Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mcvti (talk | contribs) at 23:56, 24 May 2022 (→Violation of WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:TENDENTIOUS by Mcvti). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Disruptive template edits by Dawn PScLim

    Issue: Dawn PScLim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a fairly new editor, has made >90 edits to templates. Most of those edits have been unnecessary or unhelpful, and some have introduced grammatical errors (a few examples cited here).[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Dawn's edits to templates have been reverted by Andrybak[9], The Grid[10], Primefac[11], Sdkb[12] and me.

    Attempts to resolve: Dawn received personal messages about changing templates from Jmcgnh[13] and me[14][15]. Dawn continued to edit templates, and I gave them a templated warning with an added message about discussing template changes on the talk page first,[16] which they removed with the edit summary I'll stop.[17] They then immediately edited another template,[18] and then again today.[19]

    Suggested action: Dawn appears to have good intentions but lacks the Wikipedia experience to be making bold edits to templates. I propose a pblock from template space; some time of suggesting changes on talk:template pages that are approved and made by other editors can help them learn and establish that they are ready to edit templates directly. Schazjmd (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support – Yes, I'm in general agreement with the assessment of the value of these past edits - mostly non-improvements, some actually disruptive - and agree that a partial block would likely be sufficient remedy. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 00:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would support these actions. I admit my lack of proper attention to followup, as I never contacted them about the reverts I made and that I had seen them making them often and should probably stop. Since there have been notices left, seemingly to no effect, a tban may be the only recourse here. Primefac (talk) 05:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]
    I saw this and i want to explain some things. I wanted to change and tried to make better edits and they still were reverted. Some still were reverted when i fixed the problems mentioned (like [20] (indirect)). As i continued, the summaries get unclearer (especially [21] and [22]). Eventually even when I tried minor trivial edits, partly by desperation, it still was reverted (here [23], i think discussion isn't warranted here). Everybody else who reverted, i do find a reason clearly, and so do some edits in the early stages of this. I don't want a pblock, just a detailed explanation exactly on what i did wrong on the edits and work from there, other than grammatical errors, because right now I'm just confused on the exact reason. Thank you. Dawn Lim (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dawn PScLim The edits you are making are adding redundant and useless text, converting sentences into nonsense and inappropriately changing the meaning of the templates you are editing. Looking at three of the diffs from your comment
    1. In this edit here [24] the first bit of text is unnecessary repetition. The first sentence already says This article appears to have insufficient references, adding and requires more citations is just repeating the same point. The second addition completely changes the meaning of the template - this is a template used to tag potential notability issues, not verifiability problems.
    2. This edit [25] converts some of the text of the message into nonsense. and add reliable sources if any for uncited claims. does not make sense.
    3. In this edit [26] you completely change the definition of a guideline - practices that editors should follow and practices that editors should usually follow have completely different implications. The second sentence fragment you add, before making changes, is again redundant to the first part of the section you added it to, which states Any substantive edit to this page ...
    You should not be editing major clean-up and policy templates with your current level of experience. The wording of these templates is very carefully chosen and individual words may have specific meanings on Wikipedia. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Dawn PScLim, I explained the problems on your talk page. Jmcgnh told you The wording on many templates has been carefully hashed out through a consensus process and should not be changed without understanding that background. I cautioned you to discuss on the talk page before changing templates, and you replied (in your edit summary) I'll stop but you didn't stop making changes and you didn't use any of the talk:template pages to discuss making changes.
    What you need to do is to use the talk:template pages to suggest changes that you think will improve a template, and get consensus with other editors that those changes should be made before editing templates. It might also help you learn if you could team up with an experienced template editor for mentoring. But you really need to stop adding unnecessary words and changing existing words in these widely-used templates without discussing these changes first. Schazjmd (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, i'll try to do edits on smaller templates in the meanwhile. However the first one you mentioned is a sandbox, and i don't pay as much care with sandboxes, as they don't affect other pages. Dawn Lim (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dawn PScLim I'm not sure what you mean by "the first one you mentioned is a sandbox", all three of the edits I gave feedback on were made to the actual live template pages. I would strongly suggest that you do not edit any templates directly for the foreseeable future - you have been extremely disruptive in that namespace and have annoyed a lot of people; if you just start making the same type of edits to other templates you are going to end up blocked. If you want to suggest a change to a template go to its talk page and start a discussion - if other editors agree they will make the edit for you. As a newbie you should be focusing on learning policy and writing articles, not mucking about with the wording of templates. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry I mistaken that edit as a sandbox edit similar to it. And of course I will try to change the type of edits. Dawn Lim (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also take more care with your other (non-template) edits. I looked at one Special:Diff/1088577750 and there were lots of errors. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    After reviewing a sampling of his non-template edits, I believe one of the issues is lack of English language proficiency. I suggest that Dawn PScLim slow down and take more care with his edits: perhaps having an English native-speaker assist. There's already lots of cleanup needed with prior edits, though he does make some good content additions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd appreciate it if an admin would deal with this issue. Dawn has now edited another template.[27] The "fix" they added shows that Dawn does not understand the purpose of Template:Partisan sources. It also shows that Dawn does not intend to take the advice given in this thread. I'm afraid that the only way to get Dawn to edit collaboratively with other editors on templates is to restrict them to the template talk pages. Schazjmd (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just reverted this extremely poorly written and ungrammatical addition to some template documentation, which appears to try to say the same thing in 5 different ways. [28] 192.76.8.78 (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Suspected case of blatant advertising

    Wikipedia:Identifying blatant advertising

    Please review the following Wikipedia entries for a suspected case of blatant advertising of an enterprise and product:

    Nosh Technologies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosh_Technologies

    Nosh (app) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosh_(app)

    Nosh daily https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosh_daily

    Nosh Shop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosh_Shop


    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobias2934 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tobias2934: (Non-administrator comment) Please explain exactly how the pages in question constitute blatant advertising including analysing quotes from the article to make that point clear. I assume you are talking about IMLone wolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); you must notify them of this discussion if that is the case, as is required by the large red box at the top of this page. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean conflict of interest? M.Bitton (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any advertising, I see a description of services and products, but descriptions are not the same thing as advertisements. --Jayron32 11:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Tobias2934 seems to be the one being disruptive here. The origin of this dispute seems to be Somdip Dey, which Tobias2934 has repeatedly tried to WP:TAGBOMB with irrelevant and unjustified cleanup tags [29] [30] [31]. They were asked to justify their addition of tags on the talk page [32], where they provided no convincing rationale as to why they were applied. IMLone wolf removed the tags apparently asking other editors on the IRC chat, which Tobias2934 reverted then filed a bogus ANI report listing four of IMLone wolf's pages (including two redirects) as spam. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, they seem to have a thing against this person and company and as a result have taken to Wikipedia about it. I don't see any advertising, I see plenty of notability and at least half decent references. None of Tobias2934's edits appear to be justified. Canterbury Tail talk 14:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced Nosh Technologies is independently notable from Nosh (app), and as such it does feel like advertising. Most of the coverage is about the app. Tobias also tagged Somdip Dey with various problems, which were partially valid & resolved.
    @Tobias2934: if you're worried about promotional editing, posting at WP:NPOVN may be better, as rewriting articles for neutrality does not require any administrative intervention. Femke (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing to the correct noticeboard. Tobias2934 (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello fellow editors, I am not an admin and I refrained myself from participating in this discussion as its part of ANI (admins mostly). Anyhow, I would like to point out few things as part of this discussion as follows(I might be wrong as I am a moderately new editor and can be wrong).
    I created the Nosh (app) article and has been editing it as the news references became available online. Most news article (references) has mentioned nosh and I created a redirect article of Nosh Technologies to the Nosh (app) before creating the full article. But recent news articles on India Currents, EU Startups & Outlook India magazine show that the company, though commonly known name might be Nosh Technologies, is actually known by Nosh or Nosh Tech (Nosh app is the same name as the company as well). This made me believe that the company Nosh Technologies are know publicly by Nosh or Nosh Tech on its own (based on the news references).
    This was also evident from the news articles as provided in TechCrunch, TechCrunch Japan & South China Morning Post as well (just to name the few among several news references).
    There are numerous articles which talks about Nosh as a company as follows (instead of Nosh Technologies) as mentioned in the article about Nosh Technologies and I thought that given the breadth and depth of the coverage by media it might be better to create a separate page with the company's name. [Please consider the case of DeepMind Technologies that is popularly (publicly) known as DeepMind rather than DeepMind Technologies]
    Once again, I am still learning, but I would still stand on the footing that Nosh Technologies (which is also known as Nosh) should be better to have an article based on the news references. I might stand corrected but I will leave that to more experience editors like you here. IMLone wolf (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely disagree. I casually came to found these pages based on another article that I had a dispute about, it just seems that all of these pages are mostly edited by the same user. Tobias2934 (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Hawkeye7 and Ottobock

    On 9 May 2022, an IP posted their version to Ottobock page (diff: [33]). The version was edited on behalf of Ottobock as they hired a firm called Finsbury Glover Hering Europe (diff: [34]). As per WP:COI, paid editors can't edit the page directly and this was rightly reverted a day back. Now, User:Hawkeye7 think otherwise (it was a surprise that they are not aware of this guideline) or maybe they are part of this paid ring? Maybe, they have to clarify here.

    The page has a history of paid/COI editing (see a corporate account User:Merle at Ottobock), so these edits weren't a surprise. Thanks. 2406:E003:C1B:E401:F920:C6B5:3570:5741 (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Hawkeye7's edits on that page are certainly disturbing. An IP literally says they've added something as a paid edit (albeit a translation from the Germany Wikipedia), another IP removes it as paid editing and Hawkeye7 reverts with the edit summary of "rv - IPs cannot make editorial decisions - take it to the talk page". When reverted they revert again saying take it to the talk page. As we know the onus is on the editor inserting the information to get consensus, but Hawkeye7's edits there are not right. Not sure it needs more than a trouting and pointing to of some rules, but the claim that IPs cannot make editorial decisions and edit warring to reinsert content literally stating it's paid work is worrying. Canterbury Tail talk 11:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Paid work added by an IP, who at the same time can't make editorial decisions? Although WP:COI doesn't say that paid editors cannot edit directly, and it looks like the IP made the necessary disclosure, so everybody is wrong. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also like to know where in Wikipedia policy it states that IPs cannot make editorial decisions. Why even allow them to edit Wikipedia then? WaltCip-(talk) 12:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Especially with the hypocrisy that ScottishFinnishRadish points out of it's content an IP inserted in the first place. It's really disturbing edits from such a long time editor, and I'd really like a good explanation. Canterbury Tail talk 12:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They also don't understand WP:BRD apparently. An IP adds info, another IP removes it, Hawkeye readds it, a third IP removes it again, and Hawkeye reverts this as well[35] with the edit summary " WP:BRD: Take it to the talk page", even though the IP is restoring the status quo (the R part) and Hawkeye has now twice undone this without starting a talk page discussion themselves. Disregard for IP editors, reinstating paid edits, edit warring, and displaying a severe misunderstanding of what WP:BRD is... Fram (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if we were to omit the weird WP:BRD / WP:ONUS switcheroo, and even if we were also to omit the WP:PAID / WP:COI components, I am puzzled by this mindset. An IP is allowed to edit (i.e. make editorial decisions), but Hawkeye7's editorial decisions take precedent due to... reasons? It's nonsensical. El_C 13:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully this can be worked out as, paid edit or no, that version of the article is vastly superior to what is there at present. "As political situation in post-war Berlin was unstable, and soon after the company was founded, it moved to Königsee in Thuringia" ? Ugh. ValarianB (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree the actual edit seems to be mostly good and an improvement. Anyway lets give Hawkeye7 some time, they're in Australia and given their edit history this is now outside their normal online and editing hours. Canterbury Tail talk 14:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing any actual evidence here that Hawkeye7 was being paid. Hawkeye7 is the main editor of the article going back six years, so it was very likely to be on their watchlist. I see no reason to assume that this was anything other than Hawkeye7 believing that the edits improved the article (and others here seem to be in agreement with that), and if I saw a reversion of a third of the article on my watchlist I'd certainly have checked it out - making it unsurprising that Hawkeye7 noticed the reversion. Before accusing an editor of being paid there needs to be something to back it up. - Bilby (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone here really believes they are outside the OP, just that their behaviour and comments are odd as is their understanding of who can edit and BRD etc. And there could be some WP:OWN issues. As I mentioned above, I don't this is a super serious matter, but there's some understanding issues that need to be addressed and a possible trouting. Canterbury Tail talk 14:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess my hassle is that I'm not seeing anything particularly odd, but maybe I've been editing too long. The edit summary was of course clearly wrong, but I've run into plenty of editors willing to accept paid edits if they improve the article, just as I encounter plenty who will remove on sight just because it was paid. The whole paid editing thing is a mess, so I tend not to jump up and down at people on either side of the accept/revert debate. Without any reason to think that Hawkeye7 was paid, all I'm seeing is someone who wrote a dumb edit summary and who felt that the article was better with the content - and was willing to revert to keep it, albeit without hitting 3RR. If the content was promotional I'd have an issue, but as everyone seems to think that it made the article better, I just see it as the usual butting of heads over paid editing.
    On the edit summary side, Hawkeye was wrong with the summary used to revert the IP. But the IP was wrong with the interpretation of WP:COI that they used to revert the edits.
    Honestly, I wish we could go back to the days before paid editing was a thing, but I fear that was a time that never really existed. :( - Bilby (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty much never did. MyWikiBiz was running less than 5 years after Wikipedia was started; that was 17 years ago. That cat's been out of the bag for a LONG time. --Jayron32 18:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no financial stake in the topic company and am not now nor have I even been paid for any editing. This is a smear, and is totally unjustified and without substance. I considered the edits in question as improvements to the article, and my understanding of WP:COI is that it does not require the automatic removal of such edits. I was not edit warring, I was simply going through the usual WP:BRD cycle. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I think the accusations that you are a shill are clearly without merit. There are still two issues that have come up that need addressing. 1) In an edit summary, you stated "IPs cannot make editorial decisions", if I may be so blunt, WTAF did you mean by that? That's a fairly problematic thing to say in the middle of a dispute. 2) Best practices around BRD involve not reverting other than the first revert, and this is true even if the other person reverts you back. The idea is to stop reverting and discuss. If the other person reverts your revert, you still shouldn't revert again. The spirit of BRD is the willingness to discuss an article while knowing that the version you don't like is currently the one everyone gets to see. If other people aren't doing that, let them. You can't get in trouble for letting other people be the worst behaved in an edit war. Reverting multiple times only places your name at the top of that list. --Jayron32 18:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      (after edit conflict) User:Hawkeye7, I'm sure the title of this section is wrong, and I'm quite prepared to believe, along with others above, that this was an improvement to the article, but you were very obviously not going through the WP:BRD cycle. A bold edit was made. It was reverted. The next step in that process is to start a talk page discussion, which you should have done rather than re-revert. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You're quite right, I shouldn't have done that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Can you comment on your edit summary of "rv - IPs cannot make editorial decisions - take it to the talk page"? Canterbury Tail talk 19:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      COI does not require reversion of all content created. That kind of change in policy requires an RfC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Purely as a FYI: At least one of the tools (I can't recall which) won't let you do a "revert" if there have been intermediate edits and it forces you to revert everything newer first. If you want to do an actual revert rather than remove the content via an edit then you aren't given much choice and have to revert everything until you get to the edit you disagree with. Best practice in that situation would be to re-add any unrelated edits you reverted in the interim but I have some sympathy for those leaving that bit out.
      As to why you would want to revert rather than just edit out the content, it makes it clear that you are the one doing the reverting and (hopefully) starting a BRD cycle rather than being on the back foot with the originator reverting you and saying that the onus is on you to to get consensus for your change rather than accepting that it was their edit that was reverted. This has happened to me more than once and it is rather frustrating.
      I hope that helps with context. Gusfriend (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, it doesn't really. It's challenging to follow at parts. Hawkeye7's reply, as well, is confusing, and also unresponsive. They are either confused themselves, or they are being evasive. Happy to assume the former, but lessons ought to be learned from this, which I'm not sure has happened based on their responses here thus far. El_C 13:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Apologies, I should have made it clear that I was trying to give Hawkeye7 an explanation of why the IP user might have reverted the extra versions rather than trying to explain Hawkeye7's response which I admit to being confused by as well. Gusfriend (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well Hawkeye7 is still editing, however at this point they seem disinclined to participate any further in this thread. I’m still concerned over their commentary about IPs. Canterbury Tail talk 01:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The Wiggles topic suffering Canada IP disruption

    Today, more Canada IPs jumped into the long-term disruption at music and TV articles, especially ones about the Wiggles.[36][37] Can we block the range Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:935F:8900:0:0:0:0/64 and the IP Special:Contributions/184.151.190.98? They have been removing valid text and references, for instance at Diamantina Cocktail where they also asserted that an Australian band changed to American.[38][39]

    Yesterday, the IP Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:935F:8900:CCB3:11FC:96F8:3CCF was blocked but the whole /64 should get a lengthy block, or even a larger range to prevent future disruption. Ten days ago the similar range Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:935B:C500:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked for three months. Ohnoitsjamie set a year-long rangeblock on Special:Contributions/67.70.154.0/24 last September. This person has been at it for a long time, using IPs from Canada, mostly from the province of Ontario. Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: Ohnoitsjamie set a two-week rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:935F:8900:0:0:0:0/64. Ad Orientum put a 31-hour block on Special:Contributions/184.151.190.98. Lengthier blocks are needed. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    2603:8080:4700:C964:F518:8DB:DB47:BEDF disrupting sandbox

    The IP editor 2603:8080:4700:C964:F518:8DB:DB47:BEDF is constantly removing the header from the sandbox, which I believe is against the rules. See these diffs: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=1089026964&oldid=1089026730 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=1089026357&oldid=1089026319 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1088951878 67.173.50.123 (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition, it looks like they added the nobots template which prevents the bot that reinserts the sandbox header from editing the sandbox. 67.173.50.123 (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There they go again:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=1089032226&oldid=1089031657
    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=1089032226&oldid=1089031657
    Notice how they keep adding the nobot tag. 67.173.50.123 (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any reason for User:Hazard-Bot to obey {{nobots}} in Wikipedia:Sandbox, I wonder? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Joel binu

    Can someone please stop Joel binu from repeatedly asking the same question on my talk page again and again, after having been reverted and asked not to do so further? [40] ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:Joel_binu#Indefinite_block. El_C 14:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Eyes needed

    This WP:SPA's JaztoSM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) only post is this. The WP:ASPERSION stuff has been ongoing for some time. I do not remember what the SOP is in dealing with them. At the very least they are a sock but I wouldn't know who to file the SPI against. If this report should have been filed somewhere else please feel free to move it. MarnetteD|Talk 16:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This is an obvious LTA and should just be blocked. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's someone from Wikipediocracy (who is probably still an editor or two or three here; I have my suspicions but insufficient evidence for SPI) who is part of a conspiracy theory about Flyer22. Crap like this should just be nuked from orbit.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Squared.Circle.Boxing's conduct

    User:Squared.Circle.Boxing continues to levy personal attacks in edit summaries, the latest being this one [41]. This user has been blocked in the past (the latest being last month). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    When you issue a petty warning template to a regular editor you're in a dispute with (after reverting good faith edits with no explanation, ironically disruptive), and said regular editor makes it clear that petty warning templates aren't appreciated, a second template for reverting back to a version that you yourself wanted it to be at (last stable version without reference removal), is nothing but an attempt to provoke a reaction. Telling you to grow the fuck up was unnecessary and I shouldn't have said it, but uncollaborative actions usually get uncollaborative reactions. – 2.O.Boxing 18:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    C'mon you two, lets keep it within the Queensberry Rules and shake hands. We don't want anyone to be initiated into the Silly Buggers Society. Maybe someone above my paygrade can drop a friendly note on SCB's talkpage about WP:NPA and close this? Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we can get the ref's from Battlebots. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    FaridK12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    FaridK12 is a new editor who's entire editing history revolves around massive copyright violations and they continue to create them. Literally every creation and major edit is a copyright violation, both here and on azwiki. I've asked them to stop editing directly in mainspace in an attempt to clean up some of the mess but they don't appear to be listening. See below:

    It doesn't appear they are capable of listening, so I'm asking either for an outright indef or a full, indefinite block from mainspace (though I'm not sure how this will play out since they create copyvios in draft space too.) PRAXIDICAE💕 19:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've deleted all of their articles. My inclination is to simply indef, as they have posted that they have "paraphrased" the information on the articles when s simple translation will show that (certainly on the one I looked at) they're exactly the same. Thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do, their entire contribution history on all three projects they've edited (azwiki, commons and here) are all 100% copyright violations. I don't see any good in keeping them unblocked. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I just looked at Commons. I don't think there's any point leaving them unblocked. Indeffed. Black Kite (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Praxidicae: I have independently verified that there are major copyright concerns global lock request has been filed at m:Steward_requests/Global#Global_lock_for_FaridK12. Praxicidae has notified the azwiki admin White Demon (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) at azwiki, and 16 out of 27 articles at azwiki have already been deleted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Duplicate article created to fufill POV

    We have Persecution of Yazidis but Aronyu is keen on having Persecution of Yazidis by Muslim Kurds as well. There's just one problem, the second article mostly contains info that already exist in the first articel (sometimes rewritten but check the use of references and the historical dates) but also info that was removed years ago from different Wikipedia articles for being problematic or not NPOV. I have seen a couple of other Yazidi-related POVFORKS recently including Ezdiki language and Kurdification of Yazidis and Persecution of Yazidis by Muslim Kurds seems to be part of this group as well. Disruption on Yazidi topics has been going on since 2019 and it just keep continuing. Recent examples[42][43] I believe Persecution of Yazidis by Muslim Kurds should be a redirect and protected from editing. If the editor is genuine about expanding information, they can do that at Persecution of Yazidis.

    I want to note that this user has been calling me disruptive and a POV-pusher since 2019[44] and they also reported me for vandalism that same year[45] It screams NOTHERE for me. --Semsûrî (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    JosephUSSRStalinCCCP is not here to build an encyclopedia

    JosephUSSRStalinCCCP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a vandal who, aside from having a troublesome username, is inserting Kremlin propaganda into articles and making other disruptive edits. They only have four edits, but each one was vandalism. — Czello 11:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indef by 331dot (talk · contribs). — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 11:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Jstar Ahmed

    Fresh out of their month-long block from WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096#Jstar_Ahmed, User:Jstar Ahmed has immediately resumed adding unsourced and poorly sourced fan language to Uttam Kumar and two film articles.

    • fan language sourced by blog post: [46]
    • same fan language, sourced by another blog post: [47]
    • unsourced fan language, pasted from a copyrighted blog post: [48]
    • unsourced claims of awards: [49]
    • claim of award sourced by bogus reference that makes no such claim: [50]
    • unsourced fan language: [51]
    • unsourced fan language for "Remake" section: [52]
    • unsourced film credits: [53]
    I've indeffed them for the repeated unsourced content. If this the someone on mobile, hopefully they will request an unblock on their talk page to understand what is going on. If not, then they are just ignoring repeated warnings, and the indef is needed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Long-term spammer

    Special:Contributions/Itsabhisheksood

    This individual ought to be blocked as a spam-only account. Here are all of his/her edits:

    1. [54] Replaces a rotten URL with a link to a completely different website
    2. [55] Links a page with a description suggesting that it explains how cardiologists do their job, but it really lists "5 best cardiologists" in a specific city in India
    3. [56] Links a page that's not working anymore, but it's quickly reverted with a spam warning, and the link looks like the previous and the next edits
    4. [57] Links a page with a description suggesting that it explains more about bronchoscopy, but it's really just the cost of bronchoscopy in the same city in India
    5. [58] and [59] Adds nonsense content with a "reference" to https://po4life.com, a blog talking about specific batteries

    The talk page shows that this user previously created a userpage that was speedy deleted.

    Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism says not to report people there if they're likely to disrupt in the immediate future. This account's edits have been spread out over three years (2019, 2021, and 2022), so if the account isn't blocked, the next spammy edits may not happen until several months from now. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The deleted userpage leaves no doubt. Blocked. MER-C 17:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    New editor doing disruptive editing

    A new editor Johnbendenz is disruptively editing multiple pages and placing random redirects on the pages like Man Singh Tomar, Chauhan etc. He is doing it even after final warning. He is also removing PROD tag from the article he created i.e. Bhadana Kingdom despite mentioning not to do so in edit history. Sajaypal007 (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The guy who is Might be Rajput and with the (Id SajayPal007) who is might be a paid Rajput Shudra editor intentionally deleted Sources, references, Linkings,Images ,citation even text from My pages Including Bhadana kingdom, bhadana clan, Hun clan and kassana clan how he can remove sources, links, citation,refrences ,images and gategories and all related stuff even these all pages were proved by Wikipedia guidlines and met all the requirmnets of wikipedia please do Acknokledge why this Guy is associating Chauhan Clan, Tomara and paramaana of controversial pages with rajput? with one single group? these all chauhan paramara tomara were multicultural multi ethnicity surnames why he is doing all this with fully biasness? there are no old references or sources of the origin of chauhan tomara paramara associated with rajput or single group why he is doing all this with fully bias? Chauhan Tomara Paramar all are controversial and multicultural, multi religious and ethnicity clans they belongs to jatt Gurjars as well as with Rajput and Dalits Dear adminstrators please do review on the controversial pages( paramara dynasty, tomarana dynasty and chauhan dynasty) also do review on my proved pages by wikipedia guidelines and were removed by This rajput Guy (sajaypal007) Intetentionaly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbendenz (talk • contribs) 11:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I took a quick look at the edits of Johnbendenz and they look very worrisome. At least disruptive, but vandalism comes also in my mind. The Banner talk 12:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going to block this editor from damaging article space. Johnbendenz, editing Wikipedia is not a game. First of all, articles and comments need to written in correct English. Second, sourcing must follow guidelines in WP:RS. Thirdly, and you may not have known this but you know it now, please see this, Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ad Orientem: Looks like you edit- block(?)-conflicted with Drmies there... (two minutes between entries in the block log). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the heads up. I have restored the original block settings. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ad Orientem: I think you might have made a mistake? Drmies blocked User:Johnbendenz indefinitely from article space but you seem to have blocked them indefinitely sitewide unless I'm misreading the block log. Nil Einne (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can confirm that the block log specifies a sitewide block, not a mainspace block. Perhaps User:Ad Orientem forgot to change the block setting to partial, only setting up an indef. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what the practical difference is between a block from editing anywhere in the mainspace and a sitewide indefinite block. If you aren't comfortable letting someone edit in the mainspace, what's the point? -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ad Orientem To let them come back to ANI and argue their case. To let them make edit requests on talk pages if they are not trusted to edit mainspace pages. To give them more rope. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Syrriana - WP:CRYSTAL

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

    Despite several warnings on the user's talk page, the user continued to add WP:CRYSTAL info, see latest edits in 2022 Indian Rajya Sabha elections history. The user put edit summaries such as "@DaxServer you are aware of the fact that The Aam Aadmi Party has 2/3 majority in the assembly. Due to this the rest two seats are sureshots seats of Aam Aadmi Party." [60] This is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL and doesn't belong in WP until it happened, aka the candidates are elected to be the next MP, unanimously or otherwise. I've asked the user explicitly not to add these info anymore a few hours ago. I believe I've already made three reverts related to this user in this context, so this would also double up as WP:EW — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Point them to Dewey defeats Truman. 80.247.18.115 (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Or is WP:AN3 a better venue? Not quite sure — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's worth noting, CRYSTAL is not a blanket ban on future events: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." If there is reliable sourcing and the event is both highly likely and notable, then it can be included. Given national elections are notable, then as long as reliable sourcing indicates those election results are extremely likely (ie almost certain), they can be included. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For example, are you saying that we should mention that Biden will be the elected president in 2020 even before the actual election happened because sources that support Biden are perhaps more reliable (in WP-sense) than the sources that support Trump, thus there is reliable sourcing (in your words) - just because Given national elections are notable, then as long as reliable sourcing indicates those election results are extremely likely (ie almost certain), they can be included ? The first two sentences from WP:CRYSTAL say Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future. "Wikipedia does not predict the future." Please read that again. One can mention that elections are scheduled/expected to be held on/in __, with only one candidate running in the election to the __ constituency. Not that that particular candidate is the elected official. See the difference between those two? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    CRYSTAL is clear (pardon the pun) about given circumstances for writing about future events. I'm not prescribing any particular form of text, simply noting that if sourcing supports an almost certain future event it can be included. How one chooses to include that material is a matter for editorial consensus. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took a look and (though I'm not sure I totally understand this), I think what Syrriana is basing their edits on is that the elections to the upper house are made by members of the lower house and therefore a party is guaranteed to have a certain number of seats when the election takes place? Regardless, I think DaxServer is right to be chary about this. First, and again this is an assumption, until an election actually takes place I presume that there is a distribution of seats that actually exists and does not necessarily correspond to the proportion of representation in the lower house. Second, if the first is not the case, then any change should be properly contextualized ("e.g., this will be the number of seats based on the parties lower house representation" (exact statement cited)). The future, as Jim Morrison rightly reminded us, is uncertain (and, as he noted, the end is always near). I suggest Syrriana, who has apparently decided not to opine here and also shows a deplorable lack of contributions to talk pages, either explain their position on the talk page and seek consensus or desist from making these changes. If they persist in making these changes, they risk being blocked or sanctioned. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Venkat TL mass page moves

    Since the last topic ban from DYK on 5 May, [61], Venkat TL has been doing mass page moves despite a couple of warnings to stop it. The first warning was mild and another warning was final. However, none of these warnings helped Venkat TL to stop.

    In just 1 month, Venkat TL has made over 16,000 such page moves that are nothing but WP:DE because his page moves have no basis other than a "proposed" convention over which multiple editors have disagreed with Venkat TL.[62]

    The participants of the last ANI thread assumed that this user's disruption won't stop with just a topic ban from DYK.[63] I agree they were correct. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    But still none of this fulfilled the actual requirement you were told about some 11 days ago[66] which you recognized[67] but you are still continuing your page moves without fulfilling the requirement. Srijanx22 (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Black Kite, you are asking to discuss content dispute here. It would be off topic, but since you have asked, here you go. Please look at the quotes below from reliable sources. Please refer to the explanation of WP:NATURAL that I have made on the proposal page (link). These quotes below show how the constituency is commonly referred to in mainstream reliable sources.

    • If a Rajput candidate is fielded in the adjoining Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency, chances are a Brahmin would be fielded here and vice-versa. Mar 17, Geetha Sunil Pillai / TNN /. "Rajsamand seat too complicated for caste equations | Jaipur News - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 23 May 2022.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

    Venkat TL (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Black Kite I may have not pinged correctly in my reply. Venkat TL (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chittorgarh is the name of a geographical entity (a settlement). "Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency" is the name of the entity related to elections. The border of the geographical entity is never the same as the Lok Sabha constituency, though they may have some overlap. The bit "Lok Sabha constituency" is not just an attribute, it is an essential part of the name. When you just say "Place" for example Chittorgarh, it will be understood as the geographical entity (city), Never as constituency unless you mention it clearly. One has to mandatorily state the full name Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency if they are talking about the constituency. The examples from the reliable sources above show this. Wikipedia disambiguation guideline WP:NATURAL says According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary... Natural disambiguation: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title...Comma-separated disambiguation. With place names, if the disambiguating term is a higher-level administrative division, it is often separated using a comma instead of parentheses. The suffix "Lok Sabha constituency" or "Assembly constituency" serve as WP:NATURAL disambiguation from the city name, so they do not need to be inside brackets. The parenthesis also add an overhead of extra work to add the piped links whenever using the constituency name in prose. The piping issue due to disambiguation bracket is huge. there are close to 4120 Indian assembly constituencies and 545 Lok Sabha constituencies. Each of them gets linked on an average 100 times on Wikipedia. That is 5,00,000 unnecessary piped links. This is exponential damage and waste of efforts which can be saved by dropping the unnecessary bracket. I face this issue everyday while working on constituency and biography articles. Venkat TL (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    erm... So you decided to move thousands of pages while multiple editors had asked you to stop it — because you found the current naming system a little out of your comfort zone during article editing, while knowing it (the moves) will mean editing around 500,000 links? Actually, it is your pages moves that are "exponential damage and waste of efforts". This is nothing but WT:DYK incident all over again: proposing changes to policy because you dont like it, not listening to other editors, casting aspersions, battleground behaviour, and now moving thousands of pages even when told to stop. Thats nothing but disruptive behaviour. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's my take too. This is simple disruption and unless I see a genuine reason for editing 500,000 links here apart from WP:ILIKEIT, I don't see any other option here but to prevent Venkat TL from causing any more damage. Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Accusations and threats

    By user Alexispapp right here [1], who has an interesting history of similar statements and personal attacks. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    UnidentifiedX

    A new editor UnidentifiedX has been up to all sorts since registering three days ago: they moved a draft to main space past AfC, sent another to MfD followed by requesting speedy on it, and added themselves as a requested articles participant as well as put the page mover user box on their talk page. They're also going around tagging articles and adding categories, sometimes correctly, sometimes not. And they published a new article Triple Science, which has all sorts of issues, but when another editor tagged some of them, UnidentifiedX reverted that and gave them a user warning. I've tried to get them to calm down a bit, but haven't got any response so far, and now they've blanked their user talk page. I'm not necessarily saying there's any bad intent behind it, it's possibly just over-enthusiasm, but that said they have caused a fair bit of trouble in a short space of time and it would be nice to at least have some more eyes on this user. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    NikolaosFanaris: continuous baseless accusations against me

    Summary: User:NikolaosFanaris has

    1. consistently accused me of being affiliated with a far-right political party.
    2. claimed that I am: "Sugarcoating neo-Nazis".
    3. claimed that I am: "[trying] to mislead"
    4. claimed that I am: "lying"
    5. raised a COI about me in which he lied.
    6. deleted my discussion on his Talk Page[68] regarding the situation.


    Here are some of his statements (emphasis mine):

    • "[..] this is clearly a cherry-picking attempt [..] to sugarcoat Kasidiaris' criminal past and neo-Nazi ties [..]"[69]
    • "[..] you are lying on the discussion page hoping that this could result in changes here to sugarcoat the article [..]"[70]

    He asked if I am involved with the political party and I answered: No[71].

    Later on he says:

    • "To everyone reading this, I believe that AkisAr-26 is closely associated with the party and tries to mislead readers by distorting facts"[72]
    • "[..] it's clear there is a conflict of interest here - what is your role with Greeks for the Fatherland?"[73]
    • "Are you involved with the party Greeks for the Fatherland? Are you working for them under any capacity?"

    [74]

    Then I explain again that I've already answered that.[75]

    Later he says:

    Then he creates a topic claiming I am involved with the party. On top of that he lies in the COI about what was said:

    • "AkisAr-26 appears to be involved with the party Greeks for the Fatherland. This is a clear indication of WP:COI. Although I asked him the same question numerous times, he dodged it and moved on without commenting."[76]
    • "Sugarcoating neo-Nazis on WP must be your main hobby"[77]


    As a result, I believe my reputation as a WP editor has been damaged from untrue or baseless claims, which were made intentionally, multiple times and while knowing that they are untrue or baseless. AkisAr-26 (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    That is a very interesting take on the whole case, especially after all those days of questionable editing by AkisAr-26. For starters, I stand by what I previously said in regards to the possibility of close connection to the subject. AkisAr-26 is quite passionate about Greeks for the Fatherland - a party that has undeniable ties with the neo-Nazi leader of Golden Dawn, Ilias Kasidiaris. It all started on May 15, 2022 when AkisAr-26 suddenly appeared on Wikipedia [1] to defend the neo-Nazis and openly threaten me with legal action. To quote his words (and also use bold that he obviously enjoys a lot): As a personal note, I'd be rather careful with terms that can be considered defamatory, since they carry a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison (plus damages). As some journalists have recently found out, the law cuts both ways. Especially when defaming academics and high-ranking officers. This is his first appearance - the first edit on the article, showing the exact reason he joined Wikipedia. The rather aggressive tone confirmed my suspicion that he might be an inactive user with an old account (possibly banned), paying attention to the developments on the page after Greeks for the Fatherland was protected from anonymous IPs only a few days prior to the legal threat [2]. Of course, AkisAr-26 did not stop there, he asked for evidence about the party being neo-Nazi and orchestrated a carefully-executed plan to dispute the facts by requesting evidence to be brought before him despite the fact that he is very familiar with the neo-Nazi criminal Ilias Kasidiaris and his neo-Nazi past and symbols. He then accused me of defamation [3], disputed a series of facts by bringing up the Greek constitution [4], challenged repeatedly the neo-Nazi past through different and confusing wording [5] and distorted other aspects through edits: he attempted to present an non-existent performance of the party in polls by improving some statistics with unfactual polls [5] but most importantly attempted to distort the leader's neo-Nazi past [6]. To conclude the above-mentioned points, I would not be passionate about the facts and information surrounding this article, but seeing someone so relentlessly and consistently distorting information on Wikipedia related to neo-Nazi activity in Greece raises many concerns about their intentions and links to the organisation. All the above evidence clearly shows that the user is attempting to sugarcoat Greeks for the Fatherland by inserting his heavy POV and attempting to challenge other claims by users, hoping that there won't be disputes and that would safely allow him to remove factual information from the article. In its previous state the article was vague, inconclusive and was missing essential information - I am pretty sure that the activity of many IPs played a role in this as seen in the editing history. My arrival.. complicated things. My suspicions about the close connection have been further-amplified as a result of the user's activity on Greek Wikipedia which is focused exclusively on the convicted neo-Nazi leader and his new political party [7]. I hope I have fully clarified my stance on the issue. No damage was ever inflicted on the user's reputation cause he hasn't got any reputation. He showed up with one aim: to distort facts on Greeks for the Fatherland. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    1. No, that was not a legal threat (I assume you mean against you?). This says exactly exactly what it means: I am careful with my wording against powerful politicians unlike journalists that use defamatory expressions without care. I've been referring to journalists all along. And I still stand by my claim that such content is defamatory to the academics, former generals, judges, lawyers, police officers and all other current members of the party that have never displayed neo-nazi sympathy. Neither has the party (to my knowledge). But I never claimed that you are the one committing defamation. It would make no sense to suggest that you are defaming them since those are not your claims, but the sources' claims. Additionally even if it were your claims, no one would bother with a random wiki editor, when there are hundreds of public high profile individuals making those claims in public. It makes zero sense to use it subtly as a legal threat. Could I phrase it differently? Perhaps. It didn't even occur to me that you might perceive it that way. All you had to is confront me about it and I would clarify it immediately.
    2. No, I didn't accuse you of defamation; that's a lie. The link[78] you posted has nothing to do with defamation. Did you post the wrong link? I don't even mention defamation. I used the word 'defamation' or similar in the Talk Page[79] but nowhere was it pointed at you (simply use Control F to check them).
    3. No, I didn't dispute Kasidiaris' past in Golden Dawn; that's a lie. On the contrary, I said: "I didn't dispute Kasidiaris' past in Golden Dawn"[80] To make it more clear, I believe that his hand symbol isn't a meander as he claims. But that is irrelevant; my focus is on the accuracy of claims against GreeksFTF.
    4. No, I didn't mention the Greek constitution; that's a lie. Did you post the wrong link[81], I don't even mention the word "constitution". (I don't remember ever mentioning the constitution at all.)
    5. Yes, I do challenge the 'neo-nazi' allegations against the party since it's not supported by the linked sources that I read. They contained assumptions, not evidence. When we paraphrase the content, we should do so accurately. That is, state that some journalists and academics believe that the party is neonazi, instead of stating that the party is neonazi which obviously implies there is evidence and not suspicion. Therefore, I asked several times that you quote the evidence but you failed to do so, since - I believe - they don't exist. To further clarify, I do believe the journalists claims should stay in the article, but they should be phrased correctly.
    6. No, my edits are not focused exclusively on the party as you claim; that's a lie[82]. Most of my edits are on the party, due to the prolonged disagreements you and I had along with the gross inaccuracies in the article.
    7. No, I didn't use "unfactual polls" as you claim; that's a lie[83]. I simply removed the old poll (2020) and kept the others (2022). No, I didn't distort the facts about the polls; I simply updated the % from the non-obsolete polls. As the edit comment says: "Removed obsolete polls (they were 2 years old)."
    8. No, I have nothing to do with this[84].
    9. No, I did not "[attempt] to distort the leader's neo-Nazi past" as you claim; that is a lie[85]. The edit-comment to which I assume you are referring, clearly states that Golden Dawn is not a criminal organization. It does not state that there was not a criminal organization by many (most?) Golden Dawn members. It clearly states that the official wiki of Golden Dawn[86], describes it as a party, not as a criminal organization unlike how you want it described in other wikis. It clearly states that if Golden Dawn was indeed a criminal organization, recruitment/participation/helping them would be illegal. Yet it isn't. Facts disprove the absurd claims by journalists, probably caused by political animosity and ignorance of Greek Law. Journalists are not perfect. If a nobel prize winner claims AIDS isn't real, that doesn't mean we should include it in WP as fact. AkisAr-26 (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As seen above, user AkisAr-26 has used 5,000 characters to accuse me of being a liar without bringing up any single piece of evidence to explain his thoughts. It's just more words. Instead, he links to the same diffs just to call me a liar and justify the sugarcoating of a neo-Nazi criminal on Wikipedia. I stand by what I previously said: there is a connection between the user and Greeks for the Fatherland. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean? I explained in detail the false information you presented as true. Take point 7 for example. You stated that:

    "he attempted to present an non-existent performance of the party in polls by improving some statistics with unfactual polls"

    Here's my edit[87].
    Where are the unfactual polls? I see none. I did not add any polls. Do you disagree? Also, where's the "non-existent performance"? Doesn't it exist since just now I literally copied and pasted it from the sources? Do you disagree?AkisAr-26 (talk) 10:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Has been adding photos by GettyImages onto some footballer's articles. He also does not want to listen to us despite I had left a note one hour ago (he then re-added a copyrighted photo onto Rafael Leão) This must stop! Can he also be global-locked? He also causes problems at Commons. Dr Salvus 21:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    SlidingD appears to be editing while logged out as well. I've dropped them a notice. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, if you think its a copyright violation, ok then suit yourself delete the image, but being blocked or globally blocked its not necessary. SlidingD (talk) 08:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, if you think its a copyright violation, ok then suit yourself delete the image, but being blocked or globally blocked its not necessary. SlidingD (talk) 08:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @SlidingD I'm not an admin anywhere, so I can't delete the images you irresponsibly add. You had already been warned but you then added the picture to Leão's page, like if you'd never been aware of this. Dr Salvus 09:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He seems to also be editing under an IP address, with which he's been edit-warring at Dušan Vlahović. (As another editor pointed me out) Dr Salvus 09:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have warned them for edit warring. GiantSnowman 18:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Bad faith from

    In this edit, BrickMaster02 (talk · contribs) falsely accused me of vandalism for WP:BOLDly redirecting an article. This is extremely bad-faith editing, and it seems this isn't the only time they've been accused of that. An attempt to ask them why they accused me of vandalism was immediately removed from their talk page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    He claimed that the article was "sourced entirely to social media"...even though there are various citations from reliable news outlets listed in the article. As well as information sourced from The Futon Critic, Paramount+'s loglines, and the actual show itself. BrickMaster02 (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Tread carefully. I have declined your report at WP:AIV which might reasonably be construed as bad faith. You need to familiarize yourself with what is, and is not, vandalism. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirection is not vandalism. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @BrickMaster02: Also, even if it were vandalism, why did you go straight to {{uw-vandalism4im}}? That template is reserved for the most serious of vandalism cases, which the redirection was most certainly not. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And reporting a veteran editor to AIV over something like this is clearly bad faith on your part. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see bad actions by User:TenPoundHammer, too. This is very inaccurate because the article was not entirely sourced to social media. Another example of a bad deletion (nomination) is CNN Special Investigations Unit when one look at the "scholar" link shows that there is at least one reliable source and the article should not be deleted via PROD. Both articles are related to television. I see a lot of prods related to television in their contributions. Maybe too much?Lurking shadow (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, I remember seeing this previously, this might be relevant here as well...: WT:TV#Mass deprod of 146 articles.
    I'm not trying to defend BrickMaster's bad faith (it's quite obvious this was a WP:BOLD redirection rather than any sort of 'vandalism'...), but I also agree in the fact that, "sourced entirely to social media" is inaccurate. A.) Why would you not look for better sources first then?... B.) I'm certain there are plenty of other sources that could be used if needed. C.) Although I personally don't agree with it, the recently-opened merger discussion is a far better first step.
    TL;DR- BrickMaster's accusation of 'vandalism' of any kind is inappropriate here, but not quite sure that a bold redirection was appropriate here either. Magitroopa (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to the above I mentioned, I also just came across this on TPH's talk page. So yes, I would say this is more than just an issue regarding BrickMaster's bad faith. Magitroopa (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point. Now if you had said that earlier, rather than reverting with a blank edit summary and dropping a generic vandalism template, we wouldn't be here. This is a collaborative project and communication is required. Colin M (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two problems. One is a lack of WP:AGF in interactions by BrickMaster02. BrickMaster, do you understand the problem? If yes, how will you avoid it in the future? TenPoundHammer, do you understand the problem with your actions? How you could cause promising articles to go away by backdoor processes like redirecting and prodding? And can you give us a reason for why you used these inaccurate reasons? And how do you want to avoid this in the future? Lurking shadow (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Nyaytyhyaynyiyeylyluytyeysy repeatedly creating unsourced stub articles

    Nyaytyhyaynyiyeylyluytyeysy (talk · contribs · count) has created multiple unsourced stub articles, many of them of questionable notability (see their page creation log). Most pertain to people and families from New Brunswick. Some of these have included topics about living people (e.g. Draft:The Lutes-Rideout family of New Brunswick and Will Gao) The user has received a few warnings and numerous notifications of articles that have either been tagged for deletion or draftified, all of them stating that content must be sourced. This user generally has not responded to talk page comments. By all appearances, this person is acting in good faith, but this behavior appears to be more of a WP:CIR issue. A new pattern seems to have developed today. The user creates an article, it gets draftified, and then they recreate the page minutes later with a few sources. (see Draft:Else Wirich, Draft:Else Wyrich, Draft:Friele Gensfleisch zur Laden, and Friele Gensfleisch zur Laden). While these citations are an improvement, the editing pattern is still disruptive. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    One update, the new page at MacAskill house was created with sources, but the notability is still questionable and it could stand to be merged. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The aforementioned user just created Mary Jean Irving with no sources at all. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've issued an absolute final warning. Any more editing that violates WP:BLP and an indef is forthcoming. Mjroots (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Mohammad asfaq

    Mohammad asfaq (talk · contribs) is edit warring across several related articles about medieval Indian history, adding non-neutral and poorly written text, unsourced or with non-RS sources. The two articles they are primarily interested in are Paramardi and Alha. Mohammad asfaq's disruption involves

    • revert warring to their preferred version: [88], [89], [90] (examples, not an exhaustive list)
    • creating POV forks of articles with their preferred text: [91] (replacing a redirect with their own content) after which they were warned, but ignored that and created another one [92]; also [93] where they copypasted one section of Paramardi and then added their own take on it [94]
    • changing sourced content into its opposite [95]

    There is a previous ANI report from a few weeks ago, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1098#Disruptive editing, which led to a 72-hour block. During the block they posted on their user talk page [96] so they clearly know it's there, but they have not responded to any of the cautions and warnings posted after their first block expired, nor have they posted to any article talk pages since April. After the block expired, they continued to make the same edits to the same articles, despite multiple warnings on their user talk page.

    Yesterday, Mohammad asfaq was pblocked by @Deepfriedokra: from editing Paramardi for a week, and posted this to their user talk page, probably in response to the block (though it's in a different section). It's the same phrases they have used in their edit summaries, so no sign of understanding what the problem is. Last night, I posted this non-templated warning about edit warring and using article talk pages, but this morning, Mohammad asfaq reverted back to their preferred version of Alha.

    It's a bit hard to understand their English, and I think this is partly a language barrier problem. I don't think partial blocks from individual articles will help because they have been creating content forks, but maybe a pblock from article space would make them understand that they need to stop what they are doing. This is an area where there is quite a lot of dispute over caste/ethnicity and similar issues, and I'm a bit jaded when it comes to trying to communicate with people who have very strong personal feelings about the Truth, so I wouldn't mind them being fully blocked. --bonadea contributions talk 09:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree with Bonadea, this user's disruptive editing spans multiple pages, and he needs to be blocked from wikipedia atleast for some period of time because no amount of warning had any impact on him. He if I understand correctly wants to project history from an unreliable later era text PoV. He is mostly copying content from that translated text to which historians do not agree. He has been advised multiple times but he seems adamant and trying to create multiple other articles with same or similar nature to avoid content dispute. In my opinion he also tried socking because one more editor Akshay Singh Rajput Thakur tried similar editing in past and also created a page called Chahamana Chandela war by content forking and changing the language of the content, same as this editor. Sajaypal007 (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked them indefinitely from article space, let's see if they'll discuss now (though I'm not hopeful, frankly). Black Kite (talk) 10:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 10:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Shashank1947 - WP:NOINDICSCRIPTS

    Shashank1947 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097#User:Shashank1947 - No communication

    This time, there is disruption in the form of continuous additions of Indic scripts in infoboxes against WP:NOINDICSCRIPTS. Reverts, warnings, user talk notices won't work, because the user seems to have no intention to engage, as evident in the last ANI report. What could be done in this instance? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding Economy of India

    Article talk page should be used for discussing article content and solving disputes. Article has been protected at the WP:WRONGVERSION so as to stop the slow-moving editwar. Otherwise, this is a run-of-the-mill content dispute, and does not require admin intervention. --Jayron32 15:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi Admin, In Economy of India the lead is being is changed multiple times where User:Sneha04 states lead should be have "mixed market economy" whereas majority of academic sources states India has transitioned from mixed economy to market economy. Moreover when she engaged in debate in Talk Page without reaching consensus she adamantly changing the lead. She can't provide academic sources where it states India has "mixed market economic" model. But keeps changing without reaching any consensus on the talk page whatsoever. Admin @Deepfriedokra: and @Jayron32: Please look into this issue. Thanks--Mariam57 (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like you're both slow-motion edit warring, so I'm protecting the article for a week at whatever WRONG version I find it at. Maybe that way you two will use the talkpage. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, I was supposed to be informed on my talkpage with subst:ANI-notice template but was not.
    Secondly, you are not informed that talk page consensus here was started by me following WP:BRD which in course turned into a edit war with misleading edit summaries. After getting contradicted by sources effectively, User:Mariam57, maybe not familiar with instructions, decided to take it to ANI. However, ANI is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems and not a place for seeking dispute resolution, as per my comprehension about Guidelines.
    Well, I wish I could get a space to explain about it if I was informed on talk page. Decision was too quick in a way but it can obviously provide a temporary solution. Sneha04 💬 15:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Personal attacks

    Here once again [1] by CarpathianAlien, who has engaged in edit-warring and been warned yesterday [2]. To quote their words: Dude are you blind? The website itself calls itself Communist. Jesus Christ why are you allowed to edit pages on Wikipedia when you support mis- & disinformation. You need to be banned from Wikipedia ASAP. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Showcasing the original attack by @NikolaosFanaris which preceded mine, implying that my perception of reality bars me from being capable of editing Wikipedia [97]: you should have a quick reality check before editing on WP again. This follows his constant & multiple revisions of my edits, in favor of using partisan sources, as well as accusations of vandalism. CarpathianAlien (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You referred to a top Greek academic theorist as a communist, claiming that I am wrong about the far-right label [2]. You were previously warned about your edit-warring [2], whilst your edits are disruptive as they based on personal claims and assumptions, accusing us of propaganda [3]. I encourage you to rethink your approach here, pal. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are once again twisting my words — I never specifically referred to the academic as a Communist, but the very website you are using as a source, which any Greek speaker can see, as the website header identifies the website as Communist.
    Also, worth noting that in an earlier version of the article, the characterization of the party as "far-right" in the body of the article, was completely unsourced. Still, @NikolaosFanaris proceeded to revert my edits that removed this unsourced characterization. Not just that, but earlier versions only used dated and partisan sources to attribute this characterization. As of the time of this post, @NikolaosFanaris continues to treat a self-described Communist website a as valid source, something that is beyond comprehension and should instantly prove that his edits are strongly partisan.
    We, as Wikipedia editors, need to do better and prevent the mis- & disinformation practices adopted by partisan vandalists like @NikolaosFanaris. CarpathianAlien (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, goodbye. Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Violation of WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:TENDENTIOUS by Mcvti

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

    This user seems to be on a mission to Mandaean-ify several historical figures by using mainly non-WP:RS sources which completely disregards WP:UNDUE. He has recently done it in Jabir ibn Hayyan [98], where he uses a non-WP:RS source from a political weekly magazine, and a source which makes a passing mention of this figure being 'Mandean/Sabian', which per the discussion here (Talk:Jabir ibn Hayyan#Jabir as a Mandaean: questionable sources) completely goes against WP:UNDUE. Both me and User:Apaugasma have reverted his additions there, yet this user keeps attempting to restore it [99], completely disregarding the previous discussion, even when it comes to the reliability of one of the sources. He uses 'no consensus' as an argument [100], even though it was he who made the addition. At Sabians and Mandaeans, he even attempted to push this alleged Mandean descent of Jabir as a fact, also resorting to edit warring [101] [102]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    One minute after this report was filed, the user proceeded to violate WP:3RR at Jabir ibn Hayyan (the diffs are fairly obvious). Edit warring + policy violation. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted it to its original edit before [User:HistoryofIran] continued to edit war on at least 3 different articles, wanting to change articles without consensus as shown here [103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111]
    User:HistoryofIran continuously reverts edits even though I provided reliable sources. It reached the point they added incomplete sentences to the Mandaeans article and they did not correct it. They insist on pushing their agenda and refusing to accept that Jabir ibn Hayyan may have been a Sabian from Harran even though I provided at least 3 reliable sources that are Islamic.[112][113][114] User:Apaugasma went on to completely overhaul the Sabians article without seeking consensus repeatedly mentioning only one scholar Van Bladel and dismissing all other sources which does not show a NPOV. They also went and changed Al-Battani article again without seeking consensus. I have tried to explain that Mandaeans are the same as the Sabians and lived in Harran, thus they were called Harranian Sabians. They are also known as Nasoaraeans and Gnostics and this is all available on the Mandaeans and Mandaeism article backed by reliable sources which they fail to acknowledge repeating only Van Bladel as their source. User:Apaugasma even mentioned that Mandaeism is a late ancient religion. I informed them that Mandaeism is still alive to no avail. User:HistoryofIran violated WP:3RR in the Mandaeans article disrupting it. Mcvti (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a bit of a WP:1AM situation. Mcvti holds some views about Sabians and Mandaeans which are in direct contradiction with reliable sources. Unsurprisingly, other editors take the side of the sources. In such a situation, it's highly tempting to resort to edit warring rather than to further the discussion [115] [116]. Mcvti is not experienced enough to know this, but this of course only make things worse, and turns more editors against them. Hence we end up here. Mcvti, when multiple users revert your edits or object to them in any way, that's a clear sign you should stop editing the article and seek consensus for your edits on the talk page. Please also read the sources, and directly base your arguments on what they are saying. If you can't get consensus, drop the stick.
    That said, I have to agree with HistoryofIran that beyond the 1AM and the edit warring, this is also a case of tendentious editing. Mcvti's views are not just in contradiction with reliable sources, they tend in a very definite direction. The Mandaeans were the real Sabians of Harran. [117] Great Harranian mathematicians such as Thabit ibn Qurra and al-Battani were Mandaeans, naturally. [118] [119] Thabit did not speak Syriac, he spoke Mandaic. [120] Now since Thabit was really a Mandaean, like the Mandaeans he must have been Mesopotamian, not Syrian (Harran being located in northern Syria is just a bad accident, ignore that). [121] And since Sabians are really Mandaeans, they are of course not Hellenized! [122] Bad Greeks! Is that enough? No wait, let's not forget the great chemist Jabir ibn Hayyan: since he was great, obviously he was also Mandaean. [123] If you believe what Kevin van Bladel says, you don't have NPOV. No really, Van Bladel himself has been refuted. [124]
    It's a kind of WP:PROFRINGE really. It's exhausting. Mustering up all the good faith I can, I'd say they are taking Wikipedia and other internet stuff as reliable sources and neglecting to properly consult the relevant academic literature. I strongly recommend that if any more problems turn up with regard to Mcvti and Mandaeans, a topic ban should be put in place. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I will copy directly from Prof Brikha Nasoraia's article [125]: "For example Ibrahim, (Abu Ishaq al-sabi) (309 A.H.) and his relative Thabit Ibn Qurrah (365 A.H. or 369 A.H.), and their families, were both prominent Sabian Mandaean scholars in Baghdad. We know they were Mandaean based on an observation of their genealogy and also the nature of their works."

    I have also copied from Lady Drower's book The Secret Adam [126]: "That such brilliant scholars as the Sabian Thabit-ibn-Qurrah and his school, who were responsible for many translations into Arabic from the Greek, were acquainted with Stoic, Hermetic, and Platonic literature is of course probable; nevertheless they may have been no pseudo-Sabians but genuine members of that sect, Nasoraeans, who practised baptism and were faithful to the religion into which they had been born." ...."Let us consider the names of some Harranian Sabians who became famous under the Abbasids as scholars, physicians, and so on. We find the name Abu’l-Fath-al-Mandái (i.e. ‘the Mandaean’), and Ibrahim-ibn-Zahrun-ibn-Habbun-al-Harrani, whose son was another Zahrun, and Hilal-ibn-Ibrahim-ibn-Zahrun-abu’l-Husain-al-Sabi-al-Harrini. To this very day ‘Zahrun’ is the name most favoured by Mandaeans."

    This is not my original research. Thabit ibn Qurra's full name is Al-Sabi Thabit ibn Qurra Al-Harrani meaning he is a Harranian Sabian and yet also a Mandaean or to be as accurate as possible 'may' be a Mandaean. Drower is the most prominent scholar on the Mandaeans, how is this fringe?? Clearly Drower is considering scholars with names including al-Harrani al-Sabi meaning Harranian Sabians as Mandaean. Sinasi Gunduz did a thorough study on the Sabians and concluded that the Mandaeans and the Sabians are one in the same[127]. How is this fringe?? Askari in his article in the Executive Intelligence Review [128] stated that Thabit ibn Qurra, Al-Battani and Jabir ibn Hayyan were Mandaean or Sabian Mandaean, but the source was rejected along with Brikha Nasoraia's article. I also provided Polyhedra by Peter R. Cromwell and Greatest Scienctists of the World by Vikas Khatri both mention Thabit ibn Qurra as a Mandaean again dismissed by User:Apaugasma. They appear to favour Van Bladel only. I have tried to explain that the Mandaeans are also known as Sabians, Nasoraeans and Gnostics and this is found in this source [129] on page ix but I am continuously ignored. User:Apaugasma wrote on the Talk page on Sabians "When in my edit summary here I wrote that Drower 1960, p. 111 is merely speculating that some Harranian Sabians may have been Nasoraeans (not Mandaeans!), the last bit "(not Mandaeans!)" is wrong and an artefact of my ignorance on this subject." They admit that the subject matter is not their area of expertise and previously called Mandaeism the late ancient religion thinking it no longer exists and accuses me of promoting fringe theories and contradicting reliable sources and Tendentious editing. Frankly I believe I am being falsely accused and a case of tendentious editing on their behalf due to the topic not being their area of expertise. Van Bladel here believes Mandaeans originated no earlier than the 5th Century in Sasanid Mesopotamia. This goes against what renowned scholars such as JJ Buckley [130] who believe that Mandaeans originated 2000 years ago in the Palestine region. Buckley also states on page 4 of her book [131] that Mandaean lead amulets have been dated to as early as the 3rd Century. Scholars specializing in Mandaeism such as Kurt Rudolph, Mark Lidzbarski, Rudolf Macúch, Ethel S. Drower, Eric Segelberg, James F. McGrath, Charles G. Häberl, Jorunn Jacobsen Buckley, and Şinasi Gündüz all argue for a Palestinian origin. Van Bladel is in the minority when it comes to Mandaean origin and dating however User:Apaugasma dismisses all these prominent scholars and chooses to follow only Van Bladel accusing me of not having a NPOV. Van Bladel has been reviewed here on his latest book regarding the Sabians (Mandaeans). I would like to recommend that [User:Apaugasma] and [User:HistoryofIran] have a topic ban put in place on the subject of Sabians and Mandaeans since [User:HistoryofIran] continuously reverted the article and disrupted it and [User:Apaugasma] admitting they are ignorant on the subject but feels the need to ask for a topic ban to be placed on me.Mcvti (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring by TolWol56 on Claire Danes; WP:BLP issues

    TolWol56 is currently engaged in an edit war on Claire Danes to maintain a poorly sourced, factually incorrect paragraph they wrote. There was an earlier RFC which questioned whether or not mentioning the event was WP:UNDUE, which ultimately resulted in a decision to keep the paragraph, and to remove the word "racist". The editor continues to insist that no edits can be made because of the outcome of that discussion, and has been extremely disrespectful toward me instead of discussing and acknowledging the issues with what is on Danes's page. I opened a notice on WP:BLPN, but considering this user's behavior, I would appreciate some help.

    After the first two reversions by TolWol56, I attempted a rewrite which took all of their comments into consideration, but that was also reverted. What is currently on Danes's article does not pass a fact-check with high quality, reliable sources (of which there are dozens), and the editor does not seem interested in ensuring what is on Danes's page is accurate, neutral, and encyclopedic.

    SquareInARoundHole (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    SquareInRoundHole is edit warring against the RfC-supported version.[132]
    On BLPN he has been already admonished for his language issues, misrepresentation, false allegations of BLP violation and claim that only "white" people engage in "whitewashing".
    He believes that other editors "does not seem interested" just because they are not entertaining his POV. TolWol56 (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @TolWol56: A single revert due to BLP issues and a single rewrite addressing your POV is not what an edit war is. No one has "admonished" me. You have been flaming me via my talk page, via edit summaries, and in your responses. Not once have you engaged with my issues with the description of the events and your citations in an earnest way. It is a BLP violation because what is currently written is poorly sourced and inaccurate. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like TolWol56 has been reverting to maintain substantially the same wording of this paragraph for months; several different editors have attempted to maintain the information and write it in a manner that is of a better tone and more closely matches source material. I can find reversions of this nature going back to February of 2020, including some where they call long-time Wikipedia editors "trolls" for editing this paragraph. This kind of WP:OWN behavior is a major problem, and needs to stop immediately. I have half a mind to page block them from this page given the way they deal with it. --Jayron32 17:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for your assistance! SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It also looks like TolWol56 has been using a number of different sockpuppet accounts to edit war this information for even longer than that. See User:TolWol55, and before that to a number of unregistered IP addresses. They have been warring this into the article for years. Here is an IP from 2017, User:Dkraftyoneisright is likely another sock account from 2016, Here is an IP from 2014. Based on the text of the additions, and the manner in which they interact with others, it's clear these are all the same person. Even ignoring the IPs, we have at least three accounts that have been used by this person to edit-war over many years. --Jayron32 18:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Wow. Opened pandora's box here. Is this enough to get Danes's page protected and fixed up? SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd like a second opinion from other admins. But if there if others are reading this situation the same way I am (and I am not familiar with this at all before about an hour ago, when I started investigating your claim), then I can imagine some combination of blocks and/or protection are coming. --Jayron32 18:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jayron32: I wholly reject your misleading and hasty analysis.
    I was a new editor that time when I did those comments in 2020. Bringing up my tone (which I modified) regarding my initial comments from more than 2 years ago has no relevance here. You should not ignore that the RfC clearly supported my version.[133]
    Before throwing baseless allegations of sock puppetry, you can take a look at my contribution history and you will know better. It is way broader than what you are thinking and you would understand how baseless it is to compare a policy abiding editor like me with SPAs you have cited.
    The content in question has existed since 2010,[134] however that would make no sense in saying that I am socking since 2010. Not to mention that I have been 100% honest about which accounts I have used per my own userpage.[135]
    You need to better talk about the issues with this editor and take a look at BLP where he is exhibiting his incompetence to push his WP:BLOATED version without gaining consensus.
    To claim that I am not allowed to maintain WP:STATUSQUO to enforce RfC result against POV pushing does not make any sense. TolWol56 (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop insulting me. Also, the previous paragraph you referenced is more accurate, better sourced, and more neutral than the one you have written. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Obviously COI user needs to be dealt with

    Somebody please take a look at the new user Mtvlaw, who has started editing the article Michael van der Veen. Mtvlaw is the website of Mr. van der Veen’s law office, so it seems likely that this user works in the subject’s office. The user has been posting nothing but puffery, including things like this and this which are cited to the Mtvlaw website. Many of their earliest edits were revdel’ed for copyright violations. I don’t have time right now to deal with this, but I hope someone will. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Massive anti-semitic vandalism: 2a00:1370:81a6::/48 range

    Tons of anonymous anti-semitic hate speech both in Russian and English.
    Please impose a full range block for a long term (3-6 months or even 1 year), but please don't block account creation. I've been watching this problem, the vandal is always anonymous, he never creates any accounts (the same behavior in Russian Wikipedia, Russian Wikiquote, etc.). This vandal has been active for many years, previously in these ranges:

    Thanks in advance. — 213.87.159.233 (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 6 months. El_C 21:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass deletion of Tuvalu footballers (violation of WP:BEFORE)

    Moving a discussion from the village pump here. User:Sportsfan 1234 has nominated every Tuvaluan footballer except three (50+ in total, two of the remaining are also runners) for deletion in quick succession. Based on the speed of the nominations, it seems very clear WP:BEFORE was not done, and this is a bad faith attempt to remove good content on tenuous technical grounds (I'm speaking of Mau Penisula, Alopua Petoa, and Vaisua Liva especially). It also seems the same handful people are voting Delete on every AfD discussion in rapid succession, which cannot possibly be in good faith (and raises concerns of sockpuppetry). This is especially dangerous because we are setting a precedent of essentially wiping out a whole nation's sporting history just because they are small and underdeveloped and so don't have much internet presence. 172.58.176.152 (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1089650313"