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.

---

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

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 [1]. They were invited to the AfD discussion and then went to 15.ai and deleted the AfD notice [2] and declared my policy based removal of WP:NOSOCIAL and WP:YOUTUBE external links to be vandalism [3]. Their edit summary and some of their activity demonstrates a lack of maturity[4]. He was also warned for making personal attacks [5] coupled with their past activity on Wikipedia such as this edit summary[6] 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 [7] 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.[8], my colleague apparently took that as a sign to hit the campaign trail. When I saw they solictied RocketKnightX[9] and others[10][11] to the AfD I left a warning [12] about their canvassing. They proceeded to canvass more anyway [13][14][15]. 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)

You know, I can probably believe that you didn't see my warning. What I do not believe is that you didn't know what you were doing was wrong when an admin already told that people who solicit (i.e the people asking others to the vote) inappropriately may be subject to administrative review. After that message you:

• Canvassed a known disruptive edit warrior [16]
• Canvassed someone whom you believed would support your outcome because they believed a source was reliable.[17]
• Canvassed someone who said use the source until someone contests [18]
• Canvassed someone who voted keep the last AfD [19]
• Canvassed someone who voted keep the last AfD [20]
• Canassed someone who voted keep the last AfD. [21]

Notably, you didn't provide a notice to any editor who was involved in editing 15.ai who might reasonably be expected to vote delete, nor did you canvass anyone who voted delete in the last AfD. Why you felt it necessary to specifically invite Elmidae when you pinged them in your response to the AfD I also do not know or understand. Notably, you did not invite the following editors who were active recently at 15.ai Polygnotus, Thought 1915, YesI'mOnFire, Sj, Cooldudeseven7, The Hand That Feeds You, or the editors who voted Delete last time such as LilianaUwU, Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum, and Cinadon36.

This is pretty clear WP:VOTESTACKING. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Not done intentionally? In the discussion on my talk page (User talk:Rsjaffe#AfD Issues), you were worried about being labeled as canvassed and I made the distinction that we are generally looking at the canvasser, not the canvassed. This was in a discussion about what sort of behavior merits reporting to ANI. And after all that, you claim ignorance of the issue? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll be honest with you. I had a brain fart. I thought canvassing was coordinating off Wikipedia to stack a vote. I thought that if you did it on a user's Wikipedia talk pages directly, it wasn't canvassing. I don't know why I thought that. I read something similar to that somewhere else on Wikipedia and I must have misinterpreted it, where asking editors to contribute to a discussion was encouraged. I'm sorry about that. Tacotron2 (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

OK, read WP:CAN, and please reply that you understand and will follow the behavioral guideline from now on. Thanks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. I will follow the behavioral guidelines. Sorry again. Tacotron2 (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

A Summary

This, like many cases here at WP:ANI, is a conduct dispute that began as a content dispute. The content dispute was at 15.ai, and was over what the infobox should say was the status of the web site. Some editors said that the web site was under maintenance (and temporarily down for maintenance) and should say that. Other editors said that the web site was abandoned and should say that.

A request was made, on 5 October 2024, for moderated discussion at DRN by an editor who was then indefinitely blocked for unrelated conduct. However, other editors took part, including User:BrocadeRiverPoems and User:RocketKnightX. The DRN is archived at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_250#15.ai. I then started an RFC on the status of the web site, at Talk:15.ai. That was meant to resolve the content dispute.

User:HackerKnownAs then filed a complaint at WP:ANI against User:BrocadeRiverPoems on 16 November 2024, that is archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1172#BrocadeRiverPoems_behavioral_issues. That complaint and the reply were both Too Long to Read. User:HackerKnownAs and some other editors were then blocked for sockpuppetry.

User:RocketKnightX continued to edit-war, and User:BrocadeRiverPoems proposed a topic-ban against RocketKnightX from the page 15.ai. RocketKnightX said that they would stop edit-warring. At about this point, that ANI was closed.

User:BrocadeRiverPoems then nominated the article 15.ai for deletion on 2 December 2024. I have not (as of the time of this post) done a source analysis on the article, and so do not have an opinion on the AFD at this time.

User:BrocadeRiverPoems closed the RFC as an involved snow close on 4 December 2024 to omit the status of the web site from the infobox, because there are no reliable sources stating either that it is under maintenance or that it is abandoned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs)

Proposal 1: Site Ban for User:RocketKnightX

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

---

I think that the conduct of User:RocketKnightX is a strong net negative for the community. They agreed to stop edit-warring, possibly only in order to avoid being topic-banned, and have resumed edit-warring. They removed the AFD banner, which is very clearly forbidden, while accusing User:BrocadeRiverPoems of vandalism. I think that RocketKnightX has exhausted the patience of the community and should be banned by the community.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support When I looked at their history, they have a history of incivility, borderline WP:NATIONALIST editing[22][23],[24] where they continue act disruptively within the Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Armenia-Azerbaijan and a number of other problems that indicate WP:NPOV and WP:CIR issues[25] including at one point bizarrely restoring a massive plot synopsis that another editor had created [26] that had been removed by two different editors for being too long [27][28]. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I see Robert enumerates exactly the same problems with RocketKnightX's editing as I did above, where I gave them a 31-hour block (currently an active block) for them. The only difference is that Robert assumes bad faith of RocketKnightX's undertaking to stop edit warring ("They agreed to stop edit-warring, possibly only in order to avoid being topic-banned, and have resumed edit-warring"). We're not supposed to do that, and I'll point out that RKX agreed to stop on 18 November and only went back to disruptive actions at 15.ai (not actually to edit warring, but to the aforementioned removal of the AfD banner and accusation of vandalism) again on 7 December, three weeks later. The agreement to stop in November doesn't look to me like part of a heinous plan to continue disrupting; it seems at least as likely that they had simply forgotten about it three weeks later. It was six words that look angrily dashed-off; not some elaborate undertaking. The whole notion that RKX has already "exhausted the patience of the community" seems weirdly excessive. I stand by my 31-hour block as the more appropriate sanction. Bishonen | tålk 13:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC).

  I do feel that WP:CIR is a very valid, chronic concern with this editor regardless of edit warring, specifically the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus. In October they asked me what they should do in cases of disputes. When I told them what they should do, about dispute resolution, etc. they responded Too hard. This site is the hardest thing to do.[29]. Coupled with dropping edit summaries like "I said stop!" and "deal with it" and their WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude on talkpages [30] and I'm not really sure what the community is expected to do when the user has self-proclaimed that learning dispute resolution is too hard. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 14:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

You're bringing up edit summaries from months ago, this article has been the subject of way too many project discussions already and I think that comments made in October have already been dealt with when those discussions were closed. If there have been recent issues, you can share those edits but don't dig up the past. I'm with Bishonen here. Yes, this is not an enormously productive editor but this seems like overkill. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I must confess, I am a tad confused as to how one demonstrates chronic, intractable behavioral problems problems without bringing up the past behavior considering as they once again did the same behavior while also removing the AfD notice from the article. [31]. Oh well. It would seem I have a completely incorrect understanding of what this whole "chronic behavioral problem" business is. Mea culpa. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 13:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

BrocadeRiverPoems, it seems like you rely too much on coming to ANI, AN and SPI when you encounter an editor you disagree with who might have had moments of disruption. Don't seek to get every adversarial editor blocked from discussions or the site. Learn how to talk out problems instead of coming to noticeboards, seeking topic bans and site blocks. It's like using a hammer to get a fly to move. Learn proportionally. ANI is for serious behavioral problems, not just for editors you might find annoying. An overreliance on ANI starts to reflect poorly on you and whether you have the ability to amicably resolve disputes instead of trying to eliminate contrary editors. That's my honest opinion. At times, you can seem a little relentless. Learn to collaborate with those whom you disagree or, if that fails, keep some distance between you. That's what most of us longtimers do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Bishonen. The short block is justified. Leaping to an indefinite for the same offence is premature. My patience isn't exhausted (yet). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Ahmad Shazlan

This is the second time I post this here within the span of two days: User:Ahmad Shazlan has repeatedly insisted on inserting preferred content on the Roti canai page, despite opposition from a number of users, myself included. I've several times encouraged them to start a discussion on the topic instead of edit warring, and I've even left a note on their talk page, all of which they've ignored. They've already received a warning, yet this hasn't stopped them from continuing to impose their preferred edits on the page. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello Revirvlkodlaku, I am not an admin, but I believe you need to provide diffs of the user's rule-breaking behavior supporting your statements, as mentioned at the top of the page, in order to get any kind of response here; merely linking your warning(s) is not enough. NewBorders (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku, they tried to engage on the article talk page and have been ignored. Please try to communicate on the talk page before bringing people to ANI. -- asilvering (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@asilvering, I don't see the user as trying to engage in a meaningful way. They've dropped a few random comments on the talk while also edit warring on the page, completely disregarding my entreaties that they seek a consensus instead. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

How on earth are they supposed to achieve the consensus you're telling them to seek if no one is responding to them on the talk page? -- asilvering (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Much of the OP's edits (other than updating short descriptions) consists of reverting contributions from other users despite having said in a previous unblock request that he would be "much more careful not to revert as frequently" and that he would make dialogue his priority. [32] In fact, another editor has called him out today on his talk page about an wholesale revert and as usual the OP responded on the defensive rather than acknowledging what was being reproach to him.[33] You'll notice that the OP hasn't even bothered answering to Asilvering and has basically abandoned this ANI discussion that he opened TWICE now that the other editor has stopped editing and that the page was reverted to his preferred version.[34] 76.65.72.160 (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Budisgood and competence

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

---

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

In my opinion, user:Budisgood is an utterly incompetent editor, bordering on plain vandalism. Every advice and warning is ignored (here, here, here, here, here and here) including MOS-guidelines on how to structure articles. Beside that, it looks like he has a conflict of interest regarding Mountmellick GAA and Ballinagar GAA. The last article reinstated after being removed for copyvio.

A few examples:

1. Is unclear in what the scope is of its own articles, like Killeigh parish. There was extensive discussion about this at Talk:Killeigh parish. The article was moved to draft space by @Guliolopez: but straight moved back into main space by Budisgood without changing a letter.
2. Stating that GAA-clubs are part of the local Roman Catholic parish: here (in fact, multiple times)
3. Copying my userpage to his user page here
4. Claiming that the borders of baronies are based on the borders of RC-parishes, while baronies were instituted in a time that the Catholic church was illegal and prosecuted. See User_talk:Budisgood#Strange_edits
5. Adding short description that are far too long, like here
6. Copyright violations, Ballinagar GAA etc.
7. Does not understand the principles of proper sourcing, like here and in an earlier version of Ballinagar GAA where he tried to source historical venues with Google Maps.
8. falsifying protection templates here

And this is without [35] his struggles on Commons where he is fighting (by removing deletion templates) to keep files that are - in my humble opinion - copyvio. The Banner talk 14:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

User:The Banner seems to have taken on a personal veto against me and as far as I can see there is no apparent reason. Any relevant advice given on article structures was taken on board and can be seen in the editing of Shanahoe GAA,other recommendations about my edits such as including page number in source of the information of large file aswell as other recommendations that have been made by editors such as but not limited to user:The Banner have all been taken into consideration in my edits.As for copying userpage it can be seen from looking at my userpage i did not copy the Banners userpage I simply used some of the same things that are on his userpage.

As for copyright on Ballinagar GAA there is no copyright on Ballinagar GAA and infact during editing of it I used a copyright tool to ensure of this.

As for scope of articles such as Killeigh parish I made a proposal to remove the article and any small amounts of relevance be merged into related articles but this was stopped by another editor which objected to this.

Overall from my experience with The Banner he has been very petty and this is also backed up by other editors who agreed many of his revisions undoing my edits were questionable especially since some of what was removed was sourced-in one case another editor restored sourced information that the banner repeatedly removed.This has undoubtably lowered my ability to see him as a credible unbiased editor and not just someone with a personal grudge against me and as he seems to wish to report me I intend on taking my own actions against him. Budisgood (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I have a personal veto against you????

In fact, many times I have tried to help you. Regarding the copyvio at Ballinagar GAA, see the log book of this page. The Banner talk 00:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Your actions seem to be touch and go either hot or cold, like holding your hands near a boiling kettle it seems like its helping you by warming you but at any second it could spit and burn you,I see this as a very good summarisation of your actions. You go from acting genuinely helpfull and a beneficial editor until suddenly are triggered and return to disruptive editing and not providing proper reasoning for your actions and in your haste removing relevant information. Budisgood (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Budisgood: There is no tool which can perfectly tell if some text might be a WP:Copyvio problem. If you are primarily relying on tools to tell you if something is a copyvio I suggest you stop. While using such tools isn't forbidden, they're really intended to help others detect if someone else's work might be a copyvio. Instead you need to change the process you use when writing stuff such that copyvios are unlikely. And copyvios are a very serious thing here. While editors will generally try to help you, it is completely on you to change your editing as needed to ensure you don't make copyright violations. Don't expect editors to hold your hand to help you avoid copyvios and don't be surprised if editors get very frustrated with you if you introduce copyright violations especially if you do it again after being warned and that you will quickly be indefinitely blocked for it. It does seem some revisions of Ballinagar GAA have been deleted as copyvio. Since I'm not an admin, I can't see who introduced these revisions but if it was you that means you did introduce copyright violations in the past and should not be downplaying this. It may be that some earlier revisions of the page were not copyright violations and so these were kept. But regardless you need to ensure you never introduce copyright violations ever again and also don't deny you did it when people mention it. Nil Einne (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I used the tool to check for copyright after I was told by an editor that a copyright tool they used showed that it could possibly copyright Budisgood (talk) 08:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

What you're saying is still fairly unclear. If someone said a specific tool suggested a copyvio problem and you're surprised by this then it might be interesting to try that exact tool and see what it says. If it turns out this editor seems to be wrong about what the tool says then it's reasonable to ask the editor what's up. However if someone has said something is a copyvio problem then for you as the writer, there's no need to use any tool. You should be able to say it's not a copyvio because you know it's not because of how you wrote the text. You definitely cannot use any tool to prove it's not a copyvio, that would require human judgment comparing the alleged source text and what you said you wrote. More to the point, there seems to be no doubt that someone did introduce a copyvio since some version of the Ballinagar GAA remains deleted and you don't seem to have challenged this. If you are the one who introduced this text, then yes you did introduce a copyvio at one time so you shouldn't be downplaying this even if you've now gotten better. The fact that other stuff you've done may not be copyvio doesn't mean what you earlier did wasn't copyvio. And you do need to make sure that you do not introduce such copyvios again. Just to be clear, you cannot do this by any tools, you can only do this by changing how you edit so that your previous mistake doesn't repeat. Since you did copy the entirety of The Banner's user page as you acknowledged [36] I wonder if there are fundamental problems with how you edit. Do you ever copy and paste some text from elsewhere and then re-write it? If you do this, you need to stop that ASAP and never do that again. Even if you don't accidentally save the text you copied and pasted, editing in that way means you are almost definitely going to introduce copyvios. Nil Einne (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

It might be interesting to compare this archived page and the first version of Sarsfields Mountmellick LFC. The Banner talk 23:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

If you need to use a copyright tool to prevent yourself from committing copyright infringement, there's a serious WP:CIR issue here to deal with. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I subsequently used copyright tool after another editor raised that they were concerned it might be copyright Budisgood (talk) 08:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked Budisgood from mainspace and file space, as well as uploads, because of the copyright issues raised in this thread. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

User:The Banner and Disruptive editing

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

User:The Banner seems to have taken on a personal veto aginst me and as far as I can see there us no apparent reason. Any relevant advice given on article structures was taken on board and can be seen in the editing of Shanahoe GAA,other recommendations about my edits such as including page number in source of the information of large file aswell as other recommendations that have been made by editors such as but not limited to user:The Banner have all been taken into consideration in my edits.As for copying userpage it can be seen from looking at my userpage i did not copy the Banners userpage I simply used some of the same things that are on his userpage. As for copyright on Ballinagar GAA there is no copyright on Ballinagar GAA and infact during editing of it I used a copyright tool to ensure of this. As for scope of articles such as Killeigh parish my proposal to remove the article and any small amounts of relevance be merged into related articles but this was stopped by another editor which objected to this. Overall from my experience with The Banner he has been very petty and this is also backed up by other editors who agreed many of his revisions undoing my edits were questionable especially since some of what was removed was sourced-in one case another editor restored sourced information that the banner repeatedly removed.This has undoubtably lowered my ability to see him as a credible unbiased editor and not just someone with a personal grudge against me and as he seems to wish to report me I intend on taking my own actions against him. User:The Banner has since also decided to go and report me in another attempt to damage my reputation, it is understandable to give an editor recommendations if you dont agree with their editing methods and constructive criticism is even fair enough but The Banner's actions are just plain disruptive editing and I have raised these comcerns of how he undermines my edits but the problem is still not resolved, his actions leave me with no other choice but to report him in the hope that we can arive at some resolution to this problem. Budisgood (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Pure retaliation. And the full unedited copy of my user page can be seen in this version of his user page. The Banner talk 00:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

"Pure Retaliation" keep playing the blame game if you wish continue to convince yourself that u have done nothing, we are free to believe what we wush but truth is truth fmmmm Budisgood (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Budisgood, can you explain why you thought it constructive to post two copies of more or less the exact same message on ANI? Also why on earth does your signature above use the exact same formatting as The Banner's? Nil Einne (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Budisgood, it's incredibly troubling that after two different editors raised concerns over you copying The Banner's signature format, you chose to just change the signature to a normal one [37] without mentioning anywhere that you'd done so. Given this and some of your other replies, I'm starting to get the feeling you think correcting your mistakes somehow means they magically disappear as if you never made them. That's not how Wikipedia, or frankly most of the world, works. Nil Einne (talk) 10:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, while I don't understand why you copied The Banner's signature format it's not a big deal. Frankly even if you'd just replied when modifying the signature and said something like "whops sorry I made a mistake and have changed my signature to a standard one" and didn't offer further explanation, I doubt anyone would have cared to query this further even if it is fairly weird. (Did you copy The Banner's complain and modify it? If so this is a very weird thing to do, still not by itself something I'd care about except in so much my point above how you really should not do that when trying to summarise what some source has written about something.) Likewise I'm not that fussed about you copying The Banner's user page and modifying it, again except if it reveals something about how you sometimes deal with summarising what other sources have written. The copyvio is a far bigger deal but it is a mistake editors make so not by itself disqualifying. The problem is that you seem to keep acting as if you didn't do something you did, rather than acknowledging your mistakes when they come up. Nil Einne (talk) 11:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is a more structural problem, as shown in his actions on Commons. Copy from internet, removed as copyvio, uploaded again, removed as copyvio. The Banner talk 12:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

While there is things being highlighted here that are relevant I still dont see what actually is there of enough significance to warrant the report, anything that may have been copyright I consequently edited myself, and none of the reasons given are of recent actions so I am still confused as to why now I am being reported Budisgood (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Budisgood: I note you have not yet answered an administrator's question. Please do so immediately: This is a thread you started on an administrators' noticeboard. SerialNumber54129^{A New Face in Hell} 18:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you pinged the wrong person there. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks Phil! SerialNumber54129^{A New Face in Hell} 18:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I should note that also apparently @Budisgood: went back and changed their signature where it had copied The Banner's to not copy it, which makes this even weirder. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Budisgood: is there a reason that you copied The Banner's signature in your filing this counter-complaint? I'm a bit confused as to how that happened, and I'd like to understand why. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Rsk6400 reported by User:TwinBoo

• Rsk6400 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I’ve come here to report the user above for his misconduct on the Template:Discrimination page. He has insisted there should be a criteria for pages linked, and even after I filed an RfC that disagreed with him he has refused to oblige and reverted my subsequent edit [38]. Even before this, without consensus, he has been reverting edits against his views [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44].

Alongside disregarding the RfC, he labelled it as "bogus" [45], and reverted the disruptive editing warning I left him [46]. He has derided anyone against him as "edit warring" [47], despite the fact he is the one causing most of the template's disputes. This is a blatant violation of WP:OWN and he should at least be blocked from editing the page. —𝚃𝚠𝚒𝚗𝙱𝚘𝚘 (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

First you should stop edit warring. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

TwinBook, your comments imply that an RfC found a consensus that Rsk6400 is violating ("an RfC that disagreed with him", "disregarding the RfC"), but the RfC was only opened 10 December and has not reached consensus yet. Schazjmd (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? The RfC has been open since the 2 December (nearing 2 weeks!) and has been getting an exceptionally slow response. Rsk has not waited and still redirected others to his non-existent "consensus" on the talk page. I’m doubtful a full consensus will even be reached seeing how little replies have appeared… —𝚃𝚠𝚒𝚗𝙱𝚘𝚘 (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

You're right, I misread date of last comment for when it was opened. But it's still an open RfC. Schazjmd (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I want point out that (1) TwinBoo used Template:uw-disruptive3 on my talk page without any reasonable justification[48], (2) their RfC is faulty, as I pointed out to them in a discussion more than a week ago[49], (3) they haven't made any contribution to the discussion on Template_talk:Discrimination since Dec 3rd, see the page history, and - maybe not so important - that I corrected "bogus" to "faulty" hours before they complained about that word[50]. Sorry for the last point, but for the rest, I think it's a boomerang. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Without any reasonable justification, eh? It’s a template for disruptive edits, which I think I have shown there is no shortage of; as for the discussion, any points I make don't seem to get across to you, instead you opt to ignore me and anyone else hoping they will back down and let you have hegemony over the template.

Finally, I don't see why you're so mad about the RfC. It's not worth creating one on another page as that won't account for all of the other pages, and I don't understand your comment about how it doesn't apply to our disagreement — even if it was acceptable in your eyes, I'm sure you'd refuse to oblige to any result that doesn't favour your view, as you've exhibited on the template. I apologise that it had to come to a report, but if you were willing to reach a settlement this could've been avoided. —𝚃𝚠𝚒𝚗𝙱𝚘𝚘 (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:ONUS, It isn't on him to justify not including your edit and work towards a "settlement". Also WP:STEWARDSHIP, being the initiator of most disputes (the one disputing content) is not "causing" disputes, it's the nature for the encyclopedia, WP:BRD. The template wasn't called for either, and what you were doing was effectively edit warring as well.

I think a trouting at minimum is in order for the opener. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Without such a "trouting", TwinBoo will think that edit warring is OK and that templating a constructive user for "disruptive editing" is OK, too. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Muhammad Yunus article

Moved from WP:AN. @NAUser0001 user Adding defamatory content to the Muhammad Yunus article without independent and reliable sources. I told him/her on the talk page that Indian media sources can't be considered reliable and independent in controversial, defamatory issues. Add independent media sources like BBC, The New York Post, Washington Post, DW, Al Jazeera, etc., and international media sources for his/her claim. but not listening and reverting the edit again and again. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 08:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Niasoh, this should have been posted at WP:ANI as it doesn't require the attention of the administrator community. Secondly, no action will be taken until you provide diffs/edits that are examples of the behavior you are finding problematic. You have to produce evidence to support your claims. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Liz It appears to be a valid issue, and it may require admin attention as the user is adding very dubious information to a BLP. Moving this to ANI. Black Kite (talk) 09:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the addition of stuff like this, associating a BLP with the so-called American Deep State, George Soros etc., is conspiracy-theory level nonsense, and immediately suggest that the source (India Today) might have to be looked at again. They've also used Wikipedia as a source. I have pblocked NAUser0001 from the article concerned. Black Kite (talk) 09:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking at their other edits, Draft:Manoj Kumar Sah contains multiple unsourced BLP violations. Or at least it did, until I just removed them. Meanwhile, apparently I am a "biased, leftist writer attempting to whitewash Yunus's image" [51]. Black Kite (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

It is quite peculiar that several IPs have made POV commentary on offending user's TP (See [52] and [53]) and in here ([54]) and that the offending user appears to have interacted on one occasion ([55]) in what looks like an endorsement of tendentious editing. Is it possible that some kind of Puppetry (meat?) may be going on? Borgenland (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is unsurprising that multiple IPs have repeated Hindutva slogans and this editor has thanked them. Their POV was obvious even without that, though. Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

50.100.44.204

50.100.44.204 has been repeatedly making requests at RFPP an wasting the admin's time 2603:8001:6940:2100:45DD:82B7:C7F7:24EA (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure this fits under the chronic criteria. With only one edit in the last several days, and that was RFPP and while it didn't result in PP, it did result in the blocking of an editor. In fact of the 5 total RFPP, only 2 of them resulted in a decline, with the other 3 receiving some form of action. While they do seem to be heavy handed with the indef-pp, I'd suggest it isn't urgent nor chronic. Additionally, is there a reason why you haven't taken this to their talk page first? TiggerJay (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I was going to comment here, but got an edit conflict with Tiggerjay saying the same thing. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Cleopatra

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

---

Sobek2000 (talk · contribs) has made four consecutive reverts (1 was however minor) at Cleopatra restoring their preferred version: diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4 (see also history). That was when / after User:Remsense had already warned them (diff), informed them about WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS, and adviced them to self-rv until they establish consensus at the talkpage. I explained to them the reason for the RV and clarified that all they need is just consensus and some patience (discussion at my TP). I tried to clarify the same thing at the article's talkpage (discussion), yet some of my comments were labelled as nonsense, just like some of the article's contents. I can understand that it may be due to frustration, nevertheless the user already has more recent E.W. warnings (see talk) and said they had an older account that they abandoned for the same reasons, basically edit-warring (diff). Keep in mind that I even made it clear that some of their additions could well be restored, if more editors examined them and were okay with them (1 example). Piccco (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Last thing was not revertion - I simply made new edtition.

Last warning was made when I was not aware of situation, and I was completely rights as even source of opposite site was agreeing with me. You completely mistepresented me - I did not abandon my old account - I stopped editing, because my editions kept being reverted and I was not confident enough to fight against it. It was before I had account, I was editing without it. I told about it to show you that I don't trust you - and you just show me I should not.

I have no idea how "establishing consensus" looks like - I left changes and explained them. Sobek2000 (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, to clarify - my last edition: I added things manually, nor reverting automatically. I added back only SOME things, I did not include my notes that need improvement. I left both matters in Talk and asked for any critique. I was open to discuss, but your entire argument was "you are new, keep waiting for more experienced person". If you don't think you are experienced enough to approve or not my changes, then what is even point of this? I am sure 'more experienced' person would eventually made their way and I could have actual discussion with them about content. Page needed few corrections and I provided them. I repeat: I did not borught back my entire old edition, only part of it that I think is the least problematic. Sobek2000 (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editor

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

---

NicolasTn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is being tendentious again, deleting referenced content and making subtle changes to citations [56] [57]. After three months, and having been reverted by at least two editors, they suddenly want to engage in discussion, but unsurprisingly not before changing the page to their preferred version first. Considering that they are a single-purpose account, I tend to agree with WP:NOTHERE per Ahri Boy. See previous ANI. Vacosea (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy ping. I just need a full rest. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute. What is the justification for claiming WP:NOTHERE? Simonm223 (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Globallycz

This user has been on disruptive edits and bad faith reviews. I as an bystander can't help with these edits as this user used only mobile phone edits to edit he please and his edit summaries was rather harsh and accusing editors of bad faith. He only joined Wikipedia for three months, and this is rather concerning for the accord. Please investigate. 122.11.212.156 (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Have you looked at majority of my edits? Or are you basing your views here of me based on narrow baised view. I offered mg reason for reverting your edits which removed the age content without explanation. You failed to respond adequately and now instead of addressinfmg my feedback on good faith, you dropped a baseless accusation without any proper qualification. Stop nitpciking editors jus because we are a few months. That is irrelevant. And dont abuse the words "good faith". Cite specific examples where there is a basis. Otherwise, i am sorry. It will be disregarded. Globallycz (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It is your majority of edits, and two, Your talk page also shows it and so was edit summaries, and you felt like you want to confront readers. 122.11.212.156 (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The talk page represented a small percentage of all my edits. Have you considered whether these few editors were reasonable or unreasonable when they brought issues to talk page. Sadly, most were behaving unreasonably or without basis. Some are somewhat like your case; no explanation was given to remove content. I suggest you put away personal feelings. I offered my reason(s) for reverting your edits which primarily removed the age content without any explanation. Again please do not nitpick editors just because they are a few months. That is irrelevant. Quality of edit matters more. Again, i will not defend myself further. I just hope Adnin will be fair and look at the issue broadly and openly. Admin: If this particularly editor using the IP address as his user id continue to edits or remove content without adequate reasons or source, i will try to put them right again. Globallycz (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

IP, as the notice at the top of the page says, "please provide links and diffs here to involved pages". Globallycz has made more than 1500 edits in the last few months and we're not going to shift through them all trying to guess which edits you might think are a problem. Give us some examples. See H:DIFF if you don't know how to make a diff. Meters (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, here it is one of them, and even accused that one of irrational behavior. I am not. here 122.11.212.156 (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

That's the best you can come up with? Globallycz's edit summary is uncivil, as is your retaliatory edit summary where you used the same term in reference to Globallycz. You might want to read WP:POTKETTLE. The disputed content is simply a matter of a difference of wording, which neither of you has attempted to discuss on the talk page. In general I prefer your wording, but it has some minor grammar and punctuation errors that need correcting, and you introduce the error "0Viet" as part of a reference elsewhere. The more important thing is that both of you are edit warring over this material. You have both broken WP:3RR. Meters (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I just like to highlight that the disputed content was not just a matter of wording. Please review carefully. I dont think i was being rude nor uncivil. The person accusing me of this and that has used strong words like asking me to get a life and daring me this and tbat. On my part, i only insisted that all WP edits should be properly justified. Suggest you reviewed the edits again.

i dont wish to add to your burden unless necessary. The irony is that he had earlier removed the space between a full stop and two references along with other age content on the WP describibg serious crimes in Singapore between 2020 and 2024. When i did the same thing to remove the space between full stop and reference, he undid it. That is not rational. Being civil means respecting others by following basic rules like justifying each edit reasonably. I dont see him doing that. You wont hear from me anymore. Globallycz (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the related edits in the 122.11.212 range are yours too. Meters (talk) 07:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• You have both broken WP:3RR - Indeed they have, and thus they've both been blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Chronic semi-automated editing trouble

Unfortunately, though the lion's share of the work he does is very much appreciated by me, I've tried to be patient and communicative with Srich32977 (talk · contribs) for a few months now, and I don't feel that has been consistently reciprocated. I don't want to pillory him, but following a saga where he had to eat a block for violating MOS:PAGERANGE in many of his copyediting sweeps after me repeatedly attempting to clarify apparent confusions and him promising point blank he got the message, only to lapse into an interpretative universe where the MOS's "should" somehow means "optional".

Now, he has seemingly perennially ignored my posts on his talk page regarding how his AutoEd configuration replaces fullwidth characters where they are actually correct, e.g. actually in running fullwidth text.[58] For a few months I've just been reverting when his path crosses into Chinese-language articles and trying to get his attention without being a nuisance, and now I feel this is the only avenue left. I would just like him to respond to concerns in a consistent manner, like he has shown able to do at times. Remsense ‥ 论 05:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Please note the long history of problems with this person's semi-automated editing and failure to respond to requests to follow MOS. This user talk archive search for "ranges" is just one example (repeatedly changing MOS-valid page range formats to invalid formats). As Remsense says above, a lot of the work is good and valid, but there are many invalid changes, and feedback is met with a combination of ignoring us, saying they will comply and then not doing it, or complying for a while and then resuming the invalid edits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Srich32977 is taking a wiki-break. My attempt to AGF is near its limit vs thinking ANI flu, as they have a history of ignoring community concerns or waiting until a moment blows over before resuming problematic behavior. DMacks (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC) They have un-breaked. DMacks (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Obvious sock threatening to take legal action

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

---

This IP range has been socking to edit a wide range of caste articles, especially those related to Jats . This range belongs to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Truthfindervert and has been socking using proxies and VPNs too. Many of which have been blocked[59]. Now they are threatening to take legal action against me "but how far we will remain silence their various optimistic reason which divert my mind to take an legal action against this two User" [60]. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Just as ignorant as he is known longtime abnormal activation and especially on those of Jat article see his latest revision on Dudi you will get to urge why he have atrocity to disaggregating Jat articles but pm serious node i dont mention him not a once but ypu can also consolidate this User:TheSlumPanda who dont know him either please have a eyes on him for a while 2409:40D6:11A:3D97:D46A:3CB4:A474:99A0 (talk) 12:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

But wait a second as per WP:NOPA i dont take his name either not even so dont even try to show your true culler midway cracker and admin can you please not i am currently ranged blocked as my network is Jio telecom which was largely user by various comers2409:40D6:11A:3D97:D46A:3CB4:A474:99A0 (talk)

Please tell me there's a language issue at play here, and that the IP didn't mention WP:No personal attacks and use a racist slur in the same sentence there... —C.Fred (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it's both. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, we linguists don't like anecdotal evidence, but I'll provide some: I (non-native speaker of English, with a linguistics PhD) had to look up all the potential candidates for a slur in that post, and when I did find one it's not one I'd ever heard. However, "crackers" is an insult in Hindi, so I'd say it is most likely a PA, just not the one an American English speaker might understand it as. --bonadea contributions talk 13:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

At least in the South, an American would recognize Cracker as a pejorative. Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but the IP user who used the word said they are in India, and their post contains various typical non-native speaker errors. ("culler" instead of "colour", for instance) --bonadea contributions talk 16:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Funny thing is you go far enough south it wraps back around again: Florida cracker - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Observation: the IP just tried to place a contentions topics notice on the talk page of the Dudi article. It's peripheral, and the IP is pretty clearly involved. Is this a bad-faith edit by the IP, or should we just take their suggestion and extended-confirmed protect the page?... —C.Fred (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Is there a Dudi caste? Though I will note there is a lot of overlap between the "Indian Subcontinent" and "South Asian social strata" topic areas. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by User:AnonMoos

The main issue with this editor at the moment is disruptive editing based on continuous abuse of WP:TALKNO and failure to get the point. Issues began when this editor removed 5000+ bytes of sourced material. They did it again and again and again.

Instead of starting a discussion on the talk page of the article, the user came to my talk page to let me know of their opinion of my contributions. When I started a discussion on the talk page of the relevant article, the user edited my signature and changed the heading of the discussion I started according to their POV. When I let them know that this was highly inappropriate according to WP:TALKNO, both in that discussion and on their talk page, they responded on my talk page stating ever since the stupid Wikipedia Dec. 2019 encryption protocol upgrade, to able to edit or view Wikipedia at all from my home computer, I have to use an indirect method which involves a non-fully-Unicode-compliant tool. I couldn't even really see your signature that way, and so didn't know to try to avoid changing it, which I had never heard of. In any case, they kept reverting the content supported by the reliable source, they also kept attempting to apply their POV to the discussion heading again and again and again. I finally explained that I had sought a third opinion and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, and they went ahead and changed it again anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by إيان (talk • contribs) 15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The other user in this case is User:AnonMoos? This looks like a content dispute over whether the article is on the English version of a German-Arabic dictionary or the dictionary itself. Secretlondon (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes the is indeed about User:AnonMoos. I see the content dispute as stemming from the fundamental conduct issue, which has manifested itself most egregiously with insisting on violating WP:TALKNO repeatedly even after I explained that I had sought a third opinion and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, after which they went ahead and changed it again anyway. إيان (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The heading dispute is between a date heading, and a descriptive heading? that's not really reformulating your entry. Secretlondon (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a conduct issue. إيان (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

But what conduct issue? TALKNO doesn't forbid changing headings. In fact the wider guideline makes it clear it's perfectly acceptable "Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant." To be blunt, if you don't want editors changing the headings of sections you start, don't use such terrible headings. I definitely recommend you stay away from ANI since changing headings is quite common here. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually I missed the signature issue. That's far more concerning unfortunately lost IMO partly because you concentrated on silly stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

‎إيان: I suggest you stop messing around with the section heading since it's a distraction which could easily lead to you being blocked. But if AnonMoos changes your signature again, report it and only that without silliness about section headings, mentioning that they've been warned about it before if needed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I wrote a long and detailed explanation on his user talk page as to why the date-only header is basically useless in that context, but he's still for some peculiar reason fanatically determined to keep changing it back. Frankly, I've basically run out of good-faith reasons that make any sense -- except of course, his apparently unshakable belief that he has certain talk-page "rights", which according to Wikipedia guidelines he does not in fact have (outside of his own personal user talk page)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: I don't see a problem with changing the heading but why on earth did you change their signature multiple times [61] [62]? That is indeed a clear violation of WP:TPOC since the signature was perfectly valid per WP:NLS. In fact your change was far worse since it changed a perfectly valid signature which would take other editors to the contributor's talk page and user page into an invalid one which lead no where. If you're using some sort of plugin which does that, it's your responsibility to manage it better so it doesn't do that ever again especially if you're going to edit talk pages where it might be common. If you're doing that intentionally, I suggest you cut it out or expect to be indeffed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

User:AnonMoos, this is not good to see. Don't rewrite or reformat other editor's signatures. There is no reason to be doing this unless you are trying to provoke the other editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, AnonMoos stated earlier that the changing of the signature was a unintentional technical issue, due to his use of some "non-standard tool" in accessing the internet [63]. This seems plausible, as similar apparently unintentional changes to non-Ascii character data have happened in edits of his before (e.g. [64]). But if he knew of this issue, it's rather disappointing he let it happen again some days later [65]. Equally disappointing is the extremely aggressive rhetoric and acerbic tone with which he has been escalating this essentially harmless, good-faith content dispute from the beginning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Wikipedia securely. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Difficult rangeblock problem, beyond /64

• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Youngstown music vandal
• 2600:1016:B000:0:0:0:0:0/40 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

In November, the Youngstown music vandal resumed using IPs from Special:Contributions/2600:1016:B000:0:0:0:0:0/40. This large range was blocked by NinjaRobotPirate in April 2023. If we block the /40 again, there will be collateral damage to good-faith users making edits such as this one. More tightly targeted blocks by Widr to the ranges Special:Contributions/2600:1016:B04D:8391:0:0:0:0/64 and Special:Contributions/2600:1016:B041:FCB6:0:0:0:0/64 have not stopped the vandal. Should we block the larger /40 range? Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Daniel Case just blocked the range Special:Contributions/2600:1016:B071:14CD:0:0:0:0/64, which contains only one active IP. The other blocked /64 ranges also typically contain one disruptive IP, which means this person has access to a larger range. The /64 blocks aren't cutting it. Binksternet (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocked two weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Done here. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Revoke talk page access for Bananamanwiki69

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

---

Bananamanwiki69 (talk · contribs) has been blocked as WP:NOTHERE and is simply using their talk page for personal attacks. TPA should be revoked. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Done. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

IP constantly removing WP:G1 template

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

---

2601:5C8:4300:24B0:3574:CD1E:D8EC:EA8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) keeps removing the speedy deletion template on Draft:Random Charcters Watch (NO BOTS ALLOWED), which they created themselves. They've done it 5-6 times by now. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 22:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

There is also an example of a legal threat and/or personal attack on the draft, seen at the bottom of the page. I don't know what good this addition makes, but I felt like it's worth mentioning. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Could be considered a PA but struck me as runofthemill vandal stuff. "My Youtube channel fined this loser user who wants to delete my page ONE MILLION DIMMADOLLARS" isn't a legal threat. Anyway, IP has been blocked by Izno. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, when I looked at it, it did not say Dimmadollars. It had it in USD, and no reference to Doug Dimmadome, Owner of the Dimmsdale Dimmadome was made.

Either way, good riddance to bad rubbish. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Dimmadangit, that was me being silly. "A Youtube channel fined somebody and sentenced them to jail" is not a serious threat. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Danielle Bradbery

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

---

• Danielle Bradbery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Danielle Bradbery's page is being edited by her stalker who keeps changing her name, ethnicity, and artist image to reflect that they are married. This is not accurate and despite updating her info to be correct and including sources, he is still going in and changing things including that she is Russian-American (she is not Russian), that her last name is Bradbery-Markin (it is just Bradbery as she is not in a relationship with this man) and that she is married to this man which she is not. How can we prevent him from having the ability to make changes on her Wiki since he is a stalker that has been blocked from all her social medias for her own safety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OKD97 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected the page for two days. Also tagged the image in question on Commons for speedy deletion as it's been very clearly Photoshopped. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The vandalism is also happening on other language projects with different accounts/IPs: Italian Wiki, Ukrainian Wiki. There may be more. Nakonana (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a severe BLP violation and in my opinion, the semi-protection should be extended dramatically if this crap resumes in two days. Nakonana, you need to discuss the matter at the ANI equivalents in the Ukrainian and Italian Wikipedias. Administrators on the English Wikipedia have no power there. Cullen328 (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

For a case of apparent stalking, 48h semi is very light, but I do agree with the thrust of what you're saying. @OKD97: Have you considered possibly contacting Oversight to have them suppress those edits? (And the fact I'm suggesting this is a sign that this shouldn't be openly discussed on-wiki too much; Oversight can do everything admins can with considerably more discretion.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 03:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I've RD2'd the revisions in question, as a note. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Just missed the archival but feel this is important enough for admins to see so I'll go ahead. It might be wise to keep an eye out on associated articles e.g. I Don't Believe We've Met as well. Nil Einne (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Note that disruption is continuing in other projects. This user need to be globally locked but I don't know the procedures to do so. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I have made a report on meta:Steward requests/Global. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Mind you, these (and the other IPs) are likely viewers of his videos, rather than just him (see this edit summary), still meatpuppetry though. I cleaned up some missed vandalism in 2 other articles after Nil Einne pointed it out, but haven't found any more on EnWiki at least, for now. – 2804:F1...3A:A931 (::/32) (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

This is probably not done by Markin himself, but by his aggressive subscribers who are engaged in trolling, who troll both him and her. But this does not change the essence Medžuslovjanin (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

User:115.166.47.77

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

---

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

This ip is constantly adding complete nonsense to pages, i have given them 4 warnihgs and they didn't stop. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 06:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend you to report this to WP:AIV. ANI is for: This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 06:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 06:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

They haven't stopped yet. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 06:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Not the first IP in that range that has done this(1, 2, 3)...

could we also get a rollback of their edits? – 2804:F1...33:D1A2 (::/32) (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I have a feeling they may be bots, but i would need a little more proof. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 06:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The IP seems to have edited the pages so they wouldn't appear at Special:AncientPages the next time it is updated. WP:NOTHERE applies. MimirIsSmart (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 06:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Vazulvonal of Stockholm

• Vazulvonal of Stockholm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, I recently came across the edits of Vazulvonal of Stockholm, who seems to be very stubborn in his editing. The user doesn't seem to understand the basic rules and policies of Wikipedia (such as the use of reliable sources and no original research), even after being alerted and warned many times. Problems include self-promotion; e.g., at Schüssler, some Swedish IP Addresses and himself, have tried to push the inclusion of 5 non-notable persons, of which I suspect "Lars Laszlo Schüszler" to be related to the user, as Vazulvonal seems to have created the article [66], which was deleted later. Other major issues include the use of very poor quality sources (e.g., Geni), poor grammar and spelling (e.g., [67]), pushing nationalist POV (e.g., [68]). At List of Hungarian Nobel laureates, the user keeps reinstating poor quality text and sources, and even had the nerve to call me anti-semitic and anti-Hungarian. At List of Hungarian Academy Award winners and nominees, some Swedish IP Addresses (which are very likely related to the user), have created this very odd section of very poor quality and original research. Per WP:COMPETENCE, I'm not sure this site is the right place for someone who doesn't take advice, warnings and policies very seriously... Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced LLM additions and ABF

Trj56msn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding unsourced LLM slop to Cleavage (breasts) and Upskirt, under the guise of "rewriting [...] in a way which is not sexist". They're trying to justify this by saying that [t]here were sentences that were written very clearly by a male who fetishises cleavage and sees women as a sex object and that they will [put] this forward to UN Women, and I will be listing the usernames contributing to MVAWG (User talk:Trj56msn#December 2024), which is both a clear violation of AGF and an WP:INTIMIDATION attempt. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 13:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Threatening to report Wikipedia users to the United Nations is quite bizarre, but clearly WP:INTIMIDATION and maybe even a WP:LEGAL violation. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Threatening to report editors to the UN is like threatening to report them to the Peoria Ladies' Garden Society. EEng 14:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

They seem to be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and given how they have responded so far, it seems unlikely that that is going to change. SmartSE (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You could look at it like that. I think Trj56msn is raising legitimate points that could result in improvements to the article – but doing it in an aggressive way that doesn't really leave much room for collaboration. This looks like a new user who's trying to help but needs guidance. I can leave a note. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's unfortunate. Some of the wording they point out is problematic (I don't think any Wikipedia article, whether about upskirt photos or not, should include the phrase "innocent fun images" unless it's putting it in quotes and sourcing it to an actual person), but the way they have gone about it is very counter-productive. NewBorders (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I also want to add that this user has come to my talk page and accused me of advocating for false information, rape, and violence against women, and said that I am "threatening" them by saying that WP:LEGAL threats are not acceptable on Wikipedia. I have never advocated rape or violence against women, and this kind of accusation is ridiculous and unacceptable. Di (they-them) (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

This user has now said that any response I make to their actions will be considered as a threat and will be dealt with accordingly. I think it's pretty clear that this person is threatening legal action with the intent to silence any opposition to their edits. Accusing me of making threats and saying that my behavior "will be dealt with accordingly" is an obvious intimidation tactic. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, I don't think they're "raising legitimate points": this diff is just slopping gigantic paragraphs of original research into the article with no citations, and their response to anyone telling them not to do this is to scurrilously accuse them of the most awful things -- I am going to partially block them from the article until they are able to discuss things on the talk page. jp×g🗯️ 16:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually, per this, they are just making WP:LT, so I will block for that. jp×g🗯️ 17:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Wrong link, that's WikiProject London Transport :p Di (they-them) (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I percieve their messages as threats, and per WP:THREAT an immediate block is warranted. E_F⁵ 17:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

User Pyramoe - Mass Reversions, WP:Not Here

Pretty open and shut case regarding user Pyramoe (talk · contribs)

New user who made multiple mass reversions to pages related to a single niche Trotskyist party/international to restore content removed for breaching a number of policies, predominantly WP:SELFPUB violations.[69][70]

User was warned about why this was inappropriate on their talk page, which they then blanked demonstrating they saw it.[71]

User has now repeated the mass reversion, stating that the reversion is fine simply because they "don't find it appropriate to basically delete a whole article... just because the majority of the information is self-sourced".[72]

User is evidently WP:NOTHERE, and only seems to want to promote their political organisation.

Ban requested. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

They did that revert (their third) 6 days ago. Have you tried doing as they suggested towards the end of the edit summary you quoted?

[...] would love to have a discussion with you on this so that we could sort it out

In fact, I'd suggest welcoming them AND discussing with them. – 2804:F1...3A:A931 (::/32) (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it was six days ago to be honest. The fact is they appeared out of nowhere and made extensive mass reverts to the page of a minor political group, were told not to repeat this unless they can demonstrate sound reasons according to policy why they should, and then repeated it while actively just stating that they don't care about the policy.

There's not really grounds for a useful discussion where one side's position is effectively "I want this article, don't care about policy". Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, the point is, you removed a bunch of content, they reverted you without providing a reason as their first 2 edits which you reverted them again and warned them for while asking them to provide a reason - weeks later (6 days ago) they reverted one of the articles again with a reason, doesn't matter that the reason is not within policy, assume that they don't know policy that they saw someone remove entire articles and tried to protect it.

That doesn't read to me as the behaviour of someone NOTHERE, it reads as someone who doesn't know how Wikipedia works. – 2804:F1...3A:A931 (::/32) (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

If this had been a new account that made a couple of minor reversions that were inappropriate that'd be one thing. Here however this new account was created to restore large amounts of inappropriate material that had been removed months prior on a topic (Trotskyist Internationals) that has been inundated with similar "new accounts" that only engage in restoring material de facto promoting the groups in question. This is also an account that was given a reasonable warning template that linked to our policies and instead of engaging with it, they just blanked the page, and while claiming to "want to have a discussion" instead of doing that they just repeated the inappropriate mass restoring of content.

Quite frankly in this context it's hard to see it as an ill-informed individual making understandable errors and instead seems to be another SPA NOTHERE situation where someone who is a supporter of the group in question just wants it mentioned on Wikipedia. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Just to add, this is an account that managed to get into a redirect page and manually restore it, which requires some knowledge of how Wikipedia works to accomplish from my experience. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe. The account is a bit older than the EnWiki one, but has no editing history pretty much, it was created by a different user with the reason "Wikidata IOLab", which I am not completely sure what it is, but I think is a brazillian student thing. Their account is listed here at least, they didn't seem to make any edits though.

(edit: seems to have been a Wikidata event related to the IOL2024, which happened in Brazil - it's been over for ages though, so this is definitely editing of their own choice)

I'm noting this because I didn't expect that - I'll let other people comment on this report, maybe I'm wrong :s. – 2804:F1...3A:A931 (::/32) (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC) *edited 18:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to clarify a few points. I have made a couple of edits to differet types of articles before making a wikipedia account. My previous edits have been listed under my IP as I did not understand the neccessity of having an account. I was a participant at the IOL 2024 and we had a workshop there called Wikidata IOLab, that is where my account was created, I then forgut about it. Now at some point recently I realised I could log in with my wikipedia account and so I did so. I admit I don't have full understanding of wikipedia policy, I did go in and read the wikipedia pages that Rambling Rambler cited as reasons for the edits they have done, and through my limited understanding, I made the judgement that the pages don't completely violate policy, maybe in some ways, but not in a way that, in my opinion, justifies removing everything. I genuinely would love to have a discussion about this. I'm not doing this in support of said organization as I am not affiliated with any political groups, but have a general interest in marxist political parties, especially in the Nordic region. I wanted to check the Socialist Alternative(Sweden) page as I had done before and noticed it didn't exist anymore and did some digging and found out it was removed. I see it as a great loss for the page to be deleted in the domain of information about minor Swedish left-wing parties, as I did with the rest of the ISA sections that got deleted, but I'm generally as I said more interested in the Nordics. As I have stated before, I genuinely want to have a discussion about this. I think the page and other pages can be "cleaned up" of the parts that obviously violate policy, but I don't think just deleting them outright is the way forward. Pyramoe (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I did go in and read the wikipedia pages that Rambling Rambler cited as reasons for the edits they have done, and through my limited understanding, I made the judgement that the pages don't completely violate policy, maybe in some ways, but not in a way that, in my opinion, justifies removing everything.

It is a black and white issue, as per criteria in WP:SELFPUB/WP:ABOUTSELF which specifies amongst several criteria that articles must not be based primarily on self-published sources which the content you restored demonstrably violated. You are now admitting you have read those policies but have chosen to then continue acting in contravention of them for non-policy reasons simply because of your personal view that to lose said pages are a "great loss".

I think your reply simply reinforces my reason for posting here, that your reasons for being here aren't to improve this site according to our policies but to insert inappropriate material for groups you have an admitted interest in. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Ashutoshpaul

User @Ashutoshpaul has been registered on Wikipedia since 2008 and has only ever edited in one specific article: Sultanpur Lodhi - I noticed they keep making edits not in-compliance with Wikipedia MOS, such as not following sentence-case capitalization rules, bolding unnecessarily within the article body, and adding their signature in the content of the article. I opened-up a talk-page discussion (see: [73]) on their user-page to discuss this with them, however their responses are concerning. I tried explaining Wikipedia's rules and how they were violating them but they basically concluded that the rules do not apply to them (for some reason) and that they did nothing wrong. Also, they believe adding their signature into the article's contents is justified since they spent effort working on the article, as per their own words. Thus, they just pushed their edit on the page again (see: [74]). I feel I am not able to convince them to change their ways and require admin help. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk page messages telling them not to "sign" their edits started in 2012. They haven't engaged on their talk page until MaplesyrupSushi's recent communications, so at least they're responding now but it's WP:IDHT.[75] Schazjmd (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@MaplesyrupSushi: I don't see where Ashutoshpaul has been adding their signature to article contents recently. Can you provide a recent diff? However, I do see where they recently added two tildes to article contents in a few places. As you can see here ~~, that doesn't add a signature. If that's what you are talking about, it will be helpful to be more specific as to minimize the potential for confusion. 216.126.35.202 (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

In this diff: [76], under the 'Post independence and present' section of the article, they added: "--Ashutosh Paul 17:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)" into the article's content. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Pov pushing on Joseph Sitt

Recently a large amount of pov pushing has been occuring on the page for Joseph Sitt. This involved downplaying his involvement in some political wattsapp group.
diffs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Sitt&diff=prev&oldid=1263804906
https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Sitt&diff=prev&oldid=1263782233
https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Sitt&diff=prev&oldid=1262288729
https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Sitt&diff=prev&oldid=1262288603
https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Sitt&diff=prev&oldid=1262284212
https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Sitt&diff=prev&oldid=1262283952
https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Sitt&diff=prev&oldid=1262281846
https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Sitt&diff=prev&oldid=1261362541
users:
User:Kthor2021
User:71.172.82.234
User:InsightSeeker1 Gaismagorm (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Why don't you start by creating a discussion about it at Talk:Joseph Sitt? I note that nobody has posted anything substantive there in the ten years that this article has existed. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User talk:185.146.112.192

The User talk:185.146.112.192 is engaging in disrupte editing. Neither does this IP provide sources and is POV pushing. And this IP has been warned multiple times for this on his/her talk page.

Moroike (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)