely occurred, the second is about dung as fuel (not meat), and also that
• Grorp "replaced a tertiary source (okstate) and an unreliable source containing gibberish (horseranger)".

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)

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)

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)

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)

The far paraphrasing is a much bigger problem than the close paraphrasing. Levivich (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• 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.

• source: It is mainly intended for equestrian sport , namely races in the Khartoum region (citing Delachaux et Niestlé. p.412,

FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

@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)

• 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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

ok will do that starting with Islamism in Sudan. I will do it in few weeks FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Reminds me of Doug Coldwell. Levivich (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

I do quite admire FuzzyMagma's commitment to trying to remain in control of the discussion by not addressing any of the relevant details: as I said a week ago they actively dismiss any warnings about their editing and do not properly acknowledge their mistakes. All along, this discussion has been about FM's inability to use sources correctly. As they are, by their own admission, very busy until Christmas, one might think that they use what little time they have to address these issues. But do they? Absolutely not. They are far more concerned with other issues—they love accusing others of "using their own words" (ironic, really), or false/biased/skewed/unfair reasoning, or perhaps "forgetting" that they cited French Wikipedia or a random blog while complaining that others need to focus on the problems.

Of course, they aren't taking these accusations lightly, so they're making sure to acknowledge their errors, through comments like 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 🤦‍♂️ or if you have a comment be constructive, you do not need to use gatekeeping antics. Just address the issue and leave.

Levivich is absolutely right; this is a mini-Doug Coldwell situation. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Duly advised. Thanks for the tip. I've had enough for a while anyway. – Sca (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  I've learned, and changed my conception of Wiki to a more serious or businesslike one. -- Sca (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  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)

• 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)
• Oppose I remember and have reread the original ANI and am again surprised by the lack of acceptance of what others saw ~ even if it was unintended, it still came across as utilising an ethnic stereotype. Furthermore, in this very request Sca shows that he still doesn't understand the issue as he tries to convince us by a book he's reading that he doesn't have bad views. Doesn't matter what he reads or who he is, it's the editing that counts. So i'm afraid i find Sca's request to be insufficient and still somewhat blind to the causes of the pblock. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 10:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

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 ([52] and [53]).

I suspect, based on previous reverts ([54]) 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)

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)

@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)

+1 Paul August ☎ 01:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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:

• June 2016: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive926#Beyond My Ken's banning Wikipedians from user talk page (and incivility) (no action)
• June 2016: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive927#User:Beyond My Ken reverting maintenance edits without explanation (no action)
• June 2016: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive928#User:Beyond My Ken (no consensus for a warning)
• March 2019: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1004#Proposed image-placement topic ban for Beyond My Ken (BMK restricted from placing images in certain ways)
• April 2021: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1065#Beyond My Ken disruptively editing ("BMK, you do good work, stop giving people a reason to bring you here")
• November 2022: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1113#Stale revert war and refusal to discuss at List of warez groups (BMK reprimanded)

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)

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)

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)

@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: [55] (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)

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)

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)

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)

EducatedRedneck, I think an indef block for this is excessive. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Response by Beyond My Ken

As mentioned above, I've had some very serious family events going on which have distracted me since the end of June. My participation here has been minimal, and the effort I've put into my editing has been poor, which has lead up to this situation.

I've had time now to review this thread, and my actions at Induced demand, and I substantively agree that my behavior has been very poor, and not at all up to the standards of what is expected from Wikipedia editors, or, for that matter, which I expect of myself. As suggested by multiple commenters, to "stonewall" without explanation is not acceptable: I should have provided the reasoning behind my objection to the changes that User:HTGS made, and fully participated in the consensus discussion they started. My failure to do so was entirely wrong.

I apologize to the community, and specifically to HTGS, for my rude behavior, and I formally withdraw my objections to the changes they wish to make to the article.

My personal situation is ongoing, but not interminable, and it was my intention not to edit in any major way until it had passed and I was able to edit with a clearer mind and fewer distractions; in fact, I contemplated asking for a self-block for a month or so to help me in carrying that out, but ended up not doing that.

If, as a result of the discussion above, some sort of sanction is deemed necessary by the community, I stand willing to accept it, although I do hope that it won't be required.

I'm not sure that I have much more to say about this incident, so I don't plan to comment further here unless someone has specific issues they wish me to address, in which case I request a ping to make me aware of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Separate to, and before any discussion of administrative questions or sanctions, I want to say thank you, Beyond My Ken. I appreciate and accept your apology, and I sincerely wish you the very most kindness and grace in your personal life. I understand fully the compulsive draw that Wikipedia can have, and I trust that even if other editors can find you… troublesome at times, you wouldn’t have the record you do if you didn’t care about the encyclopedia. — HTGS (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

HTGS My deepest appreciation for your gracious response. I hope that editing Wikipedia will continue to be for you the great pleasure that it has been for me for the vast majority of my time here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I also want to thank Beyond My Ken for their thoughtful response here, particularly given the personal circumstances, and echo HTGS' well wishes. This seems to me to be an ideal outcome; BMK has given a strong indication that there won't be future stonewalling, and given the stressful personal time, I find that remarkable and commendable. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [56]) 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)

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)

@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:

• Kuroiwa's goby
• Drag chromis
• Shade damselfish
• Honeytail demoiselle
• Nipponic blenny
• Parrot wrasse
• Tapanahoni Pleco
• Creole pleco
• Rigid spiny pleco
• Beige stream pleco
• Pauya pleco
• Erica's pleco
• Wood-sucker pleco
• Starry pleco
• Cordova pleco
• Rock pleco
• Bolivian stream pleco
• Black-dotted pleco
• Painted spiny pleco
• Iguazu spotted pleco
• Brazilian stream pleco
• Mud black pleco
• Palauan anthias
• Mato Grosso astyanax
• Naked moray
• Flame hogfish
• Barrier Reef flasher wrasse
• Javanese blaasop
• Red Sea deep-water toby
• Glassy goby
• Natal dartfish
• Kleinenberg's morid
• Agassiz's flapjack octopus
• Noronha dragonfish

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:

• move Atoll demoiselle to Pomacentrus xanthocercus without leaving a redirect
• move Island cusk-eel to Ophidion zavalai without leaving a redirect
• move Fukui's candy hogfish to Terelabrus zonalis without leaving a redirect; then I can point the existing correct common name redirect Striped hogfish to Terelabrus zonalis

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

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)

Thanks, @The Blade of the Northern Lights, that's a new one for me! Valereee (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

User:WMrapids (blanking)

The editor WMrapids has repeatedly blanked sourced content from articles:[57][58][59][60][61][62][63]. Despite having warned against this several times ([64][65][66][67]) (and admittedly restoring the removal in the Colectivo (Venezuela) article), WMrapids has continued with these removals: [68][69][70][71][72][73][74]. 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: [75]

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 ([76][77][78][79]). 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)

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[80][81], Guarimba[82][83] 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[84][85][86][87][88][89][90] and Guarimba[91][92]. Some significant blanking by NoonIcarus involved removing controversial information related to the Venezuelan opposition, specifically Globovisión[93][94] and Alberto Federico Ravell[95]. 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)

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:[96][97]; 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:[98] 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)

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)

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,[99][100][101][102] 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)

WMrapids filed a request at DRN for moderated dispute resolution at 00:14, 2 December, about twelve hours after NoonIcarus filed this report. I closed the report at DRN because the dispute was already pending in another forum, here. It appears that this dispute is not being addressed here, but maybe I am being either too optimistic or too pessimistic. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

IP Seasons

• 75.39.37.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:408:C500:2000:284C:859:A7D4:4F5D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:408:C500:2000:8F9:7068:FBD4:E0BE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:408:C500:2000:95C0:C699:5241:1031 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:408:C500:2000:3D4F:A901:6049:ACFE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

2601:408:C500:2000:B599:1A1C:C1FD:A4C4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This one too! Scoophole2021 (talk). 02:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

2601:408:C500:2000:ED87:830F:6E4F:B3A4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) And also this one Scoophole2021 (talk). 11:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Azmarai76

User:Azmarai76 has been repeatedly edit warring and making a series of unconstructive edits to Swati tribe[103][104][105][106][107], 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.[108] 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.[109][110][111] 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. [112][113] Sutyarashi (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Dani and Haroon ur Rasheed were the references that I provided which you dont want to accept. Similarly you still need to tell us all where has Angluish written in his book that Sultanate of Swat was collection of many Dardic states??... Do tell all that what you said about British authors not WP:RAJ but "British Servants" and deleted your comment. Didnt you?? Do tell others how you were reported on these pages for sockpuppetry also.Azmarai76

You nowhere provided reference of Dani, and I told about Haroon ur Rasheed that he is not expert. I have nowhere deleted my any comment and never once I have been reported at ANI "for sockpuppetry". Your replies and accusations (without providing a single piece of evidence) make me think that now WP:CIR block maybe even necessary, especially after seeing that all of your edits are in contentious topics under WP:ARBIP.

@Ivanvector: can you please check the replies Azmarai76 has so far made? Sutyarashi (talk) 10:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Do remember you did tell me that user Huzaifa reported you for sockpuppetry...and were angry with it. Are you going to tell me Angluish never mentioned Sultanate of Swat was a collection of Dardic states where did these sentences come from??? If we stick to academic discourse we can improve these pages otherwise no advantage. Azmarai76

No, I have never been reported for sockpuppetry by some user Huzaifa. This is yet another lie you have made up on the spot. I wish administrators just see into this matter. Sutyarashi (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support block of appropriate length; editor is clearly on a WP:RGW mission. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Sutyarashi

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [114] that had to be mass reverted. I can pull up some diffs. Mason (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

(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)

What is the place for that please ? Frenchl (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

As I stated several times, you can bring this larger concern to categories for discussion [115], [116], [117]. 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." [118]. So we're here, at ANI. @GiantSnowman and Liz: might have thoughts as involved admin [119] [120] Mason (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

No, that's not my interpretation of the rule but its application. Frenchl (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

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 ([121]). Frenchl (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how this ended up at ANI, but Frenchl appears to be correct on the merits, and it does seem like there should be some cleanup in these categories that are blurring "From" with "Nationality". Plenty of people might be born in place X but not be Xian (e.g. Steve Jeltz, part of Category:Major League Baseball players from France which eventually hits Category:French sportspeople as a parent category - that seems wrong, Jeltz was never French.). Granted, maybe this will end up with even more category bloat if there's parallel "From" and "Nationality" categories that usually match but not always, but eh. SnowFire (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  The whole area can be a nightmare, definitely best kept well away from ANI. For two British examples, Joe Strummer (born in Turkey but never Turkish) and Boris Johnson (born in USA and therefore American until he renounced his citizenship). Narky Blert (talk) 07:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Fully agree. Pure disruption and refusal to listen, which is a standard way of editing for them. GiantSnowman 21:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Frenchl, please read my last edit. This noticeboard is about behaviour, not content. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• I have since moved the page QuillBot back to mainspace, but all can be seen in the edit history. Comintell (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Did you try and discuss it with Praxidicae first, and give them reasonable timeframe to reply to you, before bringing it here? The top of this page says "Consider first discussing the issue on the user's talk page". Daniel (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
    • Checking your editing history and Praxidicae's talk page, I see you didn't. If the word "negligence" is going to start getting thrown around, I consider this as significant a failure as anything Praxidicae may have done. Daniel (talk) 06:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
      • I will admit my faults, I am a newer user. However, the other Wikipedian is not. I am appealing to his tenure and my lack thereof. My apologies for making this mistake. Comintell (talk) 07:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
        • I'm not really buying the coming the raw prawn routine when at the same time I'm reading edit summaries like "Contested AfD, sources meet WP:OGCRIT and WP:SIRS" and "Sources may not demonstrate notability based on WP:ANYBIO and WP:SPORTSPERSON. References seem to be trivial or mere listings." Uncle G (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• WP:DRAFTOBJECT is part of an essay, which editors and admins are free to ignore if they have good reasons for doing so. Fram (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  ☝️ GRINCHIDICAE🎄 18:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  I strongly agree with Fram here. I was pressured under threat of block into surrendering my reviewer right after this essay was quoted to me and I replied that it was merely an essay. As it turns out, all my draftifications as a reviewer were well-founded. This essay is abused far too often to hamper the very valuable incubation process. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  That's definitely not an accurate summary of what happened based on your talk page. CC @Joe Roe in case he wants to chime in here since he was involved. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Hey man im josh: He called DRAFTOBJECT relevant policy–apparently a common mistake. diff of discussion up to me requesting to have the right removed. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  WP:ATD-I and WP:CONSENSUS are the relevant policies, to which WP:DRAFTOBJECT serves as an explanatory supplement. Additionally, new page reviewers are expected to follow WP:DRAFTIFY (the whole thing) as part of the project's internal guidelines. – Joe (talk) 09:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  That's really weird–suggesting that I failed to follow a guideline (not even technically a community guideline) that didn't contain a version of NPPDRAFT that I could have been construed as violating until 9 September, 2.5 months after the fact. Also, I didn't even violate any consensus-approved version of ATD-I. I really don't like an essay being given policy-level weight because it was added to a project's guidelines. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why Praxidicae gets singled out here. This has also been moved into draft space by Zoglophie, and BoraVoro, and the right way to deal with the situation had already been exemplified by Liz. Uncle G (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  the fact that he is hesitant to let reviewers decide that his page is suitable for namespace or not suggests his insecurity about the notability of the draft. His action may not violate Wikipedia guidelines, but he shouldn't have moved the page himself. zoglophie^•talk• 09:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  I was told I did not have to AfC it and that it was optional. The other editors were within the right to do it because the other one reverted it.

  If an article is draftified, may I move it back or not? Is the answer no, yes, or " yes, but you really should do..." Comintell (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Comintell: Draft space is optional and you are under no obligation to go through the AfC process. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Zoglophie: There's absolutely no reason that he shouldn't move the draft himself, unless he has a COI that I'm unaware of. Draft space is optional and the AfC process is not mandatory (except for those editors with editing restrictions). Hey man im josh (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  They clearly have some sort of COI but aside from that, I don't really care what happens here, but I will point out that WP:DRAFTOBJECT is an essay, not a policy but I do not care nor do I have the time or energy to debate why this editors move to mainspace is disruptive and silly. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 17:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  By "they", you mean me, and @Hey man im josh?? That's a more serious accusation than even negligence. Comintell (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  No @Comintell. @Praxidicae is stating that, in their view, it's clear you have a conflict of interest and are connected in some way to the topic that you're writing about (QuillBot). Hey man im josh (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I think you have a blatant connection and are unable to write an article that is actually encyclopedic without a second set of eyes. I said nothing about @Hey man im josh. Context clues, my friend. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 18:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  There's copy tags for a reason. If you did any research, you would see I have shown what projects I am working on, tied to topics that are important parts of history.

  Believe whatever helps you sleep better at night, but the fact still remains, I feel like you conducted a quick review. None the less thanks for your contributions/cleanup Comintell (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  I did research and I stand by my statement. When will you disclose your obvious connection? GRINCHIDICAE🎄 19:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  You're so haughty. This is the problem with Wikipedia. The closest connection I have was using the software in college. Comintell (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  I've moved it to Draftspace upon MY own volition, so I can conduct additional review and make determinations. Comintell (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  Whatever floats your boat. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 20:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Ah! This puts #GPTZero earlier on this noticeboard into context. Uncle G (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  How? Comintell (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Just to add that user was previously given similar advice.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

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 [122],[123],[124].

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 on 1:50 , also Asianet (TV channel)(acv) 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)

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 on 1:50 , also Asianet (TV channel)(acv) 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)

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)

Also the content you added is completely absent from any written and verifiable sources , (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)

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 :

'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. Add your contents only under the last discussion

Afv12e (talk) Afv12e (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Also the fact is that all of the written sources by the same media houses you mentioned given in the page as well as from outside do not talk anything about this. 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)

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)

So you have not checked the source earlier and removed sourced content multiple times from the article like you did here[125] [126][127] 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)

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)

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 Bilgiljilll (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

• I've blocked Bilgiljilll as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

References

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)

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)

You've done it all incorrectly though, so please go back and revert your changes, then upload the new files so that they can be checked for having the correct licensing. Seasider53 (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

You could do worse than this source for an explanation. jps (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@ජපස: If you are going to accuse someone of being a "low-grade troll on classic right-wing talking point topics" and call for them to be banned, you need to give actual evidence of this being true, and this means you need to do better than than vaguely saying that you think that they like a psychology book that was written by a guy you think sucks. jp×g🗯️ 21:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The evidence is straightforward: I am saying that literally all of this account's contributions are to the effect that I am outlining. I am challenging you and everyone else to come up with a single contribution that is not in service of the kind of trollish advocacy to skew Wikipedia towards Heterodox Academy-like perspectives. Above, the proposal was that edits to Happiness and Philosophy of happiness were not in line with this and I just showed that, in fact, they are. jps (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Haidt is an “IDW ringleader”? Uh, citation needed. The page on the Intellectual Dark Web says nothing about him, nor does his page ever mention the IDW. I’m getting the impression that because Haidt holds some conservative-leaning views and is moderately controversial you’re trying to force that into your argument that XMcan is a right-wing troll. Dronebogus (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Bari Weiss didn't include Haidt in her initial offerings, but it's pretty easy to find sources which link his Heterodox Academy to the same phenomenology. Heterodox Academy is a see also in our page on the IDW. This is not a forced argument. There is a fairly strong connection between these characters. I am not making these connections up. jps (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

  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[128]. 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)

  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)

"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)

• 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): [129][130][131][132]. 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 [133] where they plaintively asked someone to point them to a relevant policy; then note their earlier revert [134] where they removed a comment by someone pointing them to the relevant policy. --Aquillion (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  XMCan doesn't appear to care about 3RR or norms, they are simply regurgitating right wing conspiracy sock info. Andre🚐 21:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh look at that, it led to a WP:SOAPBOX statement that Wikipedia is turning people into right-wing conspiracy theorists. 14.202.188.111 (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

— 14.202.188.111 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Are you referring to this reply? --Aquillion (talk) 03:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

---

Previous ANI report and block on 26 November - [135] 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 [136]
• They have edited logged out after the 48 hour block WP:EVASION [137]
• Recreated the same awards and nominations list that was previously moved to draft. [138]. At this point, it has no sources.
• List is completely sourced from IMDb as mentioned by themselves [139]
• Vandalizing other lists [140] and [141]

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

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

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

Perennial racism, islamophobia, and personal attacks

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)

I was just coming here to post this Teahouse thread. Some diffs, for convenience:

• anti-Muslim statement on their user talk page
• "my band was not allowed to have a page here"
• Unsourced racist talking point at Affirmative Action, reverted by Rhododendrites, user immediately revenge-blanks Rhododendrites' user page and talk page.

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)

Indef as WP:NOTHERE. Scorpions1325 (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Basvossen for repeated misconduct of various kinds. Cullen328 (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Repeated and misleading edit summaries

• EdwinAlden.1995 (talk · contribs)

That much is obvious, per a view of the edit history and a comparison with the edits themselves [142]. ‎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 [143], 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 [144]. 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)

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)

ANI responses written by ChatGPT (or equivalent) are never charming. 50.235.11.61 (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

Legal threat by Mhoneyblog

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)

User is blocked until they retract their threat of legal action. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 04:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

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

User:BeingObjective

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

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)

  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)

  Reading their talk page, it doesn't seem like English is their first language. They have been trying to make good faith contributions, but has been persistently failing to grasp WP:5P1 and causing a lot of trouble in the process of learning. Sennalen (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

• I'm done pondering and have indeffed BO (see block log for details). I'm not blocking the IP for the moment unless they resume editing. Perhaps the autoblock will prevent them anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  Are the "good bye" messages from the IP allowed after a user account is blocked. I saw 2 "good bye" messages today at

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/172.220.81.119 and personally me have nothing against those messages or against that user, but wanted to know for the future if such practice is generally considered OK. Thank you very much in advance for the information. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Bbb23, sorry, I just noticed that these messages were posted before the user account was blocked. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe the indefinite block is too harsh and we should set an expiration, say, for a week. The user made good contributions to a few articles in medicine. He also deleted my comments from his talk page, but I don't think it was something bad, so I didn't complain. The user is hostile, but I saw much more hostile users and they are not blocked. Just because the user was blocked in the past does not mean that we should indefinitely block for such "offenses" as deleting comments from his user page. I even read somewhere that it is OK to delete because the user talk page is not a hall of shame.

  Another argument for changing the block from indefinite to a timed is that the hostility of this user towards other users was passive, i.e. only he was addressed. He did not come to you and attack you. I read on wikipedia that the best way to prevent personal attacks is just to not reply, that was what I did with that user, and he did not continue. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

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": [145] [146]
• Adding the word "dastardly" to articles: [147] [148]
• Adding an archaic synonym for "greedy" that is shockingly close to a slur:[149] [150]

They have been warned for several of these edits, but the warnings are usually removed from their talk page fairly quickly: [151] [152]

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)

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)

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)

Thinly-veiled indeed. Lexarike is one of our frequent fliers, now CU-blocked. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Blocked, deleted, salted, checked, and tagged. – bradv 06:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

More legal threats from Giovanni Di Stefano (fraudster)

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[153] — Czello ^(music) 09:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Blocked by 331dot and I have re-implemented the semi-protection. Daniel (talk) 09:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Let's have a look at 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)

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)

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)

Yaujj13's edits to Liver (food) are a shocking example of undue weight. Devoting such massive attention to cannibalism in an article that should be about routine culinary practices in various cultures worldwide is a disservice to our readers. Cullen328 (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328 I decided to merge the content into here Human_cannibalism#Livers. I think it needs to be reviewed a lot and I would like @NmWTfs85lXusaybq to look over it and adjust the POV issues. But I do appreciate the work OP put into the section even if it was in the completely wrong article. What are your thoughts on its new home? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 21:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Immanuelle, that is clearly a better location. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328 I did just now substantially reduce the content on the Japanese soldiers and Moro Muslims. I think it's notable, but in the end it is just one guy who isn't exactly an unbiased source that said this, so that was undue weight within the section, and had some biased language like "slaughtered" Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 21:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm OK with your solution and will keep a close eye on their editing behavior. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

My cut and paste is not from other Wikipedia pages but rather from my own edits. I usually do my edit in one day, so I write my own edits privately. And then copy and paste to the wiki pages I am editing.

For the talk page, sorry about that. I will fix my mistake.

And for the cuss words, I just feel frustrated at this point. Yaujj13 (talk) 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Yaujj13 While I did have a bit of a scuffle with @NmWTfs85lXusaybq I can confidently say he is good faith and competent.

Now to cover your edits. I will link them Liver I am unsure whether it is relevant, it has a lot of Wikipedia:Citation overkill for example

• During slaughter of Madurese settlers in the Indonesian ruled part of Borneo island, Dayaks and Malay Indonesians consumed livers of Madurese.

Definitely relatively emotionally charged language. I wouldn't have removed the entire section but I would have tagged the article as overly detailed

Here the edit was reverted due to failed verification. Which is a good reason to revert an edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moro_people&diff=1187106286&oldid=1186717380. imo a citation needed can just be left for a while in case an editor misplaced a source or remembered something from a college lecture or something like that, but a failed verification is just leaving misinformation on wikipedia.

For Japanese migration to Indonesia I think it was a bit harder to tell what was changed. You were Wikipedia:Edit warring which is against protocol here and should have brought it to the dispute resolution noticeboard or talk page

Here's the Free China part but I don't know enough about this to comment. My knowledge of this area is limited.

Overall I think you are escalating these disputes too much and should just try to talk things out with @NmWTfs85lXusaybq since he is pretty reasonable when you try to talk to him as demonstrated here Talk:Saiō Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 21:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

References

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@Bradv: you are right and I take note, unfortunately operating from a mobile phone it's difficult to make a single edit, 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)

JackkBrown, I too edit from a mobile phone. You can always draft a lenghthy response in your sandbox space, making 15 edits or as many as you want, saving frequently, proofreading it as you go, and then copying and pasting it to the right place when it is ready for other people to read. Just a suggestion. Cullen328 (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

As Apocheir rightly noted, I have not compiled the summary of changes lately. In all the changes made tonight/evening, I have explained all the changes. I realised I made a (not small) mistake and I regret that I have created additional work for those who check users' changes. JackkBrown (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block This user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. See their talk for reference. Maliner (talk) 09:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  I want to note that this user was warned multiple times by Jean-de-Nivelle, SMcCandlish, Jonesey95, Tamzin and others. I am also suspecting abuse of multiple accounts (not sure though). Please see this edit. Maybe a CheckUser can help us. Thanks. Maliner (talk) 10:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Behaviorally, Jack and MrFlyingPies23 are very different. If you look two comments above the one you linked, I believe MrFlyingPies23 wasn't replying to you, but rather attempting to follow up on their own message. Or they thought that your warning was a reply to them. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 10:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  My feeling is that JackkBrown is very much here to build an encyclopedia, and is usually acting in good faith, and while I can see that aspects of his behaviour are problematic, I also admire his energy, his commitment to consistency, and his ability to recruit other editors to help make positive changes to articles. I do see that sometimes that takes the form of drawing in other editors to fix the problems that his edits create, but the overall effect is to improve the articles he works on. He's not a very experienced editor yet (and neither am I) but I feel it would be wrong to deny him the opportunity to become one. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 11:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• This report is rather short on diffs, so it's not clear what problem edits we're supposed to be aware of. I have my own issues with the editor in question. JackkBrown has shown a very strong desire to "correct" italicization, either to or away from italics, of loanwords that English has absorbed to different extents from other languages, and trying to help the editor learn how to do this right has sucked up a great deal of my time over the last few weeks (JackkBrown being a multiple-times-per-day visitor to my talk page), and in the end I do not think the editor has the English-language competency, or understanding of our guidelines and templates, to do this properly, and I've said so about 5 times. I have not checked in the last 2 days I think, but the editor was still at this activity recently, and it necessitated a lot of cleanup work on my part later. But that's not grounds for an indef (maybe something like a topic-ban from changing italicization). Early on I gave JackkBrown a new-editor-encouragement barnstar for actually helpful work on cleaning up image captions. And I've since seen various constructive edits, though also ones that seemed to mean well but were not compliant with some guideline or other. As with many new users, they racked up a long string of "you're not doing it right" templates and posts on their talk page (several from me), but that's not in and of itself proof of not improving, since they're not about the same thing. The failure to get the point about italics did strike me as a WP:DONTGETIT issue, but it seemed rather topic-specific.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Beccaynr misusing 3RR exemption for edit warring

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

---

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.[154][155][156][157][158][159][160] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

This was just closed at AN3[161] with no action, and a concern the OP here is forum shopping. Bon courage (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

These 2 new reverts[162][163] came after that report was closed with a note that ANI should be used if concerns are genuine. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Clicked through your link and the admin who closed that explicitly told the OP to take it to ANI if you believe there is a genuine conduct issue. I think it was a mistake to say this rather than permanently resolving the issue, to be clear, but I also don't think it's fair to get mad at AKG for doing what they were told. Loki (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

In the interest of avoiding blocking everyone involved, I've applied full-protection to the page for 2 days while this gets sorted out on the talk page. – bradv 19:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the full page protection. To offer further context, Black Kite wrote in their closure of the ANEW report at 18:31, 2 December 2023 [164] No action Apart from the fact that this filing sounds like forum-shopping as the issue is already at WP:BLPN, I am very reluctant to take action where there is a credible claim of BLP and where the filer has reverted four times in just over 24 hours to re-instate that material. Take it to WP:ANI if you believe there is a genuine conduct issue., and at the related BLPN discussion, wrote at 18:41, 2 December 2023, Note both User:Aman.kumar.goel and User:Dympies have continued to re-add this material while this discussion is underway, and the former also opened a WP:AN3 complaint against Beccaynr, which I have denied as there is a BLP concern (and the filer has been edit-warring themselves). Beccaynr (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Beccaynr, can you please, on the talk page of the article, explain clearly what you think constitutes a BLP violation? I've read through the various diffs and the sources given in the discussion, and I'm still having trouble seeing it. You are claiming a 3RR exemption because of a BLP concern – the onus is on you to clearly explain your objection. – bradv 20:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Bradv, I appreciate your mention of challenges with discussions in this somewhat complex CTOPs area; I will first add some information here that may be relevant to conduct issues that from my view, seem to have become difficult to manage only with requests to focus on the content during discussions, and perhaps if addressed may make it easier to have a more clear discussion. This BLP subject is reported by multiple sources to be targeted by harassment and death threats, so attempts to push what appears to be an inflammatory POV about her into the article, that appears to be unsupported by multiple independent and reliable secondary sources, seems to be a particular risk to her, and I can continue to try to better explain this after I finish posting here. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

You are saying that are making reverts against what is reliably sourced only because you find it to be "an inflammatory POV" and believe it is posing "a particular risk to her". This is nothing but outright personally motivated WP:POV pushing on your part. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Bradv, it is not needed for Beccaynr to do such a thing on the talk page, please see Talk:Divya Dwivedi#Unsourced contentious content and WP:BLP policy. I suspect that you have missed this discussion entirely.—Alalch E. 20:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

But Beccaynr hasn't pointed out where is the BLP violation there either. He has only claimed it exists. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I read that discussion. But I also watched the interview in question, in which she says almost verbatim what is being inserted into the lede. So I ask Beccaynr again, which text, specifically, constitutes a BLP violation? – bradv 21:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Bradv, I just replied below about how you had directed us elsewhere to continue discussing the content, and how the ANEW report closed with a finding of a credible claim of BLP. And I recently added diffs below of conduct concerns that I feel have made collaborative discussion challenging, which seems appropriate for this forum. I believe within the framework and spirit of BLP policy, we need more than one sensationalized video that multiple sources have reported led to harassment and death threats against the subject of the article, and editors should not independently select content that echoes the sensationalized subheadline from the contemporary news article that published the video.

The article includes a quote from the video supported by multiple independent and reliable secondary sources and the news article; this is not an issue; the article includes content from the Indian Express essay sourced to an independent and reliable secondary source (and there is another that could be added from the Selected works section); this is not an issue. The BLP issue has been the repeated attempts to add content that has no such support - content that appears to be OR, that is not supported by NPOV, and appears to create a sensationalized narrative about the article subject contrary to WP:BLPBALANCE and BLP policy generally. And if this overview is not clear, I apologize, because this has been a tiring day, and I will plan on discussing these content issues further at BLPN after I have had a chance to rest. Beccaynr (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is using the headline but the content that is significantly supported by the secondary reliable source. This baseless claim of yours that its only a headline was refuted hours ago but you are unnecessarily repeating it instead of telling where is the BLP violation. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 22:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Beccaynr Okay, let's make this very clear, for the benefit of anyone who may be reading this thread. This is your most recent revert:

−

During the debate, in a video clip, Dwivedi was recorded making several statements, including that Hinduism was invented in the early 20th century, by upper caste leaders such as [[Mahatma Gandhi]]. A clip of the video was circulated widely, and Dwidevi became the target of death threats.

+

During the debate about [[Mahatma Gandhi]] and politics, she discussed the annihilation of caste, and in a video clip, Dwivedi was recorded making several statements, including "Hindu Right is the corollary of the idea that India is a Hindu majority population and this is a false majority. The Hindu religion was invented in the early 20th century in order to hide the fact that the lower caste people are the real majority of India...". A clip of the video circulated widely, and Dwivedi became the target of death threats.

Which part of the text you removed (on the left) constitutes a BLP violation? Is it the line about Gandhi? Or the misspelling of Dwivedi's name? What am I missing? – bradv 22:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

As a start, the sources are missing [165]; the disputed content is sourced only to the contemporary 2019 news source with the sensationalized subheadline about Gandhi <ref name="Sharma 2019"/>, while the restored version is sourced to 2022 longform journalism, a 2023 article by a professor, and the 2019 news source, which all include the quote <ref name="Raveendran 2022"/><ref name="Ballas 2023" /><ref name="Sharma 2019"/>. This was also discussed at BLPN, with the first comment from an uninvolved participant appearing to indicate this version was preferable ("...Beccaynr's version seems significantly better to me since they are quoting Dwivedi which since the only sources we have are what she has written and the report on what she said in a debate, reduces the risk we may mislead people on what she has said. (It doesn't eliminate it since it's easily possible to mislead with an entirely accurate quote by taking it out of context etc.)") [166].

So this is an example of one of the ways that NPOV and BLP have intersected during content disputes; reliance on multiple independent reliable secondary sources to determine what is due to include, and to include a WP:DUE quote to help reduce the creation of misleading content, when misleading/sensationalized/undue content appears to be a particular risk for this BLP subject.

This also may be related to another content dispute in the article when Aman.kumar.goel attempted to add a quote from the Indian Express essay without apparent support from independent, reliable secondary sources; content from this essay is already included in the article, and the SPI report linked below also outlines attempts to add what appears to be more independently-selected Gandhi-related content. This article subject has also co-written a book about Gandhi, and what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about this writing and the Indian Express essay is already included in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there are multiple reasons that your text is better. But claiming a BLP exemption to 3RR is a high bar – the relevant policy point reads, in full, Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. The text does you removed does not meet that threshold. – bradv 22:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I think in the context of the available sources, and a review of the 2019 Print source, which published the sensationalized video clips and published the reaction of the BJP youth party, it seems biased to rely on this one news source, particularly when NPOV and BLPBALNCE tells us to use multiple independent and reliable sources, and BLP says to be fair to the subject at all times. The video appears to be sensationalism, and to be connected by multiple sources to harassment and death threats against the article subject. I have sought page protection more than once for this article, filed an ANEW report, engaged in discussion on the article talk page and at BLPN, and recently had an admin state in response to the ANEW report filed against me that a credible BLP claim exists. So I also most recently relied on that to make the most recent reverts while continuing to ask the reverter to continue discussing the disputed content.

This is a complex topic area and article subject, and as I have said, this has been a particularly tiring day, so I am not marshalling sources here as I have at BLPN or the article talk page. I think with further review of the relevant sources that are available in the article and discussions, perhaps the BLP issues would become more clear; perhaps not. I think it is difficult to make a case about a multi-faceted content issue that has evolved over weeks in this article, in a conduct forum, particularly while my energy levels are this low. Beccaynr (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

And for whatever it may be worth, Gandhi-focused issues seem to have been an ongoing issue with this article; for example, after the article was nominated for deletion, I did some clean up of the article, e.g. [167] content related to Gandhi - "WaPo article is not about the book, quote is taken out of context"; [168] more content related to Gandhi - "rm non-sequitor primary source, not about book"; [169] more content related to Gandhi - "rm apparent distorted summary from book excerpt"' [170] - more content related to Gandhi "rm unsupported".

I later edited Gandhi-related content [171] "add info from book review to replace unsourced content removed in previous edit" and made edits in September 2023 that revised what more recently became an addition the IP range editor sought to repeatedly add (along with Aman.kumar.goel and another editor also adding it) until we reached an agreement on the article talk page to exclude it [172] "rm content not supported by source, ce per ref, rm out of context quote, add date, move text, ce heading", and contined to address Gandhi-related content [173] "rm content unsupported by source, and rm quote; review is already quoted contextually in relevant section"; [174] "rm unsupported by source; merge reception to relevent section, ce, rm unsupported by refs, add content from sources". The article was protected on 10 September 2023 [175], and I added a copyvio revdel request [176] on 19 September 2023. Various editing continued, and these recent disputes seemed to have begun with the IP range editor on 13 November restoring content that had previously been revised [177]. Beccaynr (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Now that I have rested a bit, I can further explain about how I have also been applying a NPOV/BLP perspective I further developed from work on the Mika Tosca and Russell J. Rickford articles. These subjects made statements in October 2023 in the I/P topic area that generated controversy. With regard to the Rickford article, I was one of the editors who added content based on multiple independent and reliable sources; with the Tosca article, content has yet to be added because we do not yet have consensus that adequate sourcing exists to support inclusion according to BLP/BLPBALANCE and NPOV/PROPORTION. On the Tosca article talk page, attempts to discuss policies and sources were occasionally met with ad hominem comments, including "outrageous censorship" and PA that have been redacted. Both the Tosca and Rickford articles have been protected.

I thought about these articles, and the experiences editing them, while working on the Dwivedi article, and how routine it otherwise is for contentious content about living people to be expected to meet sourcing standards in BLP/BALANCE and NPOV/PROPORTION. With the Dwivedi article, the content appears contentious because of sources noted in the article, on the article talk page, and at BLPN, related to recent and longterm campaigns of harassment and death threats against her, as well as recently reported distortion of her statements by biased actors. As noted above, I had removed what appeared to be distorted Gandhi-related content from the article, during what turned out to have been a recent upswing in harassment against the article subject. In this recent dispute, an IP range editor, along with an established editor appearing to use similar phrases to make nonsubstantive ad hominem responses in discussions about policies and sources, attempted to repeatedly re-add and further add Gandhi-related content, without the level of sources that otherwise seem typically used to support contentious content in a BLP.

I think with article subjects such as Tosca and Rickford, it may be easier to look at their reported statements and immediately recognize the contentiousness. With Dwivedi, we have multiple sources available that indicate for the past several years, many of her public statements are contentious, and have led to harassment and death threats. So it seems particularly important, from a NPOV/BLP perspective, to not create original research/synthesis, e.g. in the example diff above, by taking content from one 2019 news source, that states, inter alia, 'She said x about Gandhi', followed by a 2023 source that says 'she said x about the Hindu Right etc and then faced death threats', to create article content that says, 'She said x about Gandhi and then faced death threats.' No source appears to support this synthesis, and this appears to be very contentious original content to add to a BLP.

This is not the first time I have discussed concerns about placement of content and resulting misrepresentation/misuse of other sources in the article, and this is not the only recent disputed addition that seems to attempt to synthesize Gandhi-related content from a primary source with secondary sources in the article to create new contentious article content that no source supports. So from my view, this warranted immediate removal according to BLP policy, similar to the poorly-sourced contentious content that was repeatedly removed from the Tosca and Rickford articles. It is 'poorly-sourced' in the sense that while parts are sourceable, this does not seem to be well-sourced according to NPOV, OR, and BLP policies. Beccaynr (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

As I said above, I think your explanations for why your version is superior are reasonable, and if the community were faced with an RfC presenting the two options I'm confident your version would prevail. However, I'm still not seeing these edits as meeting the threshold given in WP:3RRBLP, which was the original complaint in this thread. I do hope you understand this point. Regardless, without belabouring this any further, and considering the other developments below, this thread can be closed without action. – bradv 16:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel

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

---

In the currently-open Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aman.kumar.goel report I filed earlier today, which I had drafted before the ANEW report was filed against me, but waited to file pending confirmation that it was okay to file a public report, I outlined some conduct issues during discussions, both from the IP range editor who was previously blocked from the article for a week and opened the pending BLPN discussion, and Aman.kumar.goel, including the following:

Ad hominem

• 2402:A00:401:7C3E range:
  • Edit summary:
    • 10:16, 13 November 2023‎ [178] "clearly supported by print.in source; don't WP:CENSOR the content"
  • On the article talk page: Talk:Divya Dwivedi#Unsourced contentious content and WP:BLP policy
    • 15:59, 13 November 2023 [179] "...Read WP:DEADHORSE."
    • 17:16, 17 November 2023 [180] "... Why don't you simply tell how much are you getting paid to censor the information? ..."
    • 17:58, 17 November 2023 [181] "See WP:IDONTLIKEIT."
    • 07:52, 28 November 2023 [182] "Your wikilawyering is getting more disruptive."
• Aman.kumar.goel:
  • At BLPN: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Divya Dwivedi
    • 15:52, 1 December 2023 [183] "...Now instead of filibustering, you need to drop the WP:STICK"
    • 16:38, 1 December 2023 [184] "...See WP:IDONTLIKEIT."
    • 17:28, 1 December 2023 [185] "...But here you are simply out to WP:CENSOR the quote anyhow with this absurd WP:WIKILAWYERING which is not gonna work."
    • 17:50, 1 December 2023 [186] "...Why you are censoring the statement?"
    • 18:27, 1 December 2023 [187] "... Your entire dispute is based on nothing but WP:IDONTLIKEIT."
    • 08:54, 2 December 2023 [188] "See WP:FILIBUSTER." (this is after the non-RS portion of The Print has been discussed)

Since the filing of this SPI report, during the BLPN discussion, Aman.kumar.goel continued at 19:19, 2 December 2023‎ with what I feel is ad hominem contributions to the discussion [189] "... Your WP:WIKILAWYERING is not helping your cause." While I recognize this is a contentious topic area, I also feel this pattern of conduct is not conducive to collaborative discussion on the article talk page nor at BLPN. My comment at 21:15, 1 December 2023 at BLPN included "...I am tiring of what has seem to be a lot of unhelpful personalization directed at me during these discussions, and I think it would be helpful to improve efforts to focus on the content..." [190]. On the article talk page, at 16:07, 17 November 2023, my comment included, "...when the apparent misinterpretation of her statements is accompanied by repeated attempts to add the disputed material, and personal insults, this can make collaborative discussion more challenging, but if we focus on the content, I think this will benefit the overall discussion going forward." [191]. Beccaynr (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC) - update comment - SPI report now closed Beccaynr (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The SPI report is now closed: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aman.kumar.goel#02 December 2023. Aman.kumar.goel has been blocked indefinitely. Beccaynr (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

See WP:BOOMERANG. Turning the thread to all about me will not work. You already tried this at edit warring noticeboard as well as SPI but both failed.

You are the one who started this unnecessary content dispute by removing what is reliably sourced. You are still not answering what is the BLP violation that made you misuse 3RR exemption for making these reverts.[192][193] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 21:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

As noted above, a credible claim of BLP was noted in the closure of the ANEW report you filed today, and we have been directed to continue discussing these content issues elsewhere; there is also a pending BLPN discussion about this article. This is a conduct forum, so I have raised issues here related to conduct that I have felt have contributed to challenges with collaborative discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

You will have to answer this since you have misused 3RR exemption to justify edit warring.

Answer the question instead of cherrypicking others in your defense. You have been asked right above by Bradv just 13 minutes ago "So I ask Beccaynr again, which text, specifically, constitutes a BLP violation?"[194]

Not to forget that you are the one who added this content on 20 November and unilaterally removed it on 25 November.[195] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 21:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Aman.kumar.goel, what I am getting from all of these discussions, regardless of who is right or wrong here, is that Beccaynr has discussed the issues politely, whereas many of your replies are borderline aggressive and unnecessarily personal or combative. Knock it off and conduct yourself properly, please. Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• First of all, let us be clear that you are not an uninvolved admin here.[196] It is not even difficult to find out "who is right or wrong here" because Beccaynr has aggressively imposed his page ownership by making more than 17 reverts in less than 20 days just to claim a non-existing BLP violation even after adding it himself. How about you tell Beccaynr to stop falsely accusing others of BLP violation, poor sourcing and so on? He has done that every single time and whenever his false accusations are challenged he would often resort to WP:FILIBUSTER. The WP:CPUSH of Beccaynr you are attempting to endorse over all the time that he has wasted so far it itself concerning. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 01:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you for proving my point exactly. Black Kite (talk) 10:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Based on Aman Kumar Goel's comment above, I'd support a topic ban on them from any BLPs. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of Beccaynr edit warring in that way, there's clearly no consensus for any specific text on the issue. Per WP:BLPRESTORE, if an editor has expressed good faith BLP consensus, there needs to be consensus to add any dispute material as I mentioned on the talk page and BLPN about a week ago.Since this isn't a simple case of adding or removal, it would be acceptable for someone to have removed the text entirely although from what I can tell, no one alleged Beccaynr's suggested text was a BLP issue. But re-adding the disputed material absent that consensus is most definitely a BLP issue. The fact that with all their experience and after having been specifically reminded of our BLP requirements, Aman Kumar Goel still doesn't see the BLP problems with what happened here means that IMO they cannot be trusted to edit BLPs anytime soon. It would be better for them to stick to areas of the encyclopaedia where they cannot cause such significant harm. Nil Einne (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Bradv has already confirmed that there was no BLP violation. What Beccaynr has done is that he has abused the 3RR exemption to impose his preferred version. Its him who is not understanding that he was wrong. If you want to seek a topic ban then do it on Beccaynr for his clear cut policy violation. Dympies (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's an unsurprising view, since you were also edit-warring to remove Beccaynr's edits. I note that you have also done this before in concert with Aman.kumar.goel, most notably recently on Shambuka, in September 2022 on Raju Srivastav, and in July 2022 on Murder of Kanhaiya Lal. Tag-teaming to avoid 3RR is looked upon quite dimly in most cases. As I said above, regardless of who is "right" or "wrong", this is a collaborative encyclopedia, and should be treated as one. Black Kite (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

With that logic, your comment is even more unsurprising since you have involved yourself into a number of disputes including this ANI thread merely for opposing me as clear from the links alrady provided right above in the thread.[197][198] How come you have missed the tag-team on this very article on Beccaynr's side?[199][200][201]

Beccaynr has engaged in disruptive editing by frequently misrepresenting BLP and removing reliably sourced content even after making the edit himself.[202] If you want to comment then comment on that instead of creating this unnecessary distraction. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 15:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Highly inappropriate comment from User:Thumperward

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

---

Says he hopes I would die because I was an opposing voice in a discussion whose outcome he disagrees with, as that would allow him to have his way. And doubled down when called on it. WP:CIVIL fail, with a side of WP:AGF fail. While looking for whether this was a pattern, I see I'm not the first recent editor who has taken exception to the general "opponents will die, I will wait them out" approach: [203]. DMacks (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The remarkable thing about this is that absolutely none of this was directed at DMacks. He didn't even specifically oppose the RM (thirteen years ago!) which this is purportedly about, and when he notified me of his procedural objection to the present RM I complied immediately. But apparently we're taking what I had assumed to be a pretty overt allusion to Planck's principle (on my own talk page, and nowhere else) as sanctionable now. I don't know that going onto people's talk pages, getting offended, and dragging them to Grand Central Drama is a good use of anyone's time really. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking closely at history, Chris is correct that I did not specifically "oppose" in that discussion. Appologies for mis-reading my own comment there. So he only wishes several of the various other editors there would die. That's...not really a strong defense. As I said in response on your talkpage, all you had to do was strike the offensive sentence and we wouldn't be here. Noting here for the continued abusive responses there, to which I do not plan to respond further. DMacks (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

If you want to police other editors' talk pages for infractions of your own personal standards of conduct, towards persons who are not yourself, then that's a you problem. Fortunately I'm a big boy and not intimidated by such, but it's definitely worth raising the question of whether that's appropriate behaviour for an administrator. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't really see why the page a comment was written on makes any difference regarding a potential civility issue. "Big boy" comments aside, I'm also not sure why raising it as a concern here could possibly be incompatible with adminship. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• While I don't see this comment as one of "I hope this person/these people die", it's definitely uncivil in my view, specially when Chris Cunningham calls the close a "head-count of idiots". Considering this is also not the first time this happens, I think a warning not to repeat this kind of commentary is warranted. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 00:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The degree to which users are permitted to express their opinions (which in this case have been demonstrably misconstrued already by the OP) on their own talk pages has historically been greater that in other namespaces. Administrators should be aware of that. It is also not very becoming of administrators to turn up on someone else's talk, get offended, immediately run off to notify other parties that they think might be sympathetic, and then head to the drama boards seeking... I mean I don't know what the OP was seeking here. An apology? I've avoided ANI for years but I doubt that the rules changed such that ANI is now the preferred venue to demand that other editors say sorry to you for perceived slights. Especially for oblique edits to their own talk pages. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Thumperward, will you agree to refrain from expression of hope of an outcome, namely, the deaths of editors you disagree with, and agree to refrain from comments like head-count of idiots, which is a blatant personal attack against the editors who disagreed with you? If you are unwilling to do so, then I think that a block will be the outcome. Please reply. Cullen328 (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking deeper, Thumperward, I see the disgusting and astonishing comment I spend enough of my time waiting around for editors to die already. That's repugnant. Explain yourself. Cullen328 (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative and not punitive. A block for failing to repent for comments made in clear allusion to a historically notable concept that we literally have an article for made on, I repeat, my own talk page, regarding an action that occurred thirteen years ago would be utterly inappropriate, as is threatening someone for doing so. Do you all need to go back to admin school, or is ANI so light on actual actionable things to do these days that further time must be wasted on policing a civility issue that didn't even occur? Maybe one of you might bother to examine the pointless busywork around the RM that led to this instead? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

You're right that there is generally more leeway given on users' own talk pages, but that leeway does not extend to expressing your hopes that those you've disagreed with have died. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I have issued a preventative indefinite block to Thumperward to prevent them from saying here on Wikipedia that they are waiting for specific Wikipedia editors to die since those editors are idiots. This was fresh 2023 misconduct, not 13 years ago. This editor was given the opportunity to apologize and withdraw those comments, and declined. Cullen328 (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328: It seems they have committed to not doing so again: User talk:Thumperward#December 2023 GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, by omission, at least, they are still reserving the right to call their colleagues "idiots" for the offense of disagreement. I an unimpressed. Cullen328 (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

He's now apologized for that too. I think your block has conveyed the point it was meant to convey and is no longer preventing anything. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

As is customary, I will leave it to another administrator to review the unblock request, taking into account the editor's contemptuous comments right before I made the block. Cullen328 (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

When I blocked Thumperward, I did not know that they were an adminstrator and my block was based on utterly inappropriate edits that they made in the last six months. But now I am looking back and I find that in their first unsuccessful RfA in 2007, the first oppose included Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, but we prefer our admins not to be hot-headed. In their second unsuccessful RfA in 2009, the third oppose included because the candidate with a "hot head" could be a "drama admin" And in their third, finally successful RfA in 2010, the first oppose said However, I am deeply concerned that he does not have the calm and polite temperament that an administrator needs. This editor, now an administrator, contributed heavily in the 2007 to 2012 period, with 10,000 to over 20,000 edits each year in that time frame. In the past 11 years, their edit volume has plummeted. It seems to me that what we have here is a legacy administrator from the wild and wooly days of Wikipedia who is not conversant with the behavioral expectations of administrators in 2023. Cullen328 (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I turned down their unblock request. 331dot (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Gee whiz. This can't stay this way forever - we will need to move forward with an unblock at some point, or alternatively head to the Arbitration Committee to remove advanced permissions. I personally support unblocking now that the poor behaviour has been acknowledged as not in the spirit of collaborative editing (most important) and apologised for (less important but still) - YMMV, but I assume the sentiment in the unblock request is genuine, and so the block is no longer preventative? Daniel (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I was not entirely convinced of the sincerity of the request nor do I think that the behavior will not resume. If someone else is, don't consider me to be in the way. 331dot (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this has been blown a little bit out of proportion - it's already been established that Thumperward did not in fact say that he hoped DMacks would die, and that DMacks has acknowledged this. He was in fact referring to a group of opposers in a 13 year old discussion and not singling out any editors by name. It was stupid to say "died" when he could have said "moved on" or "retired" and made exactly the same point. I don't know if he was just trying to be funny but it does indeed come across as highly inappropriate. Nevertheless I think an indef was harsh, and as he has apologized I think the block should be lifted. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Are we forgetting that Thumperward is an admin? GiantSnowman 13:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think everyone is mindful of their status. Perhaps, now the block has been invoked, people are less sure how to proceed.

What would make the most sense might be to lift the block as AGF, and to consider the process to be used to warn about future behaviour.

I understand that a number of people do not consider the apology to be 100% genuine, but it is likely to be the best, at this point, that Wikipedia and Wikipedians will receive.

The future? Why don't "we" (by which I mean the community of admins) allow the future to happen and be handled when and if it happens again? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Returning to this from last night. We should AGF unblock, and I think Thumperward can infer that another incident like this would probably not receive the same level of AGF. Regarding his "legacy" admin status, he's been consistently active (if not always highly active) over the years, so this is not a case of an admin disappearing entirely from the project for a decade and returning with zero understanding of the ways in which policy and culture have changed. An incident of incivility, which he has acknowledged and promised not to repeat, does not to me appear to be something that ought to require a trip to ArbCom to consider yanking the toolkit. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• If this were a non-admin, I would support an unblock. But we have higher standards of conduct for administrators, and Thumperward's unblock request does very little to convince me that this will not happen again. This does not seem serious enough to go to ArbCom over, but I need to see something more substantial than a three-sentence unblock request before supporting unblocking. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 16:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support unblock with the understanding that further problematic commentary would lead to more serious consequences, including likely a request to de-sysop. While I believe that admins should be held to high standards, I do not support indefinite blocks where one would not likely have been applied to a non-admin. I am also of the opinion that an indefinite block is ipso-facto grounds for removing the bit. While I agree that their behavior was disruptive, I do not think it rises to that level and seriously doubt we will have similar issues going forward. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• I have AGF and unblocked him. If further incivility this should probably go the desysop route. Secretlondon (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Australian railroad IP

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

---

A series of IPs, of which 27.33.233.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be the latest, has been involved in creating articles about preserved railroad locomotives for a year now. (The IPs jump around Australia every few days, but are clearly the same person.)The drafts they submit through AfC are refbombed to get through review, but closer examination show that the refs don't actually satisfy the GNG. A typical example is Southern Pacific 5472. In at least two situations (Southern Pacific 5623 and ALCO Century 624), they've reverted merges done by AfD consensus. The IP's comments at AfD show they have no willingness to understand notability:

• Special:Diff/1184906202: It’s obviously notable but very underrated
• Special:Diff/1184725146: If it is first locomotive on SP to sport the Kodachrome livery, (which is what makes the locomotive notable for), then there's no reason to delete the article
• Special:Diff/1184725208 Besides its completely new y'know

The notability refbombing plus writing style (But a guy by the name of Dennis Mann had contacted OmniTRAX about a possible sale to sell the 4423 for its scrap value. An agreement was made, and Dennis Mann had wrote the check that was mailed to him... here) are a CIR issue already, but now they've moved into increasingly disruptive editing. The most egregious involves Southern Pacific 4450, which was deleted at AfD in 2022. They took it to RfU, using two different IPs to fake support; the request was turned down. They then remove the old request, edit the old AfD close to appear as a soft delete, and resubmit claiming it was soft deleted. That's not just a competence issue; that's actively malicious.

Courtesy pings: @Trainsandotherthings and Jay:. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• As undeleter of Southern Pacific 4450, I'm at fault for failing to check the cumulative diff at the AfD. It would have shown how Delete was manipulated to Soft Delete. I would suggest re-deletion. Jay 💬 07:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  I can't fault you - that kind of dishonesty is not something I've seen in this topic area. It's why I'm looking for a block and/or ban on creating drafts for this IP user. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• This explains how even though I declined it as a hard delete, it got undeleted. If Jay agrees I think that Southern Pacific 4450 should be deleted due to fraudulent request. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Since this was first posted, the same editor has now engaged in obvious sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Pacific Class P-8, pretending to be two different users which coincidentally both locate to Australia and have a strong interest in creating articles about Southern Pacific locomotives. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I lack the time at present (check back with me in the next day) to provide diffs but I have noticed casual, unusual attempts to sock by this IP on their own drafts, but brushed them off as nothing more than eccentricities. However, following the behavior on the AfD, I think there is no doubt that this editor is a properly disruptive editor (albeit a very unsophisticated one). ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I've tagged 4450 with a CSD G4. Lets see if it gets contested. TarnishedPath^talk 07:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I've deleted it as an obvious G4. There also appears to be a Southern Pacific 4451... Black Kite (talk) 08:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Tagged. TarnishedPath^talk 09:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

That 4451 really was a soft delete though. If a good-faith editor requests undeletion it could be returned. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

That's fine, as long as it's not returned to mainspace in its current state. To be honest, I would be surprised if anyone could claim notability for that particular random diesel loco. Black Kite (talk) 11:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The long and short of it is that it isn't notable, not even close, but certain railfans (foamers, if you will) are obsessive about their favorite railroads and think everything must have an article just because they personally like it. I've spent more time than I like to admit cleaning up after this sort of thing on this website. To a casual observer, many of these articles might appear to meet GNG (and frustratingly, at least one AfC reviewer has defended their acceptance of these subpar articles). You have to look more closely and see the REFBOMBing with insignificant mentions and unreliable self-published sources to realize many of these subjects are non-notable. As there has been no action taken against this manipulative and obsessive IP editor, who in my opinion has gone well past the point a long-term block would be justified, the cleanup effort will have to continue even as they add more and more fuel to the fire. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

It is worth noting some of these are fine, such as Nickel Plate Road 757, which was created as a 2 sentence stub by the IP before being substantially fleshed out with proper sourcing by User:611fan2001, an editor in good standing (and who's work I can personally attest to the quality of). Most, however, should be reviewed for notability and likely need to be merged, redirected, or deleted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I've already put GE U25BE and EMD SD45T-2R, which are mere rebuilds of GE U25B and EMD SD45T-2 respectively, up for AfD after the IP removed my PRODs. Southern Pacific Class P-8 is already up at AfD. There are some others I missed that are already up at AfD. TarnishedPath^talk 23:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Block proposal

I'd like to formally propose that the current IP 220.235.238.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and any future IPs be blocked, and that any drafts they create be deleted. It's clear from this discussion that the person does not understand notability enough to produce useful articles, is not able to communicate usefully, and has engaged multiple times in deceptive behavior. That's a net negative to the community, and only a block will stop the behavior. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support – the editor is persistently behaving improperly, failing to respond to many concerns, attempting to disrupt and game article creation/deletion processes, and there seems to be little to no improvement in behaviour at all. A waste of other editors' time. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support per the nomination and WP:CIR. TarnishedPath^talk 05:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support per the nomination and per my previous comments in this thread. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. I'm not a train guy but, as an outsider, I am seeing no basis for notability in many of the REFBOMBs drafts the IP puts forward. Their socking and GAMING is too much for me to think this is all accidental. Many of the IP's drafts are getting approved to articles despite clear deficiencies (perhaps a lamentable side-effect of the ongoing and very successful AfC drive). ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• I disagree. I checked out Southern Pacific Class P-8 (AfD discussion). The book citations are genuine, and support the content based upon them. And checking the list of IP addresses and articles I find Norfolk and Western 2050 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), written based upon museum and magazine doco by a different IP address whose only apparent sin is to also be in Australia. Australia, well known rather big place. This is an egregious overreach, that tars any future Australian without an account who writes drafts about railways. And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Pacific 4450 was a consensus of 2 people, with a third only "leaning", about an article written in 2006 by none of these IP addresses. Black Kite that speedy was wrong. Look at the contents. The 2023 article isn't the same article being re-posted, and there are more sources in the rewrite and clearly doesn't match the "sourced only to one dude's self published railfan site" in the 2022 discussion. And not knowing that Lulu is a vanity press, which wasn't even cited by the original author of the draft, is something that clearly AFC reviewers are guilty of, too. So should we be banning our AFC reviewers, too, in this massive attempt to associate a whole bunch of articles and IP addresses and accounts with 1 bad actor? Uncle G (talk) 05:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @Uncle G: While the geolocation of the IP jumps around, the behavioral pattern is very distinct, which makes me confident it is a single person. They focus on a very narrow subset of locomotives, continue editing drafts/articles after switching IPs, and often respond to themselves to fake consensus; the editor interaction is particularly telling. (115.64.191.187, which you mentioned above, has more than a dozen overlaps with the other IPs.) The drafts are refbombed to pass AFC, often with errors that indicates they don't actually have access to the source and are simply copying the citation from elsewhere. They have other behavioral tells that are obviously different from legitimate new editors (not revealing them here, but feel free to email me.) I am quite sure that any actual new editor editing railroad articles from an Australian IP would not be mistaken for this person. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
    • Then you are going to have to address my concern about the egregious overreach of "any future IPs" under this heading of "Australian", which you have failed to do. That's licence to block a whole country. And you should be reaching out to the AFC reviewers who let things based upon Lulu books pass AFC, as the problem there is that the poor sourcing actually got a pass when it should have been raising red flags. I did. Given Special:Diff/1185987251 then Special:Diff/1186025564 you should add your voice. Uncle G (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

      You're criticizing a proposal that no one's making. What anyone's talking about is WP:DUCK: dubious notability, ref-bombing, fixation on American locomotives of a certain era, geolocates to Australia. I don't think that translates to a licence to block a whole country. Mackensen (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

      Perhaps @Uncle G's concern is that when an IP address is identified that what is being proposed is that the IP address be indeffed and that would result in undue collateral damage? Rather I think this proposal is that this specific IP user who is clearly identifiable per WP:DUCK be blocked. Given the IP user changes IP address every couple of weeks, there's no reason for example that 30 day blocks couldn't be used each time an IP address is identified? TarnishedPath^talk 22:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  • This is a rather absurd comment. This is a highly specific pattern of behavior and extremely narrow topic area within the area of trains (specifically an obsession with Southern Pacific) which makes it incredibly obvious these IPs are the same editor. Making nonsensical slippery-slope fallacies is unhelpful. Had you looked at the IPs, you would see they locate to Sydney and Melbourne exclusively, and had you fully examined the evidence or asked us, you would have noticed a clear and distinct pattern of behavior which makes it quite obvious we are dealing with a single individual. I am extremely disappointed you ignore all the obvious misconduct by this editor, from maliciously editing a closed AfD discussion, to sockpuppetry, to copyright violations [204], to misrepresentation of sources. Regarding your last point, a number of these AfC accepts were inexplicable and reflect very poorly on the reviewers in question. Above all, you are clearly rushing to scream "injustice!" without anywhere near a full understanding of the facts. I have been dealing with this specific editor for several months. Nobody here has associated this editor with a registered account, so please strike that false claim. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
    • One the contrary, I observed, as I said, one bad actor. But in addition, this is a quite pointed observation that you two bringing up the primary example of this as Southern Pacific 4450 (AfD discussion) above and making it how it is ignoring a consensus of 2 people — maliciously, as you've characterized it repeatedly now — is proven to be wrong. That article was created and edited by Insomniac186 (talk · contribs) in March 2006, and that was what you nominated for deletion, not something associated with these IP addresses. I've apparently looked into this better than you have, although at the time of your deletion nomination you should have seen its edit history too. This "malicious" ignoring of a 2 person consensus seems to be because you were 1 of the 2 people. And you aren't proposing blocking even just Sydney and Melbourne, which again is rather a lot of editors, but as clearly stated "any future IP" addresses used by an "Australian". Uncle G (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

      I'm not sure what point you're making here. We all agree that the original article wasn't written by the IP. What the IP did do was change the content of the AfD to make it look like a soft delete, then turn around and request undeletion, a bad faith act if there ever was one. The text between the two versions is not substantially different. Yes, he added a bunch of sources. Given the addition of a Diesel Era article missing the author, the title, and the full page numbers, I'm deeply skeptical. Mackensen (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

      Do you have so little understanding of how IP addresses work that you are incapable of understanding the same editor may at different times use different IP addresses, and IP addresses are routinely reassigned by internet providers? Are you also incapable of understanding that behavioral tells and editing overlaps can be used to conclusively prove different IP addresses are being used by the same individual? I suggest you stop now before you dig yourself into a deeper hole. I don't know why you're going on about things from 2006, I have never suggested the author from back then is related to the current situation in any way. I nominated that for deletion on the grounds of failing GNG, and it was deleted. The IP then falsely edited the AfD after the fact to instead say "soft delete" and tricked an admin into restoring the old article. That's all ok by you?

      And if we're supposedly looking into things, there were two delete voters in that discussion in addition to myself, the nominator, for a total of three. Please at least get the basic facts right if you're going to keep arguing with me. You are continuing to make a strawman argument based upon your belief that blocking a few specific IP ranges used by this editor is akin to blocking an entire country. Nobody is proposing to block the entire country of Australia, or entire cities in Australia. Seeing an administrator with this little understanding of IP ranges, or how to handle disruptive editors using IP addresses to edit, is very concerning and makes me question your fitness for the role. Instead of trying to argue with everyone here, maybe consider we're making a valid argument, and it is you that has created a false idea in your mind of what is proposed here.

      I also find it appalling that you think I'm supporting a block because I'm somehow upset that an article I nominated for deletion was recreated, rather than because this editor has broken policy in numerous ways. I suppose we can add WP:AGF to the list of things you don't understand. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• 118.208.124.137 (and any other IPs who are the same person) should be severely warned for changing the close statement, and their future edits should be monitored. Jay 💬 06:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support I know I'm a bit late to the party but this is clear disruption. Making articles about preserved U-boats because "it was the first to have the Kodachrome livery" is not only extremely lame but also quite disruptive, especially continuing to do so after being told to stop. I do agree that some of the articles that have been created are on notable subjects but their quality is nothing to push forward that idea. Cutlass^Ciera 15:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I beg @Uncle G:'s pardon but I have to disagree. These articles give the appearance of being sourced, but they aren't. Take EMD SD45T-2R, now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EMD SD45T-2R. Pre-deletion version: [205]. Three books, including Jeff Wilson's 2017 Guide to North American Diesel Locomotives, which is a recent source from a reputable publisher. Cites an article in Diesel Era that appears to focus on the base model (EMD SD45T-2) and its derivatives. The first warning sign is that the article says nothing about how this rebuild differs from the base model, and I mean nothing. The second warning sign is that the linked railfan page mentions three of the sources: both Shine books, and the Diesel Era article. Those sources are also used on the EMD SD45T-2 article, as is Wilson. Wilson says nothing about the rebuilds except that some of them exist. The Diesel Era article devotes a page to the rebuilds, and it makes it clear that the changes were external and cosmetic. Not nearly enough difference to justify a separate article. It's clear that the IP editor doesn't have access to any of these references. I don't have access to the Shine books but I can't accept them on faith as sources without someone else endorsing their quality and what's in them. Are some of the topics notable? Probably. Southern Pacific Class P-8 (AfD discussion), in particular, is, but may need to be written by someone else. Mackensen (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  • And yet the exact page numbers cited in Southern Pacific Class P-8 (AfD discussion) turned out to be right when I pulled them up and checked them. Maybe the railfan magazine is doing the heavy lifting with reading the sources. But neither of the magazine articles hyperlinked from Southern Pacific Class P-8 actually have any mentions of books at all. Uncle G (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

    The main thread of my comment has to do with the EMD SD45T-2R. I haven't done a detailed analysis of the sources for the Southern Pacific Class P-8. Inasmuch as the sources were obviously copied from Southern Pacific 2467 or Southern Pacific 2472, I hope that they're accurate. Mackensen (talk) 12:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• support per nom--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Can we get a closure on this thread now? It's been nearly one week since the block proposal has been made above, and there appears to be consensus in favour of that proposal. Regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. TarnishedPath^talk 03:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment, if this gets acted on ‎118.210.56.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the IP address that the user has been using since the 18th of November. TarnishedPath^talk 10:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I am restoring this thread from the archive, as it should not have been archived without being closed, and because this editor has been at it again, creating another copyvio on November 29. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

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

DYK queues

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

---

All Did you know queues are empty. To avoid a missed DYK update, admin assistance in moving preps to queues is required within 23 hours' time. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 01:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I think I've done it correctly for Template:Did you know/Queue/7 although Michael Goldstein only just meets the length and Lepas testudinata uses paragraph rather than sentence citation for the hook.©Geni (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 01:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Migrate Category:Official seals of places in Massachusetts to Commons

Need an admin to migrate all the files in this category over to the Wikimedia Commons as they are in the public domain. I'd do it myself, but the "Export to Commons" function is disabled as there are older revisions which are hidden, rendering me unable to do it. The pertinent license over on the Wikimedia Commons would be {{PD-MAGov}}. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 03:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

PD-MAGov only applies to works of the state government and is not applicable for these seals, which are the works of the individual municipalities. Most are probably PD-US-expired, but that needs to be verified on an individual basis before each is moved to Commons. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Municipalities are included, as the relevant law states (see page 40) "or of any political subdivision thereof". – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 04:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Rajinikanth's Fans making Vandalisms

• Agathiyar654 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lokesh balaji qw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vj789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These multiple Users have violated WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VAND by making Vandalistic edits adding fake FPOV content regarding Rajinikanth's movies in List of highest-grossing Tamil films, Jailer (2023 Tamil film) etc.

I even reported one of them to WP:ANEW; See the Archived discussion here.

Relevant discussions can be seen at the followung: [206] [207]

All of these are by Autoconfirmed users. An Extended Confirmed protection for List of highest-grossing Tamil films and List of Tamil films of 2023 might solve the problem. I already placed a request at WP:RPPI but, no use. See the Archived discussion here.

A correctful action should be made to solve this problem. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 09:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Apparent persistent vandalism in Great Lakes College article

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

---

There seem to have been numerous vandal edits to the Great Lakes College article, to the point where I can't clearly work out what's vandalism and what's not, nor can I find a clean version. If other editors are interested in the challenge, you're welcome to try it.

Is there a template that could be added to the top of articles to flag that much of the information in it may be nonsense? -- — The Anome (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

{{disputed}} or {{hoax}}. This seems pretty unrelated to anything to do with administrators, though... Mach61 (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Non-blocked known sockpuppet

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

---

210.48.190.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a known sockpuppet of Fritz Fehling. They have already been blocked, but they continued editing after the expiration. Please block them. I am not familiar with the sockpuppetry policy, so maybe you should consider making changes to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fritz Fehling. Janhrach (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Blocking already done by JBW. Janhrach (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Place some restriction upon Transilvanicus

See [208]. I ask for a formal warning or restriction imposed to Transilvanicus. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Now wreaking havoc in the article as Special:Contributions/2A02:2F0E:D121:9100:5CFA:80AF:F363:AE1A. E.g. second-guessing Fergus Millar just because they do not like what he wrote. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Cukrakalnis' further attempts to obscure the history of Lithuanian collaboration during WWII

On October 7 of this year, I created a report ([209]) about @Cukrakalnis' improper editing and discussion style on WP:ARE. One of the main complaints was the removal or concealment of the history of Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany. Mainly through manipulating of the categories. The discussion ended with a "final warning" for Cukrakalnis. It seems that after a short break, C has returned to his practices. Recently C:

• in Juozas Ambrazevičius (diff) removed Category:Lithuanian collaborators with Nazi Germany and replaced it with Category:Lithuanian resistance members. Also in the lead changed was a war criminal responsible for the murder of Jews and Lithuanian literary historian to was a Lithuanian politician, literary scholar, pedagogue and member of anti-Nazi and anti-Soviet Resistance in Lithuania during World War II. Currently article has no mention of Ambrazevičius pro-Nazi activities
• in Petras Polekauskas (diff) he removed categories Category:Nazi war criminals and Category:Nazis who committed suicide in the United States, under the pretext given in summary Not a member of the Nazi Party, even if we agree that he wasn't a "Nazi war criminal" he certainly was a war criminal, so removing him from this category tree is improper.

As I mentioned in my first submission, I believe that TBAN should be considered on topics related to ~WW2 collaboration in Lithuania.Marcelus (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Juozas Ambrazevičius, there were no sources about him being what he was accused of being on that Wiki article: war criminal responsible for the murder of Jews. The claim without any source was added on 26 November 2023 by a user with less than 40 edits. When I looked deeper, I found on the Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia that not only was he not a war criminal, but he was actually a member of the anti-Nazi and anti-Soviet Resistance in Lithuania during World War II as he was a contributor to the underground anti-Nazi press. Clearly, the text and the categories had to be changed because they were historically inaccurate.

Regarding Petras Polekauskas, he was not an official of the Nazi party so I was right to remove those categories. Your logic is faulty, because if he can be added to the category tree of Category:Nazi war criminals despite not being a Nazi, then he might as well be added to Category:Female war criminals‎ despite not being a female. What Marcelus is saying is nonsense. By the way, that individual is still in the Category:Lithuanian mass murderers so I'm not obscuring any history.

BTW, the "final warning" did not concern the quality of my edits but about personally directed comments (User_talk:Cukrakalnis/Archives/2023/October#AE_result).

This is not the first report made by Marcelus about me or vice versa. Other users have already noticed the numerous disagreements between Marcelus and me - see User:Prodraxis' (they had a different user name when submitting it) report Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1124#Cukrakalnis and Marcelus' history of incivility/bickering towards each other from April 2023.

It's probably also relevant that Marcelus is reporting me only a few days after his successful appeal (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive356#Marcelus 0RR appeal (now restored more times than the House of Bourbon)) of his 0RR that he got after edit-warring with me. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

VLT also mentions that Juozas Ambrazevičius was a member of the collaborationist Lithuanian Activist Front. The very government he headed was involved in creating anti-Semitic laws and policies. But you don't mention these things, and remove the category about collaboration. If you believe that Petras Polekauskas was not a Nazi (although this is not a requirement to be in this category) then you should move him to parent Category:War criminals. And not completely remove him from this tree. Marcelus (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The Lithuanian Activist Front is not called collaborationist by either the ULE or in the Wiki article's lede - that is your OR. Even in the one sentence in the Wiki article where LAF directly is accused of collaboration, citations are lacking. The LAF was pretty quickly banned by the occupying Nazi authorities, its original leader was stopped by Nazi occupiers from entering Lithuania and the German government was trying its best to stop it from pursuing its goal of an independent Lithuanian state. Juozas Ambrazevičius was only an acting substitute head for ProGov whose functioning was stopped by the Nazis. You have not given any evidence about the ProGov creating anti-Semitic laws and policies, but that's a content issue to be looked at elsewhere and the administrators' noticeboard is no place for something that belongs on an article's talk page.

There was a reliable source naming Ambrazevičius as part of the anti-Nazi resistance, so I went along with the sources, as we are supposed to on Wikipedia. So, I added him to a category where his presence is supported by a reliable source and removed the person from a category for which there was no source supporting that.

You could have suggested to me about moving the person to the Category:War criminals on Talk:Petras Polekauskas. I already did that in this edit [210]. It's not a matter of belief that he was not a Nazi. It's a fact that he was not.

I have limited time on my hands and already contribute less to Wikipedia than I would like to - I have already a backlog of articles I want to create. Am I to blame for not adding something to a Wikipedia article? I have absolutely no obligation to write anything on Wikipedia, this is something I do by my own desire.

BTW, this noticeboard is not the place for content disputes. Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

You are stating an untruth: many sources describe the LAF directly as a collaborationist organization, and you know these sources because you have used them. Saulius Sužiedėlis in article Lithuanian Collaboration during the Second World War: Past Realities, Present Perceptions calls it that, you used this source Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force. Your series of edits on this subject clearly indicates a one-sided, selective, use of sources to hide the history of Lithuanian collaboration in WW2. In view of this, I believe that you should not be free to edit articles on this topic. Marcelus (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree JM (talk) 09:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

While this noticeboard is not the place for content discussions, inasmuch as the removal of content is being mentioned as part of a conduct issue, I'd like to point out that a quick Google search for Juozas Ambrazevičius brings up results mentioning him as "Nazi leader, "puppet prime minister installed in Lithuania during the Nazi occupation", "Mr Ambrazevicius [...] has been linked to the establishment of the Kovna ghetto to imprison Kaunas’s Jews, and to the setting up of a concentration camp" (The Jewish Chronicle); "Juozas Ambrazevicius-Brazaitis, who served as prime minister of the Lithuanian provisional government, established in Kaunas shortly after the Nazi invasion, and who enthusiastically supported the Third Reich and the systematic annihilation of Lithuanian Jewry" (Simon Wiesenthal Centre); "pro-Nazi leader", "Juozas Ambrazevicius-Brazaitis’ government helped German troops send 30,000 Jews to their deaths during WWII" (Times of Israel); "there is no doubt the LPG and Ambrazevičius-Brazaitis actively took part in creating a government policy of anti-Semitism and the persecution of the Jews" (Jewish Community of Lithuania); "The Provisional Government was unquestionably inspired and headed by the Lithuanian Activist Front, whose anti-Semitic and authoritarian program is well-documented. The Government’s rhetoric, actions and cooperation with German authorities, inescapably compromise its legitimacy and moral status. As acting prime minister, Juozas Ambrazevicius-Brazaitis cannot avoid responsibility for its activities. Documents of the time show that the Provisional Government led by Ambrazavicius-Brazaitis did not distance itself from the pro-Nazi policies actively supported by Kazys Skirpa’s Lithuanian Activist Front. Moreover, the Provisional Government declared its willingness to contribute to the organization of Europe on “New Foundations” as formulated by Nazi Germany" (open letter published on The Baltic Times). Not all of these sources would be acceptable for the article (one or two should be considered primary), but I think it's far from ideal for an editor to simply remove references to collaborationism and responsibility in the Holocaust from an article on an individual that is described in those terms by multiple English-language RS that are easily accessible.

No less worrying is the fact that we're witnessing the millionth round of Marcelus vs Cukrakalnis/Cukrakalnis vs Marcelus. It is evident that you cannot work together, and that your interests overlap. I had previously suggested a 2-way IBAN but I can see you guys finding a way to make each other's lives miserable even if that were to be introduced. At this rate you're both going to end up getting blocked, sooner rather than later. Ostalgia (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Zardoz0893 reported by Zenomonoz: legal threats

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

---

• User Zardoz0893 has been editing to WP:WHITEWASH what WP:RS say about Charles Haywood, shown in this diff and the edit history of the page.
• Here they direct a legal threat at myself and Wikipedia: "Vandal reversion such as Zenomonoz is engaging is seems unwise (and likely to get him, and Wikipedia, added to the lawsuits)". They further label The Guardian a "tabloid", and label me as "libellous".
• Zardoz0893 claims to have knowledge of a "lawsuit" against the Guardian, suggesting WP:COI with the BLP subject.
• The user appears capable of reading the guidelines as shown in their edit summary here.
• Prior to the legal threat, I warned them of apparent edit warring on their talk page.

Zenomonoz (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I can look at this. Chetsford (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind. I'm going to defer to someone else. I've warned the editor on their Talk page, however, the slightly ambiguous nature of the comments leaves just enough question in my mind that I'm not sure whether blocking is appropriate or an immediate opportunity to WP:REFACTOR should be offered. I'd prefer someone else examine the matter. Chetsford (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Another legal threat has been left on the talk page here. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Thailand’s Universal Health Care

Thailand’s Public Health Care Program was mandate by 1997 constitution of Thailand

Chapter III Rights and Liberties of the Thai People Section 52

A person shall enjoy an equal right to receive standard public health service, and the indigent shall have the right to receive free medical treatment from public health centers of the State, as provided by law. The public health service by the State shall be provided thoroughly and efficiently and, for this purpose, participation by local government organizations and the private sector shall also be promoted insofar as it is possible. The State shall prevent and eradicate harmful contagious diseases for the public without charge, as provided by law.

Chapter V Directive Principles of Fundamental State Policies Section 82

The State shall thoroughly provide and promote standard and efficient public health service.

There were many page in Wikipedia that claim that it was

Main articles: Thaksin Shinawatra and Healthcare policies

without telling the truth about 1997 constitution.And the only government under 1997 constitution claim it was their idea.

I wrote about the fact ,and In started of fixing it.They blocked me.21:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:6200:89A8:7B4C:9D3F:64D0:7D8E:42C8 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

People are allowed to block you on Wikipedia, even for bad reasons. This in all likelihood should not have been brought to ANI, it is not a "chronic and unmanageable behavioral problem".

Remsense留 02:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

First I will note that I don't see any reason to think it was a bad block and there's nothing else mentioned by the OP which needs attention here, so by that token I do agree this doesn't belong here.

But otherwise that's a bit of a weird response. Editors should never be blocked for "bad reasons", it's not something admins are allowed to do. If this was truly a bad block which had not been corrected, then this may very well belong at ANI or maybe AN.

Talking to the admin who made the block first might be a consideration but bad blocks are serious enough that it can be worth talking about them on the noticeboards without talking to the admin. It really depends on how bad the block was if it was just a minor mistake perhaps based on a misunderstanding or even if the admin didn't look properly and when pointed out the admin accepts their mistake and vows to do better; or suggests the admin has a fundamental lack of understanding of policy.

Generally if you're an inexperienced editor, your perception it was a bad block is almost definitely wrong so it's better to talk to the admin or maybe seek help at somewhere like the WP:Teahouse or WP:Help Desk to better understand the situation.

Note that even if you're an experienced editor it can be better to ask the admin in case you haven't understood something or are just wrong. Bad block reports are IMO generally better coming from someone who is experienced but wasn't the receipt of the block since they're less likely to simply be mistaken.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

You were blocked for disruptive editing. [211] I'm not going to look into the details, but regardless of who is right, edit warring is not acceptable. If you want to make a change and it's disputed, please seek consensus on the talk page.

Also we need reliable sources for any claim made. In a case like, this, you will need reliable secondary sources for any claim about what was achieved by a politician vs the constitution. This means you cannot cite the constitution or parliament or anything of that sort. If you cannot find reliable secondary sources then what you are trying to add does not belong no matter how much you believe it to be true.

Note that it's perfectly possible for the constitution to appear to mandate something but for it to only be latter implemented. For example the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibited 'denying or abridging a citizen's right to vote "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude', yet it's well accepted that this continued to happen for a long time requiring courts and sometimes government action to stop it.

The Constitution of South Africa 'guarantees equal protection before the law to all citizens regardless of sexual orientation' yet it took legislation forced by a court decision for there to be same-sex marriage in South Africa.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Content dispute at Fuzzball (string theory)

User:Greg L has done a lot of work on this article over the past 4 months. Some of this was undoubtably necessary: the old version had no inline citations at all. Unfortunately, GregL's updated version is an extremely long and unfocused exposition, mostly consisting of detailed information on related subjects that already have their own articles; it also contains a 'notes' section full of extremely lengthy asides, and embedded images of slinkies, barbecues and CIE colour standards that have no relevance to the article whatsoever. I initially removed a pronunciation guide to "Chandrasekhar" which I felt was cluttering the article; I was immediately reverted by GregL, and when I put my changes back in and explained my reasoning on the talk page, his response was defensive and dismissive. I found this puzzling enough that I reviewed the article and its history and realised that it had become extremely bloated, was not functioning well as an encyclopaedia article and stated on the talk page that I intended to review it to remove the large amount of redundant and off-topic material.

At this point GregL's behaviour became erratic, accusing me of bad faith based on an edit from 13 years ago before blanking the talk page section, restoring it, then blanking it again, and finally rolling the fuzzball article back to its 'old' state as of the beginning of August, before his recent editing efforts. This lasted for nearly two days, when he restored his newer, lengthy version. The comments on these two edits are difficult to square with them being bulk reverts of the page to earlier versions; GregL seems to have admitted that this was a deliberate ploy to get rid of me.

I started trying to edit the long version of the article down into something more closely focused on the article's subject matter, but I gave up on that when I deleted a single irrelevant footnote that knocked off a seventh of the total page length. There just isn't enough connective tissue left around the relevant information. I rolled back to the older, short version of the article, because it's flawed but is at least mostly about fuzzballs; my plan is to edit that version of the article up to standard using appropriate material and citations from GregL's long version.

I made a start on this but GregL continued to accuse me of vandalism, and my edits were then reverted by User:MLee1957, an account which was created 2 days ago, half an hour after GregL's rollback to the older version of the article, and which has done nothing else but get immediately involved in this dispute. It is hard to believe that this is an uninterested third party. GregL, for his part, is claiming that this establishes 'consensus' that my edits are malicious vandalism and that all criticism of his article can be dismissed.

I realise that this has been a fairly rambling recap; what I'd really like is to get a neutral party involved to arbitrate this dispute, because it's clearly not going to get sorted out with a polite conversation on the talk page. Phantom Hoover (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Have you considered using WP:DRN? Mach61 (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I defaulted to ANI because GregL repeatedly threatened to report me for vandalism here. I didn't know about DRN, but it seems like it's basically opt-in for the parties involved in the dispute, and GregL's behaviour towards me has been well beyond polite disagreement. If he's willing to agree to a dispute resolution process we can take it to DRN, but at this stage he's just stonewalling me by accusing me of vandalism and using meatpuppetry to manufacture consensus in his favour; it's really a situation that needs direct moderation. Phantom Hoover (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Note: I've created a new SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Greg L. Woodroar (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Woodroar; it will be nice to clear up uncertainties about sockpuppetry. I’ve never cheated on Wikipedia and detest editors who use sockpuppets, having once been swept up in loads of wikidrama because a male physiology student created a faux female-persona sockpuppet called “Sapphic” that he operated exclusively from his university computer. That all wouldn’t have been discovered except for a keen-eyed admin.

Oh… and that sockpuppet page showed a photo of the “Sapphic” and told of how she loved yoga and pilates. It was clever clever work. Between the puppet master and the sockpuppet, the physiology student had a huge group of us tied up for weeks and weeks. Cheaters create a lot of wikidrama and waste a lot of everyone’s time. Greg L (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• This seems like a content dispute. jp×g🗯️ 11:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Well, like I said to Mach61, Greg L’s extremely hostile response to editing of the article, including weird deceptive editing patterns, baseless accusations of vandalism and apparent meatpuppeting to manufacture a ‘consensus’, seem like intractable behavioural problems from where I’m standing. But I’d be happy to reopen this issue somewhere like DRN that’s more suitable for content disputes, so long as Greg L engages in the process in good faith rather than reverting any changes that remove his content. Otherwise we’ll end up right back here after wasting everyone’s time. Phantom Hoover (talk) 12:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Response

The petitioner, Phantom Hoover, is not trying to improve the project; just annoy another editor (me) with whom he/she had a minor argument over and is now creating large amounts of wikidrama by deleting month’s-worth of work to exact revenge by reverting an article back to when it was an un-cited stub.

Now the petitioner is slinging as much mud at the wall as he/she can in hopes something will stick. This is a clear-cut case of someone trying to stir the pot and who is willing to ruin the project while doing so.

The kerfuffle started with this simple dispute over providing a parenthetical on pronouncing “Chandrasekhar”.

I’ve toiled for much of the year on the Fuzzball (string theory) article to give the subject matter a sound and encyclopedic treatment, even going so far as to regularly correspond with Dr. Mathur (who wrote the original scientific papers on which the article is based) as well as other Ph.D.s to ensure what is there on the article is correct.

The end result of the above mentioned effort was THIS version of the article, which has 31 carefully done citations and is salted with enjoyable and illuminating illustrations and animations.

What the petitioner did was was to roll the article back to this version from August, which was just a stub, had no citations, and rightfully had a tag flagging the fact that it needed more citations. All the petitioner did was make these minor changes to the lead to make it appear that he was ‘working’ on the article in earnest.

Note that the petitioner has a history (contributions) of only sporadically editing on Wikipedia and when the petitioner finally does edit, they are largely to remove content… not add anything. And the deletions are accompanied by edit comments like “Because it's part of the proof, you dolt.”)

Rolling an article back to when it was an un-cited stub is a clear combination of Wikipedia:Vandalism (On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge) and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.

As for the other editor who jumped in (User:MLee1957), he/she doubtlessly responded to my request for advise on Talk:Neutron star. MLee1957 chose to respond and the petitioner doesn’t like that MLee1957 had the expected take on the matter (agreeing that the petitioner is editing to be disruptive but advising that the matter doesn't need to go to ANI, here). I did not solicit help from MLee1957 directly and had no choice in who might respond to my request for comment. The fact that he/she has “Lee” in the user name and my name ends with “L” is pure coincidence; my last name is not Lee.

Update I must hand it to Phantom Hoover, he is bold even though there is an ANI open on this. He made a rapid-fire series of edits (∆ edit here), resulting in 53% of the article being deleted (from 107,909 kB to 50,900 kB). Greg L (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

(The fact that 53% of the article can be deleted without removing any information about fuzzballs is, in fact, the core problem.) Phantom Hoover (talk) 08:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposed resolution

Given tha the petitioner seldom edits on Wikipedia, and when he/she does so, the edits tend to be nothing but deletions accompanied by uncivil edit comments, and especially given that the current edits on Fuzzball (string theory) are egregious ones where the “edits” amount to merely reverting the article back to a state where it was a poor stub with zero citations and had a “lack of citations” tag a top, I think it reasonable to expect the petitioner to go find something else to do on the project.

Greg L (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Revoke TPA for temporarily blocked user

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

[212]; user is currrently blocked until 23:08, 10 December 2023. They have made several attempts to use computer code to block other users who comment at their talk page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indef with no talkpage access. Acroterion (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Probably needless to say, but the stuff they put on that page is random gobbledygook and does nothing. jp×g🗯️ 11:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Seeking en masse rollback of disruptive edits

Is it possible to request a rollback of all the edits made by Oilcocaine since this one [213] (05:21 26 November)? Many of the user's early edits are improvements, but since this one [214] (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 [215], [216] 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. [217]). 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)

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.

*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)

(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)

I am not doing this for vandalization. I am doing this for navigational reason Oilcocaine (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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 [218], 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)

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)

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)

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.

• 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)
• 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)

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 [219]. 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 [220], 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)

• 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).

Unarchiving this

...because I just realized this is most certainly the bilateral relations troll (previous ANI discussion), who has been repeatedly blocked for such behavior on multiple IPs. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes you decide to click the create account button, perhaps? Surprisingly rare. Remsense留 05:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

They sometimes do, usually in the event all their proxies are blocked. Pinging Bishonen as the blocking admin for Oilcocaine. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have time to try to get my head round this. If another admin wants to indef Oilcocaine, or otherwise modify my block, that's fine with me. Bishonen | tålk 09:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC).