Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Improper vanishing and restoration of a deleted article

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

---

Last year, I had a protracted debate at an AfD with Errico Boukoura. TLDR: the nominated article, which was written by him, used unencyclopedic language and the author bypassed proper AfC, after several failed AfC submissions, by removing the controversial parts and adding them back after passing AfC. At the AfD, everybody, except the author, agreed with deletion. After the deletion, the author vanished.

Today, I noticed the article (with a slightly differently spelled name) exists again. The unencyclopedic language is similar, if I remember well, to the original article. It was created just a few days after the closure of the AfD by IlEssere in their very first edit. Some historical revisions even use phrasing I remember from the original article:

• The transformation of the building into an artists hub elevated its status in the Athenian subculture art scene.
• The building came to symbolize the vibrant artistic community of the city, hosting a variety of exhibitions, performances, and initiative projects
• Today, the building of Keramikou 28 stands as a symbol of the Athenian art scene through the numerous exhibitions, performances, and projects hosted within its walls

Also note that the current article passed AfC, albeit in a much shorter version than the current text.

Pinging editors who participated in the AfD: @Explicit, Star Mississippi, S Marshall, XOR'easter, HandThatFeeds, and Daniel. Also pinging @ToadetteEdit, who approved the current article at AfC.

– Janhrach (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

 Note: I forgot to note, to avoid confusion, that the current article is not a verbatim restoration of the deleted one. Janhrach (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I just got pinged; I didn't remember reviewing the draft and didn't noticed the AfD, but to be clear, doesn't the article meet G4 of speedy deletion? ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

When I thought that G4 applies, eligible page should be identical, and the substantial addition since the acceptance makes it ineligible, if I interpret policy properly. Other than that an AfD may be appropriate as I fail to verify any qualifying sources in the article that makes the building notable. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure if you’re referring to the original page or the one I created. Regarding the page I created, the articles in Greek are the ones that mention the points you're addressing. IlEssere (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I am referring to your (recreated) article. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

All information added to the page is referenced, though most sources are in Greek, as this building is in Athens and has primarily gained attention locally.

You can share which specific parts you are referring so I can help with the transition of the reference. IlEssere (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Translation IlEssere (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, I meant this edit, which happened after the AfD. You reviewed the recreated article, not the original one (that which was deleted). Janhrach (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Saw the diff, just realized that G4 would have applied, given that it was not caught by the helper script nor PageCuration to the least (given that Atlantic306 had given the article a pass) I am not sure whether G4 applies now or not with the current expanded version. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia and still learning some of the terms, so I'm not familiar with what AfD means. I actually started using Wikipedia because of Keramikou 28. I came across an article related to it that had incorrect information and was poorly written, but I unfortunately lost track of it before I could figure out what happened to it.

After some research, I created a new page myself to provide accurate information on the topic. IlEssere (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

AfD=Articles for deletion ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! It seems others have also noted that the original page may not have been properly written besides me.

As for the page o created, I'd really appreciate any guidance on ensuring the page I created meets Wikipedia's standards. If you have suggestions or would like to make any corrections or add relevant information, please feel free to do so. IlEssere (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Please see this. Janhrach (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

What about this? IlEssere (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

If you lost track of what happened to the article that had incorrect information, then why its historical revisions of your article contain text fragments from the old, deleted article? Janhrach (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, Keramikou 28 is what motivated me to start using Wikipedia. I initially copied the entire page to work on corrections offline, intending to upload them later. However, when I went to add the updates, I found that the page was no longer there, losing track of what happened.

Please feel free to make any corrections you find necessary on the page I created. If you have any questions about the Greek references, I’d be happy to help with translations for verification. IlEssere (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The notice about the AfD discussion was on the top of the article for two weeks. Janhrach (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I don’t remember if I saw the AfD notice or not, as this was about a year ago. A friend told me that the had gone through some conversations about the relation of the page, but didn’t know what happened. I’m still quite new to Wikipedia and learning how everything works, so there’s a lot I’m still figuring out. IlEssere (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

So you say that the author of the deleted article is a friend of yours? Janhrach (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

No, I said a friend that had gone through some conversations. IlEssere (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

What conversations? Do you mean they participated in the AfD? Janhrach (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

So this is substantially a recreation of the deleted article, and should be G4'ed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that while past revisions would certainly qualify for G4, the current one contains a lot of content not present is the deleted article, so it is not eligible. Janhrach (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

No, this is not a copy-paste of the previous page. I used the structure of the original as a framework, but I worked on it and made changes to create new content." IlEssere (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Long story short: Last year, @Errico Boukoura: created a draft for the topic, It was submitted 5 times and it was declined by 3 distinct reviewers including a rejection by @Greenman:. Apparently the decline was due to the article's tone. It was then reviewed by an experienced reviewer and accepted it, vbut later it was sent to AfD and deleted on grounds of wp:tnt. A few days later, another created the draft and was accepted five months later. Based on this, the article is plausibly notable, so the issue should be around the prose and/or the editor. ToadetteEdit (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. Could you provide some guidance on how I can improve the prose? IlEssere (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but it is important to note that reviewed version of the original article was significanly abridged, and the removed content was re-added after review. Janhrach (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand, and I’ve made changes to this. I’ve significantly abridged the content and removed unnecessary details to make the article more concise and focused. IlEssere (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

My comment was about the original article created by Errico Boukoura. Janhrach (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I admire your honesty, but it is impossible to verfy without the ability to view deleted revisions. ToadetteEdit (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? IlEssere (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages. ToadetteEdit (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were an admin, so you could verify my claims. Janhrach (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• In my opinion (thanks for the ping), this is not a G4, but nor does it address the issues which go far beyond prose. I have opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keramikou 28 where the content is best discussed. If IlEssere's conduct needs assessing, this should remain open. If this is deleted, a note should be relayed to AfC reviewers to keep an eye out for spelling variations and that it's best left for experienced reviewers. Star Mississippi 16:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Could you share the present issues t on the current Keramikou 28 page that go beyond prose? Understanding these factors would be helpful in addressing the article's suitability. Additionally, are there specific elements (like sourcing or content focus) that you find problematic in its current version? IlEssere (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  IlEssere, article improvement is not a subject that is dealt with at ANI. I recommend asking any editors who reviewed the article for Articles for Creation if you went through that process or asking at the Teahouse. I also recommend participating in the AFD linked here so you can hear the critique of the article by editors, that might provide guidance on how to improve it. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  I am currently participating in the AFD discussion, but I've been advised to come back here to understand what the specific problems with the page are. I'm feeling a bit confused because the opinions on here seem to overlap, and I'm not sure what the main concerns are. Could someone help me understand the key issues that need to be addressed for this article? IlEssere (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  IlEssere, I'm not sure why anyone would tell you to return to ANI. This noticeboard deals with editor conduct, not content issues. This is not the forum to come to for advice on improving this article and your time is best spent elsewhere. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi IlEssere (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Liz I did send @IlEssere back here and the prior AfD to read all of the arguments already made about why the article should not have been re-created. IlEssere it's fine if you disagree, but you really do need to listen to the other editors' input especially in the prior discussion. Liz's suggestion about the AfC declines will also help. Star Mississippi 04:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your input. I just want to clarify that I'm not disagreeing. I'm genuinely trying to figure out the best approach for the article and understand how to move forward. IlEssere (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - This is a situation where the spelling of the title of an article has been changed when it is recreated after a deletion. This is an all-too-common practice, in particular when the name of the subject is transliterated from a non-Latin writing system. This is a situation in which it is difficult to assume good faith, because it appears to be gaming the title, which is a conduct issue However, since the article has been nominated for deletion, we can focus on the content issue at the AFD and ignore the conduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thank for clarifying this. I tried to clarify the problems with the page at its AfD, but @Star Mississippi directed me here to find the reason why the article was AfD. IlEssere (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  @IlEssere, you cannot understand the point. The article was sent to AfD because it is a recreated article that is not a G4 and neutrality as on the old deleted one is still disputed. ToadetteEdit (talk) 05:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, I understand what the problem is now. I confused since other things where mentioned on here. IlEssere (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The article should be, of course, discussed at AfD. But I think conduct should also be discussed, as there are plenty of reasons to think that IlEssere and Errico Boukoura are the same person:

1. The new article was created only a few days after the deletion of the old one. IlEssere explains this by saying that they copied the old article, worked on it, and uploaded their more-or-less finished work after the deletion. But the oldest revisions of Keramikou 28 do not seem to indicate this. They look like IlEssere restored verbatim fragments of the original article (Some passages are familiar to me, some less so, so I am not absolutely sure.) and worked on them on-wiki.
2. IlEssere claimed they didn't know what AfD means. However, they mentioned the AfD process in this Teahouse post. I find it highly unlikely that they would forget about the existence of AfD. Even if they had forgotten the name, I linked the AfD discussion above. I think it is very unlikely that they wouldn't remember even after visiting the AfD page.
3. Do not see a good-faith reason why would IlEssere leave the significant expansion of the current article for after the AfC, especially noting that they claim to be a completely new and unexperienced editor.
4. The language of the current article is similar to the previous one.
5. Both IlEssere and Errico Boukoura claim to speak English, Greek and Italian on their user page.
6. Notice the "Articles contributed" list on IlEssere's user page. It seems to be a list of all article they have edited. They list the article Theodoros Stamos there. However no edits have been made to the article by IlEssere. The last edit to the page is by Errico Boukoura.

IlEssere hasn't defensed themselves convincingly yet.

– Janhrach (talk) 10:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I’ve addressed most of these concerns previously.

1. I discovered the Keramikou 28 page around the time it was deleted and noticed it had a lot of misinformation and was poorly written. Since I was new to Wikipedia, I copied the entire page and began working on improving it on my own with more accurate information, better tone, correct references, and a more suitable image.
2. As for AfD, until it was brought up again, I wasn’t entirely sure what it was. When I first posted in the Teahouse, I only knew from a tech-savvy friend who followed the original Keramikou 28 AfD process that the page had been deleted due to poor references. To clarify, as @Janhrach mentioned, I am *not* connected to the previous creator.
3. Could you clarify what you mean by “similar”?
4. If you are talking about the tone, I disagree that the new version resembles the old one, which I remember as being highly promotional.
5. While I do speak English, Greek, Spanish, Italian, French, German, and Arabic, I don’t think that sharing some of the same languages as Boukoura means we are the same person.
6. Lastly, I have made improvements to each article listed on my profile, including the Theodoros Stamos page.

IlEssere (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that this was the result of your offline work?

You said "I'm not familiar with what AfD means." and when ToadetteEdit responded "AfD=Articles for deletion", you were satisfied. This is not consistent with your reply that you weren't "entirely sure what it was".

As for the language in the old article, I will quote S Marshall:

The WP:TONE is unencyclopaedic; (2) its style is WP:EMPHATIC; and (3) it isn't WP:TERSE. It's full of needless modifiers (adjectives and adverbs), some of which border on peacocking. Someone really passionate about Kerameiko28 might write the content we're considering on an information leaflet -- we, as dispassionate and objective encyclopaedia writers, need to be succinct, direct, and clear.

This description also fits the current article.

Can you please post the diff in which you edited Theodoros Stamos? Was it this one or this one?

– Janhrach (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I didn’t even remember this, I thought you were referring to the current page. I'm not sure when I created that one, it was likely early edits in my Wikipedia.

What I tried to do was; copy the original page and make corrections, intending to update to how the current Keramikou 28 page looks.

As for AfD, I now know what it is, so lets focus on the current page.

Concerning my edits on Theodoros Stamos, I need to review them, as I can't recall when I made the edits. As you can see on my page, I have been editing numerous entries recently. But please give some time since I am busy in real life. IlEssere (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

This contribution is remarkably similar in key words and editing style to a number by Errico Boukoura seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerameikou 28. I find myself agreeing with Janhrach's hunch above, for whatever that is worth. Daniel (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The diff I presented is extremely important – it is your very first edit and the edit that created the page that is now nominated for deletion. You said:

As I mentioned earlier, Keramikou 28 is what motivated me to start using Wikipedia. I initially copied the entire page to work on corrections offline, intending to upload them later. However, when I went to add the updates, I found that the page was no longer there, losing track of what happened.

This diff, at least seemingly, disproves this claim. I really fail to see how the text added in it, or in the few following edits, could be seen as a suitable replacement for the now-deleted article. Janhrach (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Backlink: Wikipedia:Teahouse § Articles for deletion/Keramikou 28. Presented without comment: el:Special:History/Κεραμεικού 28, it:Speciale:Cronologia/Keramikou 28. (Indentation level chosen arbitrarily). Folly Mox (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Remarkable how el and it are both languages that User:Errico Boukoura has listed on their userpage as proficient or native, and IlEssere happens to create articles on this topic on both those wikis. At some point, we need to accept what is staring ourselves in the face. Daniel (talk) 10:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I would welcome an uninvolved editor taking an action (be it warning or whatever else) against the bludgeoning of quite big proportions on the AfD. Janhrach (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you share more details on why this is bludgeoning? It doesn’t sound like bludgeoning on the AfD. 2601:249:9281:ED10:9185:7724:F13C:799C (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)— 2601:249:9281:ED10:9185:7724:F13C:799C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Quote from the essay explaining bludgeoning: attempts to force their point of view through a very high number of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. Typically, this means making the same argument over and over and to different people in the same discussion or across related discussions. Janhrach (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I know what bludgeoning is in Wikipedia. I was referring to the article and which parts are bludgeoning in this specific page. I’ve went through the references and everything seems to be correct. 2601:249:9281:ED10:9185:7724:F13C:799C (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I referred to the AfD discussion, more specifically to IlEssere's conduct in it, not to the article itself. Janhrach (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. In my opinion, the article looks okay and thoroughly researched. I'm not sure why it received an "Adf" since minor details need to be improved. 2601:249:9281:ED10:9185:7724:F13C:799C (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

IlEssere, did you forget to log in? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? IlEssere (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

What to do next? Almost everybody who participated in the AfD agreed that IlEssere and Errico Boukoura are the same person. Should I write a note to the AfD for the closing admin to also consider closing this ANI thread? Or should we wait passively until an uninvolved admin comes by and takes an action? Or should a SPI be filed? Janhrach (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

If I had read this ANI first, I would have have blocked IlEssere per WP:DUCK, because the quacks are loud and obivious, IMO. However, since I participated in the AFD as editor, I'm now considered involved to take any admin action. I was hoping another uninvolved admin would come along and come to the same conclusion that I did, but so far, none have. So, maybe I'm wrong. You can try filing a report at WP:SPI, but it's likely that since Errico Boukoura hasn't edited in 10 months, nothing will be concluded as the data will be stale. Of course, I could be wrong on that. Maybe they have logged in. Maybe other sleepers will be found. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this and I don't think SPI is a good idea. The evidence is very strong, so they will probably refuse CU. It would just waste their and our time. I have decided I will leave a note at the AfD for the closing admin to consider taking an appropriate action. Janhrach (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Update: I created a SPI case. @Rotideypoc41352: you wanted to mention something on SPI. Janhrach (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. On second thought, my evidence is not as strong as I had originally thought. You've lain out your case with clarity, and I don't want to distract from it, especially when the SPI backlog puts pressure on the admins to work quickly. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

It's quite obvious that IlEssere and Errico Boukoura are the same user. If you choose to WP:VANISH, you go away and don't come back. If this was an attempted WP:CLEANSTART, you should have avoided trying to recreate this article. Besides the obvious connection with the recreation of this deleted article and the timing of it, what are the chances that they are both from New York City (Special:Permalink/1226370017 and User:Errico Boukoura), are native speakers of English, with same proficiencies in Greek, Italian, and Spanish (User:IlEssere vs User:Errico Boukoura)? One is a professor and the other an "art historian"? Now, 2601:249:9281:ED10:9185:7724:F13C:799C comes out of no where and finds this ANI discussion using the same "Can you share..." language? I'm not buying it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoroughness, but I believe we've already spent considerable time discussing this topic. For the record, (and this is the last time I am talking about this topic) I speak seven languages, two of which seem overlap with the previous user’s according to Jauerback. Additionally, I don’t live in New York City, so I’m not sure what led you to that conclusion.

@Jauerback I’m not entirely sure why, but as I review the AFD of the original article alongside what you’ve shared, the AFD of the new version, and your edit history, it seems you have a strong focus on Keramikou 28 for some reason. IlEssere (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's an interesting answer. New York City was listed in a previous version of your user page, linked above. I don't really care how many languages you claim to speak, but both of your user pages list the exact same languages with the exact proficiencies. That's a helluva coincidence. I'm curious, what leads you to believe that I have a strong focus on Keramikou 28? Is it all of my edits to the article (none)? Or is it my single comment in the current AFD for it? Or maybe my (now) three commments on this ANI? Please share. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to log off for the day and will be back online tomorrow, I have to much work to get down. You seem quite agitated, and I want to clarify that I'm not looking for online conflicts. My intention is simply to have open and honest conversation about our perspectives. I value communication and hope we can discuss this calmly.

But to clarify and address your question before I log off, my concerns extend beyond your focus on Keramikou 28 page. I've observed that your edits appear somewhat random and don't convey a clear interest in the subject matter. As a result, without additional art-related or building-related edits, you are the only user connecting Keramikou 28, both directly and indirectly to Adf.

In addition, there is a consistent effort to find problems with the page or with me personally, regardless of the evidence provided. This ongoing scrutiny raises concerns and feels somewhat suspicious to me. Wikipedia is about collaboration and resolution rather than continual criticism. IlEssere (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• done IlEssere (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  This makes close to zero sense. Are you using a LLM? Also, both you and your IP should get the acronym right. It's AFD, not ADF.Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think their comments about you were meant to be addressed to me. Janhrach (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Correction: IlEssere said he lives in New York City whereas Errico Boukoura only says New York. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This seems like it's getting close to outing. If sockpuppetry is involved, it should be discussed at WP:SPI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that an an SPI might be in order, but how in the world is this close to WP:OUTING? Everything linked is from the involved users and what they've posted on site. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

You are connecting a registered editor with a location. In SPIs, Checkusers won't connect IP accounts, which reveal locations, with registered editors because of privacy concerns. Unless an editor discloses where they are from on their User page, I think tracking down where they live is a step that shouldn't be taken. If Checkusers won't reveal this data in SPI reports, I don't think it should be posted to a highly public noticeboard. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Special:Permalink/1226370017 looks to me like an editor disclosed where they are from on their User page. jlwoodwa (talk) 08:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to disagree. The locations of the IP and what both registered users have revealed as their locaiton on Wiki don't even match up, so that was never even part of my argument. As you know, getting a different IP to get around Wikipedia isn't exactly rocket science, so between that, and the fact that original user hasn't edited in 10 months, an SPI would probably be fruitless. However, this quacks like a WP:DUCK and any passing admin who isn't involved can see that and take action. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Was digging through some old edits and found Special:Diff/1246695560. I prefer to save a detailed explanation for SPI if possible. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

User with systemic bias

Whatsupkarren (talk · contribs) has a track record of editing Wikipedia solely to push a pro-Syrian and anti-Lebanese agenda with disregard to actual academic standards.

Whatsupkarren seems to have an obsession with removing any mentions of figures related to Lebanon as evidenced here [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (This is only the tip of the iceberg and there are many other articles that follow this pattern some of which I probably have not even found)

This wouldn’t be an issue if Whatsupkarren did similar edits for other articles but they hyper fixate on only removing any mentions of Lebanese/Phoenicians in articles but are fully capable of adding sources for Syrian/assumed to be Syrian figures. Most of the sources I find to revert this take a 2 minute internet search so it's obvious Whatsupkarren is being biased in only removing, and never adding, sources related to Lebanon/Phoenicia but doing the exact opposite when it comes to Syrian/assumed to be Syrian articles.

Furthermore, when Whatsupkarren doesn’t get their way they just dismiss articles they don’t like as “unreliable” [6] [7] even if they were published through universities or other academic sources (They don’t seem to understand that an article/books reliability is based on the original publisher not an online website it can be found on) and just adds original research when they don’t get their way. [8]. Notably they removed a newspaper source that quotes Pope Francis and a bishop as “unreliable” [9] [10] but an article that uses Wikipedia as its source (WP:WINARS) is reliable.[11]

Whatsupkarren also seems to add sources without even looking at them which is essentially original research as they admitted themselves "I'd like proof that the Oxford source which I added cites that source, as I wasn't able to access it." [12] (in regards to the Oxford source which they themselves added)[13] and also here [14] where it seems they just typed a phrase [15] without actually providing a page or quote.

Their obsession with removing anything related to Lebanese goes as far as asking for advice on how to delete entire categories related to the subject. [16]

I suggest a topic ban in relation to Lebanese and Phoenician related articles as there is not really an explanation for this behavior outside of ethnic discrimination which is not what Wikipedia was intended for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Phoenician (talk • contribs) 21:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm free and allowed to edit any article on wikipedia as long as I'm sourcing my edits with reliable sources & engaging in discussions to resolve potential issues as I have done so many times and also not being as offensive as you have been with me for a while. It was you who started using rude language with me by calling me an illiterate, ridiculing me for making typos, calling my edits trolling even though I was using reliable sources, and trying to provoke me by claiming that I was incompetent. This can be seen in this discussion. Which Red Phoenician refused to continue and refused to answer my concerns which I had raised.

-There's been a trend on Wikipedia for years, where editors have been classifying notable figures as Lebanese without sources. And also classifying common Levantine/Arab/Middle Eastern cultural elements as distinctly "Lebanese" even when they don't have any Lebanese ancestry or when the subject is actually common to the broader Levantine/Middle Eastern region. It seems like this has been going on for quite some time. While I'm sure similar situations might occur with other Middle Eastern countries, the Lebanon-related instances seem to stand out the most. I've been trying to fix that for a while; I'm not racist; I want historical accuracy. If you have any issues with my edits, you could've simply started

discussions on the relevant talk pages to raise your concerns. I am ready to discuss with any user every single one of my edits. It was me and not you who started the two discussions we had.

-Red Phoenician has been wikihounding me for months, very often disruptively, adding sources that are not reliable or don't accurately reflect what they added 1 and 2, using a rude & provocative language with me.

-Red Phoenician has been misusing sources and not adding accurately what the sources they add say.

For example: in the Frumentius article, I removed content that wasn't accurately supported by reliable sources, the article used to say Saint Frumentius was "described as ethnically phoenician", that wasn't & isn't backed by reliable sources. Red Phoenician later reverted my edit and added sources that, still, didn't state that he was described as ethnically Phoenician. Using "ethnically phoenician" is very problematic historically. Later I added a more accurate representation of what Red Phoenician's sources say. And that he might have been Greek too since a book published by Oxford described him as such. Red Phoenician thought my edits were disruptive and show possible trolling.

-Regarding Marina the monk, yes, the source which I removed still isn't working, at least with me. The link seems to be dead. Many saints, who were not from modern day Lebanon used to be in the category of Lebanese Saints. Red Phoenician previously added a saint from what is today Syria to that category and also a saint from persia. No sources anywhere say they were Lebanese. saints who were not from what is today Lebanon were also in this category. The category was a mess, and still is, up to a point. None of the saints in the category are described as Lebanese by cited sources or reliable sources, far as I know, which I think violates WP:NOR. I also didn't want to delete the category as Red Phoenician claimed, more modern saints, for whom we have sources that actually call them Lebanese could be added to this category.

-Red Phoenician added that the city of Byblos had a reputation of being the oldest in antiquity, the source they used doesn’t say so, it doesn’t say the city had a “reputation”, the word reputation implies a belief held by people in general, not only one person. This shows yet again, that the user doesn't show accuracy in a lot of his edits.

-Regarding Jounaton Roumi, in a cited interview he says that his father's father was from Syria. Not Lebanon. Syro basically is a combining form of Syrian-Lebanese. The man said that his grandfather was from Syria. Regardless. I later kept the article as you edited it.

-Regarding, Pamphilus of Caesarea, the sources simply did not say he was Phoenician. So I removed this unsourced claim, and opened a talk page asking whether anyone has sources that call him Phoenician.

You really find that annoying, right?

-"Most of the sources I find to revert this take a 2 minute internet search" although I'm not responsible for adding a source to an unsourced material, I often do my research before removing them.

-Regarding this, you misused your sources, again, your sources, apart from one that you couldn't prove to be reliable, and which I showed wasn't reliable enough, didn't accurately support continuous occupation. This is the main issue and this is why I reverted your edit. Me claiming that researchgate isn't reliable wasn't what led me to remove your edits.

-Not sure how this is original research? This is literally what the source says. Any issues you have with my edits could've been raised on the talk page but you did not do so.

-"Notably they removed a newspaper source that quotes Pope Francis and a bishop as “unreliable”"

First off, why did you not raise your concerns on the talk page discussion that I started?

Secondly, I could not find evidence that the newspaper you had cited is a reliable source, you could've simply explained on the talk page why you think it is. Thirdly, your source doesn't quote Pope Francis, who isn't a subject matter expert, to begin with, it talks about what a Maronite Archbishop who is said to have been a friend of Pope Francis, said.

-"but an article that uses Wikipedia as its source (WP:WINARS) is reliable."

How does this article use Wikipedia as its source? The Sydney Morning Herald is a reliable source per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Regardless, you could've simply raised your concerns in the talk page discussion which I started. Again, this proves your unwillingness to engage in productive discussions.

-"Whatsupkarren also seems to add sources without even looking at them which is essentially original research"

No, the source which I used provides a quote which I provided in the discussion. Without the need to download the whole book.

Regarding the Aleppo book, no, you're wrong again, and you could've simply asked me to provide the page which I would've definitely done. You simply didn't. I copied and pasted the link of the page but Wikipedia links sometimes do not work.

I think this report proves Red Phoenician's unwillingness to engage in discussions to resolve issues, Red Phoenician seems to hold a grudge against me and doesn't like how I've been accurately following Wikipedia's policies. The user also has been engaging in original research for years.

I suggest this user be at least punished for the rude language they used with me. Whatsupkarren (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

It is not rude to point out a user's (WP:COMPETENCE), it is obvious English is not your first language and there is nothing wrong with that but when you constantly mess up pages with grammar issues [17] as you have done just now with “Jounaton Roumi” and “Other non Lebnaese saints” it becomes hard to tell if these are genuine mistakes or some weird form of insult.

There was no point addressing you in the Frumentius talk page as you admitted to original research and asking to access sources you yourself added.

Regarding my addition of Saints to the Lebanese Maronite saints category that was because there never was a standalone Maronite saints category…until I created it. I didn’t contest these or the manakish edits so I don’t see the issue.

“although I'm not responsible for adding a source to an unsourced material, I often do my research before removing them.” This isn’t true as I clarified before because you’re perfectly capable of finding sources of things NOT related to Lebanon/Phoenician but seem incapable when this is the case.

As for the Wikihounding accusations many of the pages you edited were on my watchlist don’t think you’re so special. Of course once I saw it was just removing everything Lebanese ever I reverted those with sources as this is constructive and nothing else.

Rest of this is them acting like they’re not aware of their actions/acting as if the issue is a personal attack and not an issue with the contributions so I hope an admin gives their insight into the issues. Criticism of competence is not rude and they are the only one taking it personal “You really find that annoying, right?” and “Duhh”[18] among others. Wikipedia is not a battleground for passive aggressive ethnic squabbles it’s based on reliable academic sources not getting upset for things such as a Lebanese city having claims to be the oldest. Red Phoenician (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Also it seems they're just trying to get me banned now on baseless accusations instead of accepting any criticism. [19] Red Phoenician (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

You too made grammar mistakes in the past ( I won't call you illiterate though ) even native speakers often make typos and grammar mistakes; that doesn't make it okay to call or even imply someone is illiterate or incompetent when you know that they're able to communicate effectively with you. It is obvious that this language was intended to provoke me. Otherwise, you wouldn't have made fun of me for fixing a typo. The mistake I did on Gibran Khalil page is a typo, not a grammar mistake, I mistyped the name of a Lebanese city. And no I'm not constantly messing up articles, you'd like others to believe so, so that you can justify your rude language.

I did not admit that I engaged in original research, let me explain this to you again, I couldn't access the book, but a quote from the book is provided by Oxford references https://www.oxfordreference.com/search?btog=chap&isQuickSearch=true&q=Meropius+Greek

I already provided the quote on the talk page.

"because there never was a standalone Maronite saints category"

That still doesn't justify adding them to such a category, you should've created a standalone maronite category if you really wanted to add them to a maronite category

"many of the pages you edited were on my watchlist"

But also many, so many of the articles I edited hadn't been touched by you until I stepped in.

most recently this one where you added an unacceptable source per Wikiepdia policies.

Sifting through Red Phoenician's edit history, it becomes obvious that the user has had a pattern of removing the term Arab from articles

1, 2, 3, 4. However, I won't claim that you're ethnically discriminating against Arabs, if I had issues with any of those edits, I would've simply raised my concerns on the relevant talk pages.

I wasn't getting upset over a Lebanese city having claims to be the oldest, i was upset by your inaccurate edits, you keep misusing sources by adding claims not accurately reflected in the sources, you, yourself added. Whatsupkarren (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Stop with the crocodile tears over the typos nobody is insulting you, you are the one going “Duhh” as you view this as a personal issue. You just admitted you couldn’t access the source again…and I said I created a category, you aren’t properly reading what I am saying. As for Massad again I did not contest your removal but added a more reliable source since you ignored Caldwell’s. Yes Maronites are Syriac not Arab and dabke is an ancient Levantine dance unless you are now going to argue that the Canaanites were Arab. As for Byblos if you had an actual issue you would’ve gone to the source dispute resolution instead of only removing the Lebanese/non-Syrian cities from the list while keeping the Syrian ones even without proper sources. Red Phoenician (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

You won't even admit that you used a rude language with me.

-Yes again, for the millionth time, I can't access all of the book, I can access a quote from the book, which means it wasn't original research. You also refused to provide me with the link in the discussion which showed your unwillingness to cooperate, I wanted to verify what you were claiming in that discussion.

-I know that you later created that category, but you shouldn't have added them to the Lebanese category in the first place as that violated wikipedia's policies" AND btw it was me and not you who eventually removed them from that Lebanese category, why ?

-I wasn't trying to make a point about Maronites' ethnicity, and I really am not interested in doing so. I was trying to show you that by your logic, not mine, you also are discriminating against a group of people, and have an obsession with removing anything related to Arabs.

-It was me who asked for a third opinion, I asked user Demetrios1993 who has proved to be very knowledgeable, if they could provide input, they did. You could've simply taken it to the dispute resolution page, no one told you not to do so. And again, you want me to be punished for not editing x too, I don't have to. The sources that were used with the Lebanese cities did not show continuous occupation or weren't reliable enough. If you had issues with my edits, engage in the discussion on the talk page Whatsupkarren (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Red Phoenician, I have to say, having briefly looked into some of these, it sure looks like you're throwing stones from inside a glass house. -- asilvering (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

After reading my most recent response could you provide some examples please. Red Phoenician (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Glass house indeed. I had a brief interaction with Red Phoenician last year on Lebanon. From what I could see looking at their edits at that time they appeared to be here to push a WP:FRINGEy POV that the Christian Lebanese are not Arabs but, somehow, ancient Phoenicians. See Phoenicianism. I haven't looked at the dispute they have with this particular user but any accusations from them of "systemic bias" takes chutzpah. DeCausa (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't recall this interaction specifically but I assume it was related to the infobox note which was cited by three sources. But yes Lebanon is a diverse country with various ethnicities with some claiming descent from Phoenicians as has been proven genetically, [20] but arguing over self-determination is outside the scope of this dispute. Red Phoenician (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think I remember your liberal use of WP:SYNTH to support your tendentious WP:FRINGE POV-pushing. DeCausa (talk) 07:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Is this relevant? I don’t think tarring a party without a goal of sanctions is fair to do at ANI—bring diffs or stop raising unsupported accusations; it’s derailing. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I have not noticed any significant problematic behavior from Whatsupkarren. On the contrary, I think the problem is Red Phoenician. I have followed Red Phoenician's contributions for years and it is immediately noticeable that many of his contributions on Wikipedia are guided by very strong ideological positions (Phoenicianism and ethno-nationalist ideas). You can see that the user in question makes ethnonationalist comments even here (the idea according to which "Maronites are Syriac not Arab" is indeed WP:POV and WP:FRINGE). I believe that this behavior is irreconcilable with Wikipedia (I am a regular contributor to the Italian Wikipedia and I can assure you that a user with this kind of behavior would have been blocked there years ago). It is a dynamic very similar to that of User:Chris O' Hare, who was finally blocked months ago. --Syphax98 (talk) 10:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok so you are admitting you obsessively stalk me. Maronites being Syriac is the official position of the Church and Patriarch, hardly fringe.[21] Editing another Wikipedia doesn’t mean anything. This has just become a dogpile of personal attacks by users who have grievances with me unrelated to the original matter. Red Phoenician (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Devaluing other users' comments as personal attacks and accusing others of stalking you is not a constructive interaction. I'm not stalking you, but it's the nature of your contributions that is raising red flags. I have no grievances against you; I don't even know you as a person. --Syphax98 (talk) 11:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the source you cited, I note that many of these churches are rooted also in Kerala; the Christians of Kerala also have a Syriac identity which is reflected in the liturgy and religious traditions, but no one denies their Malayali identity. The same goes for the Maronites, who have a strong Arab identity, which you are keen to deny (the source does not). Anyway, this has nothing to do with this discussion. --Syphax98 (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Quite. The source says that Maronites are a branch of Syriac Christianity. It says nothing about ethnicity. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

This just goes to prove what I said earlier, Red Phoenician keeps misusing sources, adding claims not accurately represented in the sources they use. Whatsupkarren (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Superb Owl edit-warring again

User:Superb Owl is edit-warring at Jill Stein 2024 presidential campaign. They has added contentious material and re-added despite warnings. See [22] and [23] The editor has a history of edit-warring.User:Namiba 17:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Namiba, the first editor who deleted that addition did not have a strong opinion about it and expressed that in their comment - I attempted to explain why it was relevant by adding more context. You then reverted the entire thing (which I assumed was because you took issue with the additional explanation not the part that had been there for several weeks), so then I restored the original piece that had been there for some weeks. Now that is seems clearer that you may have taken issue with the entire thing, I have self-reverted. Superb Owl (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Superb Owl, In the second edit diff, you had the edit summary of restoring previous consensus version but I was unable to find an RfC on the talk page. Do you have proof that this was a consensus decided version? Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 20:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert, I thought there was 'implied consensus' since it had been there - there was no RFC Superb Owl (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Consensus is only when you have editors agree upon something, it can't simply be "implied". Striking my comment, thank you for the replies. Don't need any more on the same policy. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 20:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Implied consensus is, more often than not, how Wikipedia works - see WP:IMPLIED.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Oh yes it can. See WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Consensus can be implicit, but I don't see any evidence this is an implicit consensus version either (e.g. being left in place a couple days); it just seems to be the editor's previously-preferred version. In addition, please see WP:STABLE; reverting to a previous stable/"consensus" version is not an exception to 1RR.

I'll mention that I've had some issues with this user edit-warring over POV in the past. That said, I would not classify their behavior as especially egregious, because the discussion was heavily derailed by another user following me around and casting aspersions about me being a vandal or POV-pusher (which understandably left @Superb Owl feeling pretty hostile/skeptical). After finding a neutral mediator, @Superb Owl was willing to accept the final compromise version, and did not edit-war further over it. I'm also seeing mitigating behaviors in this case—once the topic was brought to ANI, the user self-reverted to their less-preferred version, which I think shows restraint and a good-faith attempt at following the rules.

Given how stringent 1RR is, I'd recommend avoiding formal sanctions as long as the editor voluntarily makes some pledges that keep him from overstepping 1RR in the future. @Superb Owl: would you be willing to commit to avoid reverting on contentious topics without opening a talk page discussion first? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to make things even clearer, my edit was only in response to Cowboygilbert's statement. I have not looked into the original subject of this report. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing WP:Stable and the contentious topics guidelines - I just read both top to bottom. I did not see any mention of 1RR for all contentious topics (this article did not have that restriction) but can hold myself to a higher standard of caution (like 2RR or 1RR) on contentious topics if that is recommended. Superb Owl (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks. I misread the policy as applying to all contentious topics, so I thought it was applied here. I think a WP:Don't re-revert pledge would be good. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I can see a WP:One-revert rule pledge (along the lines of WP:BRD) as being a useful constraint for my editing. A zero-revert pledge, however, seems too extreme given that reverting is sometimes necessary and more efficient, especially on pages with few editors watching them or participating in talk page discussions. Superb Owl (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fair. No issues with 1RR. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

User:YuelinLee1959 - WP:NOTHERE

User:YuelinLee1959 is pushing their gamergate views in their editing of Game Science by inserting information based on unverified rumors. Across edit comments and Talk:Game Science, they've been repeatedly warned and reverted by an editor for displaying rumors as facts[24][25]. After repeat reverts, they continued to push rumors as facts against journalists based on Reddit comments that were then reverted by an editor[26]. Continuing to push claims that IGN reporters are part of a consultant company based on rumors in both their edit comments and edits[27].

YuelinLee1959 later added unsubstantiated rumors of IGN manipulating a vote on their website. This was reverted by another editor[28]. They've since doubled down on the sources they're including from aggregator websites as being attributed to the owners of those websites, such as NetEase, Tencent, and Sina[29][30]. Many of these references like others they've added to Game Science are based on social media comments. I tried explaining that their sources on aggregators may be unreliable and they continued to push that the owners are making those claims, by sending me more aggregated content[31].

Upon failing to have their biased rumors included, they removed factual reporting from reliable sources[32]. I attempted to resolve this discussion in Talk:Game Science but after no longer feeling the conversation was genuine, I went to the WikiProject Video Games for dispute resolution and was directed here. Yuelinlee1959 no longer appears to be reading my replies and is instead prioritizing pushing their narrative and removing what they don't like. This is why I stopped responding in Talk:Game Science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakester95 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

YuelinLee1959 hasn't edited Wikipedia in nearly a week - how come you're coming here now with this? It's hardly urgent if they've stopped. Simonm223 (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I was recommended to post it here, should it be on WP:AN instead? The reason I didn't post here immediately is because I brought it to a dispute resolution first. Snakester95 (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I've gone back and restored some of the deleted content as a 3rd party opinion after having reviewed sources. Right now, as YuelinLee1959 is apparently inactive I'd say there's not really much else to do. Sanctions are preventative, not punative, and, unless they start edit warring again, that means we really shouldn't do anything. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an active Wikipedia editor by nature, so it’s completely normal for me to be inactive for a period of time. I can’t edit Wikipedia daily like some of the more regular editors. As for why I didn’t continue replying in that discussion, it’s because, after I responded, there were no further replies, so I didn’t keep the discussion going. Seeing that I was @-mentioned in the incident thread, I’m here to respond.

First, I’m very surprised to be accused on Wikipedia

' noticeboard/Incidents. Simonm223, please take a look at our previous discussion in the Game Science section. Initially, it was just me, Cold Season, and FMSky discussing it, and the three of us reached a consensus to delete that entire section. After reaching this consensus and deleting the section, Snakester95 only joined the discussion three days later. In other words, we had already concluded the discussion and removed the section based on consensus when Snakester95 expressed opposition.

My actions were entirely based on the consensus with Cold Season and FMSky. I really don’t understand why actions based on consensus are being questioned here.

Let’s look at the context of my removal of that section: FMSky replied, “Would actually agree that wiping the entire section should be considered as it's only really sourced to a single IGN hit piece.” Cold Season responded, “In any case, I would support the removal of it all per the above comment.” My own opinion was, “I've mostly kept your changes, trying to make it as fair and neutral as possible. If it needs to be deleted, I fully support removing the entire section.” FMSky then responded again, saying, “I would be in favor of removing this entire pesky section.”

I made the decision to remove the section after gathering the opinions of all three of us. In other words, I deleted the section in line with the consensus reached in the discussion. After I removed this part, FMSky even thanked me for the edit.

Snakester95 only expressed opposition on the discussion after we reached consensus and finished the removal. I reviewed the discussion, obtained agreement from Cold Season and FMSky, reached a consensus, and then performed the removal. Was there anything in this action that violated Wikipedia principles? YuelinLee1959 (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Moreover, I don’t believe there was any edit war involved. When I removed that section, I did so based on the consensus reached with Cold Season and FMSky, who both supported its removal in the initial discussion. As for Snakester95, he only came in to express his opposition after we had reached consensus and completed the removal. When I removed the section, I had no idea he would disagree. Therefore, since consensus had already been reached, there was no edit war before Snakester95 expressed opposition. YuelinLee1959 (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, YuelinLee1959, can you provide a link to where this consensus was reached? It could be on an article talk page or user talk page. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to note the version of the page I restored was based on the last edit by FMSky - the only thing I changed from that version was the addition of a header. So if the consensus version is based on an agreement struck with them as a party then my actions seem to be in support of that consensus version. However I think this discussion is best had at article talk and not on a noticeboard.

Other than that I'd politely ask YuelinLee1959 to try and be more concise with their replies. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@LizI went back through the article talk history rather in-depth and here's what I can find: there is a rough 3-2 split about whether to remove the IGN article with YuelinLee1959 advocating either to include various opinion sources from Chinese media that are critical of IGN or to remove the IGN article, Cold Season and FMSky seeming to advocate to removing all mention of the controversy and Snakester95 and a dynamic IP arguing for the inclusion of the IGN reportage. The dispute largely hinges over what constitutes a WP:RS and what is WP:DUE although nobody involved has been very explicit regarding Wikipedia policy and guidelines. In this discussion the IGN piece is incorrectly described as an opinion piece by some editors. This is not the case - the IGN article is what passes for investigative journalism in the video games industry. It's of low quality but that's because games journalism is uniformly of very low quality and mostly consists of regurgitating press releases. As such it's about as good as games journalism gets. Unfortunately. However the two things I will say here:

1: There is not a clear consensus for any given course of action on the article talk page unless the IP editor is one of the involved editors working while logged out. This is a possibility that I wouldn't immediately discount but which I hope is not the case.

2: Assuming no sock-puppetry is going on here this is entirely a content dispute and should be addressed at article talk. Simonm223 (talk) 14:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz@Simonm223Let me explain the consensus I observed at that time. First, regarding the IP user you mentioned—I actually hadn't noticed any IP user participating in the discussion.

Here's the timeline, as well as why I saw a consensus at that time:

On September 24, 2024, I initiated the discussion.

On October 5, 2024, at 08:55, I proposed either deleting the entire controversial section or neutrally adding some media accusations against IGN, alleging they were targeting Game Science intentionally.

On October 5, 2024, at 09:44, FMSky replied, “Would actually agree that wiping the entire section should be considered as its only really sourced to a single IGN hit piece.”

On October 5, 2024, at 10:55, Cold Season responded, “In any case, I would support the removal of it all per the above comment.”

At that point, the three of us had reached a consensus to delete this section of content. I didn't see the IP user you mentioned and wasn't aware of their presence, while Snakester95 hadn't joined the discussion at all. From September 24 to October 5, 2024, during the ten-plus days of discussion among myself, Cold Season, and FMSky, Snakester95 was absent.To be more precise, during those ten days, Snakester95 did not participate in or appear in the discussion at all. On October 5, we reached a unanimous agreement, and even then, Snakester95 still hadn't appeared in the discussion.

So, my first question: was it reasonable for me to believe we had reached a consensus at that time?

Let me reiterate: from September 24 to October 5, during the ten days in which FMSky, Cold Season, and I reached an agreement, Snakester95 never appeared or participated in any discussion. I didn’t even know this person. So, given that all participants in the discussion at the time were in agreement, was it wrong for me to believe that we had reached a consensus?@Liz@Simonm223

At that time, the only people involved in the discussion were the three of us, and all three of us agreed to delete the entire content. Snakester95 was not present in the discussion page at all.

Then we began to make deletion edits, with FMSky deleting part of the content. On October 8 at 8:55, Snakester95 joined the discussion, but at that point, he did not express any opposition to our prior consensus to delete everything.

I was away for a while, and later, based on the results of the October 5 discussion, and the fact that Snakester95 had not expressed any objections as of October 8, I went ahead and deleted the section. Only after I completed the deletion did Snakester95 raise an objection. This objection came after the deletion was already done.

From September 24 to October 5, in my discussions with Cold Season and FMSky, Snakester95 never appeared. How could I have foreseen that someone would come forward to oppose it in the future, and only after I had completed the deletion? Since Snakester95 only objected after the deletion was completed, and he had not participated in the prior discussion, while Cold Season, FMSky, and I had already reached an agreement, was there any error in my assumption that we had reached a consensus at that time? YuelinLee1959 (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Consensus can change - especially when an article suddenly gets new eyes on it for whatever reason. Please note that the version of the page I restored was the version edited by FMSky on October 23. Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Even if you believe that consensus can change, was my action of deleting content based on the previous consensus in any way against Wikipedia's rules? What I cannot understand is why, when my actions were clearly based on consensus, Snakester95 accused me of WP

on Wikipedia'noticeboard/Incidents. I am genuinely confused and do not understand why I am being accused of violating Wikipedia’s principles. I believe that the accusation against me is entirely unfounded. YuelinLee1959 (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

You are also discounting that Snakester95 was heavily engaged prior to October 5; you don't arbitrarily delimit consensus to the period of time when one person wasn't around and then say, "well they didn't say anything between these two dates." Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

This sentence is incorrect. The discussion started on September 24 by me and reached a consensus by October 5. During this period, I did not see any comments from Snakester95. If there were any, please let me know what Snakester95 said between September 24 and October 5. I never saw any of his/her comments during this period. Please help me quote them or provide a link. YuelinLee1959 (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Going back to what you said about restoring the page, can I interpret that as you having joined the discussion and thinking that the content should not be removed? If so, may I ask if we could revert to this version of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Game_Science&diff=prev&oldid=1252864623. In that version, none of the content was removed, and it also included articles from certain media outlets criticizing IGN for targeting Game Science. Additionally, we could incorporate IGN's own response to these accusations.

If you believe this version only includes sources in Chinese, I can also add this link from Medium: https://medium.com/@marno.lucas28.com/is-ign-manipulating-goty-votes-to-eliminate-black-myth-wukong-998730a5fae0 and IGN’s own response: https://www.ign.com/articles/explaining-and-fixing-igns-face-off-controversy. YuelinLee1959 (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Please go to article talk for this discussion. AN/I is not the appropriate venue. Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, I will go to the talk page. But can you answer my last question about what Snakester95 comments between September 24 and October 5. YuelinLee1959 (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Snakester95 made no less than 17 edits to Game Science and its related article talk page in the month of August alone. They took a wiki-break - that doesn't mean they can be ignored indefinitely. Simonm223 (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

What I mean is that from the time I initiated the discussion until October 5, when I reached consensus with Cold Season and FMSky, I did not see any comments from Snakester95. I couldn't predict the future, nor could I anticipate who would join the discussion. Just like now, you’ve joined the discussion, but on October 5, I couldn’t have predicted that you would contribute, and I couldn’t wait for you to finish your comments before making changes. The same applies to Snakester95. I could only base my actions on who was actively participating in the discussion and their opinions at the time. Since Snakester95 was not part of the discussion during that period, I naturally could not have predicted that they would later join and express opposition. This discussion may well have other people joining in later, but that’s something I can’t predict right now. YuelinLee1959 (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

This is the essence of WP:BRD: you had your discussion, you took action, and then someone objected and reverted. Whether they were there at the initial discussion or not is irrelevant. At that point, you go back to discussing to see what the issue is and whether or not there is actually consensus for the change.

That's where we are now, so I suggest you return to the talk page to suss things out. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Borsoka's hidden agendas, bludgeoing and aggressiveness

During a FAR, Ceoil

• stated that my "aims seems to be to smith [my] enemies rather than move the page on. Dismal behaviour." [33]
• argued that I seized/edited an FA "via attrition", and referred to my "bludgeoning tactics" [34]
• accused me of "embarrassing double-speak" [35]
• argued that I am "an egotist that wants to collect scalps" [36]
• stated that I "have acted aggressively against" most reviewers [37].

If Ceoil were right, I should be severely punished, so I am calling them to present their case against me. By the way, I have suggested him at least twice that they should take me to ANI for misconduct. Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

This is almost sad. My last comment on the FAR was encouragement I for one want this article to in some venue retain its star and be something the project can be proud of. But nonetheless its not reviewed in its current state at present, you have acted aggressively against any reviewer save AirshipJungleman who has now has bowed out. What do you honestly expect from here; please please please submit at FAC where you will get a far better and less cranky spin at the wheel, where everybody would more geared up for a promotion[38]. That you have acted aggressively against most reviewers is a pity but fact. I now want you to back away from that approach at FAR and move towards a more positive FAC. Ceoil (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to say, expatriating as he is, in no world I want to see Borsoka "severely punished". Ceoil (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Please add differences proving your above accusations. Otherwise, I must assume you baselessly accused me of several forms of misconduct. Borsoka (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, you have been quite belligerent in approach over the years at Middle Ages and my descriptions are describing your behaviour towards others. Again I urge you to stand to a more robust review at FAC. Ceoil (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Instead of repeating your accusations without evidence, please add differences. Borsoka (talk) 03:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• A simply mad complaint, which if it goes anywhere may well WP:BOOMERANG. Borsoka's language & aspersions, by no means restricted to Ceoil here, are at least as agressive. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • @Johnbod:, examples please.... Borsoka (talk) 03:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Double speak: There are no editors who are arguing for keep here because for the time being the normal process is being followed. Consequently, those who argue for a delist should refer to a single point in the relevant policies. Norfolkbigfish's "action" demonstrates the destructive consequences of ignoring our rules. Ceoil (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• "bludgeoning tactics" - +400 talk edits Ceoil (talk) 03:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, I was proposed to list all the problems in the 2013 FA version of the article on the Talk page. Two huge archives ([39], [40]) document my findings. Would you refer to the ones that were baseless? Borsoka (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• I am also a bully, according to Ceoil [41] Borsoka (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm put in mind of Paul Newman from The Verdict: "your honor, if you're going to try me case for me, I wish you wouldn't lose it." Borsoka, you can't take yourself to ANI and demand satisfaction. This won't be a constructive use of anyone's time. You should withdraw this and return to the featured article review. Mackensen (talk) 11:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not demand satisfaction. I request a fair investigation against me. Or do you think that an aggressive bully who uses bludgeoning tacts should be allowed to edit in the future? Or, alternatively do you suggest that I could regularly call Ceoil, for instance, as "Don Quijote's immature and aggressive caricature whose hunger for vengeance is extremly hilarious"? Borsoka (talk) 12:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Borsoka, do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Cullen328 (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not disrupt. I only want to know either bullies, etc can edit WP, or editors can regularly call each other bullies, etc. If the answer is no and no, what is the solution? (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Borsoka, it's the confusing way you set up this complaint. Instead of focusing on the other editor, you are asking editors to investigate you but offering examples from the other editor's edits. I guess you thought this was a clever approach but I think it left editors wondering what they were supposed to do with this information since you made this complaint about you, not them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, because I think bullies are to be sanctioned. If I am a bully, I must be sanctioned. Borsoka (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I can see that you are unwilling to give up this counter-productive approach. I predict that there will be no action taken here and this complaint will be archived. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz this is a fair comment. On the other hand it might well be productive if third parties looked at the FAR Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Middle_Ages/archive1 and gave a view. It is the rather long and boring result of the nom heavily editing a FA, then submitting to FAR. It seems to be in an intractable impasse that is preventing its closure what ever the result. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I guess my question is why are editors continuing to debate and post on an archive page? This has been going on for months. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's not an archive page, because of historical reasons to do with automated processes it's the live FAR page that's called archive1. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Correct. In fact it has just been closed as "Delist". If you want a really long one, try Wikipedia:Featured article review/Byzantine Empire/archive3, which is still open after a year. Johnbod (talk) 04:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

1RR / abitrartion violation by Morgankarki

Bringing this here as it's fairly clear-cut and I'm hoping to avoid the bureaucracy of WP:ARE.

The Donald Trump article has a clear arbitration enforcement restrictions: You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message. This is evident both on the talk page templates but also when you open the editing pane. Morgankarki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) made this edit, which I reverted. They immediately restored it, which violates the arbitration enforcement. I requested both on their talk page and the article talk page that they revert, but they have not done so.

Requesting this be reverted and Morgankarki be warned on this topic. — Czello ^(music) 12:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The edit in question has since been reverted. Morgankarki has not edited since their revert, and judging by Special:Contribs/Morgankarki it's not unusual for them to go days or weeks between edits – they've made only 154 edits in 2024 to date. It's quite possible that they have not yet seen your request to revert. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't see that it had been reverted (and even now can't see which diff it happened in, but perhaps I'm being blind). Happy for this thread to be closed. — Czello ^(music) 14:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I also can't find the diff. I've given them an AMPOL alert here; per WP:CTOP I believe that an admin could still give a logged warning to someone who was not previously aware of a contentious topic, but I don't know that it's necessary if you're happy that this is resolved. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

They did it again. A short block or topic ban may be in order. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

They have been warned, let's see what they do. I say this because most of their edits involve Nepal, not U.S. politics, this seems to be an anomaly for them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I block is required. They don't seem to be paying attention to any warnings. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd consider this to be a legal threat. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, while don't repeat otherwise under behalf of trump administration I can take action is a threat, I don't see it as a legal threat and I'm 100% certain it is a baseless threat as I doubt this editor represents the Trump administration, past or future. Especially because they seem to be from Nepal, not the U.S. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it's definite WP:NOTHERE behaviour, especially given the edit warring in a contentious topic. (Although I personally would have agreed with Lilana that it was a legal threat). — Czello ^(music) 07:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

User:CyberIdris

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

---

The article on "Yukio Mishima" was subject to trolling from multiple IP addresses believed to be the same person, and the administrator recently took action to semi-protect the page. But the exact same trolling has now resumed again, this time by User:CyberIdris, who is likely to be the same person as 45.128.80.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).

I won the FA for my article on Yukio Mishima in the Japanese edition, and I make accurate edits based on reliable academic sources, but this person alters parts of Mishima's history that he does not like, and insists on exaggerating and labeling him as an "ultra-nationalist." I explained to him in User talk:45.128.80.181 that "ultra-nationalist" and "restoring direct imperial rule" are wrong view that is not found in any source, but this person has not listened at all, and now he has repeated the same trolling as User:CyberIdris, at the same time he continues to changing the correct titles of Mishima's works that are the official English titles to wrong.

In the first place, Mishima's final suicide appealed for Japan's independent defense through the amendment of Article 9 of the Constitution. Therefore, the user's edit itself, inserting the phrase "restoring direct imperial rule," is strange, and at the same time, it is an addition that reveals ignorance of Japanese history. This is because even before the war, the Emperor had not direct rule.

This user probably does not have accurate knowledge about Mishima or Japan, in spite of he is comfortable making changes and deleting words from articles that have proper academic sources. I just looked at the edits of this user on other articles, and in other articles about Japan, he also omits sources for no particular reason, calling it "trimming." ([42])

I have explained the same thing to User talk: CyberIdris, but I think there is a high possibility that he will troll again with his incorrect views. I think he is also violating the rule of multiple accounts. In order to preserve proper, high-quality articles, I would like you to put an end to this trolling that ignores sources and is done by people who have no knowledge of Yukio Mishima. Thank you. みしまるもも (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, みしまるもも, as it says all over this page, you need to post a notification to this editor on their User talk page, alerting them to this discussion. Please do so. If you think they are a sockpuppet, you should file a case at WP:SPI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Dear Liz, Thank you for teaching me. みしまるもも (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Not true. First みしまるもも's accusation of trolling is uncivil and unnecessary.

Second @みしまるもも appears to have a emotional connection to this topic and has been treating the article as if he owns it personally. みしまるもも 's userpage suggests a heavy conflict of interest.

From what I can see on the talk page みしまるもも was lectured harshly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yukio_Mishima#Original_research for pushing original research and acting like he is a self-proclaimed "Mishima expert" to oppose all improvements.

He seems to be interested in pushing nationalist viewpoints. CyberIdris (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• I did not do any original research. The other party only asked for secondary sources, and I later provided the secondary sources and resolved the issue. From my perspective, Mr. Ash-Gaar was doing some original research, so I pointed that out to him, and he responded in that way. I have now reconciled with him, and it has nothing to do with your case. And Mr. Ash-Gaar also reverted your edit, and when I corrected a mistake in his edit ("to restore direct imperial rule,"), while explaining the reason, I received a thank you notice.--みしまるもも (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

What usually helps in situation where two editors are locking horns is to get feedback from other editors who are interested in the article. Have you tried talking about your differences on the article talk page, Talk:Yukio Mishima? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Dear Liz, thank you for mediating. I have explained it in Talk:Yukio Mishima now.

He misguided understanding and alteration of Mishima's final act is clearly vandalism. Besides that, he even change the official English titles of Mishima's works to incorrect ones, and edit to remove "Mishima has been recognized as one of the world's most important literary persons of the 20th century," which I edited based on the academic literature source of Donald Keene. Also, he reverted the notice I posted on his talk page.([43])

みしまるもも (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

This sounds frustrating. But it's also a content dispute and ANI handles misconduct. I'm not convinced their edits are vandalism. If discussion on the article talk page doesn't lead to a resolution there are other forms of dispute resolution if CyberIdris is willing to take part in them. But if you have more than suspicions about sockpuppetry, then you might head to SPI. In a complaint there, you will be expected to produce evidence that editors are editing in a similar manner, they are pretty strict about that there. It's not for "fishing". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

CyberIdris has repeatedly engaged in destructive behavior by replacing basic information based on legitimate sources to his/her original inaccurate research. ([44]) No matter how many times I explain it to this user in the article's note page and elsewhere, he/she has not understood at all, and has continued to force through strange changes and has not stop this exhausting behavior.--みしまるもも (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

みしまるもも personal attacks and threats

みしまるもも (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Personal attacks:

The fact that Mishima committed suicide in an attempt to appeal for the revision (abolition) of Article 9 of the Constitution and to restore the Self-Defense Forces as a national army is elementary and basic knowledge. I really wonder why someone who doesn't know these things would want to get involved in this article.

If you are not familiar with Japan and do not have the insight to distinguish the truthfulness of unreliable online sites, please do not get involved with this article.

You have no knowledge of Mishima, so all you can rely on is this fake information, right? On the contrary, you are the one trying to hide the real information about Mishima

And it's clear that your revision is simply an attempt to destroy the article and hide the truth

I feel like you may have come here to purposely lower the quality of the articles

You have no basic knowledge, and therefore have no right to come here and tell me anything. First of all, why don't you read Henry Scott's book instead of that nonsense site?

First of all, why would someone with only a superficial knowledge of Mishima, without having looked at proper documents for themselves in a library or somewhere similar, get involved in this article? Do you understand what "subversion of the state" means?

I know that people overseas don't know much about Mishima, but you know absolutely nothing.

Threats:

If you do this repeatedly, we will ask you to block us.

I will request that you be blocked.

He continuously tells editors to not contribute, or says they are trying to "hide the truth", and he keeps suggesting that "foreign" people are not smart[45]. みしまるもも appears to have some kind of conflict of interest over Yukio Mishima. He has gotten a lot of past warnings for nationalist editing[46][47][48]CyberIdris (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

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

IP on a Personal attack-filled spree on US election related articles

68.196.5.168 has been attempting to POV-push since their first edit, with personal attacks mixed in for good measure from the second edit [49]. I could give a detailed analysis but I think edits and edit summaries such as these [50] [51][52] do the music themselves. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

While their comments are sharply worded, 2024 Trump rally at Madison Square Garden is an article that draws editors with strong opinions. The only personal attack directed towards a specific editor is a CIR question and that is a charge that gets raised on ANI all of the time so I'm unsure about sanctioning an editor for raising that. I think we have to watch their comments about Judaism but right now it looks like it's a comment about political support, not antisemitism. They are clearly anti-conservative but we don't block editors based on their political stance but based on their behavior. That's my take, other editors might see this differently. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Certainly the point about Judaism was phrased unclearly. To clarify, the point was simply that there is no logical connection between the statements A) "Trump enjoys more support among Orthodox Jews than Harris" therefore (somehow) B)"Trump is not a fascist." A does not imply B; A is not even in any way evidence for B. And even if it somehow was, that would be synth since the source cited makes no mention of fascism. the bit about Nazism was just my idle speculation as to why that editor fallaciously suggested that Trump's support in the Orthodox community was at all germane to the question of whether Trump is a fascist, but this statement was unclear and unnecessary to my overall point. As for the suggestion that there were competence concerns about a particular editor, I just looked and that user was banned as "Not here" so it would appear others shared my assessment. The deletion discussion statement was surely a bit hyperbolic but I was trying to indicate just how obvious it was that this topic is notable. There is a mountain of academic literature on it, as well as other similar neo-fascist and illiberal pseudo-democrats around the globe, most of whom Trump regularly fetes with praise and who cheered his return to power. I do maintain that there was no reason to have that deletion discussion since no one ever raised any challenges to the notability of the topic. The user who sent me here (and somewhat rudely did not provide a link to the discussion leaving me to find this topic) appears to just be upset that he lost the debate. Chin up, mate. You can get through this. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

"I would like to raise WP:Competenceisrequired concerns about Mr. Britton. The above sentences clearly illustrates the basic competences needed to edit articles on political topics are missing here."

"Please clear out the trolls, like both of the above editors, especially the nutter going on about "bolshie elitists who run this site."

"No offense, but your (Fantastic Mr. Fox) position is palpably absurd.

"Speedy Keep and I propose that all “delete” votes take a 7 day ban to read and reflect upon WP: Competenceisrequired"

This IP ran into the thick of Meta Wikipedia disputes and quickly starts ordering users against him to be banned. He is hardly here to set to provide a extra set of contributional helping hands? Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I would like to second this as I have noticed it quite a bit and it is becoming an increasing issue Artem P75 (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I am making comments on the content of articles and making substantive points about article content. You, on the other hand, appear to be engaged in some sort of strange personal vendetta. Just let it go, man.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.5.168 (talk • contribs)

"You, on the other hand, appear to be engaged in some sort of strange personal vendetta. Just let it go, man."

In this very comment, you implicitly cast WP:ASPERSIONS. Content is not an issue. WP:PA's are. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you know WP:Boomerang friend? You've sure been blocked an awful lot of times for engaging in similar WP:Battleground behavior as you are right now to be so confident in calling in the administration. Has that typically gone well for you in the past?68.196.5.168 (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

"You've sure been blocked an awful lot of times for engaging in similar WP:Battleground behavior as you are right now to be so confident in calling in the administration."

This falls under WP:ATONED. I don't think I need to elaborate much more here on IP's behaviour.

If the IP wishes to be a positive member of Wikipedia, I suggest he seriously reconsider his attitude on this platform. I will and have had disagreements with members, but we move on and work positively to find a solution because we assume each others intentions are WP:GOODFAITH. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, we should certainly all move on. Cheers. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

68.196.5.168, do you agree then to speak with more civility towards other editors, especially those you disagree with, and stop casting aspersions? This is necessary if you wish to continue to edit here. Behavior that is common on most discussion boards is not tolerated here. You need to treat your fellow editors with respect and they, to you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Bolshoi elitist who runs Wikipedia

Fine, i’ll do as you suggest. But a couple of things. Please permanently ban that editor who was complaining of “the bolshie elitists who run Wikipedia” and now openly declared himself an anti-semite on the article talk page. If you don't want me to have to get down in the mud, please clean up your own trash. And Mr. fox should really reflect upon his own behavior towards other editors, which seems to have undergone no improvement since his previous many blocks for battleground behavior and other behavioral issues, despite his claims to atonement. I shall do my best to not be baited by conduct like his again. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

You claim here "I'll do as you suggest" then immediately ask for someone to be permanently banned (the highest punishment possible), say you will only stop if Wikipedia 'cleans (its) own trash' (very WP:RGW-esque), and then subsequent fire off some more unbacked WP:ASPERSIONS about behaviour from a block that nobody has ever brought up or mentioned since.

IP, nobody 'baited' you into going into discussions with WP:BADFAITH. I am a person who enjoys giving rope to editors who at least try to communicate collaboratively. I haven't seen you once make a comment without attempting to aggressively POV-push, mention 'x should be punished for y' or straight up refuse to acknowledge any point the person they are replying is making. To me, the IP appears to be WP:NOTHERE with no real signs him changing his standpoint. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

now openly declared himself an anti-semite on the article talk page

This direct personal attack deserves an immediate block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

So you're stumping for the user who called themselves an anti-semite to not be permanently banned ? (https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump_and_fascism&diff=prev&oldid=1256086637)("I am 100% antisemitic and definitely considered my options for voting...Unified Reich you say? Expell blood poisoners? Sign me the fuck up")Reconsider that view, friend. Try to take the time to understand what is going on before commenting. I didn't call anyone an anti-semite, that user quite literally boasted of being one. Considering that you are engaged in the very behavior you falsely accuse me of, some self-reflection might be in order on your part. See also WP:Boomerang might be useful for you to consider. Evidently you're very upset about something I said (though I can't see why) but I think everyone would prefer if you just moved on. I'm very sorry if I upset you greatly when I called your position "palpably absurd" in that deletion debate where no one agreed with you. Let it go. 68.196.5.168 21:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

68.196.5.168 is not making a personal attack; please see the edit history of: 124.169.133.156, who is in fact blocked now. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the address is blocked. We do not block IP addresses permanently for the reason that they can be reassigned to anyone at any time. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Since you did not provide any context, I could only assume you were attacking Fantastic Mr. Fox. Rather than condescending with Try to take the time to understand what is going on before commentin, you need to be very careful to provide diffs when making accusations against other editors.

In fact, the rest of your comment appears to be aimed at Fox, since I have never interacted with you before this moment, yet you're claiming you called [my] position "palpably absurd" in that deletion debate. You are so locked in attack-mode that you're not paying attention to whom you're speaking. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

It was not directed at you. In fact, I had no idea you existed until just now. But thank you very much for your contributions. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

MPN 1994 disruptive behaviour

MPN 1994 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has a long history of poor behaviour and a fairly long block log. On 3 November, I issued a final warning to this user due to their repeated disruptive behaviour on 1936–37 Maltese FA Trophy, 1937–38 Maltese FA Trophy and 1938–39 Maltese FA Trophy - essentially reverting the AfD closure without permission. I reported this to WP:RPP in the hope of getting the redirects protected but was told to take it here instead. They have also been disruptive while logged out - see here and here. The latter example was after I had already issued a final warning on MPN's talk page. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It's worth noting @MPN 1994 has a habit of removing warnings from there talk page [53], which has removed most of the Christmas shopping list of notifications and warnings Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Without assessing the validity of this complaint, I'll just point out that editors are allowed to remove warnings from their User talk page and that alone is not an action that would call for sanctions. It's pretty common behavior. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

And to add onto @Liz has pointed out: while it's important to assume good faith about removing user warnings, taking it as a neutral sign that they've read it, it's also okay (and sometimes important!) to point out when someone has done this, like @Fantastic Mr. Fox has done. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@MPN 1994: please can you respond to my complaint? User:Liz asked you to respond 2 days ago and you've carried on editing since. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I Got the Information From the Malta Football Association from the Headquarters. They don't have any History of Knockout Rounds on the Internet. But they gave me an Excel Sheet. So I was giving them the teams how they Qualify and who they Played. But there are Some People didn't Understand me what I was Doing. And I Did Not Logged Out and make it Back. MPN 1994 (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

MPN 1994 I commend your commitment to making the article, but are you Wikipedia aware of policies around original research? Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Listen what I do I am Not Making any Fake news. I know all about Maltese Football. And What I Do I am Saying the Truth. MPN 1994 (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Click the words "original research" in Fantastic Mr. Fox's message and read that policy. City of Silver 19:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

MPN 1994 you still haven't explained why you kept reverting the AfD closure on those Maltese FA Trophy articles, even after being told to stop. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Because Every time I Always Write Either Drafted or Delete MPN 1994 (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Persistent edit warring in contentious topic

UrbanVillager (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Persistent POV edits, removes critical content, adds misleading info to the article.

[54] removes producer association with RT Documentary. Removes Historian Ian Garner noted that Trofimova's claim that she did not have official permission to film the soldiers "hardly stands up to scrutiny in a country where independent journalism simply does not exist" and that Trofimova absolved the soldiers of moral responsibility for war crimes such as rape, looting, and murder by presenting them as "blind kittens", and "helpless to intervene". Garner termed this an "alarming reiteration of the 'just following orders' narratives" that surrounded the Holocaust.[55]

[56] again after being reverted.

[57] again partial revert after being reverted.

[58] adds unsourced "five-minute standing ovation", "she "hadn't watched the "Russians at War" yet" when she was making these comments" .
Removes sourced content from Garner, again.
Adds unsourced The Ukrainian government sent a protest letter to the 81st Venice International Film Festival in August 2024, before the film's trailer (September 4) or the film itself (September 5) had been released.
Removes sourced The film sparked backlash from some regional experts, Canadian politicians and the Ukrainian-Canadian community, who characterized it as "Russian propaganda."
Adds Within the film industry, Trofimova's film was recognized as an original, professionally done and gutsy anti-war documentary.[10][9][11][6][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] with the first source Ukrainians assail Russian war film at Venice fest saying This film may mislead you into believing that it is an anti-war film, one that questions the current regime in Russia," Darya Bassel, a producer who watched the film at the festival, said in a Facebook post. "However, what I witnessed is a prime example of pure Russian propaganda," she said .

[59] again removes Garner.
Removes DW noted that the film is controversial. The producers say the film is anti-war. Critics criticize it for sympathizing the invading soldiers and for not informing the viewer on the Russian war crimes. On the other side, "Trofimova's film is considered one of the few documentary video evidence from the Russian side of the front." and replaces it with Germany's DW News: "Trofimova's film is considered one of the few documentary video evidence from the Russian side of the front." referenced to Канал TVO не покажет спорный фильм "Русские на войне" – DW – 11.09.2024 which says The filmmakers say they perceive it as an anti-war statement. Critics believe that this is an attempt to "humanize" Russian soldiers and express sympathy for them. According to opponents, the film does not show the massive destruction in Ukraine and the war crimes of the Russian army.
Adds As the press noted, none of the participants of this protest saw the film with 7 references, with only one saying the people who managed to get this film cancelled almost certainly haven’t seen it and others do not support it.

[60] adds Without permission from the Ministry of Defense as a fact, while it was challenged by Garner and others. Basically, returns their previous reverted version [61] while keeping 2 amendments (Garner and controversial mention).

[62] another tendentious edit, adds "Anti-war content" and "Footage rarity" sections which fills with whatever they like. Puts most critical assessments from "Critical response" into "Controversy and political pressure" and "Protests" sections, converts "Critical response" into "Reception" which mostly fills with praise.

[63] returns their reverted version
[64] again, and [65] again.

In talk, do not attends the arguments raised, do not agrees to adhere to WP:CONS - Talk:Russians at War#WP:OWN , makes accusations of vandalism and personal appeals.

I'm tired of being the only one to oppose the editor and am asking others to step in. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

If it's just the two of you, then WP:3O is the way to go. ANI only deals with behavioral violations, not editing disputes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Notably, User:Manyareasexpert consistently reverts the updated version of Russians at War that has 88 sources to the very outdated and not well-structured old version with 47 sources. I observe back and forth reversion war between this editor (who has extensive history editing in pages related to Ukraine, in violation of WP:RUSUKR) and the editor User:UrbanVillager who consistently posts the updated version. I ask other, neutral senior editors to limit the ability of User:Manyareasexpert to edit this page due their violation of WP:RUSUKR that is evident from the history of their edits. Complexity1 (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Reporting harassment by sockpuppet account

A sockpuppet is constantly putting unsourced content on the wikipage Uddhav Thackeray, After removing his unsourced edits, he is harassing me on my talk page. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/117.228.176.138 )

Regards Io5678 (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

How do you know this user is a sockpuppet? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

His edits are politically motivated as he has harassed me in talk page.They can be had in the history of my talk page. Io5678 (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Io5678, the "history of your talk page"? There are only 7 edits to your user talk page you've only been an editor for 4 days now. That's not a long history. Have you used other accounts before this one? It's highly unusual for a 4 day old account to bring a complaint to ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

He puts the same unsourced stuff again.and his IP address are similar Io5678 (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I think what Ivanvector was getting at is that IPs can change without any intent or even knowledge of the person making the edits. That is not sockpuppetry unless they are evading a block. This looks like an extremely minor content dispute that does not require admin intervention at this time. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

He harassed me in the talk page with racial comments,he seems to be a politicaly motivated troll. Io5678 (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

He has created three accounts in a span of four to five days. Also,each of his account has only one edit. Io5678 (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

If you could provide the names of those accounts that would be helpful. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean the material that admin Bbb23 restored? It appears to be sourced. The IPs message on your talk page may not be the politest but it doesn't rise to harassment. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This editor also went to three different editors' user talk pages asking for those edits to be revision deleted which seems like an odd thing for a 4 day old account to know about. They have also been edit-warring and justifying by saying the other editors were sockpuppets (with no evidence). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I blocked them. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 07:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, the sockpuppet account against which Io5678 is complaining is not sockpuppet account, but since I don't have wikipedia account, & I do directly edit page, my IP address (which fluctuates as per net service provider) is displayed. I haven't added anything new but only restored information with proper references which other two admins Bbb23, Yoshi24517 also agreed & restored, which Io5678 removed withouth proper justification. In his talk page I only mentioned him as andhbhakt which means blind follower of political party or ideology & I live in province where uddhav thackeray was governing, so I know about his popularity. & by crying harassment he has vindicated me. Anyways, the article is properly fixed at this moment & I thank Bbb23, Yoshi24517, CambridgeBayWeather|Uqaqtuq for putting proper inputs as well as restraining Io5678 from making unconstructive edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.233.118.11 (talk) 10:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I actually asked for their evidence of sockpuppetry because "my political opponent must be a sockpuppet" is a thing that sockpuppets say, pretty reliably, especially with Indian politics. And, well, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mlnx. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

That's True. I should also thank you for being neutral & helping me in putting right information. 117.233.92.161 (talk) 08:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

What to do with apparent unsourced material

An another user, going by the username "Kwamikagami" removes (my) additions of the "citations needed" template; Also continuously reverts the removal of uncited material, which I removed on the basis that the removed material was completely unsourced, as per Wikipedia:Content removal. The article of topic is the Origin of Hangul article, where this whole part of a section is completely unsourced. (this is the article's part where the user is arguing for being sourced)

Text about the origin of hangul

"" Although the Hunmin jeong-eum haerye (hereafter Haerye) explains the design of the consonantal letters in terms of articulatory phonetics, it also states that Sejong adapted them from the enigmatic 古篆字 "Gǔ Seal Script". The identity of this script has long been puzzling. The primary meaning of the character 古 gǔ is "old", so 古篆字 gǔ zhuànzì has traditionally been interpreted as "Old Seal Script", frustrating philologists, because the Korean alphabet bears no functional similarity to Chinese 篆字 zhuànzì seal scripts. However the character 古 gǔ also functions as a phonetic component of 蒙古 Měnggǔ "Mongol". Indeed, records from Sejong's day played with this ambiguity, joking that "no one is older (more 古 gǔ) than the 蒙古 Měng-gǔ". From palace records that 古篆字 gǔ zhuànzì was a veiled reference to the 蒙古篆字 měnggǔ zhuànzì "Mongol Seal Script", that is, a formal variant of the Mongol ʼPhags-pa alphabet of the Yuan dynasty (1271-1368) that had been modified to look like the Chinese seal script, and which had been an official script of the empire.[citation needed] There were ʼPhags-pa manuscripts in the Korean palace library from the Yuan Dynasty government, including some in the seal-script form, and several of Sejong's ministers knew the script well. If this was the case, Sejong's evasion on the Mongol connection can be understood in light of the political situation in the Ming Dynasty. The topic of the recent Mongol domination of China, which had ended just 75 years earlier, was politically sensitive, and both the Chinese and Korean literati regarded the Mongols as barbarians with nothing to contribute to a civilized society.[citation needed] It is postulated that the Koreans adopted five core consonant letters from ʼPhags-pa, namely ㄱ g [k], ㄷ d [t], ㅂ b [p], ㅈ j [ts], and ㄹ l [l]. These were the consonants basic to Chinese phonology, rather than the graphically simplest letters (ㄱ g [k], ㄴ n [n], ㅁ m [m], and ㅅ s [s]) taken as the starting point by the Haerye. A sixth letter, the null initial ㅇ, was invented by Sejong. The rest of the consonants were developed through featural derivation from these six, essentially as described in the Haerye; a resemblance to speech organs was an additional motivating factor in selecting the shapes of both the basic letters and their derivatives.[citation needed] Although several of the basic concepts of the Korean alphabet may have been inherited from Indic phonology through the ʼPhags-pa script, such as the relationships among the homorganic consonants, Chinese phonology played a major role. Besides the grouping of letters into syllables, in functional imitation of Chinese characters, Ledyard argues that[citation needed] it was Chinese phonology, not Indic, that determined which five consonants were basic, and were therefore to be retained from ʼPhags-pa. These included the plain stop letters, ꡂ g [k] for ㄱ g [k], ꡊ d [t] for ㄷ d [t], and ꡎ b [p] for ㅂ b [p], which were basic to Chinese theory, but which represented voiced consonants in the Indic languages and were not basic in the Indic tradition. The other two letters were the plain sibilant ꡛ s [s] for ㅈ j [ts] (ㅈ was pronounced [ts] in the fifteenth century, as it still is in North Korea) and the liquid ꡙ l [l] for ㄹ l [l]. In order to maintain the Chinese convention of initial and rime, Sejong and his ministers needed a null symbol to refer to the lack of a consonant with an initial vowel. He chose the circle ㅇ with the subsequent derivation of the glottal stop ㆆ ʼ [ʔ], by adding a vertical top stroke by analogy with the other stops, and the aspirate ㅎ h [h], parallel the account in the Haerye. (Perhaps the reason he created a new letter rather than adopting one from ʼPhags-pa was that it was awkward to write these Chinese initials in ʼPhags-pa, where ㅇ and ㆆ were both written as digraphs beginning with y, ꡭꡝ and ꡗꡖ.) However, Ledyard's explanation[citation needed] of the letter ㆁ ng [ŋ] differs from the Haerye account; he sees it as a fusion of velar ㄱ g and null ㅇ, reflecting its variable pronunciation. The Korean alphabet was designed not just to write Korean, but to accurately represent Chinese. Many Chinese words historically began with [ŋ], but by Sejong's day this had been lost in many regions of China, and was silent when these words were borrowed into Korean, so that [ŋ] only remained at the middle and end of Korean words. The expected shape of a velar nasal, the short vertical stroke (⃓) that would be left by removing the top stroke of ㄱ g, had the additional problem that it would have looked almost identical to the vowel ㅣ i [i]. Sejong's solution solved both problems: The vertical stroke left from ㄱ g was added to the null symbol ㅇ to create ㆁ ng, iconically capturing both regional pronunciations as well as being easily legible. Eventually the graphic distinction between the two silent initials ㅇ and ㆁ was lost, as they never contrasted in Korean words. Another letter composed of two elements to represent two regional pronunciations, now obsolete, was ㅱ, which transcribed the Chinese initial 微. This represented either m or w in various Chinese dialects, and was composed of ㅁ [m] plus ㅇ. In ʼPhags-pa, a loop under a letter, ꡧ, represented [w] after vowels, and Ledyard proposes[citation needed] this rather than the null symbol was the source of the loop at the bottom, so that the two components of ㅱ reflected its two pronunciations just as the two components of ㆁ ng did. The reason for suspecting that this derives from ʼPhags-pa ꡧ w is that the entire labio-dental series of both ʼPhags-pa and the hangul, used to transcribe the Chinese initials 微非敷 w, v, f, have such composite forms, though in the case of ʼPhags-pa these are all based on the letter ꡜ h (ꡤ etc.), while in hangul, which does not have an h among its basic consonants, they are based on the labial series ㅁ m, ㅂ b, ㅍ p. An additional letter, the 'semi-sibilant' ㅿ z, now obsolete, has no explanation in either Ledyard or the Haerye. It also had two pronunciations in Chinese, as a sibilant and as a nasal (approximately [ʑ] and [ɲ]) and so, like ㅱ for [w] ~ [m] and ㆁ for ∅ ~ [ŋ], may have been a composite of existing letters. As a final piece of evidence, Ledyard notes[citation needed] that, with two exceptions, hangul letters have the simple geometric shapes expected of invention: ㄱ g [k] was the corner of a square, ㅁ m [m] a full square, ㅅ s [s] a chevron, ㅇ a circle. In the Hunmin Jeong-eum, before the influence of the writing brush made them asymmetrical, these were purely geometric. The exceptions were ㄷ d [t] and ㅂ b [p], which had more complex geometries and were two of the forms adopted from ʼPhags-pa. For example, ㄷ d [t] wasn't a simple half square, but even in the Hunmin Jeong-eum had a lip protruding from the upper left corner, just as ʼPhags-pa ꡊ d did, and as Tibetan ད d did before that. If the ʼPhags-pa theory is valid, then the graphic base of Hangul consonants is part of the great family of alphabets that spread from the Phoenician alphabet, through Aramaic, Brāhmī, and Tibetan (though the derivation of Brahmi from Aramaic/Phoenician is also tenuous; see the Semitic-model hypothesis for Brahmi). However, this is only one component of its derivation.""

This section of the article has had the "More citations needed section" template up since June 2019, alongside it being plastered with the template way before I first got there, and by the looks of it the user reverting my removals & and my previous "citations needed" edits has been asserting for this "theory" of the section since 2008, while reverting any previous attempts of the removal of non-sourced material by other users. I have tried talking to this user with no results; The user claims that the article is cited and that I have no grounds for content removal/flagging. I believe that this would be unsourced and also very speculative material - and would like to either remove the material on the basis that it is unsourced, or at least put citations needed tags on dubious claims, but as I am new to Wikipedia, I would very much like to request for an admin to shed some light on this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daldidandal (talk • contribs) 23:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't know what you did, but a lot of glitches were preventing me from replying on your post. I'll look into it, and also make sure to sign your comments. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 00:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Not admin, but experienced-ish user here: if you remove the material, and the user reverts it, the best thing to do next is to start a discussion on the talk page (Talk:Origin of Hangul) about the content, and inform them that unsourced material shouldn't be introduced back without a citation. Ideally, you could try to get a third opinion to build consensus on what to do with the material, who might be able to find sources or agree with its removal. Since the discussion has instead been spread between both of your talk pages, it makes it a bit harder to follow for third parties, although this isn't a very big deal.

In terms of behavior, you have both been slowly edit-warring on the article to some extent, and edit-warring isn't constructive even if you are in the right. Kwamikagami's removal of {{citation needed}} tags and re-addition of unsourced content is more concerning, although the simultaneous change you made in the translation of Sejong's quote should be explained. Also, calling the other user "vandal" in an edit summary isn't necessary (on Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific definition, of edits unambiguously intended to disrupt the encyclopedia, rather than simply non-constructive edits). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

As an aside, the ideal template to use for unsourced sections is {{unsourced|section}} (or {{more citations needed|section}} if the amount of citations is insufficient), just below the section header, rather than adding {{citation needed}} in the section header. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I think {{unreferenced section}} is preferred to {{unreferenced|section}}, since it categorizes differently. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, never realized they were different! Since I'm pretty sure I've often seen people use {{unreferenced|section}}, I wonder if it could be worth making the template categorize articles appropriately when given that first parameter? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Seconding Chaotic Enby's comment of starting a discussion on the article talk page. Also, why the sudden jump to ANI?--Kansas Bear (talk) 01:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with Kwamikagami but I see that they've had an account for 20 years now. I'd like to hear their response to this complaint before making a judgment. But, I agree, you can't go wrong starting a discussion on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  The reason I reverted was that Daldidandal repeatedly falsified the quotation. Putting the cn tags in the section headers also defaced the article, so I reverted everything -- it's their job to fix such things, but Daldidandal responded by blanking content instead. That seemed petulant. Anyway, Daldidandal's claim that the blanked material was unsourced is false: the sources are all in the reference section, it's just a matter of going through and citing them for individual statements. I no longer have print copies accessible to cite page numbers, and anyway for the next few weeks I've got other things going on. — kwami (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Not directly related to this issue, but Daldidandal is being similarly disruptive at Hangul by repeatedly reinstating their version despite multiple reversions by other users (see the history here). Theknightwho (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

New editor (Zachapertio) may need an admin warning or a block to cool down

Zachapertio (talk · contribs) is an account that has been created in August (now at 300+ edits) and their second and third edits were already problematic (edit warring). They came to my attention just now, as few days ago they violated talk page guidelines reverting, with no rationale a perfectly fine response (or a set of three, to be exact) to a warning that my student received few days ago on their talk page.

I assumed it is an innocent mistake by a new user, so I reverted them with an edit summary and left them a friendly but firm warning message to be careful on their talk.

In response, they reverted my warning removing it from their talk page with no edit summary, reverted my revert removing my students responses again, and left me a "final warning for vandalism message".

I don't have time to review their edits in more detail, but I see in September they got a warning from @Robert McClenon, which they promptly deleted as well.

I think that editor is WP:NOTHERE, and is playing as an admin or moderator with way too little experience and wrong attitude (see their numerous edits at userspace talk, with many warnings and such). I am not sure if a warning to refrain from such actions until they get much more experience will be enough, a shorter or longer admin or community block for them to cool down (for few weeks of years...) might be warranted. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 01:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Nothing else they are doing seems particularly weird, but I agree that the user talk reverts make no sense. They are free to remove whatever they want from their own talk page, but not someone else's. And issuing a vandalism warning to you is clearly just plain wrong. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking at some of their non-template messages, it doesn't seem like their English skills are very strong. That doesn't have any influence those strange user talk page edits but I thought I'd mention it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I know that consensus can change, but I know there was a consensus years ago that cool-down blocks backfired too often to be useful. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Pretty sure cool-down blocks have never been a thing the community supports. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 05:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if i got blocked? Zach (talk to me) 07:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Since you can post here, User:Zachapertio, you are not blocked. But you should read over the comemnts here and provide an explanation for any questions about your editing that have arisen. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

And an apology to me and my student would be nice. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 00:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree. This is a misuse of Twinkle and their use of this tool should be revoked (I would have revoked it by myself if I find the right page to do so). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not think Twinkle is something we can control access to - Isn't it built into the "Gadgets" section of the site now? ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 01:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Yep, it's been that way for some time. And although I agree the issued warning was not appropiate, they've been told that via a warning on their talk page and have not edited in three days so I'm not really seeing any sanctions forthcomeing from this thread. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I must be thinking about WP:AWB, which can be revoked for misuse by removing their name from this page. Perhaps Twinkle should add this feature? @Novem Linguae: is there a way to remove Twinkle access for miuse? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

November 2024 Amsterdam attacks / Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam

We have two articles about the same current Palstine/Israel event, November 2024 Amsterdam attacks and Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam. We have at least one IP editing the second page, despite being warned about the "Introduction to contentious topics" rules on their talk page. Page protection or admins keeping an eye on the pages may help. Fram (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I've ECP Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam and restored the redirect. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 11:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I think this IP needs a temporary block (they haven't stopped). Nythar (💬-🍀) 11:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Gave them a time out. Thanks for the heads up. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 12:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked after further disruption. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Fram (talk) 11:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Continuous personal attacks

A user @GeebaKhap: keeps attacking me personally with the words like: you accuse others (when I said one thing in general tone without referring anyone), makes no sense, another blatant lie, when I trying to reach a consensus over the dispute on Talk:Head_of_state#NPOV. They also added their own words in my RfC statement to portray the things which I didn't said, which disrupts the consensus process. I tried to ignore first but it feels out of limit now. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

1. [66] You slapped an edit-warring template on my talkpage after a single revert of your undiscussed change.
2. [67] You tagged me on the article talk page and accused me of "edit war[ring] over adding images of personal favourites", after I had already ceased reverting and opened a discussion on the talkpage.
3. [68] Literally hours later, you stated you "didn't accuse anyone of 'playing favourites".

I will let other Wikipedians be the judge of whether statement number 3 is truthful given statements number 1 and 2. If it is a personal attack to point out untrue statements, I will refrain from doing so. I have not personally attacked you, I think your conduct is disingenuous, particularly where you keep insisting your preferred version – which you instituted in September – is a long-term establish consensus. WP:RFCNEUTRAL requires the RfC question to be "neutral and brief". I think we should both back off and let the RfC play out to settle the content dispute. GeebaKhap (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Editing the comments of other users is not allowed as per WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 12:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I also note that JoshuaJ28 has a history at ANI regarding this topic. I reiterate that I am happy to refrain from any further contact with this user as I don't think it will be productive. Thanks. `GeebaKhap (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Here also you're continuing personal attacks on me. Please follow Wikipedia:Civility editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. It's not a place to fight. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

JoshuaJ28 has now suggested that I was also personally attacking them, and is accusing GeebaKhap of socking. I don't remember the AN/I report GeebaKhap linked above, but apparently there I noted this poor vandalism warning template. GeebaKhap should not be editing the RfC as they did, and there may be a language issue at play, but there is a pattern of poor interactions by JoshuaJ28 here. CMD (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Please don't seek revenge in this issue. We don't even know each other personally. We all came here to contribute wikipedia in collaborative manner. I already told you to stop that discussion there, but you're taking that here, to hurt me more. I can't take it anymore. Feeling emotional and just want to die. Please leave me alone. It's exhaustive and depressing. I'm done with Wikipedia. Retiring permanently. Peace. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Bringing an accusation here opens you up to scrutiny yourself. So if you truly aren't in a place to deal with that, I hope you do well in your Wiki-retirement. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm also involved, so I'll chime in with that I don't think any of this rises to ANI at the moment. I'm starting to be concerned by Joshua's behavior, but I can also understand the IP suspicion to an extent, and the RFC this is related to (setting WP:RFCNEUTRAL aside) is progressing and the current emerging consensus will solve the problem. Tessaract2^Hi! 15:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour

User:Oddsourceuser was created on November 6 2024 and they have been edit-warring repeatedly with clumsy POV edits for the past couple of days (contribs). They have received several warnings (talk) but it doesn't seem like they are willing to interact with another editor. They have been using the IP 141.98.142.45 to edit-war and restore their reverted edits, where they also received warnings (IP talk). See article Ladochori, created by Oddsourceceuser and editied by the IP (history); more edit warring in articles Agia, Preveza, Parga, Dhermi, Sotiris Ninis, Palase etc. I think you get the point. Piccco (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This user was investigated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Renald.Bejtja with a finding of "possible", though no action was taken. The IP address is a proxy and I've blocked the IP address on that basis. I've not personally looked at the technical data. --Yamla (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Yamla Thank you for your quick intervention. Is there going to be any action for the main account? Together with the IP, they've made almost 90 edits in just a few days, mostly disruptive, and there's no indication that this behaviour is going to stop after several reverts and notices. Piccco (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, the edit-warring by Oddsourceuser is continuing across multiple articles [69], with edit summaries that do not inspire confidence. Khirurg (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I think we need to wait for them to have an opportunity to respond, which means it most likely won't be me taking further action. --Yamla (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Yamla they published there response here [70]Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing of Current Events by Ivanvector

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

---

User User:Ivanvector is making disruptive editing initially claiming a source was needed but then refusing to admit a source was added and is continuously undoing the edits that were made with reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.189.54.128 (talk • contribs)

Anyone's free to review my work at Portal:Current events/2024 November 8 regarding sourcing for the blurb about the Amsterdam football attacks. I reviewed the CNN source provided and did not see anything that supported the IP's assertion that the attacks against the Israeli football club were premeditated, so I removed that section. The IP also added a France24 video source which I could not review (firewalled) but it appeared to be a speech by the Israeli prime minister, which I did not expect to be a reliably neutral source for this, but if anyone wants to review that and tell me I'm wrong, feel free. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

A source by France 24 was added and ignored by Ivanvector 142.189.54.128 (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I see this was mentioned, the bias is clearly stuck with Ivanvector and I suspect antisemitism being a reason behind why, being on one side of the issue does not imply lying or cheating on the issue. 142.189.54.128 (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I just said I could not view the video. Do you have a link to a transcript? Also, please withdraw that personal attack. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that could be dealt with on the relevant talk page. This is not urgent, chronic, or intractable. Per Ivan, if that personal attack isn't immediately revoked we have a different action to discuss. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I am rarely urgent, but both chronic and intractible fit well. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

That is mot the point though it is corrected and no personal attack was made. 142.189.54.128 (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

You not being able to view it is not a reason to remove the content altogether, you could gather information from the text not the video. I will remove it if you deny you are antisemitic only then it is suggested you could see that as a personal attack. 142.189.54.128 (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for personal attacks; claiming that you'll remove the comment if they agree it is not true does not negate the original statement. Happy for any other admin to discuss this further with the IP but I'm not having them hold an accusation of anti-semitism at ransom. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For context, here is the video the IP posted. It does have a caption, which I see reads "Netanyahu condemned on Friday what he described as a premeditated attack". So I suppose we could provide that opinion in Netanyahu's voice. I don't think it provides much context in a brief summary of the events, though. The IP has been blocked, anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I've also started Portal Talk:Current events/2024 November 8#Amsterdam violence II for further discussion. I don't think any more admin attention is required here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Oh one more thing, actually. Earlier today before I got involved I declined a request to protect the page at RFPP, and a different IP has objected to that action. I would appreciate if another admin would review that. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

User:GreatLeader1945

GreatLeader1945 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is repeatedly reverting edits claiming to be reverting vandalism when the edits are not vandalism. Here they claim to "rvv" to restore their own edit that was reverted for being unsourced (as well as factually false), same here, here, here and here. I have previously warned them against making personal attacks in their edit summaries by claiming constructive edits are vandalism, they have since continued doing so. nableezy - 20:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

 Blocked x 72 hrs for disruptive editing. They have a wall of warnings on their talk page and a previous block for edit warring. That's enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Darn it, @Ad Orientem, I was just about to block EvergreenFir (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Because tone is unclear, let me specify that my comment was mock/fake outrage EvergreenFir (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I got it don't worry. Good to know we are of the same mind on the matter at hand. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

That userpage is beyond disruptive, and the username screams "right-wing troll". They should be indeffed. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

See also their WP:NOTFORUM antics on Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine, would also recommend indef to save inevitable future administrator time. TylerBurden (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I considered topic banning them from Arab/Israel related pages but decided a block was just easier. I have subsequently posted a note warning them to tread carefully going forward as this is likely to be their last block with an expiration date. I see that they have since blanked their talk page. While that is within their right, it is not encouraging. I definitely consider them to be on very thin ice. If there is any further issue just drop me a line. Assuming it's not trivial or a misunderstanding, an indefinite block is likely the next step. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Their user page has all the signs of a troll, but I'll defer to the blocking admin and give the editor some rope. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 10:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Matthewjaredgarza2010 doing complex actions incorrectly, ignoring advice

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

---

Matthewjaredgarza2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been here 2 weeks and has been creating lots of busywork for others with incorrect CSDs, redirects, and noticeboard reports. A few examples (many more in edit history):

• Reporting user for vandalism after user warned Matthewjaredgarza2010 Special:Permalink/1256210298#Invalid/incomplete WP:AIV submission
• Reporting CSDs incorrectly: Special:Diff/1256185376 Special:Diff/1256161563 Special:Diff/1256091078
• Odd page creations: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RTINGS.com
• Incorrect, now deleted disambig pages include: HEB Park (disambiguation) UTRGV Football Stadium (disambiguation) Vackar Stadium (disambiguation)

See talk page for all the efforts (including mine) to counsel user. See Special:Permalink/1256206310#November 2024 for one of my efforts and user's dismissive reply.

More details on request, but a quick perusal of the user talk page gives a good picture. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to add Matthewjaredgarza2010's false accusation against another editor by alleging vandalism. The editor that Matthewjaredgarza2010 accused, LefterDalaka, at the time had never been warned & had been reverted twice in 223 edits. Presumably Matthewjaredgarza2010's action was in a response to an advisory note that LefterDalaka had left on Matthewjaredgarza2010's talk page. Peaceray (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I closed that AFD as they didn't boither to state any sort of reason. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

And upon examining this further I've p-blocked them from article space unless and until they make a satisfactory response here. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Just Step Sideways FYI They have replied, except it's on their Talk page. Blue-Sonnet (talk) 01:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I've asked them to respond here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I would like to say that I just did not know I was vandalizing! Matthewjaredgarza2010 (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I was nominating articles for deletion, and speedy deletion, creating articles, etc. Matthewjaredgarza2010 (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Those are complex actions, and you did them incorrectly, repeatedly, and ignored all advice as to changing your actions. You are not competent to have any editing privileges here. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Just Step Sideways I would like to say that I just did not know I was vandalizing! Matthewjaredgarza2010 (talk) 03:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Two more afds that can be speedy closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriel Leyva Velázquez and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladochori. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I have closed those as well. Skynxnex (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

In light of the thread Matthew started below, I'd argue for an indefinite block on the grounds of lack of competence. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I concur. This user fails the WP:CIR check. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Given the below continuation demonstrating WP:CIR failure, I'd say we can indef this one. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the edits just from today, see plenty of fuel for WP:CIR. Copyvio, putting deletion tags on user talk pages (without any need for any text deletion) and the whole Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bkonrad section. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and upped the block to a sitewide indef block. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Bkonrad

{{db-reason-notice}} I would like to report @Bkonrad for incorrectly removing UTB-TSC from University of Texas at Brownsville. I just don’t want people to get confused with Texas Southmost College. It got removed again by @UtherSRG, and it is an ambiguous term. Matthewjaredgarza2010 (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and doesn't belong at ANI. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. You are blocked from the article namespace for failing to competently edit, with the blocking admin noting you need to come to ANI to demonstrate this ability. You are currently doing the opposite. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I did before I did this. Matthewjaredgarza2010 (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

NO you are not. For starters why the hell are you placing an empty deletion template to ANI? Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Matthewjaredgarza2010 doing complex actions incorrectly, ignoring advice. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I have moved this to be a subsection of the related discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Whitewashing and apparent legal threats from User:Billygoats1234

User:Billygoats1234 has been removing sourced information about wage theft claims from Timothy Hollingsworth and has now posted what appears to be a legal threat in the edit summary of this edit. They also removed the COI notice I posted on their talk page without response (I know editors are allowed to remove notices from their talk pages, but this does not inspire confidence). :Jay8g [V•T•E] 20:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

They've also been adding promotional content in place of the critical material, adding to the likelihood of an undeclared COI: "In 2021, he co-founded the company Chain with actor BJ Novak which re-creates classic chain dishes at pop up events and festivals." AntiDionysius (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Their edits would seem to indicate a COI. As this seems limited to a single article I've fully protected the page while this discussion is ongoing. The edit sumarry dances up to a legal threat but doesn't quite make one, but I would advise Billygoats1234 that the word they are looking for is libel, not "liable". Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Homonyms come for us all eventually. Thank you. They've just appeared on my talk page suddenly with a desire to discuss the issue, so it can hopefully be hashed out. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This is not COI this is information that was originally published that someone deleted without any explanation. Billygoats1234 (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Billygoats1234: If the information you're disputing remains in that article, can Wikipedia or any of its editors expect legal sanctions against them by Hollingsworth or anyone associated with him? City of Silver 22:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I will go ahead and email Wikipedia directly regarding this matter. Billygoats1234 (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

If you think it is actionable libel, you should follow the procedure at WP:RFO to ask for removal. If instead you are wanting to talk to the back office, they almost certainly will not take any sort of action here. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

It is also arguable that we are having the wrong discussion here. Rather than accusations of libel I think it could be reasonably argued that it's a bit WP:UNDUE for one of all of five paragraphs in the article to be about this topic. The actual source used to support this paragraph reads, in part "Hollingsworth operated the restaurant alongside former Wolfgang Puck catering CEO Carl Schuster; it opened with investment from the Broad, billionaire Eli Broad’s landmark art museum located next door." Seems entirely possible that the chef is not entirely to blame for what happened. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The paragraph could be cut down quite a bit. I think the issue merits a mention of some kind, given both the source and the Wiki article give Hollingsworth credit for co-founding and co-managing the restaurant. But as you say, the existing bit may be UNDUE particularly given the length of the overall article. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

And the paragraph should be updated as well; workers finally get paychecks, but some turn up short. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The phrase "Hollingsworth was accused of felony wage theft by fifteen former employees of Otium". That implies an investigation exists, but there's none. This has to be reworded as well. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the word "felony" is not used in the source, it's OR. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

We may want to move this more detailed discussion of wording to the talk page, but it sounds like consensus on a reworked paragraph (that removes the OR, adds the updated news and is careful not to make an undue issue of the whole thing) shouldn't be too hard to achieve? AntiDionysius (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

It’s troubling to me that you restored this information, to a BLP, without actually verifying the source. I confirmed that the word felony isn’t even used in the article. That’s not ok. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Byoblu page deletion

Byoblu is a news organization established in Italy, owned by Media Pluralisti Europei SPA, broadcasting on national tv channel 262, sky 816 and satellite 462, plus national DAB radio, since 2021.

I am the founder and CEO. I write to let you know that somedbody deleted our Wikipedia page (Byoblu), claiming that it was promotional. It wasn't. Byoblu is well known by 25% of italian citizens, and seen on a regulary base by the 9,7% of them. We have an EuroMedia Research institute paper that shows it.

So Byoblu deserves to be a part of Wikipedia and shouldn't be deleted by anyone with false claims.

Thank you for your attention and for investigating the subject.

Claudio Messora — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.116.184.184 (talk)

It was speedy deleted as unambigious advertising. Speedy deletions are challenged at deletion review. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Nothing in your edit says anything about whether the page was promotional, the reason why it was deleted. It is possible for articles about extremely important and well-known things to be deleted as promotional. As a non-admin I cannot see the deleted article, but it seems that there are two possible cources of action:

1. Contact the deleting admin at User talk:Deb to see if you can have this restored, and if you can't come to an agreement go to deletion review.
2. Create a new non-promotional article at Draft:Byoblu and submit it for copying to mainspace.

Phil Bridger (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking at it I cannot see the process around its deletion. It was deleted as spam, but was a well referenced article and not unambiguous, and had lasted for over a year. link if you are an admin Secretlondon (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Secretlondon: This was likely related to the now globally locked (as LTA) account 1.600.000ByoBlu, which Deb blocked at the time, which has ByoBlu in the name and was spamming/advertising about said company, including linking the article.

Curiously said account was blocked as LTA/HOY (the spammer with the long and themed names) on a different wiki. – 2804:F14:80F8:8501:6876:CA6F:FEE3:5F9B (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Hindu News

Ther are legal and physical threats over at RSn being made (apparently) by representatives of Hindu News [[71]], but they have a fluctuating IP, so is there anything we can do to stop this? Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes please, multiple clear NLT violations. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

These are the IPs that have been used in the discussion: Special:Contributions/47.31.153.39 Special:Contributions/47.31.133.164 Special:Contributions/49.36.183.2 Special:Contributions/49.36.183.2 Special:Contributions/47.31.153.221. The last one is blocked but needs TPA pulled, too. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

And this [[72]] means it needs to be a perinant block, as this is a direct threat to target WMF staff. Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

This is not the first time this organisation and it's IPs have been brought to ANI see also [73] [74] - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

And it needs to be applied to every involved IP. Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think perinant is a word, which is a shame because it should be. EEng 14:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Considering the diff provided by Slatersteven, I blocked the IPs that were clearly identified as employees of the company due to legal threats. I don't think TPA is needed right now, though. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

There was no LEGAL THREAT. It is a clear and direct caution that aggrieved Hindu Raksha Dal cadres, acting on their own and individually, may physically discipline WMF employees and users in India if there is any abuse or disrespect to our HINDU organization/s and project/s on your web portals - as they have done in the past. WMF Legal and WMF CEO is very well aware of considering the past LITIGATION between our organisations, DMCAs, Office Actions etc. Anyway, what we say here is previously publlshed by us on the ICANN website [75] and can be verified from WMF and also from WP:/LTA. The LTA will show we have unlimited supply of IP addresses, so blocking is a waste of both our times. We suggest you get WMF to impose a GLOBAL BAN on us if they dare. Have a nice day.

Somebody responsible should report this discussion to WIKIMEDIA EMERGENCY email ID also. 47.31.183.210 (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Noting that there also appears to be a threat of physical assault on WMF employees there. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey, but it's not like anything they say at [76] is crazy or anything. Stuff like ...

IAC says the present UDRP is grossly biased in favor of trademark holders. The domain name holders are subjected to RDNH akin to the Jews of Europe being eliminated in Auschwitz gas chambers. IAC demands a DENAZIFICATION of ICANN and the UDRP along with its NAZI collaborators like WIPO. It seems WIPO selects their panelists for their stupidity and for strict obedience to follow WIPO's self created gas chamber operation rules. It is no coincidence that WIPO is located in Switzerland where the bulk of the Nazi Gold was stored. IAC shall list out a few of WIPO's tricks to RDNH IAC's domain.

... make perfect sense to me. EEng 14:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Certainly wasn't on my bingo card for today. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

They make extensive use of legal threats directed at individual editors, the WMF, and the Wikimedia India chapter; they also engage in serious harassment, both on- and off-wiki. Whack-a-mole is so tedious, lets smash a few pumpkins instead. 47.31.148.206 (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

This may need escalation to a global ban, and maybe more as they are making direct theats, and an outright threat to sock. Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The IP's references to IAC suggest a relation to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/India Against Corruption sock-meatfarm. MrOllie (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. That is correct. I provided the tq to assist you. HINDUNEWS.STREAM is a property of the Hindustan Republican Army (check its Whois). IAC is an affiliate of HRA. The brand name IAC is owned by HRA. The Hindu Raksha Dal and Hindu Rashtra Dal are armed military wings of HRA to protect peaceful/defenceless Hindu religionists in India. Let's have a civilised conversation and ignore the trolls.47.31.162.201 (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

If you want a civilised discussion, stop making threats. And stop wp:socking wait till you block expires and come back without the attitude. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Hindustan Socialist Republican Association? So it very much will not be an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Coming off of your threat to have your stormtroopers assault WMF staff and Wikipedia users if WP doesn't do your bidding, I'd say that civilized discussion has up and left the building. Count me very much in favor of a range block wide enough to chop these IPs down. Ravenswing 21:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Soooo did anyone actually contated WMD about the threats of violence? --Trade (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

(Redacted) Blaxstocatamazon (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Blaxstocatamazon: I'm not sure who you're replying to with this message but please read WP:NOTFORUM. This website's discussion boards aren't meant to be used to list a ton of controversial claims that, if they're not sourced, will never be added to any article. City of Silver 18:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

While WP:BLPCRIME does not apply here, I have redacted the frankly explosive claims made by Blaxstocatamazon above on the grounds that the accusations made, with no evidence presented, are wholly inapproriate regardless of what the subject is, and because the edit itself implicates multiple CTops. IP editor: Anything said specifically to attempt to intimidate other editors into compliance is generally grounds for a block (if not for it being a legal threat, then because you are attempting to force article content). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Did anyone besides EEngs read through the link EEngs provided? The comments are pure insanity. It talks about assassination, for God's sake. For editing an encyclopedia? This goes beyond legal threats. I'm surprised that there was no response from ICANN as it was posted on their website. To me, it matters whether IAC is an actual organization or just the rantings of one crazy, zealous person. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• This was an earlier warning about this group, Hindu Raksha Dal. Hard to know how much is real and how much is exaggeration to attempt to intimidate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I tried to tell earlier but got deleted. (Redacted) Blaxstocatamazon (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

In mitigation, they're nice to bovines. EEng 13:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Nice storyline. But it's clear that you are related to this LTA in some way as noted before on your talkpage by me long ago [77]. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The medical NGO I advice sometimes uses their assistance in certain places of India to operate safely, as also their networks in goverment when needed for advocacy or governmetal action. eg like 2024 Kolkata rape/murder. So something about their storyline is known. Blaxstocatamazon (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

You were essentially repeating same claims about filing a report with the national task force for doctor safety/Supreme court[78] as the IPs of hindu rashtra dal did on the talkpage of Kolkata rape incident. [79][80][81] Making legal threats on the same page also led to your block.[82] I have no doubts that you are related to them in some way, given how the first thing you did after getting unblocked is comment in this thread. - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Col. Rajendra Singh Dalvi [1][2] who claims to be secular and liberal - The links you cited all points to the opposite of what you wrote, are you trolling? - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Aaaaaand I've redacted the new claims for the same reason I redacted the old, plus a dash of blatant BLP violations. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Holy shit... Tavantius (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

ThornlessCookieReal

"Hope you get hit by a bus!" is not an appropriate thing to say to other users. --Trade (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I've removed it and blocked the account which added it. If anyone wants to do more, you can have my confirmation that it was a sock of the page's owner. Otherwise, I leave them on notice. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: To confirm the narrative, Blablabla66 was a sock created by ThornlessCookieReal to tell another editor to get hit by a bus? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't Thornless be blocked as well then? Feels a bit counterproductive otherwise Trade (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Correct, you did not misread me. I do have a habit of warning users though. One was issued here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

You never issued any warning to Thornless against socking or making personal attacks in the future tho Trade (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

If they didn't get the message I sent, and/or followed the link to this thread, then I'll be the first to block them (if no one else gets there first). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

You sent him an email? Trade (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Opinions will differ, but I suspect you underestimate the effect of an admin suddenly turning up at a page you might think you own, blocking a user, removing a threat, and casually uttering a single word (not to mention this thread). That's about all I have to say. I refer everyone back to my first comment here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, i'll leave this to rest unless others wish to continue the discussion Trade (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

It looks like ThornlessCookieReal has blanked their user talk page so they definitely have seen the warnings. I guess we are extending some ROPE here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Revoke talk page access for FreeRobuxOnMyProfile

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

---

FreeRobuxOnMyProfile (talk · contribs · count) was blocked for spam. They later made this edit to make it look like their unblock request was accepted. The editor is clearly acting in bad faith. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Persistent disruption by Osasnova

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

---

Osasnova (talk · contribs · count) has been engaged in persistent disruption primarily at Ada and Abere. They have been edit warring and accusing editors who revert their edits of vandalism. They are unwilling to listen to other editors and have disruptively moved their own version of the article to mainspace. Based on behavior, I believe this may be a sock account and have opened an SPI on this account and one other. But at this point the disruption has risen to a level that more immediate action is needed. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

What are you even talking about 🤦🤦🤦🤦 they hijacked our page and I decided to create another one Osasnova (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

They have also added copyvio to the main article twice, and also to their "version" (which has now been moved into a userspace location and is tagged for U2...). Two of the copyvios were added after they were issued a warning for copyvio. They also came off of an editwarring block less than three hours ago, and have been warned for the same conduct since. Giraffer (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Sock blocked by Fathoms Below. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be some copyvios in the article's history that I've been attempting to clean up. Could another admin please check to make sure that I revedeled everything appropriately? Fathoms Below (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Pek continuing to mass create poor-quality stubs after ban expiry

User:Pek agreed to a voluntary six month ban from creating new articles in August 2023 as a result of this discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1136#User:Pek repeatedly creating poor quality stubs. When the ban expired, they returned to the practice of creating extremely short, poorly sourced, and questionably notable articles. This has continued despite continued warnings from multiple editors (April 2024, May 2024).

Looking through the pages they have created since the ban expired in February, and excluding redirects (although there seem to be some issues with implausible redirects as well), they have created:

25 articles, nine of which have been deleted/redirected/tagged for notability or sourcing problems

Spice rack (deleted at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spice rack) Belly rub (tagged for notability and source reliability issues) Store credit Esports betting (tagged for source reliability issues) Jawbone club Reciprocity bias (merged to Reciprocity (social psychology) in lieu of deletion) Trasucha (sentence-long page created with two citation needed tags) Cardinal slice Autogynephilic persuasive pornography (later moved to sissy hypno; improved significantly from the original by other editors) Centre of Expertise on Euthanasia Tarisland Snoonet (redirected at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snoonet) Linkomanija Lakka (operating system) Bizatch Pain reprocessing therapy Bahnhofsmission (moved to Draft:Bahnhofsmission due to sourcing problems) Breast implant illness IRC Cloud (tagged for notability issues) Intentionality bias Warrior of Mogente (tagged for heavy reliance on one source) Pellyite (created with citation needed tag) X-Force Command: Cyber Tactical Operations Center Modelling light (moved to Draft:Modelling light due to sourcing problems) Stumm AG (tagged as requiring proofreading, orphan)

The surviving articles are generally very short, and even the ones that have not yet been tagged for issues tend to suffer from notability and sourcing problems. The articles regularly cite low-quality sources, including blogs by authors with unclear expertise (for example [83]), WP:MEDIUM, etc. Pek also continues to edit articles on medical topics (Pain reprocessing therapy, Breast implant illness), and the issues around WP:MEDRS discussed in the last ANI conversation have not been resolved.

I think it's time to consider an indefinite article creation ban, given the amount of work Pek is creating for other editors who must come in and clean up behind them. (I will do that cleanup — again — but wanted to leave the articles largely intact for this discussion.) GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Support: indef article creation ban. I'll quote myself from last year: "Beyond Jayron32's sound advice -- and the advice you've had from a number of other editors -- if, as you say, you don't have the expertise to gauge the difference between a good source and a bad one, and you don't have the expertise to expand articles with meaningful content, then the answer appears that you are not yet ready to edit Wikipedia at all." I see nothing here which would lead me to revise that view. Wikipedia is not here to provide amusement to otherwise bored would-be editors. Ravenswing 21:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Fully concur with all of you. The overwhelming backlog of existing articles on important subjects that desperately need citations to reliable sources is already too severe. For example, no one had added a decent source to support a general summary of what is elite theory since that article's creation in 2006. And that's a fundamental concept pounded into undergraduates in freshman political science courses in college. The only source added in 2015 to support the lead paragraphs was an obvious WP:SPS, a blog by an undergraduate. I just fixed that. The last thing we need is an editor apparently going out of their way to make the backlog even worse, even after they were told to cut it out. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• I support an indefinite article creation ban. In response to being urged at their page to stop creating poorly-sourced stubs, Pek says things like "I'm creating stubs in the hope, that someone who actually knows about the subject would add more content to the article in future" and "I just don't get it. Why is Wikipedia so strict about sources?" and "Also, isn't it better to have some sources, even if they aren't perfect, than having no sources at all?" No, it's actually better not to have an article on a subject at all, if the alternative is to have one with promotional or otherwise unreliable sources. Pek has been many times urged to edit existing articles instead, but doesn't want to, giving the reason that "when I create new article, it gets more attraction that way". I'm sorry to distress Pek ("This is the only hobby I have"🙁) but it's seriously time to stop indulging that hobby since it eats up the time, energy and patience of competent editors (which is Wikipedia's greatest resource). Bishonen | tålk 23:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC).

  I note that we now have the ability to block a user specifically from "Creating new pages and uploading new files" and I think at a minimum that is appropriate here. They got a second chance and blew it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, let's do that. Block indefinitely, as we don't want them to simply wait out yet another sanction and then again go back to their old ways. Once they have a decent record of contributing to development of articles started by others, they can appeal the partial block. Bishonen | tålk 10:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC).

• Support. WP:RS is our policy. Creating a new article is a wonderful thing, but one shouldn't bring one into the world without the prerequisite care and planning to give that article a sustainable and vibrant life. To do otherwise is cruelty. BBQboffin^{grill me} 06:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  WP:RS is not, actually, a policy. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  No, but WP:V is, and that requires RS. Black Kite (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support they clearly don't understand how to create a reliably sourced article. Let's see if they can edit productively in other areas of the project before any consideration of being allowed to create articles again. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Please don't permanently ban me. I know I'm not the greatest article creator out there, but I'm trying my best every time I look for sources. Sometimes it's really hard to find good sources. Also, my articles tend to be very short, because I don't know about subject matter myself, so it's hard to write long article without understanding what the heck am I writing about. Could you maybe ban me for 3 months instead of indefinitely banning me? --Pek (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Please don't ban me, I'm begging on my knees. Give me a 3rd chance. I promise I will fix my behavior. I swear on my grandmothers grave. Just please, give me one more chance. --Pek (talk) 10:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, the proposal above is not to "permanently ban" you from anything, it's to indefinitely prevent you from specifically creating new articles. Not only will you still be able to edit Wikipedia, but "indefinite" merely means that the block has an undetermined expiration time - depending on one's actions and the block's intent, its practical duration may (or may not) be quite short. This is covered in both INDEF and BLOCKFAQ, which I would suggest reading as they may allay your concerns:

  Indefinite does not mean "infinite" or "permanent"; it just means that no automatic expiration time (or duration) for the block has been set. An indefinitely blocked user may later be unblocked in appropriate circumstances.

  An indefinite block does not mean that you are "blocked forever". It simply means the blocking administrator did not set a time limit or expiration for the block. In this case, the blocked user will usually be required to appeal their block and discuss the matter with an administrator before an unblock will be considered. An indefinite block could be applied because the user needs to confirm that things are okay and that nothing's wrong, or it could be due to a problem that needs attention, or a problem that is deemed to need the user to acknowledge that they understand that a behavior was inappropriate first before they will be unblocked.

  Emphasis is mine.

  So, you'd be able to appeal this block if you manage to show that you understand the problem, and will take steps not to do it in the future. Before you attempt anything like an appeal, however, I would strongly suggest reviewing the policies and guidelines you're accused of breaching, and taking into account what others are saying here: Bishonen's comment above in particular, to me, indicates clearly what you are going to be expected to do assuming you're blocked. I would pay specific attention to it, and try to follow the guidance within.

  And, once you are ready for a formal unblock appeal, do read the APPEAL page and the guide to appealing blocks. LaughingManiac (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  What about draft articles? Will I be allowed to make those? --Pek (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Bear in mind that I am not familiar enough with the intricacies of this particular case, nor with the exact Wikipedia policy on the creation of articles, to give you a fully accurate answer. Thus, I would advise you directly ask editors more experienced with these processes, such as the one I mentioned above.

  In my own eyes: DRAFT mentions both that this is where new articles can be created and that they "allow editors to develop new articles and to receive feedback before being moved to Wikipedia's article namespace". Thus, if I had to guess, since article drafts are part of the article creation process, with the eventual goal being to move them to mainspace, and since the proposal doesn't mention a focus on a specific part of article creation, I believe it would be prudent to assume that this is a broadly construed block and not attempt to create drafts. LaughingManiac (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  One other reason I believe you shouldn't try to create drafts is that I'd interpret that as running afoul of the actual "spirit" of the block which, in my view, was laid out above, regardless of its "letter". See, again, what Bishonen states (emphasis mine once again): "Once they have a decent record of contributing to development of articles started by others, they can appeal the partial block." You are asking to, yourself, keep creating drafts, which is the development of new articles, as opposed to helping with what others have already created. This is contrary to what I view as the stated intent for this block.

  In other words, it would be, at best, what's commonly described as wikilawyering, which is defined in part as "Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles". LaughingManiac (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  If you can't find good sources for an article, then you shouldn't be creating the article. If you don't know enough about the subject matter to write a credible article, then you shouldn't be creating the article. To quote myself, "Wikipedia is not some geeky MMORPG where we're competing for Game High Score." These are not -- or should not be, anyway -- difficult concepts to grasp. We've got our own articles to write and curate, and we don't have time to babysit editors who repeatedly refuse to accept direction and advice. Ravenswing 17:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  I would strongly oppose any time-limited ban, given Pek's previous history of simply waiting out the duration of the ban and then returning to creating articles with no change in behavior. As for creating draft articles or using AfC, I would only support this with a limit on the number of drafts/AfC submissions. Pek has left a long list of abandoned drafts behind them, and seems to rarely return to improve an article after issues with it have been identified. This could potentially be addressed by limiting them to one draft/AfC submission at a time, and requiring them to either get the article approved for mainspace or G7 it before beginning a new one.

  This is probably more trouble than it's worth to enforce, though, and so I would more strongly support an outright article creation ban. Pek can just as easily demonstrate their ability to improve their writing and sourcing on existing articles, and I suspect this would be a lesser burden on other editors. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support indefinite ban on new article creation. Pek's comment above proves that the editor lacks the competence to evaluate which topics are notable. Sometimes it's really hard to find good sources is another way of saying an acceptable Wikipedia article about the topic should not be written at this time. Cullen328 (talk) 09:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Basically WP:CIR. Pek - don't create articles about topics that you don't actually know anything about: do the reading first. FOARP (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite ban on creating new articles in the mainspace. I would support a carve out that allows them to create articles through WP:AFC. TarnishedPath^talk 11:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support article creation ban. Either this is a WP:CIR issue or an WP:IDHT one, either way a block is necessary. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support article creation in both< mainspace and draftspace. The good news for you is that the vast majority of the useful work you can do here is not impeded. Improving articles is the mainstay of Wikipedia. Creating new ones is a small niche. Please think about where you can do the most good improving things: perhaps you have hobbies or work experience that will help you evaluate and improve specific topic areas. — rsjaffe 🗣️

  Perhaps the AfC process should be open to you. After learning of the long experience with a prior account, that's a big nope.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef topic ban, widely construed, from creating any new articles or redirects. Next step will be an indef block. GiantSnowman 17:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Allow user to use AfC process: this would be a good way for this user to develop their skills in sourcing, notability, etc. under supervision. CapitalSasha ~ talk 17:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  that might be OK, but only if it's limited to e.g. one submission in 24 hours. GiantSnowman 17:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support if they can submit drafts to AfC per above. C F A 💬 20:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

 Administrator note After doing some poking around it has come to my attention that this is their second account, the first one being User:Pek~enwiki, and it has far more edits than the current account and a history going back fourteen years. Those who are suggesting a carveout to let them keep creating articles via AFC may want to consider if a user with fourteen years experience on the project who still can't grind out acceptable stubs articles and has already been topic banned for it once really needs a workaround built into their second topic ban. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Considering the number of CSDs, prods, draftifies, AfDs, and redirects for discussion in that other account's talk page history (many with now-redlinks), this appears to be a long-term problem that might not be solvable. Support indef topic ban on creating new articles or redirects, without an AfC carve-out. Schazjmd (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

IP Hopper adding the same number all over.

Normally would give a warning or even 2 then report the IP for vandalism... but we have an IP Hopper going around changing racial figures to the same number everywhere.. I think we may need a range block or something as their using different IPS ....example one - example 2 - example 3. I'm unsure how many articles are affected as I'm just noticing the ones on my watch list.Moxy🍁 02:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

That is two IPs. The /64 ranges are Special:Contributions/2a01:cb00:607:a00::/64 and Special:Contributions/2a02:8440:2502:5da1::/64. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I've hardblocked those two /64s for two weeks. Bishonen | tålk 10:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC).

I've now been alerted to similar disruption on my page for User:2a02:8440:250c:aaa4:5c9d:4864:f7c3:27f5 plus an account, Ydududu, so I've blocked those also. Not sure I'm doing any good with this: are you able to block a larger range, Johnuniq? Bishonen | tålk 13:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC). PS: No, this is not about "disruption on my page"! Bishonen | tålk 15:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC).

@Bishonen: The range Special:Contributions/2a02:8440:2500::/44 includes 2a02:8440:2502:5da1::/64 and 2a02:8440:250c:aaa4:5c9d:4864:f7c3:27f5 but it has no other recent bad edits. There are some apparently constructive edits at 2024 World Wrestling Championships. Perhaps someone here could report if the /44 range is used for more of these changes. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

User: P J Chatterjee – Disruptive Editing

• P J Chatterjee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly added misleading, unsourced, and biased information across multiple articles, despite receiving multiple warnings.
• User Contributions
• Talk Page
• Block Log
• Recent Edit

• Summary: Consistent pattern of adding unsourced and negative content. Ignores guidelines and feedback from editors.
• Request: Review and consider appropriate action to prevent further disruption.

Cerium4B (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• OK, that's a spectacular number of reverted recent contributions for an editor with over 2,000 edits. And this, their last edit, is really not good. They hardly ever communicate either; they've never usefully used a Talk page and haven't used User_Talk for over a year. I have blocked them from Article Space to get their attention, hopefully they will respond. Black Kite (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence

The article is having the same line added twice, personal opinions are being included, and information is being distorted. Even though there are discussions on the talk page, they are being ignored, and edits are still being made. See. Please review the article. C⚛smLearner ^💬🔬 14:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, there are problems here, including but not limited to poor sourcing and opinion. Of course, one of the main issues is that Indian and Bangladeshi media often report on the issue in different ways, so it is possible to have even reliable sources disagreeing with each other about the facts. I have fully-protected the article for two weeks, editors should reach consensus on the talk page about how to continue here. Black Kite (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Black Kite A lot of discussion has taken place on the article's talk page. While the discussion is ongoing, I am requesting you to make a normal edit to keep the article in a reasonably accurate and stable condition. C⚛smLearner ^💬🔬 15:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  See Talk:2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence#Article protected. What Black Kite said there is standard practice during full protection. Edits requests can be made but they need clear consensus or they should be to fix obvious errors or problems. Nil Einne (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Also I can't say I'd agree about "A lot of discussion has taken place on the article's talk page". AFAICT, there have only been 3 comment on the talk page by 2 editors in November before protection despite the recent flareup. Most editors involved in the recent dispute don't seem to have made it to the talk page despite the edit warring and disputes. Editors who never made it to the talk page recently despite the flareup include you CosmLearner BTW. Even the discussion back in October seems to have petered out without anything close to consensus despite a suggestion to use some form of dispute resolution . Nil Einne (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed. During the recent edit war between CosmLearner and Za-ari-masen, neither of them posted to the talk page at all. I might have made a different decision if I saw any sign of discussion; whilst I decided to protect the article, I could have decided to pblock both of them from the article instead. Black Kite (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Persistent unsourced birth date changes by 2001:448A:50E0:0:0:0:0:0/48

2001:448A:50E0:0:0:0:0:0/48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - /48 has been making long-term unsourced/unexplained birth date changes, and hasn't responded to warnings. /48 has been blocked 3 times previously, most recently in July 2024 for 3 months for "sustained date vandalism". Recent examples of unsourced birth date changes: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I've re-blockd the range for a year. It looks like it's been the same editor on there for years.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Techiya1925

This most likely belongs to AE, but I'm not ECR so I'm not sure if I can report there. Apparently Techiya1925 committed several 1RR violations in Talk:November 2024 Amsterdam attacks (which is not even why I'm reporting this here), once confronted with that he began casting aspersions and even doubled down after being told to AGF by an admin.

In his talk page, I got the impression that he's accusing everyone who goes against his POV of being either radical Islamic propagandists or “they/them” computer geeks who hate Jews. Previously today he got warned for engaging in an edit war. I don't think that such WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour is useful for the encyclopedia.— 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 17:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Please make sure that when you are doing your investigation, you look at everything. From the beginning, to the end. In various discussions on the talk page of the article. Techiya1925 (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked the editor for 24 hours due to their continued personal attacks of fellow users. Considering this has been happening on a CTOP, and their clear battleground behavior, I'd support an indef tban from the topic. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• I think that was very lenient. I might well have blocked for a much longer time for this. Black Kite (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, they should be indefinitely blocked until they can prove otherwise for nonsense like that. C F A 💬 20:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Huh, I completely glossed over that part of the comment. That's my bad. I've upgraded the block to indef as an individual admin action, although there is some consensus here for such. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Is anyone going to point out the random, completely unprompted, transphobia? Iostn (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Iostn, do you have any diffs of this behavior? Because I've looked over their talk page comments for the past two days and aside from this diff shared by Black Kite, I can see them getting upset over a contentious subject but that's the only attack I can see. I know there is a no tolerance rule for attacks based on race, gender, gender identity, ethnicity and religion but this does seem like an isolated incident. They should have stepped away from the article and its talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Liz, I could be wrong but I interpreted "they/them" computer geeks who hate Jews as a thinly veiled and staggeringly unfriendly allusion to transgender editors. But perhaps they are only mocking antisemitic editors who prefer the singular they. Anything is possible in The New World. Cullen328 (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban from the Israel-Palestine conflict and antisemitism

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

---

Given the unacceptable comments, I think this is the bare minimum, and have no issue with an indefinite block . Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

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

user blanking talk page after sockpuppetry warning

User User:Nowiki tags and BLP Violations clearing talk page after being blocked for sockpuppetry https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nowiki_tags_and_BLP_Violations&diff=next&oldid=1256590651 owuh (talk | she/her) 18:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The account is now globally locked. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet IP user

• Suspected IPs

1. 76.68.24.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
2. 2607:FEA8:571E:CE00:D81A:9C9D:4833:65A4 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• Evidence:

1. Both IPs reverted my edits in identical ways shortly after each other. Check - ( 1 & 2 )
2. Same articles edited by both IPs from same location. Check - 1 & 2

Cerium4B • Talk? 20:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Dirsuptive behaviour (vol 2)

I already filed a report a few days ago (report), although there was no sufficient action taken there. User:Oddsourceuser was created 4 days ago (Nov 6) and they have been consistently edit-warring since then. They already have 98 edits on the main account (as of Nov 10), with many POV and original research disruptions. They were using the IP address: 141.98.142.45 (40+ edits) in order to restore their reverted edits and, when the IP got blocked, presented that as "accidentally making edits in incognito mode" (diff). By Nov 8, they had received in total 7 notices and warnings (talk), including 2 for edit-warring, and there has been a recently filed SPI case too. The edit-war was centered in articles, such as Sotiris Ninis, Parga, Agia, Preveza, Palase, Dhermi, Himare (town) etc. violating the WP:3RR on multiple occasions until today. They also altered a quotation taken from a source (diff, diff), and it appears that they already begun using a new IP address: 141.98.142.33. The last time, the admin was more reserved and did not take any action, blocking only the IP, but so far it doesn't seem like this behaviour is going to stop any time soon. Piccco (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The "new ip adress"was just given to me automatically,and the reverts i did were on my laptop and i had not signed in,its not like it would have been hard to do them on my own account but since im on mobile and its harder to.Anyways i have done the edits that i wanted to do already and the edits that i did that were wrong or badly sourced or phrased were reverted,im currently focusing on 3 drafts i created and dont plan to make any edits on anything but ny drafts anytime soon Oddsourceuser (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The IPs are not "just given", one choses to edit logged-out, but in any case, I'm just reporting all the violations that have been happening until today. Piccco (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Oddsourceuser, do you really think diffs of Wikipedia edits are valid references for an article (on a living person)? (And the BBC ref is still good as a report of his being born to Greek parents, 10 years old though it may be.) Yngvadottir (talk) 08:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The Blue Rider - chronic assumption of bad faith

hello all. i have come here because i am not sure what else to do at this point. @The Blue Rider has been consistently assuming bad faith of other editors, and has been blocked a few times already for edit-warring, WP:LOUTSOCKing, and uncollaborative behavior.
i will not dwell too much on older behavior, but for some relevant context, see:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Blue Rider/Archive (15 Oct)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive488#User:The Blue Rider reported by User:RachelTensions (Result: Blocked indefinitely) (22 Oct)
• they were indeffed by @ToBeFree after the above. see their (long) unblock discussion: Special:PermanentLink/1253579276#October 2024 2 (23-26 Oct)

since they've been unblocked, TBR has continued with similar behavior.

• their behavior on @Voorts' RfA: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Voorts#Oppose & Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Voorts#Tangential discussion moved (2-3 Nov). they ended up striking their initial oppose vote, but none of the aspersions which followed, e.g. "HMIJ is very intentionally trying to discredit my opposing vote [...] blatant defamation.", "you are trying to discredit me", "it is harassment" (referring to being warned for edit-warring with a bureaucrat)
• removing talk page warnings and CTOP notices with aggressive edit summaries: "removing completely bad faith warning", "??? what are you on about", "removed bad faith template", "fuck off, this is harrassement", "This has gotten to the ridiculous point that she is a WP:SPA whose objective is to get me blocked", "bad faith template, I did not edit such contetious topic"

in response to that last one, i left a message on their talk page about assuming bad faith of other editors & CTOP templates. i was promptly reverted with the edit summary "Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict also says that you should only use the template when someone has never been warned before about contentious topics. I don't appreciate your WP:WITCHHUNT". moments later, they pinged me in the main public channel of the Wikimedia Discord with the message "@sawyer drop the WP:WITCHHUNT". i won't say much else about the exchange in the discord because i know that's kind of a gray area, but that's the most relevant bit. i have to say, i don't appreciate being accused of a witch hunt - i've only ever interacted with them on-wiki one time, at voorts' RfA in a neutral capacity.
i am not sure what would solve this behavior short of an indefinite block, but of course i am open to other milder suggestions. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

notification ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Appearances of The Blue Rider's talk page in my watchlist after the unblock have repeatedly left me thinking my initial assessment may have been correct, and unblocking was more likely a mistake than a good decision. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• I have reinstated the block, indefinitely. While I commend @ToBeFree:'s attempts to help them become a productive editor, AGF is not a suicide pact and The Blue Rider shows no indication they're going to edit collaboratively. Star Mississippi 22:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  i wasn't expecting such a swift response here. i appreciate it. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  In my eyes, the case you made and the continued conduct was clear. If anyone feels I acted too harshly and feels the block should be reversed, any admin is welcome to enact that. Star Mississippi 23:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Not at all, Star Mississippi, it was the inevitable end of a predictable road for that editor. Their behaviour in Voorts's RfA was abominable, and demonstrated an absolute lack of clue when taken in conjunction with their previous history. Recidivism to the point of trolling is merely a time sink; combined with a complete inability to listen to advice makes this probably a battle not worth time and energy in fighting. SerialNumber54129 23:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Agree on inevitable when their reaction to me making two page moves they disliked was to call me an "overly confrontational" "asshole". Moreover, they've self-professed persecutory delusion, so this was unlikely to be easily changed behavior. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 02:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  Good block. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed, if it is not obvious enough. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you very much! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 87.192.92.202

87.192.92.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to The Big Knights, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. Also appears to be block evasion of 89.125.129.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - see previous ANI report for that IP. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3 (While Pixar is mentioned in the existing ref, Pixar is not discussed in the cited source as being involved in the contract between Dreamworks and Aardman), 4. Waxworker (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)