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

Completely unresponsive disruptive editor

Articist is a completely unresponsive disruptive editor. His talk page is full of warnings but he never responds.

He edit-warred me on All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam to remove reliably sourced information and I left a talk page message to pursue the content dispute.[1]

Upon reviewing this editor's history I found him to be completely unresponsive in violation of WP:COMMUNICATE. I left him a talk page message to communicate people.[2] However, this user is still editing and still refusing to communicate.[3] Editorkamran (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It gets better. Just on a lark, I scanned his Talk page contributions generally. Aside from his own talk page, each and every talk page edit he's ever made is a page move. Of the couple dozen complaints on his own talk page over the years, he's responded exactly three times: each with an exhortation to leave his edits alone and stop bothering him. This doesn't sound like an editor interested in collaboration. Ravenswing 07:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I've advised them of our guidelines about explaining their reverts and responding to good-faith questions. If they continue editing without responding, I will block them from the article namespace. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: He is back to editing and has ignored the talk page message as well as this ANI thread. Editorkamran (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocked from the article namespace. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be using Talk:All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Left 'm a COI notice. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Number 57

Instead of easily resolving the edit dispute by producing sources to back up his claims, Number 57 is resorting to WP:BULLYING and WP:PERSONALATTACKS by calling me a liar and incompetent. I stand by my point. It shouldn't be that hard to understand. An Indian political group is being inserted into an infobox about a Bangladeshi (formerly Pakistani) election. All I did was to remove the Indian political group (Scheduled Caste Federation). I am doing so because I am not finding evidence that SCF existed as a formal political group in Pakistan and Bangladesh.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is a clear case of either incompetence or disingenuity/dishonesty on Solomon's part. In 2017 I inserted a results table to the 1954 East Bengal Legislative Assembly election. This was based on this source used throughout the article, which makes numerous references to the SCF contesting the election, with page 167 showing them as winning 27 seats. The article on the East Pakistan Provincial Assembly, expanded by someone else, also showed the SCF as winning 27 seats at this time. In 2019 RaviC added the SCF to the infobox as the second-placed party.

Today's order of events has been as follows:

1. Solomon removes the SCF (and National Congress) from the infobox with no explanation)
2. After this is reverted, Solomon removes the SCF from the infobox again, initially claiming it "was allied with the winning coalition"
3. After this is reverted, Solomon again remove the SCF, now claiming it was unclear if the SCF was a formal political group in Pakistan claiming there is no evidence that it was (despite the source mentioned above)
4. Ignoring a request to follow BRD, Solomon removes the SCF from the infobox for a fourth time, also misleadingly claiming that "The infobox looks very good", despite having messed it up (the second party is not correctly filled in and the infobox is distorted).
5. After being asked on their talk page to undo their edit, Solomon claims "there is no source or evidence to back up your claim that SCF existed as a formal group", despite the existence of the aforementioned source. They also claim "the infobox was fine before you messed it up months ago" and that they were restoring the stable version, with both claims clearly being untrue. At this point I noted that either they were lying about the page history, or were not competent enough to understand it.

Had Solomon actually read the section of the article that Scheduled Caste Federation links to, they would have seen that it states "There was also a party called Scheduled Caste Federation in Pakistan".

In summary, this appears to have been a series of desperate attempt to justify an initial bad edit, evolving into more and more ludicrous defences. Cheers, Number 57 20:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The sentence of there being an SCF equivalent in Pakistan has no source. Also, why not stick to the actual name of Pakistan National Congress instead of "National Congress"? As someone from the area, I know the name "Pakistan Congress" is actually used to refer to this group, instead of "National Congress" (which no one uses).

The problem is that SCF is taking us to a link called the Republican Party of India. This is very problematic. It tells the reader that an Indian political party founded by B. R. Ambedkar contested an election in East Bengal in 1954 (which was then part of the Dominion of Pakistan and later became Bangladesh). Due to the partition of India, this problem should be understandable to any reasonable editor. Only a genuinely disingenuous editor can resort to personal attacks over these very legit concerns. It gives the impression that East Bengal was not a part of Pakistan but a part of India. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

In response to the query "why not stick to the actual name of Pakistan National Congress", because the article title is actually National Congress (Pakistan and Bangladesh).

If the problem was really the target of the SCF link as you now claim, you could have just changed the target rather than deleting the party from the infobox. However, I don't believe you were actually concerned about the link at the time, as you made no attempt to change other links in the article (such as in the results table), and were claiming the SCF didn't exist in Pakistan. I suspect you have just moved onto this as the latest attempt at defending your edits after your previous claims were rebutted. If you really believe the link was the problem, then the solution is very simple: Restore the infobox to how it was, but just change the link to Scheduled Caste Federation (Pakistan). Number 57 21:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Wow, you are really full of hatred aren't you? Are you from the RSS or do you sympathize with them?

Interestingly, it was RaviC who moved the page from Pakistan National Congress to the present title. The move was absolutely unnecessary. PNC existed in the 1950s. RaviC is also responsible for the poorly drafted infobox.

My only reason for the revert was the link to the Indian party. I do not prefer the red link. If the page does not exist, it means SCF did not exist as a formal group in Pakistan. You asked me to gain consensus. When I tell you my problem, you are again going into borderline WP:PERSONALATTACKS and questioning my integrity. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Please stop personal attacks ("full of hatred") and casting aspersions ("sympathize with RSS"). Ymblanter (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It was a rhetorical question in response to his incessant personal attacks, didn't you notice? No aspersions. Valid questions because he is suspiciously and mysteriously promoting a flawed infobox with a foreign political party. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Solomon The Magnifico: well whether it's a personal attack or a WP:POINT violation cut it out if you want to continue to edit. Note that it makes no sense to first claim something is a "rhetorical question" then say it's a "valid questions". (Asking if someone is "Are you from the RSS or do you sympathize with them?" is definitely not a valid question, and if you do it again you probably should at a minimum be topic banned, but maybe just site banned since we don't need that sort of nastiness here.) As for the rest, if you know something is always called XY instead of YZ because you're from X, then you should be able to provide reliable secondary sources demonstrating this. You're then free to make a WP:RM based on WP:Common name. Failing that, we don't care what you know. Also whether our article should link to a page where the only relevant coverage is

There was also a party called Scheduled Caste Federation in Pakistan after Partition. Ramnarayan Rawat stated that the SCF "created the space for an alternative to Congress-type 'nationalist' politics in post- 1947 Uttar Pradesh".

is an editorial decision and I can see valid arguments either way. I see no valid editorial arguments to removing a party which won 27 seats as per the sources used, from our article. The solution if it's felt linking to the article isn't a good idea is either to make it a red link or unlink it, rather than removing it completely. If it's believed the sources are wrong and no such political party existed, sources need to be found demonstrating this before removing the sourced info from our article. Nil Einne (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Those were absolutely aspersions and personal attacks. Peculiarly enough, disagreeing with you doesn't equate to being "full of hatred," and it is only "suspicious" or "mysterious" to editors who feel that no one can disagree with them without there being some sinister motive behind it all. I agree with Nil Einne that such mindsets are incompatible with this encyclopedia. Ravenswing 04:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you've all made your point very clear. I struck out that part. But if WP:Bullying is no longer applicable, why does the policy exist? On top of your scolding, I have to deal with Worldbruce. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 07:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

That would presuppose we agreed with your position that because you're not allowed to launch personal attacks and insults, it's acceptable to bully people, a curious twist of logic I'm having difficulty fathoming. (WP:BULLY, of course, is an essay, not a policy.) Ravenswing 15:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

In regards to original question, I don't think Number 57 is guilty of PERSONALATTACK in the link given above. And as for the whole issue with the impact of Partition on political parties it should be noted that some political organizations retained organization in both India and Pakistan for some time. The Communist Party of India retained organization in Pakistan until the Communist Party of Pakistan was created (and from what I gather the communist organization in East Pakistan remained under supervision of CPI for some time longer). It is possible that the SCF in Pakistan was still a component of the Indian SCF. It is also likely that the SCF branches in Pakistan eventually created a separate party. I'll try to look into this. --Soman (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Boomerang

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

---

Is a WP:BOOMERANG applicable here? In January, Solomon The Magnifico's incivility and disruptive editing was discussed here (reported by myself). At that time Schazjmd suggested a topic ban. In the end no sanctions were applied, but Cullen328 noted, "Another similar report in the future may well result in much more serious sanctions". In May, Solomon The Magnifico was blocked for two-weeks for edit warring. Nevertheless they've continued to edit war, and spew incivility. There's no sign that they want to change or can. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by they? I am a singular person here. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 07:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Solomon The Magnifico: You don't list your pronouns anywhere, so the appropriate pronoun to refer to you would be with the singular they. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

What ever happened to WP:GOODFAITH? I try my best to avoid conflict. I even received a barnstar from one of my staunchest critics. @Worldbruce, you are intent on isolating and excluding me. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 07:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

My edits are always well-sourced and constructive. I hardly engage in editing disputes, except when I feel the issue at stake merits more action. Sometimes there are mistakes, which is only human. Why does my good behavior get rewarded with talk of banning me? I may not be very conventional but I focus on my area of expertise. But what you are saying is a stretch, really. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 07:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm actually okay with Scheduled Caste Federation (Pakistan). Writing it like that did not hit me until it was pointed out here. My main problem was that Scheduled Caste Federation was linked to the Republican Party of India, which is out of place in an election infobox about East Bengal. So once I've come to accept the solution, why do I have to listen to talk of banning me? The editor I reported could have suggested this in the talk page. @Worldbruce I come from a distinguished political family of the subcontinent so I suggest you cease with your WP:PERSONALATTACKS. I don't reveal my identity for obvious reasons of security and privilege. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you display that barnstar on your Mercedes? EEng 15:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

We don't own a Mercedes. If you understood how Worldbruce is getting to me, you would understand where I am coming from. My family has an excellent scholarly record. Worldbruce keeps calling me uncivil even though my edits are reasonable most of the time, save for the occasional editing dispute. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

We don't give a fuck who your family is even if you did reveal your identity. Why on earth would you think that is remotely relevant to anything at all? Except when it comes to cases where you may have a CoI which clearly isn't why you raised the issue, the only thing that matters is the quality of your edits. And while I haven't look in depth, the examples I've seen are incredibly poor. As I said above, there was absolutely no reason to remove the sourced info on a party winning 27 seats. There were a number of options you could have taken to deal with your concerns including turning it into a red link, no link; or even raising the issue on the talk page and discussing it in good faith. You chose the option which actively made things worse. After choosing that option and being harshly criticised, instead of talking about it either with the editor or on the article, ignoring that criticism while recognising fair or not, you had done something incredibly silly but you still had concerns; you came to ANI and proceeded to make personal attacks. I'm actually not happy about Number 57 calling you a liar but since you proceeded to cast the terrible aspersions above, it seemed reasonable to ignore it since your behaviour has been so much worse. Now instead of recognising you'd done something wrong and trying to better in the future which is what we care about, you've come here to tell us about your family? Nil Einne (talk) 09:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban related to all Indian subcontinent politics, broadly construed. Not only is their editing history questionable and attitude poor, above they say they are from a "distinguished political family of the subcontinent" so they clearly have a COI in this area.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantSnowman (talk • contribs)
• Support topic ban: related to all Indian subcontinent politics, broadly construed. I concur with Nil Einne and GiantSnowman in every particular, and Solomon lashing out in all directions is a poor look. If Solomon really does think that their barnstar immunizes them against bad behavior, that WP:AGF means it's not allowed to call them on it, and that they get to obliquely threaten WorldBruce with their "distinguished political family," it's not merely that their behavior merits a TBAN, it calls into question their ability to collaborate with other editors here.

  EDIT: No objections to an indef, as this is evolving. 950 main space edits don't comprise a body of work we can't bring ourselves to do without. Ravenswing 15:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban because every distinguished family has its badly behaved black sheep. EEng 15:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
• Apology: I have struck out the objectionable comments on my family and so on. I apologize. I have edited many articles without any fuss or any problem. I tend to cooperate with editors as much as possible. This dispute erupted over an extremely minor issue. As I said, I felt the Scheduled Caste Federation had no place in an infobox about a Bangladeshi election (because I have never heard that it existed as a formal political group in Bangladesh and Pakistan). In 1954, the two main contenders were United Front led by A. K. Fazlul Huq and the Muslim League led by Nurul Amin. All I did was alter the infobox to show these two main contenders. All other groups were allied with one of the two main contenders. The Scheduled Caste Federation may have put up candidates informally. Why is it so difficult to find a source about its formal existence? All the other groups are easily verifiable. Everyone in the area knows the two main contenders were United Front and Muslim League. The United Front won by a huge landslide and the Muslim League was thrashed. I simply wanted to show the images of the two main contenders. I accept my first revert and edit summary was poorly drafted. I made a grammatical mistake even. I am sorry Number 57 and I apologize to everyone else. I do not like disruptive behavior myself. I keep myself busy with history articles mostly. This election article was a relatively minor edit in my editing history. I hope you all will find it in yourselves to forgive me. I'm sorry.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
• Also, please note that I lost a family member recently. The comments on my family are uncalled for. My family is very proud of me, and so are the people around me. I really do not know what to say anymore to you people. My area of expertise is Bangladesh and I do not want a topic ban over such a minor issue.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  I've lost a family member recently, and somehow I've managed to follow Wikipedia rules of conduct and civility all the same; once again, you're implying that some external factor gives you a free pass against bad behavior. No one has said anything disparaging about your family -- what is "uncalled for" is you raising the subject at all. You may safely count me in agreement with Number 57 that your apology comes from your realization that you're in genuine trouble here, and not out of any sense of you having violated policy ... and that's bolstered by your further comments. Ravenswing 02:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• I have left an apology on Number 57's talk page. I will stick to the status quo preferred by Number 57.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban Unfortunately I encounter editors like Solomon on a regular basis and they make editing Wikipedia an unpleasant experience. Given the relatively recent edit warring block, it would appear that they struggle to meet Wikipedia's behavioural expectations (they are only backtracking and apologising now as they've realised they are in trouble). The various discussions on Talk:Bengal Presidency are an illustration of how Solomon seems to work, including constantly casting aspersions on editors' motivations, including this comment where they seem to be accusing another editor of being a Nazi?? The comment above that "If the page does not exist, it means SCF did not exist as a formal group in Pakistan" is also concerning and suggests that even after a year of editing, they do not understand basic principles of how Wikipedia works. Number 57 19:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  But that editor later admitted to the fact I was talking about. Why did he apologize then? He admitted that I was right after verifying the sources. This is being blown way out of proportion. I am with the truth. I sure hope truth wins on Wikipedia, because all this seems very much against the truth. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  I am not "they". Gosh, what is happening here? Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  The issue isn't whether you're right or wrong, but that you've been very WP:UNCIVIL in you interactions with other editors. Also the use of singular they in informal language is over a century old in some forms of English, if you wish to avoid this then you could consider putting your pronoun preferences in your signature. Otherwise I suggest assuming good faith that other editors mean nothing by it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe some of your family's excellent scholars can it explain it to you. EEng 21:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  They is a perfectly acceptable pronoun, that has existed in this usage in England for many centuries, to use to refer to another when their personal pronoun is either unknown or their gender is not relevant to the conversation. I was always taught to refer to others in this manner when the gender is not relevant to the point being made and will rarely use he or she (and no it's not some modern thing.) Canterbury Tail talk 22:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  Ah...an appeal to truth. This is going only one way. DeCausa (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  You have protested "they" a few times now, but at no point have you actually set forth by what pronoun you prefer to be called. It isn't that hard to clue us in: he? she? it? We will be happy to comply. Ravenswing 08:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe magno/magnee/magself? EEng 18:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban related to all Indian subcontinent politics, broadly construed (appealable after no less than one year). The substance of their comments in this discussion alone are highly concerning for several reasons that others have already commented on and so I will not repeat, but digging deeper into the edits and interactions with others shows that this doesn't appear to be a topic area in which the editor is productively editing in at this time, so a topic ban seems a reasonable route to take. - Aoidh (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  Just a note per the indef block suggestions below, I'm not opposed to that as a solution, but it wouldn't be my first choice to go straight there. However, I think some sort of action is needed. - Aoidh (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban The follow-up apologies and explanations make it even clearer to me that this editor still does not have a real grasp on what they did wrong or what civility means. Even within his apology, he felt the the need to make excuses, saying that it was overblown, that he was right, and that Wikipedia would suffer if not for his presence. Seeing the regular excuse about how he's only disruptive when things are important to him makes me think that a site ban would be more appropriate. One of the basics here is that you don't always get your way, and sometimes you don't get your way on something that you think is important. But a topic ban covering the subcontinent is a must; if he is to stay at all, at this point, it should be away from the area that he's caused trouble in on multiple occasions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
• Propose indef block. Alas a topic ban is unlikely to avoid further disruption by Solomon The Magnifico, particularly if the ban is limited to politics. The straw that broke the camel's back happens to have taken place in connection with an article about politics, but little of his editing is politics-related. He describes his editing as mostly history. His most edited articles include: Bangladesh, Bengal, Bengal Presidency, Chittagong, Dhaka, Economy of Bangladesh, Kolkata, and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. There have been problems with his behaviour and competence, similar to those discussed above, at a bunch of those articles.

For example, at Bengal he recently reverted PadFoot2008, saying in his edit summary "I don't have time for a history lesson". Did he mean he didn't have time to give PadFoot2008 a history lesson, or didn't have time to learn history? Either way, it's unacceptable. In the revert he restored analysis that is not directly supported by the cited source. WP:BURDEN? He doesn't need to cite sources. After all, he's "someone from the area", comes "from a distinguished political family", which "has an excellent scholarly record", and "know[s] for a fact that [his] content is better". His claim that his edits "are always well-sourced and constructive" is balderdash. If a topic ban is applied, it should be at least a topic ban from all Bangladesh or Bengal related articles, broadly construed. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support idef. Dont see any redeeming quality here, especially with their responses in this thread. A topic ban from the Indian Subcontinent is unlikely to end the disruption, though it can also be considered if they are offered a bit more rope. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  I support idef too , but what's your opinion on the block proposal? EEng 20:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  Hah. Nice.

  Support indef. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support indef block. Solomon has been indulging in edit warring and seems to have no respect for other's opinions, the community consensus or WP:NOR. I've also observed that he makes incorrect and biased generalizations and purposely misinterprets sources to serve his bias. In addition, he has serious editorial bias and regularly violates Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. Even if a topic ban is to be applied, it should cover all articles related to the Indian subcontinent; however that too might be pretty inadequate owing to his destructive editing nature. Editors like him make editing Wikipedia a very unpleasant experience for other editors, especially for those who assume good faith. PadFoot2008 (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support indef block. They seem really immature and considering their behavior hasn't improved much since 2017 it's the only way to resolve this. I think it's a matter of personal growth that Solomon needs to take for himself as he appears more goofy than anything else. UnironicEditor (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support indef block of anyone who makes a "do you know who I am?" (or, even worse, a "do you know who my family are?") edit. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support indef block, 1st choice. TBAN second choice I'm afraid this person's self exaltation makes collaboration with others difficult, and a TBAN might just shove the problem into the future.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

  I took the apology into consideration. The timing gives it an air of disingenuity. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support indef block. by the comments made in this discussion by Solomon, i doubt that they can collaborate effectively with others, barring sudden behavioral changes à la Phineas Gage. DrowssapSMM (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. This editor does seem rather excitable, but given his apology in the face of ridicule he's shown me enough that I favour a second chance. Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

  I would be inclined to give an apology more weight if it wasn't given only when the discussion was heading towards a topic ban, and even then it's an apology that attempts to downplay their actions. They apologized because, in their own words, they do not want a topic ban over such a minor issue. - Aoidh (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support indef block - This user has not done very much to endear themselves towards users of Wikipedia who are interested in communicating in a collaborative environment. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Persistent vandalism/disruption, block evasion by Applee1212--requesting range block and/or multiple pages protected

Now blocked, Applee1212 (talk · contribs) lives on in the 124.253 range. I've asked for a block of the most recent account, 124.253.255.56 (talk · contribs), but a range block may be necessary. UTI Asset Management, Panjab University and DAV College, Chandigarh appear to be the primary targets, with a particular interest in promotion at UTI. The content persistently added there appears to be copied from other sites, so rev/deletion may be in order. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

CIR, IDHT and battleground behaviour on Vivek Ramaswamy 2024 presidential campaign

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

---

There is a lot in this report, but I'll try summarise it so as to save admin time.

Over the last few weeks, Klermodalwonfeyz has repeatedly engaged in poor behaviour at Vivek Ramaswamy 2024 presidential campaign, including repeatedly inserting grammatically incorrect content to the article which borders WP:CIR, WP:IDHT behaviour, edit warring and refusal to communicate with other editors.

This all started on 26 August, when User:Neutrality reverted a series of edits made by this user, as the edits had a promotional tone and poor phrasing. Klermodalwonfeyz made more edits immediately after this, which were reverted, and a question was left on Klermodalwonfeyz's talk page about a potential conflict of interest. The user didn't answer, continued to edit and cleared their talk page of some notices. User:SPECIFICO left a note on the user's talk page asking them to respond to Neutrality's question, and also received no answer as the editor continued to edit this page. As the editor continued to edit this page, I left a notice asking them for a third time to answer as to the COI thing. They continued to edit, and only after being repeatedly reverted by other editors and a COIN filing being created, they finally responded.

On the actual behaviour on the article: the editor has repeatedly added content that does not make any grammatical sense in English. For example, they have added the following:

• In after thought during an interview, Ramaswamy reflected "cult like" to some affirming advocacy rights groups 'is what this LGBTQIA+ movement has become'
• Ramaswamy believed supporting same-sex marriage in the United States when, for example,
• Ramaswamy did not taken a public position on the [..]
• He believes identity politics promotes victimhood and needs a replacement to a
• Polls find Ramaswamy, nearly to Desantis, as the second choice candidate

Further to this, they have repeatedly added garbled, non-English edit summaries which myself and other editors have told them are impossible to parse. For example: dont now tnat 'value' ez a sumare ov 'the Path Back to Excellence'., aym unkomfordabil beyenq askt for peyments ov entrest dhat destroy for ransom., ad sayt. muv bodom tu top., among others. Myself and Neutrality both left comments on this, and yet it has persisted, with the first of these diffs being just today.

I understand that English-language skills should not be a barrier alone to editing enwiki, hence why per WP:CIRNOT I suggested to the editor that they start suggesting edits at the talk page given the ongoing pattern of incorrect additions, only for them to issue no response and edit the page a few minutes later. Their only engagement at the article's talk page has been to accuse me of being "too hard" on them, then continuing to edit the article and add grammatically incorrect content, such as today's addition of incorrect English such as "He appeals that" and "Ramawamy". On a further CIR note, the editor added a phrase to the article on September 15, only to remove it two days later saying they don't know if it's a valid summary, which to me feels very like editing the article for the sake of editing the article.

Finally, on edit warring and battleground behaviour: the user repeatedly engages in WP:IDHT behaviour and repeatedly reinserts their own changes. After an edit they made, including renaming the "Anti-wokeism" section to "Wokeism" was reverted by another editor, they reinstalled it about four hours later. When again reverted by the same editor, they restored it the very next day, then after being reverted again, they restored it no more than thirty minutes later. They were again reverted having not answered the COI claims on their talk page, before restoring it 18 minutes later.

I have tried repeatedly to communicate with this editor on several occasions, as have several others, and exhausted every possible avenue I can, but to absolutely zero avail and only for the editor to continue disruptively editing. This has gone on long enough, and this user's consistent introduction of poor-quality edits to the article and refusal to listen or communicate with other editors is becoming disruptive. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 13:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the unconventional spelling has a been a problem even in articles in the past [4] [5]. While it's a while ago, considering at other times they can use more conventional spelling, I'm not sure what we should make of this. Nil Einne (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Hm. The grammar/spelling isn't a problem, the lack of responsiveness is. I would suggest a temporary (one month) PBLOCK from Vivek Ramaswamy 2024 presidential campaign and Vivek Ramaswamy. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the user has been indeffed by an admin. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

No comment on the grammar, but the spelling in wireless speaker was bad enough that it IMO is a problem. However since it seems to have only directly affected an article one time in 2020, we can probably ignore it provided it doesn't repeat. Nil Einne (talk) 03:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Puffing up chart standings: IP range from the Detroit area

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

---

• 2603:9009:800:B1A7:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone from Greater Detroit has been puffing up music articles to falsely assert higher sales or chart rankings on songs and albums.[6][7][8] The disruption on this range dates back to March 2023,[9] but they were doing the same damage with Special:Contributions/2603:9009:801:F4C:0:0:0:0/64 in 2022 and Special:Contributions/2603:9009:880:10A1:0:0:0:0/64 in 2021. Can we give this person a time-out? Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

3 mo partial... Lourdes 08:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

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

158.62.82.19

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

---

Please revoke TPA from 158.62.82.19 (talk · contribs), per Wikipedia:NONAZI -Lemonaka‎ 12:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Removed TPA for the disruption. Just to note, NONAZIS is an essay, not actual Wikipedia policy. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

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

2600:1700:9291:5CB0:DC68:6E81:901C:1476 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

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

---

This IP has attempted to make nasty personal attacks on their own talk page which were disallowed by an edit filter (check the IP's edit filter log for details). Please re-block 2600:1700:9291:5cb0::/64 with TPA revoked. Eyesnore 12:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

This entry in the edit filter log shows that the IP has gone too far, attempting to send death threats to fellow enwiki administrators. It was thankfully disallowed by an edit filter. Eyesnore 13:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

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

188.163.104.39 and personal attacks

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

---

I have blocked 188.163.104.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 72h for disruptive editing. They now started personal attack against me on their talk page. They have chosen to personally attack me in Ukrainian, apparently they think I will be more upset if they swear in Ukrainian. Could someone teach them manners please? Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

TPA revoked, anon only block extended to a month for LOUTSOCK issues. Courcelles (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. The master just got indeffed. Ymblanter (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Ptb1997

This user has a long term pattern of making edits they have been asked not to do, as be seen throughout their talk page by a multitude of editor. User has exactly zero recent communication include in edit summaries. User has been blocked for this in the past and hasn't learned. Edit summary advisements go back 8 years, there's a warning from an admin 5 years ago to stop the unconstructive editing. The most recent issue that this editor continues to do despite warnings is contrast issues with colors.--Rockchalk717 17:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Godjo J

Godjo J (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I believe this author is article creation edit waring, consider:

• BLP Draft:Jijo Antony was rejected from AfC on 26 June 2023[10] as improperly sourced BLP. Author then directly created the same article in mainspace Jijo Antony without improved sources.
• Draft:Thala (film) was rejected from AfC on 24 August 2023[11] as Spam#Advertisements masquerading as articles. Author then directly created the same article in mainspace Thala (film)[12] without improvements.
• BLP Draft:Khais Millen was rejected from AfC on [13] as promo and improperly sourced BLP; then deleted at AfD on 11 September 2023[14] Author then created the same article again in mainspace Khais Millen[15] without improved sources/content.

I think I got the links and chronology above correct; I think these three article's history show enough of a problem for admin action.

The rejected drafts or preferably the copy paste mainspace versions will need deletion:

• Draft:Khais Millen (rejected draft) and Khais Millen (copy paste move from rejected draft)
• Draft:Thala (film) (rejected draft) and Thala (film) (copy paste move from rejected draft)
• Draft:Jijo Antony (rejected draft) and Jijo Antony (copy paste move from rejected draft)

Editor has not responded to notices on their talk page including a COI notice at User talk:Godjo J#Managing a conflict of interest.

 // Timothy :: talk  19:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I've p-blocked from article space as the disruption is clear. Hopefully this encourages them to communicate. No objection to broader spam block if folks think it's needed, but this allows for the cleanup to proceed. Star Mississippi 16:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Long-long-long lasting disruptive editing on Bulgars by MiltenR (talk · contribs)

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

---

Admins have ignored this many times.

• thread1
• thread2

This user regularly comes to Bulgars, and edits the same thing over and over. Do I need any other comment? Beshogur (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

You are insisting in misleading information to be included in the article Bulgars to spread your propaganda. Administrators, please, This user Beshogur (talk · contribs) regularly comes to Bulgars, and edits the same thing over and over. MiltenR (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Obsessing a group of unknown origin and pushing Turkic agenda while living in Europe as an immigrant 😂 Yeah buddy. You are probably 25-30 but acting like a child. Do you want a group of Bulgarian children editing Gotturuks as Mongolians? 🤨 176.55.36.148 (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The same is the story with several articles related to the origin of the Bulgars as Bulgarians, Turkic peoples, Volga Bulgaria, etc. The talk-page of the article Bulgars is under persistent Bulgarian nationalist agenda attacks of IP-s as that above. Jingiby (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Don't answer the IP abuser. Beshogur (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

This user Beshogur (talk · contribs) regularly comes to Bulgars, and edits the same thing over and over. now trolling? Not funny. Beshogur (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Also this user almost never engages on the talk page. Beshogur (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• I have blocked MiltenR for 2 months for edit warring and and independent of the long-term disruptive editing. I see that MiltenR was blocked in May 2023 for edit warring for 2 weeks. The content being warred over in May 2023 ([16]) is the same as today's edit war ([17])> Really it's been a target since 2020. I do think an indef or t-ban should be considered. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

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

How to deal with hounding?

A user was blocked for violating policies for a week, the details of the block can be found here - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pirate of the High Seas/Archive

and then they started hounding again using IP (WHOIS check confirms location and they're in same band of IPs compared to previous ones they used), 3 instanses were recorded, how do I proceed with this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mizoram_bridge_collapse&diff=prev&oldid=1175513752

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fly91_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=1175512763

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Disasters_in_India_in_2023&diff=prev&oldid=1175511005

They keep following the articles that I created and the articles I edit Thewikizoomer (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

They did here as well - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freedom_of_religion_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=1175625994

and here too - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Venigandla_Ramu&diff=prev&oldid=1175626547 with a different IP

Special:Contributions/39.34.178.97

Looks like a targeted attack from users belonging to specific country Thewikizoomer (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I blocked the latest IP, but our options to deal with disruptive dynamical IPs are very limited. Next time they shown up from the new IP. make two or three edits, and disappear again Ymblanter (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Totally understandable Thewikizoomer (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Number of concerns on a COI editor

Hello, I was asked by other editors to post this here. I'm making this entry as I've been concerned by a number of actions by a confirmed WP:CONFLICT OF INTEREST editor - @Gill110951:. I'm surprised some of these have not been picked up on before. For context, Richard Gill is a mathematician who has campaigned against the conviction of nurses who he thinks are wrongly imprisoned, including playing a major role in the release of Lucia de Berk. He has also now turned his interest to campaigning against the conviction of Lucy Letby: [18]. Looking into this editor I have seen what I observe to be a number of infringements on policies, which for ease I think is best for me to list and summarise here, starting with what I see as perhaps the most serious infringement:

• Substantial WP:CONFLICT OF INTEREST infringements. In a talk page discussion the other day, Gill alluded to how his 'own page' had been 'repeatedly vandalised in recent months'. When I looked at said page (Richard D. Gill), I was shocked to find that he had created the article on himself some time ago: [19]. Somewhat surprised to see that this had not already been picked up upon, I then found that he had created other articles on cases he was directly involved in too, such as, notably, the Lucia de Berk article [20]. Obviously these were created some time ago, but the edit history shows that he has continued pretty much ever since to edit, revert and patrol pages on which he has a conflict of interest, as recently as a couple of weeks ago in the case of his own article: [21], [22]. Does this not all go against the COI policy that "you should generally refrain from creating articles about yourself, or anyone you know, living or dead... If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles"??
• WP:CANVASSING(?). Further research on Gill reveals that he has recently been promoting his Wikipedia edits to his own article on his social media to his supporters and followers - [23]. Considering that such actions are likely going to encourage his followers on the social media platform to come to his aid or support his edits, could this also not constitute a form of WP:CANVASSING? Unsure if this qualifies but thought I should mention it.
• WP:PROMOTION, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:COICAMPAIGN. Gill said on the Lucy Letby talk page that his purpose, despite being on the talk page, was "not to suggest changes to the article" [24] and was "not suggesting changes to the article [25]. This was uncomfortable to me as it seemed, considering his aim was "not to suggest changes to the article", that he was instead going against WP:SOAPBOX and contravening the warning at the top of the page that "This page is not a forum for general discussion about Lucy Letby. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article". He instead was using the space to promote his own personal views on the wider Letby case and, tangentially, his criticism of the UK legal system in general, rather than (self-admittedly) discuss the article and changes to it [26]. Another editor, when starting the initial talk page discussion, had already suggested that Gill avoided this particular discussion as it partly concerned including him on the Letby article [27], but Gill did not heed this advice and instead did almost the opposite and just swamped the discussion and another related one he then starts: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. I did try and remind Gill on a number of occasions of the other user's request for him to avoid this particular issue [36], [37], but he continued anyway. What I also thought was particularly concerning was his WP:REDACTING his own previous talk to provide links to he and his allies' personal campaign pages and to his own Wikipedia page (which as already stated, he created) [38]. I just ought to clarify here that I'm not complaining about him discussing on talk, I know that COI editors are encouraged to suggest edits there instead of editing COI articles directly and that them posting on talk is fine, but it's his specific conduct during talk discussions here which is what I'm concerned about on this point.
• WP:REDACT. As briefly alluded to above, Gill has also been altering his own talk contributions after other editors have already replied to him, an apparent infringement of WP:REDACT. He did so here: [39]. Whilst it initially appears that this edit may have been done in good faith, the surreptitious changing of his comment on "the enormous bias in UK mainstream media coverage about this trial" to "what also appears to some to be enormous bias in UK mainstream media coverage about this trial" was done in direct response to my talk point about how his acknowledgement of this 'enormous bias' in secondary sources actually reinforced my point [40] about how examples of reliable secondary sources disbelieving Letby's conviction are almost non-existent. Therefore, his going back on his original comment to redact it to 'what also appears to some to be enormous bias in UK mainstream media...' is evidently an attempt to conceal his previous, potentially unfortunate, comments. This really does seem to be a WP:REDACT issue. Furthermore, he redacted in that edit something what seems to me to also be quite disingenuous - his writing on himself in the third person(!) as one of the 'highly qualified professionals' on his side, which was misleading to editors who may not have realised that the person listing Richard Gill as a highly qualified professional was Richard Gill!

Another editor, @NEDOCHAN:, has since noted that Gill has now started directly editing the Lucy Letby article which he has a COI involvement in, including adding an unsourced addition on the specific subject of doubt on her conviction - the COI issue in which he is specifically involved in - [41]. He also reverted several copy edits and reverted NEDOCHAN's removal of the unsourced addition [42], simply claiming "sources are easy to find" and "easy to confirm from recent media reports" [43], so as well as ignoring COI guidelines, Gill is also appearing to now infringe on WP:Verifiability. Could I request that someone looks at this and considers if any action needs to be taken? Without anything I fear this editor will also progress onto more edits on the Letby article on which he has a direct COI clash. Thank you. Snugglewasp (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Snugglewasp is constantly doubting my good faith concerning my comments on the Talk page of the Lucy Letby article. I noticed many examples of bias in the article, and tried to correct a couple of them. Lucy Letby has been convicted after a long and controversial trial. The sentence is controversial. The verdict is controversial: the jury missed one person and majority verdicts were accepted instead of the normally required unanimous verdicts. Lucy is appealing; Lucy Letby is a living person. The legal procedure to have an appeal has started. The article is already too long and much too detailed. It reflects the main stream media reporting of the prosecution arguments during the trial. Editors on this article need to realise that being found guilty of serious crimes after just one criminal trial is not synonymous with being guilty of serious crimes. UK tabloid media do not draw that distinction. I think that Wikipedia should. Richard Gill (talk) 03:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• Richard, the way we determine whether someone is guilty is in court. Lucy Letby is guilty of the most unimaginably horrific crimes and we know that's true because a jury has reached a verdict after an evidence-based trial. We can and should say so in Wikipedia's voice. I can see that you have doubts, but Wikipedia is not a place to contradict the verdict of the court as reported in mainstream media. These edits are disruptive and they need to stop.—S Marshall T/C 07:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  I am *not* contradicting the verdict of the court. The verdict is the verdict. Lucy is, presently, a convicted serial killer nurse. She is in prison. If nothing changes, she will leave prison in a coffin. I am not contradicting that. What makes you think that I do not think she is a convicted serial killer nurse? Richard Gill (talk) 11:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• I've indef p-blocked Gill110951 (Richard Gill) from Richard D. Gill as well as from Lucy Letby and Talk:Lucy Letby (see User talk:Gill110951#Partial blocks). I'm not sure how this one slipped through the cracks. I also don't really understand the nature of this external-cum-onwiki advocacy for nurse serial killers, like Letby recently or Lucia de Berk years back, but it's obviously disruptive and in violation of the conflict of interest guideline. As I told him, these p-blocks serve as a final warning against this kind of behaviour. El_C 11:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• Noting that I also closed WP:AN#A_number_of_concerns_about_a_COI_editor (permalink). One noticeboard thread is enough. El_C 11:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• (After edit conflict with El C). Given Gill110951's strong opinion (and potential legal involvement in an appeal?) I agree that he probably shouldn't be editing the Letby article, and he's evidently been disruptive on that article's talk page (I haven't looked). But I want to point out that last month we had an AN section because a relatively new editor was personally attacking him and making biased additions to the article about him. Having been unwise enough to write an autobiography here doesn't make him any less of a BLP, and I don't see any edits by him to that article since those events (I radically rewrote the segment). Yngvadottir (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• Dear Yngvadottir, thanks for your support. May I mention, though, that I never ever “wrote an autobiography of myself” as a Wikipedia page. I merely helped rename an existing page about myself in order to disambiguate the four Richard Gill’s about whom other people had created Wikipedia articles. Back in the day when I did this, people were not so fussy. People were collaborative and trusted in one another’s good faith. Oh tempora, oh mores! Richard Gill (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  The first edit in the page history of Richard D. Gill is yours, on 31 Oct 2006, which you described as "Copy/paste from R D Gill's short biography at his university of Leiden web site", and over the next day you copy-edited it, and added categories and a picture of yourself. That looks very much like writing an autobiography of yourself, not "merely helped rename". NebY (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  That’s what it might look like today, but that is because there was an existing page about me which needed disambiguation. It now no longer exists. Richard Gill (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  You wrote above 'I never ever “wrote an autobiography of myself” as a Wikipedia page. I merely helped rename an existing page about myself'. The page history shows that you pasted in your biography, copy-edited it, categorised it and illustrated it. That is not "merely helping rename" and it is writing an autobiography of yourself as a Wikipedia page. NebY (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  There was a two-sentence substub at Richard Gill (physicist) (relevant revision) that was superseded by the autobiography. —Cryptic 13:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  Look for web pages called “Richard Gill” which no longer exist. Yes, I am as vain as any other famous scientist, but I do not create Wikipedia articles about myself out of the blue. I am not stupid. Richard Gill (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi El_C, can you explain to me how I can WP:PING you? That page is a redirect to another page and I don’t see what I am supposed to do. I have no objection to an appealable ban against editing the Lucy Letby page, or its talk page. The hostility I met there was stunning. I object to not being able to edit the talk page of the article about me. I think that if someone puts facts on that page about me which are wrong, that I should be able to point that out. Thanks for your consideration. Richard Gill (talk) 11:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I linked WP:PING for you, Richard Gill (← ping), which outlines the pertinent documentation (though it is now moot, since we are presently speaking). In answer to your question: you are still able to edit the talk page of the article about you, I purposefully did not restrict you from it. El_C 11:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, then everything is fine!

You say you don’t understand advocacy for nurse serial killers. I only advocate for retrials of dubious convictions. I am against injustice, and against misuse of science. I work in medical statistics and in forensic science and in quantum physics. I have worked as often for the prosecution as for the defence in numerous high profile criminal cases. For instance, I pioneered novel statistical methodology which secured the convictions of the Hezbollah terrorists who assassinated prime minister Hariri of Lebanon. Are you asserting that Lucia de Berk and Daniela Poggiali are guilty of the crimes for which they were convicted? Richard Gill (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know who Daniela Poggiali is. I only found out who Lucia de Berk is by way of this report. Obviously, the latter was exonerated. The problem, however, is that even though you've joined in 2006, you still conduct yourself as a newcomer (like not knowing how to WP:PING, even when it was linked for you). A newcomer who brings their external advocacy onwiki, without a firm understanding of policy and best practices. Again, I refer you to WP:ADVOCACY, which you should not use Wikipedia for. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that is meant to report on convictions and appeals (both successful and failed) after they happen, rather than attempt to influence these as they happen. El_C 12:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I know. Wikipedia has changed a lot since 2006. I have changed a lot since 2006. Wikipedia used to be fun. Nowadays it is all about waving the rule book. I’ve been banned from Wikipedia many times before. I did a little arithmetic calculation on the Monty Hall problem, but that was “own research”. Lucia was exonerated because of me (and quite a few other people). People in the UK never realised that the Lucy Letby case is so similar to the Lucia de Berk case, till a few days ago. Oh well. Richard Gill (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC

PS. Like any Wikipedia editor, I edit and keep an eye on pages which interest me. I have many interests. I object to my interest in the Wikipedia article on the Lucy Letby case being labelled a “conflict of interest”. I happen to have a lot of knowledge about serial killer nurse cases, and I am a scientist with a pretty strong track record for work on the uses and abuse of science in society. Therefore I have a personal moral obligation, and a professional obligation, to disseminate my knowledge. One way is through work on Wikipedia (which in the past has been very highly appreciated). I would like to see fellow editors assume “good faith” on my side, and to enter into discussion with me, before proposing bans of a person whose opinions they apparently disagree with. Opinions in the UK are presently divided about 50:50 as to whether Lucy Letby had a fair trial. Outside the UK, things are different. The tabloid media have created an atmosphere in which nobody in the UK dares to speak out if they suspect her trial was unfair. (There are very reliable sources supporting this opinion). Richard Gill (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Your professional qualifications, "personal moral obligation" and "professional obligation[s]" do not, however, supersede Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which require -- and always have, despite your inference that 2006 was some golden era where editors could input whatever the hell they wanted with complete impunity -- references to reliable sourcing.

Beyond that, you've made some puzzling statements. First is saying on the one hand that opinion in the UK runs 50:50 on whether Letby had a fair trial, and then on the other hand that "nobody in the UK dares to speak out if they suspect her trial was unfair." Which is it? Secondly, there's your comment about having been "banned from Wikipedia many times before." You are aware that we can all see your block history, right? [44] It looks to have been pristine before El_Cid's TBLOCK. Between that and your curious belief that being found guilty at trial is not held to be synonymous with being guilty, you will perhaps forgive us for not as confident as you are that your expertise trumps all other considerations and facts. Ravenswing 13:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ravenswing, it's both. Opinion is divided; and those who hold the wrong opinion dare not express it. If you want proof I can give it to you, but not in public. So you can believe me or not, as you like, but I assure you that this will become common knowledge in a few weeks.

I have been banned from editing the Monty Hall three door problem page. I can't remember if I was banned from editing Wikipedia altogether, for some period. Anyway, later the ban was rescinded.

Being found guilty means that a jury decided you were guilty. In 10% of cases, a conviction is later overturned. Are you saying that false convictions never ever occur?

I am not saying that my opinion trumps Wikipedia rules. I believe that I have been falsely accused of Wikipedia crimes, and I am trying to defend my Wikipedia reputation. I hope that one is considered innocent till proven guilty. Remember the "good faith" presumption, which all Wikipedia editors are supposed to hold to, if possible. Richard Gill (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

You wrote Opinions in the UK are presently divided about 50:50 as to whether Lucy Letby had a fair trial. Can you back up that public assertion in public, or are you referring to it when you say If you want proof I can give it to you, but not in public? NebY (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, my problem with that is that if no one dares proffer an opinion that Letby didn't have a fair trial, by what means could anyone possibly determine that a 50:50 split exists -- reading tea leaves? Offering to give me non-public proof just strikes me as melodramatic; does Mr. Gill foresee ANI regulars racing to alert the UK tabloid press, or that he is a figure of such importance that the tabloid press would care?

As far as the "false conviction" thing goes, come now. A fact is a fact. That facts can change should not be a mystery to any academic. Nor should it be a mystery to an academic what happens when they do: the textbooks and references are changed to reflect new realities. These sorts of revisions happen on Wikipedia thousands of times daily: facts are superseded by new ones. There's a new prime minister, the new population figures are out, the landmark burned down and no longer exists, historians revise the date of this ancient battle or that archaeological find. Ravenswing 05:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Please take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Gill&action=history As you will see, someone created a Wikipedia article "Richard Gill (physicist)". I changed it to "statistician" and added some basic biographical details which are all on public record. I did not add boastful accounts of my exploits. Other persons found it useful to do that, later. I strongly object to the accusation that I have designed and constantly edited the Wikipedia article about myself. That is slander.

Yes, I helped free convicted serial killer nurses Lucia de Berk and Daniela Poggiali; I contributed to attempts to have the case of Ben Geen reviewed by the CCRC. I was a coauthor of a publication of the Royal Statistical Society, in which common problems with the use of statistical evidence in serial killer nurse cases are outlined, and procedures are described in order to mitigate those problems. These cases have special features which make them especially difficult to investigate and try. Miscarriages of justice in such cases are therefore, not surprisingly, relatively common. Richard Gill (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't find @Gill110951: being banned from the Monty Hall problem page, but I can find Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty_Hall_problem#Gill110951_reminded him being reminded "to follow good practice in respect of conflict of interest, when referencing or inserting his own sources of his own authoring into the article as references, namely to avoid undue weight, use reliable sourcing, be able to demonstrate such if asked and to seek consensus first if editing in a contentious segment of mainspace". DuncanHill (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Richard Gill, defamation that written is called libel ("slander" is defamation that is spoken), but regardless, you risk an indefinite sitewide block for violating the legal threats policy. Yes, even if someone had claimed you "designed and constantly edited the Wikipedia article about [yourself]" — though I don't see any evidence of that having been said (none was provided). El_C 18:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Let's see if I can add some clarity without coming off as sententious. Gill110951, there don't appear to have been any deletions (although as a non-admin, it's possible I'm missing something). You did originate the Richard D. Gill article on 31 October 2006; the pre-existing article, Richard Gill (physicist), was created on 6 March 2006 by Njerseyguy to distinguish from Richard Gill (conductor), who had previously been the subject of the Richard Gill article (they moved that article and converted the redirect into a DAB page). Also on 31 October, you corrected and expanded the "physicist" page then attempted to redirect it to the new article: sum of your changes; someone else later completed the redirecting. You either didn't think to move it or were still too new an editor to be able to do so.

Both experts and other Wikipedia editors need to be mindful of WP:NOTFORUM, including on noticeboards, and especially on topics where emotions run high. We're not here on this project, or here at AN/I, to judge the veracity or desirability of things. Assertions need to be kept so far as possible to what's best for the article(s) and supported by reliable sources. This is one reason we strongly discourage autobiographies and other COI editing; with the best will in the world, it's hard to maintain the necessary distance to write neutrally where one is personally invested. But it's also an aspect of the BLP policy; editors have a duty to avoid writing about living people anywhere on Wikipedia in a non-neutral, non-citation-supported manner. And that includes article subjects who are also declared Wikipedia editors. (We also have a policy or guideline against discussing article content matters at noticeboards, which in part stems from the need to separate article issues from editor behaviour. I think this discussion has stepped a bit far over that line.) Gill110951, things have become more bureaucratic here, that's true, and there are more policy and guideline pages now, but if after reviewing WP:COI in particular, you believe your partial block from one or more of those three pages should be lifted, follow the instructions in the last sentence of the block notice and ask for an unblock (whole or partial) there. El_C, in referring to the editor being hostile, I think you may have missed the context of the comment for which he apologized; you linked the apology in the block notice. See the earlier stages of that conversation, as I noted at the the AN. I haven't looked at Talk:Lucy Letby, but have there been any further personal attacks? Yngvadottir (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I did miss that context, so I stand partially corrected (pun unintended). But in fairness, I also didn't say "personal attacks." Not to play on semantics, but I said "aggression." Which, in my view that talk page does display some, though granted nothing too egregious. Still, how are editors expected to respond to comments such as I have exchanged many emails with him in the past concerning the Ben Geen case and I think I know him a lot better than you do @04:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)? Or the markedly projective This is yet another example of the heavy bias caused by the COI of many editors of this page, who themselves are convinced that Lucy is guilty @12:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)? Personally, I'd advise Richard Gill against appealing on the basis of his conflict of interest because, well, obviously there is one, which he does not deny. And he was warned about it repeatedly, including, we learned, in the 2011 Arb case that features #Gill110951_reminded. So a longstanding problem with no resolution in sight absent the sanctions I imposed. But they are free to appeal as they see fit, of course. I note, though, that one reason I restricted him from the talk page was, indeed, numerous WP:FORUM violations. Another was him inappropriately placing his own WP:BURDEN on others, as with the main article. And now, as of a few hours ago, we have a legal threat, without Gill even informing us who had purportedly defamed him, no link, nothing. I don't know about you, but I find all that quite subpar. I actually think the community has been rather patient with him, if anything. El_C 02:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Dear El_C, I have not made any legal threat. I did not spell out those comments on the Lucy Letby talk page about me which I experienced as defamatory of me, because I am not vindictive, and am certainly not going to waste time fighting about this. It seems difficult to get the point across that I felt that I was being attacked by editors who believe that Lucy is guilty. She is convicted, yes, but that does not imply that she is guilty. She might be innocent. She claims to be innocent, and we hear that an appeal is being applied for. The page is largely being edited by editors who, it seems to me, are not taking a neutral point of view. Lucy Letby is a living person and she might be innocent of the crimes for which she has been convicted by an incomplete jury which could not come to a unanimous decision. Richard Gill (talk) 03:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

San Marino at the 2024 Summer Olympics

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

---

This article keeps on getting created without a valid reference. Multiple revisions have been moved out of article space. Can we get this salted for now? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

ʒ months. Lourdes 08:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

zh – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 14:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Repeated source misrepresentation after block expiration (again)

176.143.3.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has again misrepresented what a source ("Cancer" in Encyclopedia Britannica) states about a matter. This was previously discussed on this noticeboard at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1117#Repeated source misrepresentation after block expiration. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Is this dispute about dates in astrology, Jc3s5h? Are there any reliable sources at all about this nonsense? Cullen328 (talk) 03:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Astronomers and astrologers agree about what part of the sky "belongs" to various signs, although this way of describing locations in the sky have fallen out of fashion among astronomers. The dates the Sun passes from one sign to another is also agreed by astronomers and astrologers. Astronomers use groups of three signs to demark the seasons; In the northern hemisphere it is spring when the Sun is in Aries, Taurus, or, Gemini; it's summer when the Sun is Cancer, Leo, or Virgo; it's autumn when the Sun is in Libra, Scorpio, or Sagittarius, and it's winter when the Sun is in Capricorn, Aquarius, or Pisces.

In the disputed edit, 176.143.3.201 changes the date the Sun enters Cancer to June 21, while Encyclopedia Britannica says it's June 22. The Sun enters Cancer on the first day of northern hemisphere summer. You can go to the US Naval Observatory and get data for when summer begins for any year between 1700 and 2100, for any time zone you like. For example you can see that for Universal Time (formerly Greenwich Mean Time) there was a solstice at 14:58 June 21, 2023. But in 2020 in the same place it was 21:44 June 20. The problem comes in when you want to give a single approximate date for an encyclopedia. Which time zone should you use? What period of time should you average the results over? 1700 to 2100? 2000 to 2100? All the sources I've seen that give a single approximate date fail to explain how they decided on that date.

The issue is that the IP editor is misquoting the source. This amounts to a deliberate lie about the statement of Encyclopedia Britannica. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

And a new IP has shown up 37.169.73.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), obviously the same person. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Add 37.169.72.222 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to that list. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The IP is not so much misrepresenting Britannica as totally disregarding that sourcing, with some hilarious OR ("I am born June 21st. I am Cancer because I have the traits and description of this sign. You are not in charge of my astrological sign.") However I'd expect our WP:LEAD to accord with the body, and Cancer (astrology)#Background claims "the sun enters at the summer solstice in the Northern Hemisphere, on approximately June 21", citing an OUP dictionary. Britannica's solstice says "In the Northern Hemisphere the summer solstice occurs on June 20 or 21". Maybe Britannica's Cancer isn't such a good source after all. NebY (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested indefinite page protection as six month protection was tried back in January but obviously didn't deter them. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Possible undisclosed paid editing and/or meatpuppetry at Talk:Bryan Scott (quarterback)

Coffee765 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There have been at least 11 accounts over the last few years that edited Bryan Scott (quarterback) or its talk page that were paid by or on behalf of the subject of the article (disclosed and undisclosed) and subsequently indeffed (there's a list on the top of the talk page). The subject is notable but does not receive a ton of traffic, so whenever a new user edits the article or talk page and has no edits to other pages, it usually turns out to be another paid editor or sockpuppet. I indefinitely extended-confirmed-protected the article in March 2021 because of the sockfarms. Another new user whose only edits have been to the talk page popped up (Coffee765) with requests to make changes to the page, which I initially responded to from a content standpoint ([45]). With this article I fear I have been toeing the line with WP:INVOLVED and would like other administrators to chime in here. I would also like a review of the indefinite article protection since it has been 2.5 years. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The only way to check the potential of disruption might be to remove the protection for some time and watch. What do you say? Lourdes 08:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Eagles247@Lourdes Thank you for bringing attention to this. I am not a sockpuppet or a paid account. Honestly just a fan of Bryan Scott's and think his page should reflect the awards he has rightfully earned. I am a fan of the CFL, and as he has entered the league I googled him and wanted to learn about him and realized some of his awards/relevant facts are not published on his wiki. Coffee765 (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Coffee765, when your first edit at Wikipedia mentions that you have posted this earlier as an edit request, it is logical to presume that you have operated with other accounts earlier. Lourdes 05:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lourdes Understood how that could seem, but I have just become a fan of Scott's since he joined the CFL. (Why my first edit was Toronto Argonauts related) Again as I stated before, I wanted to learn more about him and usually Wikipedia is the perfect place to do so- but when I noticed some of the achievements I had been hearing about Scott (through social media and in game attendance via word of mouth) were not even on his own wiki article- that is when I began diving deeper. I just want to make sure he (along with other players) get the recognition they all deserve. Only trying to help these players and Wikipedia for that matter! I would really appreciate if administrators could take a look at the edit requests I have presented, along with the resources as proof, to justify as to why these requests are factual records that should be added to Scott's page. Coffee765 (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Can't get over NSYNC starting back up again

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

---

• 2601:19A:4400:C10:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone from New Hampshire is repeatedly returning the NSYNC article to past tense, which is a refusal to accept that the singing group is getting back together after so many years. The IP range has nine reverts so far, with no communication at all and no sign of stopping. Binksternet (talk) 04:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

+14 days partial. Tx, Lourdes 07:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

This is how I learn NSYNC is back together? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 12:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Apparently you're out of sync with current events. 57.140.16.29 (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I reviewed the notability requirements for synchronized swimmers and I still don't have any idea what y'all are talking about. 2607:FB91:2DBD:29F:705A:8F25:922A:B7C7 (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

You didn't really think they'd gone bye-bye-bye, did you? DMacks (talk) 07:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Unacceptable behavior of veteran editor

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

---

Hello. I am IP editor 2001:1c06:19ca:d600:*. Early September 13th, I modified the lead of Untitled Grand Theft Auto game to say "the following September" instead of "in September". My edit was undone by User:Rhain. On the aforementioned editor's Talk page, I requested him to reconsider. The relevant dialogue has been archived at User talk:Rhain/2023 July–December § Untitled Grand Theft Auto game. As it shows, still on September 13th, I posted 07:03, he replied 07:30, I replied 07:39 with two questions. He did not reply, despite contributions and engagement elsewhere on Wikipedia. On September 17th, I once again posted on his Talk page, providing him another opportunity to communicate with me. I wrote: "I gather from your lack of response here, despite contributions and engagement elsewhere, that you feel indifferent. I'll wait another day, and then I'll re-add the content under the assumption you won't mind." Again, he did not reply, despite contributions and engagement elsewhere on Wikipedia. Early September 19th (today), I undid his reversion, for the article to once again say "the following September". My edit was 05:16. Five minutes later, at 05:21, Rhain added to our discussion: "To clarify, I think my previous response makes it clear that I still object—I think it's completely unnecessary." One minute later, at 05:22, he archived the discussion (along with other content). His behavior is unacceptable, and as a veteran editor he should know better than to actively avoid communication and collaboration. --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:DF5E:2855:F417:DD5B (talk) 08:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

They have communicated with you; it doesn't have to be open ended. ANI isn't the first place to run, but the last. Have you tried dispute resolution or even just waiting for comment by others? Fundamentally this is a content dispute, not an editor behavior issue. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Rhain's comment is perfectly okay. It is not "unacceptable behaviour" to respond to you twice and then archive the discussion when they have repeatedly informed you very respectfully, I should say. You have perhaps misread his comment and have come here. Take the discussion up on the article's talk page if you want. But I can say that as you have been reverted by other editors too, this is too trivial an issue to take offense at, and to invest time at ANI for. You should just move on, in my opinion, rather than spar on this. Thanks. Lourdes 09:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Edits without support of reliable sources from Abdullah1099

Abdullah1099 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has been engaging for months in edits that, on top of often being inaccurate or badly formatted, have always shown a lack of reliable sources in support. While this could be initially justified by his inexperience as Wikipedia editor, he has subsequently been advised many times by multiple editors in his talk page to pay attention to this kind of details (here, here and here for example). Despite that, and despite his positive messages of reception below those advices, he has never backed down from his disruptive behaviors, usually on a daily basis (this [46] being the last example as of today) forcing other editors to constantly check his movements to add the necessary corrections. Due to this behavior I would call for blocking this user from editing since he has shown multiple times his lack of respect for Wikipedia's rules regarding the use of reliable sources and for the advices of more experienced editors.Fm3dici97 (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Fm3dici97 WP:CIR issues. Second times. -Lemonaka‎ 14:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand that. And I've been understanding about potential problems caused by lack of experience or difficulties with adapting to Wikipedia standards. But as I tried to show, me and other editors tried multiple times to offer him friendly advices about how to properly edit Wikipedia. And not even once he came back by asking for suggestions or consulting with us on controversial matters. Instead, he kept going ignoring most of what we shared and kept doing things about which he had been explained multiple times how to behave, including:

• editing live events before having confirmation of the outcome (with the obvious result of wrong updates);
• adding unsourced content and/or modifying existing content without updating the sources;
• copypasting template entries with little to no attention to adapting their content to the contexts where they were used;
• ignoring indications explicitly mentioned as comments in the edited page (e.g. respecting alphabetical order when adding new items to a table) and so on;
• publishing articles with little (and unsourced) content.

This is the second time I resort to this noticeboard. The first time, two months ago, I've been asked to be patient and to try to be the first in engaging him in talk pages. I tried, but despite that the behavior hasn't changed, with the result that his edits have to be regularly corrected. I can accept another indication to wait, but this raises a question: where to draw the line? Where does lack of competence turn into lack of will to respect consensus and rules? Fm3dici97 (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Nope, I mean they need a CIR block. Not a clause for their behaviour. -Lemonaka‎ 12:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

number 49 misusing talk page while blocked

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

---

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

talk page abuse while being blocked. Revoking their TPA will probably help as well. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 15:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing at Tanzim Hasan Sakib

Looks to be more than a content dispute--there's a lot of warring by multiple accounts over controversial content. Needs some sorting out to determine whether we're looking at WP:BLP violations or whitewashing. And then page protection once that's done. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, doesn't seem like whitewashing to me. WELLKNOWN applies to this sportsperson who, as per reports, gave misogynist remarks, and then apologised, claiming his mother is a woman (!!!).[47] If you want NPOV, perhaps someone can consider adding his apology. Thanks, Lourdes 05:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Use of user sandbox for promotion/advertisement

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

---

While browsing my watchlist, I noticed this edit by a new user, promoting what appears to be their personal social networking website. Upon further investigation, they moved their edits into their own sandbox, so would this go against WP:BADSAND and WP:PROMOTION? I'm hesitant to nominate their sandbox as a CSD unless it is clearly against policy. Either way, I wanted to check in to be sure. -- GSK (talk • edits) 22:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Complaint about corrupt editors here

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

---

Ranting

If you review what happened to me, the editors did not follow due process, or established ethical standards. They ignored everything that happened to me, while picking out what they could to get me banned. It was also a conspiracy, which in most state law constitutes a serious crime. In administration it should be seen as systemically corrupt. This has to change and the system should be revamped. These people also felt free to cast insinuations, insults themselves, and did so brazenly without fear of retribution from the administration. This indicates they are accustomed to the process and never punished. All the people should be fired and have all access to wikipedia stripped. The system has to be revamped under penalty of being fired, to force these corrupt idiots (verging on criminality), from menacing and harassing users any longer (much in the case of reddit). There's seriously corrupt people running this site and it has to be addressed.Meroitte (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC) Waggers was the culprit editor who instituted the corrupt ban. The rest are colluders. Meroitte (talk) 05:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Having just come off a block for personal attacks, the editor posted the above and changed their talk page to refer to many other editors as "morons" (I have revdeleted that). We're done here, so I have indeffed with TP revoked. Black Kite (talk) 05:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Black Kite: You didn't actually revoke their talk page access according to the block log, FYI.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

We all make little mistakes from time to time. I have revoked the talk page access of the ranting and raving editor. Cullen328 (talk) 07:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Non-communicative editor with multiple issues

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

Curvasingh, despite prior warning[48], adds poor citations to Times of India and to the tabloid Toronto Sun in topics of international disputes involving India at Hardeep Singh Nijjar[49], as well as in BLP articles at Raksha Gupta[50]. I am concerned specifically that they are pushing a pro-India POV with their repeated[51][52][53][54] additions of disparaging content towards the recently deceased Nijjar, whose death has caused a diplomatic row between Canada and India.

They are a non-communicative editor with 0 User_talk edits in their 2 year editing history. See also their creation of Draft:StencilJS, which was sent to draftspace after an AfD, the nominator saying that it was, "...written from a possibly bias POV and the article is not written as it should be on an encyclopaedia. Not from a neutral perspective and sounds like an advertisement." The edit history of the draft also shows that this user introduced a copyright violation into it.[55]

I came here initially to ask that they get a mainspace block to wake them up and get them to communicate, but having found the StencilJS draft, I am questioning if they are WP:NOTHERE. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

For what is worth, they does communicate when their articles get AfDs ([56]). A partial block from the article for them may get them to use the article's talk page. – robertsky (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Unblock review, please?

Sometimes unblock requests linger for a long time. User:Marginataen has been waiting for a month and 15 days. Could somebody kindly take a look? Bishonen | tålk 08:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC).

No -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I commented there. Mostly acceptable. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Asie kij

• Asie kij (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Throwaway vandalism account whose edits consist of basic copyediting above the fold in the preview window, but template-breaking edits further down. Reported at AIV, declined by HJ Mitchell on the basis that AIV is for obvious vandalism only with the suggestion that it be brought here. RecycledPixels (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

What it looks like is someone who's making changes suggested by their browser's spell-checker; for example the main template-breaking edits are changing "cite" to "site". Not all the edits are bad; for example this seems like a uniform improvement. I think it's incompetence, not intentional vandalism. --174.77.91.240 (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocked by Bbb23 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

revoke TPA and extend block of 142.190.0.194

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

talk page abuse. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 16:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)