Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read 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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Category:Requests for unblock under sustained attack by MidAtlanticBaby

See Category:Requests for unblock and examples at User talk:5.167.250.250, User talk:80.85.151.106, User talk:90.5.100.140, User talk:126.15.241.147, and User talk:201.170.89.89. This is the WP:LTA known as MidAtlanticBaby. I've handled about 25 of these in the past hour or so. In general, my approach is to block the IP address (it's always a VPNgate proxy) for a year without TPA, delete the page and salt it. Anything less, anything less, doesn't work. Anyway, it's too much. This has been going on in various forms for months. I give up and will no longer patrol Category:Requests for unblock until we figure out a way to better handle MidAtlanticBaby, ideally automatically. This isn't me taking my ball and going home, not at all. I simply can't keep up and can't be productive with this garbage sucking all my time and energy. --Yamla (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry you've had so much of your time wasted on that nonsense. You are too valuable an administrator and community member to have to continue with that. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Bgsu98. Arguably, this discussion should be merged into Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Seeking_opinions:_protection_of_the_help_desk_and_teahouse. If anyone thinks that's accurate, feel free to do so. For me, it's time to go cook supper. :) --Yamla (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

We need to get better at dealing with determined bad actors who have the resources or sophistication to keep switching proxies/VPNs like this. And yes, that has include the WMF going after them in meatspace. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Its incessant. If the Foundation doesn't clamp down on it forthwith, I'll be following suit with Yamla. Maybe they can cook me dinner.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Has ArbCom raised this with the WMF at all? -- asilvering (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'll ask a question to the admins as I truly want to help; do you guys want us to revert the weird edits before the IP is blocked, where it kind of goes back and fourth in reverts, or just leave it there? Considering MAB will read this, feel free to not answer. win8x (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

As long at it isn't hugely obscene, leave it and report the IP. Mass mutual reversions do nothing but fill the page history. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 23:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Got it. This could be useful to tell people, because right now this fills up the edit filter log, and as you said, page histories. win8x (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): Doesn't ptwiki require a login now? We should see how that's working and seriously consider doing the same. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 01:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

This is pretty drastic. Besides, MAB as recently as today, used logged-in accounts to do the usual. Clearing your cookies is easy, so I don't think this would even change anything. win8x (talk) 01:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Per HJ Mitchell above, given the particulars here situation it seems clearly preferable for WMF to take them to court if their identity is known. I know WMF has been questioned recently as regards the personal information of users, but there is no reason that seeking legal remedy against one of the most disruptive serial bad-faith actors in site history should be seen as a violation of trust or principles. Remsense ‥ 论 03:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you really expect WMF to be able to track down someone using an anonymous peer to peer VPN service designed to evade nation state surveillance and censorship? It's probably better to let Bbb23 (talk · contribs) and other moderators who enjoy routinely blocking people handle it. 2602:FE43:1:46DD:A8D1:430:2300:D52F (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not preferable. I meant exactly what I said: if the WMF has that information, they should pursue legal action. If they don't, then obviously that's not an option. Remsense ‥ 论 03:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

They don't have that information. At most, WMF has a few IP addresses that the providing ISPs can possibly track to a relatively small number out of thousands of innocent third parties. 2602:FE43:1:46DD:A8D1:430:2300:D52F (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Neither you nor I know what the WMF knows or does not know. When people play with fire for months or years on end, sometimes they make a mistake. Remsense ‥ 论 03:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

They knew exactly who JarlaxleArtemis was and couldn't do shit for decades about him because his ISP and the VPN providers he used refused to play ball. It took him threatening Merriam-Webster to get rid of him via unrelated legal action. I imagine WMF Legal is similarly constrained with MidAtlanticBaby. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 08:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano didn't he threaten a senator? I thought that was his downfall. Not that I wish prison on these people, we just want them to go away. Anyway, the climate is changing and ISPs, governments, etc ate increasingly willong to act on online abuse that wouldn't be tolerated in meatspace. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: It was threatening Merriam-Webster that ultimately did him in, per news reports. (I will not link them per WP:OUTING.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Late, but I know there are some ISPs who respond to abuse reports regarding WP. I managed to stop an LTA by reporting them to their ISP - actually I never got a response from the ISP but the LTA disappeared shortly after and hasn't been seen since. wizzito | say hello! 00:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Let's hope we should do the same against any other LTA. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the WMF could do that. As others said, the LTA is using VPNGate, which has an anti-abuse policy here. VPNGate sounds like they would disclose information, provided the WMF's lawyers do something. win8x (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to start a discussion over on the WP:AN thread about this. Remsense ‥ 论 03:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

VPNGate doesn't really have that info either. They have the IP address the client connects from. However, if MAB is smart, they are using multiple levels of VPN, anonymous proxies and/or open WiFi access in countries without cooperating legal agreements with the US and other entities where WMF has legal standing. 2602:FE43:1:46DD:A8D1:430:2300:D52F (talk) 03:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if MAB is that smart. From what I know, MAB is *probably* from the US. Besides, MAB was blocked by a CheckUser. Yes, it was 5 months ago, but that tells me that he wasn't using a VPN at the time. The WMF themselves could have that information. (Just want to say I have 0 expertise in this and I am maybe saying some bullshit) win8x (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

It's clearly worth investigating. Remsense ‥ 论 04:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

CheckUser isn't a magic bullet as CheckUser blocks are often based on behavioral "evidence". It all comes down to luck and how much time and money WMF wants to spend on a fairly benign troll and if they want to repeat that process for each of the minor vandals out there doing something similar. Or WMF could just force people to login with an account tied to a confirmed email address in order to be able to edit which is the more likely outcome of the community pushing them to take action in cases like this. 2602:FE43:1:46DD:A8D1:430:2300:D52F (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't calll MAB "benign". They are more than a troll, they are a vandal and actively try to get extended confirmed so that they can harras an editor they think, wrongly, is responsible for them being blocked. They regularly make death threats against editors and admins who revert their vandalism. They suck up a lot of editor time and are incredibly persistent, easily making dozens and dozens of edits over the course of an hour or two. They are one of the worst sockmasters I've come across in my time here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

If that's your concern, I will say I would not be interested in pursuing this if I thought account-only was a remotely possible outcome. It would almost surely be a greater fiasco if you want to think purely cynically about it. Remsense ‥ 论 04:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Yamla, you've checkuser blocked this IP's /64 before, is that still relevant? – 2804:F1...28:4E68 (::/32) (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

If you look at the comment that started this discussion, it was Yamla saying that they were done dealing with this persistent pest. Can't say I blame them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The IPv6 above is talking about the previous IPv6 commenter. I assume the answer is "not relevant", since the checkuser block on that range predates MAB. -- asilvering (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

It probably isn't directly relevant to MAB, but, assuming the range is static, it may be relevant as to whether their comments in this thread should be taken seriously, especially given that the IP was first blocked for a month as a "self-declared troll" before being re-blocked for six months as a CU block. Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think they should be taken seriously. See for example, Special:Diff/1169582215. This is a self-declared WP:ANI troll once again returning to WP:ANI. I suggest my previous 6 month block of the /64 wasn't long enough. I have no reason to believe this is MAB operating from this IP address but haven't looked. --Yamla (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Well, banning him is just adding salt into the wounds, and not solving the current problem itself. I'm so late into this but I feel like my input is the only way that can stop and unban him (and you guys too from doing the ongoing work), and I think by looking through his contributions I can see patterns as to what triggered MAB from what "events" he must've seen, and it was clear that his behaviour was affected by what he'd seen afterwards. Had that "event" not happened he would've otherwise edited productively like a normal editor, but what we don't know yet is what that "event" was, and this is the sort of thing we should ask him about. I think the best way is to follow a similar process I did on Pbritti's Admin election and go through certain links to reverts and comments by other editors (maybe even positive ones too) that may have lead him to doing something unwanted afterwards, and ask him how he felt after he'd seen that "event", and what he'll do differently next time he sees it. Obviously, nobody likes their work being reverted, but a simple undo or something in the comment can be doubly dangerous depending on the person they're reverting or commenting against, as it can lead to undesirable behaviour leading to unwanted sanctions. We just need editors to be more aware of who they're reverting and try and go easy on these editors, and maybe follow a 0-Revert-Rule philosophy if it's an editor that known to cause issues after seeing their work undone; and I believe MAB's case is no exception. If anybody wants to unblock talk page access and try that idea, be my guest, but to also to be aware that certain words may cause him to get upset. A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 09:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Abminor: This has already been attempted and failed by multiple users and administrators. MAB isn't interested in dialogue anymore, if ever he was. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 09:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Your conception of this situation is deeply troubling. Anyone who makes a single death threat on here is rightfully gone, in all likelihood for good save the remote possibility of seriously compelling contrition on their part. That you are taking MAB's statements at face value and privileging whatever grievances are contained within as if they actually exist in proportion to the damage they're gleefully causing everyone around them is already either totally uninformed or otherwise naïve to the point of negligence. That you think anyone should ever have to be in a community with them again on top of that is delusional. Remsense ‥ 论 10:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

That's really sad. Maybe it's dependent on what was in the dialogue that cause him to cancel that out?

As for the death threat, he probably did that because he got instantly stressed by something, and didn't mean to in truth. But OK then, if nobody is brave enough to unblock him then expect to see more threads like these in the future, and more unwanted problems. I'm sorry if I caused anybody stress and made things worse, which wasn't my intention. A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 10:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

My core point is simply that there is no plausible reading of their behavior as being in good faith or wanting to do anything but damage the project. That they would somehow revert to what we would consider within the bounds of acceptable conduct is inconceivable. Remsense ‥ 论 10:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Unblocking someone because they have caused serious disruption up to the extent of issuing death threats would set an absolutely terrible precedent and would be a green light for other blocked users to cause the same disruption knowing it could get them what they want. We have occasionally unblocked people who have initially thrown a tantrum but later cooled down and shown some contrition but in this case the user is too far beyond the pale and has exhausted users' time and patience so much that there is no good will towards them. Valenciano (talk) 11:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Abminor, I assure you that this has been tried and was counterproductive. I don't think there's any way to logic this one, I'm afraid. -- asilvering (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

In their more recent messages they have stated outright that they believe they're entitled to threaten to kill people if they feel like it, and they have left death threats for anyone who has tried to talk to them (at all) for most of this year. So no, trying to understand their point of view is not a workable approach here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

His "work" for the better part of a year has been spending multiple hours a day trying to spam literally every part of the site into submission while making lurid death threats towards everyone on the site who had the misfortune of interacting with him. Anybody who does this for a single day is worthless to have around as a contributor, anybody who does this for multiple months is actively dangerous to everyone else trying to contribute. jp×g🗯️ 19:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

this is an LTA. what we absolutely should not do is give MAB what they want. they have made countless death threats and spammed dozens and dozens of pages on-wiki, as well as discord, IRC, and UTRS, with their screeds for months upon months now. this is not someone we want on any of our projects, point blank. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

That sounds very frustrating, @Yamla, and I'm sorry we don't have better tools available to manage this.

I am trying to move T354599: Provide IP reputation variables in AbuseFilter forward. That would allow for AbuseFilter variables that could target specifically edits from VPNgate. We just recently got approval from Legal for implementing this work. There's another task, T360195: Analyze IP reputation data and how it maps to on-wiki editing and account creation activity, which would help us craft more relevant IP reputation variables in AbuseFilter, but we could probably get started with some easy ones (like the proxy name) as that analysis work won't get done until early 2025. If you have any input on what types of IP reputation variables would be useful in AbuseFilters for mitigating this type of abuse, please let me know here or in T354599: Provide IP reputation variables in AbuseFilter . KHarlan (WMF) (talk) 10:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

KHarlan, a sincere thanks for trying to tackle issues in this area. I'll give it some thought and comment there. --Yamla (talk) 10:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

It's good to hear that WMF is aware of this general problem and is working on solutions. It's unfortunate that it won't be implemented until next year but, hey, it's better than what we currently have so I wish them luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

In order to combat these recidivist socks, I raised the Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#CheckUser for all new users but was told it was impossible, so for those of us who write in areas where POV pushing recidivists are active it seems that no relief will ever come. Mztourist (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• They've now taken to writing in German: diff I didn't translate the post when replying to them. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  I feel that the development of new security measures might be hastened and the new measures might be rolled out as early as January. Ahri Boy (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

It's always a VPN Gate proxy, right? Just block everything here? Not like the list is private or something. 222.120.66.185 (talk) 08:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Shh... Tone it down to avoid drawing attention from MAB. Ahri Boy (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Those are the entry points. Blocking them won't do anything. 98.124.205.162 (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Update: MAB is SFB'd. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Greetings, been following this topic for a while. What does SFB mean? Supreme_Bananas (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I assume it has something to do with the WMF global ban he got (I don’t know what it achieves). No clue what the individual letters mean. win8x (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

"Site Full Ban" is what I'd guess. ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 19:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

That'd be "SanFranBanned", as the WMF is based in San Francisco. See also meta:SanFranBan. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Brusquedandelion's disruptive behaviour at the recent Talk:Australia RfC

Brusquedandelion is a generally constructive editor with a good understanding of Wikipedia's policies and code of conduct, but they show a lack of restraint when it comes to (perceived or actual) ideological differences and are prone to lashing out against other editors. Brusquedandelion has previously been brought to AN/I for exactly that reason and continued to do so briefly on their talk page after the AN/I notice. They have recently engaged in similar conduct at the recent Talk:Australia RfC, and that behaviour is my reason for creating this.

The RfC was started by OntologicalTree, a confirmed sockpuppet of KlayCax. OT was blocked one week ago from today, so the RfC was able to run its course. Brusquedandelion was quite disruptive and less than civil throughout the RfC, bludgeoning the process and throwing personal attacks at every reply to the RfC that supported or discussed anything directly contrary to OT's proposed option (myself included).

Talk:Australia diffs:
"Please tell us what your actual objection is rather than using word count as a shield."
"It would be more honest if you just tell us what your actual objection is... It helps no one to hide your actual beliefs like this."
"The best possible faith interpretation of multiple people not even bothering to mention the g-word in their votes is that they are simply unable to grasp basic reading comprehension."
"Your claim that this in an encyclopaedic article, not a political tract reveals your true intentions, for your edit is entirely political in nature; you just believe your own politics are neutral, much as fish doubt the existence of water."
"Fortunately, not one of the proposed options states that colonialism constituted terrorism, ethnocide, and genocide. Please remember that on Wikipedia, WP:COMPETENCY IN reading comprehension is strictly required."
"If you haven't actually done the survey you suggest others do, why do you feel so confident voting on a matter you are have professes your own ignorance own? Remember, WP:COMPETENCE IS REQUIRED."
"And may I remind you, one of the handwringers have straight up admitted to having a conflict of interest on this subject, due to nationalist sentiments and grievance politics. Odd that it is me you are dressing down, and not them, when their comments are against the spirit of letter of at least half a dozen Wikipedia policies."
"I have generally not reiterated my own viewpoints in different places, only made different viewpoints in multiple places. The fact that multiple people tried to bludgeon this discourse by handwringing about word count rather than getting to the crux of the issue merits being pointed out."

This report is already getting quite long, so I'll leave it at this for now. Sirocco745 (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that @Brusquedandelion has engaged in battleground behavior and engaged in personal attacks. Because they are otherwise a constructive editor, I propose a three-month topic ban from all edits related to colonialism and genocide, broadly construed. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I support this proposal. While Brusquedandelion is a capable, competent, and generally constructive editor, they have demonstrated their inability to remain civil while discussing topics of colonialism and genocide, and I believe their efforts would be best focused outside of these topics for a while. Having strong feelings on a topic is not necessarily bad in of itself, but it's how those feelings manifest themselves through the person's actions that can cause problems. Sirocco745 (talk) 02:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

In the thread, you stated that you are sick of this same blame-centric rhetoric that I have to listen to every week being pushed at every opportunity. It's pretty clear from this comment that you are unable to maintain a position of objectivity on topics relating to "colonialism and genocide." Or perhaps only ones relating to Australia, I don't know. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

If a comment like Option 1 has a clear agenda to push, and I am sick of this same blame-centric rhetoric that I have to listen to every week being pushed at every opportunity is not indicative of a battleground mentality by someone who is quite possibly WP:NOTHERE, what is? This comment was made by @Sirocco745 who filed this report. They are clearly motivated by some sort of grievance politics (of a racial nature) by their own admission. They followed this up by admitting that I could, if I wanted, call me out on a WP:COI if you really wanted to, and you may be justified in doing so. Their words!

You might feel my response was heavy-handed. Ok. But note that per the usual rules and conventions of an ANI post, a reporter's own conduct is also subject to scrutiny. Did you not read the thread, or did you not think this was worthy of taking into account? Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

It looks to me that all of their edits happening on Talk:Australia by Brusquedandelion occurred on Nov. 9th and haven't continued since. Have there been any personal attacks since that date or that have spilled over to other articles or talk pages? Of course, personal attacks are not acceptable but before imposing a wide-ranging topic ban, I'd like to see if this is an isolated incident on this one day in this one discussion on this one talk page or are occurring more broadly. I also would like to hear from Brusquedandelion on this matter for their point of view. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

No, nothing since then. They made four more replies on the RfC after being politely but firmly asked to reign it in by @Moxy and @Aemilius Adolphin at this reply here. The discourse hasn't bled out of the RfC/talk page, and they've been relatively quiet for the past two weeks.

Only thing I can think of that could count would be Brusque replying to my original attempt at settling this without needing to bring it to a noticeboard. They previously said I sounded like I was "channeling the spirit of Cecil Rhodes" on the RfC, and when I mentioned this in my original notification, their only response was to link Cecil Rhodes's article. Reply found here. Passive-aggressive? Maybe. Worth counting as further discourse outside of the RfC? Not really. Sirocco745 (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Thinking a stern warning and explanation of the community norms..... unless there's some sort of pattern of behavior here? It's a contentious topic.... that many people feel has a tone of racism involved. Just need to explain they need to tone it down. Moxy🍁 03:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to raise an issue of possible canvassing. I was going to leave a message on @Brusquedandelion's talk page about their behaviour when the ruckus started when I found this odd message. It looks like someone was alerting them to the discussion on the Australia talk page and feeding them with talking points.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brusquedandelion&diff=prev&oldid=1255261107 Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

That was also KlayCax. CMD (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the sockpuppet User:DerApfelZeit went around to a lot of articles in contentious areas and then to user talk pages, trying to stir things up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I did not asked to be canvassed. I don't know this person, and given they're banned already I am unsure what the relevance is here. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The relevance, Brusquedandelion, was the consideration that maybe their comments provoked your response on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

This is correct, for better or for worse. Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

OP has posted a bunch of comments above, but the actual reason they are reporting me is because of my comment comparing their views to those of Cecil Rhodes. They didn't feel the need to file this report until they posted on my page, including a comment about how they don't know who Rhodes was. I replied only with a link to his Wikipedia page. In a sense, this is probably their strongest case against me, so I am not sure why they didn't mention it in the original post. Perhaps it has to do with the reason I invoked this comparison: OP made a vile series of remarks about aboriginal Australians in which they referred to them and their culture as uncivilized, that one can't trust a treaty signed with non-English speaking indigenous peoples, and that hunter gatherer peoples are not worthy of political or moral consideration. These are all sentiments Cecil Rhodes would have affirmed. Perhaps this qualifies as a personal attack by the letter of the law here at Wikipedia, but talking about Aboriginal Australians this way is against upwards of half a dozen Wikipedia policies. OP will claim, as they did at my page, that I am casting aspersions, but they have actually explicitly admitted they are motivated by racial grievance politics; more on this point later. First, OP's comment that resulted in the comparison, for the record:

the problem is that prior to settlement, the Indigenous peoples of Australia had zero form of officially Th government or judicial system amongst themselves because of the nomadic and kinship-centric nature of their tribes. Additionally, the Indigenous peoples didn't speak English and operated on a significantly different culture to the rest of the civilised world at the time. No centralized governing body means the British had no legal entity to formalize an agreement with, and the cultural differences and physical distance between the various groups and territories of Indigenous peoples meant that even if the British were to create a blanket legal structure for them, they had no guarantee that the terms of such would be satisfactory or even followed by the various groups.

Anyone familiar with the official justifications for colonial policies, past and present, will hear their echo here. The fairly explicit claim that the aboriginals are uncivilized is the most egregious remark here, but the entire comment is rooted in a view of indigenous peoples that belongs to 19th century British imperialists, not on Wikipedia. These ideas about native peoples (in Australia and elsewhere) have been summarily refuted in the scholarly literature on this subject, but regrettably despite their repugnance they persist in popular culture in many nations. If any admin feels I need to back up this claim with sources, I will oblige, as fundamentally grim as it is that such views even need to be debunked.

Some further comments from OP:

The entire paragraph is thick with the negative connotations so common in degradation of foreign colonization and this era of historical hindsight apologetics. Easily fails WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT.

Apparently, it is NPOV to take a dim view of colonization. Does OP have a favorable view of colonialism, in particular in the Australian context? A question left for the reader.

Finally, OP is manifestly, by their own admission in the thread, motivated by a politics of racial grievance. First, they tell us that As a fourth generation Australian, I am personally sick of the rhetoric that OntologicalTree is trying to have accepted. Make no mistake, this issue is personal, and OP has found their WP:BATTLEGROUND. Then they inform us:

Option 1 has a clear agenda to push, and I am sick of this same blame-centric rhetoric that I have to listen to every week being pushed at every opportunity. Yeah, you could call me out on a WP:COI if you really wanted to, and you may be justified in doing so.

These comments speak for themselves, since OP is themself admitting their prejudices. Even if OP were right ("Australian whites and their colonization of the country have been unjustly vilified" etc. etc.), this just isn't the website for it; see inter alia WP:RGW and WP:NOTAFORUM.

Returning to what OP has quoted above, the vast majority of my alleged bludgeoning consists of reminding people what the substantive issue at stake is: whether to classify these events as genocide. The RFC was somewhat poorly worded, unfortunately, but there's not much to do about that now. The effect was that a number of replies did not explicitly admit a stance on the core issue, but nevertheless voted against the use of the "genocide" label.

I would prefer a straightforward discussion of the merits, or lack thereof, of the use of this word. It would have made the RFC much more productive. A number of people essentially dodged the core issue on their vote altogether, and I thought this merited being pointed out. I admit I was strident, but I don't think any of my comments about this issue were especially uncivil. I also removed myself from the discussion as soon as people said I was commenting too much. I didn't feel need the need to continue this on anyone's talk page nor over here at ANI.

OP did, however, likely expecting an apology when they posted to my talk page, and reporting me when none was forthcoming. So:

I apologize for my stridency to the community at large. I will make an effort to regulate my tone in future discussions. I do not feel this thread is representative of my general conduct here, and I will certainly make an effort to not let it be the standard I set for my comments in future discussions. I was frustrated by an apparent refusal by certain folks to actually discuss the core issue, but there are more skillful ways I could have gone about this. And I was especially frustrated by certain comments, in particular those of OP, that affirm colonial stereotypes and ideologies.

I do not feel an apology is owed to OP until such time as they own up to the racism of their remarks. With regards to possible sanctions, I don't see how you can argue my criticizing OP's racism, even if I had been ten thousand times ruder about it, would be less civil or worse for Wikipedia's project as a whole than OP's remarks about aboriginal Australians, motivated as they are by racial grievance politics, per their own confession. Said confession also seems like a much stronger argument for a topic ban in particular, compared to anything I have said, since they have admitted an inability to retain neutrality in such discussions, as well as a particularly noxious reason for that inability—though I am only bringing this up since OP themself has asked for this sanction against me. Personally I only hope that OP realizes why such comments are unacceptable, that no one is witch-hunting him or his people, and that such ideologies have no place here anyways. It seems they are otherwise a constructive editor, and if they are able to make a good faith acknowledgement of this lapse, I wouldn't see any need for sanctions against them personally. Of course, all of this is up to the admins. Brusquedandelion (talk) 10:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Brusquedandelion: you've accused someone of racism. Please provide diffs or quickly withdraw your claim, or expect to be blocked for a serious personal attack. Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Did you not read my comment? It has verbatim quotes that can be found in the linked discussion (Talk:Australia); as far as I can tell, nothing has been edited or archived. Are you an admin and if so is this a formal request for a diff specifically? Because if not please do not go around threatening people with blocks for not providing information they already provided. I am really quite busy today, but if an administrator is formally making this request, I will oblige. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

You always need to provide diffs when you make such allegations, whether asked to or not. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

This is why diffs are important, as they provide context. The first two quotes come from Diff 1, and the last quote comes from Diff 2. I'm no expert, but statements like I certainly don't approve of what happened back then, and I will openly admit that I am not proud of the racism that Australia was built on. I agree that they committed a large number of atrocities and that there is much work to be done to repair the damage done. (Diff 2) do not sound to me like racism. In context, I get the impression of trying to preserve historical context, not proving the OP's racism alleged by BD above.

Diff 1 provides an explaination for why the British did not negotiate with the natives and, even there, their words very much acknowledged that the actions were unjust. (See The British did falsely claim terra nullius... in Diff 1). I also was unable to find any mention of the statement BD put in quotes as "Australian whites and their colonization of the country have been unjustly vilified" on the talk page; I presume these were scare quotes.

If there is missing context or background, BD would be well-advised to provide it. Most of us are laypersons and will likely miss more subtle types of racism, if that is what is alleged. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

This is why diffs are important, as they provide context.

The discussion as it stands provides all the context the diffs do, as nothing has been deleted.

(Diff 2) do not sound to me like racism.

Providing an example of a not-racist comment is not a refutation of any racist comments that were also made. Given you were just enjoining us to value the context of the interaction: it is a common strategy for people to preemptively hedge before making an unsavory statement, but the very fact of this statement in the context of the subsequent unsavory statement only reinforces, and does not mitigate, the nature of the statement that follows, since it implies at least some awareness that the commenter understood their subsequent comments could be seen in a certain light and thus felt the need to clarify. "I'm not racist but..." has never been followed by a not-racist statement in the history of the English language.

That said their hedge is not exactly the same as "I'm not racist but...". In principle it could have been followed by a relevant, reasoned, evidence-based, and non-prejudicial explanation for why the proposed RFC should resolve one way or another. Instead the commenter chose to grandstand about perceived slights against white Australians and uncritically regurgitate certain views and dogmas of the British Empire.

Diff 1 provides an explaination for why the British did not negotiate with the natives and, even there, their words very much acknowledged that the actions were unjust. (See The British did falsely claim terra nullius... in Diff 1).

The portion of the "explanation" that comes after The British did falsely claim terra nullius... is an uncritical parroting of the British imperial view of native Australians. The very fact that they do reject the terra nullius argument, but not the subsequent ones, indicates these are views they actually hold or at least held in that particular moment in the context of an RFC that they felt challenged their national pride. I understand such feelings may be fluid and encourage Sirocco to reflect on them.

I presume these were scare quotes

It is a brief summary of their multiple comments that make that point in more words, which I already quoted and did not want to copy again, for reasons of length and redudancy. Given the context of the RFC, do you feel this is an inaccurate summary of those comments, copied again below for your convenience?

The entire paragraph is thick with the negative connotations so common in degradation of foreign colonization and this era of historical hindsight apologetics. Easily fails WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT.

Option 1 has a clear agenda to push, and I am sick of this same blame-centric rhetoric that I have to listen to every week being pushed at every opportunity. Yeah, you could call me out on a WP:COI if you really wanted to, and you may be justified in doing so.

Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I have already admitted that I conducted myself poorly in the RfC and that my comments/suggestions were driven by my own feelings on the topic in combination with what I already knew about the topic (or at least, what I thought to be true).

Instead the commenter chose to grandstand about perceived slights against white Australians and uncritically regurgitate certain views and dogmas of the British Empire. First off, when writing or talking in a conversational tone, I generally don't criticize or exalt the subject until after I have explained what I know. I later stated my opinion on the subject in the RfC, being that the British's acts against the Indigenous Australians were undeniably racist and wrong in every definition of the word. I do not feel the need to apologize for the acts perpetrated by those settlers; I am not descended from them, only tangentially associated by merit of nationality. I am more annoyed that our government focuses on saying sorry all the time instead of proving sorry by taking actual action to support Indigenous families and communities, and it is this political apologetic rhetoric that I am tired of seeing and hearing on a weekly basis.

The "white" part of "perceived slights against white Australians" definitely isn't correct either. Australia is a country where you could walk past the entire skin colour spectrum on your way to work every day and not think twice about it, and this peaceful co-existence of cultures is something I am very grateful for here. The "perceived slights" part though? Personally, being told on a weekly basis by the government that "the land you live, work and study on doesn't belong to you and it's our fault as a nation that it doesn't belong to the Aboriginal people anymore" doesn't make me feel very welcome in the country I was born and live in.

Regardless, let's get back to the subject at hand, that being your behaviour. You can create a separate AN/I thread if you wish to discuss my personal conduct, but I started this one because, as shown in the diffs of my original post here, you were consistently not assuming good faith and bludgeoning the RfC by replying to almost every comment left by other users that didn't align with what you deemed to be the correct manner, not to mention the personal attacks. The point of an RfC is to draw the attention of uninvolved editors to a discussion with the hope that they will contribute constructively by providing new voices and second opinions to the conversation. Whether you see it this way or not, the general consensus of this thread so far is that you disrupted the RfC and have demonstrated a pattern of using personal attacks when disagreeing with other editors. Please try to stick to the topic of this thread, which is your behaviour. Sirocco745 (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be fixated on an uncharitable interpretation of Sirocco's comments. You've pointed out that one not-racist comment doesn't mean the person isn't racist, but in my view, you've failed to demonstrate racism in the first place. I do not believe your scare-quoted passage is an accurate summary, no. Similarly, I do not feel that, just because colonizers used something as an excuse, means it is inherently racist or untrue. I can see where you're coming from that it could be, but I also don't believe it's the only interpretation, and we're supposed to WP:AGF. Since this is a matter of judgement, I hope other editors will chime in to give a broader representation of the community either way, not just me saying, "Meh, I don't see it". EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I may have come off as confrontational with my comments in the RfC, and I apologize for that. I have always accepted that Wikipedia is not the place to air personal or political grievances and have done my best to keep to that policy, but I slipped when replying to the RfC. My motto is "don't let your motive be your message", but I forgot to keep my personal feelings out of the discussion this time.

First up though, the reason why some of my comments were rooted in a view of indigenous peoples that belongs to 19th century British imperialists is because I was presenting the views of 19th century British imperialists. These views are horribly outdated and illogical based in emotional fallacy, but because I was (probably over)explaining the racist reasonings the British justified their actions with, many of my comments in the RfC could be used to support BD's claim of racism when taken out of context.

In hindsight, "The entire paragraph is thick with the negative connotations so common in degradation of foreign colonization and this era of historical hindsight apologetics. Easily fails WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT" wasn't the best way to word my disproval of Option 1. In relation to the RfC, Option 1's rhetoric is that the wounds are still fresh. The problem is that while the damage is still felt, the wounds themselves aren't really fresh at all; Option 1 covers almost 200 years worth of events in a single paragraph and insinuates that they all happened at/around the same time. This is why I pushed against Option 1 and explained British actions and motives.

@Brusquedandelion, I would also like to deny your claim that I started this AN/I thread because of your actions against me specifically. I assume that you've read the opening sentences of WP:ASPERSIONS, since I included it in my initial attempt at reaching out.

"On Wikipedia, casting aspersions is a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or particularly severe. Because a persistent pattern of false or unsupported allegations can be highly damaging to a collaborative editing environment, such accusations will be collectively considered a personal attack."

The large number of diffs that show you being uncivil towards multiple editors in the RfC were always going to be the reason this came to AN/I, not your comments against me. Sirocco745 (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I will respond to this in the next few days, not later than Tuesday 00:00 UTC; it is a holiday weekend here in my country and my time is very limited. If at all possible I ask the administrators not to resolve this thread until that time (unless this is going to be a nothingburger of zero sanctions all round, in which case, please resolve posthaste).

One preliminary comment about the most relevant portion of your comment: if you were simply explaining what the views of the British were, and not agreeing with them, you would have told us so, as you did literally in the prior sentence: The British did falsely claim terra nullius by legally declaring the Indigenous peoples as "fauna" so they could invalidate Britain's first requirement for occupation, which was that if there was an existing population, Indigenous or otherwise, land should only be obtained through negotiation. No such claims are made in any of your other comments. In fact, those comments are themselves placed after a However separating that last sentence from the rest of the claims you assert in authorial voice, implying the function of the subsequent comments is to provide objective, evidence-based, non-prejudicial reasons why negotiation would have been impossible anyways, so the whole terra nullius dogma was merely the British doing their best under unfortunate circumstances. Indeed this is exactly what the concluding remark of the paragraph all but states, to leave no room for confusion as to OP's point: No centralized governing body means the British had no legal entity to formalize an agreement with, and the cultural differences and physical distance between the various groups and territories of Indigenous peoples meant that even if the British were to create a blanket legal structure for them, they had no guarantee that the terms of such would be satisfactory or even followed by the various groups. In summary, treaties would have been impossible, so why bother?

Importantly, the stated justifications are not objective, evidence-based, or non-prejudicial: e.g. the first comment However, the problem is that prior to settlement, the Indigenous peoples of Australia had zero form of officially recognized government or judicial system amongst themselves has been debunked in the anthropological, sociological, and historical literature extensively. As far as we can tell, all human societies (that existed for any real amount of time) have had, minimally, some form of customary law. They have norms governing what is and isn't ethical or acceptable, means for restitution or punishment in the event of the transgression of these norms, and, most importantly for this discussion, a general understanding of informal and formal agreement between two or more parties that granted each a set of obligations and/or privileges. These are, as far back as we can reasonably verify, human universals. Believing they didn't, which, regrettably, literally millions of non-indegenous Australians, Americans, Canadians etc. still do about their respective Indigenous peoples, is a legacy of colonial thinking, and in effect places these people outside the category "human"—turns them into fauna—by denying them what we know to be a fundamental feature of our social life as a species. In this sense, (not so) ironically, OP's comments reproduce the specific British imperial dogma they rejected in the prior sentence. (Mind you, this is not even the most egregious remark here. Again in authorial voice, a little later on, Sirocco informs us the aboriginals are not to be considered civilized.)

Finally, I propose a litmus test: would such comments, if copy-pasted into a Wikipedia article, be considered WP:WIKIVOICE, or attributed text, per the relevant policies? If so, then they are also in authorial voice when written by a single editor outside a mainspace. To me, it is obvious how this litmus test resolves here, but I'll leave it to administrators to confirm this. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh for goodness's sake, I do not believe that Aboriginal Australians are sub-human! I have admitted so many times that I didn't conduct myself properly in the RfC and that the wording of many of my comments could easily be interpreted as racist because I talked about racist acts and the reasonings behind them without condemning them immediately after. What more do I need to say, how much more do I need to apologize, and what will it take to prove myself non-racist to you? This is definitely Wikilawyering, but now it's starting to feel like borderline harassment. Sirocco745 (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Theres a lot of battleground behaviour here, which compounded with the personal attacks made in this thread (that they apparantly stand by) leads me to support the proposal above by Voorts. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

If you're against battleground behavior, do you not see the comments I copied above from Sirocco as examples of it? If you think my assessment of their comments is a "personal attack" are you stating, for the record, that you think there is nothing racist about those comments? Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Please be succinct and direct: please link (give where they can be found in context with the submission(s) of the author; a diff) and quote the statements you believe to be racist. You have made what appears to be about a dozen quotes, none of which I see to be clearly racist. If the community judges them to be so, then they will be dealt with appropriately. Buffs (talk) 06:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

If any neutral editors have the time, could you please take a look at this thread and give your input? I understand that Wikipedia has no deadlines and that no one is obliged to interact with the various discussions, disputes, etc. that occur daily, but there hasn't really been any significant development since I started this AN/I thread eight days ago. I guess I'm just nervous. Sirocco745 (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll give my 2 cents: there's a battleground here. Both of y'all need to tone it down. I don't see the discussion at Australia as inappropriate. People have voiced their opinions and someone can close it when it gets to the end. When trying to summarize so much, such assessments are going to be necessarily long; just be patient. Buffs (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. As stated earlier, I understand that ANI is not the place to settle content disputes and I started this thread with the intent of focusing on @Brusquedandelion's behaviour. It kinda got a bit out of hand though.. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

How do you not see a problem with calling other users racists and defenders of genocide? Sirocco is not the person who needs to tone it down. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I asked for clarification above. Without evidence, it is indeed inappropriate, but I'm also trying to keep an open mind about the possibility that the accusation is accurate. Sirocco can help matters by backing down a little and not offering long responses in the future (don't fan the flames). Buffs (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

There are eight diffs in the opening post including a variety of accusations and incivility. Keeping an open mind that they might all be accurate seems excessively hopeful. CMD (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Risto hot sir

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

---

Risto hot sir (talk · contribs) has been using their puppets for years on several projects and I'm thinking about requesting a global ban against them. They have been active on this project and English Wikiquote several days again. Since they started here and got blocked on 2019, I'd like to ask if there was some more unacceptable behaviours except for only socking, and if yes, is there any evidence for that?
Or, any advice or opinion for such request? -Lemonaka 08:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Hard for us to say anything since we don't know who the other users you suspect of being socks are. If you think Risto hot sir is socking then open a report at WP:SPI. Meters (talk) 09:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see you did at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Risto_hot_sir/Archive#28_November_2024 and the user has already been indef'ed. What else do you want? Risto hot sir is already globally locked. Meters (talk) 09:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to request a global ban against this user on meta instead of just global lock. But normally, a global locked user, unless with serious problem, is unlikely to be banned. I'm not quite sure if it will be possible to pass. So I'm asking is there anything more than socking of this user? -Lemonaka 09:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't bother, but if you do want to pursue this it wouldn't it be up to you to present the evidence and make the case? Meters (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I saw there's some dialogue about their editing controversial topic regarding IPA, then they got blocked. Nothing more serious I could found and their edits on different projects seemed not vandalism or disruptive. They this started socking, is this summary right? -Lemonaka 09:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Lemonaka, this is just my gut reaction here but this discussion is not a good subject for a general noticeboard like ANI. It would be very unusual for the editors who check in here to know anything about the circumstances of this particular editor's block. You might have some success if you contacted the admins who originally blocked this editor or worked on an SPI involving them but I'm guessing 99.9% of the editors who visit ANI will know nothing that can help you with your case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

You also search the ANI archives and see if something pops up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I've searched ANI archives before putting up this, and there's no any information about them, in fact once in Special:PermanentLink/1088091180#Politically-motivated and defamatory pages at Wikiquote being auto-linked here? but this is not related to them. As your advice, I will try to contact @TonyBallioni for more information. -Lemonaka 07:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

My experience with Risto hot sir started with Palindromes and related pages. A problematic editor from the start, Risto was initially an SPA on palindromes, and turned out to be a COI editor using his own book on palindromes as a reference, quoting himself, and attempting to write an article about his book's editor. They were self-described as "for sure the most notable palindromist in the world" and jumped through all sorts of hoops to avoid admitting that they were the author of the book, before finally doing so: "You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to find out my name. In Finland it's well known". I remember personal attacks, bludgeoning, edit warring, and so on, and I banned them from my talk page. All of this is still on their talk page so I'm not going to diff anything. I have no WP:AGF in this editor, so socking would not surprise me. Meters (talk) 11:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Risto Rekola for extensive edits by this user in an AFD on an article about himself, without mentioning his COI. I don't know who wrote the article. Meters (talk) 11:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I second everything Meters says about this editor; there is a large chunk of Talk:Palindrome/Archive 1 given over to his various manoeuvres. As sadly pointless as it all was, i don't believe there's any more point to trying any further to globally ban him: He's gone, not coming back, Lemonaka, may as well let it drop ~ Lindsay^Hello 21:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I will draft them based on these ASAP. -Lemonaka 00:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruption at contentious topic

Montblamc1 (talk · contribs) has now received pushback from two editors on how not to edit on Wikipedia per NPOV, Words to watch and Wikipedia:RS at Iraqi Kurdistan (an article considered contentious and noted as such at the talkpage). Discussions have taking place at [1][2]. Montblamc1, without presenting any reliable references argues that the terms "Iraqi Kurdistan" and Southern Kurdistan" are used in a Kurdish nationalist context (and that it is "particularly" used by Kurdish nationalists) which a simple Google search contradict ("iraqi kurdistan jstor" and "southern kurdistan jstor" clearly indicate that these are terms that are common in academia). Semsûrî (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, as Semsuri clearly did not present my position fairly, I will do it myself.

I have argued the following:

1. The aforementioned two terms “Iraqi Kurdistan” and “Southern Kurdistan” are unofficial as they are not used by any international authority, such as the UNGEGN.

2. The context in which they are used needs to specified, and that is, the context of Kurdish nationalism.

Also, the issue about the wording that implied that the terms are “particularly used” by nationalists has already been resolved here[3] in the section titled “Iraqi Kurdistan” and I changed the wording following the short discussion. I asked Semsuri about the alternative wording but received no answer back, and he rather replied arguing against the wording I had already changed.

Furthermore, instead of removing the parts in questions that are disputed, Semsuri opted to revert the whole page to a previous state. That means that parts that I’ve added that are not disputed were removed. Montblamc1 (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

You keep claiming that "The context in which they are used needs to specified, and that is, the context of Kurdish nationalism." without any back up so I'm going to keep pushing back on it. Secondly, where does it state that because no international authority recognizes the term, it cannot be used on Wikipedia (when its a commonly used word?) which, again, a simple Google Search would show you. This is POV-push territory for me. Semsûrî (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I never claimed it cannot be used in Wikipedia. Where exactly did you get that from? That’s very different from saying it is not an official designation (toponym) for any area officially. That is what I’m saying.

Also, what do you mean “without any backup”? What is information without context? Why is it so wrong to want to expand on the context wherein these terms are used?

It is becoming increasingly more apparent to me that your reluctance to accept any change to the article is an example of Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling. Montblamc1 (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

You are editing the page based on what RS? Semsûrî (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

You can see all sources I have used in the article. If you have any problem with any source go ahead and mention it. Also, notice how you keep changing the reason for your objection. First you claim my addition of the word “unofficial” is “frankly irrelevant” (without explaining why you think it is irrelevant) then you claim my adding the context that Southern Kurdistan is used to refer to an area in the context of Kurdish nationalism as a claim “without backup”, now you’re claiming I’m not using proper sources at all (I assume you mean in all edits Ive made to the article). Again, if you have an issue with any source, go ahead and mention it and let’s discuss it. My source for the fact that Iraqi Kurdistan or Southern Kurdistan is not used by any international authority such as UNGEGN is the absence of evidence of the contrary. If you have proof that it is official and used by the aforementioned authority or other authority then please by all means, provide your “RS”. Montblamc1 (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not and have never mentioned that I have an issue with the word "unofficial". Once again, I have to ask you, please give me reliable reference(s) that backs your claim that the words stem from and are particularly used by Kurdish nationalists. The reference you use (Bengio) only states that the word "Bashur" is used by Kurdish nationalists not "Iraqi Kurdistan" or "Southern Kurdistan" (which I argue are common in English-language academic literature). Hope I'm concise and clear now. Semsûrî (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of the UNGEGN note you added, and I'm sorry I have to repeat myself, it's unsourced. Please add a reference to it. Semsûrî (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

As to your first reply,

Yes you have had a problem with the word “unofficial” you mentioned that you think it is “frankly irrelevant” it is all in your talk page, go read it again. Now you’re backtracking and claiming to have never objected to this. Also, why do you keep repeating the same objection on the wording related to the use of the terms even after I’ve already told you that I have changed the wording already following the previous discussion we had… do you not remember me asking you to comment on the alternative wording? You have to pay more attention. If you have a problem with the present wording (that I added immediately after the short discussion in your talk page) of the article then go ahead and mention it.

As to your second reply,

I have expanded on the reason why I have added the word “unofficial” using a Template:Efn. Certainly you know how those work. If you have proof that they are used by the aforementioned authority or any international authority, then by all means, mention it and I would gladly personally go remove the edit. Furthermore, you still have not offered any reason for your decision to revert the whole page back to the previous state. What proper reason do you have to do that? You haven't once mentioned a single objection on any other edit that I have made in the article, but still you have felt the need to revert the whole page back. Again, you still have not explained why you think it is necessary to revert the page other than stating “the present page cannot stand since it is misleading”. You have not explained how any of the other edits I have made are misleading. Montblamc1 (talk) 10:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I need admin intervention now as this conversation is going nowhere. Montblamc1 has no intention of being constructive here. I will repeat myself: Please, back your unsourced claim that the words "Iraqi Kurdistan" and "South Kurdistan" stem from and are particularly used by Kurdish nationalists. The Bengio reference does not claim that. Semsûrî (talk) 10:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

So be it. You are either deliberately ignoring my comments or are dyslexic and unable to understand the content of my comments. You are the one who is not being constructive by refusing to take part in a proper discussion. I’m sure an admin will be able to read everything properly and make a fair judgement. Montblamc1 (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPA. That's all I'm gonna say. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

You are either deliberately ignoring my comments or are dyslexic – Batten down the hatches -- storm clouds on the horizon. EEng

And I’m glad my memory still serves me well. I knew I recognised your name from before. This is not the first time you’ve failed your attempt to stonewall an article. You’ve done it here[4] and here[5] as well. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not yours to gatekeep. Just because an edit does not conform to your liking does not make it an “unproductive edit”. Again, I stand ready to and will gladly remove or accept the removal of any edit I have made that you can convince me is inaccurate or against the rules in any way. But as of now you have not made any convincing argument. 1. In stating that these terms are unofficial in the sense that I have explained, your only argument was “it is frankly irrelevant”, and 2. You have not explained why it is wrong to add context to the use of the terms, 3. You have not explained why you deem it necessary to revert the whole article back to a previous state. Montblamc1 (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• Montblamc1 does appear to have failed to identify any RS to support their position, and their edits are thus a violation of WP:DUE. There is no general requirement that terms without UN recognition be described as such in the lead (e.g. Turkestan, Hindustan, Bible Belt, or basically anything else in Category:Cultural regions or Category:Historical regions). If you cannot find adequate sources you should self-revert, otherwise I am prepared to levy sanctions to prevent further disruption. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'll also note that the comments accusing Semsuri of having dyslexia are a personal attack, if a mild one. Editors should not be diagnosing each other with learning disabilities or any other kind of medical condition. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  I will gladly revert the part in question. I assume, however, that any other edit should stay? Montblamc1 (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  I have not evaluated the other changes and don't see any prior discussion of them on the talk page. Other editors are still allowed to object to those changes, at which point editors should work towards consensus on the talk page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  Sure. Montblamc1 (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  My main issue is still the sentence "The latter term is used to refer to a sub-division of a larger area in the context of Kurdish nationalism." which references Bengio misleadingly. She does not claim that and a simple Google Search proves it. This is the third time that I am adressing this here and you have so far completely ignored it. Semsûrî (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  Refer to the talk page. This page is not for this type of discussion. I will gladly discuss with you over there. Montblamc1 (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  There is currently no adequate explanation of your edits at that talk page; you have thus far failed to establish your claims vis a vis Bengio. Although I do see now that you have made further edits to essentially remove the claim regarding "the context of Kurdish nationalism", so the issue is perhaps moot._signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  The new sentence is very disingenuous as Montblamc1 now pushes for the idea that the term "Iraqi Kurdistan" is merely a Kurdish nationalist term to promote "Kurdish territoriality", when its just the name of the region in Iraq where Kurds live. Montblamc1's edits scream NPOV and NOTHERE. I am going to revert the page back to the "stable" version and I expect Montblamc to refrain from the POV-push that is very apparent now. Semsûrî (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Rosguill what do you say to this strange accusation. I do not understand how this is not a case of stonewalling. He accuses me of being disingenuous and reverts the whole article back without explaining how any other edits I have made are problematic. Montblamc1 (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  Montblamc1, you'd maybe have a case if you hadn't misused Bengio and generally failed to engage with editors' disagreements when challenged. At this point, other editors are right to be skeptical of your use of sources in relation to Kurdish topics, and you should expect to have to justify your edits on the talk page. While these issues remain unresolved, you should not be opening new points of contention, you should be working to resolve them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  Explain to me how it is correct practice to revert the whole page instead of only the parts that are disputed. Montblamc1 (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Washweans

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

---

Washweans (talk · contribs) has claimed to stop editing, but have continued been making (rather weak) personal attacks at other editors, such as: [6][7][8][9][10]. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 23:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

It's also important to note that they have recently vandalized the page mojibake as seen here. Gaismagorm (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Homoglyph vandalism

Although they are already indeffed, I wanted to call attention to the Mojibake edit linked by Gaismagorm. Τhis is a particularly pernicious form of vandalism that I call homoglyph vandalism (but I'd appreciate hearing the expression used at Wikipedia, if there is one). It involves replacing one character, say, a Latin capital T (Unicode U+0054) with another one, say a Greek capital letter Tau (U+03A4), or a Cyrillic Capital letter Te (U+0422) which has the identical, or almost identical appearance as the original latin T. You can see this in operation at Washeans's edit, where the first letter of the first word in the expression "The result is a systematic replacement of symbols..." in the original is Latin letter capital T (UTF-8: 54) but was replaced with homoglyph Greek capital letter Tau (UTF-8 CE A4) in the wikicode.

It is not by coincidence that they vandalized this article and not some other one, because the topic of the article is related to the type of vandalism they performed; they probably felt pretty clever about themselves doing it, right up to the point were they got indeffed. I am not aware of useful tools for detecting homoglyph vandalism at Wikipedia, but if there is anything at Toolforge, I'd like to know about it. We need a tool to help vandalism fighters detect and correct vandalism of this sort. Not sure if the AWB flavor of regex is powerful enough to write a pattern that would highlight script characters that appear to be embedded in characters belonging to a different unicode script block, but if it is, that might be one way. Mathglot (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

As the editor who had to revert it, and as someone who is probably in the 99th percentile of editors for potential awareness of this issue, it took me a solid 20 seconds staring at the diff to realize what was actually changed. An ability to check for this seems technically difficult—surely it would end up being a "notice one diff by a user and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down" thing? Remsense ‥ 论 01:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

presumably so. Sometimes I just search up common words in the search but replace l's with capital I's or the other way around, and use that to find vandalism. Gaismagorm (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Mathglot, please see User:Radarhump. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Diffs highlighting words that look identical, and unexpected differences in the byte length are two of the tells of homoglyph vandalism. I did a test edit to this section to demonstrate this. If you look at rev. 1260701025 of 04:02, 2 December 2024 by Mathglot, you will see that that edit replaced the 'T' in the first letter of the word 'This' in rev. 1260672475 of 00:59, 2 December 2024 with Greek letter capital Tau (U+0422). Note the diff (Special:Diff/1260699524/1260701025) highlighting the word 'This' with no visible change to the word 'This', and then look at the History, and note that the difference in byte length: rev. 1260701025 is one byte longer (363,186 bytes) than rev. 1260699524, because UTF-8 requires only one byte to render a Latin T, but two bytes to render a Tau.

These are two of the clues that help find this type of vandalism, the first being a word that is highlighted with no visible change; and the second is the byte count. The latter is easiest to use when only one word is changed, or multiple words but without additional text being added. But careful character counting may reveal it, if one of the encodings requires more UTF-8 bytes than the other, which is normally the case if one of the characters was Latin and the other was not. Mathglot (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I remember a case of this from a few years ago. The tell was a redlink which I knew should have gone to a DAB page, and the corrupting alphabet was Cyrillic. It was a real head-scratcher until I worked out what was going on. Fortunately, the editor had never been very active, and had given up. I cleaned them out by copying suspect characters in their edits into the searchbar; but that requires familiarity with the corrupting alphabet, and it might have been simpler to link every word and see what turned red on preview. Narky Blert (talk) 08:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion in this subsection moved to AIV to get a more focused airing. Mathglot (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism § Homoglyph vandalism

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

User Pavanreddy211 code snippets on user & user talk

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

---

• Pavanreddy211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User:Pavanreddy211 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User talk:Pavanreddy211 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

This user's talk page pops up in my recent changes from time to time with IPs posting large blocks of code (not wiki-code; sometimes it's Python, other times I don't know what it is) which the user rapidly reverts. I just blocked the two /24 ranges that have been dropping the code blocks since roughly August and not doing anything else. Then I noticed that between creating their account in July and the IPs taking over, Pavanreddy211 dropped the same code blocks on their own user page and rapidly reverted them, and they haven't done anything else on Wikipedia, ever, except play with these code blocks. I was going to block per WP:NOTHERE, but maybe someone who recognizes what these code segments are wants to try to talk to them first? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Consider blocking per NOTHERE. Wikipedia is not a Git repo. Ahri Boy (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Judging loosely on the code, it appears to be some sort of screen mirror/tracking script that sends the data to a JSON file. I'm not sure if they wanted to implement their code here or they used Wiki as a temp host like Git (just use Notepad), but clearly they're WP:NOTHERE. Conyo14 (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I would request RD because it may be a malware code. Ahri Boy (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indef per WP:NOTHERE. Up to others if revdel is needed. Also best to keep an eye on them in case TPA might need to be revoked, given how much they've been doing this on that page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Some of it is ruby. It all seems benign, but probably still qualifies for U5. Folly Mox (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Alejandroinmensidad engaged in BLP and 3RR violations as a SPA (possible SOCK as well)

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

---

Alejandroinmensidad (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account engaged in a disruptive behaviour involving Pedro Sánchez-related edits (with them adding contentious material to a number of articles, namely Pedro Sánchez, Álvaro García Ortiz and Begoña Gómez) in a heavily POV-ish way, in breach of WP:BLP). The last straw has been their breaking of WP:3RR at Álvaro García Ortiz after reverting TheRichic for attempting to reword some of the text to comply with BLP. I had previously attempted to warn them in their talk page, but they responded with indiscriminate accusations of vandalism (which by themselves constitute a personal attack and a violation of WP:AVOIDVANDAL). They were also noted by another user about WP:AC/CT (diff), but the user keeps on with their behaviour. Further, I have also detected evidence pointing to likely sockpuppetry, which I denounced through this SPI (where the situation is more throughly explained). Impru20^talk 22:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLPN might be a better forum for discussing these edits. It does seem like a lot of edit-warring going on on Pedro Sánchez. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

This was already brought there a few days ago at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Pedro Sánchez, but the disruption has continued as the issue has been left unaddressed (and anyway, the BLPN thread does not address neither the behavioural issues nor the sock suspicions, which have evolved ever since). It's now basically impossible to do anything sort of keeping reverting this user if no admin steps in. Impru20^talk 07:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, I already pointed it out at the SPI case (see Update 1), but ever since the SPI was opened the user has been conducting a number of random edits through several articles in addition to their focus in the usual ones (while avoiding engaging in any discussion related to the ongoing issues), probably to attempt avoiding being singled out as a SPA. Impru20^talk 07:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

One problem I see, Impru20, is that it looks like this has been a solo effort by you to get attention on this editor's contributions, in the SPI, on BLPN, on the editor's user talk page and now here in ANI without receiving much response from other editors. If there is contentious material being posted on this BLP (which gets over 1,000 views/day), we should get more eyes on this article and others where there might be questionable edits. Is there anyone here who is comfortable assessing Spanish language sources that could provide a second (or third) opinion? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Is this a solo effort by me, Liz? And this? Maybe this? I am getting attention on this editor's contributions because they are being disruptive; they are reverting anyone who dares to restore a less POVish (and more BLP-compliant) version of the articles, and when they are confronted about that it's just personal attacks from them. The only solutions left are to: 1) keep reverting them (surely not what we are expected to do as per WP:EW); 2) discuss with them (this was done, and failed), and 3) bring the issue to venues where it can be properly addressed if points 1 and 2 are not possible (which was done: firstly to BLPN, then as SPI when I noticed they could be a sock, then here when that was left without solution yet the user kept engaging in disruptive behaviour). There are personal attacks, there is a 3RR violation, there is even behavioural evidence of sockpuppetry (with two users, one logged in editor and one IP, being confirmed socks). What else is required for any action to even be considered? Seriously, I ask you with all honestly, because it's fairly frustrating that they are basically left to do what they please without anyone actually caring. Impru20^talk 20:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Impru20, with regards to Álvaro García Ortiz, it looks to me like Alejandroinmensidad's edits are more accurate than yours, if Google Translate is accurate in translating the cited source. So, why are you trying to keep less accurate content, and why have you not discussed this at Talk: Álvaro García Ortiz? Cullen328 (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I have not edited Álvaro García Ortiz, Cullen328, so it's difficult any edit there could be more accurate than mine. Now maybe you could focus on Alejandro's 3RR violation there, any of the behavioural issues that have been denounced... I don't know, something that has actually happened. Impru20^talk 22:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Impru20, I apologize for mixing you up with TheRichic. However, Alejandroinmensidad reverted false content three times over several days. That is not a violation of WP:3RR. Cullen328 (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me, Cullen328, but:

1. How is this content false? You may agree or disagree with the wording, but it is not false. One of TheRichic's denounces against Alejandroinmensidad (which I share) is that they treat (unproven) statements of certain people as absolute truths, typically resorting to the sources that fit their view the most (often without any WP:BALANCE or sense of impartiality). Again, I ask you: how is that content "false"? Specially considering your response here is limiting yourself to decry TheRichic's behaviour.
2. As per WP:3RR, reverts conducted just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior.
3. You could maybe skip point 2... if it wasn't because all reverts done by Alejandroinmensidad at Álvaro García Ortiz came after being explicitly warned in their talk page about WP:AC/CT on articles about living people (diff).
4. ANI is about behavioural problems (which have been denounced and evidence provided); the explicit BLP issue was addressed (or attempted to) elsewhere: here it is being brought because of it showing a behavioural pattern and a SPA-theme focus on Pedro Sánchez-related edits (which I said). Aside of 3RR, there have been explicit personal attacks (repeated accusations of vandalism without any evidence nor justification), edit warring and behavioural evidence of SOCK which is not even being addressed. So, what are people intended to do against it? To keep edit warring Alejandroinmensidad to death? Impru20^talk 22:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello Cullen328 and Liz, this user Impru20 has been continuously deleting text and references from many users in everything related to the government of Spain for many years ago: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. He has deleted on multiple occasions, without any explanation, my contributions, which I consider to be treated from a neutral point of view. That is why I have reverted its vandalism, I have not deleted the text of any user. Alejandroinmensidad (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Impru20, the El Mundo headline translates as The Supreme Court indicts Attorney General García Ortiz for the leak of confidential data from Ayuso's boyfriend: The Second Chamber unanimously opens a case against Álvaro García Ortiz for the crime of revealing secrets. TheRichic's preferred wording was "García Ortiz has been investigated" and Alejandroinmensidad's preferred wording was "García Ortiz was charged by the Supreme Court". Everyone can see that Alejandroinmensidad's summary of the source was accurate and that TheRichic's summary was incorrect. You simply do not understand WP:3RR, which requires more than three reversions in a 24 hour period. Alejandroinmensidad reverted only three times, and they were at 19:14, November 29, 2024, and then roughly 27 hours later at 22:10, November 30, 2024, and then roughly 48 hours later at at 22:04, December 2, 2024. Three reverts in three days is not more than three reverts in 24 hours. Cullen328 (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, Alejandroinmensidad has literally breached WP:AVOIDVANDAL in front of your face in this very same discussion and you still have nothing to say about their behaviour? Also, they are linking literally random, occasional and entirely unrelated edits to the discussion to blame me of "vandalism"... and you still have nothing to say to it? On another note: Alejandroinmensidad, bold edits are not vandalism, the edits of mine you link have nothing wrong in them. Heck, half of the edits you link are not even mine (one is yours), for God's sake! Impru20^talk 23:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, Cullen328, I am not understanding what your reasoning is here. You have now edited part of your previous comment ([17]), when all of it is essentially off-topic. This is not an issue of edits at Álvaro García Ortiz (an article which I have not even edited), but an issue of general behavioural concerns, which Alejandroinmensidad is exhibiting with impunity in this very same thread. I have provided detailed diffs, links and evidence yet still none of it is being addressed and I am now being singled out for edits I did not even made. I understand that every editor who opens a thread here is equally subject to BOOMERANG, but it's the first time I see it being applied to someone for edits done by other people, including the denounced editor's! Impru20^talk 23:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

You have hundreds of text changes from other users in articles related to the government of Spain for years, just looking at your history to realize that most of the edits are vandalism. Alejandroinmensidad (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I want to clarify a couple of things:

1. A headline by itself is not information, it can be biased and you have to read the rest of the article.

2. If we read the El Mundo's article, at no point does it say that the attorney general has committed any crime, but rather that a criminal procedure has been opened and he and his surroundings are being investigated for an ALLEGED crime.

3. In Spain, the term "imputar", translated in the article as "charge", is synonymous with "investigar" (to investigate). In fact, the term was modified a decade ago because it led to the erroneous conclusion that the person who was "imputado" was being accused. The accusation phase comes later, when the judge issues the "auto de acusación" (indictment), and then the person is "accused of" or "charged with" a crime. At this point, it can be said that the person is accused.

4. "[...] García Ortiz was charged by the Supreme Court for having revealed the emails of the boyfriend of the president of the Community of Madrid" (what the article says) is just saying that he did it when we do not know what happened and a court of justice is investigating if anything happened.

Having said all this, yes, I rewrote the article because the person is not accused of anything (yet), has not committed any crime (yet), and we cannot interpret the information in the article as it suits us. Greetings. TheRichic (Messages here) 06:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

In Spanish and English, the terms charge (imputar) and investigate (investigar) are not synonymous. In the article in "Mundo" it is clearly explained that Álvaro García Ortiz is charged of leaking the emails. Alejandroinmensidad (talk) 08:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

To "charge" someone means that person gets investigated by the judicial authorities. It is the same. The issue is that you want to use "charge" as a synonymous to "accuse" (this has not happened, at least not yet). However, I am not going to discuss semantics with an editor who clearly doesn't understand what "vandalism" is. Impru20^talk 18:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It is false. To charge is not to investigate, it is to file criminal charges, which is what the Supreme Court has done with Álvaro García Ortiz. Alejandroinmensidad (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

To charge is to investigate. That's why in Spanish the legal term was literally changed from imputación to investigación. See here: Being charged means that the investigating judge has determined that, either through a complaint or a lawsuit, there are indications that the person under investigation could have committed a crime." (...) "Then, the judge agrees to carry out the investigative procedures that he deems appropriate to clarify it." (...) investigated "means that the judge has admitted the complaint for processing, has initiated preliminary proceedings and has been classified as such." There are indications of crimes such that requires the judge to investigate them, but that condition does not assume the veracity of the accusations nor of the crime (a lot of people who are charged end up with their charges lifted without a trial) nor is the person yet accused, which comes at a later stage of the legal process. You are really manipulating what being charged means. Impru20^talk 22:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

No matter how much you repeat a lie, it does not become the truth. To charge is not to investigate, neither in Spanish, nor in English, nor in law.

I have not said that the Prosecutor is guilty, but the Court sees indications of a crime, that is why he is charged. Alejandroinmensidad (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I provided you evidence and sources and you still treat it as a "lie", despite you yourself now just casting aspersions and personal opinions here. Impru20^talk 10:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Impru20, I made an error in confusing you with TheRichic. I immediately apologized and then struck out the portions of my original comment that were inaccurate. That is what editors are supposed to do when they make a mistake. You are the editor who accused Alejandroinmensidad of BLP violations at Álvaro García Ortiz and you also accused that editor of violating 3RR. I decided to investigate one of the three articles you listed in your original post, and picked the middle of the three. I learned that there was no BLP violation, that Alejandroinmensidad's edits were more accurate than TheRichic's, and that the editor did not violate 3RR, at least in recent months. That is the full story. Cullen328 (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• I closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Napoleonbuenoenparte with no action and an explanation.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Alejandroinmensidad, please be aware that Impru20 has made nearly 200,000 edits to the English Wikipedia and has never been blocked for vandalism. The term "vandalism" has a very specific meaning and can only be applied to editing with the deliberate intention of damaging the encyclopedia. Impru20 is not a vandal and false accusations of vandalism are disruptive. So, please stop. Cullen328 (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, I am not referring to him, I am referring to his editions. It removes content from many users without giving any motivation. In addition, he always does it in articles referring to the government of Spain. In any case, I will not answer his provocations again. Alejandroinmensidad (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Calling a user's edits vandalism is the same as calling the user a vandal. Just don't do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Alejandroinmensidad is obsessed with calling another editor a vandal even in an ANI thread and against repeated warnings, but somehow they are still assumed to be able to work collaboratively? You cannot discuss anything with this guy (and this is not an assumption, this was tried and failed). At the very least, there is an obvious WP:CIR issue here, and they will only keep edit warring everyone as they see any edits undoing their own (or those contents they prefer) as "vandalism". Impru20^talk 06:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It is exactly what TheRichic has stated above. Further, it's telling that, so far, the BLP violations at Pedro Sánchez (which are what started the whole ordeal) have not even been addressed; Alejandroinmensidad added false statements, and others they added were done without BALANCE (as I pointed it out to them several times: diff diff); these were reverted by Alejandro exhibiting the exact same behaviour as here (i.e. falsely accusing others of vandalism). They also accused me of "removing links" when they removed references themselves under accusations of "vandalism" just to attempt to re-assert a version of the articles that depicted Sánchez and his government in the worst way possible of the several available (diff). You cannot cherrypick sources and information to present a biased view of the person without contradictory information (which exists in this case) being presented as well. There is a BLPN case opened on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Pedro Sánchez yet, somehow, almost everything is being ignored to attempt to present Alejandroinmensidad's behaviour as legit, when it is one of the most egregious SPAs I have seen as of lately, being here only for the purpose of these Pedro Sánchez-related edits (also, as commented on the SPI case, they only resorted to making random edits to other articles when the SPI case was opened and they were noticed about it, diff). Impru20^talk 07:32, 4 December 20Im24 (UTC)

Impru20, if your concern is about Pedro Sánchez, then why the heck did you make false claims of BLP problems and false claims of 3RR violations at Álvaro García Ortiz? Administrator time is limited. Throwing false claims in with possibly legitimate claims is a waste of time that makes administrators reluctant to look further. I would rather get some sleep. Cullen328 (talk) 08:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, I explicitly mentioned and linked Pedro Sánchez in my first post and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Pedro Sánchez in subsequent ones; spoke about Pedro Sánchez-related edits; linked to other venues where the situation was also thoroughly explained; and only mentioned Álvaro García Ortiz as part of the articles in which Alejandroinmensidad had a focus on. Liz understood it perfectly in their first reply. It is you who then became focused with Álvaro García Ortiz for no reason even when I told you that it was not the main cause of concern (only as part of the larger SPA effort). With all due respect (and maybe I cannot stress the issue of respect enough, but I have to say this), but you cannot just say what you said here when you already had an error (rather major, as it redirected the focus of the discussion into me having to refute a false claim) by confusing edits of other users with my own edits and now accuse me of doing what I did not do. The presented evidence was there for reading. The 3RR claim was not false: reverting just outside the 24-hour window is explictly acknowledged as EW; WP:GAME exists; and the reverts were conducted right after a warning about living people's biographies being contentious topics was added to the user's talk page. Administrator time may be limited, but so is that of other editors (such as mine), and frankly: it's frustrating that I have had to provide a detailed (while summarized, because too lengthy ANI cases are typically accused of WP:TLDR) description of the situation so for it to be also systematically ignored. Impru20^talk 08:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Impru20, you are still incorrect about 3RR. A violation requires a minimum of four reverts within 24 hours though some administrators might act at 25 hours. In this case, there were three reverts (not four) to clearly more accurate content over a three day period of about 75 hours. There is no possible interpretation of the policy that allows that to be called a 3RR violation. The notion that I looked into Álvaro García Ortiz "for no reason" is ludicrous. I looked into that article for a very real reason, namely that you mentioned that article in the first sentence of your report. If you did not want an administrator to look into that article, then why on earth did you mention it? Cullen328 (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

And then in your second sentence, you wrote The last straw has been their breaking of WP:3RR at Álvaro García Ortiz. So, I look into your "last straw" and you get angry with me. It makes no sense. Cullen328 (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, 3RR clearly states that The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. They made three consecutive reverts to the same content without any justification and just after receiving a warning on contentious topics because of their edits and reverts in BLP-related articles, and they just got away with it. I also mentioned other articles and you did not look at them. On Álvaro García Ortiz, I said it was the "last straw" (this is, cumulatively after a lot of other issues), yet you interpreted it as the main focus of the issue. I can understand that you analyze that article (that's why I mention it), not that you focus solely on it. I don't get angry with you, I just don't understand why you have taken it with that article and insist in ignoring everything else, In the course of all of it, you have casted two wrong facts about me (one about my (non)edits in that article, another one on what I said in this ANI thread). You have forced me to defend myself on issues that were not related to what I did or said while a disruptor is getting away with their disruption. This is my issue with you. Impru20^talk 18:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Impru20, you say that their edits were without any justification and yet the El Mundo reference that follows the content shows quite clearly that the edits were fully justified and accurate and that the other editor was adding inaccurate content. I do not know how else to explain it but those three specific edits over three days plus were not edit warring and in particular, nowhere near a 3RR violation. No admistrator is obligated to investigate every single aspect of a lengthy ANI post that mentions three articles. I chose to look into the one that you called the "last straw" and learned that what you have been saying about the edits in question is wrong. I apologized to you when I made a mistake. Perhaps you should consider apologizing as well. Cullen328 (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, the user is misrepresenting what "being charged" means (this is what it means). The other editor did not add any innacurate content, and I dare you to explicitly state what of TheRichic's edit was innacurate, because that was legally and factually correct. You have been accusing them of adding "innacurate" or outrightly "false" (sic) content for a while even when they explicitly explained themselves here ([18]), just because you took a single source (the one provided by Alejandroinmensidad) without balancing it with other sources first, precisely when a lack of BALANCE was one of the (multiple) issues denounced here. Heck, both TheRichic and myself have gone through many more explanations here than Alejandroinmensidad, who just kept themselves calling everyone else as "vandals" even in this ANI thread (there was a time in which that alone would have merited a block) and manipulating and misinterpreting sources (as they keep doing at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Pedro Sánchez).

Again with all due respect, but I say this in light of this latest reply of yours: your intervention here is becoming absurd. Yes, you chose to investigate one article, just as you chose to omit everything else. I repeat myself: It's not my fault that you did not care to take into account the "lengthy post" (which I already attempted to summarize, but what should I do if the issue affects more than one article and involves a general behaviour?) in which the evidence was presented. If you did not feel yourself like doing the review of this case, it would have been better to pass it to another colleague who could have had the time to do it. But yes, surprisingly (or not so): incomplete reviews may lead to incomplete judgements.

And yes: "No admistrator is obligated to investigate every single aspect of a lengthy ANI post that mentions three articles", but now you have basically chosen to cast aspersions (?) on a fellow editor over and over and over again, without even caring to consider their explanations, just because you have been unable to accept that your way of handling this (focusing on one aspect and omitting everything else) has been wrong from the beginning. If someone is deserving an apology here that's not you (nor me, either). Cheers. Impru20^talk 23:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

As an update: is nothing going to be said about this blind revert in Pedro Sánchez by Alejandroinmensidad to a third editor who, with good reason, stated that the subject of this article is Pedro Sánchez, not his family, especially when there appears to be no suggestion of any direct involvement of Pedro Sánchez himself (diff), a claim that Alejandroinmensidad has not even cared to respond to? Is nothing going to be said about how Alejandroinmensidad is being presented evidence at Wikipedia:Biographies of living_persons/Noticeboard#Pedro Sánchez and he just outrightly defends having wrong and/or misrepresentative material at the Pedro Sánchez article? Including an explicit situation of WP:THREATEN (diff)? Maybe we can just exit from this Álvaro García Ortiz article-loop and deal at once with a single-purpose account with a WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour on using Wikipedia as a way to do politics. Good faith goes as far as it goes; this is just sheer, explicit and deliberate manipulation at this point. Cheers. Impru20^talk 11:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I have already answered in BLP: Pedro Sánchez; "In the sub-article "Third term in office" the events of Pedro Sánchez's government are commented on. The corruption scandals of Pedro Sánchez's family are key to that government."

I am tired of this user's harassment and insults. Moderators must take action. Alejandroinmensidad (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Alejandroinmensidad edits like this, presenting the opinion of one newspaper as fact, are not acceptable per WP:WIKIVOICE. We certainly can include criticism of him, but that should be done in a neutral and balanced way. Similarly, since the article is about the subject himself, I struggle to see the relevance of any accusations against his brother (which you added here) in which Pedro S himself is not involved. The article is Pedro Sánchez, not Pedro Sánchez' family.

I've opened a section on the article talk page here to which you should contribute and discuss the changes you want rather than edit warring, which would probably result in sanctions against your account. Additionally, all users involved should stop the accusations and counter-accusations, which will not produce anything positive. Since this is, at heart, a content dispute, this ANI thread should be closed for now, with the caveat that WP:3RR and sanctions do exist. Valenciano (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I have already explained the reasons for including the scandal of Pedro Sánchez's brother: The scandal of Sánchez's brother is related to Pedro Sánchez because the judge accuses him of influence peddling, of having obtained his job thanks to the influence of Pedro Sánchez. A job in which he would receive a salary without doing any work. It is a similar case to that of Alfonso Guerra and his brother Juan Guerra.

The references I have given are not newspaper opinions, they are information that contrasts the different versions that Sánchez has given regarding Delcy Rodríguez's trip. Alejandroinmensidad (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Valenciano, Cullen328, speaking of WP:3RR, do these four reverts of two editors' edits within a 4-hour timespan count as such? See diff 1 diff 2 diff 3 diff 4.

Because it would be extremely hilarious that a 3RR breach happened even after 1) the discussion about it in this ANI thread, 2) Valenciano's warning just above, 3) the warning on contentious topics on Alejandroinmensidad's talk page by a third, uninvolved party and 4) a new, specific warning on WP:3RR made in that user talk page by another third, uninvolved party. Where are we going to set our level of tolerance to disruption, exactly? Impru20^talk 14:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Another update: Alejandroinmensidad has just edited the Pedro Sánchez article to insert an editorial opinion and present it as a fact ([19]). This is prohibited under WP:RSOPINION and WP:RSEDITORIAL. They were told both through an edit summary ([20]) and at the BLPN discussion ([21]) how this was wrong, yet they still re-added it anyway without caring to give an explanation. Is seriously nothing going to be done here? Impru20^talk 11:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked Alejandroinmensidad for one week for edit warring and violations of the WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policies. Cullen328 (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Judging by this response, I do not think the editor is going to care about our rules. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Aaand they pinged me to their talk page to claim that comment was "ironic." Definitely NOTHERE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah HandThatFeeds, it isn't that it wasn't obvious from a long shot by the time I brought this case to ANI, but Good Lord. It just took a one-week block for them to openly acknowledge that their edits are motivated by some sort of crusade against "communism". I was benevolent citing WP:CIR a couple days ago: it's definitely a WP:RGW and WP:NOTHERE case. Impru20^talk 09:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

After this, I have extended the block to indefinite as they currently do not exhibit any evidence of being here to collaborate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Requesting reversal of premature closure of talk page section by TheRazgriz

I have recently engaged in lengthy talk page discussions with TheRazgriz regarding his edits on the 2024 United States elections page. Upon informing him today that I was escalating to the dispute resolution process, TheRazgriz prematurely closed a talk page section that dealt with the nature of our disagreement at hand, labeling it as "resolved" when it was not. There was no snowball as claimed in the closure message, and the subject matter that was absorbed into another section in the body was still in dispute. While the issue of the content in the lead was in fact resolved, the greater context of the claims that were made and were discussed in the section were not. The last comments in that section were made only 10 days prior, and the most recent comments involving this dispute were made today. BootsED (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've undone the closure and fixed the formatting issues that were broken by the user in accident that resulted in broken indentations of the existing discussion. Raladic (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance! BootsED (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

For transparency and clarification: The dispute had migrated away from that topic and into a different topic on the page well over a week ago, and as noted by @BootsED here the resolution finding was accurately portrayed. Disputed content was not removed via closure. As point of that specific topic had been addressed and is no longer an issue, therefore unlikely to require further contribution, I fail to see the point in un-closing it. But it is what it is. Just want it clear this isn't a conspiracy of nefariousness. TheRazgriz (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, here's the point: it's poor practice to close a discussion in which you're heavily involved, certainly so in any issue that lacks a very strong consensus, and doubly so in a contentious topic such as the 2024 United States elections page. (Heck, I wouldn't dare to close a CT discussion I was involved in even for a snowball.) That's the point. Ravenswing 06:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I also think you should have more than 224 edits before engaging in closing discussions. Doug Weller talk 08:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

It's always worth considering if a discussion even needs a close. In this case, it seems unlikely that the resulting close was something which would be useful to link to in the future. If editors have moved on, it also seems unlikely that a close is needed to stop editors adding to a discussion where it's moved past the point of being useful. And in fact, if editors do feel they have something useful to add, I'm not convinced it would definitely be useless. It's possible that the close will stop editors wasting their time reading a discussion where there's no need but IMO in a case like this the benefits of that are definitely outweighed by the disadvantages of making an involved close, and probably outweighed even by just the negatives of closing. As for collapsing, well the page isn't that long. And frankly, it would seem better to just reduce time before automatic archiving rather than collapse that specific discussion. Or even just manually archive some of the older threads. Noting there are bunch of older threads which seem to be way more unlikely to be revived or that anyone needs to see. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ravenswing & @Nil Einne, I agree with both of your valid points, and they will be considered in the future. No arguement from me against either of those good points.

@Doug Weller, I expect you have mistakenly assumed I have only ever edited WP from this (somewhat new-ish) account in making that comment. That is incorrect. I have left uncounted thousands of edits as an IP User since 2007, though I only have begun to edit CTOP and political content since creation of this account.

To all of you, thank you and have a good day. TheRazgriz (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Point taken. But remember a lot of people won't know that. Doug Weller talk 13:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

And that is a perfectly valid point, which is why I spent so much time tinkering with my userpage to help those who may make that mistake. :) Thank you. TheRazgriz (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Pinging Pbritti, who earlier today stated on TheRazgriz's talkpage that "I noticed you do a lot of closing". I'd like to know more about that, please, Pbritti, as this ANI thread has so far only been about one instance of inappropriate closing. Is there a wider problem that we need to address here? Bishonen | tålk 13:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC).

  That line is a surprise to me as well. If memory serves, I believe I have only closed 2 topics in total. I believe maybe 3 or 4 if including manual archiving within that categorization. The topic which @BootsED brought to attention here is the only one which I can imagine would be contentious in any way. It is certainly the most recent I have performed. TheRazgriz (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  I stumbled on a closure of Talk:Bryson City, North Carolina, where TheRazgriz closed a discussion to to conserve space. I don't think this is intentionally disruptive behavior (even if it were, it's not exactly amy sort of serious offense). TheRazgriz has evidently been productively engaging on that article since before they registered. I only mentioned it because I figured that TheRazgriz might think such closures are standard. They're not, but they're also not worth starting an ANI over. A good first step to preventing this sort of escalation from repeating is removing the notice at the top of User talk:TheRazgriz, as that might give the impression that they are an editor unwilling to respond directly to constructive criticism. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  Just an aside, we can't tie a registered account to an IP editor and I don't think we should make any assumptions here about anyone's previous identities if they edited unregistered. Unless they choose to disclose, exceptions only for trolls and vandals. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  No no, @Pbritti is correct, and my userpage makes that public info.

  Thank you for that, it would otherwise be a perfectly valid point to make. But in this case, it is both true and public knowledge by me to all of WP.

  (Additional edit to clarify, it is public that I edited for years as an IP user, and one of the first contributions on this named account was in reference to one of the IP edits I had made. What is not public is what my current IP is, which changes every so often for security reasons) TheRazgriz (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  @TheRazgriz: We're glad you registered, by the way. You've been pushing hard for some useful overhauls on CTs. Glad to see someone make the leap from IP to registered and bring that experience with them. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  Setting aside the potential issues laid out above, I'd add that it's entertaining to see an Ace Combat 5 reference in 2024. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 07:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  A massively underappreciated title in the series with way more lore building under the surface than was ever reasonable, was very surprised and pleased when AC7 gave folks who never played it back on PS2 to play it in the modern day and get some love. Heartbreak One is core reason why the Phantom II is to this day my favorite aircraft. Glad to see a fellow fan! Thank you, and have a good day. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2A01:CB10:830C:5200:0:0:0:0/64

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

---

2A01:CB10:830C:5200:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, and hasn't responded to warnings. /64 has previously been blocked in April 2024 for a month, then most recently in June 2024 for disruptive editing for 6 months, with the block noting that behaviour "continued right off block", which also seems to be the case here. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2 (not in cited source), 3 (not in cited source), 4, 5 (not in cited source). Waxworker (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one year: this is long term disruption at this point. El_C 09:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User:BrandtM113 WP:LAME edit war, no attempts at discussion, frequent warnings

On David Madden (executive), there is a red link for Michael Thorn, a president of Fox, and Sarah Barnett, a president of AMC Networks. User:BrandtM113 has, five times in the last 3 years, come to the page to remove the red links. [22] He has never left an edit summary, so I have no explanation for this unusual fixation.

In March 2022 I sent a message to BrandtM113 [23] telling him about WP:REDLINK and how red links are useful in helping editors find gaps in knowledge, and stopping new pages from being orphaned from birth. With the complete lack of edit summaries, I don't know if he thinks Thorn and Barnett should never have a Wikipedia article, which is quite the claim.

Repeating the same edit with no summaries, no talk page discussion, is disruption even if it is over several years. I think a WP:CIR block may be useful. His talk page has more notices than I care to count for removing content without a summary, adding content without a source, repeated disruptive edits (doing the same edit, again) [24], outright vandalism [25]. This user has had more than enough warnings and it's literally like talking to a brick wall with the lack of edit summaries or discussions. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for 6 months. Let's see if that is long enough time to get their attention. Oz\^InterAct 19:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, 99.7% of this editor's 6,297 edits are to main space, they have made few edits to Talk space and fewer to User talk space. They don't often have an edit summary but they are very active and all of the talk page warnings are more than a year old so perhaps they have taken the advice on board. I was hoping that they would resond here but now they are blocked as I was writing this. I hope they file an unblock request and start communicating. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Today, the user made the exact same edit that was made in 2021, 2022 and 2023, after having being told in 2022 about the exact Wikipedia policy that made that edit disruptive. I don't call that taking advice on board. If there is some crucial reason to remove those red links on the David Madden page, it should have been said in an edit summary or on the talk page. If a kid on my street played knock-and-run on my door once a year for four years, I'd still consider that as annoying as doing it once a day for four days. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The user did not edit between 22 October 2023 and 24 October 2024, after two warnings in September 2023. That's a year of not editing, rather than a year of constructive editing. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

And I don't understand why you let this little error get so under your skin that you brought this to ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Some people take Wikibreaks. I did myself for six months in 2009. I'm at a loss of what could be construed as sinister about that. Ravenswing 15:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Adding some formatting to an infobox that the relevant wikiproject dislikes is not "outright vandalism". Espresso Addict (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

This still seems like an excessive sanction for removing a few redlinks and not using talk pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Oz, given this editor's neglect of talk page edits, it is unlikely that they will even know they can file an unblock request. They did post a meager response on their user talk page. Any chance this 6 month block could be reduced? Just thought I'd put in a pitch for mercy for what was really a minor edit infraction. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Cycling through IPs

I have a question about vandalism accounts. I help edit a series of reality TV articles and, from what I can tell, there appears to be a single user who will edit with either rumored spoilers for upcoming episodes or flat-out fake information. They don't use an account and the IP used will eventually be warned/blocked but then they will just pop up sometime later using a similar but different IP. Is there any potential resolution for this that isn't an endless game of whack-a-mole? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahp2 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:RANGE? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

We'll need some IP accounts first to see if a range block is appropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure, here are seven I suspect are the same user. All do the same type of unannotated edits on similar pages. 222.153.65.98, 222.154.16.98, 222.153.14.129, 222.153.114.170, 222.153.13.121, 222.153.68.214, 222.153.50.12. Noahp2 (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The IPs are assigned to a telecom company, so there could be collateral damage. This range - Special:Contributions/222.153.0.0/16 - seems the most used (222.154.x.x being an outlier). FifthFive (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Is there anything I need to do/request? Looks like two of these IPs have been active in the last few days Noahp2 (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing

• RayanTarraf (talk · contribs)

Never disclosed their paid editing.

According to User:DubaiScripter: Glimpse Digital Agency is a Marketing, Digital Marketing and design production studio set up in Dubai in 2017 by Lebanese Rayan Tarraf.[26][27] Hypnôs (talk) 10:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I note that this user has not edited since March this year, and has only made three edits, none to mainspace, since 2017. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

So? DubaiScripter (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

So, as originally worded as a complaint against RayanTarraf (talk · contribs), this report cannot be said to be of an urgent incident or a chronic, intractable behavioural problem, as required for this noticeboard. It has, however, broadened its scope since then. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

And what do you mean paid editing? Who paid who? DubaiScripter (talk) 11:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

You disclosed in 2017 that you were paid to edit.[28]

If you are unaware of this, are there other people that have had access to your account? Hypnôs (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Who is getting paid for editing? Rayan Taraff or Dubai Scripter? Do you have any diffs of problematic content that they have added to articles? Isaidnoway (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Isaidnoway I just noticed a big discussion on social channels going around the article of Baalbek in Lebanon. Apparently, Some editors are using Wikipedia for political benefits in order to push war agenda. Which is terrible of course. I went straight to the article in order to see what is happening and found that many referenced articles have actually no backing or reliable sources. Two minutes after requesting access to edit, I received the notification of Hypnos questioning my integrity which makes me think that what is being said online is actually true. DubaiScripter (talk) 11:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

incase you want to see what I'm talking about https://www.instagram.com/khalilshreateh/reel/DB1rDyqNjCc/ DubaiScripter (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

DubaiScripter disclosed that they were paid by RayanTarraf's company to edit[29], and have created the page Rayan Tarraf three times. But since they seem to be unaware of this, the account is possibly used by someone else now.

Regarding Rayan Taraff, I can't go into details due to WP:OUTING, but the pages they created are either related to them or have a promotional tone.[30]

Since joining the Mohammad & Obaid AlMulla Group in 2017, Beshara has played a key role in its growth and success.

American Hospital Dubai, under Beshara's guidance, has achieved significant healthcare innovations, particularly in the field of robotics and artificial intelligence. Hypnôs (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are assuming too much. Not related, Nor paid. These pages were my attempts at learning on how to create new articles for known companies and figures that are not already on Wikipedia which I obviously failed to do but that certainly doesn't mean I'm paid and the section you quoted about American Hospital CEO is depicted directly from their articles which you can find online. And if you are talking about the option where you choose if you were paid or not for an article that was also a failed try when i was trying to find my way around understanding how this works. So again, no I never got paid nor do I know these people in person.

Now the real question is... Why is @Hypnôs very insistent on diverting from the original issue which is using Wikipedia for Political gain? DubaiScripter (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

DubaiScripter, you have stated that you are indeed a paid editor, paid by Glimpse Digital Agency. --Yamla (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, as I have mentioned in my previous reply. I had chosen that option in one of my attempts to understand why the article is being rejected but I can confirm that was by mistake. not really paid by anyone. DubaiScripter (talk) 13:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

DubaiScripter, please be exactly specific. What exactly is your relationship to Rayan Tarraf and to Glimpse Digital Agency? --Yamla (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

No relationship. This guy made a lecture once were I worked and he inspired me to dig in Wikipedia and see how it works. So I kept trying to write an article about him or his company in order to learn. More like a test subject.

Even though there was enough articles to support the guy i never managed to get it published. I even tried choosing the option were it says I was paid or even try to create a link to the person or his company but also didn't work.

anyways I gave up on my Wikipedia skills. Anything else you would like to know? because the focus here should be the Political involvement of some admins.

Thanks DubaiScripter (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Your first time creating an article on him was before 19 February 2017.[31]

On 6 November 2017 he made an edit to your user page.[32]

If the only relation to him was this one time lecture that inspired to to make an article about him, how did he know your user name and why did he make an edit to your user page months later? Hypnôs (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, please watch this video https://www.instagram.com/khalilshreateh/reel/DB1rDyqNjCc/ which explains exactly why @Hypnôs is doing this. He is plainly mentioned in there. DubaiScripter (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

You need to stop this - I suggest you read the contentious topic notification on your talk page. Simonm223 (talk) 13:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

My last message: Whoever is reading from the esteemed and amazing non-biased Admins... That are obviously more experienced and much better than me. Please check the this issue and don't let misinformation run loose on Wikipedia. https://www.tiktok.com/@zeez870/video/7435060973855116562?q=baalbek%20wikipedia&t=1733319093938 DubaiScripter (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, @Hypnôs I've noticed that in the talk page your name is mentioned 27 times and that in trying to block the removal of exactly what I came to check. All, I can say is that this issue is blowing up on social channels and it's only reflecting badly on Wikipedia Admins and Wikipedia as a reliable source. I also, noticed that you are only interested in historical pages that are related to the Jewish community which makes me believe that you are biased but again it that's my assumption. I could be wrong DubaiScripter (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

... "this issue is blowing up on social channels"? Really? How about providing us some links to those? You wouldn't happen to be involved in pushing that, would you? Ravenswing 15:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Not pushing anything... I saw this video yesterday broadcasted on TV https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSjvepY85/ and it seems that there was a discussion panel at the university where I teach talking about how Wikipedia is being used for political reasons and everyone was talking about this guy @Hypnôs on how he is purposely adding fake details to the Baalbek article.

Then I noticed that so many people are reposting the video or duetting it on both TikTok and Instagram. This original link alone has 81K views.

Came in to check it out and unfortunately it was true a fake narrative is being added on to that article. Everyone can see it. And now I even have doubts based on your tone @Ravenswing that you are either the same person or work together.

I don't want to get involved in all this political nonsense but all I can say is that whoever you guys work for... I don't really care but you are only giving Wikipedia a bad name. People will lose trust in this platform and because of what you are doing, you will end up destroying a very unique heritage sight that has nothing to do with your wars.

No need to answer. I'm out. DubaiScripter (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

OK I think you really need to understand that if you don't cease making personal attacks against Wikipedia editors you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your comportment, so far, indicates you are not interested in collaboratively building an encyclopedia as you seem to have joined to act upon a specific grievance against a specific editor. Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a prime example of Ravenswing's Third Law cropping up here: "The vehemence (and repetitiveness) with which an editor states that those who oppose his actions/edits/POV can only have sinister motives for doing so is in inverse proportion to the editor's conformity to (a) relevant Wikipedia policies or guidelines; and/or (b) his articlespace edit count." If you really do believe that any editor who fails to agree with you is part of some conspiracy against you, then I agree with Simonm223; you are not fit to edit Wikipedia. Ravenswing 16:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Troublesome single purpose account

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

---

Bringing everyone's attention to User:AngadSingh2004, who is a single-purpose account that has never edited any topics outside of Disney Star and related articles since their account was created in June 2023.

The user in question performed several ill-advised moves to Disney Star and related articles as bold moves that were reverted as controversial.

After a request was made at WP:RMT here to revert the controversial undiscussed move, and the reversion was completed by @Robertsky, User:AngadSingh2004 posted about the reversion on the article's talk page here, replying "Are you dumb or something" when advised that moving the article without consensus was disruptive.

User:AngadSingh2004 came to WP:RMT to again try to bypass the RM process for a controversial move by requesting the page be moved (here). This move was declined at WP:RMT because it didn't meet the criteria for an uncontroversial move, and the editor was advised to open a full RM discussion.

The editor finally opened the full RM discussion, here. However, during the RM discussion, presumably when they realized things weren't trending the way they wished, the editor went ahead and deceptively edited other people's RM votes, editing them from oppose to support (see here, here, here). When confronted about this on their talk page, they said they "thought it was a glitch".

Shortly after the requested move was inevitably closed as "not moved" with very clear consensus to not move the article, the editor decided to unilaterally proceed with the move anyway, moving the article with the reason "Perform requested move, see talk page". When confronted about this on their talk, they said:
"The discussion was useless, no body agreed with the real proofs I have provided and the people opposing didn't give any concrete region, not did they look up about the company or website themselves."

This WP:SPA is pretty clearly WP:NOTHERE to participate in Wikipedia in any capacity other than disruptively editing the small set of articles that are within their interests, and seems to be operating in bad faith, especially when it comes to deceptively editing other people's RM votes, deceptively trying to skirt around the RM process, personal attacks, and deciding unilaterally, after clear consensus, that the opinion of the community apparently doesn't matter. RachelTensions (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I would support a TBAN at the minimum, and have no objection to a site block; it isn't as if that AngadSingh2004 has a contribution history to remotely offset such blatant nonsense. Ravenswing 15:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

A topic ban would be analogous to a full block considering they’ve never expressed any desire to contribute to any other topics. RachelTensions (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd support a site block - nothing of value will be lost. - DoubleCross (‡) 17:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Good idea for a site block, I concur. BarntToust 00:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and indefblocked the account, from the contributions I see were not losing anything important in the account's absence. If anyone would like to review the block please feel free to, otherwise I'd consider this matter closed. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Please Advise on a Move Discussion

I request that an Admin provide some uninvolved observations on the course of two recent move discussions here: Talk:Expectation of privacy (United States). Everyone involved knows what they're talking about, and we have a basic consensus that the current article title needs to be fixed, but we're going around in circles on finding a solution. Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

doomsdayer520 - After reading over the discussion and then seeing your recent comments in that discussion, I'll merely note that if you act on the statements you've recently made, including "... then I am going to put "Reasonable" in the article title or die trying"; that there is a decent likelihood that an uninvolved admin may remove your page mover user-right.

Being entrusted with extra user-rights doesn't mean that you can implement what you want. When we use our extra user-rights, they are in service to the community and to the encyclopedia project. And I think you also may want to re-read WP:CON and WP:BOLD.

At this point, I'll let others take a look, and see what they think. - jc37 15:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I haven't taken any action and instead asked for advice here, which is the exact process recommended by WP:CON. It would also be a "service to the community" to fix an article title that everyone agrees is wrong. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Advice: Wait, just fricken wait, don't say you're going to get the article moved based on your preference or die trying. The discussion was relisted 2 days ago and has been open for a total of 9 days. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

"I am a page mover, and WP:BOLD could apply here because we have at least decided that the current article title is wrong" (also from that discussion) would be a massive breach of WP:NACINV. I think Doomsdayer520 needs to take a step back here. Daniel (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

...then I am going to put "Reasonable" in the article title or die trying Geez, that's a statement that should NEVER be made when trying to achieve consensus. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Nazmul995, See also sections, and promotion

• Nazmul995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Nazmul created their account on November 22 and has racked up 525 edits, of which 16 are deleted - they've created drafts that have been deleted per WP:G11, including a self-promoting userpage. Mostly what they've been doing is adding massive See also sections to Bangladeshi places. Often, the See also section is larger than the article. Yesterday, Worldbruce left a message on their Talk page about the problem. The user not only didn't respond but continued to add See also sections. This morning, I added "Why are you adding massive See also sections to articles? It's disruptive." after Worldbruce's post. The user hasn't responded but instead persists in their agenda. I thought about a short-term block to get their attention, but decided to come here instead to get more input because it's an unusual problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Nazmul995's most recent edits are adding 10+ "See also" links to every one-sentence "X is a village in Bangladesh" article, like this. Doing so is unhelpful and against the spirit of MOS:LINK. I'm guessing from a photo they uploaded, File:Tanvir Mehedi.jpg, that they may be more accustomed to a hierarchical work environment than a collaborative one. It would be good to have at least one more voice reach out to them and try to persuade them to redirect their energies into something constructive. Many ways to help are linked at Wikipedia:Community portal. If that doesn't work, it might get their attention and make them consider their edits more carefully if someone in authority blocked them briefly, and mass reverted their "See also" edits. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

At the time of this writing, their last 80 edits (all today) have been to add the same boilerplate list of links to the "See also" section in 80 different village stubs. Their edits have all been to articles beginning with the letter "A" and have been done in alphabetical order of the article names. They seem to be going through an alphabetically sorted list of villages and making the same edit to all of them. I strongly agree that this is not helpful and should be stopped. CodeTalker (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• They've not only been doing this, they've never edited a talk or user-talk page - and they're making the exact same edit to each page, in alphabetical order, at rapid speed, which is indistinguishable from a bot. I've blocked them for 24 hours in hopes that when they next log on they'll be motivated to discuss and have things explained to them. I'll leave it to someone with better tools and more time to revert the mass additions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  I've done a mass rollback of their last 500 edits, which is almost all of their edits. The ones before that were a bit different, or at least different enough that I didn't feel comfortable reverting them.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  Just revoke EC on Namzul if they return. Ahri Boy (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  Hello. El_C 09:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  Namzul, please refrain from abusing your talk page. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Ahri Boy: I don't understand what revoking extended-confirmed will achieve given the nature of the problem, and I don't call what the user posted to their Talk page "abuse".--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  The Talk page comment strikes me as either someone who does not understand how to communicate in English, or someone who is giving us the verbal equivalent of a hand-waving "I see you, now leave me alone." Neither of which seems productive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Given subsequent messages on User talk:Nazmul995, I think this editor was well-intentioned but they definitely overdid the article additions. Apparently, they are now aware of talk pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Persistent use of unreliable sources by Yongpeng Sun

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

The editor has been adding unreliable sources, particulary WP:ARMYRECOGNITION.

Warnings were left on their talk page:

• Special:Diff/1251815381
• Special:Diff/1256307723
• Special:Diff/1257507199

Yongpeng Sun blanked their talk page after each warning, and has shown no signs of having understood them; their penultimate edit is still at it (Special:Diff/1256292360.) - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 01:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

RovingPersonalityConstruct, you have diffs of them clearing off their User talk page and there is nothing wrong with doing that. Can you present diffs of edits you find problematic on articles? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Here are the revisions that I noticed, going back to mid-October.

• Special:Diff/1261113067, use of armyrecognition
• Special:Diff/1257307463, use of armyrecognition
• Special:Diff/1256293349, use of armyrecognition, guancha.cn (blog), qq.com (blog)
• Special:Diff/1256292360, use of armyrecognition
• Special:Diff/1251828131, use of bulgarianmilitary.com (blog)
• Special:Diff/1251827909, use of armyrecognition, bulgarianmilitary.com, weaponsystems.net (selfpub), naval-technology.com (RSN)
• Special:Diff/1251826777, use of armyrecognition
• Special:Diff/1251066320, use of bulgarianmilitary.com
• Special:Diff/1250911227, use of armyrecognition, bulgarianmilitary.com
• Special:Diff/1246652575, use of armyrecognition

- RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 06:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Persistent adding of unsourced trivia / disruptive editing by DougalFoxwell

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

---

The WP:BLP article on the broadcaster Gregg Wallace was page-protected in late November due to BLP violations. Since then the editor DougalFoxwell has persistently added unsourced trivia to the article despite being requested on their talk page not to add content without a reliable source. In my view this persistent addition of unsourced trivia is disruptive editing which is harming the WP:BLP. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Kind Tennis Fan, please share diffs of these edits so other editors can see what they are. It's impossible to evaluate an accusation without evidence. Have you tried talking with this editor? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

See 1, 2, 3, and 4. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Those are indeed trivial. Let's see if they respond to this summons to ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

When their first handful of edits were unsourced, I left a message on their talk page explaining about sources, but there is no sign that this mobile editor has read their talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked DougalFoxwell for one week for adding unsourced content to a BLP article. Some of the content is trivia and some of it is contentious. Cullen328 (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

My only concern would be that, looking at the editor's contribution pattern, they might miss the block entirely, but we shall see I suppose. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Ahri Boy for showing the diffs of the edits, which I should have provided myself. Thank you Cullen328 for taking action against the addition of unsourced content. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 07:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruption at Storrs, Connecticut by Jonathanhusky

For several months several editors have been claiming Storrs, Connecticut should be Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut. It was at ANI several months ago - see [33], which led to the creation of an RfC.

The RfC is clearly heading for an oppose, but it has been heavily bludgeoned by Jonathanhusky. For some reason, a merge discussion was initiated part of the way through the RfC - the whole thing is a bit of a mess.

I'm coming here now since today I noticed Jonathanhusky had updated the article in a way that was clearly unsupported by the RfC and marked it as minor: [34] After I reverted - and I admit I did revert a bit too much because there were a series of edits, so I just picked the last table version - Jonathanhusky accused me of misusing the tools: [35] Finally, the edit that got me here, which is something I've never seen before - Jonathanhusky marked several strong opposers, including Mathglot, JamesMLane, and R0paire-wiki as "actually supports" in the RfC, while marking the edit as minor, and without signing the comments: [36]

This behaviour, especially the bludgeoning and that last edit, is clearly disruptive/WP:OWNership behaviour and there needs to be at the very least a topic ban if not an outright block. SportingFlyer T·C 05:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on the merits of this filing, but it should be noted that Jonathan also filed for a third opinion regarding this article. I procedurally declined that filing since there were clearly more than two editors involved in the matter already. I don't even know that this is particularly relevant to this ANI filing, but since it crossed my watchlist and since Jonathan is being accused of trying to bludgeon the matter, I figured I should at least note it. DonIago (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

That last pretty much counts as "editing another editor's comments" doesn't it? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I reverted their edit where they "interpreted" other editors' "votes" as the opposite of what they said. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

...have been claiming...

It is important to note that this statement is false - the official name of the community is "Storrs-Mansfield" and "Storrs" is only an informal, unofficial version. This has been verified and cited in the talk page discussion - the RFC is and was always started to determine the best way to respect the inclusion of the "common name" alongside the official one foremostly. Although a page name change (or "page move") was a prior topic, the RFC nor the actual discussion was at any point regarding that.

The RfC is clearly heading for an oppose, but it has been heavily bludgeoned by Jonathanhusky.

...I noticed Jonathanhusky had updated the article in a way that was clearly unsupported by the RfC...

Jonathanhusky marked several strong opposers...as "actually supports" in the RfC...

It is not "bludgeoning" to reply to one's comment nor is it disruptive to respond to individual points.

As can be seen by reading the actual editors' comments referenced, and then furtherly explained in a discussion comment, they actually did support the proposed edits. The suggested text follows the established and accepted Wikipedia style.

This behaviour, especially the bludgeoning and that last edit, is clearly disruptive/WP:OWNership behaviour...

Incorrect. When users publish multifaceted comments it is not inappropriate to respond to those facets with individual respect toward their points. As a furtherer of the discussion, I am allowed to respond to new evidence, theories and ideas, and able to (as any other user) explain why I do or don't agree with a comment or the reasoning presented, or asked clarifying questions. In fact, I have tried referencing verified reliable sources and relevant Wikipedia policies to figure out what applies and what doesn't. Not all participants did, and as well, others either repeated storied or irrelevant explanations (perhaps they did not know better) or refused to consider the valid points presented in a reply.

I understand that you have initiated this process, but, this has to be looked at from the perspective of the unanswered questions regarding how to properly and respectfully write about this community (and others like it) on Wikipedia. Jonathanhusky (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you interpret their comments/explanations as "they actually did support". Editing other editors' comments in a discussion, especially changing their explict, bolded !votes, is a bright line. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

No portion of the editors' original comments were actually removed. This fact needs to be respected.

What I did was, solely, ensure that readers knew the honest view of the editors' responses. You say that these were so-called "votes" - in a discussion which is exclusively a discussion, not a call for "votes" - which say "opposed" but their explanations say they don't really oppose the point.

Then other editors see just the "opposed" but don't actually read or understand the comment, drawing a false conclusion. It is unfair to penalize me for adding clarifying labels. Jonathanhusky (talk) 08:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Jonathanhusky, it is up to the uninvolved closer to review all of the comments and weigh the arguments when they assess the discussion. You are an involved participant and as Bushranger states, no editor edits other people's comments or "interprets them" by editing them in any way unless they need to hat disruptive content which is not the case here. Just know that if you try this again, you will be facing a block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not an interpretation when the original editors said it themselves. And, please, stop saying that I've edited anyone else's comment. I didn't, haven't, and don't plan to - What I did was akin to a sticky note on the cover page. It's actually disruptive to say one thing when you mean something else. What I did is not and was not disruptive. Jonathanhusky (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

However you choose to interpret what you did (realizing that experienced editors disagree with you), consider yourself warned not to do it again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

...realizing that experienced editors disagree with you...

Then go to the discussion and see for yourself - for goodness' sake, half of the responses labeled "opposed" aren't about the RFC, they're about a page name change (or "page move"). And you're saying that those prima facie irrelevant responses aren't invalid?

You mentioned an uninvolved closer. If everyone feels so strongly about the so-called "conclusion" of the discussion, then please start the process to render a decision. Obviously, the editors who have an opinion on the subject have commented and if they actually read and understood the evidence, and participated fairly, you can clearly see that they support the lead paragraph and other changes as suggested. Jonathanhusky (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

There's no then — this is not a negotiation. What you did was sanctionable misconduct, so you can't do that again, full stop. El_C 09:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

So any comment labeled "opposed" will stand no matter what the editor says, in that very same or other comments in the discussion? Even if they really didn't disagree, or the comment had nothing to do with the topic? Jonathanhusky (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. A closer might deem an argument as weak enough so as to give it little to no weight, but you can't take another's agency away by editing their comment. El_C 09:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Once again, I did not edit anyone else's comment. The text, data, and material of every other editor's comments and edits were not changed, deleted, or altered.

Stop insinuating and accusing me of something I did not do. Doesn't Wikipedia have policies against personal attacks? Jonathanhusky (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I can see the diffs just fine. You do not have the authority to edit inside their comment field. You are not being personally or otherwise attacked, but you do need to step away from this at this point, because it's increasingly coming across as WP:BLUDGEON and WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct, which are in themselves sanctionable. El_C 09:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jonathanhusky: I'll put it a different way. Do you think it was in any way acceptable if I had let this edit stand [37]? Perhaps the formatting is a little different but that's basically what you did. Nil Einne (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nil Einne, it appears you did not actually understand the substance of this issue.

Firstly, since you were logged in and you are not me, it is obvious that such an edit in your example would have been thrown out immediately, automatically considered a target onto the other user, and perhaps result in you getting the first-person wish you typed on your own keyboard. Furthermore, you added something which wasn't suggested or supported in that or any of my other comments.

If we take a look at the real case here, we have editors who wrote "opposed" even though they didn't mean to. I did not remove any of their original "opposed" labels, nor any of their content. This fact needs to be respected. I placed before them, in a colored superscript italic indicating that it was an added emphasis not a part of their original comment "actually support".

I then linked to the reply that backs up that claim with "see their comment". It is obvious to any reader that the "sticky note" was and would have been separate from the editor's original comment, but clear (in the link and in the actual text) that the "opposed" would no longer be appropriate.

Had I removed any portion of their comment, or even not supported the change with linked evidence I could potentially understand the concern, albeit a form of crying wolf. Practically speaking, these were clarifying edits.

To accuse me of malfeasance and disruption is and was inappropriate and incorrect. Jonathanhusky (talk) 09:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Jonathanhusky is clearly in an "I am not going to listen to anyone else because I am right" mode. Accordingly, I have blocked Jonathanhusky for one month from editing Storrs, Connecticut and Talk: Storrs, Connecticut. They can spend that month contributing productively elsewhere and pondering the fact that this is a collaborative project where decisions are made by genuine consensus instead of misrepresentations and pushiness. Cullen328 (talk) 09:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

If you actually read the discussion, you'll note that I'm actually one of the most willing editors on the platform to consider that my suggestion may be in need of improvement or doesn't fit. I was practically the only person to even attempt to seek out the relevant policies, entries in the manual of style, and precedents. And discussed them based on specific points with other editors. I didn't name call and I didn't push an agenda.

Go back and see that other editors started drawing conclusions and accusing me. Since when, in a discussion, am I not allowed to respond to individual points?

You called my editing disruptive, which is not true and frankly rude. Jonathanhusky (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, you need to step back from this thread, or face additional sanctions. You do not have an inalienable right to to respond to individual points indefinitely. You are free to disagree, but not misuse (WP:BLUDGEON) this space further. El_C 10:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I just actually read the discussion, and there is no way to interpret those comments other than that this village should first be named as Storrs and then Storrs-Mansfield be given as an alternative name, the opposite way round to the RFC. Being polite does not excuse lying. Frankly, you are lucky that you can still edit here. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On further thought, I've added ANI to the p-block list (now totaling three pages). Hopefully, this will suffice and we can avoid a sitewide block. Added: what Phil Bridger brings up is concerning. El_C 10:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. If this person still wishes to edit, they should know that they are standing on the edge of a precipice and should take several steps back. Cullen328 (talk) 10:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that merge discussion can be safely closed. It's going nowhere, and is another example of their disruptive behavior at that article. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Does this edit, made after the ANI was opened, also need to be reverted? SportingFlyer T·C 16:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I closed the thing. There might be an argument made for merging the two articles in question, and a very simple 'sometimes known as ...' line in there, but better for those to be discussed politely in a separate thread. Also note this change was made over on the simple-english wiki without discussion while this was all going on. Connecticut - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which I have reverted JeffUK 17:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I've modified the block to be site-wide due to continued edit warring, but reduced the length to two weeks. I think a lot of good faith has been extended to Jonathanhusky, but they're not listening to any of the advice or cautions provided.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

[38] Definitely not listening, and IMHO very likely to resume conduct once the block expires, so best to keep an eye on the various articles when that happens. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Jonathanhusky originally made identical Storrs-related edits from a variety of IP accounts in September 2024. Best to keep an eye out for logged out editing. Of course, at this point, I think this article on this CT town is on more Watchlists than it was 3 months ago when this dispute all first started. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

New editor Persistently restoring OR/POV content a history of COI and NPOV edits

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

---

Can someone please take a look at User:Track18* and their additions to John McAslan. The article has a history of COI editors. I've removed some of the most obvious puffery along with my previous COI notice, and this editor has subsequently added it all back in despite the efforts of myself and another editor trying to get them to communicate. I'm at my 3 edit limit, hence escalating it here. Their pattern of editing and edit summaries like 'Correct wording' just make me think this is yet another undisclosed COI editor. Maybe needs a Checkuser too, as they only edit this article, and only after the blocking of the obvious COI User:John_McAslan_+_Partners.

JeffUK 13:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Some specifics. this edit adding puffy language that was previously added by blocked users [39], this edit adding unsourced assertions about being 'extensively' exhibited, and accolades and awards [40].

Now that I've mentioned Checkuser.. I just noticed edit [41] and this one [42] start with the identical "Born in Glasgow, " which is quite a coincidence. JeffUK 14:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, looks like obvious block evasion (previous block was for advertising/promo) and thus undeclared paid editing. Is an SPI really needed for such obvious duck-like behaviour? Axad12 (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• I agree Track18* is most likely a sock of User:John_McAslan_+_Partners, but since it's unquestionably a promotion-only account, I've blocked indefinitely for that rather than socking. Bishonen | tålk 20:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC).

PS, I've semi'd the article for two weeks. Bishonen | tålk 20:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC).

Thanks, I'm always happy with whatever is the most efficient solution! JeffUK 08:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing from Guillaume de la Mouette

Involved: Guillaume de la Mouette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
So I was looking through Special:NewFiles to make sure my tornado images went through, and I came across File:1983 John (Jack) Thornton.jpg, which is missing all information. Then, I came across Thornton's Bookshop, where the following text was added by the user (feel free to remove it with "copyvio removed" if this is a copyright violation, my Earwig isn't working), which was reverted by me and instantly re-added:

The founders and rules of the British Empire took the fame of Oxford to the far corners of the earth. Many of them were, of course, educated at Oxford; they ate Oxford marmalade for breakfast; in the twilight of Empire a few of them even relaxed in Oxford bags. Yet the name o£ Oxford is known to millions throughout the world not because of trousers, or marmalade, or even scholarship, but because they have received their education from books supplied by Oxford booksellers. Oxford, a city which had a well-established book trade; the makers of medieval books - the scribes, limners, illuminators, and binders - and their sellers clustered around St Mary's and in Catte Street, near the Schools which stood on the site now occupied by the Bodleian. Their customers were the men of the University, but the invention of printing wrought a revolution in the availability of books and in the ability to read them. It was not, however, the printers themselves, but the booksellers, who were the key figures in the dissemination of this vast new literature. The learned booksellers of Oxford were soon adapting themselves to new ways. John Dorne had a shop near St Mary's in the 1520s from which he sold a great variety of books: the old learning was represented by Peter Lombard, and the new by Erasmus; but amongst the learned folios Dorne also stocked school textbooks, ballads, sheet almanacs, and the astrological prognostications which our ancestors loved. Each year he had a stall at St. Frideswide’s Fair and at Austin Fair which provided valuable additional income. Dorne, and, no doubt, his contemporaries about whom little or nothing is known, had begun to bridge the gap between town and gown, supplying the needs and tastes of both. Outside the city there were no printers but there were books and men who sold them. As early as 1604 we know of a stationer in Charlbury. Stationers normally had a few ballads and Bibles on their shelves and from The original site of the bookshop in Magdalen street c. 1860 near the Oxford Memorial and the Randolph hotel them country bookshops developed. By 1800, all the major towns in Oxfordshire had a tradesman who was, at least in name a bookseller. Most of them are shadowy. Only accidental survivals, like the little Holloway cache rescued by Johnson, or the much larger Cheney archives, can add flesh to the bare bones of names and dates. We can, however, argue by analogy with similar survivals elsewhere in England. Such analogies suggest that there were few towns of any size in which there was not a bookshop able to supply the needs of the locality. In Oxfordshire, as elsewhere the book trade was essentially distributive, and the similarity between the trade in Oxfordshire and that elsewhere emphasises the point that Oxford itself is not only not the whole story but is rather a deviation from it. The learned men of Oxford made the city a major centre of learned publishing; but beyond the walls the county pursued a quiet and uneventful existence in which the book trade was one of many which catered to its modest needs.

This is comlete cruft and promotional, and this user has a clear-cut COI, as seen here. I think administrator intervention is needed, as they've been reverting Filedelinkerbot, me, and don't seem to listen to warnings on their talk page. E_F⁵ 16:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if this person knows what this is all about. It's an introduction to the history of the book trade in Oxford Guillaume de la Mouette (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

An article about a particular bookshop is not the place for an article about the poorly sourced Draft:History of the book trade in Oxford. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that this situation is problematic. The SPA user's extensive edits to that article are also entirely unsourced. I have reverted the article to the position before they started their spree (which seems to include a large IP edit in 19th Nov). Axad12 (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I have a very extensive archive of the bookshop, this goes back to about 1840. I am currently writing the history of 5 generations of booksellers in this, Oxford's oldest bookshop. I have just over 280 photographs, documents, letters etc just for the period 1835 - 1983. Of these I choose a few for Wikipedia. It is of course also strange that I keep on having to confirm copyright for photographs we, my wife and I took between 1983 and 2023. I added an introduction to the history of the book trade in Oxford till Thornton's opened in 1835 which you have now deleted and I now find that the site is back to the old one before I worked on this for days on end. It's simplistic. Guillaume de la Mouette (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Be that as it may, material added to Wikipedia articles must be properly cited to published sources and must be written in neutral encyclopaedic language. It also must not include large blocks of text taken from other sources. See WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:COPYVIO for further details on the relevant policies. Axad12 (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I wrote the introduction myself, after all I have been a bookseller for more than 60 years. I let the previous generations speak about the history of the firm. But I realise that you allow AI to review all of this. a pity. Guillaume de la Mouette (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I've been tracking and watching storms for about 3 years now. Does that mean that I'm an "expert"? No! Please don't assume bad faith, as there are some serious NPOV issues here and we aren't "AI generated". E_F⁵ 16:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what AI has to do with this. Would you mind expanding?

Please also note that Wikipedia is no place for original research as per WP:OR. If you have researched the subject, the appropriate place to publish that research is in book form (or similar) not on Wikipedia (which simply reports what other already published sources say). Axad12 (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and I was in the legal field for over thirty years before my retirement, and that doesn't mean I get to override Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and the consensus of other editors to jam in whatever meandering prose I want. You would be well advised to pay attention to Axad12's counsel, as well as reviewing the links at WP:PILLAR before editing further. Ravenswing 16:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I wrote the introduction myself, after all I have been a bookseller for more than 60 years. I let the previous generations speak about the history of the firm. But I realise that you allow AI to review all of this. a pity. Guillaume de la Mouette (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

What is your (mis)understanding of the role of AI here? The reason your work has been reverted has been stated very clearly above. The need to revert you was observed and agreed by human beings alone (all of whom who have seen your work appear to oppose it). Axad12 (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12: They're now trying to re-add the info "secretly" under an IP (2A02:8012:B5B2:0:421:7B31:2D08:281E). I think block is in order? E_F⁵ 16:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

This situation is rather sad, it would have been a lot more constructive if they had had a look at the policies I had pointed them to rather than starting to edit war while logged out.

I suppose it's up to them whether they want to be a useful contributor within the bounds of the relevant policies and guidelines, or someone who got blocked for edit warring.

Guillaume, I would seriously suggest that you opt for the former course. Axad12 (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

thanks, I'll give up, a pity you are happy with an inferior description which fortunately I have saved and will be part of my Faringdon chronicle volume 5 to be housed in both the Bodleian library and the central Historical archive in Oxford. And by the way, the above I am he not they. :) Yes I still need to correct the introduction. Guillaume de la Mouette (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I was assuming that the book plug was going to happen at some point. Axad12 (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Guillaume de la Mouette, the bottom line is this: If you want to edit Wikipedia, then you must comply with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. Neither your expertise nor your age give you any exemptions. Cullen328 (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, @Guillaume de la Mouette, good luck with seeing if you can sneak your Amazon.fr print-ordered book into the donation boxes at the local libraries that you haven't yet been kicked out of for similar, prior incidents. BarntToust 18:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

BarntToust, that remark was completely inappropriate and unnecessary. Cullen328 (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with the unnecessary part, but.. inappropriate? I would characterise that as "chiding" and "dank" before I'd consider it inappropriate. BarntToust 19:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not an off-kilter reading of what's probably going on with Guillaume, but still definitely not helpful. I'll see myself out, eh. BarntToust 19:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

actually, looks like this is a bookseller? huh. weird. BarntToust 19:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

BarntToust, since you failed to take the hint, consider this a formal warning: Never address a another editor in such a mocking fashion again. Cullen328 (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

alrighty, no mocking. I should instead invite the editor to indeed wait until his works are published by a reliable publishing house, then provide identifying info, such as ISBN in order for his knowledge to be utilised in the project. BarntToust 20:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't doubt actually, misplaced mockery aside, that this information Guillaume has put forth is true. But, as some essay said once, "Wikipedia isn't truth, it's verifiablity". So, let's wait for the book to be published, and judge from there. BarntToust 20:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

General sanctions in regards to anime and manga related pages

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

---

A sock has been put away in a drawer. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Since there is an IP based in the Dominican Republic (as evidenced here) vandalizing a number of articles related to manga and anime, I am inviting User:Sonic Phoenix and User:Xexerss as well as some experienced editors/admins including User:Guerillero to discuss if we can apply the 30/500 rule to all anime and manga related pages including voice actors, companies and places. Although I'm not an admin, I am appealing to the administrators that edits and general disruption (POV-pushing, edit warring, personal attacks etc.) permeate the entire topic area and it is difficult for admins to successfully keep all this in check. For this reason, I'm asking the community to impose the standard set of contentious topics on all pages related to anime and manga. Another reason for this is because the Monica Rial article was protected due to the controversial incident that involved her and Vic Mignogna in 2019 that lead to a lawsuit which the sanctions should also apply to voice actors. Due to my time constraints, i'll leave the discussion to all of you but I will talk more when I return. Thank you! -Winners120 (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC) If it's an IP, best thing to do is do temporary 4/10 auto autoconfirmed, and block relevant ranges in said country for a time. Contentious topic procedures seem out of proportion for some joker who's making sport out of vandalising pages. BarntToust 18:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Not exactly my friend. Autoconfirmed is not enough. We need to enforce general sanctions throughout the topic area as evidenced here and here. -Winners120 (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC) @Winners120, can you provide any of the IP addresses that the Dominican fellow has been using? If autoconfirmed isn't enough, why? If this jackwagon tries to vandalise through an account, can we not block them? BarntToust 18:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Yes: 1, 2 and 3. Those are the 190.x.x.x, 148.x.x.x, and 186.x.x.x ranges who replaced the links to Crunchyroll, LLC (the company) to Crunchyroll (streaming) and is reverting other users edits. Winners120 (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC) So far, as I can tell, you've shown one IP who is on perhaps its last warning for vandalisation. Not evidence of big long term problem BarntToust 18:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Not even close. The IP is the same person changing IP addresses every 2 to 3 days and the ISP is Compania Dominicana de Telefonos S. A. How very pity. Winners120 (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC) A precedent for WP:LTA/MMB exists. We need a range block to keep the Dominican Republic anime vandal in check. Winners120 (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Yes, this is a job for a range block. And if range-hopping continues, maybe then autoconfirm protection. Ain't seein' the "outta control" issue here that would justify measures reserved for contentious topics. BarntToust 19:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Go for it. Undo the edits that IP 190.80.142.213 has done. Also, kindly see Monica Rial's talk page. This would be a precedent. I repeat, we need to start to discuss if we can apply general sanctions to all of manga and anime related pages. Winners120 (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

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

TPA may need revoked

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

---

See User talk:TheSmartWikiOne. E_F⁵ 18:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

agreed. the incivility's gone too far cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Do we really need an ANI thread? Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Where else am I supposed to put this? I'm obviously not pinging an administrator on their talk page and becoming the target of messages like wikipedia is about fucking ansering qustions dumb ass. E_F⁵ 18:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the ANI thread. BusterD (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Never thought I'd be at ANI twice in a day for two separate reasons, but here we are. :) E_F⁵ 18:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

In a situation like this (as I, ironically, warned them) TPA is usually revoked by an admin with out prompting. Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

yeah. to my knowledge, going to ani for cases of blocked user incivility is standard procedure cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Generally, we request TPA revolutions here, the main admin noticeboard, or on an administrator's talk page. AIV is not appropriate due to the bot removing entries when users are sitewide blocked. ToadetteEdit (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure about TPA but, for a new editor who spent most of their time at Village Pump asking "what do" I'd suggest that their very few edits, deleting wikilinks and this indicate they have at least a passing familiarity with Wikipedia and that this is all quite likely one big troll. Suggest a CU might be in order if who they're a sock of can be guessed. Simonm223 (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User : 2601:249:1A80:22E0:14B2:C7A4:2146:D33D

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

---

Talk:Abortion in Puerto Rico

Incivility, derogatory comment, discriminatory ProudWatermelon (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

ProudWatermelon, please do not argue with trolls, per Wikipedia:Deny recognition. Cullen328 (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Page move vandalism

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

---

Special:Contribs/Drowning Babs Bunny - Please fix this page move vandalism, thanks. - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 07:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This has been handled and the editor blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Lavipao edit warring + POV pushing

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

This user is deliberately POV pushing on Operation Euphrates Shield and Operation Olive Branch articles, comparing these to US invasion of Iraq and Russian invasion of Ukraine. While these articles do not even include the word "invasion" as title but "operation". Also in international politics, only handful countries have called this an invasion. Undue weight. I reported this vandalism and asked for page protection but admin called this a content dispute, which is funny because the one editing 6 to 8 years old text is right in this context. Weird! Beshogur (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Beshogur, you're a very experienced editor, you know you have to present diffs so that editors can investigate your complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

That's I can do on mobile.

Operation Olive Branch

rev before

rev after

Operation Euphrates Shield

rev before

rev after

Beshogur (talk) 09:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this content dispute, but it undoubtably is a content dispute. It doesn't matter that at least one editor thinks they are "right in this context" - it is still a content dispute. And an invasion is not necessarily bad. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

In these both articles operation appears 10x more than invasion. And invasion is subjective. This can not be compared to Iraq or Ukraine invasion. The ratio of local Syrian rebels were 10x more than Turkish troops, yet it's conducted by the Turkish army. It is not even against the Syrian regime but ISIL and YPG. "not necessarily bad"? so let's change everything slightly to not necessarily bad instead of stating factual things. Beshogur (talk) 09:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss content disputes. And your opening salvo on their talk page [43] of "Revert your edit or you will be reported. This is the consensus." is not the right way to deal with a content dispute either. They probably shouldn't have reverted their change back in again without discussing it, but honestly, if that's the level of discussion they're introduced to I can see why they didn't think discussing it would be helpful. JeffUK 10:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I am complaining the way administrators treat this as a content dispute. I asked for page protection and intervention against vandalism, but nothing. Administrators doing these do not even check the content. This is a disruptive edit and action should be taken. So he's changing something and I have to convince him. What a joke honestly. This is simply time wasting. Both of his edits are like "is an invasion bla bla" then suddenly 2-3 times the word operation appears in the lead again. Both were not described as a military invasion, but had been described as an invasion by a very fringe minority. If he thinks both were a military invasions, he should ask for title change "2016 invasion of Syria", etc. Beshogur (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Also leaving this here as an example Operation_Olive_Branch#International reactions (simple read the countries):

• Cyprus: The Republic of Cyprus condemned the Turkish invasion in Afrin
• France: evolves into an attempted invasion (assumption)
• Sweden: to protest the Afrin invasion (statement of the newspaper, not Swedish government)
• US: US State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert called on Turkey not to engage in any invasion of Syria's Afrin (doesn't have a source, and US called this an operation, not invasion)

for Operation_Euphrates_Shield#International_reactions

• Cyprus: the unacceptable invasion of Turkey into Syria

Now tell me how his edits is appropriate? Beshogur (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

How is whether we should describe this as an invasion or an operation not a content dispute? It is certainly not vandalism. The use of that word is a personal attack. And it's perfectly possible for something to be both an invasion and an operation. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not arguing this resulted in a military occupation (see Turkish occupation of Northern Syria) but military invasion =/= military occupation. Invasion aims to conquer a land, while the Turkish army doesn't control a piece of land there, but uses proxy, which makes this different from US invasion of Iraq or Russian invasion of Ukraine. This is simply wrong, and we should be realistic. I don't care if anyone calls this an invasion or not, I am trying to say a fringe minority calls this an invasion. I don't get how Military operation suddenly became a taboo word after Russian invasion (yes yes I know the special military operation). Beshogur (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

>I don't care if anyone calls this an invasion or not, I am trying to say a fringe minority calls this an invasion.

Then say that a fringe minority call it an invasion! something like '[the operation]..characterised by some as an invasion.." would be an excellent compromise and a valuable addition to the article. JeffUK 13:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

How so exactly? We edit like that. WP:UNDUE. Beshogur (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This is an argument to make on the Talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that (the article talk page) is the right place to talk about this content dispute. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello! As others have said this is a content dispute, which should be discussed on the talk page for the specific article. There is no POV or vandalism occurring, I’m just attempting to clean up the article by using correct and accurate language that reflects consistently the language used throughout this website for invasions. As I’ve provided before, there are many examples of pages on invasions throughout Wikipedia, such as the US invasion of Afghanistan or the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

User Beshogur has been continuously reverting away from correct language to use euphemistic, purposefully-confusing terms such as “cross border military operation” which is a term not used in other Wikipedia articles.

The user seems to have a very strong conviction that only Turkish government phrasing or sources should be used to describe this event, even though around the world this invasion has been widely covered as an invasion. I suspect a strong POV issue with this user Lavipao (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

This user abuses 1RR rule, and edit warring, yet administrators doing nothing. Good. Beshogur (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

What 1RR rule is there on these pages? On the user's talk page you reference an introduction to ARBPIA, what does a Turkish military operation in Syria against Kurdish groups have to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict? Traumnovelle (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

a Turkish military operation in Syria against Kurdish groups: Not ARBPIA, but WP:ARBKURDS. "The topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed...has been designated as a contentious topic" - and thus 1RR applies. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Good to know. It might be best to explain to give a proper explanation of it to Lavipao. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Editor508 + their IP (86.28.195.223) POV pushing

• Editor508 (talk · contribs)
• 86.28.195.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The two (the same person actually) are pushing their POV at UEFA Euro 2028, even though it is a long-standing consensus that the countries are always listed alphabetically. Single purpose accounts and IP editing with their pro-Wales edits and complexes against England, those edits are not done in a good faith and needs to be permanently blocked - or semi-protect the page in question for several months.

Difs Editor508:

• Diff 1
• Diff 2
• Diff 3
• Diff 4

Diffs 86.28.195.223

• Diff 1
• Diff 2
• Diff 3
• Diff 4
• Diff 5
• Diff 6

Snowflake91 (talk) 11:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• The user was already partial-blocked from the article, I have done the same for the IP. If the IP is the user evading a block, they'll find they've just extended their block significantly, since I blocked the IP with "block registered users from this IP" enabled. Black Kite (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Emiya1980 Repeated Edit Warring

Emiya1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) My colleague has been engaged in numerous edit wars, most recently demonstrated here [44] for another edit war at Hirohito. While both parties engaged in an Edit War, and the admin responding chose not to block either editor, Emiya1980's edit warring seems to be a chronic, intractable issue. Emiya1980 has received multiple warnings for Edit Warring, here at ANI, and on his talkpage [45][46][47][48][49][50] and yet continues to engage in edit warring, even crossing the bright line of the WP:3RR in the latest edit war.

I propose implementation of a WP:1RR restriction on Emiya1980 for at least six months, to prevent further, continued disruptive edit warring. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 14:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Given how much I’ve collaborated with BRP recently, I am rather taken aback by their decision to have me subject to further sanctions without speaking with me beforehand.

I have made a point of trying to conform to Wikipedia’s expectations since being subjected to sanction in October. The recent edit war over at Hirohito is the only evidence provided of me being a disruptive presence since then. In the past, I have tried to compromise with LilAhok on that page but he/she has responded more often than not by digging in his/her heels. I am not the first editor whom LilAhok has gotten in a heated dispute with and I doubt I’ll be the last.

I ask that all I’ve said be taken into consideration before reaching a decision. Emiya1980 (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't this go to WP:ANEW, or if it's with a specific problem, WP:DRN? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 15:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Given how much I’ve collaborated with BRP recently, I am rather taken aback by their decision to have me subject to further sanctions without speaking with me beforehand.

I have spoken to you beforehand. I urged you to be less combative and to WP:DISENGAGE, which is why I found it disappointing to see that you violated WP:3RR in a conflict on Hirohito with an editor that I suggested you WP:DISENGAGE from months ago [51]. My proposal for a WP:1RR is as much for your own good as it is the encyclopedia, because perhaps you'll just let things go and not run the risk of a site block. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Emiya1980 hasn't edit warred since an admin closed that report at ANEW with two days of full protection. BRP seems to think that admin wasn't aware of previous conflicts and if they had been, they wouldn't have let Emiya1980 off so lightly. I'll ask. @Crazycomputers: did you know about the behavior reported here? If not, do you think it's problematic enough that Emiya1980 should now get 1RR restriction, a block, and/or any other sanction? City of Silver 18:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

For reference: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive489 § User:Emiya1980 reported by User:LilAhok (Result: Page protected)

Typically when investigating ANEW reports, unless there is a specific comment regarding past behavior, I look only at the facts presented at the time. For any participants I conclude are edit warring, I also will take their block log into account. In this case there was no reference to past behavior, so I didn't dig into either participant's history.

The other party in the edit war was starting to make an attempt to discuss on the article's talk page, and I did not want to stifle that discussion with a 2-party block, so I opted for page protection instead. However, it does not seem that Emiya1980 engaged in discussion on the article's talk page at all, so this approach unfortunately did not have the intended effect.

Having said all of that, I don't think a block is necessary at this time. Emiya1980 has not really even edited substantially since the ANEW report. I count one single edit in mainspace since then. Blocking now, a full week after the edit war, without a recurrence of the problematic behavior, would be in contravention of WP:NOPUNISH.

Looking at the links provided by BRP:

• Heinrich Himmler: They reverted once and then ceased. For an incident that happened 4 years ago, this is not terribly concerning to me.
• The edit warring at Talk:Benito Mussolini is concerning, especially since it involves removing/striking other people's messages. Emiya1980 should be reminded of WP:TPO, if they were not at the time.
• Unless I'm missing something, at World War II related to this discussion, I see one revert.
• The last is the edit war is the one handled by me at ANEW.

Out of these four incidents, two of them would be within the proposed 1RR sanction. Unless more compelling evidence is brought forward demonstrating that this is a chronic and intractable problem, I do not think additional sanctions are warranted. As the situation stands today, I think the standard edit warring policy is sufficient to handle future issues. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Emiya1980 hasn't edit warred since an admin closed that report at ANEW with two days of full protection. BRP seems to think that admin wasn't aware of previous conflicts and if they had been, they wouldn't have let Emiya1980 off so lightly

My suggestion was borne entirely of the fact that the user has accrued an unusual amount of edit warring notices across the past year, and the idea that a WP:1RR restriction would prevent further disruption. The links I provided are not the only warnings that Emiya1980 has received. It isn't that I believe the Admin would have reacted differently, it is a matter of feeling like the community should take action to prevent further distrubances.

Here is a list of edit warning notices and other evidence demonstrating a timeline of repeated behavior:

• May 2024[52]

• May 2024 Edit War Difs [53][54]

• June 2024[55][56][57]

• September 2024[58]

• October 2024 (The Slow War) [59][60] [61][62][63][64][65]

• November 2024 [66] [67]

• November 2024 Edit War Diffs[68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75] [76]

Regarding "Missing something at World War II", as explained here [77] Making a change, getting reverted, re-reverting, and being re-reverted again actually can constitute edit warring.

Supplying any further diffs would be overkill at this point (in fact, it already is overkill). I was succint in the diffs I supplied on the first round for fear of applying too many, but it demonstrates at the very least that Emiya1980 has been engaged in edit warring in September 2024, October 2024, November 2024. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I would like to point out that (with regards to the links posted for “November 2024”) both warnings against edit-warring on my talk page were posted by LilAhok who was likewise edit-warring on Hirohito. While the second warning is signed as “Ulises Laertíada”, said post was made by LilAhok not the former.Emiya1980 (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, if they're running around signing notices as someone else, that's a problem. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I can verify that LilAhok did apparently leave a warning on Emiya1980's page and signed it as @Ulises Laertíada for some reason [78] Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, yeah, pretending to be another editor is not acceptable, and should result in sanctions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

[79]

In this post, I clearly said I signed it by mistake. Not used to signing posts since wiki usually does it automatically. Sometimes it doesn't. @Emiya1980 even mentioned it in the post and crossed it out once because I admitted to that mistake on the admin board. Why would I pretend to be another editor when all edits are recorded on the history page. LilAhok (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Earl of Arundel

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

---

User:Earl of Arundel was blocked for one week (13-20 November) for WP:RGW/WP:BATTLEGROUND on American politics articles. Since then they made three edits, starting with [80] "we get gas-lit by those who seem to be more committed to "woke" identity politics than reality." to then continue with [81] an unacceptable (and off-topic) transphobic rant. Can we please show them the door? Fram (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

+1 They appear to be WP:NOTHERE. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that comment ain't going to fly. Indef'd. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Persistent NPOV violations on Cavalier Johnson by multiple users involved in Michigan State University's Urban Politics course

The article on Cavalier Johnson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been disrupted by multiple editors with edits that violate NPOV. When an NPOV edit from one user gets reverted, the reverted content usually gets readded by another user, sometimes over multiple edits. Could potentially be a case of meatpuppetry, as the editors concerned seem to be involved in Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Michigan_State_University/Urban_Politics_(Fall_2024).

Concerned editors are JuliaG886 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), MiaReese26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and SarahReckhow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Devchar (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't AP2 lack a distinction between national and subnational politics in the United States? These would fall under that CTOP if true. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

In theory, that's true. However it is unusual to indefinitely protect articles about local pols under CTOP. Not saying it hasn't been done. But it isn't routine. I think this issue is fixable if we can get the word out to the involved editors so they know to avoid slanted language in articles. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't implying protection. I was implying more formal CTOP warnings. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies. I misunderstood your comment. Any editor in good standing is free to drop a CTOP notice on another user's talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this is clearly problematic. I have EC protected the page for 1 month. I will be happy to lift the protection once everybody concerned understands our guidelines and policies on BLPs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The Michigan State University class in question ended yesterday. If the usual pattern prevails, we will never hear from these student editors again. I wonder what grade will be given to the student who wrote Johnson credits his desire to be mayor as being rooted in his passion for service and serving the city he grew up in. When the word "passion" appears in the biography of a living person, it is a violation of NPOV about 99.9% of the time. Cullen328 (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Student editing, while problematic, has the same sort of problem so many new editors have around tone. It's a problem that frequently makes me despair, but I believe there's incremental hope for better. And instructor reverting without explanation is a problem. Squarely our problem, because somehow we failed to convey the seriousness of it.

I've asked Helaine to intervene with the instructor. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk)/User:Guettarda/ 20:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC) Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm mildly concerned that the teacher of the course (SarahReckhow) doesn't seem to know what constitutes an NPOV violation (see their reply to me on their talk page). I'm not sure if this an actually valid concern though. Devchar (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

User82532 clearly NOTHERE

• User82532 (talk · contribs)

This edit is quite self-explanatory. I had reported them at WP:AIV due to a previous edit, but looking at these edits, their talk page and their contribution history, this should probably result in an indef rather than a temporal block. Impru20^talk 19:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, and combined with, on top of a vandalism block in April, just indef now. SerialNumber54129 19:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Welp. Impru20^talk 19:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Indef'ed. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Every edit this person made today, including the one on their talk page, ought to get revdelled. City of Silver 19:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm actually curious as to how they were not indeffed back in April for those edits that were revdelled. Canterbury Tail talk 19:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Vyzlette - Unconstructive editing and editing while logged out

As a result of abusing multiple accounts for years to make unexplained, unnecessary and mostly incorrect additions (often containing improper grammar) to the plot section of several film articles (with a particular fixation on The Other Woman (2014 film) and occasional edits to The Other Guys), Vyzlette (talk · contribs) recently had two sockpuppets indefinitely blocked (see the SPI report), while the most recently used account (Vyzlette) was left untouched as the administrator felt this wasn't a case of malicious sockpuppetry. Less than a week later, Vyzlette continued to persistently make unexplained, unconstructive and nonsensical additions to the plot section of The Other Woman (2014 film) ([82][83][84]). After a couple attempts on my end to communicate with Vyzlette at their talk page (to no avail), the user began making edits to The Other Woman (2014 film) while logged out as 76.103.44.169 (talk · contribs) for a few days before switching back to Vyzlette ([85][86][87]). snapsnap ^(talk) 20:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Request TPA revocation from Pavanreddy211

TPA needs to be revoked from Pavanreddy211 (talk · contribs). They may be WP:NOTHERE again. Ahri Boy (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the eyes. BusterD (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

By caner28 and CIR

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

---

• By caner28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made nearly 150 edits but they appear to display a clear lack of competence. English doesn't appear to be their first language (from the topics they edit I would suggest it's Turkish) and they have shown a complete lack of any inclination to communicate whether by edit summaries or otherwise. Their disruptive edits include: Attempting to change the name of an article of blanking and redirecting [88] [89], resulting in the article being protected by @Daniel Case: due to "disruptive editing" [90], restoring articles from redirects against the consensus of AfD closures without substantial change [91], adding merge templates without a corresponding discussion [92], slow edit warring on the lead of the Halkçılık article (see edit history [93]) which @Rosguill: has repeatedly objected to without any obvious response. Looking over their editing contributions, a large fraction have been reverted as disruptive/not improvements, and they don't really seem to be improving, and it seems likely that if they are allowed to continue editing their disruption will continue. I suggest their should be indefinitely be blocked per WP:CIR for their lack of communication, despited repeated warnings on their talkpage.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

That's either CIR or just mucking about here because they were blocked for socking on tr.wiki. I've blocked indef.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Just wanted to note that the long abandoned account CanerDemirci281993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a previous sock. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Persistent POV edits and probably COI on The Gersh Agency

User:Mischit has been making POV/promotional edits to The Gersh Agency since March. These involve removing sourced negative information diff for eg, adding promotional tone, etc. Here is the most recent example from this evening. User has been engaged on talk page (in March, and today) and their user page, but no response in any case. I can't revert their edits again without breaching 3RR. Jdcooper (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

User:HumansRightsIsCool is NOTHERE

Their edits (primarily on articles about YouTubers and controversial figures) are not helpful and are frequently reverted; the user then does not listen to corrections and is argumentative. I'm unsure if they are just an overconfident young editor or are here to be intentionally disruptive.

The most recent run-in with this user was on the Jaden McNeil page, which has had notability issues since it was created. They went unaddressed, so I turned the page to a redirect. On the talk page, the user has justified reverting the decision by pointing out other unrelated individuals, saying that the subject of the article is "good at exposing" people, and mentioning that I'm Catholic. None of this addressed the issues, and this seems to be a recurring problem with the editor, on top of how few of their edits are constructive and the frequent edit warring.

Happy holidays, Swinub★ 23:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, you're supposed to discuss. It's argumentative? That's the point, that's what the talk page is for. I mentioned how you were Catholic and might be a nick Fuentes fan (who identifies as a Catholic nationalist) because you mentioned how I was a Jaden McNeil fan. And I've only got a few warnings for edit warring a while back, but that was a while back and I dont do that anymore. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Also the issues with the Jaden McNeil page went "unaddressed" because they're aren't any issues at all. He's got thousands of followers and reliable sources like the ADL cover him. Also just to be clear I'm not a fan of jaden's anti-semitic views but how he exposes his former Neo-Nazi friend Nick Fuentes. Also Im not just advocating to keep the page up just because I like what he does, but because he's definitely notable HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

one last thing before I go. You said my edits frequently get reversed. That doesn't happen a lot. It happens a few times when an editor disagrees but it always gets resolved in the talk page and we come to an agreement. And you said I point out unrelated individuals to argue about the McNeil page staying up. Syrian girl is also associated with Nick Fuentes. She's not a "unrelated individual." And I used her as an example to keep the Jaden McNeil page because she got a Wikipedia article when she had 30,000 subscribers on YouTube and still doesn't even have 100,000.

Happy holidays HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

She is unrelated, and her notability is clearly established. As explained in the original edit summary, Jaden McNeil is known for "being the former Turning Point USA chapter president of Kansas State University," posting an edgy tweet in 2020, and briefly being associated with Nick Fuentes. This does not establish notability. Yes, the ADL mentioned him; they cover everyone in online right-wing politics, most of whom do not and should not have an article on here. Swinub★ 23:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

She is related because she's associated with Nick, and yes her notability is established now. But when she first got an article she only had 30,000 followers on YouTube and was getting only a couple thousand views a video. If you go to syrian girl's channel, her most recent videos only have 1,000 views. She's notable now because syrian girl's post often go viral and get hundreds of thousands and sometimes hit a million views. But 10 years ago that wasn't the case and she still got a Wikipedia page. If you're saying Jaden McNeil isn't notable because he doesn't have many followers on a YouTube channel he doesn't even post on and has 0 content currently, look at why syrian girl is notable, viral tweets. many times Jaden McNeil's tweets get 100-400k views. One of his recent ones got 4 million views, and if there's reliable sources like the adl mentioning him. He's notable. The ADL doesn't cover every right-wing influencer, even small ones. That's simply impossible. And Jaden isn't only known for making one tweet about George Floyd in 2020. That needs to be updated lol. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

HumansRightsIsCool, why do you keep talking about views, followers and tweets? That's not how notability is established on Wikipedia and you've been around long enough to know this is the case. You shouldn't be mentioning biographical information about other editors, that shouldn't come into discussions about notability, focus on content, not contributors and their off-wiki lives.

Swinub, I gather you don't get on with HumansRightsIsCool but you need to present diffs/edits to show disruption to support your claims that you think this editor should be blocked. If this discussion devolves into a content discussion about specific articles and notability, I, or another editor, will hat it as content disagreements shouldn't be discussed at ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok first off, you're asking why do I keep talking about views, followers and tweets. Well swinhub started it by saying Jaden is only well known for one tweet about George Floyd 4 years ago in 2020. He's the one who first brought up fame and how famous Jaden is. And I haven't just been talking about views and tweets, I also mention how reliable sources cover Jaden McNeil like the ADL when he claimed it's just local sources. And I mentioned how swinhub was Catholic because Nick Fuentes identifies as a Catholic nationalist, and he's deleting the page about the enemy of Nick Fuentes, Yeah sorry I brought that up didn't know that was inappropriate and I should assume good faith and shouldn't assume personal bias HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

It's about notability, not "fame," something you should be aware of if you are making the sort of edits you make. I did not claim he was only known for the tweet; I claimed that it is one of three things he is known for, none of which indicate notability. The ADL calling someone anti-semitic also does not indicate notability. Swinub★ 00:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems like you're talking about fame when you say "notable" though if you keep saying he's only known for 3 things. he has multiple reliable sources covering him, that's Wikipedia's policy on notability. And sorry but now I have to talk about fame again because you said he's only known for 3 things 4 years ago. If you go on his Twitter account his posts get tens of thousands and views, sometimes going up to 400k-1 million views. I saw one of his posts hit 4 million views. He's not notable for for only three things. Also please top deleting the Jaden McNeil page when we're still actively discussing, we haven't reached conscious yet and now you're starting to edit war. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

i meant "stop" not "top" HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

You are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Swinub★ 01:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I've been editing this encyclopedia for a while now adding what I thinks best for pages. I'm building. Your the one who's deleting and deleting. Even if there's reliable sources in this article. we haven't come to an agreement and you deleted the page 2 or three times already. And you claim I'm the one starting edit wars lol. I honestly don't know what you're talking about. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

My last comment. HumansRightsIsCool, Swinub has not deleted any pages, he's not an administrator. Swinub, I asked you to present diffs of disruption which you haven't done. No action is likely to be taken if you don't provide evidence of the claims you are making. The only thing I see right now is two editors bickering. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok he technically didn't delete the page. He just removed everything on the page and made it a redirect HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

It might be relevant to remind people that notability is not inherited, and that millions of views of a post does not establish notability. What established notability is what reliable secondary sources say specifically about the subject themselves. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• I have AfDd the article - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaden McNeil. Black Kite (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

New, uncommunicative editor adding European Cultural Centre University & Research Projects Award

Nisa-helena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a relatively new editor who has made nearly 180 edits only to add links to and information about the European Cultural Centre University & Research Projects Award to many articles. In many cases, the edits include an external link which is not something that should be added to the body of an article. In many cases, the additions are also vague and unnecessary. I would love to discuss my objections and help this editor but they are not responding to any messages or even using edit summaries. A message from another editor may get their attention but a brief block may be necessary. ElKevbo (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

So is it now perfectly acceptable for an editor to add vague information and external links to articles while refusing to communicate with other editors in any way? ElKevbo (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

If you want somebody to check out the user's behavior, please post some diffs as examples. Toughpigs (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Every single edit they have made is to add this information. No communication whatsoever. ElKevbo (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Small correction: Their initial edits after creating their account in October were not about this award but focused on adding information about books published by the centre. ElKevbo (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

76.130.142.29 and weird forum-like talk page posts, etc.

76.130.142.29 has been making odd forum-like talk page posts that are often unconstructive for a while now, such as those listed at their talk page and more recently this one at Talk:Aileen Wuornos and this one at Talk:Ron Lyle. Also, their responses on their talk page show quite an attitude problem. If I were still an admin with full blocking powers, I would block them for clearly continuing their editing pattern despite adequate warnings (or *maybe* give them *one* final warning), but I'm not so I've brought this here. Graham87 (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I posted a warning to not use talk pages as a forum. They posted a couple surly messages in response to previous warnings on their user talk page, let's see if the recent notice has any effect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: Thanks for that. You gave them exactly the same warning level that I did a couple of sections above your post though ... that feels a bit redundant from here, but maybe that's just me. Graham87 (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Different admins have different approaches. I like to hear from an editor at ANI or see how they respond to a warning before taking action unless they are just vandalizing and disrespecting other editors. Especially with some new editors, they sometimes don't realize they have crossed a line until they are given that "Final warning." It's amazing to me but many newer editors just don't take the first warnings very seriously. And, if I can be honest, I think some of our standard warnings are very verbose and use 200 words what could be said in 20. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive and tendentious editing by TheRazgriz on the 2024 United States elections page

TheRazgriz has engaged in persistent, disruptive and tendentious editing on the 2024 United States elections page, including making multiple ad hominem attacks against myself, (calling me an emotional biased editor engaging in borderline vandalism, accusing me of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and of acting with intentional bad faith) and making several WP:UNCIVIL comments on the talk page pointed out by other editors. TheRazgriz did apologize once on my talk page, but continued to engage in such attacks against myself afterwards. TheRazgriz has been called out by several other editors on his talk page for uncivil comments on this and other pages, which are promptly removed shortly thereafter. In comments on his talk page, Wikipedia admin Bishonen has noted Raz's use of "rudeness and sexualized language" (ex: "stroke off your ego", calling people "boy"). Wikipedia admin Doug Weller noted that his message in reply to Bishonen "comes across as somewhat arrogant". User Magnolia677 made a warning against Raz of potential edit warring on the Bryson City, North Carolina page.

I previously submitted an AN/I incident against TheRazgriz on December 3rd following his premature closure of a talk page section which was upheld. TheRazgriz has since made multiple novel and rejected interpretations of Wikipedia RS and OR policy, all of which have been unanimously rejected by editors both in an RfC I opened and a discussion on the Original Research noticeboard. During discussions, TheRazgriz refused to provide any reliable secondary sources for his claims, instead claiming the ONUS was not on him. TheRazgriz has also been called out by other editors that his claims about the content of prior edits was incorrect as shown by edit history.

TheRazgriz has frequently refused to engage in meaningful discussion with myself, with his repeated insistence that he is right and I am wrong (one example: "I have proven that assertion to be true. Can you disprove that assertion?"), and only relenting once overwhelming and unanimous agreement from other editors that his interpretation of policy is mistaken. Despite his interpretations being unanimously rejected by other editors multiple times, TheRazgriz has continued to insist his edits and interpretations of policy not disputed by at least three editors cannot be removed. TheRazgriz has falsely claimed a consensus exists within the "Undue weight in lead" section of the talk page for his "final" edits to the Economy section, which he has previously used to revert edits to the section and as of today claims he will continue to revert using consensus as the reason.

I do believe that TheRazgriz does think his interpretations of policy are correct. However, as a new editor with roughly 250 mainspace edits (Raz claims he has over 114,000 edits on other unregistered accounts but that his IP address changes frequently), and with his discussions and interpretations of policy being unanimously rejected by multiple editors, I believe that TheRazgriz requires further knowledge of Wikipedia policy in order to become an better editor. BootsED (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

What has troubled me about this editor is that after I've had some conversations with them about policy and questioning claims that they've made on their user page that they seemingly followed me to an RFC on Israel, casting a !vote at Special:Diff/1261260050 that they weren't entitled to make given that they are not WP:XC. Now the edit can be forgiven for an editor who is new, however what concerned me was that they had never edited in that area before and then ended up doing so after I had made edits in that RFC. When I questioned the circumstance in which they made that edit, they WP:ABF and accused me of disruptive behaviour. When I suggested they strike their incivil comments before it escalate, they deleted the discussion between us and in the edit summary wrote "Removed unproductive comments, potential WP:DE" again WP:ABF and accusing me of engaging in disruptive behaviour. Given the litany of WP:ABF and WP:UNCIVIL directed at other editors at Talk:2024 United States elections as well as what I have experienced first hand, it is patently clear to me that this editor does not hold the level head needed in order to be participating in the post 1992 American politics CTOP area and should probably be topic banned. TarnishedPath^talk 04:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

User:BootsED, ultimately, what outcome are you looking for with this second complaint? You clearly spent quite a lot of time putting this all together but it's not clear what result you are seeking through this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I do not want to presume what action should be necessary for this editor, as I will admit this is only the second time I have engaged in an AN/I discussion and I am unfamiliar with this user's actions compared to other similar incidents and what actions were taken against them in the past. I agree with TarnishedPath that there should at least be a post-1992 American politics topic ban. However, his misunderstanding of basic policy and frequent uncivil behavior makes me question whether or not his disruptive editing will simply continue on other non-American politics articles and if he will show the necessary humility and willingness to learn. BootsED (talk) 05:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Their inability or unwillingness to understand core WP:PAG, particularly WP:RS and WP:NOR, is troubling especially given they claim to have been editing since 2007-08 with 114,000+ edits. TarnishedPath^talk 06:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Not a good look that User:TheRazgriz does not understand why pinning demeaning language on the top of their talk page is bad. Northern Moonlight 10:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I have warned TheRazgriz about bludgeoning the process at Talk:2024 United States elections. If nothing changes, I consider page-blocking them. Bishonen | tålk 15:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC).

I'd support at least that. I want to know about any possible NOR or RS issues. Doug Weller talk 15:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Vandal/troll/sock back again

The fistagon vandal/troll/sock is back again, this time under the name Bubblegutz 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? If someone could please take the appropriate action and do a reveal on the edit summaries, I’d be very grateful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocked, working on the revdel. —Kusma (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

All gone. —Kusma (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks Kusma. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

User:RocketKnightX Disruptive Editing

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

The user had been involved in an Edit War at 15.ai, when I proposed a TBAN for RocketKnightX in response to their persistent disruptive editing of 15.ai, I dropped the complaint when they said they would stop [94]. They were invited to the AfD discussion and then went to 15.ai and deleted the AfD notice [95] and declared my policy based removal of WP:NOSOCIAL and WP:YOUTUBE external links to be vandalism [96]. Their edit summary and some of their activity demonstrates a lack of maturity[97]. He was also warned for making personal attacks [98] coupled with their past activity on Wikipedia such as this edit summary[99] I think some manner of intervention is warranted at this point. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 10:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Removing the AfD template is pretty disruptive, as the template has clear in-your-face text that says "do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed". Talking nonsense about vandalism in the edit summary when reverting a well-explained edit here is not good either. Doing these things after promising to stop "causing issues" at the article is block-worthy. Blocked 31 hours. Bishonen | tålk 11:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC).

Part of me wouldn't be surprised if RocketKnightX is involved in the sock/SPA disruption at the afd, or even a User:HackerKnownAs sock. WHile it wouldn't surprise me if true I don't suspect enough to take to SPI, afterall the evidence would be behavioural and there are some differences in behaviour. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I do not think they're a HKA Sock given the wildly different behaviors, but RK was suspected of being someone else's Sock in an ANI discussion that produced no results [100] Brocade River Poems (She/They) 13:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Tacotron2 attempted WP:VOTESTACK

Tacotron2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I am just creating this complaint as a sub-section because it is directly related to RocketKnightX's activity. After having a discussion where they were made aware that The person who solicits other people inappropriately may be subject to administrative review if the behavior is severe enough.[101], my colleague apparently took that as a sign to hit the campaign trail. When I saw they solictied RocketKnightX[102] and others[103][104] to the AfD I left a warning [105] about their canvassing. They proceeded to canvass more anyway [106][107][108]. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 14:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see your first message. It wasn't done intentionally. Tacotron2 (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Upd Edit

Upd Edit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has made edits only on the Shahi Jama Masjid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article, trying to promote a single claim that a hindu temple existed beneath the mosque. Though they cite books as sources, the reliability and verifiability of these sources are questionable. (See 2024 Sambhal violence) Their edits violate WP:NPOV, and WP:DUE,

• Issues:
  1. Their contributions are solely focused on the Shahi Jama Masjid article. Edit count
  2. WP:V and WP:RS Violations: The user relies on obscure or unverifiable sources to support controversial claims.
  3. WP:NPOV Violation: Edits consistently emphasize the unverified temple claim, creating bias and disregarding alternative historical perspectives.
  4. WP:DUE Violation: Though sourced,Their edits focus too much about the temple claim, even though it's not the most important part of the mosque's story. The mosque itself should be the main focus.
  5. WP:EDITWAR and Disruptive Behavior: The user reverts changes made by other editors. Example:
  1. Moved page to wrong title
  2. reverted
  3. reverted
  4. reverted
  5. reverted …
  
• Request:
  1. Investigate their editing patterns and advanced skills for potential WP:SOCK violations.
  2. Review whether the user’s edits and behavior align with Wikipedia policies on WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:DUE.
  

Thank you! - Cerium4B • Talk? • 15:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

A couple of days ago, a fellow editor claimed that I was a sock of Kautilya3 and nobody paid any heed.

Today, Cerium4B—who is yet to make a single edit to the article talk-page despite my and Kautilya3's consistent demands—has the chutzpah of raising a barely coherent complaint with no substantiation. Notably, my ANEW report against Cerium4B was not acted upon because an administrator thought Kautilya's reinstatement of my content (and a warning to Cerium4B) to have resolved the issue.

In not unrelated news, someone else, with similar editorial proclivities, believes me to be a sock of someone else. What next? Upd Edit (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support page-block - Given that this user is simply a single purpose account dedicated to relentless POV pushing and edit warring on this article, a page block (both talkpage/article) seems to be the way here before supporting a broader topic ban on him. CharlesWain (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - When I first came by this article (which is the subject of a current dispute in India), I found an edit war between the filer and User:Upd Edit, with the former repeatedly deleting the well-sourced content added by the latter. There was also an AN3 complaint against the filer, which can be consulted to see that their reverts cited no policy-based reasons whatsoever.

I gave WP:CTOP alerts to both the ediors (as well as another editor who was involved at that stage), and pinged the filer as well as the other editor from the talk page, inviting them to discuss their objections on the talk page. I have also explained that reverts need to be policy-based, and cannot be instances of WP:CENSOR or WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

I was surprised to see that the filer has done a yet another revert today of the same nature, and hasn't written anything on the talk page. This clearly indicates a restart of the edit war, and I believe the filer should be sternly warned, if not sanctioned for thier continued edit warring.

As for "disruptive editing", I see none from User:Upd Edit, but plenty of it from the filer. This complaint itslef lacks evidence and presents the filer's self-assured judgements about the content, which should have been rightly discussed on the talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Disruption and personal threat

Vartgul is going on a rampage and removing well-sourced information from many articles and when their edits are revered they turned to personal threats. See contributions page for disruption. Threat is here[109]. Semsûrî (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Semsûrî does not create accurate content with sources in any of their edits. All the content they provide spreads views classified by the United Nations as those of a terrorist organization, promoting misinformation that supports terrorism. They edit content in a non-encyclopedic manner, based solely on their own political views. Vartgul (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• That is a legal threat, not a "personal threat". Indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Incivility by newbie

Bryan7778888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been reverted and told off by @AstrooKai and me on account of their edits that reek of WP:BLP and WP:V violations and WP:OR, has doubled down in WP:IDNHT and resorted to making WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSION, WP:CRYSTAL and falsely accusing us of sockpuppetry on the flimsy grounds of happening to be editing some of the same topics (and in total ignorance of our edit histories). While I acknowledge being harsh in some comments in a knee-jerk reaction to such WP:CIR arguments on the offending editor, I believe that their continued replies mark them further into WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND territory. Borgenland (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

All of this only began when I reverted their edit on the article Stacey (singer) and other alike edits on the articles Maloi (singer) and Colet (singer), where they added about the subject's ancestral descent without citing a source that would verify this. I told them that needs to be verifiable by citing a source, but they said that:

It is in the sources when they stated the places they where born. People in Bohol are Boholanos, People from Nueva Viscaya are ilocanos and people from Batangas are Tagalog. I believe for lack of better word, that it is your ignorance for not understand the sources better thank you.
— User:Bryan7778888 08:43, December 7, 2024 (UTC)

They were actually referring to demonyms which are the terms used to refer to people who were born from a place, but they added it to the articles as the subjects' ancestral descents. I explained it to them that "demonym" (which is the thing that they're referring to) and "descent" (ancestral or genealogical link) are two distinctive concepts. I told them that even these small details could be challenged by anyone. That is why it is important to be extremely careful in terms of verifiability when adding content to BLP articles. I was simply correcting their mistake and trying to guide them on how to do it right, but they justified their action by saying that:

Nueva Vizcaya and Nueva Viscaya is the same. Just like Filipinas and Pilipinas is the same. One is Spanish and the other is from a local. And 62.3% of Nueva Viscaya is Ilocano and Stacy speaks Ilocano. So it's very rendundant. You're simplyfighting to win and shame the other. At least be logical and professional.
— User:Bryan7778888 14:45, December 7, 2024 (UTC)

Meaning they were basing their assumption of the subjects' ancestral descent solely based on ethnic statistics. I told them that this was a violation of WP:NOR and WP:CRYSTALBALL, but they ignored all of this and personally attacked me and Borgenland, calling Borgen a "dictator" and accusing me of having Borgen as my alternative account.

This could have been avoided if they had just acknowledged and accepted their mistake, but they didn't WP:LISTEN and went ahead with these unacceptable behaviors instead. AstrooKai (Talk) 17:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I do wonder how I could have been rapidly editing in Syria [110] [111] and Poland [112] and commenting on offending user's TP [113] at the exact same time. Borgenland (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I also wonder on how a person with tens of thousands of edits and is inclined with politics and stuff would create a new account for music-related edits only. I don't think anyone would go through all the hard work to create a new account and establish there a reputation in music-related articles when they could have just done it in their first account in the first place. My user page literally contains every thing there is to know about me here on Wikipedia, and we both have very distinctive interests.

Additionally, why would I reply to your comments on talk pages if am "you"? This is hilarious. AstrooKai (Talk) 18:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Bryan7778888 has been editing for TWO days. You can assume that they don't understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines and as an experienced editor, you will need to explain them to them. How about we give them some time and grace to digest all of the information you have posted on their User talk page before coming to ANI?

This doesn't seem like an "chronic, intractable problem", it's just a new editor learning how things are done here. Assume ignorance, not maliciousness. You shouldn't have the same expectations of them as you would of an editor who has been active for a year. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

BLP vandalism by PyrateDru

User:PyrateDru has been vandalizing the MrBeast page to revert all mention of Ava Kris Tyson’s name to her deadname. Requesting indef.

Snokalok (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Assuming good faith and that they are just unaware of Wikipedia norms I've given them a warning for now. Lets hope they get it. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Snokalok, it's advised to try talking with an editor before posting a complaint about them to ANI, especially for a new, inexperienced editor. Try informing them before seeking a sanction. ANI is the place to come if other efforts to resolve a situation have failed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)